Topic: Possible solution to the destructible base conundrum (Read 2262 times)

FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC · « **on:** January 19, 2005, 11:48:04 pm »

By creating a base in a base assault that does not use the metaverse id from the database, when that base is destroyed it will not be removed from the map (assuming bases are destroyable in the gf settings).
By checking to see if the base is human controlled (ie. a PvP mission and there is a hostile human opponent present), the metaverse id creation method for the base can then be used, thus making bases only destroyable when there is a human opponent.

Some food for thought. Opinions?

FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC · « **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2005, 09:19:19 pm »

Amazing... 56 views and not one reply... LOL

Capt_Bearslayer_XC · « **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2005, 09:21:57 pm »

If this is possible, that is awesome.

I assume you are going to add this to your new mission scripts?

FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2005, 09:36:15 pm »

I can, yes, Bearslayer, but often I've been alone in what I think are 'good' ideas before, lol, so I wanted to see what everyone else thought first.

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2005, 09:38:26 pm »

Quote from: FPF-TraceyG on January 20, 2005, 09:19:19 pm

Amazing... 56 views and not one reply... LOL

Srill thinking about it, I'm slow

Dizzy · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2005, 10:52:24 pm »

Dont like it at all. Innovative idea tho... that can lead to other interesting ideas.

KAT Chuut-Ritt · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2005, 11:10:31 pm »

Agree with Dizzy, if its only destroyable with a live opponent then to protect a base all a side has to do is to avoid being drafted on it.

Corbomite · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2005, 02:06:45 am »

Quote from: KAT Chuut-Ritt on January 20, 2005, 11:10:31 pm

Agree with Dizzy, if its only destroyable with a live opponent then to protect a base all a side has to do is to avoid being drafted on it.

Not really. What's better, fighting to defend the base or letting your opponent capture it (which is what would happen if no human came to fight for it)?

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2005, 09:05:45 am »

Posting as a strategic officer:

With human destroyable bases (100% chance of losing the base when destroyed with a human), that means the most effective strategy is to place the base, and only send a human scapegoat (Where's Hexx when you need him...

) when the DV's something like 5. scapegoat loses, base blows up, we've kept the strategic element of the base (with it's long mission times) around as long as possible while not letting the enemy have it.

If the base destruction rate is lower than 100%, that means there's a good chance that the enemy will wind up keeping the base after swiping it. Not much sense in defending a base, losing once, and watching it blow up, especially if we can keep the hex with a good defense.

FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2005, 09:55:03 am »

Some discussion hapenning, thankyou.

Yes, to allow a base to survive when being attacked, you could simply chose to keep humans off the base. The enemy would have to run base assault after base assault to run the hex down, no different to having non-destroyable bases. To prevent the enemy from taking the base, a human opponent could allow themselves to be drafted, and perhaps even self destruct the base. While that has been levelled as a criticism, its not actually all that unrealistic. If no human opponent is present, as Corbomite stated, the base would captured when the hex flipped.
The question then, is this preferable to having bases destroyed by deep strikers on an empty server (as has hapenned in the past) or having persistant permanent bases that are immortal (which solves the previous problem but is unrealistic).

What about other options? What would be the ideal solution?

KAT Chuut-Ritt · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2005, 09:55:19 am »

Quote from: Corbomite on January 21, 2005, 02:06:45 am

Quote from: KAT Chuut-Ritt on January 20, 2005, 11:10:31 pm
Agree with Dizzy, if its only destroyable with a live opponent then to protect a base all a side has to do is to avoid being drafted on it.

Not really. What's better, fighting to defend the base or letting your opponent capture it (which is what would happen if no human came to fight for it)?

What is better? letting an enemy beat its head against a base and running missions underneath them periodically to boost it, or waiting till they log off and running it up. Having them destructable only in P v P will likely result in less P v P on bases.

KAT Chuut-Ritt · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2005, 09:58:32 am »

Ideal solution would be hard as hell starbase missions and cheap base stations and moderatly price BAYS in my opinion.

FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC · « **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:00:53 am »

Quote from: KAT Chuut-Ritt on January 21, 2005, 09:58:32 am

Ideal solution would be hard as hell starbase missions and cheap base stations and moderatly price BAYS in my opinion.

In other words, you are saying that destructible bases are the ideal solution?

KAT Chuut-Ritt · « **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:05:19 am »

Yes, the best inovation to the game I can think of. We already have non destroyable bases, they are called planets

. However making full starbases tougher is definately needed.

Now you could develope the minefield idea with a purchasable mine field that could be placed around bases, and have a tough mission associated with em. That way any deepstriker would have to deal with a minefield mission, perhaps 2 if a double ring was used, then a base mission, thus making it more difficult to strike at them wihout some indication to the defenders.

KAT Chuut-Ritt · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:10:38 am »

One other possibility might be to have certain hexes specified to have undeveloped planets, and allowing a side to spend build points to develope a particualr planet militarily. One enough points were spent the planet would appear on the map. This would be in essence an undestroyable base.

FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:33:23 am »

Minefields, definetely something that would be good to have. A lot of what you mention can be done but only with SQL. Of course with SQL, even planets arent safe from destruction.

FPF-DieHard · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2005, 10:45:26 am »

Blowing up bases is fun. If they die too often, lower the price.

Deepstriking destructable bases was the only thing fun on SG3.

el-Karnak · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:12:36 pm »

Don't like the idea of a base being destroyable in PvP only missions while the "invincible" AI will never lose the base no matter how many times you bash the living daylights out of the base.

It's possible to set up bases destroyable by class when, say, only Base Stations are destroyable. But, then the missions scripts are taking too much control of the dyna settings. The Server Admin. should be able choose whether the bases are destroyable or not without any mission script interference.

Only reasonable course of action I see here is either making customized destroyable bases according to class specification (for example: SBs are non-destroyable while BATs and BaseStns are) for a specific campaign (assuming the server admin. can find a scripter ready to do the work just for one campaign that'll last no more than 4 weeks at best); or, doing something with config. missions without bugging out the dyna server kit.

News: