Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[edit]Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/11/2009 14:37:42[/edit]
For the past three years, there has been a tremendous show of support for the old “Flogging the Dead Horse” post regarding a proposed re-design of the Player Owned Structure system. The two biggest reasons for support are that players hate what they look like – a bunch of scrap floating in space, and they hate the interfaces that are used to interact with them on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis.

Enter the Modular Starbase

Aesthetically, people want to see an end to the era of junk floating inside and in the immediate vicinity of force field bubbles. A series of geometrically interconnected structures, such as squares or hexagons, make up the design of the proposed replacement system. The abilities of the facility are enhanced with each newly attached component. Weapons would be placed on extensions to the top and bottom or even the sides of the tower, emerging from the force field. These weapons systems would remain vulnerable to attack like they are today.

Strategically, it would be possible to force players to pick and choose between the placement of weapons systems and jump bridges, as the number of available attachment points is limited. Whether or not the design is implemented this way is up to game design, but it is an intriguing possibility.

Mechanically, the basic uses of Player Owned Structures don’t change; they will still serve as industrial complexes and staging areas. However, the management of these facilities is in dramatic need of improvement. The amount of time required to set up a Starbase is obnoxious and unnecessary, and make up a considerable portion of ideas provided in addendum to the original modular starbase concept. The solution to this thorny issue is to introduce an onlining queue, and to allow the anchoring and onlining of more than one module at a time. Either one of these options would be appreciated by those who operate facilities in space.

Players desire the ability to freely swap out control towers to upgrade their operations without having to dismantle the entire facility one structure at a time. The ability to freely swap one tower for another has been repeatedly requested by the community. If different sizes of towers remain in use, these features should be implemented.

In-situ facility upgrades have also been proposed. To upgrade the starbase, raw materials and blueprints would allow operators to initiate construction of new facilities and operational capabilities directly onto the structure, rather than hauling a complete module from their points of distribution to null-security space.

A single, unified interface is desired for the structure. If a docking facility is provided, players would have access to the entire starbases’ configuration and settings (based on permissions of course) when inside the base. From this in-structure interface they would organize production chains and initiate manufacturing jobs. Standings would be configured, and other basic functions such as loading ammunition into the weapons systems could be handled from this interface, without making your way to each module and interacting with their separate interfaces.

Docking at these facilities would not replenish shields or capacitor, as they are not equipped to do so. If so desired, on site repairs could just as easily remain un-obtainable. However, with the right modules in place, the starbase could serve as a ship storage facility, and could serve as a location for refitting your ship. A Super Capital Mooring Point should be introduced as an optional attachment for the starbase as well. These would allow players to secure their super capital ships within the starbase without making them vulnerable to corporate thieves, but simultaneously leave them vulnerable to capture or destruction by marauding fleets that lay siege to the tower.