Defending Fleet assets while offline. Possible? Necessary?

[SiskoBell]

In some future update, it would be interesting to know what Cryptic's plans are for Fleet facilities in PvP areas. It's been mentioned that Player Fleets will be able to construct facilities like starbases, shipyards, and mining stations.

The first question is, will Fleets be allowed to place these facilities in the "unexplored," PvP, regions? Second, if Fleet facilities can be placed in PvP areas, are they always subject to attack? Can they be captured or destroyed?

For the first question, it seems that Fleets will be able to "claim" (i.e. make diplomatic contact, set up a mining station, etc.) certain worlds in the unexplored regions for their Fleet and their Faction. I'd like to know from Cryptic if these newly claimed areas remain PvP+, or do they become a Faction owned, PvE or competitive PvE area, where direct attacks from rival factions are prohibited.

I like the idea of being able to claim and control areas of the unexplored regions. I think Fleets should be able to build there. But I also think these areas should remain PvP+, thus making these Fleet assets vulnerable to attack by enemy forces.

This leads to the second question, how would a Fleet defend its facilities twenty four hours, around the clock? Though some Fleets will have members, both within the US and overseas (I assume), who'll be online at all hours of the day and night, there will be many Fleets which won't be able to maintain a sufficient online presence throughout a 24 hour period.

So, how would Fleets defend their facilities in PvP+ areas during its members' offline hours? Of course the problem assumes a lot about Cryptic's plans for the unexplored regions. But I think it would add to the realism of the conflict if Fleets are able to place facilities in the unexplored regions, and adversaries are allowed to attack them at anytime.

Given that premise, I think Cryptic should provide player Fleets with a small set of tools to address the problem, rather than hard-coded rules that restrict the open nature of PvP in the unexplored areas.

For instance:

Allow starbases to deploy automated defense drones to ward of enemy attacks when Fleet members are away. (Similar to the drones seen attacking the Borg cube in "Best of Both Worlds pt.II"
Allow Fleets to establish "Ally" lists. Whenever a Fleet asset comes under attack, the system automatically generates a distress signal to Fleets or individual Captains on the ally list.
Based on the prestige level of the Fleet, and the level of influence of the Fleet's Faction in the area, allow a number of PvE starships appear to defend the base.


The list is pretty self explanatory. The idea is to give Fleets some assistance in defending their facilities. But the onus would still be on the Fleet to organize that defense. Thus, it's up to the Fleet to make alliances with other players and Fleets to come to their aid. And it's also up to the Fleet to maintain enough resources and prestige points to receive the automated NPC aid.

Of course, the whole scenario is just speculation at this point. Perhaps Cryptic will address the issue in the near future.

[47Wasps]

Dang...
you just raised alot of really good questions.
And I'm not sure we have any good answers for them(yet)

[indigowhale345]

I think this is a good question that will obviously be very important in how its designed. In Anarchy Online, there are tower fields which are held by orgs, the clans/guilds/fleets of AO. And they can be attacked and taken over by another org. For 5 hours a day, the same time every day, the field is attackable, so if an org can defend a field best at certain hours, they generally want a field that will be open during those hours. And when attacked, the defending org can get to their field directly via the grid which is basically a transportation network that goes to most cities. Attackers and defender allies have to either get an engineer to warp them there (who has to get there first themselves), or find the shortest path through the various modes of transportation.

Now the problem with AO is, the whole thing is totally unbalanced. Lower level fields can be easily wiped out by a single twink. High level fields require a zerg raid force to wipe out because of how much HP the towers have. Then there are some of the unique abilities for each faction that can strongly swing the balance one way or the other.

Towers are also quite cheap, so destroying some isn't going to ever break the bank of the defending org by forcing them to replace towers.



Personally I don't think having property attackable 24/7 is really fair to anyone, as its way too much time that I can't get into an hour long "episode" mission because I'm afraid my base might be attacked.

Informing allies is important, but in AO, there were always false alarms, the wandering froob who decided to see what its like to attack a tower and got killed fast by it, or someone who auto attacked it or whose pets auto-attacked. And maybe its just someone being an ass or testing the defenses, seeing how many and who will come to respond to the call, if not running away giggling first.

Definitely there needs to be some NPC defenses of some sort. Perhaps a minefield or stationary turrets or a swarm of taco sized robot figher craft. I'm not sure NPC ships should be it though. For defending some remote, not entirely important outpost, how many actual Starfleet ships would be there 24/7? Smaller craft would make sense, but I don't think seeing a bunch of NPC Sovereigns would.


Now, some of the points that I think should be considered if a similar system is incorporated into STO:

1. Attackers are pre-organized before an attack, usually have the element of surprise, and defenders are not prepared, so defender property needs to last for at least 10 minutes from a reasonable sized attack force to give defenders time to rally and respond.

2. Property should be relatively cheap, not like in EVE where if you lose something you lose a year of work. It shouldn't be to the point where people whine and complain about having a few remote turrets or whatever destroyed by griefers because it takes them a week to pay for or rebuild replacements.

3. Defenders should be able to get to their property easily and quickly. I imagine a transwarp network could be extended to it automatically.

4. Property can't be expected to be defended 24/7, so I would say that fleets ought to be able to set the window when claiming the place as to when it can be attacked, when they first claim it. Yeah its a gamey solution, because obviously the question rises, why CAN'T we attack 24/7? Maybe there could be a powerful force field around property that has to go offline at certain parts of the day, or some similar explanation.

5. Attackers should have their own property vulnerable to a retributive attack if they attack someone's property, in addition to whatever the above window might be so you can't attack someone and they can't immediately attack your property back.

6. Fleets have to be limited in how many planets/systems they can control to preclude the possiblity of one fleet owning it all.

7. Allies should be able to be transported with some ease to help defenders. You don't want 30 ships on the attacking side composed of 6 different fleets where the defender can muster maybe 10 to defend their property immediately, while their allies will take half an hour to show up. Maybe an engineering captain could set up a temporary transwarp conduit for defender allies or something.

8. As abilities of ships increase as the game goes on, property defense and HP values should be scaled proportionally, or at least as it is needed, so you don't have the situation where 3 expansions later, one ship can easily wipe out a defender's property before they can respond when at release it required say at least 6 ships to do it.

[Zandtar]

One other thing to consider is limitations on ensuring balance of game play over an extended period of time. Something that will allow such area's to still be competitive to new players joining the game 3 or 4 years from now. Make it so out of reach for new players, and they'll find another game.

[Sorayn]

How was this problem solved in EVE online? I can't quite remeber. But didn't mining and refining facilities have automated defences there?

I think that'll probably be the way it is delt with here as well.

[fireraven]

probably need to have it set up that stations and what not are unable to be attacked unless a certain level of members of the fleet are in the PVP area. Otherwise you can get some large fleet from an odd time zone that overwhelms defenses while the defender's fleet members are offline.
It could also run alot of the small fleets off that can't staff 24/7.
All for having areas available to be taken over just got to balance it out to prevent some from taking advantage of the system unfairly. And to prevent a fleet from taking key spots but never being online maybe require a minimum amount of time per (week,month etc...) spent in pvp otherwise it reverts back to unoccupied... could prevent the tactic of taking strategic areas and then avoiding combat by never being on.

[SiskoBell]

I think this is a good question that will obviously be very important in how its designed. In Anarchy Online, there are tower fields which are held by orgs, the clans/guilds/fleets of AO. And they can be attacked and taken over by another org. For 5 hours a day, the same time every day, the field is attackable, so if an org can defend a field best at certain hours, they generally want a field that will be open during those hours....

...Personally I don't think having property attackable 24/7 is really fair to anyone, as its way too much time that I can't get into an hour long "episode" mission because I'm afraid my base might be attacked....

...Definitely there needs to be some NPC defenses of some sort. Perhaps a minefield or stationary turrets or a swarm of taco sized robot figher craft. I'm not sure NPC ships should be it though. For defending some remote, not entirely important outpost, how many actual Starfleet ships would be there 24/7? Smaller craft would make sense, but I don't think seeing a bunch of NPC Sovereigns would....

Good points Captain Bob. I could understand the need for using a window of vulnerability as opposed to being open to attack all day. As far as NPC ships, I don't envision an NPC fleet coming to the base's defense. I'm thinking more like; at a outpost level facility, no ships would spawn. A small base might spawn a scout ship, a medium base a scout ship and science vessel, and a high-end facility might get a explorer and a scout ship or two. This would also depend on the number of attackers.

In either case, I think the primary defense of the base should come from the facility's automated defenses, which the Fleet would have to purchase and install themselves.

As for your points:

1. I think that's it's a good idea to build in some response time for the defenders.

2. I understand what you're saying. On the other hand, property should require enough time and resources to repair and replace, otherwise the facility becomes uber, and attacking forces will never make headway against it. Replacing phaser emitters and torp launchers should be easy. Other systems like the main computer and power source should require a more significant investment. An attacking force should be able to wear down a base's systems, unless the defending Fleet prevents the attacks and/or maintains a constant repair schedule. And since we're talking about Fleets, there shouldn't be much individual frustration at not being able to keep up with attacks. But I take your point, we shouldn't allow facilities to just be smashed overnight, (unless by a truly significant force, like what's been seen in DS9).

3. Extending transwarp conduits to bases is an interesting idea. Perhaps they wouldn't be automatic additions, but upgrades that Fleets could choose to purchase. Some Fleets would see them as being valuable assets, others might not want to spend the resources on them.

4. I can see the need for a limit to when the facility can be attacked. On the other hand, artificial barriers to combat do seem "gamey." Perhaps another solution would be to allow the defending Fleet to defend their facilities themselves while offline, in full force. That is, instead of random NPC ships defending the base, Cryptic could allow a Fleet to place it's member's ships on a NPC/Offline defense list.

Whenever the base is attacked, and no members of the Fleet are online, the Fleet's members' vessels would spawn as NPC controlled ships, with skill levels based on the players' NPC bridge crew. The ships that spawn would be the Fleet members' actual ships, being the same class and using the same upgrades and bridge crews. The ships would respond from where ever the players' had logged out, so the Fleet wouldn't just appear all together, all at once. Further, any damage taken by member's vessels would remain when the player's logged back in.

In cases when a few members are online, the system could scale back the NPC/Member ship response. Let's say a base is under attack by 12 enemy vessels, and only two Fleet members are online. The system should allow the defending Fleet to call a few ships from the defense list as reinforcements. Obviously they shouldn't be able to call the whole Fleet, but just enough ships to give them a fighting chance.

5. Agreed, if you initiate an attack, a window of vulnerability should open on your own facilities.

6. Limiting Fleets to what they can control will probably occur to some extent anyway, but I don't know if I agree with the idea in principle.

7. If the Fleet has chosen to install a transwarp conduit, then so be it. If not, allies should probably have to warp in at the best speed they can, IMO.

8. I definitely agree that balance vis-a-vis future expansions must be properly maintained.


One other thing to consider is limitations on ensuring balance of game play over an extended period of time. Something that will allow such area's to still be competitive to new players joining the game 3 or 4 years from now. Make it so out of reach for new players, and they'll find another game.

I agree Zandtar. Cryptic has said that it's exploration engine will allow for practically limitless new worlds to explore. So even if a Fleet grew to control 80 planets, there should still be enough "unexplored" space to keep new players happy years down the line. I also suspect that there will be practical limits to how much territory a single Fleet can control. Maintenance and defense costs will probably make it impractical for all but one or two Fleets (composed of the most dedicated and well organized memberships) to maintain a large area of control.

probably need to have it set up that stations and what not are unable to be attacked unless a certain level of members of the fleet are in the PVP area. Otherwise you can get some large fleet from an odd time zone that overwhelms defenses while the defender's fleet members are offline.
It could also run alot of the small fleets off that can't staff 24/7.
All for having areas available to be taken over just got to balance it out to prevent some from taking advantage of the system unfairly. And to prevent a fleet from taking key spots but never being online maybe require a minimum amount of time per (week,month etc...) spent in pvp otherwise it reverts back to unoccupied... could prevent the tactic of taking strategic areas and then avoiding combat by never being on.

That's an interesting point as well fireraven. I guess the only issue that might arise is the one you pointed out at the end of your post. How to prevent Fleets from building in valuable areas, and then never initiating the conditions that would make their base attackable (i.e. never going into the PvP areas in numbers great enough to trigger the window of vulnerability).

But to reiterate my reply above to Captain Bob. I like the idea of allowing the Fleet to defend it's assets, even offline. This be more realistic than having non Fleet NPC ships come to the station's aid. It would also give an even stronger motivation for Fleet members to build the best NPC Bridge crews that they can, especially the First Officer, who would be commanding their ships in battle when the player Captain is offline.

As for the attacking force in such a scenario, the system can be made fair enough that attackers actually have a chance to do some damage. For instance, perhaps the number of Player/NPC ships that respond to an offline hours attack could be based on the average number of members oline for the past 24 hours. That is, if only 60% of the defending Fleet's members were online the previous day, then only 60% of it's member's ships could respond to an attack offline. This gives the attack a fighting chance, but not having to face a full Fleet of NPC ships all the time.

[Howard22]

How was this problem solved in EVE online? I can't quite remeber. But didn't mining and refining facilities have automated defences there?

I think that'll probably be the way it is delt with here as well.

I do like this idea. But I think that it should only go so far. If there are players from a guild online then obviously they will have a much higher success rate at defending. Plus, if you have a good enough guild(in size and quality of players) then there should always at least be a few people on to defend at any given time of the day,

[callsign11b]

it hasn't been talked about from the dev. point of view.
but I imagine there be npc ships automatic defences ect.
as well as other safe guards to prevent a base being destroyed or captured to easly.
as well the game combat will be slowed down so a quick fast attack will not happen to easly.
the enemy players will have some sort of advance warning that a attack is coming so they can get there members online to play that are within range to defend.

[cocoa-jin]

I'd think having a starbase in a combat, and thus a PvP, area bad tactics. It would be like putting an Army headquarter in Bastogne, or an airforce base on the frontline, or Naval port on a contested shore. Starbases shouldnt be allowed to be built in contested/PvP areas and Starbases finding themselves in contested/PvP areas should be moved...that can move right?

I'd assume it could be possible to have auto-fallbacks for starbases.

[ianb4all]

One other thing to consider is limitations on ensuring balance of game play over an extended period of time. Something that will allow such area's to still be competitive to new players joining the game 3 or 4 years from now. Make it so out of reach for new players, and they'll find another game.

exactlly how eve online is with large corps holding huge areas of low security and no security space - where all the best minerals are for minign etc - very much out of reach fior new players so thats why they leave after playign for a few months when they realise they will never ever be able to catch up to the players who been there from the start or been playign ti for a few years allready.

[fireraven]

I'd think having a starbase in a combat, and thus a PvP, area bad tactics. It would be like putting an Army headquarter in Bastogne, or an airforce base on the frontline, or Naval port on a contested shore. Starbases shouldnt be allowed to be built in contested/PvP areas and Starbases finding themselves in contested/PvP areas should be moved...that can move right?

I'd assume it could be possible to have auto-fallbacks for starbases.

unless you see them using starbases like castles were in medieval times. to help secure an area and provide support to fleets operating in an area.

[Skelly]

I think the fleet should have to set up a schedule for open attack times. Maybe with some options on how many days a week it will be open and if they want the days randomly choosen. The time would need to be a 2 hour window that the station must be open, and a minimum of 1 day a week in PvP zone. Guild members would have the option to make the base open to attack for scheduled wars, but the base would need to be open for say 1 hour minimum open to attack. A sign that a base is open for attack could be an NPC ship patrolling around it.

For the random day idea, you select a minumum of 2 possible days that the station could be open for attack. Each week the guild gets an ingame message telling you when that is so you can plan a defense.

[Silverspar]

Hopefully we can spend some fleet currency or resources on actually putting defenses on our PvP based assets. Nothing cheeses me off more in WAR than the RvR PvE crowd (aka the crowd that only fights in RvR to take PvE based objectives and will leave the moment any PvP could even conceivably come there way). Can't stop people from playing that way, but would hope for some stop gap measures to keep them from cheesing the system.

[Morsrex]

I like the idea of bases being open for attack during certain times, maybe have it so the available times it can be attacked are increased based on the reward for holding the base. This way riskier but higher return bases would be much harder to defend effectively and would hopefully lead to it changing hands a lot making it much more exciting.

[cocoa-jin]

unless you see them using starbases like castles were in medieval times. to help secure an area and provide support to fleets operating in an area.

I'd think warp capability eliminates the need(and actually explains why they shouldnt be) for a base to be in the combat area to be viable. A generally stationary facilty provides some defensive ability if its in a geo-syncronous orbit above a target...but its usless if planetary attacks can be just as successful opposite the side the starbase is on. Its not like the starbase is required to act as an aircraft carrier of sorts.

I'd assume starbases would be best served in secure systems with more in-depth defense systems in place system wide. Exposing them to frontline combat would be risky an expensive, in addition limit there ability to provide efficiently the valubale services they are intended to provide.

There defensese are a last ditch defense...meaning everything else has failed. They certainly weild a lot of firepower, but to use that firepower means someone has already screwed the pooch strategically. Like an airforce base...they certainly have great firepower to bring to bear tactically, but if an invasion force is beating down the walls outside the airfield no amount of fire power from the airbase can erase the fact that the presence of the enemy at its doorstep is a strategic failure.

I'd assume Starbase defenses are set up more to defend against skirmishes and indvidual attacks through over-whelming fire and such...but I'd doubt(I could be wrong) that they would do pretty good against heavier assualts at an hefty finacial and resource liability to the owning faction of the starbase, but it would fall against an all out, dedicated assualt on it from an armada or something.

In my mind, starbases would be placed in non-combat locations where travel time is prohibitive for the oppossition stage a viable attack against the starbase and still allow that attacker to have a reasonable tactical viablity in actual contentioned/PvP systems of value. Meaning the attacker cant be in both places at the same time and viably hold the high value system. This would also mean the starbase owner wouldnt feel the need to leave a heavy defense force of starships with the starbase, allowing them to pool these resources into the high value system which is under contention....allowing them to be more likly to hold the high value system.

[SiskoBell]

Regarding cocoa-jin's point on starbases in PvP areas, I don't necessarily limit my question to just actual starbases. I'm referring mainly to any fleet assets that exist for the Fleet to lay claim to, or operate within, a system that resides in the PvP zone. These could be mining facilities, listening outposts, etc.

I'm assuming that Fleets will be able to place assets in the PvP areas they claim, otherwise there wouldn't seem to be much point to PvP in the unexplored regions. If a individual or Fleet can't claim systems within the PvP region, exactly what would we be fighting over?

The notion that starbases wouldn't be placed in the front lines is understandable. I assume that before a Fleet could place a facility, of any type, it would have to first meet certain PvP and PvE conditions that make the area "secure" for building. Further, there are examples in both real life and ST canon where bases come under attack and find themselves on the "front lines," Pearl Harbor, and Deep Space Nine being two examples.

As far as protecting these assets, I still think a mix of vulnerability windows, allied help, and NPC defense would be fine, with heavy emphasis on allied aid and NPC defenses. Of course, there's the practical reality that most people will be offline at the same time, so though off-hour attacks will occur, they won't be the norm.

[Shar_Torin]

Basically IMO it boils down to this.....if the assets in question generate a bonus or produce something then they should be vulnerable whether the fleet is online or not. In Eve it basically went like this......you fueled your POSs for a certain amount of time (days usually). When the fuel ran out your shields went down and your POS (player owned station) became vulnerable (and was almost invariably destroyed). It didn't matter who was online or not. If some group was laying siege to the POS waiting for the shields to come down you had the chance to refuel it if you were online, but you had to run the gauntlet of the siege to get to it. In general, anyone willing to wait long enough and had the firepower could destroy a POS, unless your group could break the siege.

Edit: There were automated defenses though, guns and missiles etc. You could not control them exactly but you could give them a limited set of parameters of who to shoot at. Anyone really serious about taking down a POS could get past those defenses and a well organized player defense was necessary if you wanted to save your POS.

[fireraven]

technically they wouldn't be in the Neutral zone anyways but as for near the frontlines... I can see them placed in systems close to provide support for both operating in the area and repairing ships to keep them close to area of responsibilty. Even at warp speed sending vessels to far back for repairs, medical and shore leave would cause potential gaps that could be exploited by the enemy.

[Meehile]

I'm not so sure there will be star bases allowed in the pvp zones in STO. There isn't much info from the dev side on this so its all just specualtion. I have the impression that fleet assets like star bases are going to be pve based, and you will be setting up starbases in systems where your fleet members have made first contact.

Pvp seems like it will be in the neutral zones only, and putting bases here will lead to all kinds of balance and logistics problems. You have to make them attackable or it will be first come first serve, and then nobody else will ever get to build there. If you make them attackable, then they will get sniped in off hours. Goodbye small guilds as only the very large ones will have round the clock attendence. Now we are back to the Eve problem of noobs having no chance.

It may just be easier to have the neutral zones be used for any time pvp. You fly in and look for a fight. It might be you vs someone else in a ship to ship duel, it might be you getting slaughtered by a group of ships, and it might be you and a group slaughtering that fellow who decided to venture into unsafe waters alone.

One way to settle the issue of territory taking in the neutral zones is to establish resources like planets that can be taken over by one side or the other at any time. No guild or fleet truly owns the resource, they will, at best, control it for a time.

[Silverspar]

Player placed starbases, probably not, but I would wager there will be objective bases to grab and control and fortify. After all, one would need such control to lay claim to such areas of space, as wella s to be able to collected extra resources as they claim.

[cocoa-jin]

The notion that starbases wouldn't be placed in the front lines is understandable. I assume that before a Fleet could place a facility, of any type, it would have to first meet certain PvP and PvE conditions that make the area "secure" for building. Further, there are examples in both real life and ST canon where bases come under attack and find themselves on the "front lines," Pearl Harbor, and Deep Space Nine being two examples.



Remember, Pearl was "built" away from the frontline...a strategic failure on the part of the US allowed it to be attacked and it was all but destroyed. Had Admiral Yamamoto had sent his second wave, he would have utterly destroyed Pearl...I'd expect even a starbase to meet the same demise under a full scale assualt.

Any other facility should be vulnerable to attack if their once secure system falls under siege. Construction of any high value asset shouldnt be allowed in contested system...I'd say within a particular range of contested or enemy held systems since the confines of a system mean nothing...its effective strike range that matters.

That being said, I'd have no problem if there were to be a way to move or dismantle facilities at either no loss or some limited loss of assets/components during the move or removal. I'd assume removal would leave the facility in limbo awaiting new placement. Any lose of assets/components during removal would require the acquistion of the missing components to place the facility some place else.