+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Player Base Defense (/showthread.php?tid=122720)
Player Base Defense - Karst - 11-11-2014
Okay so I could have sworn I've made a thread about this before but I couldn't find it.
Anyway, a recent sanction reminded me of this issue (note: I was not involved in that in any way).
So we have a thread for base attack declarations. I think it's pretty problematic that we don't have a thread for base defense declarations.
It seems to me like this would be an obvious mirrored thing: you can attack any base with any ship that makes sense inrp by declaring it.
But, you cannot defend a base except if your ID allows you to engage whatever the attackers are bringing, wherever the base is located.
As it stands people can "defend" a base even with ships that have no business doing so by simply using an ID that has generous engagement privileges in the area.
Very often, this is easiest on an unlawful ID active in that region.
Which leads to the undesirable effect of people just using Outcasts or whatever because they have convenient IDs, rather than ships of a faction that actually has agreements with the base owners.
Seems kind of counterproductive that you can do all the RP you want to help defend a base but it's still against the rules, while "lol guise lets make hessian cruisers to defend base X cuz they can shoot everything there" is perfectly fine.
This is especially problematic for bases with freelancer or no IFF, as you can't even use the ID of the base's IFF to defend it.
I believe there should be an identical thread for defense declarations: a faction or individual can make a defense declaration with links to relevant comms, which would allow them to defend it as long as it's realistic for their faction/ID to do so.
Thoughts?
RE: Player Base Defense - Jack_Henderson - 11-11-2014
I definitely agree (as someone whose members have got caught in such a sanction).
There should be that "pledge defense" counter action to the "attack PoB" thread.
And: if you are more closely linked with a base, you should be allowed to defend it simply according to the fact that you are involved in it. In the case of Cameron, the IMG| kept it alive for months (until I took a 4 weeks break and it died).
If you spend time onto something, you should be allowed to defend it. That's roleplay logic to defend an investment.
Jack
RE: Player Base Defense - nOmnomnOm - 11-11-2014
As a base owner I agree this can be an issue for making sure who can defend....
BUT
The ID also says something along the lines of "may defend...blah blah blah allied bases" ???
Is there ? i just forgot now.
What I mean to say is....
Will you need to RP just as long as the attacker does just to have someone to help defend?
Or cant you just have RP threads that link to your ally that in effect can just mean who you have to protect you.
RE: Player Base Defense - Karst - 11-11-2014
(11-11-2014, 05:15 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: As a base owner I agree this can be an issue for making sure who can defend....
BUT
The ID also says something along the lines of "may defend...blah blah blah allied bases" ???
Is there ? i just forgot now.
As far as I know, only Police/Navy/Intelligence IDs can do this, and only within their ZOI of course.
Unlawful ID's don't really need this as long as the area is in their ZOI since they can generally shoot anything.
But all others are left out. It's especially problematic for freelancers: I'd say it makes perfect sense for a freelancer organization to be contracted to defend a base, but the rules don't allow it at the moment (unless the base owners are an official faction that can blanket bounty all attackers).
Quote:Will you need to RP just as long as the attacker does just to have someone to help defend?
Or cant you just have RP threads that link to your ally that in effect can just mean who you have to protect you.
I'm....not sure I understand what you're asking here?
What I mean is there should be a thread exactly like the Attack Declaration Thread: link to RP relating to the base's defense, and your ships can defend it.
RE: Player Base Defense - nOmnomnOm - 11-11-2014
Just like....
what do you mean exactly by defence decleration?
As in....
Here is my base being attacked from [link the attack deceleration thread]
Here is my allys that support me [link all of them]
is that it?
Can you provide a template?
RE: Player Base Defense - Highland Laddie - 11-11-2014
Quote:The ID also says something along the lines of "may defend...blah blah blah allied bases" ???
I was gonna say...MOST IDs (not just military) usually have some clause saying that you may defend allied ships/bases etc., which POBs should probably fall under.
Is there a specific scenario you had in mind that NEEDS a defense declaration to be legitimate?
RE: Player Base Defense - GamerGirl - 11-11-2014
If a faction is in their ZOI and allied with the base they should be able to defend it. This seems in my eyes the logic view behind the id's and playerbases.
RE: Player Base Defense - Binski - 11-11-2014
I'd say with freelancers, if you throw it on the base desc that they're cleared to defend, isn't that like a standing contract? Or if there's RP of a 'contract' for base defense, FL's should be able to defend any base, as long as they have an agreement with the base owner.
Which means really any base should be able to enter into an arrangement with any parties (as long as its acceptable inrp) to defend the base, but should post pre established info indicating as such. However, the ZOI/ROE's of defending ships still determines if those ships can act would have to be followed of course, getting that negated or expanded depending is a whole other issue. Meaning, you could RP all you want that you have a base and RP the OK for a Zoner group to defend it, but if its not a Zoner base, their ID trumps that agreement.
I agree, a defense declaration certainly makes sense, especially to help avoid sanctions and confusion. But it is probably smarter for each base to have pre-existing arrangements, put it on your base description so its always there to see by everyone via the player base status list. The defense declaration would more so be to help groups like FL's engage to defend a base that they do have such an arrangement with. Or it could be vice versa, and something like OC's defending a FL base. I have no problem with that if there was evidence of a pre-existing arrangement, and its not totally ridiculous inrp.
EDIT: FL's do allow for escort contracts. So why need a blanket bounty on all attackers, when really hiring Freelancers to defend a base is the same thing as hiring them for escort contracts. Just because the base doesn't move doesn't mean its any different.
RE: Player Base Defense - Highland Laddie - 11-11-2014
Quote:Is there a specific scenario you had in mind that NEEDS a defense declaration to be legitimate?
Also, if you're basing this thread on the events in Omega-9 with Cameron, that seems was more a problem of ZOI, not of needing a POB defense declaration. Get the ZOI fixed and the problem goes away.
RE: Player Base Defense - Karst - 11-11-2014
(11-11-2014, 05:34 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: Just like....
what do you mean exactly by defence decleration?
As in....
Here is my base being attacked from [link the attack deceleration thread]
Here is my allys that support me [link all of them]
is that it?
Can you provide a template?
No, it shouldn't be linked to an attack declaration. The point is to preemptively allow defense agreements regardless if a base is already under attack. The template should be something like this (basically a copy of the attack template).
Name of player(s)/faction(s): Name
Name of Player Owned Base: Name
Link to RP showing intent to defend: <Link>
(11-11-2014, 05:35 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote: I was gonna say...MOST IDs (not just military) usually have some clause saying that you may defend allied ships/bases etc., which POBs should probably fall under.
Key words being "can defend ships". Can you point me to a single ID that isn't military, police or intelligence that includes allied bases, and not just ships?
Or is that just some assumption you made without actually looking at the IDs?
(11-11-2014, 05:37 PM)TheUnforgiven Wrote: Which means really any base should be able to enter into an arrangement with any parties (as long as its acceptable inrp) to defend the base, but should post pre established info indicating as such.
[...]
I agree, a defense declaration certainly makes sense, especially to help avoid sanctions and confusion. But it is probably smarter for each base to have pre-existing arrangements, put it on your base description so its always there to see by everyone via the player base status list. The defense declaration would more so be to help groups like FL's engage to defend a base that they do have such an arrangement with. Or it could be vice versa, and something like OC's defending a FL base. I have no problem with that if there was evidence of a pre-existing arrangement, and its not totally ridiculous inrp.
That's pretty much my intention here. Allowing groups to make agreements with base owners (or even with themselves - for example, a freelancer group building a base and making a thread about organizing their own defense).
Which would allow ships to defend a base even in situations that their ID wouldn't allow it, with the limitation as you mentioned of it being "reasonable" in roleplay.
(11-11-2014, 05:40 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote: Also, if you're basing this thread on the events in Omega-9 with Cameron, that seems was more a problem of ZOI, not of needing a POB defense declaration. Get the ZOI fixed and the problem goes away.
I'm not really basing it on that - I've been meaning to post this for a long time, and I'm pretty sure I actually did but I couldn't find it. I was merely reminded to do so by that event.