Player Owned Base shield

[Highland Laddie]

I would say there needs to be a different way to rebalance bases, one that allows a sustainable base but also one that means a base is destructible if you go after its profit and suppliers. Furthermore, offensive bases should be harder to maintain than trade hubs (easily explainable in RP).

Here's a list of changes that I would do to bases:
1. Make defense platform respawn take a small amount of resources from the base, increase respawn times. This will allow an offensive base to be "raided", which will be a good offset to the power that it projects across an area. An offensive base like this will be a bigger money sink than a normal one, especially one with a lot of turrets - the more turrets there are, the faster the resources will drain during a sustained siege.
2. Make it so that base commodity sale price can be different to the buy price. This will allow trading bases to be less reliant on micromanagement and buy/sale time curves. It will allow people to more easily create an "economic eco system" whereas bases will be established for aggregation of commodities then resell at higher price. It will be like a free market system where the best buyer/seller wins. For the purposes of trading posts this will be fine.
3. Finally, there was a proposal somewhere about base "tech trees", where you would choose a base specialisation and according to that you'd be able to build it up in a specific way. The ideas were roughly: trading post (focus on storage), science centre (focus on factories), military outpost (focus on defence). A specialisation would place varying limits on the amounts of modules you could construct. It could also provide different benefits like varying numbers of base HP, varying entry storage and varying module costs. All in all it would ensure that you need a substantially greater amount of work to for example manage an area lock down but also successfully run a trade facility out of the same base. It will ensure that even factions who have bases will still strive for cooperation with other base owners, perhaps creating things like confederations.

Those are my relatively short and fairly doable ideas. I'd welcome people to build on them.

GREAT IDEAS Blodo! I hope these ideas are being considered for implementation in .87.

[Potter Harry]

It takes 40 (39.92, to be exact) battleships (Doj, your math was slightly off, although certainly approximate. No BS can sustain 3 cerbs, you have to use figures for 2 cerbs and 2x prims)

I know it can't. I incorporated this in my calculations. The constant firing of 3 cerbs would do 21,600 damage, not 19,656.

As for your maths, no idea what you caculated, but in order to do that 19 K damage, you need 4 cerberus guns, not 3.

2 Cerberus at 90,000 damage per second * 16 = 1,440,000 damage per 16 seconds. Divide by 100 (base shield absorbs 99% damage) = 14,400 damage to base per 16 seconds.

Heavy battleships regenerate at 300,000u per second. Cerberus turrets use 110,000 energy per round. That leaves 80,000u of power to be used every second.

A third Cerberus turret will thus do this amount of damage every 16 seconds;

45,000 / 110,000 = 0.40909090909 damage per energy
0.40909090909 * 80,000 remaining energy = 32727.2727272 damage per second
32727.2727272 x 16 seconds = 523636.363635 damage per 16 seconds
523636.363635 / 100 (absorption of shield) = 5236.36363635 damage to base per 16 seconds

14,400 damage per 16 seconds of 2 Cerb turrets + 5236.36363635 = 19636.3636364 damage to base per 16 seconds with 3 continuously firing Cerberus turrets

Same thing applies with heavy bombers being able to continuously fire 3 Energy Cannons, but not a fourth and battlecruisers being able to continuously fire 2 Cerberus cannons, but not a third

Bindo was right that my math was a bit off, but that was because I didn't incorporate decimals accurately, and simply rounded every number down, otherwise it potentially becomes too illegible to make quick sense of.

Well, I've mentioned that idea before. And I'll do it again. We need shield effectiveness based on base level. The smaller base-the harder shields. 99, 98, 97, 96, for base cores 1, 2, 3, 4 for example. So the bigger the base, the more damage it receives. It won't harm small bases, but the big ones will suffer.

I like this idea. It wouldn't change the number of ships required to harm the base between core levels, but the difference of total hitpoints of a base makes up for that, really.

Core 4 bases are not invincible, altough it requires too much of hard effort to make and survive a core 4 base.

Doing two runs of basic alloy every day and two runs of food, water and oxygen every 5 days is effort? Most of the time, this only takes an hour or less for a base owner, unless they built it 100k above the plane in a desolate system, though that's how they pay the price of making their base more secretive.

[Haste]

A third Cerberus turret will thus do this amount of damage every 16 seconds;

45,000 / 110,000 = 0.40909090909 damage per energy
0.40909090909 * 80,000 remaining energy = 32727.2727272 damage per second
32727.2727272 x 16 seconds = 523636.363635 damage per 16 seconds
523636.363635 / 100 (absorption of shield) = 5236.36363635 damage to base per 16 seconds

14,400 damage per 16 seconds of 2 Cerb turrets + 5236.36363635 = 19636.3636364 damage to base per 16 seconds with 3 continuously firing Cerberus turrets

That's a whole lot of maths to describe "Multiply ship core recharge by Cerberus efficiency", because that's what it comes down to if you're going to be shooting continuously.

---

[Potter Harry]

That's a whole lot of maths to describe "Multiply ship core recharge by Cerberus efficiency", because that's what it comes down to if you're going to be shooting continuously.

I didn't actually know I was calculating efficiency with this. Thanks for the heads up.
Regardless, the amount of elaboration should help Spike Seadra understand exactly what numbers were used to calculate the damage output.

You're welcome, Spike Seadra.

[DarthBindo]

That's a whole lot of maths to describe "Multiply ship core recharge by Cerberus efficiency", because that's what it comes down to if you're going to be shooting continuously.

I hate you for being more clever than I. I calculated the average effiency curve for two seperate factors over a single second.
Stupid, stupid stupid, I could have just done ^ that. The effiency of cerb turrets doesn't change depending upon the frame of reference we use for time.
My method resulted in variable answers at +- 15,000 dps for each second/ repeair cycle depending on how it matched up with the recharge rate, but as the number of seconds/ cycles increases it would OF COURSE eventually tend towards a limit.
GAWD

---

gone four years, first day back: Zoners still getting shot in Theta :|