Discovery Gaming Community

Full Version: This is how POBs changing location/IFF/name could work
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
There are various aspects of POBs that can be detrimental to gameplay, but many people only became aware of them long after their POB grew in size and invested effort, and by that time it's not "worth it" for them to rebuild the POB using another location, name, or IFF. Other times, circumstances like surroundings or owner change, and corresponding iff/name/location changes would make for better gameplay and RP/immersion.

Until now staff have stated that location, name, and IFF of a POB may not be changed unless exceptional things like mod changes require it, even if it would technically be possible. Possibilities of "abuse" of name, iff, location changes were mentioned, and probably the workload of processing requests could become too great if people think they can just build and then easily change anything they want.

Before outlining possible rules and requirements for having name/location/iff changes approved, I think some misconceptions about POBs, which always get spread in these kinds of threads, should be addressed. They are mainly oversimplifications of one aspect of POBs, as if that aspect has to occur every time and can't be avoided with regulations.


Misconception 1: POBs near NPC bases are generally bad

[Image: cVH6MJR.jpg]
That can be true if the POB has an IFF that is hostile to ships that could normally dock on that NPC base. It can be true if the POB blocks the NPC base dock/launch points, guns, or traffic circulation. It can be true if the POB ruins an otherwise aesthetically pleasing view around the NPC base, if it's placed in a crooked or otherwise weird way, or if it has a name that just doesn't fit the surroundings.

But all of these things can easily be forbidden with regulations and by providing guidelines on how to place the POB well, relatively to the NPC base. Not only in change requests, but also in pob rules and house laws. POBs can be almost invisible or look like realistic additions to an NPC base (see screenshot on the right). A cluster of NPC stations and POB also has the positive effect of focusing activity onto hotspots, which encourages player interactions and role play.

Furthermore, POBs that are built at a distance from NPC bases and trade lanes commonly create other negative impacts on gameplay: They draw the owner's activity away from those busier places and send them along long and lonely cruises where they dont interact with anyone. They often also look weird and out of place, and when they aren't attached to an NPC base where the kind of position can add variety, they all look the same. They create more run-to docking points and making it harder for players who catch them (if the POB docking point is right next to a NPC docking point, it makes no difference in that regard). They also create a larger "denied area" even more so if they have weapons platforms (if the POB is right next to the NPC base, their "denied areas" overlap and are smaller in total).


Misconception 2: Area denial by defense platforms is generally bad.

This is true in places like inside or too near to mining fields, because it grants immunity to piracy. It's true when they block travel. But there are places in Sirius where an IRP "safe space" makes sense both IRP and OORP, for example in front of capital planets, so role play isn't constantly destroyed by bands of "capital planet raiders", and fleets can form without its members getting picked off one by one by the enemy as soon as they launch (this helps especially new players who don't coordinate through discord yet). These 2 aspects can also be separated with rules and regulations. In "intermediate" places where neither of them applies, it's possible to allow defense platforms only when under siege.


Criteria that should be met before applying for POB IFF/Name/Location changes

- POB must already be above core 1. Core 1 POBs can just be torn down and rebuilt elsewhere relatively easily

- All name or IFF changes cost 500 million credits

- All location changes cost 1 billion credits, and must provide a set of /pos coordinates and a screenshot of the location. The location will be fine tuned by GMs if it ends up looking different than expected

- No change may be requested while the base is under attack declaration. If you want to appease the attackers, negotiate with them and have them retract the declaration so you can apply for a change

- POBs will not be moved closer than 20k to a mining field

- The new location must not block traffic, docking points, jump holes, lanes, NPC station guns, and must be aesthetically pleasing.

- The IFF and black list of the POB will not target ships that can dock on nearby NPC stations.

- Even if all these criteria are met, Game Masters can choose to reject a request if it is detrimental to game play for other reasons than those listed

Feel free to suggest more criteria or point out problems and improvements on this.
Good idea(s)!

But only one small change:
(03-10-2020, 11:55 PM)Karlotta Wrote: [ -> ]- POBs will not be moved closer than 20k to a mining field
Server Rules Wrote:Bases located within 15k of mining fields will not be permitted to advance beyond Core 2.

So i won't take 20k, i would take 15k...
Great ideas all around. Maybe add speculation that IFF change cannot do 180 turn, where lawful IFF gets changed into foreign or non-lawful, etc.
All LN stations next to Manhattan into LR IFF, por favor
*Puts hands up*
But miss? how would we know that these pobs built inside of NPC base zones
are not get the protection of the NPC base?
How would we know that abuse isn't being had?