Autodamage on player constructed bases?

[Friday]

Without auto-damage, the server would become clogged with unused bases sitting off the plane, and individuals would have large quantities of them infesting the server.

The server would grind to a halt.

Find a friend, build a base.

---

[Death.RunningVerminator]

Without auto-damage, the server would become clogged with unused bases sitting off the plane, and individuals would have large quantities of them infesting the server.

The server would grind to a halt.

Find a friend, build a base.

Is there a chance of it at least being decreased a bit?

[Friday]

Is there a chance of it at least being decreased a bit?

All things are possible - look at what happened to shields.

---

[Camtheman]

I do. I am loving all the QQ threads about how hard it is to keep a base running. Well sorry but it is supposed to be hard to maintain a base. Thats why they are run by large factions, and most pirate groups do not have huge defences on them.
Lots of peeps wanted this game more realistic, well now they got that with the bases, and all i hear is complaining realistic is hard. Well sorry, but real life is hard, so get used to it.

I do as well.

Bases are pretty much fine as they are.

Without auto-damage, the server would become clogged with unused bases sitting off the plane, and individuals would have large quantities of them infesting the server.

The server would grind to a halt.

Find a friend, build a base.

That.

Or lose your life for about 3 days and build/maintain one yourself like I did.

I even got a shiny toy out of it!

Cost me 30+ hours of time, Probably around $400m-500m give or take.

Worth it? Hell yeah.

GASP! See what a little hard work can do? Instead of, you know, complaining at someone else on the forums.

Its pretty damn near perfect the way it is.

Possible to do alone, yet difficult. Much more efficient with groups of 2++

Good job, Friday. Competent devs are a rare thing, you know.

EDIT:

You know I dislike factions and I would speak up if this was blatantly impossible for anyone by themselves or hell even with 2 people to do.

But the fact is, its not. It does favor factions as it should.

[JayDee Kasane]

yep. I dont get it either. why base need to burn itself? if it was just constructed so even 2 starflears can kill it.
but meh... bases was designed to be not for one person use. so find some aid or a faction to play with...

---

[ryoken]

Sorry, I'm playing a game. If I want real life, I'll go outside.

And realistic? You need 100x more material to build a module rather than to build a base, that's realistic?
You need more material to build a device than to make the factory which builds the device, that's realistic?
A solid, metal base destroys itself after 10 hours, that's realistic?

I'm sorry, but it's not realistic.

Your right in a way. Also if it was Realistic the base would take years to build, and not minutes. Sooo until it takes years to build? I find making it take a crap load of your time and resources a good alternative.

---

[ruihu908]

Your right in a way. Also if it was Realistic the base would take years to build, and not minutes. Sooo until it takes years to build? I find making it take a crap load of your time and resources a good alternative.

I don't see why they can't delay the auto destruction of an unsupplied base to at least one week.

---

Feedback Thread for LNS-Canada

Want a Hand Drawn Sig? Click Here

[Thraag]

I dont think the modders who thought up this "fun" part of the game thought of the implications, Even for a very large server like discovery a clan would have to have at least 50-60 players just dedicated to maintaining one base on a round the clock operation 7 days a week. if you want to "Empire Build" you would have to double that for every base you built, to improve your base(s) apart from maintenance would be a horrendous task to buy ship hull parts to improve you base to 400000 (50000 hull parts) would cost you approx $24950000 for that alone, How many can you fit on your ship(s) and then you have to have escorts to safeguard that cargo,
People used to think I was crazy just going backwards and forwards (2400 X 90 minute round trips) Edin-Munich (in 4.85) But how many yoyo's would you have to do to maintain and build your base and improve it. And what about damage from enemy forces (not just wear and tear) Unless the base has weapons with a much longer range than the ships they can sit just inside Mortar range and chip away at it,

My guess is that base defense is ship based !!

And the base itself might never need to be attacked, just kill a enough convoys and it will die on its own. And I don't agree with the opinion that the server (any) will be slowed down by abandoned bases, any base that is left unoccupied will be destroyed by other players and like game ships they should only be "active" if a player is logged on to it, the server after all is not slowed down by all the ships that are not currently 'occupied'.

I have an idea that these guys never played Warhammer or "X" or any other resource based "Empire" game..........

[Black Widow]

I never said Baxter was destroyed by space, I said, if you actually READ what I wrote, it says it was destroyed by Rheinlander's.

that is why I don't think there should be "auto-damage" on stations.

my apologies me nooob, then your right!!!! Autobase damage suxxx remove this!

Coding for base damage should be linked too player activity on base like with Tag system. Say for e.g you own a tag: [TAG] and dont login on your [TAG] tagged ship for a month then player ownership of tag is removed.

[sprundermuff]

my apologies me nooob, then your right!!!! Autobase damage suxxx remove this!

Coding for base damage should be linked too player activity on base like with Tag system. Say for e.g you own a tag: [TAG] and dont login on your [TAG] tagged ship for a month then player ownership of tag is removed.

Thanks for that.

Also, if a base can remain in position for at least 5 entire years without a single "human" or "npc" going to "supply" said base, why must our "futuristic" technology be so faulty as to not be automated?

It has been many generations (a generation is 10 years if you didn't know) since Baxter Research Station was destroyed in roleplay game standards.

So, if we can produce telivisions, to colour televisions and suddenly computers in 10 years in THESE times, and produce over a thousand different "smart" phones, software, games, computers, components, and such, why must Discovery technology be as faulty as things built ten years before our current real life time?

Let's put it this way:

In ten years from the start of cell phones we created a huge difference, phones now last 20 x or MORE longer in battery time, no longer need to be connected to a line to talk to someone, and we can surf the internet with them, we couldn't do that with a cell phone 12 years ago in real life.

In several generations in Discovery time, since the first cloaking devices were produced and automated bases flourished, we have now regressed to the point of stations lasting barely a night, if that, cloaking devices not working half-assed like they did MORE THAN 15 YEARS AGO IN DISCO RP TIME.

Who is thinking of these ideas, and who is implenting faulty technology into the future?

Not I, for I only think of the future, not the past, for that gets no one no where, and quite fast, might I add.

Please, developers, modders, even fellow children of the forums: Do not let faulty technology replace what we have known as good tech for a long time till now!

Bring down these fail bases and worthless cloaking systems!

They cloak about as long as it takes for me to make a sandwich.

Once I'm done making the sandwich, my cloak is gone, my full cargo of h-fuel is gone, and my base has damage that will cost me a million or more to fix.

This is not realistic, this is madness.

---

[UoA]-Neve.Brovskii

Nolan Stross ... He came.