Discovery Gaming Community

Full Version: POBs and Attachment
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
This is an RP server, yet POBs are treated very ooRP, and hence events that take place around them receive an ooRP connotation and have a potential for drama. What I believe is that a POB should be treated as property of a character (or characters), and not of a player. If the POB is destroyed, then it should be the character who is angry, not the player. The player should be fully aware of this before deciding to construct a POB and not lash our personally against other players if the POB is destroyed. So: rename POBs to PCOBs (player character owned bases)?
POBs generally result in tears and salt when destroyed.

I would honestly be interested in a pob restoration scheme, based on a monetary fee, probably something quite considerable.

Technically speaking pobs can be restored quite easily, though GM workload is a matter of concern.
Lately there have been many attacks, destructions and attack threats without any chance of RP (communication threads like "To the owner of ..."), so no chance for the character to be angry, just the player can be angry....
That's the fault of the rules. They don't require RP for attacking core 1 POBs.
(01-10-2020, 03:13 AM)Thunderer Wrote: [ -> ]That's the fault of the rules. They don't require RP for attacking core 1 POBs.

This rule could be changed to be honest, more often than not the RP to attack a base is fairly minimal anyway. That, or say that when a POB siege is declared on a Core 1, the owner of that POB in RP has knowledge of the impending attack.
I think it's the huge time investment that players put into these bases before they are destroyed that often makes it so hard to accept. But really, you go into it aware of the risk.
(01-10-2020, 03:05 AM)Thunderer Wrote: [ -> ]This is an RP server, yet POBs are treated very ooRP, and hence events that take place around them receive an ooRP connotation and have a potential for drama. What I believe is that a POB should be treated as property of a character (or characters), and not of a player. If the POB is destroyed, then it should be the character who is angry, not the player. The player should be fully aware of this before deciding to construct a POB and not lash our personally against other players if the POB is destroyed. So: rename POBs to PCOBs (player character owned bases)?

There was at first a spark of hope when reading this, kind of like when you learn that the kid who has been tripping over his own shoe laces for 8 years suddenly realizes that something needs to be done about his shoe laces.

Then you read further and find out that the kid decided that it should be made against the rules for a kid to feel pain when falling flat on his face because he just tripped on his shoe laces, or because someone kicked him in the face. The pain should instead be transferred into his teddy bear, because that will clearly work, if the rules only said that it should.

Please tell me you that you're either drunk or intended to post this in flood and posted in general discussions by mistake.
(01-10-2020, 03:13 AM)Thunderer Wrote: [ -> ]That's the fault of the rules. They don't require RP for attacking core 1 POBs.

My two Core 2 bases in Munich tend to disagree. Of course I could make a communication thread, but some time ago it was good custom to open a channel as attacker towards the owner to make demands. As the owner you can't write in the internal communication thread of the attackers.
On second thought, despite being RP, destroying what someone has built with great joy in playing Freelancer in a community, is very dirty. Not everyone is belligerent. There are those who like fighting, piracy, etc., but others choose a milder path. It takes time and even years to set up such a project and suddenly finds itself powerless to prevent its suffering project being destroyed by a gang must be frustrating.
But I think it would be better to tighten up to authorize building a POB so there wouldn't be so many. Something like who, why and what for. A POB should serve everyone, even if there is an owner, who can be a person with a project of existence or a faction with a community service purpose.
This could be, and respected by other members, that is, not being able to destroy what is being useful, but only what is not properly supported and approved by a law of the server.
I think so.
(01-10-2020, 03:18 AM)Loken Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's the huge time investment that players put into these bases before they are destroyed that often makes it so hard to accept.

We have a winner!

I haven't lost any POBs to assault, but I've been in chats where someone basically had a meltdown over it, and that's exactly what it came down to.

This is a large part of why I think the current POB system is fundamentally broken and not conducive to a good environment.
Pages: 1 2 3