+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: PoBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) (/showthread.php?tid=145978)
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Light - 12-04-2016
@Xenon
I totally agree with the Faction Balancing part, since the the community here has shrunken we have many people in multiple factions. The essence of this -- which you hit right in the bullseye -- is a problem of OORP agenda and allegiances to multiple sides. It especially becomes a problem when those 2 sides are AT WAR with one another.
There should be a rule that you can only be in one official faction at a time. It just makes sense. An official faction should have dedicated members, with a collective agenda supporting one idea. If you have people in an lawful and unlawful official faction who operate in the same space, it just doesn't make sense.
The POB Balancing also is a good idea, however it doesn't need to be changed as much as you might think. Here's what needs to change:
1. Siege time from 2 weeks to 3 days.
2. Weapon platform bug repaired.
3. (optional) Croft's torpedo system idea implemented.
Other than that, the bases themselves work fine. It takes time and dedication to make the base, which is understood. Changing these 3 things should make sieges more deterrable and easier on the defenders, without being over the top.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Shalo - 12-04-2016
Quote:There should be a rule that you can only be in one official faction at a time. It just makes sense. An official faction should have dedicated members, with a collective agenda supporting one idea. If you have people in an lawful and unlawful official faction who operate in the same space, it just doesn't make sense.
If you would add such a rule, I think people could become considerably bored with the game. When you're forced to be in one official faction only, the game gets repetitive. You should be able to be in more then one faction.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - TickTack - 12-04-2016
I believe the problem isn't when you're a member of two official factions, the problem lies when a person is the leader of two opposing factions.
The rule should be that one person can not be the leader of two factions at the same time, else you end up with all sorts of meta game like two factions that are unfriendly forming an alliance or X faction not lending assistance to Y faction because it suits Z faction's goals with them being leader of factions X and Z it's clear to see why they'd make such a decision.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - gafwmn - 12-04-2016
While I agree that a person should be able to be in more than 1 faction , the problem is when people choose more than 1 faction in the SAME house space.....think back years ago with many of the issues between the lawful and unlawful factions just in 1 system....New York.
But to address the POB issues point in Xenon's post.........personally , UNTILL such a time as ALL of the bugs are worked out with the various systems for POB's , I would think , that with the idea of the communities best interests at heart , that any future POB sieges be at the discression of the admin team.
Now , the reason I say that is , lets face it......I've seen a lot of good , and a lot of bad " stuff " happen in my time here. I have seen where people have intentionally used ships/weapons etc ....simply because there is a KNOWN bug / defect / bad hit box etc..... that gives them an edge over others.........that aint right AND most of you know it , or at least should. It comes down to people.
As far as the forces sieging a base.......I would like to see not only the rp for it , I would also like to see the logistics to justify the number and types of ships used......I will use an old example as my case point.....JUST because the LR had access to a battleship , does NOT mean they have the logistics and supply network to supply the needed MANPOWER to field 15 LR battleships , even though all the LR ( and lets not forget the indies...sorry } players have the cash to go and buy a battleship.
It comes down to a moral issue........just because something can / could be done , does not mean that it should be done.........ponder that over a smoke and cuppa coffee when your trying to decide on making that next OP whatever.........everything the devs and admin team and the rest of them over the years have done is try to improve the experience for the players here for the most part....some good and not so good ideas have come up........but there always seems to be a small group that goes above and beyond looking for the next " something " to give them the edge , that feeling of smugness that they " got away " with something. And that's where the trouble starts.
I've seen a good share of people come and go here....but in all honesty , IF I had to assign a percentage to the number of good players gone vs the number of bad or toxic players....I would have to ballpark it at around 85 / 15.............and anyone capable of doing simple math CAN predict the future of Discovery based on the diminishing returns.
I will now let the next person use the soap-box , and thank you for all the fish.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Laura C. - 12-05-2016
(12-04-2016, 10:15 PM)Light Wrote: There should be a rule that you can only be in one official faction at a time. It just makes sense. An official faction should have dedicated members, with a collective agenda supporting one idea.No, it does not make sense at all. And such restriction would be perfect way how to kill lot of official factions. And on top of that, it would not even solve the problem, because all the people who are in opposite factions would continue to do so, just with indies, so nothing would change (except those dead official factions). Funnily enough, my experience is that some people have energy and time to be dedicated and contributing members of several factions while some can not be dedicated and contributing members of even one. There would be way too less content and roleplay in the mod if we will restrict the former the way you propose.
Seems some you of people forget this is still just a game. And games are supposed to be fun. Not a second job, not a holy commitment, not a life in a sect where you have to choose the one and only idea you can support.
By the way, these words comes from person which is member of one official faction during whole time of playing on Disco. But just because I want, not because I think it -have to- be this way.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Zelot - 12-05-2016
Discovery has always encouraged people to join different and opposing factions. Implementing any rule that changes that will not only have a bad effect on playtime, but also in interpersonal conflict. By having people playing in opposing factions, they should be pushing the members of both factions to play with fun in mind. If you play on both sides you have empathy as a player (not a character) for ganks and the like. We used to say this all the time, we were different from other gaming communities because the idea of disco was not people being members of factions, as Hoodlum used to say, we aren't members of many factions, we are members of one faction and that faction is Disco. We want players from different parts of disco flying together and getting to know each other better. The more multi-factioning a player does, the more players on the server he gets to know, the more he can work things to have fun for everyone. Now, can that be abused? Yes, it can and has, but the abuse is not so bad that we should through out one of the underlying concepts of the community.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - TickTack - 12-05-2016
(12-05-2016, 12:31 AM)Zelot Wrote: Discovery has always encouraged people to join different and opposing factions. Implementing any rule that changes that will not only have a bad effect on playtime, but also in interpersonal conflict. By having people playing in opposing factions, they should be pushing the members of both factions to play with fun in mind. If you play on both sides you have empathy as a player (not a character) for ganks and the like. We used to say this all the time, we were different from other gaming communities because the idea of disco was not people being members of factions, as Hoodlum used to say, we aren't members of many factions, we are members of one faction and that faction is Disco. We want players from different parts of disco flying together and getting to know each other better. The more multi-factioning a player does, the more players on the server he gets to know, the more he can work things to have fun for everyone. Now, can that be abused? Yes, it can and has, but the abuse is not so bad that we should through out one of the underlying concepts of the community.
I agree 100% here, but still feel I must repeat my point and say that no one person should be in charge of two or more factions, it gives said person too much power and influence on the game and I'm surprised there isn't already a rule against it.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - SEI DeltaBase - 12-05-2016
(12-04-2016, 10:15 PM)Light Wrote: The POB Balancing also is a good idea, however it doesn't need to be changed as much as you might think. Here's what needs to change:
1. Siege time from 2 weeks to 3 days.
2. Weapon platform bug repaired.
i agree with these 2 points @Light i think it would solve most POB issues, my self being at the end of a wesker siege a day or 2 go i can tell you for a fact that if all 7 platforms WORKED!!!! then our defenders would have returned or the platforms them selves would have saved the bases, i seen them kill 2 vallors in a matter of 1 min when they "un-bugged" themselves for a very very brief moment and half of them started working again,
While some of you may think that if platforms did work the way there ment to it would be un fair as then someone could do what i did and build 7 or more and then know one could kill it,
well thats just wrong, i can guess that if they where all working right it would simply take better tactics to siege a base and not the current tactics of simply kill the defenders and you have won, the base WILL die, now that is a fact right now, the weapon platforms i built should have been more then enough to tip the fight back even after the defenders died based on the size of the attacking fleet and the weapon platforms stated weapon power,
the current system is flawed in so many ways and whats worse is everyone can see these bugs are being used by the attackers but yet know one who can stop them will.......
i must admit it does make you not want to continue down the POB path with these current flaws, i spent 3 billion plus on those bases with a goal to bring the so called war alive again,
ok it worked.... well kind of any how while the bases where there we had daily gallic RNS fights in leeds and on most days 2 or 3, where as before we built the POB there was luck to be 1 a week, and that was on a good week for that reason alone i will rebuild again an the war will continue but please
"FIX THE BUGS"
like really devs and moders and what ever, stop building and making more cr*p and FIX what we already have thats broken
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Felipe - 12-05-2016
(12-04-2016, 08:45 PM)Croft Wrote: I'd suggest changing the basic PoB siege mechanics to a torpedo ammo system rather than capital guns. By scaling the amount/cost of ammo needed to the level of the base being attacked (say 40 to 70% of the PoB's level cost) it'd ensure that conducting sieges would need similar effort as to actually building the targetted base whilst also adding a sensible credit-sink. This would allow every faction to potentially attack a base and add financial weight to any planned siege, so even if information is passed between factions, the cost would always need to be considered.
Thats best suggestion ive heard so far!
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Felipe - 12-05-2016
(12-04-2016, 10:15 PM)Light Wrote: @Xenon
I totally agree with the Faction Balancing part, since the the community here has shrunken we have many people in multiple factions. The essence of this -- which you hit right in the bullseye -- is a problem of OORP agenda and allegiances to multiple sides. It especially becomes a problem when those 2 sides are AT WAR with one another.
There should be a rule that you can only be in one official faction at a time. It just makes sense. An official faction should have dedicated members, with a collective agenda supporting one idea. If you have people in an lawful and unlawful official faction who operate in the same space, it just doesn't make sense.
The POB Balancing also is a good idea, however it doesn't need to be changed as much as you might think. Here's what needs to change:
1. Siege time from 2 weeks to 3 days.
2. Weapon platform bug repaired.
3. (optional) Croft's torpedo system idea implemented.
Other than that, the bases themselves work fine. It takes time and dedication to make the base, which is understood. Changing these 3 things should make sieges more deterrable and easier on the defenders, without being over the top.
I really think some way of sieges being costly to attackers (be idea of torpedoes, or ships that die during sieges REALLY die and are lost, with no respawn, or a costly one). Because, in my view, thats the point: Attackers attack again and again and again till win, and only spent in nanos and batteries, winning or losing, risks nothing. Defenders, if lose, lose months, maybe a year of hard work, in maybe an hour.