Pobs in mining field sure. They harm piracy as much as they make for quick and easy ore storage.
But LIS and other bases in front of House capitals? What are those interfering with? Besides i can assure you that if you park your ship on front of manhattan, your are going to be killed by the docking ring missiles rather than LIS platforms. John explains it better in the post above, its not like LIS is instakilling things or blocking something or providing a quick escape from piracy or whatever. And on top of that Its still very easy to get around LIS and evading it completely.
But nonetheless if you're on an unlawful, you do -not- belong in -Manhattan orbit-. Just like that, and its not like anyone is going to pirate there anyways. Manhattan is like the capital, the heart of Liberty, so what kind of cutting-edge roleplay of yours is this harming or interfering with? Dogfighting in front of the Mooring fixture? Or parking some scylla or a Ranseur on top of Newark?
Regarding POB's around NPC stations, perhaps not the same IFF, BUT they should have the same allowances of that IFF. If say a Junker can dock on a Bretonian NPC base, then the POB should allow them as well, even if different IFF. That'd be my two cents.
I'm not supporting any particular bases, I'm just arguing that inrp and in game options should be used before someone cries activity killer, because you can't prove it'll improve activity.
Jump drives and cloaks get past area denial bases to the point where you can siege them. My post was demonstrating this subject is layered and signers are choosing to stop at one layer, while others see that as people out only for their own needs.
There is always someone crying that pobs should be removed.
Granted admins moving things because of pobs is nothing new. They've moved mining fields before. Not sure why that hasn't been mentioned.
Posts: 1,885
Threads: 172
Joined: Feb 2013
Staff roles: Systems Lead Server Administrator
Admins don't move mining fields, developers do.
Yes, factions could buy sixteen cloaks to get around a blocking base and use those to engage the POB, but why on earth should they? Why do they have to spend hours of their lives getting rid of something that offers no positive gameplay experience to anyone?
You think sieges are positive for activity? Sure, they get people to log, but I don't think sixteen people sitting AFK alt-tabbed firing cerbs at a station is necessarily engaging or quality activity. Neither is trying to deal with incredibly frustrating bases that only seek to make it more difficult for people to interact. And then, when that base gets destroyed (INSTEAD OF BEING MOVED), both sides end up with an activity slump, because one just had to sit around for HOURS to blow up a base, and the other just lost one of their largest investments.
I've been crafting a post on this for some time, but it turns out anxiety does a lot of things to your motor skills that make it a lot harder to type and think properly. TL;DR oh god please no
Well if it's anxiety like you say...
Why should someone call for rule changes when they sit high and mighty like a god
in their own PoB over a base & dish petitions out for other to adhere to?
Wanting one rule for us & another privilege for them doesn't sit right with me at all.
Looks like a case of "My daddy's got a Porsche and you'r scum so get out my way"
(10-24-2016, 11:35 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: If you support this petition, put your name into a post and state that you want to sign up.
I will edit it into the OP to include your name.
Thank you for your support.
Quote:Dear Admins,
This is an open petition signed by the following players asking you to remove all Player-owned bases from jumpholes, jumpgates and mining fields and to place them into locations that are in accordance with the rules (not closer than 15k).
We think that area denial bases and hole/gate blocking bases should not have a place in today's Disco any more.
This motion is the logical consequence of the public poll (http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=144389) in which more than 70 % agree that there should not be any bases closer than 15k from mining fields and the poll in the faction leader channel (http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=138247). In this one 19 out of 24 faction leaders (= 79 %) voted to "Remove all POBs from mining fields and their direct vicinity (also those that were grandfathered in)", (19 agreed, 3 disagreed, 2 neutral).
If it's possible could anyone please put the list (or at least where to find that info) of POBs? Which POBs are blocking the Jump Holes and Jump Gates and which POBs are in the mining field and where?
(10-26-2016, 01:54 AM)NOVA-5 Wrote: Wanting one rule for us & another privilege for them doesn't sit right with me at all.
If you can explain to me why "same-IFF NPC-POB clusters" are harmful to gameplay, I'll take your attempt to accuse me of double standards seriously. Perhaps read my comment on the reasoning in this thread post number #43.
As I said there, I am not opposed to moving all bases away from every object (gates, holes, mining fields, NPC bases, lanes), however separating NPC and POB bases of the same IFF would in my opinion to more harm than good because it creates two "safe spots" that can be used to end interaction, instead of just one.
Quote:After this, life will be all spams of orgasmic blue and free pirate moneyz and submissive RPs to meh.
Feeling a little dramatic today, do we?
A Disco experience necessary for every player is: make a pirate. Play it for 10 hours. Look at how many blues and how much free money you made, how much submissive rp you got... and how utterly bad and frustrating pirating in Disco is. It will change the way you think and feel about being pirated.
Regarding POB's around NPC stations, perhaps not the same IFF, BUT they should have the same allowances of that IFF. If say a Junker can dock on a Bretonian NPC base, then the POB should allow them as well, even if different IFF. That'd be my two cents.
This one actually deserves a separate reply.
It's true that not only "same-IFF NPC-POB clusters" make rp-wise sense, IF the IFFs really fit well.
An RM base near Planet New Berlin (RFP IFFed)? => yes
A Hessian base near Planet New Berlin => no
An ALG base near an IMG base? => yes
An IMG base near a BMM base => no
The only rule wording I can think of would be... something... clumsy... however roleplay combinations that make sense are somewhat cool, imo, and would keep a multitude of spread-out safe zones from springing up, plus lead to a concentration of POBs in certain areas.
Quote:POBs can only be placed closer than X k from NPC bases when the reputation between NPC and POB IFF are full green/friendly/+0,7/...
That's the best I can come up with.
Something like that would kill of no-rp combinations (example: OC base claiming Freeport 10) and would allow reasonable things like a Navy base near a Corp base, or a Corp base near a Planet.