Discovery Gaming Community

If anything, make PoB killers have to RP to attack even if the base is core 1.

(01-30-2017, 11:33 AM)CzeReptile Wrote: [ -> ]Ill drop a quickie here, which is half stolen from other spacesim.
Make POB run on fuel. If they get attacked and shields get drained for sufficient amount, make it invulnerable (still dockable) and come out of the invulnerability at set time as to make it an event. If besieging party aint doin anything for lets say 3 to 4 hours after shields are down, it goes to previous state.

You're not the first to suggest Eve Player Owned Starbase mechanics either (:

Good. I think they work.

So nothing changed here, right? Are Devs still working on the idea that a faction needs to build a PoB-like siege platform to compensate the lack of a battleship of a faction, which totally isn't abusable against the other faction that might not have a battleship?

Instead of simply making it an event?

I and a friend of mine talked about this, and we realized that the most important resource in PoB's is time. Meaning the amount of time sinked into making said base, organizing the supplies, orchestrating constant maintenance, and how much time you have to sink in in order to get it running again, versus how much time it takes to take one down.

We came up with this idea of "siege bases".

> Current mechanics are that PoB's are invulnerable to any form of attacks whilst the base's shields are up. We thought this was fine, and should prevent the shenanigans of random peeps wanting to take potshots out of your precious base. We also thought that base shields should be a GIVEN when it comes to a base, in that you don't need to supply fuel to keep a shield running, and it'll keep running 24/7 under normal circumstances.

> "Siege Bases" are a category of POB's that you can only build beside an already-existing base, and its role is to slowly reduce the shields of the POB you want destroyed, until it's deshielded. A deshielded base is a fragile base, and a single SNAC blast would be enough to down it, just like in NPC bounty missions.

> How it works is that you take a base constructor with the regular base supplies, set it at most 5km from the POB you want destroyed, select the POB (this'll be important), and then type /siegebase. This'll set up your POSB.

> While the POSB is active, every hour that passes it will reduce the shield integrity of the POB by 1%, out of a 100% total. To keep the POSB active, you'll have to constantly resupply it, just like a regular POB. Once the POB's shield integrity is at 0%, any ship is free to shoot at the fragile POB.

> Depending on how how many POBs can exist at a time in a system, ideally I'd like to be able to set up multiple POSB's against a POB to quicken the amount of time it takes to deshield a POB, or barring that you'll be able to 'upgrade' the POSB. In any case, more/higher POSBs will cost more resources to keep the siege momentum.

> If you don't keep it active, the POSB will QUICKLY deteriorate, and explode. In addition, while the POSB is inactive, the POB will also regenerate its shield integrity by 1-5% an hour, depending on its Core Level. So long as at least one POSB is active, the POB won't regenerate its shields.

This system hopes to not only give defenders enough time to respond to a base siege, but for the attackers to also need to put in equal amounts of time and effort into destroying an asset the defenders worked so hard to set up in the first place. And it also hopes to lessen the drama by taking the 'player' out of engaging POB's directly, and instead makes the POSB do the heavy lifting, while the players themselves focus on blockading and shooting each other.




tl;dr - make POBs inherently invincible behind their shield, without needing special fuel to keep them that way; idea for 'siege bases' that slowly reduces the POB shield to make them vulnerable; POSB need as much time and effort to setup and maintain to destroy a given POB; this would at least lessen the drama by making players focus on other players and letting POSBs do the heavy lifting.

(02-15-2017, 02:30 PM)Mr.Fabulous Wrote: [ -> ]I and a friend of mine talked about this, and we realized that the most important resource in PoB's is time. Meaning the amount of time sinked into making said base, organizing the supplies, orchestrating constant maintenance, and how much time you have to sink in in order to get it running again, versus how much time it takes to take one down.

We came up with this idea of "siege bases".

> Current mechanics are that PoB's are invulnerable to any form of attacks whilst the base's shields are up. We thought this was fine, and should prevent the shenanigans of random peeps wanting to take potshots out of your precious base. We also thought that base shields should be a GIVEN when it comes to a base, in that you don't need to supply fuel to keep a shield running, and it'll keep running 24/7 under normal circumstances.

> "Siege Bases" are a category of POB's that you can only build beside an already-existing base, and its role is to slowly reduce the shields of the POB you want destroyed, until it's deshielded. A deshielded base is a fragile base, and a single SNAC blast would be enough to down it, just like in NPC bounty missions.

> How it works is that you take a base constructor with the regular base supplies, set it at most 5km from the POB you want destroyed, select the POB (this'll be important), and then type /siegebase. This'll set up your POSB.

> While the POSB is active, every hour that passes it will reduce the shield integrity of the POB by 1%, out of a 100% total. To keep the POSB active, you'll have to constantly resupply it, just like a regular POB. Once the POB's shield integrity is at 0%, any ship is free to shoot at the fragile POB.

> Depending on how how many POBs can exist at a time in a system, ideally I'd like to be able to set up multiple POSB's against a POB to quicken the amount of time it takes to deshield a POB, or barring that you'll be able to 'upgrade' the POSB. In any case, more/higher POSBs will cost more resources to keep the siege momentum.

> If you don't keep it active, the POSB will QUICKLY deteriorate, and explode. In addition, while the POSB is inactive, the POB will also regenerate its shield integrity by 1-5% an hour, depending on its Core Level. So long as at least one POSB is active, the POB won't regenerate its shields.

This system hopes to not only give defenders enough time to respond to a base siege, but for the attackers to also need to put in equal amounts of time and effort into destroying an asset the defenders worked so hard to set up in the first place. And it also hopes to lessen the drama by taking the 'player' out of engaging POB's directly, and instead makes the POSB do the heavy lifting, while the players themselves focus on blockading and shooting each other.




tl;dr - make POBs inherently invincible behind their shield, without needing special fuel to keep them that way; idea for 'siege bases' that slowly reduces the POB shield to make them vulnerable; POSB need as much time and effort to setup and maintain to destroy a given POB; this would at least lessen the drama by making players focus on other players and letting POSBs do the heavy lifting.

Your proposal does not consider level of a POB and that is not right. Killing core 1 POB should not require same amount of effort as killing core 5 POB. It needs to be scaled, because killing level 1 POBs should be relatively easy (because their construction is fast and easy, setting them up takes like an hour). Otherwise they would be great tool for trolling, imagine that lawfuls would have to spend tens of hours of organized effort to remove every single illegal base dropped in some place where it should not be. That will become demotivating pretty fast.

And by the way don´t expect that drama will be lessened much regardless of system. There will be always drama when there is real loss at stake. After all, there is drama even when nothing is lost and people can just click the respawn button.

In my opinion, one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue, is activity. It seems to me like people would have a lot less of a problem with the fragility of POBs if they had enough people on to put up a decent defense. Obviously people get on when they can, but the greater majority of us split our time between multiple characters, and many people seem to only get on certain characters if there's action for them at the time, and then switch to another once it's over. While that keeps things interesting, it also distracts people from properly caring for their bases, and nobody likes their base destroyed, even if they only occasionally checked up on it just enough to make sure it's still there.

My point is: Seriously consider the activity level of your faction, and any allies able to help build/maintain/protect your base. POBs, in my opinion, should add value to wherever they are built, and should be seen as the centerpiece of any faction that builds one. They should have more meaning, and be more of a factor inRP, rather than just an expensive target for anyone outside your faction's timezone.

Obviously the activity level of the server itself is a different topic, and there are plenty of other factors to consider regarding POBs, but I just wanted to share my point of view.

P.S.-I may have only been here around a month, but I really enjoy this server, and the POB mechanic, regardless of the controversy surrounding it.

(03-09-2017, 01:57 PM)Sola Virtus Invicta Wrote: [ -> ]In my opinion, one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue, is activity. It seems to me like people would have a lot less of a problem with the fragility of POBs if they had enough people on to put up a decent defense. Obviously people get on when they can, but the greater majority of us split our time between multiple characters, and many people seem to only get on certain characters if there's action for them at the time, and then switch to another once it's over. While that keeps things interesting, it also distracts people from properly caring for their bases, and nobody likes their base destroyed, even if they only occasionally checked up on it just enough to make sure it's still there.

My point is: Seriously consider the activity level of your faction, and any allies able to help build/maintain/protect your base. POBs, in my opinion, should add value to wherever they are built, and should be seen as the centerpiece of any faction that builds one. They should have more meaning, and be more of a factor inRP, rather than just an expensive target for anyone outside your faction's timezone.

Obviously the activity level of the server itself is a different topic, and there are plenty of other factors to consider regarding POBs, but I just wanted to share my point of view.

P.S.-I may have only been here around a month, but I really enjoy this server, and the POB mechanic, regardless of the controversy surrounding it.

Nailed it!

Remove them and make npc stations more usefull. Give offical factions more control over their npc bases.

The biggest issue i see here is that base sieges are always connected with ooRP hate. Or have you ever seen a Kudos of former PoB owners after their beloved base got killed? You usually hit the respawn button after losing PvP. This does not work for PoBs. Hence base sieges will never be in favor of PoB owners.

Furthermore you need battleships to do some damage to bases. I believe that factions without access to battleships are disadvantaged here once again. And those who have access to battleships, are logging a fleet that does not exist iRP. Why? Because you need them to -win- the siege. Today you see offical factions logging ~20-50 battleships for sieges, maybe only a few of them with offical tag, to use this ridiculous excuse: "Hey, you can't control indies."

This is still a RP server after all. A fleet that does not exist iRP, should not exist. Period.

Well, why would someone want to siege a base when they haven't the means to do it? Some factions simply don't have the power inRP and have to rely on allies. Oh noes, diplomacy. There is pretty much no faction without an ally that can access battleships, so that's a rather moot point.

I strongly recommend to not remove the PoBs, because everyone building one was aware of the danger of it getting destroyed the very moment they placed the base. The problem are not the PoBs, but how people have no loss at failing a siege. Something that can easily avoided by not implementing a dumb second instance like siege platform but by this: Link