Faction-based technology

[Chairman_Tiel]

Endless Space's tech tree is disgusting in real gameplay...

This is minecraft. Keep it simple, keep it useful, and everyone will be happy.

[Avenger_7]

I wouldn't suggest chopping tech, but I do believe that it should be difficult to build a be-all-end-all ship. I have some ideas about this-I'll get back to you on it later today.

@Tiel, that tech tree is marvelous, it's the most well-done out of any game I've played.

[Chairman_Tiel]

If Endless Space was solely about researching, then yes, it is rather intuitive and clever. But when I'm spending two thirds of my time planning out my tech tree instead of actually playing the game, well, that's not something that appeals to me personally. And then that tech might be rendered completely useless because the other guy decided to opt for a different branch of the tree. While this is something that can be fun and exciting, when you spend that amount of time carefully tweaking the queue to suit your interests it just ends up being frustrating.

I'm against any sort of static tech tree to begin with, but a middle ground where research can be an important aspect to gameplay while not becoming too overbearing would be ideal imo.

[fr0stbyte124]

You make a good point. We're trying to make an MMO, but there is no reason is has to be the next EVE. One of Minecraft's strengths is its simplicity (or at least it used to be) and open-ended gameplay. It would be a shame to lose that. But at the same time, I want us to present something more interesting than SMP in space.

We also want to avoid completely one-sided PVP abuse, which is why we need rules and constraints. It's hard enough to keep a regular PVP server from turning into a griefed to hell crap heap if it isn't aggressively babysat, and here we are handing out Crapheapifier 3000s.

If we are evaluating design priorities, protection against abusive PVP needs to be #1.

[Iv121]

What do you mean by abusive pvp ?

[Chairman_Tiel]

Spawnkilling, turning everything into a wasteland, etcetera.

I think this is a situation where Mackeroth's grand scheme of a moderator empire could be useful (sanctions and whatnot), but tbh I'd much rather the game framework itself operate on a principle of taoism (if it's against the rules, it shouldn't be able to be done in the first place)

[cats]

Keep the framework open. Give players the option of strategy and set the game so that the best strategy and tactics will probably win, but don't limit the choices.

[fr0stbyte124]

Abuse is rampant on unmanaged PVP servers. You have bands of diamond armored thugs raping and pillaging the countryside, and the only ones able to stop them are other diamond wielding bands of thugs, which are not nearly as common among the peaceful city-building populations. Then you have your griefers who wait until no one is online to defend their towns and tear everything up, or a guy will set a spawn point underneath the town and keep runing in and setting everything on fire. If he's killed he just respawns and keeps it up until the defenders give up.

Minecraft makes destruction far too easy and far too rewarding for people who like to destroy, and punishes people who want to live peacefully and build by leaving them unable to protect their work. The only way I've seen to fight this is to make admin protected areas, which completely ruins it for the PVP players.

It's not good enough to make things interesting for people who want to fight. We have to make the game rewarding for people who don't want to fight, as well.

[Prototype]

That is a problem that almost every MMO faces, people are assholes, that is a fact.
I think the best way to avoid this is to have laws, and a law enforcement system. And we also need rules of engagement, where if a player wishes to fight another player, they have to challenge them, and if they do not challenge them, they are marked as a pirate, where everyone can openly attack them, and they can be hunted by mods/admins.

I think the rules of engagement would probably be the most important, a challenge system would suffice, and if someone attacks without challenging their opponent, then the victim will be marked as a victim, and will be dealt with by a mod, and the attacker will be marked as a pirate, and blown out of the sky (space) by mods with dreadnoughts.

A set of rules of engagement is probably the solution, we just need to think of these rules.

[Avenger_7]

I research up the middle of the fleet tree; I get good mid-grade plasma and missile weaponry, shields, and late game I can research into the top tiers of all 3 weapon types. Anyhow...

I'm not saying we need something that complex, but it's a good example of how you can make the game feel diverse while still using a unified tech tree. If I were designing one for FC, it would have:

-3 offensive paths (energy, kinetic, missile), with splitting/interconnecting points and a couple subcategories of each.
-3 defensive paths (shields, armor, stealth), with shields and stealth limiting each other's effects on ships and armor limiting maneuverability.
-3 supportive paths (power generation, propulsion, cores), with propulsion and power generation having numerous crossover points but only a few with cores.

As for the PvP debate, here's what I think:

-Players have to set a "home" server. This is where they respawn if they get destroyed. A home application must be approved by that system's admin/mods.
-New servers need to be in a protected zone until they can defend themselves properly.
-Faction alliances need to be enabled, and forming factions that include too many servers should be disabled.
-Make smaller ships faster/harder to hit, so n00bs can run away.

Rules of engagement are silly; if I want to kill you, I should be able to try.

[fr0stbyte124]

That is a problem that almost every MMO faces, people are *, that is a fact.
I think the best way to avoid this is to have laws, and a law enforcement system. And we also need rules of engagement, where if a player wishes to fight another player, they have to challenge them, and if they do not challenge them, they are marked as a pirate, where everyone can openly attack them, and they can be hunted by mods/admins.

I think the rules of engagement would probably be the most important, a challenge system would suffice, and if someone attacks without challenging their opponent, then the victim will be marked as a victim, and will be dealt with by a mod, and the attacker will be marked as a pirate, and blown out of the sky (space) by mods with dreadnoughts.

A set of rules of engagement is probably the solution, we just need to think of these rules.

I don't think that will work. Nobody will agree to an engagement if they are the ones on the defending side; they have a lot to lose and little to gain. There needs to be some sort of reason for opening yourself up to attack and it has to be better than boredom. And whatever we do has to account for AFK griefing. If we lock an area when the owner is offline, then people will exploit that to make invincible fortresses. If it's passive shielding, it needs to be strong enough to protect peaceful settlements while still being able to be taken down during a fight, which is totally backwards, and therefore also open to exploitation.

Maybe EVE had the right idea, with high security and low security territory, but that still doesn't account for AFK griefing, which wasn't a problem in EVE because you can hide in NPC space stations which aren't open to attack.

[Prototype]

How about "safe" zones or parking zones, where you can leave your ship without the fear of some sod ruining it.
That won't completely solve the problem, but perhaps safe worlds, where if someone is detected attacking someone else, they are automatically shot down, or something along those lines.

[fr0stbyte124]

It's worth considering, but if someone is building a city, why would they build anywhere but on a safe world? And if they don't what's the point of the whole base defense element?
The only thing I can think of is resources/competition, but that might still be a hard sell, considering how much players stand to lose when they establish a vulnerable base.

We can probably facilitate some prefab structures so that players can establish bases more quickly if we want to go that route. Maybe even make it a career path.

[cats]

The necessity of organization will stop most of your average-everyday griefers. For pirate bands and the like, they'll most likely be stopped by the defensive network.

A solution to the peaceful players having nothing to do would be an economy like none before (in minecraft). Manufacturers would be required to mass produce certain things, like advanced engines and weapon systems.

[Chairman_Tiel]

I research up the middle of the fleet tree; I get good mid-grade plasma and missile weaponry, shields, and late game I can research into the top tiers of all 3 weapon types. Anyhow...

I'm not saying we need something that complex, but it's a good example of how you can make the game feel diverse while still using a unified tech tree. If I were designing one for FC, it would have:

-3 offensive paths (energy, kinetic, missile), with splitting/interconnecting points and a couple subcategories of each.
-3 defensive paths (shields, armor, stealth), with shields and stealth limiting each other's effects on ships and armor limiting maneuverability.
-3 supportive paths (power generation, propulsion, cores), with propulsion and power generation having numerous crossover points but only a few with cores.

As for the PvP debate, here's what I think:

-Players have to set a "home" server. This is where they respawn if they get destroyed. A home application must be approved by that system's admin/mods.
-New servers need to be in a protected zone until they can defend themselves properly.
-Faction alliances need to be enabled, and forming factions that include too many servers should be disabled.
-Make smaller ships faster/harder to hit, so n00bs can run away.

Rules of engagement are silly; if I want to kill you, I should be able to try.

Something I've proposed time and time again but ignored like some hobo living under a bridge is the concept that servers don't connect to the multiverse until they build a gate, allowing for contained multiplayer fun without risking a fleet of over 9000 lategame warships warping in and screwing up everything.

I agree with the server thing, an account should be tied to the first server they join.

Again, factions are something suggested at least twice every week, be it on this forum or on the MCF thread. I think faction alliances should be enabled, too, simply have an exorbitant cost (come up with some bs like a 'media cost' for your group to be recognized) to start one to begin with and have an absolute maximum of members within one across the board.

I can't say I agree with your tech tree idea wholly. I'd much rather have it on a resource basis like vanilla minecraft - once you find new blocks, or enough of an old one, new technology becomes available to you and the old tech is slowly gets scrapped or relegated to backup tasks. (IE, seaborne carrier vs a spess frigate with the same capabilities). But, then there's the possibility of the Tekkit conundrum.