I'm about to start work on the "Destroyed Bases" bases idea that was discussed in another thread a while ago. Here's a summary:

When a base dies, (not radiated), instead of blowing up, it becomes "destroyed"

- It loses about 50% credits and 50% of all stackable items on board as debris and maybe 50% of unequipped items and 25% of equipped items
- The graphic changes to a burned out destroyed base graphic
- It still takes up the base slots
- it has zero shield and energy
- it doesn't give updates to items on board, so base equipment won't be working and doing stuff
- People can still dock there
- the base can no longer fire
- no construction
- no trading
- does not stop other teams from owning the galaxy? (not sure)
- does not affect the colony if it's attached to one
- the owner can come and get his stuff off and recover credits, so it is not such a huge loss and then either:
- use a base demolition kit to really destroy the base
- use a base repair kit of the appropriate level (very expensive) to restore the base to working order.

This will make loss of bases less traumatic for the owners and also increase the glory from killing bases since there will be fiery destruction as a display of the base-killers dominance. It will also reduce griefing via destroying all a persons bases for no reason.

***

My question at this point is what to do with the concept of base capping. If you can still cap a base, then the whole destroyed bases thing doesn't stop griefing, it just makes it a little bit harder. Some of the ideas I'm thinking of regarding capping of bases are:

1) Totally eliminate base capping from the game
2) Make it still possible, but add tougher radiation resists to bases to make it more difficult, or if it's already hard enough, just leave it as-is
3) Add a new commodity called Space Marines. After you rad a base and dock, the Space Marines on your ship fight the Space Marines on the base, and if you win, you get the base and if you lose, you have to undock and go get more marines. This would make a well-fortified base very difficult to beat, while leaving the more throwaway bases still quite vulnerable to capping.

Any thoughts on the capping bases issue?

As far as aggresive capping goes (That is, capping an enemy base) It's not very plausible unless it's either unaugged, non-mastery and low tech, or a mixture of those....Base capping is only really used when it comes to capping a base from one char to another. I think aggresive capping wouldn't be missed too much if it was removed, but then make it so we can transfer base ownership, like with slaves, so we still have the ability to change ownership of the base.

It should loose 70% creds. My ? though, does that mean there's a 50% chance each item under that category will drop, or will there literally be 50% of randomly selected items that drop?



does this mean gal slots? or slots of teh person who laid it?


The idea with this should be to let a person salvage maybe a few items... not prevent a gal from being taken over. If the attacker couldn't own the gal, this system would be completly broken.


I dont think you should have this in there at all. Especially if someone just owned the gal. In fact, I think destroyed bases should have a timer on them before they can be capped/destroyed by the victor. It'd still give the person time to get their stuff or still allow someone to claim the spoils.



Capping bases is a lot less practical of a method then you think. Especially with the recent addition of: shield caps, messages in team when bases are attacked, pulse guns, and overall beefs.... You shouldn't worry about capping being a very big issue.

On a different note, I would personally like to see ubers delt with before bases as atm, this is no where near a problem like uber camping is.

~bach

Base capping is effing hard. anything above ambro is almost literally impossible to cap, not big of an issue.

Hostile base capping?

Rad dampner+ (tech 14) give something like 70% protection from radiation. Even with radX the DPS on rad weapons ain't to impressive, only reason it works is low rad resistance on most AI. Slaves won't help much since they have a planet or moon in the way most of the time and no rad weapons are 4d. MF might do some good rad DPS with neuron bombs, but will get pulsed stiff.

Hostile base capping died a long time ago, so don't worry about greifing in that direction. Might work on some poorly built noob bases below tech 14; without pulses, unattached and auged with minor thrust and docking.

I wouldn't touch base capping... Its practically impossible as it is...

OK.

all that sounds good, but I think you should really consider the "transfer ownership" feature to bases. Capping your own bases is super annoying and the concept of bases should be thought of the same as slaves.

Destroyed Bases Base is destroyed by killing the shield generator and then the back lash destroying the power generator. Other items destroyed should be random from the blast of the power generator exploding.

Anyone can dock on a destroyed base. All of the remaining workable gear and items can be removed or put back into service once the base is repaired and a new energy source is installed and equipped.

Anyone can own a destroyed base... keeping it ... <shrug>.

Once a base is destroyed it should have a new option. Self Destruct to remove the base completely, and only the base owner can see the Self Destruct tab.

-------------
Re Capping:
The use of Marines when capping a base... I'd think the rad weapons would kill any living being on the base, in addition to destroying any computers. However keeping the Marines in a radiation proof area, Marine Barracks, should be workable.

---------------
Re Griefing:
It would increase the reward for destroying bases. Not only are more items and credits knocked off of the base but the rest of the credits, workable gear and items are still available on the destroyed base for the plundering.

I think it would tend to increase base destruction. However I think it is a good idea and SS should try it for one uni. If it becomes a problem just remove it from the game.

trans of ownership would be hard if alt on same account as alt would not be there in gal same a slave exfer to same account alts

but good idea and option all the same better than leaving base open to ai attacking while capping

prob i find if say i have a 4 base gal all base's burnt out etc and attacker has built in gal then they would be agro to me in my merchant ship whilst trying to recover base gear left behind

and if i was the attacker i cant build on some moons etc as brunt out base takes up space on the moon

I'd say a transfer base option should be available, but if any base in the galaxy has been attacked by a player in the last 30 minutes, base transfer should not be available. Prevent people changing the level of the base to avoid an attack while its in progress...

I agree with the transfer base idea. It would make things alot easier. Also jeff, as for the space marines, someone could just go dock a 6 heph augged thats full of the marines to the brim in the base and would win very easy. Several could be docked. Personally, I think that there should be several lvls of marines for capping. T3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20. It should also run on chance, so it would look something like this:

To cap a t16 base, you need 16 marines or higher. Anything lower wont work. Also, you buy marines in sets, and you can only use 1 set at a time per base. That means the set has to fail for you to use another one on specified base. If the base is capped, the set is used up. If you fail to cap the base, the set also is used up. Here would be the chances for capping a 9 base (thats a good middle number)

Marines under tech 9, 0% chance.

Marines tech 9, 50% chance

Marines tech 12, +5% chance, so 55%.

"" tech 14, + 5%, 60% chance.

16, + 10%, 70%

18, 80%

20, +20 % chance, so 100%

Now, to clear it up, it works on these principles.

less then T lvl, 0%
= to T lvl, 50%
1 main tech higher (i.e. 12-->14) 55% to cap
2 main T higher (i.e. base is 12, marines would be 16), 60% to cap.
3, 70%
4, 80%
5+ main techs higher, 100% chance of capping.

Now the marine sets cost money to train (trained out of workers with special equipment purchaseable in special AI stations through-out the universe in diff warp lvls, upto 9 in w0, 14 in w1, 18 in w2 and 20 in w3 (maby in EOTU?).

Now where you can buy the training facilities, you can also buy the blueprint for base defense of a certain tech. Only 1 can be equipped per base, and the base defense system tech cannot exceed that of the base. No putting T20 defense systems on a T9 base. If the lvl of system is lowered, then the defense of a base is lowered following the exact opposite system that the marines use. I.E.

T9 defense on a T9 base, 40% chance against a T12 marine unit.

If its a T9 base with a T6 system, then its, following the pattern, a 30% chance to defend against a T12 marine unit.

Now this may seem very difficult, but once you grasp the basic principles of the pattern, its actually very simple and very balenced. Im also going to put this in suggestions so it doesnt get passed over.

You should only have a limited amount of marines (1-2) per ship docked, but infinite on the base, however the marines are costly, so you can't just mass produce 50k and be all bueno.

I totally agree with Erman.

I use capping a lot to transfer ownership of my bases between my alts, particularly early in the uni.

It is a risky and tedious proceedure and it certainly makes sence to have a base ownership transfer function.

As for hostile capping bases, only the weakest bases can be capped IMO so probably not worth the effort changing anything.

Yeah, that would make it slightly more difficult to cap...well not more difficult, just longer.