What if homeplanets don't exists

Actually, everytime a player spawns in the game, a permanent homeworld gets created and if you reset, the homeworld keeps present, so over time more and more perfect worlds gets created and other players only need to collect them and force the former owner to reset. Noob protection means nothing if you cant expand because players sitting in front of your homeworld waiting until you reset.

The next step is, the player resets and maybe spawns in the neightbor system and the story of bullying begins again with creating a perfect homeworld.

My Suggestion is to don’t modify planets at all if a new player spawns, keep it as it is and add a new building called headquarter, that buffs the planet.

The stats of the headquarter could be:
Headquarter can’t be dismantled
Headquarter get’s destroyed if the planet gets captured, allowing to rebuild the Headquarter
Headquarter is limited to 1 per player
Headquarter has a buildimte of 1-2 days
Headquarter is free to build and does not require power and workforce
Headquarter act as level 2-5 deep mine of any type

Headquarter adds 60% too all resource outputs
Headquarter modifies the climate (and landmass) to the factions optimal value
Headquarter act as level 1 Shipyard and ODS 3
Defense can’t stood down while a Headquarter is present

Since the Headquarter does not need workforce and power, the ODS 3 component keeps active even there is a power or workforce shortage.

I think this will help to deal with these endless amount of homeworld created in the game.

1 Like

@WarMongers you had a post with a similar idea. Can you share it here, I couldn’t find it.

1 Like

I think this is great, would need alittle more buffs I think, just simply add allot of the features that the current homeworld starts with, or maybe this could be used to also help with that initial Income problem, maybe give the HQ the ability to generate like 250-500c/h to soften the start, or any other sort of buff you want to do with the homeworld, just give it to the headquarters instead.
I do think the shipyard should be seperate from the shipyard though or that could be an issue trying to uprade the shipyard later.
Also, I think if you lose your headquarters, the climate effect on new planets may need to be tuned down unless your okay with players popping an HQ down on a planet thats -300 to instantly terraform it to ideal.
But I really love the idea of potentially being able to move capitals if you lose it later on as well.

For balancing though, you may need 2 versions of the HQ, the one that starts with the player, and then if thats destroyed, the one you can build to signify your new capital maybe is not quite as strong, like not changing the deposits of the planet, since you would be choosing your HQ the 2nd time around.

Have suggested the removal of home-worlds from the main map and altogether more recently a fair number of times now.

More in here but it’s a long post.

Old zones idea and moving home-worlds to a protected area.

@Tsenna

That certainly fixes some issues. Few things though:

Alts are against TOS, but you can get newer players working together with veteran players in a “support” role that functionally does the same thing. Or you can get players that went inactive that want to play a little bit and have friends in game, which works out to much the same thing. And of course if someone does alt, eh, things are what they are.

  1. HQ modifies climate and landmass. Can the player owning the HQ, or other players, check on what the planet’s original climate and landmass were?

  2. Veteran player mines out their own home planet. Gets ally to capture home planet, loses HQ. Rebuilds HQ on another planet to get 160% resource outputs. If original climate / landmass weren’t negatively impacted, it’s an exploit. Do you consider this OK? Note it’s easy to do with cooperative action; solo players can’t dismantle their HQ.

  3. New player loses their home planet to troll. They had built a number of structures and have a sunk investment and want planet back. Say they get a friend to kick out the invaders, then want to reclaim the planet. However the original climate and landmass may be very bad, so that means constant depopulation over 1-2 days. Choice is to lose all structures or lose a chunk of population. Is that desired? Assuming resources may be tight and/or tech may not be researched, especially for newer or inexperienced players so regular terraforming is out.

  4. Orbital bombardment may need to be addressed.

  5. 160% reso

A) 160% of nothing is nothing. Mistakes do happen, and new players to the game may not even understand the issue. There is now a 7 day stop on spawn code use. So a mistake is made, 7 days before anything can be done about it.

B) 160% on a nice planet lets players working cooperatively drain a planet dry pretty quick; new player drains the planet, drops reso via pod. Can repeat in 7+ days, &c. Requires minimal attention to accomplish so suitable for players that are calling in favors from friends that don’t want to get too into Outscape / friends that have Outscape but want to be less active, or players violating TOS and using alts.

About climate, you still can build climate and hydro stations if necessary and it is even faster than building the HQ in a previously recaptured planet.

About these 60% resourceoutput, it changes a planet into 0% Beron to 60% Beron, 20% Farsu to 80% Farsu (or 60% as upper cap)

The HQ is more like to keep at a planet and not to wander around. These numbers still can be adjusted.
To fix these issue with the wandering HQ, you can add a 7 days timer where the HQ keeps intact, but disabled to foreign players, after these 7 days, this HQ gets dismantled if the former HQ owner does not recapture the planet.

It’s true that you can ask 8 friends to join your home starsystem, to have 9 HQ in the same system, but it is something you can’t prevent at all.

Anything that can repeatedly refresh resources is going to be exploited. Friends build several planets with HQ in a system with Mountain giants that is owned by a tech’d up player and feed them resources for fleet building. When they milk them dry repeat the process.

Any thing that boosts a planet is going to be exploited.

@Tsenna

“To fix these issue with the wandering HQ, you can add a 7 days timer where the HQ keeps intact, but disabled to foreign players, after these 7 days, this HQ gets dismantled if the former HQ owner does not recapture the planet.”

  1. Game systems are simplified representations. Less complications are better.

  2. You may consider it a necessary complication, but instead, consider a solution that doesn’t involve time limits. Adding a time limit to an exploitable feature only means changing the timing of the exploit - it doesn’t prevent it.

As WarMongers wrote, if you’re going to have a renewable resource source in this game that involves resource depletion, that feature will be exploited. Putting a time limit of 7 days on it only changes the timing of the exploit. Increasing it beyond 28 days &c for this makes it punishing in case of mistakes &c. So a solution without a time limit perhaps, or some different implementation.

“About climate, you still can build climate and hydro stations if necessary and it is even faster than building the HQ in a previously recaptured planet.”

Situation A: Right now, player loses home planet, gets it back however, life goes on.

Situation B: With HQ, player loses home planet, gets it back however, starts losing population immediately, needs to have resources on hand to build climate stations and needs to import them if not, has labor shortage as population is dying off (as well as population loss from invasions as the case may be), planet goes into revolt, player dismantles a load of buildings to stop revolt and so there’s citizens left for climate.

The issue IS that climate &c can be built and are faster.