2 Suggestions: Different station building + related out-of-sector missions

[XenonSurf]

Hi,

EL has a bunch of very interesting and varied missions, I really have no complains about their design.

I will not be the first one to make this remark, but when it comes to station building, the fine realism that you find in EL suddenly breaks down: you build a station, and seconds later all the personel, all items to sell, all things that make a station work are magically 'there'. That doesn't fit to EL where other aspects of the game are really realistic (e.g. the Terrain Walker, difficulty to fly in planet atmosphere etc.).

I'm speaking about Single Player, because MP will give in this aspect a totally a much greater difficulty.
So changing to a more challenging station building is possible IMO, I have 2 suggestions:

A. Give the player a serie of missions to accomplish in order to construct a command module successfully, such as:

- Prior of station building, an invasion force (Carriers, CAP ships + escorts) will need to secure the zone
- Personel must be brought to the station; a transport ship needs to be escorted, defended against enemies
- Enemies will try to stop the construction process; You will need to hire pilots and defend the new station

Only if all these serie of missions succeed, then your station will eventually see the light of day, else: no go.

B. Give the player some out-of-sector missions, allow friendly carriers to go to enemy territory to initiate actions

Besides carriers, also 'Military stations' should be built to invade a zone where enemy stations are located. Some missions should be available to carry out this invasion, including coordinated attacks to enemy stations. This would make actions in disputed territories much more interesting and challenging.

The main problem currently is:
There is no real incentive for players to build their own stations, and mainly:
The fact that you currently can only carry out missions in the same sector while not being able to build in a sector with enemy stations, this reduces the war in disputed systems and the territory shifting to a pure entry in the News section. You don't really DO anything for it.

Thanks,
XenonS

[matchbox2022]

Think you could do a lot of this through quests, but yeah it'd be nice to have a couple extra like that which were pretty short little stories.
Could always make them and share if you have the time

[XenonSurf]

Could always make them and share if you have the time

I guess I could but this would not impact the war / territory system.
Station building should have some real obstacles that go with it IMO. The above is only an example.

XenonS

[Vice]

Station building should have some real obstacles that go with it IMO. The above is only an example.

I and others have floated such ideas in the past over many years, you may still be able to find some of those discussions still on the forum here, at least back to 2008 (earlier ones would have been pruned for a server migration). More restrictive building and activation mechanisms (beyond the current metal resource, power, and shield defense dependencies) were part of some initial design plans for the game, but with a desire to have more fluid and active build-destroy-build actions taking place (particularly in multiplayer, as you point out, although the game is designed to behave the same way in both modes), it was a general consensus to have building and the benefits of building apply quickly with as few restrictions and delays as possible. More like a C&C type building structure rather than a lengthy drawn out, many step checklist of things that took extensive time and expense to complete.

You can probably imagine what it would be like to go through the steps you describe every time you wanted to build a station... especially after one has been destroyed. Even as it is, restrictions are placed on NPC ships to prevent them from destroying established stations due to feedback/requests with the difficulties/complexities/expenses of building stations under the current system.

You could indeed set up something like that in a quest though, if that's a route you'd want to try.

There is no real incentive for players to build their own stations, and mainly:
The fact that you currently can only carry out missions in the same sector while not being able to build in a sector with enemy stations, this reduces the war in disputed systems and the territory shifting to a pure entry in the News section. You don't really DO anything for it.

If there is no real incentive, then there's no need to build at all. That's kind of an all-or-nothing objective assertion using subjective criteria, so it's difficult to establish the merit behind the point. If half price storage fees, new trade routes/markets, expanded inventory, ship building at select locations, engineering at resource hot spots, and yes, combat mission support/options in disputed regions are not real incentives, then of course, a player who views it that way should not build at all. But most seem to find value and incentive in such things. So perhaps you could rephrase this and/or provide other examples of your ultimate objective for such additions/changes for the limitations you want to impose on players with the building system.

[Marvin]

How about a new achievement medal ... one for establishing a set number of colonies (by building stations and cities)?

[XenonSurf]

True, going through a set of interesting missions in order to build a station could be long and repetitive once you lose stations and have to re-build them, but my idea would only apply to SP and building in *hostile* territory. I mean a war is not a walk in the garden, nor should it be.
In friendly territory though, the current system is plenty of enough, although the transition very abrupt to say at least.
Still the fact is that I would enjoy more enemy 'spawns' in territory controlled by FED if I belong to Alliance (and vice-versa), this would at least make the building more difficult and a specific territory holding more unstable - as a real war goes, and: it compensates for some AI quirks (I don't see many of them - a very good job! - but they cannot be so good as a player in MP).

Again all this is to throw away for MP where the dynamics are completly different.

Even as it is, restrictions are placed on NPC ships to prevent them from destroying established stations due to feedback/requests with the difficulties/complexities/expenses of building stations under the current system.

Oh, what a pity that such laments exist, this aspect of the game cannot get any easier IMO, but what about this: NPC destroy stations, but: also the player should have a chance to be supported by NPC ships to destroy stations... The game can only become more interesting, forcing the playing to react in a dynamic war.

Greets,
XenonS


[Edited on 4-27-2016 by XenonSurf]

[Marvin]

Granted, I've built a number of command modules, both in space and planetside, in enemy territory ... without any interference from the opposition. Most of the time, enemy AI don't show up until after the command module is already up and running. Which is understandable when I'm in open space, away from any enemy activity ... but maybe it should be less likely when building in the same sector as an IMG city situated in enemy controlled space.

[XenonSurf]

Maybe the enemy non-reaction is only temporary, and your stations get attacked with the need to defend them? So maybe you have to interrupt your activities and head straight to your station to save it?
What I have done recently is: I have built a command module in Olympus, one sector away from an enemy station, with 1 ring planet + 1 IMG city that turned to ALC after my build.
The command center alone is very vulnerable, and yes: there was an enemy intrusion soon after I left and returned in the sector. I then have added 4 turrets, 1 shield entity + 1 power entity and since then it's all quiet.
But AFAIK, while enemies could theoretically destroy my station, the loss would be minimal (250 metals!) while I surley cannot do anything similar (left alone with my only ship).

XenonS

[Edited on 4-27-2016 by XenonSurf]

[Vice]

Oh, what a pity that such laments exist, this aspect of the game cannot get any easier IMO, but what about this: NPC destroy stations, but: also the player should have a chance to be supported by NPC ships to destroy stations... The game can only become more interesting, forcing the playing to react in a dynamic war.

Oh it was easier before In the previous game for example, only money was required and stations where an entirely complete entity in one build operation. Now it is resource based with a diverse set of functionally unique modules requiring individual construction and with inter-module dependencies/benefits.

I had some plans for NPC based attack/counter-attack events on stations, but after the lamenting that went on after players destroyed other player built stations and what it would mean if AI ships did the same, it's been shelved since. But it's something I may revisit in the future.

[XenonSurf]

Maybe I'm just too impatient, and not seeing any enemies make me think they don^t exist
I spent a long time in Mercenary, yet I didn't build anything because I was too busy with so many hostiles from the different factions... There were MUCH more enemies than in Legacy, probaly because of only 2 main factions.

Station building is only a small part in Legacy, I don^t want to attach it too much importance either. It^s just too easy IMO, hence my suggestions, and I expect others to have different and maybe much better ones.

XenonS

[Edited on 4-27-2016 by XenonSurf]