I'm sure this has already been suggested, but I think it would be cool for the player and the AI to build colonies on unsettled planets. I think this would allow for much more interesting gameplay because it would mean that systems would be completely populated because of economic forces instead of colonies being generated procedurally by the engine. It would give the player motivation to develop and protect systems where they have established colonies. Maybe planet terraforming could eventually be integrated into the game to make the colony more profitable.

If this isn't possible in the initial release, it will be possible in the post release addition of planet ownership. Terraforming though... would be fantastic, but who knows, maybe not even josh knows.... Would probably depend on how easy it is to do.

I'm a bit worried about owning planets and colonies.
Right now a colony is something that generates resources and gives you a place to sell things. There's no real economy backing it, as far as I understand.

I suspect making a colony grow would be very costly, but in the end you'd either have a colony that sells you their products, or a colony whose products you own. The first option wouldn't be different than blockading a planet so only you can trade with them. The second one sound unbalanced as hell. Specially if the resources the colonist need aren't coming out of your pocket as well.

Perhaps a middle way would be that ownership of a colony only lets you have a voice in who they do business with, and perhaps a discount for you?

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Even the presidents of nations and governors of cities don't have free access to their entire economies at will; they have to buy stuff like everyone else. Of course, you can always remove free trade, but even then a lot of the resources could go towards maintaining the colony, paying to keep the free trade barrier in effect, etc.

I'm not sure why owning a planet should not be in a whole different league than a regular station, the size differences are gigantic. I would have no problem with them being far more expensive and possibly far more profitable than even the best stations.

it's true, right now there is a Blackbox in the colonies which just spits out and consumes, but I don't that that is too much of a problem, so long as it doesn't spit out and consume arbitrarily. Black boxes can be things you can control but not own (meaning you can lose control without someone taking it from you), provided that these events happen according to measured actions, such as the ratio of imports to exports, population happiness, weather, etc.

For me, the metaphor I find most useful is that of handling a horse, you treat it well and do what needs to be done, and you can really benefit from it, but if you can't control it, it will turn on you and drain away everything you have.

I am still undecided on the level of control that the player will have over colonies. Planetary ownership is a promised feature for post-release content additions, but to what extent players can actually shape colony growth is still up for debate.

Whatever the answer is, I know that it will be less flexible than, for example, station building. Clearly colonies need more careful treatment given their scale, as Hyperion points out. They have massive economic capabilities, so if there is to be a colonization / colony growth mechanic, it must be treated carefully.

I would say the ability to have taxes on goods sold and on the population would be a good way to have control over a colony. Also, I think if a player or AI chooses to establish a colony, they should be able to choose the type of colony it is (research, agriculture, military, etc.) which would effect the population of the colony and types of goods the colony produces and consumes. Obviously, it should take an enormous amount of capital (and maybe other resources as well) to establish a colony, but they should also provide a really good return over time that makes it worth the investment. There also should be responsibilities that come with owning a colony as well. Factions should be able to disrupt trade from stations to colonies or vice versa, which could cause the colony to ask for your help in fixing the problem. Or there could be a shortage a certain resource and you could deliver some to the colony. I think it would be cool to be able to attack and take over colonies, but that would probably mess with a lot of systems in place.

It might be better if you don't need to directly "own" colonies, but rather have an amount of influence on its administration. Somewhat like a shareholder. A colony has a culture vector (based on where the colonists originally came from, I assume), and by funding different projects at the colony, you may influence the colony's vector over time. Taxes implies you are the authority of the colony, so instead you could get a dividend. At certain time intervals, if the colony has sufficient profits, part of it is distributed to the "shareholders": you and the other entities with influence over the colony. No or negative profit, no gain for you.

That said, even if _you_ don't own the colony, there could still be a steady stream of taxes (and tech, etc) from the colony to its origin(s), giving the origin more economic power (up until the colony's sudden but inevitably betrayal, in the name of independence). If you control or heavily influence the origin, you may then benefit from this stream.




(Hello world, by the way. New here and only found out about this absolutely gorgeous project last week.)

In my opinion a colony cant be owned but can be controled by the npc or player with the highest influence in the system or in this specific colony. Colonies are realy to big to OWN them and control will lead to more realistic options in gameplay be it diplomacy, economic war, exploration etc.

AI´s and Players can build new colonies, but as soon as it is on a planet and starts to crow you better have some Spaceships, Spacestation or whatever to keep up enough control for whatever you want to do with "your" colony in the future.

But the whole Colony thing is a barrel without bottom, you can bloat a game with stuff related to colonies and make it no fun to play. It stands and falls with User Interface capabilities, meaningfull choices for control/setup and how AI´s will have to interact with the player and other AI´s.

just my two cent...

fvirexi wrote:It might be better if you don't need to directly "own" colonies, but rather have an amount of influence on its administration. Somewhat like a shareholder. A colony has a culture vector (based on where the colonists originally came from, I assume), and by funding different projects at the colony, you may influence the colony's vector over time. Taxes implies you are the authority of the colony, so instead you could get a dividend. At certain time intervals, if the colony has sufficient profits, part of it is distributed to the "shareholders": you and the other entities with influence over the colony. No or negative profit, no gain for you.

That said, even if _you_ don't own the colony, there could still be a steady stream of taxes (and tech, etc) from the colony to its origin(s), giving the origin more economic power (up until the colony's sudden but inevitably betrayal, in the name of independence). If you control or heavily influence the origin, you may then benefit from this stream.




(Hello world, by the way. New here and only found out about this absolutely gorgeous project last week.)

Welcome to the forums ! We had fudge! Someone took it though ...

fvirexi wrote:That said, even if _you_ don't own the colony, there could still be a steady stream of taxes (and tech, etc) from the colony to its origin(s), giving the origin more economic power (up until the colony's sudden but inevitably betrayal, in the name of independence). If you control or heavily influence the origin, you may then benefit from this stream.

My impression is that this will wind up being determined by the intersection of two systems in LT: factions and ownership of assets.

Individuals can own things. And individuals can belong to factions, as well as being the owners/controllers of factions. So how will those two things influence each other, especially as a faction's control of areas of space increases in size? If every NPC in a colony is a member of the same faction, would the products of that colony belong to the owner/controller of that faction?

(I distinguish between "owner" and "controller" of a faction in case Josh implements factions such that they can be either private or public institutions.)

fvirexi wrote:(Hello world, by the way. New here and only found out about this absolutely gorgeous project last week.)

Welcome! (Excellent first post, BTW, in both content and Firefly references. )

I think one way to approach this is to treat a "colony" as being a point without mass, linked to various buildings and whatever which look like a colony but are, from the game mechanics point of view, just the means by which it interacts with the world.

So a colony lives on a point on a planet. It has certain needs (security, food) and when those needs are met it grows and thus increases its needs. It is generated with a spaceport and a bunch of living space and other facilities but these aren't the colony, they're just things hanging off the colony.

So, you "colonise" somewhere by, say, plonking down 1000 workers. These 1000 workers amalgamate into a single "colony" object with approximately the same needs and productivity as 1000 workers. You set to work constructing the means for the colony to bed in and grow, with construction and production and whatever, but these buildings or add-ons are never the colony.

The colony is really just a set of values. Population: 1000 -> subsection food requirements, subsection growth rate etc. The buildings are to the "colony" as the ships are to the players.

I would say that you would make profit off of the colony, through taxes, and would have a very minimal say in how they run, but not direct control. I would also say that you would be treated differently, with perhaps a shiny new place to land, or a different interface when docking, with discounts, and perhaps free repairs on occasion. One thing i would say is that you would gain some control over their sphere of influence, perhaps being able to control a few of their spacecraft, maybe having some authoritative control over the airspace. It would make sense that if you "Owned" a colony, you would be seen as the leader of the area, and that people would feel the need to listen to you, while "In you house" as it were.

Greetings Forum - Just registered.

Have a suggestion... 2 actually - " If " it were possible to mesh Limit Theory code C++ with OpenSimulator's game engine written in C#, ( if only ) - There would be an interesting mix of 3D space and planet side ( multi planets ) immersion. I'm not a coder myself, but I've been dreaming of this since 2009.

Another 'wishlist' mesh would be Limit Theory coding with I-Novae's procedural planetary progress.

Blues wrote:Greetings Forum - Just registered.

Have a suggestion... 2 actually - " If it were possible to mesh Limit Theory code C++ with OpenSimulator's game engine ( if only ) - There would be an interesting mix of 3D space and planet side ( multi planets ) immersion. I'm not a coder myself, but I've been dreaming of this since 2009.

Another 'wishlist' mesh would be Limit Theory coding with I-Novae's procedural planetary progress.

Knowing Josh, he could do it himself in a week
Welcome

~Sly