+- 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) - Laura C. - 12-05-2016
(12-05-2016, 11:08 AM)Ihtyander Wrote: Has anybody made a parralel anology -Bases have to be destructable because sometimes destruction is only acceptable outcome for sieging side. For example when there is base built without permission and in completely unacceptable area, be it for lawfuls, unlawfuls or basically anyone who claims the control over the area. Not to mention bases which are hostile to some local faction.
If your BS get destroyed in a fight - it is not forfeit for all time -you respawn
So if base destroyed in a siege why is destroyed permanent? Put respawn lockout time and all will be pleased from a prospect of RP.
Not to mention that sometimes there is almost no roleplay around the low core bases.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - eigos - 12-05-2016
The only solution to this problem is to make bases easier to build and maintain. We actually do need more base sieges, because it promotes activity and this was the whole purpose behind this mechanic - to give caps a legit task to perform in the game.
It really doesent help to see people cry about losing an imaginary base in some decade old game. For heaven's sakes, build another one! Or don't! All the issues here are 90% caused by people's emotional reactions, a mere 10% are an actual balance issue.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Sombs - 12-05-2016
I doubt making the maintaining easier will solve the issue, as people will still put effort into something that is able to be destroyed. If anything, sieges will always cause one side to be demotivated to build a new base, I guess.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - eigos - 12-05-2016
If some people cant handle the eventuality of it going kaput, don't build it. Simple as in real life - if you cannot deal with heights, don't apply for a pilot's license!
The majority in this community is well over 20 years old. By now, they should have learned how to deal with something as elementary as losing an in-game asset.
So, again - if core 1 bases are made easily buildable and maintainable (which IMHO they should - a small storage depot wouldn't be hard to make now would it), then losing it won't be such of a big deal! Even better, now you will know to hide it better!
Guys like Wesker like destroying things. But it is all part of the game! No big deal, no one gets hurt, life goes on. Also, one more reason to make POBs easier to build! It always promotes activity on both sides. Look at Spazzy's events - he is the first admin (ever) to make this system accessible and fun for everyone!
My point is, to take the burden off of POB owners who spent so much time building it, let us discuss on how to make them easier to build and maintain. Starting anew shouldn't be an issue! Hell, even if you lose 3 bases, you should be able to make a 4th without feeling so burned out, if bases are your thing!
Concrete proposition:
- Core 1 - build time is 24 hours, can be maintained by a single person with a 3k transport, can withstand a siege of up to 2-3 cruisers firepower for at least an hour;
- Core 2 - upgrade time is 5 days, can have more advanced weapons platforms, requires a bit more intensive maintenance, but still manageable by a single player. Armor and toughness are 2.5 times greater than Core 1;
- Core 3 - this should be like a small faction tier base. Has greater upkeep, again 2.5 times more tough than Core 2, will require much more effort to go down;
- Core 4 - An enterprise-level base with formidable defenses and access to all high level tech factories. Only factions would have the manpower to build and maintain those;
- Core 5 - Very grand in terms of upkeep, but also just as tough to destroy. Getting a base to this level should require much effort, but at the same time, those should be extremely difficult to destroy. Current lvl5's wouldn't compare to this.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Laura C. - 12-05-2016
(12-05-2016, 12:55 PM)eigos Wrote: The only solution to this problem is to make bases easier to build and maintain. We actually do need more base sieges, because it promotes activity and this was the whole purpose behind this mechanic - to give caps a legit task to perform in the game.Base sieges mostly promote detrimental type of activity. Basically there are two types of sieges:
It really doesent help to see people cry about losing an imaginary base in some decade old game. For heaven's sakes, build another one! Or don't! All the issues here are 90% caused by people's emotional reactions, a mere 10% are an actual balance issue.
a) Siege where the goal is fun and activity. In this case, sieging time is usually announced in advance to make sure there will be enough defenders. It happens very rarely, because in very little cases the base can be destroyed because defenders can usually reduce amount of attackers enough. But it bothers no one. Unfotunately this scenario happens very rarely.
b) Siege where the goal is destruction of the base, what is majority of them. Usually during such events, you see all kinds of foul play such as ganking (often combined with camping on access points), sometimes even bug (ab)using like with not working weapon platforms, rule lawyering and loopholing etc. Why? Because attackers need to prevent that defenders will be able to defend the base. Thus to reach the goal, you need to don´t give defenders any chance. Result is usually frustration of many players, sometimes even on both sides.
So no, I don´t think that current POBs sieging mechanism is good nor is the way how sieges happen.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Morigan - 12-05-2016
@ Laura C , i think you done here ...
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - SkyNet - 12-05-2016
- Remove the current PoB concept, but make npc stations more usefull, if this is even technically practicable.
- Deployable PoBs like battleships can still be used, but only as temporary docking point or destroyable target in events. Admins can still deploy PoBs for siege events, which is much better than destroying the effort of somebody.
- Give offical factions more control over their npc bases. Blacklists or temporary no-dock commands to limit access and prevent rogues from docking.
- Give npc stations modules with the ability to store/process/produce certain types of goods/equipment. For example, cloak factories should only be placed on bases with necessary RP background. The idea that everyone can build this dangerous alien technology is just crap.
- NPC station modules should be buildable. Recipes of these modules should include a low amount but huge variety of goods. Delivering ~3 types of goods in amounts like 25.000 units or more, only supports flying 5-K trains.
- NPC bases don't take damage, so no wear and tear, and no food consumption. It was an unnecessary and time consuming feature. The less effort i have to put in, the less is the disappointment when it's gone. Sieges can only be RP'ed and not really executed. The destruction of a npc base should only happen in the course of storyline events.
Just a thought.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Shaggy - 12-05-2016
(12-05-2016, 03:04 PM)SkyNet Wrote: - Remove the current PoB concept, but make npc stations more usefull, if this is even technically practicable.
- Deployable PoBs like battleships can still be used, but only as temporary docking point or destroyable target in events. Admins can still deploy PoBs for siege events, which is much better than destroying the effort of somebody.
- Give offical factions more control over their npc bases. Blacklists or temporary no-dock commands to limit access and prevent rogues from docking.
- Give npc stations modules with the ability to store/process/produce certain types of goods/equipment. For example, cloak factories should only be placed on bases with necessary RP background. The idea that everyone can build this dangerous alien technology is just crap.
- NPC station modules should be buildable. Recipes of these modules should include a low amount but huge variety of goods. Delivering ~3 types of goods in amounts like 25.000 units or more, only supports flying 5-K trains.
- NPC bases don't take damage, so no wear and tear, and no food consumption. It was an unnecessary and time consuming feature. The less effort i have to put in, the less is the disappointment when it's gone. Sieges can only be RP'ed and not really executed. The destruction of a npc base should only happen in the course of storyline events.
Just a thought.
I believe what Skynet is saying could work, the PoB concept now is just rubbish, I have seen alot of old players and newer players leave because of the PoB concept and they like the thought of actually trying to make some form of "Legacy" using the PoB Concept. I know players enjoy building these things, heck I was given a PoB at Core 2 for my official faction which will be used as a roleplay platform and eventually/hopefully something big will come out of it for the CR Story line, that is if I can put the work into it with the support of my fellow community players here. Not only that but the are several bugs with the current PoB concept that I have noticed.
1) Being given docking access but you're IFF does not allow it to dock even when you have matching IFF's.
2) The Weapon Platforms bugging out after being destroyed so many times.
3) If you put more DPS over the regen rate of the base supplies will lead to the base being destroyed as witnessed with the Kruger base in O7.
Then you look at both sides of the PoB concept.
1st) The time, effort one or a small group of players put in to build this PoB not only for them but as a community tool. Some players use them as a trade depot for not just their faction/group but for other factions. Not only the time and effort but look at the prices it cost to make such thing.
Core 1 Base (Right now)
Core One
- Players are not required to role play prior to building a Core 1 base, but any building or any attack must make inRP sense.
- Players are required to post a notice in the Attack Declaration thread, 8 hours prior to attacking a Core 1 base.
- Name, location and IFF of bases are permanent
Core 2 Base (Right now)
Core Two
- Players are required to post the name, IFF, system and purpose of their base in this subforum prior to becoming Core 2. These posts remain invisible and are only accessible by the server staff.
- Upon posting their existence, base owners will receive, from the admins, a set of 'blueprints' which is required for their upgrade. Blueprints are non transferable and will be absorbed in the upgrade of the base.
- Before a player/faction attacks a Core 2 base (or higher), they must role play either in game or on the forums and provide the link to this RP in the Attack Declaration thread.
- Any attack declaration for a base Core 2 or above must be 24 hours in advance of the attack starting.
. - Bases located within 15k of mining fields will not be permitted to advance beyond Core 2.
Core 3 Base (Right now)
Core Three
- If player/faction wish to upgrade to Core 3, they must file for a request in this subforum. In the request, they must provide more detailed role play and have demonstrated responsible behavior for at least one month as a Core 2.
- Once approved, base owner will receive, from the admins, another set of 'blueprints' to upgrade their base. Again, these blueprints are non transferable and any abuse will result in loss of base.
Core 4 Base (Right now)
Core Four
- Players/Factions that have proven responsible and productive role playing members of the community for at least two months as Core 3, may request to have their bases upgraded to Core 4.
- Once approved, base owner will receive, from the admins, another set of 'blueprints' to upgrade their base. Again, these blueprints are non transferable and any abuse will result in loss of base.
Core 5 Base (Right now)
Core Five
- Official factions that have proven responsible and productive role playing members of the community for at least three months as Core 4, may request to have their bases upgraded to Core 5.
- Once approved, base owner will receive, from the admins, another set of 'blueprints' to upgrade their base. Again, these blueprints are non transferable and any abuse will result in loss of base.
- With the upgrade to Core 5, wear & tear damage on the base will be disabled, and owners can further request the removal of FOW consumptions through a special roleplay request.
- Only one Core 5 base per official faction is permitted.
This is alot of server rules and requirements for a base to be built and upgraded. Not only this but think about the daily supply consumption of reinforced alloy, food rations, water, oxygen and crew. Then the price of each commodity for hired transporters to do this job. This all adds up to alot of money, alot of time. But what is required to Destroy/Siege a PoB. Let's take a look.
In order to attack a POB, a player/faction must have RP on the forums prior to attack as stated in Rule 3.5.
Quote:3.5 Roleplay is required before attacking or destroying a player owned base. The roleplay regarding this must be properly documented on forums, with the link(s) posted in this thread and should match the roleplay and conduct of the characters involved based on the faction they belong to.
So the player or players are required to roleplay before attacking or destroying a player owned base. But let me get this. So "Taxing" a player a ridiculous amount so they are -unable- to pay because the PoB takes too much money from them anyway, not only leads to the base being destroyed but also leads to someones hard work or a small groups hard work being destroyed because of One (1) post demanding 250+ million. This is rather ridiculous and the fact there is alot of grey areas which relate to PoB sieges is amusing. There are more Server Rules and Roleplay required to build a PoB. But not only that but the time and effort to build it, the roleplay for a Core Upgrade which is done like a Player Request which takes a day or two to a couple or weeks to even months before the admins approve of it. But what do the attacking side need to do?
They have to do "Roleplay" before attacking the base which as we have witness has been around taxing a base high amounts of money every month which is basically like slave labour for someone who is trying to enjoy the PoB concept of a base for someone being lazy and not being bothered to trade because they can tax PoB's billions of credits of they choice to being there is no rule saying otherwise. They also have to fill this out. - http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=110046
3.4 Attacking POBs (Player-owned Bases) without Roleplay/declaration (Attack Declaration Thread)
This is the only Server Rule that is revolving around Sieging a PoB. Compared to what is around building a PoB. There is a large grey area here and alot for the people who just want the easy money and to shoot things while getting that easy money.
The PoB concept could work if the Rules were for BOTH SIDES the attacking (Siegers) and the defending (The base builders) not more for 1 and less for the other. Not only that the ADMINS should approve of the PoB if there is enough roleplay behind sieging it, if the roleplay is within fact fairplay or if it is spitfull and done for ooRP grudges or hate which we know some bases have been. Not only this but there should be a cool down period for Siege Attacks.
So say I was attacking a PoB within Coronado and I attacked it and failed, I then have 2 weeks to go attack it again. It should be the case of if you failed then you get a cool down period of 1 month. So you are physically only allowed to siege 1 base per month per player/ faction. This again relates to having only 1 player per faction leader. This use to be the way if I recall correctly.
But if say Bretonia has "Z" leading both BAF and GRN then he has chose between who he flies for and as a faction leader of both factions this will effect the story and inRP game play because that one person can make the descisions for two factions at war. This should not be the case. If a player is faction leader or high command for BAF he should not be allowed to be faction leader or high command for GRN to keep things more evenly match. This will also stop people being power hungry and thinking they own 2 or 3 official factions everyone has to bow down to them because they lead more than everyone else. So they can start playing inside the grey areas of the rules.
But if I think more you will all know.
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - pulha - 12-05-2016
What @Shaggy said
The amount of rp and cost around base building should be equal to the amount of rp and cost of Base sieging/destruction
RE: POBs | Factions - Balance & Motivation (open discussion) - Xenon - 12-05-2016
(12-04-2016, 10:15 PM)Light Wrote: 1. Siege time from 2 weeks to 3 days.
2. Weapon platform bug repaired.
3. (optional) Croft's torpedo system idea implemented.
I totally agree with these 3 points, and i think they sum up most of the problems that i was talking about on the OP post.
Point no. 2 is extremely important and it require some serious attention
(12-04-2016, 09:34 PM)Laura C. Wrote: Well, my two cents:
Maybe it´s time to finally start talking seriously about removing POBs until the concept will be completely reworked. Time proved that POBs brought same amount (if not more) harm than good to the mod in the current form. It´s flawed on way too many levels and it brings the worst from the community, causing its reduction in the end.
Removing POBs completely is a way to go for sure, but it don't solve the problem
Removing POBs temporary will cause more loss of motivation to even continue later, so i think it should be fixed by a different method.
(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.
+1 Here, very good idea, and i know EVE works with something similar.
@Shaggy - You make some great valid points there mate
@gafwmn - I couldn't explain some points better than you did
@Zelot - I agree with what you said 100% and i would like to second that
@