Discovery Gaming Community

This isn't going to be a full write-up of how it should be since there definitely needs to be discussion around it and cannot yet be set in stone. Forgive the formatting as well, it has been quite some time since I did BB formatted posts and don't have some of the templates I used to use here as my original account was lost.

Some key items I've already talked about on the Discord server are:

• Core Level 2 and up become immune to damage from players.
  
• As a result of this immunity, the Shield Module is removed.
  • This is so that Core Level 1 bases can be dealt with as routine cleanup, with siege declarations allowing enough time to upgrade to Core Level 2.
    
• Sieges against Core Level 2+ bases will be done through an event.
  • Currently I've discussed what would potentially be a 2-part event. With set objectives for both the attackers and defenders.
    
  • The events around POB Sieges would not have any front-end admin involvement unless there is some dispute regarding participants.
    
• How a base comes out of a siege would be determined through these events.
  

Some simple questions with these changes.

• Why siege a base if it is immune to damage?
  • Sure, it would be immune to regular pvp-styled damage.
    There would still be consequences to losing a siege -- just not a binary outcome of "You keep your base" or "You lose your base"
    
    
  • Currently: The primary method of dealing with a base is: Battleships, and only Battleships.
    Plural, not singular. Generally giving preference towards Heavy Battleships and of course those with Siege codenames weapons.
    
    
  • One of the goals of doing the sieges through an event styled structure would be to allow multiple ship classes to be involved in a siege rather than just one of the heaviest and most expensive class of ship in the game. This could then incorporate transports, gunboats, cruisers, etc, and even fighters/bombers all the way down to light fighters.
    
  
  
• What consequences are there for a successful siege? -- This is where a good bit of discussion has happened on Discord.
  • These could vary quite a lot.
    • Loss of storage contents (transferred to the attackers as spoils)
      
    • Potentially a Core downgrade, which could cause it to lose damage immunity by dropping to a Core Level 1.
      
    • Maybe even temporary occupation of the base.
  
  
• What consequences are there for a failed siege? -- This hasn't come up as much in discussion.
  • I'd rather not tie players to a require a monetary amount for in order to conduct a siege.
    Rather, a failed siege could result in a longer cool down period between sieges than if the attackers had been successful.
    

Remember: This is mainly for discussion, opinions, and suggestions, so feel free to add.

Think you should have faction imunity if u only have a single POB

Junkers only have 1 POB now that GRN have wiped out there base in liberty

Quote:Core Level 2 and up become immune to damage from players.

Solid idea, I can see that working out so well for everyone...not.

Quote:Sieges against Core Level 2+ bases will be done through an event.

I get a feeling that this would make sieges even more obsolete than they already are, not to mention putting Wesker out of a job.

Quote:Why siege a base if it is immune to damage?
Sure, it would be immune to regular pvp-styled damage.
There would still be consequences to losing a siege -- just not a binary outcome of "You keep your base" or "You lose your base"

Currently: The primary method of dealing with a base is: Battleships, and only Battleships.
Plural, not singular. Generally giving preference towards Heavy Battleships and of course those with Siege codenames weapons.

One of the goals of doing the sieges through an event styled structure would be to allow multiple ship classes to be involved in a siege rather than just one of the heaviest and most expensive class of ship in the game. This could then incorporate transports, gunboats, cruisers, etc, and even fighters/bombers all the way down to light fighters.

Not much point in going to all the trouble of creating an event to take out a POB unless it is actively hindering activity around where it is.

Yes, multiple battleships are required to destroy a base. Get over it.

Who ever said that the other ship classes cannot be involved in a siege? Just because they might not be shooting the base does not mean that they are of no use. Light fighters (Dunno why people use ships that can get 1 hit killed by a mine) all the way up to battlecruisers can be tasked with eliminating the defenders. Hell, bring a CAU8 battle transport if you see fit.

Quote:What consequences are there for a successful siege? -- This is where a good bit of discussion has happened on Discord.
These could vary quite a lot.
Loss of storage contents (transferred to the attackers as spoils)
Potentially a Core downgrade, which could cause it to lose damage immunity by dropping to a Core Level 1.
Maybe even temporary occupation of the base.

Generally any items that are worth anything are moved to a ship to prevent loss of said items.

Core downgrade? The point of a siege is to destroy the base, not downgrade the core.

Occupation? How are you going to do this? Ask the owner to give up the master password and have the admins change the IFF for the time being?

(09-07-2018, 02:18 AM)Greylock97 Wrote: [ -> ]Solid idea, I can see that working out so well for everyone...not.

Opening up with snarky comments, yea I can see you want your opinion taken seriously...not

(09-07-2018, 02:18 AM)Greylock97 Wrote: [ -> ]I get a feeling that this would make sieges even more obsolete than they already are, not to mention putting Wesker out of a job.

If sieges are obsolete, then clearly there is something presently wrong with them that people would want to change for the better, why keep something that is admittedly broken?
I honestly don't care how it affects an individual player, no use namedropping. Boohoo.

(09-07-2018, 02:18 AM)Greylock97 Wrote: [ -> ]Not much point in going to all the trouble of creating an event to take out a POB unless it is actively hindering activity around where it is.

Alright, then make all POBs invulnerable and placement must be approved by an admin. Problem solved, right?

(09-07-2018, 02:18 AM)Greylock97 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, multiple battleships are required to destroy a base. Get over it.

Get over yourself. Yes, this is specifically the problem with how things currently are. Especially when you consider the imbalance between what factions have available to even try to siege a base.

(09-07-2018, 02:18 AM)Greylock97 Wrote: [ -> ]Who ever said that the other ship classes cannot be involved in a siege? Just because they might not be shooting the base does not mean that they are of no use. Light fighters (Dunno why people use ships that can get 1 hit killed by a mine) all the way up to battlecruisers can be tasked with eliminating the defenders. Hell, bring a CAU8 battle transport if you see fit.

Of the sieges i've seen:
A) Attacks on the base generally only occur when no one is around to defend. No one wants to sit there for what could be 30 minutes or 2 hours before enemies show up, if they do in fact show up.
B) If there are defenders, everyone including the battleships break off the attack to deal with the defenders showing up. Only exception has been IF the base is low enough that the base can be finished off even if all allied ships are defeated.

(09-07-2018, 02:18 AM)Greylock97 Wrote: [ -> ]Generally any items that are worth anything are moved to a ship to prevent loss of said items.

That is true, currently. Though lets say some updated implementation of POBs allowed preventing withdrawal while a base siege is on-going.

(09-07-2018, 02:18 AM)Greylock97 Wrote: [ -> ]Core downgrade? The point of a siege is to destroy the base, not downgrade the core.

Cool, so siege it. Win the siege, and continue sieging it until it is destroyed. That is what people currently do anyways.
Hell, a severe enough loss and perhaps even a Core 2 gets destroyed (perhaps through successfully landing a NEMP on the base).

(09-07-2018, 02:18 AM)Greylock97 Wrote: [ -> ]Occupation? How are you going to do this?

Trust me, I get it. You want things to stay the same as they have been. You have no interest in changing something even if it may be in a bad condition as is. You're against it, all good, all you had to say if you had nothing constructive to add.

If a developer (especially the one for that plugin) says none of this would be possible then so be it.

Everything works fine now.

Would not say everything is fine, but none of the proposed ideas would make it any better.... lololol

(09-06-2018, 11:40 PM)Its Raisu Wrote: [ -> ]One of the goals of doing the sieges through an event styled structure would be to allow multiple ship classes to be involved in a siege rather than just one of the heaviest and most expensive class of ship in the game. This could then incorporate transports, gunboats, cruisers, etc, and even fighters/bombers all the way down to light fighters.

You know, Core 3+ need a lot of cash, online time to both make it happen AND to keep em alive, and RolePlay for admins do give it the blueprints.

Making enough Weapon plataforms on a core 2 to have a slight chance in defense means aswell a lot of hauling, making it infact very expensive (if you consider that the usual profit w trade is around 100m/hour, and the time one is hauling commodties for making defenses he could be trading) and top of that means base will be worthless for anything else (no enough slots)

So you want to be able to destroy billions work using multiple VHF/Bombers (ie, not only you risk nothing, but need 0 effort)

(09-06-2018, 11:40 PM)Its Raisu Wrote: [ -> ]Sieges against Core Level 2+ bases will be done through an event.
The events around POB Sieges would not have any front-end admin involvement unless there is some dispute regarding participants.

Sooo, one need not only ask admins to get the pob above core 2, haul a lot, pay a lot, and go and do RP for it (we playing in RP server, notjust a bigger conn) but you suggest that to destroy other guy work you need put no effort, take no risk apart fail, can possible lose nothing (apart maybe pride) and top of that dont need ask admins about....

Let me guess: you never constructed a pob and upgraded it past core 2, right? And if built a pob at all, never needed defend it, am i right?

Peace Brotah, i suggest you make a pob and upgrade it past core 2 *BEFORE* you make more suggestions about, because apparently you have no clue about what you talking.

(09-06-2018, 11:40 PM)Its Raisu Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe even temporary occupation of the base.

I doubt that would work. Imagine if Gallic forces took a PoB near Planet New London and occupied it. That would not last long after Liberty, Crayter, Bretonians, Gaians, Outcasts and Council amassed their military assets to that base to oust them. So what would be the point of occupying the base?

(09-07-2018, 05:41 PM)OrignlGaminGeneration(OGG) Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt that would work. Imagine if Gallic forces took a PoB near Planet New London and occupied it. That would not last long after Liberty, Crayter, Bretonians, Gaians, Outcasts and Council amassed their military assets to that base to oust them. So what would be the point of occupying the base?

Would not last long in what way? I assume you believe it'd be sieged and destroyed. Well, good news, everything about this whole thing intends to lead to outcomes other than base destruction. "Temporary occupation" -- Sieged an occupied base before its temporary occupation would have ended on its own? It gets returned to its original owner sooner.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to respond to this, Felipe, already kind of understand your position from Discord and you want to be off the subject for now.

(09-07-2018, 12:30 PM)Felipe Wrote: [ -> ]Would not say everything is fine, but none of the proposed ideas would make it any better.... lololol

Ah, so...make a suggestion.

(09-07-2018, 12:30 PM)Felipe Wrote: [ -> ]You know, Core 3+ need a lot of cash, online time to both make it happen AND to keep em alive, and RolePlay for admins do give it the blueprints.

Yea, I do know every bit of that -- a number of people who don't do POBs likely understand that since the investment is likely one of the reasons they don't do it.

So, maybe we cut the "holier than thou" bit. After the little chat on Discord this seems to be an extremely bad characteristic about you along with assuming what someone else thinks or understands and "quoting" things that weren't actually said by the other person.

(09-07-2018, 12:30 PM)Felipe Wrote: [ -> ]Making enough Weapon plataforms on a core 2 to have a slight chance in defense means aswell a lot of hauling, making it infact very expensive (if you consider that the usual profit w trade is around 100m/hour, and the time one is hauling commodties for making defenses he could be trading) and top of that means base will be worthless for anything else (no enough slots)

So you want to be able to destroy billions work using multiple VHF/Bombers (ie, not only you risk nothing, but need 0 effort)

Sooo, one need not only ask admins to get the pob above core 2, haul a lot, pay a lot, and go and do RP for it (we playing in RP server, notjust a bigger conn) but you suggest that to destroy other guy work you need put no effort, take no risk apart fail, can possible lose nothing (apart maybe pride) and top of that dont need ask admins about....

A group wanting to attack a POB takes no true risk at things currently are anyways. They either successfully battleship spam the station to death or they don't. You seem to have a complaint about the attackers not having a risk associated on their end of a siege yet you do absolutely nothing to suggest a change to that.

Finally, one of the key points to all of this, and of the opening post, is to not leave the only possible outcomes for a siege as: Base lives or Base dies and all is lost. No one is suggesting to make it easier to destroy the time effort and credits someone has put into a POB. You don't seem to understand this because you're too caught up in being hostile to someone you know nothing about.

(09-07-2018, 12:30 PM)Felipe Wrote: [ -> ]Let me guess: you never constructed a pob and upgraded it past core 2, right? And if built a pob at all, never needed defend it, am i right?

Peace Brotah, i suggest you make a pob and upgrade it past core 2 *BEFORE* you make more suggestions about, because apparently you have no clue about what you talking.

Whether I have or have not done either of these things is irrelevant when you consider the thread is for ideas from others for changing how POB sieges are currently done. I certainly know what goes into them, especially for ones that may have been around for years, if any.