Discovery Gaming Community

Heyhey!

Currently, we have quite some "POB in / very close to mining field" issues again and looking at the Skype chats, the mood and the likely outcome is clear. It's anger now, and it will be frustration on the other side soon.

Looking back, I think we can agree that nearly all of these situations ended in anger, frustration for the builder because it is either destroyed or they find out too late that they cannot progress past Core 2 (which again is a death sentence in the long run).

Furthermore, even on the winner's side of a "siege", often a "this was a waste of time" feeling remains. The fights around POB sieges are the most ruthless, and I have yet to see an enjoyable one. Judging by the reactions, there is an oorp-anger reaction by many if POBs in mining fields are spotted. "If in field, it must die!". Always.

Now, if I look at "who builds these bases", then it can be concluded that often rather inexperienced players do it. I read a lot "I want to have a positive impact, I want to make mining safer, I want to help the new guys... etc etc". That's a noble cause, and I started my Disco career with the same feeling and motivation and the wish still keeps me going - just that the POB-way is not a good one.

However, sadly the execution of this nice wish "I will make things better" often ends in negativity for practically all parties that are involved. That's something that Disco cannot afford.

---

Therefore, I would strongly suggest to:

1. Change the POB rules & Make them clearer: No more POBs in mining areas.

Currently (well hidden inside the Core 2 upgrade rules, so that I as a veteran in rules did not find it):

Quote:. - Bases located within 15k of mining fields will not be permitted to advance beyond Core 2.

Suggestion: Put it in the 1st line of POBs "Permitted locations for POBs". That's the most important part for POBs, and should be the most visible.

It should imo read:

Quote:POBs cannot be built closer than 15 k from the closest edge of mining zones

Why? It's the first instinct of inexperienced players to go for these places. Look back how experienced players placed their first POBs at the start before we learnt that we can damage the gameplay as players by these choices. Took a few years and a lot of grief, frustration and negativity, and not just a few players left and factions disappeared after frustrating culmination of events.

Let's avoid exactly that for our motivated players who actually want to do the right thing, but get it wrong because they lack the experience of years of play.

---

2. Caution note in rules about "roleplay laws still apply!":

Furthermore, this POB rule part should have a caution note on top also:

Quote:Constructing in a rule-wise legal place does not free the builder from in roleplay laws (link to laws) of Houses or factions that live in the region. Building e.g. without permission in House space will likely result in the destruction of the illegal base.

Why? Because this is another major source of frustration for the builder who did not know that there is an oorp and an in-rp set or rules. I also imagine "Your base is illegal!" standard roleplay with standard outcome is not what police and navy factions yearn for - at least I would hate it. Again, both sides lose.

---

3. Add these into the "on server green tipps".

Furthermore, both of these points should also be added to the "auto-display rule tipps" so that those players that are currently grinding the money for their POB dream come across them, see the warning and inform themselves about the traps that most of course have no idea about.

Happy discussion!

Jack

This actually should be a thing and I completely agree with it.

As a casual new guy, I see a POB and think "that looks pimptastic", with zero eye for the, in some cases, literal years of effort that went into it, because the only forum pages I've ever seen were the index, rules, and the download page.

With more rules tips being readily available, I will be able to understand exactly what I am getting into better, and won't kick myself later when I log in-game and find my beautiful base blown up because I failed to RP for it properly.

---

This is the tale of >50% of all new guys I've helped in Penny. Tips like the one you suggested would be genuinely helpful

I dont really care about the distance to mining fields. Would be great if there was a way where people stopped permanently destroying or threatening other people's hard work though.

The feeling I have is that as long as a base somehow in some way gives someone the impression of giving them a harder time (be it inside a mining field, or a docking point 15 k away, or offering a weapon-platform base-hugging opportunity, or it simply offering a view of something they dont want others to see), they will always find a reason to blow it up, even if the reason is only in their head. Even if its 15k or 30k away, someone is going to take offense at its existence, if they want to. And if there is no real reason to explode the base, they will make one up.

As I already said in another related thread, I think the best solution would be to make the POB plugin into a PPOB plugin (partially player owned base) where people rent space/build extensions on existing NPC bases.

When docked on NPC bases one can enter a name and password to enter POB mode, from where one can rent storage space for goods that can be used to build gear on those bases (nearly identical to current POBs).

Failure to pay rent will result in loss of access, failure to pay rent for a month will result in loss of the PPOB and all contents.

People with existing POBs could request their assets to be moved to an NPC base of their choice. Or it could just an additional feature beside the other POB one.

Positive aspects of this:
-no fear of getting blown up by mean people
-no diplomacy mess
-players are focused into the same locations, instead of being spread across to far away locations where they hide their base
-no POB spam in annoying places
-not a big loss if you choose to stop feeding for a while. Players can make IRP "bank vaults" where they store things for other players who don't want to maintain their own.

One downside to this is that it lacks the feeling of creating something unique.

Maybe make easy-to-use PPOBs as an alternative to otherwise heavily regulated SRP POBs.

It's far too easy to build a POB. Setting up a core 1 base can be done without much work at all and that's how we end up in a situation where people who are new to the server, or just not familiar with the forum side and house laws, don't understand why their bases are getting blown up.

In Dublin last night we had an encounter while mining Gold. This chap said about the newly constructed 'Armed Forces Depot'(Unregistered base) at 2E.. "Why do the Bretonian bullies get to build here but this pub has to be left to rot" I continued to explain to him that, that too was an illegal installation and will soon be moved. But it made me wonder.. What was the builder thinking? that the base would be safe from destruction because of its name suggesting an affiliation with house military??

POB's are great, don't change them.. Just make it harder to make a Core 1 and so on.. Make it a faction perk or an SRP

(10-07-2017, 09:59 AM)Smokey. Wrote: [ -> ]It's far too easy to build a POB. Setting up a core 1 base can be done without much work at all and that's how we end up in a situation where people who are new to the server, or just not familiar with the forum side and house laws, don't understand why their bases are getting blown up.

I would support it. Making the "entrance level" harder, would make the learning period for inexperienced players longer and give them more of a chance to realize the pits and traps on Disco.

Perhaps also put some warning into the "base building platform" infocard? Some might read it.

Quote: What was the builder thinking? that the base would be safe from destruction because of its name suggesting an affiliation with house military??

This is where I have long disagreed with the rules. I do not see why a POB that has a lawful house IFF and is built in a "normal" place can be removed by lawfuls. This should be handled via "stick to your ID rules". A House lawful cannot shoot another house lawful with the same or a green/friendly ID. I do not see how (in your example) a BAF-IFFed POB that suggests by name that it is in support of House Lawfuls could be destroyed by lawfuls. It should not be allowed, imo. It makes no sense in-roleplay, yet we have seen tons of "same ID kills same IDed POB" many many times. Also a rule I would change.

A simple solution is to add Modular Station Blueprint commodity at let's say 250M to be the required cargoto build POB and it having a warning infocard.

This way, you add small detergent to lol-bases, small money sink and an extra ingame description of what to expect from POBs.

(10-07-2017, 11:18 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2017, 09:59 AM)Smokey. Wrote: [ -> ]It's far too easy to build a POB. Setting up a core 1 base can be done without much work at all and that's how we end up in a situation where people who are new to the server, or just not familiar with the forum side and house laws, don't understand why their bases are getting blown up.

I would support it. Making the "entrance level" harder, would make the learning period for inexperienced players longer and give them more of a chance to realize the pits and traps on Disco.

NO! Just NO!
Seriously, you want to make things EVEN HARDER? The result will be the same, except instead of hours and days lost, it will be weeks to months lost. Imagine that frustration. It is better if your base is blown up after few days work, than after weeks of planning and building.

When Core1 is blasted, it is no big problem, you can have that base setup again in a very short time. But loosing Core2, where you really had to put effort and credits into it? That is completely different story.

(10-07-2017, 11:44 AM)SnakThree Wrote: [ -> ]A simple solution is to add Modular Station Blueprint commodity at let's say 250M to be the required cargoto build POB and it having a warning infocard.

This way, you add small detergent to lol-bases, small money sink and an extra ingame description of what to expect from POBs.

So instead of loosing few milions worth of stuff, the owner of blown up base looses 250M? How is that going to help? Also it effectively disables one of the possible uses for POBs, temporary installations, for few hours/days/weeks, where the owner knows, that the base will not last and is not even planned to.

Yes, your suggestion goes against my plans with POBs.

(10-07-2017, 11:18 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps also put some warning into the "base building platform" infocard? Some might read it.

That is actually a good idea. Whole discovery could benefot from more infocards. One of the things that bothers many new players is that they have to go to forum to get information, instead of getting them ingame.

(10-07-2017, 11:18 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: What was the builder thinking? that the base would be safe from destruction because of its name suggesting an affiliation with house military??

This is where I have long disagreed with the rules. I do not see why a POB that has a lawful house IFF and is built in a "normal" place can be removed by lawfuls. This should be handled via "stick to your ID rules". A House lawful cannot shoot another house lawful with the same or a green/friendly ID. I do not see how (in your example) a BAF-IFFed POB that suggests by name that it is in support of House Lawfuls could be destroyed by lawfuls. It should not be allowed, imo. It makes no sense in-roleplay, yet we have seen tons of "same ID kills same IDed POB" many many times. Also a rule I would change.

From my experience, there is a big difference in WHERE the POB is built. In Liberty, you just build a POB, file up a registration application and if your base is not unlawful or something like that, it is aproved no problem. In Bretonia, you have to ask for permission BEFORE you build, or else your POB will be demolished no matter what. Just check the registration threads/forums.

I will leave the whole "siege" or "not siege" question out, because that is for another thread entirely.

What the POB system needs, as well as pretty much any other part of Discovery, is more simplicity and more clarification in the rules and information. Be it server rules, or house/faction rules/guidelines.
Infocards could be great for this, as players could learn things ingame, instead of browsing forums while alt-tab trading. The trouble is, that someone needs to write them. And no one is going to do that, if they will not be implemented ingame.

(10-07-2017, 11:53 AM)ronillon Wrote: [ -> ]What the POB system needs, as well as pretty much any other part of Discovery, is more simplicity and more clarification in the rules and information. Be it server rules, or house/faction rules/guidelines.

+1, definitely!

Make it simpler and easier. Give links direct to House rules regarding POB's both server requirements and separate houses.

Base Construction Ships with Infocards a must.

Don't change the Core 1 requirement to buying blueprints. Base building is a key retainer of membership. It is fun, and if it was expensive it is not worth the risk of trialling and practice first. Pop-up POB's can be really good RP makers. And sometimes as we all know, a temporary base will peter out of existence when the owner gets tired of it.

(10-07-2017, 09:59 AM)Smokey. Wrote: [ -> ]It's far too easy to build a POB. Setting up a core 1 base can be done without much work at all and that's how we end up in a situation where people who are new to the server, or just not familiar with the forum side and house laws, don't understand why their bases are getting blown up.

So I'm not the only one that realizes setting up POBs is child's play.

ITS SO HEART WARMING