Player-owned bases

[Knjaz]

Selfquote:

-Make the stations fairly cheap. Destuction of Station/Structure is permanent.
-Make them slighly more expensive. Destruction is permanent until server reset.
-Make them *really* expensive. Complete destruction is not possible but a temporary shutdown of the station is.
see also:
http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?...pic=109280

This.

+ other questions that should be answered first inb4 we talk about how will the actual stations look and their combat capabilities.


---How do you want them to be used in PvP? How do you want them to affect PvP on server in general? (Since it's a PvP game and majority of activities here are PvP based or have PvP factor in them. Otherwise we wouldn't need turret splitting for BSes.)
---Who can build a base? Will there be any restrictions on the amount/types of bases a faction(s) (I mean ID, i.e. NPC faction) can deploy?
---Locations, where one can build a base?
---What does it takes to build a base?
---What does it takes to run a base?



Personally, I find it hard to balance mortal bases towards immortal ships.

If there will be player owned stations then only over the price of 1 billion (and thats not much) I think. Why should a station cost less than a battleship?

Because
A) It doesn't respawn, unlike your battleship.
B) It doesn't have engines (most expensive part in the battleship, I'd say)
C) It can't be "logged off" or moved to another location to save it from being overrun by superior numbers when the players that should be protecting that base are offline. (remember that trading event with Westfalen?)



P.S. Another possible option to balance a destructable base vs respawning ships, time zones and real life.
Bases can be destroyed in pre-set events, when both sides have enough time to gather players. OR you can can make NPCs, protecting those bases, to be more or less equal to player in a combat.

I understand that it's very unlikely due to the insane amounts of forum work it'll require, or due to very small amount of bases we'll be allowed to deploy. Although, I still mentioned it, because someone could use it as a base/hint for a better solution.