Alright, I discussed this a bit with AD in skype, but I think it might warrant a thread.
Currently, ID and engagement rules remain unchanged in regards to POBs, except for 5.3 d): Players < lvl 30 may be attacked if attacking a POB.
However, I see this as problematic.
Attacking a POB isn't like attacking an NPC base. It's more like attacking a player, since it directly affects the time and effort of players in charge of the base.
And yet, there are no restrictions whatsoever regarding which ID and ship can attack a POB. This is fine, there shouldn't be.
But defending, on the other hand, is highly restricted. The rules for engagement of base attackers are the same as general engagement rules, so theoretically people could be sanctioned for defending their base, unless their ID allows them to engage ships with the attacker's ID.
As far as I know this hasn't happened yet, but I think there need to be more clear rules regarding POB defense.
What I suggested in skype and what I'm going to suggest here is:
POB threads list registered defenders, individuals and tags, that are permitted to attack players assaulting the base in question, in a manner similar to how bounty boards work.
I mean like I said, I don't believe anyone's been sanctioned for this, but technically players defending their base would be open to a pvp-related sanction.
(05-07-2013, 01:32 PM)Karst Wrote: As far as I know this hasn't happened yet, but I think there need to be more clear rules regarding POB defense.
I think =LSF='s siege on Melbourne Station (MBS) after it was first constructed may apply here, I think [LN] and SFC| vessles engageing =LSF= vessles would probably come under 6.9. However nobody was reported as far as I'm aware, and I know for a fact nobody was sanctioned over it.
I do think people should be allowed to defend thier own stations as these kind of unusual sieges seem to happen on a daily basis, just yesterday I saw an LNS- tagged LN ID'd LABC shooting at Long Island Station (LIS). Defenders of stations like MBS and LIS though are obvious, since ofcourse SFC| and [LN] will defend thier own stations and eachothers without much hesitation. But I could definatly understand it with other player bases, I mean, other than the two previously mentioned I have no idea who'd come running to the defence of other stations.
Was about to post the same Karst. Lets take the current [AI] Faction as example: They build a base in Sigma 13. GMG tries to destroy it. Technically AIs are not allowed to defense their own base, even though attacking their base means attacking an AI.
Begs the question why those [AI] people build a base in an area and using an ID with which they aren't allowed to defend it in the first place. Rather silly, is it not?
So far noone has posted a sanction report on AI cruisers engaging in response to a base siege, but going by the letter of the rules, they -are- in violation when doing so (just as Zoners -are- in violation when they go Nomad hunting and shoot first - make a note of this <ZA>). The only exception are factions who have a line akin to "may attack ships in order to defend bases of the same affiliation" on the ID - which I believe the majority of the lawful factions have. Since Player Bases can be set to a specific affiliation, they are covered under that line on the player IDs.
It kind of screws over Freelancers and AI's, but those factions aren't really basebuilders anyway. And, once the AI cruiser is fixed, I doubt it'll remain as popular (yes, I know the targeting marker on the hitbox isn't in a good spot. That will be/is already fixed in 4.87, tyvm).
Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.
Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.
If that means attacking terrorists that AI considers, the [AI] would mount Special Operative IDs... that's practically ineffective because it's too expensive. Therefore in the first place AI should build a base in a system that doesn't have a jumpgate.
I think people should just use common sense. Treat the POB as a player, if the guy would be inrp to attack a player of that faction, fine he can attack that factions base. If a guy would be inrp to defend a player of that faction, fine he can defend that factions base.
User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)
Nope, Hone, because then you get really silly situations when people build bases in awkward locations (outside their ZoI for instance).
Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.
Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.
(05-07-2013, 10:36 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: Begs the question why those [AI] people build a base in an area and using an ID with which they aren't allowed to defend it in the first place. Rather silly, is it not?
So far noone has posted a sanction report on AI cruisers engaging in response to a base siege, but going by the letter of the rules, they -are- in violation when doing so (just as Zoners -are- in violation when they go Nomad hunting and shoot first - make a note of this <ZA>). The only exception are factions who have a line akin to "may attack ships in order to defend bases of the same affiliation" on the ID - which I believe the majority of the lawful factions have. Since Player Bases can be set to a specific affiliation, they are covered under that line on the player IDs.
It kind of screws over Freelancers and AI's, but those factions aren't really basebuilders anyway. And, once the AI cruiser is fixed, I doubt it'll remain as popular (yes, I know the targeting marker on the hitbox isn't in a good spot. That will be/is already fixed in 4.87, tyvm).
I don't see anything wrong about shooting nomads if its well within the rp, and when considering the fact that we are always on Team-Speak, we Never attack first, the only time we attack first is when people violate 1.2 guidelines, that is when people exploit the zoner ID restrictions intentionaly. Actually now that I think about it, were not the only ones, TAZ PHEONIX FREELANCERS.
Regarding POBS, if its your base, it means its your home, defend it or not its up to you, but no one should tell you what to do in these situations, its a free world.
(05-08-2013, 07:12 AM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: Nope, Hone, because then you get really silly situations when people build bases in awkward locations (outside their ZoI for instance).
What do you mean? I thought this was about when It's ok to attack/defend POBs, not where its ok to build them?
User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)
I have been pondering this - the solution I figured was to have several different types of character parked near the base - say the base is in NL then a BAF, Corsair, Molly and Junker would cover the majority of factions. This way whatever faction finds and attacks the base if I am about would be able to do something with it.
![[Image: jWv1kDa.png]](https://i.imgur.com/jWv1kDa.png)
![[Image: AshHill07.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/AshHill07.gif)
