First of all, there should be a definition of what exactly is reasonable.
Can Enclave siege Bretonian POBs in Dublin if they have RP about this? Yes, they can. They should not play nice guys who gonna hug your miner because you are civilian.
Can Red Hessians siege POBs within Rheinland and Omegas? Yes, they can. Their nemesis is DHC and, iirc, Kruger - these two corporations are KOS for RH lorewise and thus their POBs as well.
Hellfire Legion? Same.
Outcasts' commit raids around all the Sirius (except for Rheinland) with the help of their allies within the houses. Why should they play nice with the guys who pay bounties against them?
Reasonable should have something less subjective than "you can't siege my pob because it's not reasonable!", you should definite what can and cannot be reasonable. As long as there no definition of this - all threads like this, where you try to protect your Tamagotchi with rules are nothing more than fart to nowhere.
tl;tr - definite what is reasonable or finally stop posting threads like this. Thanks
(06-08-2020, 06:24 PM)Groshyr Wrote: [ -> ]First of all, there should be a definition of what exactly is reasonable.
Can Enclave siege Bretonian POBs in Dublin if they have RP about this? Yes, they can. They should not play nice guys who gonna hug your miner because you are civilian.
Can Red Hessians siege POBs within Rheinland and Omegas? Yes, they can. Their nemesis is DHC and, iirc, Kruger - these two corporations are KOS for RH lorewise and thus their POBs as well.
Hellfire Legion? Same.
Outcasts' commit raids around all the Sirius (except for Rheinland) with the help of their allies within the houses. Why should they play nice with the guys who pay bounties against them?
Reasonable should have something less subjective than "you can't siege my pob because it's not reasonable!", you should definite what can and cannot be reasonable. As long as there no definition of this - all threads like this, where you try to protect your Tamagotchi with rules are nothing more than fart to nowhere.
tl;tr - definite what is reasonable or finally stop posting threads like this. Thanks
Groshyr,
Eh. Your point about some "necessary exclusions" from having to make demands seems reasonable. I'll consider this, in part, value-adding feedback.
(Nemesis factions may not need to make demands; some ID clauses or rule exceptions would apply) - Sure
However, your opinion that everything has to be very well defined is not really fair to me. The piracy demands rule is not very well defined; some things can be left to player interpretation. Would you like to challenge the piracy demands rule and demand that it be super specific? If not, please do not label posts or polls as not being useful if
simply has personal preferences on forum posts. Are you that special?
The conversation was about reasonable demands but somehow you are trying to turn it into a discussion of what the piracy is
Instead of a silly rule that can be subjectively interpreted, there should be objective mechanics in place to help in situations like these.
For example, why wouldn't all the corporations of a house pay a shared tax to a central account (owned by the GMs) that could be used to refund (part) of the damages the POB owners suffer through POB sieges that end up in POB destruction.
Maybe the House Governments could levy additional taxes after attacks to help repair the infrastructure? Would certainly make all corporate entities in a House much more likely to help during a POB siege, if their wallets were at stake too... or is that not possible because POBs don't exist in canon and the Governments need to act true to the lore ?
Or you could make something like POB insurance. Where the owner pays a flat rate per Core level and is guaranteed a refund in case his POB ends up being destroyed.
With the (presumed) upcoming rebalance of POB economy numbers to make them less time-consuming to supply it should make the loss of a POB much more bearable...
(06-08-2020, 06:35 PM)Groshyr Wrote: [ -> ]The conversation was about reasonable demands but somehow you are trying to turn it into a discussion of what the piracy is
I'm obviously "not trying to turn..." anything - there are some parallels between an
already-existing Reasonable Demands rule and a
potentially proposed Reasonable Demands rule.
If I knew you were a troll or not capable of debating fairly in a topic sensitive to you, I wouldn't have replied to you in the first place - no more discussing with you in this thread.
(06-08-2020, 06:42 PM)LuckyOne Wrote: [ -> ]For example, why wouldn't all the corporations of a house pay a shared tax to a central account (owned by the GMs) that could be used to refund (part) of the damages the POB owners suffer through POB sieges that end up in POB destruction.
Seems interesting, though this could unleash a whole other discussion because there are already "Lawful Government" circles that have people receiving massive personal profits from extortioning players.
(06-08-2020, 06:42 PM)LuckyOne Wrote: [ -> ]Or you could make something like POB insurance. Where the owner pays a flat rate per Core level and is guaranteed a refund in case his POB ends up being destroyed.
Interesting too - thanks for your post.
Note: Hostile Refers to Faction against base, could be any faction against a Base.
New Rules need to be inplace for Base Attackers and bases
1. There needs to be a Referee (Admin) for base killing.
2. There has to be a Declaration form filled out before a base can be attacked, and Approved By above listed Admin.
3. Needs to be a set Fee for Offences Set By Server Vote for Offenses and Numbers of times. and what happens if Owner does not Comply.
4. There has to be a Documented Reason why a base should be Destroyed listed on form and rules Broken, And Fines Listed against Base owner.
5. a Sustained Blockade needs to go up when the base has been given time to be Contacted. Blocading a base should also get the owners attention. this would allow a Owner to know about the Declaration if they don't use the forums. (Alt) Idea, New NAV Buoy placed in front of base entrance 0.5k away. Stating the Base is Listed on (A Base Fine)(Base Kill Order)(Etc)
6. Any POB Faction not involved in Hostile action towards any System in Said space area should be given a chance to remain. Paying for the right to stay. a base just being there should not Ever be allow to be a reason to Kill a POB as long as it gets permissions from all factions in that space first. Being a House Corporate POB factions or Pirate POB should not be allowed to be a Reason to kill a base. Fines on a case by case basses could be brought against the POB Owner. Permission to place a base could be bought with a single Charge of something like 300 Million per level or something.
7. There Needs to be a rule list that a POB must break in order to get them on a Base kill Notice.
1. Own or allied Faction Pilots being Bought and sold on a base. (Has to pay Fine) for 1st and 2nd Offense.
2nd Fine doubles. If fines not paid in x amount of time a Declaration for base kill can be filed. If Hostile Catches Base still selling Pilots Heavy Fine can be placed not ever to exceed x amount of Credits for Final Fine.
2. Contraband on Base per Hostiles Faction. (Has to pay Fine) for 1st and 2nd Offense. 2nd Fine doubles. If fines not paid in x amount of a Declaration for base kill can be filed. If Hostile Catches Base still selling Pilots Heavy Fine can be placed not ever to exceed x amount of Credits for Final Fine.
8. A Hostile faction can Request and or Give a POB the Option to move a base from where it is, into a different System, or to another location within the same system. this one allows Both sides to get what they want. No base there, But have to give ADMINs time to move it. but Base has to be locked down to everyone during this time and not allowed to be used. Can Only be stocled with FOW and base needs not one Item More.
Any Other Ideas?... Lets get Ideas from all Sides of the Subject
Referee (Admin) Needed for base killing.
There needs to be a Referee (Admin) for base killing. and a Limit! on Base kills. The Referee looks at how the death of a base would affect the server before he approves or Disapproves the base for Destruction.
maybe rules have to be broken against a faction, and Proved before a base can be destroyed. Remember some bases are in use for Years and helps out the Server for that whole time. Killing a well established base just because it is there is not right at all! and should never be allowed. even in RP, Unless it is a New Temp Base Just placed, With no Approvals. I think that the Hostile side to the base should be demanded to at least give a base owner a Chance at Some Kind of Agreement. That said also to be Fair, there has to be Proof enough that the base Owner has been been contacted or given the time needed to reply and or Fix the problem.
now if the Base owner Says that they will not negotiate at all. then the ADMIN can give direct permission for the Siege / Attack to Begin. if the base is a well used Base the Hostile faction can Blockade the base denying access by anyone tell the base owner submits for x amount of time. once that time has ended and a Settlement is not reached then the Hostile faction can be given the Right to destroy the base by the ADMIN. But if a Fine by the Hostile faction to the base Declaration is Paid, the paid statement must also be posted to the ADMIN.
Things that should be setup for the post.
1. Each base will have it's own Post page when and Only when a Declaration has been filed. and All RP and or agreements are worked out on there, ADMIN will Monitor all Active post on that page. and ADMIN will also clear any None related post to that subject. After a Agreement has been completed, the Post will be Archived at the bottom of Old Post that will be Listed in a Single Post at the top of the page, First post. Listing all Offenses and Fines in the Past, If the base is Destroyed, the Post is Removed. Thoughts if someone makes a new base with the Same name? in or out of the Same System or house space?
Other Ideas
1. A Permanent One time fee Agreement No kill order Per Faction for a POB can be reached for X amount of Credits Never to exceed 1 Billion Credits for that base.
2. ADMINS Should allow Any POB to be moved or Stored offline for safe keeping for the standard 1 Billion Credits. and replaced back in the game at a selected time later. (Even during Kill order) Both Sides get what they want, No base there.
3. A Form Must be filled out for the Below #2 Stating: Faction Filling out the form, and going to Attack the base. have to be Same. System, Base, Reason, and Proof for a Base kill Request.
4. Before a faction can get permission to kill a base. Evidence must be shown why the base needs to be destroyed. Pictures, Direct Chat pulls from DSAce.log (Chat log) etc. with date and time.
5. Just because the base is there Doesn't give you the right to kill it. if it is not a Military POB base, or used to launch attacks From a System. then the base has broken no laws if no Evidence can be provided.
6. If a Pic of a Military, Or Pirate type faction Craft Docking or leaving the base for Direct Combat Perposiss is against the rules for said base. then a fine cam be issued.
(06-08-2020, 05:03 PM)Skyelius Wrote: [ -> ]Hey Thyrzul,
That's a fair question, though... this thread deals with the absence of a rule, not the quantification of demands; seeing that piracy fairness rules is open to player judgement as Mep commented, and I personally think that would be enough.
The piracy fairness rules aren't up to player judgement though, they are up to staff judgement, but since the case is not that complex with traders getting pirated, as I've earlier pointed out, we players can (and do) have a reasonably accurate estimation on staff judgement regarding those rules. However, there are a lot of significant differences between a piracy encounter and a PoB siege.
This thread seems to deal with the absence of a rule about limiting demands, which necessarily involves the quantification of demands, like it does in the piracy fairness case. I would assume that one would propose new rules once certain that the rules are enforcable, but you seem to imply such checks and assessments are not necessary. Why?
There should be higher quality standards to deploy POB
(06-08-2020, 06:58 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: [ -> ](... ) you seem to imply such checks and assessments are not necessary. Why?
Thyrzul,
It is not at all that I imply that they are not necessary; it is that the final implementation of such a specific rule
would not have numbers in its wording, for the purpose of this thread (which is
the question on whether such ruling can help better ensure gameplay quality regarding Player Owned Bases - a yes/no question).
I also did not want to engage in a super lengthy discussion involving numbers, especially since I am not a POB owner nor POB destroyer.
(06-08-2020, 07:00 PM)SnakThree Wrote: [ -> ]There should be higher quality standards to deploy POB
I'd like POBs as SRP but this is just additional work for game masters.