+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Siege bloodlust (/showthread.php?tid=180256)
Siege bloodlust - Sniper - 05-30-2020
I start this post with a request for robust debate but please! Leave the negativity, and toxic/personal attacks out. No rules-lawyering, but constructive challenging of a view appreciated.
I have made an impromptu list which I think may facilitate discussion, which I hope will benefit the game and engender more enjoyable and positive player experience.
1. Sieges are a valid and part of the game.
2. PoB's are the heart and soul of many peoples raison d'etre to play Discovery.
3. Sieges that destroy the hard work of players is harming the community.
4. Sieges that destroy POB's also destroy ongoing RP, ends potential in-game interaction and substantially reduces PvP gaming pleasure.
RE: Siege bloodlust - jammi - 05-30-2020
On principle, I don't entirely agree with points 3 or 4. POBs were always intended to be destructible, and the fact that someone may destroy the base is an inherent risk to constructing one. They were pitched as group activities, with the expectations that groups would invest into both the maintenance and defence of the asset.
That said.
Currently a lot of the negative sentiment around sieges comes from the fact that the time and value investment is extremely asymmetrical between attackers and defenders. Defenders will have potentially invested hundreds of hours and billions of credits over a protracted period of time and stand to lose that permanently should the base be destroyed. Attackers conversely, stand to lose very little save shield batteries and a couple of hours spent in-game. Even that time investment is trivialized by AFK sieging.
POBs do need to be re-examined, in terms of both the mechanics of health/regen/decay, and the current investment disparity between attackers and defenders. My preference is to add an upkeep cost to sieges by implementing a specific siege-weapon that is necessary to damage POBs, which itself consumes ammo in order to fire. This adds a cost to attacking bases as well as maintaining them. Sieging would still have no-where near a similar cost to building, but it would provide pause for thought on whether flippant sieges were worthwhile.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Champ - 05-30-2020
I don't expect everyone to thoughtfully write out considered explanations of why they disagree, and there will be disagreements.
But I do expect everyone to behave and I will be watching. All of the warnings that were issued in the earlier edition of this discussion apply and will not be re-issued.
On a personal note I cannot fathom why you started this anew, but I hope we get some good arguments (I.e. reasoned opinions) out of it.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Shiki - 05-30-2020
1. Sieges part of the game.
2. They happen.
3. POBs are destroyable object and when you invest time in those you know the risks of it being gone.
4. POBs that are being spammed in numbers, for example, around a single mining field are no way beneficial to the server in any shape or form, aside from blunt money-making.
5. Players who chose to siege POBs are the same as players who build POBs and I doubt that anyone has the moral right to demonize them, as you attempt to do for the last few days.
6. There are numerous problems with POB plugin that needs to work on without hotheaded drama that you are trying to create.
@jammi there are already siege turrets. They are expensive and serve as an only meaningful tool to remove POBs. And if POB cannot be damaged with normal weaponry, then it should not have static defenses with normal weaponry that can hit players. Otherwise, it's one-sided.
Right now it's normal guns damage POB and POB damages players with normal guns. If POB can only be hit with something very specific, then it does not need conventional defenses.
I'd just strict rules on their basement in the vicinity of solar objects or mining fields, force it to be farther away and many problems will be solves in terms of players having a problem with maliciously placed POBs.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Maltz - 05-30-2020
Maybe we should implement a rule that gives the chance for the owner to pay quarterly "tax" or something like that, before the enemy start the siege. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Just an idea...
RE: Siege bloodlust - Sniper - 05-30-2020
(05-30-2020, 11:26 PM)jammi Wrote: On principle, I don't entirely agree with points 3 or 4. POBs were always intended to be destructible, and the fact that someone may destroy the base is an inherent risk to constructing one. They were pitched as group activities, with the expectations that groups would invest into both the maintenance and defence of the asset.
That said.
Currently a lot of the negative sentiment around sieges comes from the fact that the time and value investment is extremely asymmetrical between attackers and defenders. Defenders will have potentially invested hundreds of hours and billions of credits over a protracted period of time and stand to lose that permanently should the base be destroyed. Attackers conversely, stand to lose very little save shield batteries and a couple of hours spent in-game. Even that time investment is trivialized by AFK sieging.
POBs do need to be re-examined, in terms of both the mechanics of health/regen/decay, and the current investment disparity between attackers and defenders. My preference is to add an upkeep cost to sieges by implementing a specific siege-weapon that is necessary to damage POBs, which itself consumes ammo in order to fire. This adds a cost to attacking bases as well as maintaining them. Sieging would still have no-where near a similar cost to building, but it would provide pause for thought on whether flippant sieges were worthwhile.
There are some very good ideas you have raised. Adding a cost to the sieging attackers via ammo etc is really worthy unpacking as an idea. Food for thought.
For statement 4 I raise these points:
There is no need for sieges to always end in a PoB's destruction.
a. In RL territorial wars (e.g. WW2) resource producing areas, cities, even countries were annexed, not usually destroyed totally.
b. The annexed and captured peoples (read PoB's here) were made to pay tribute to their occupiers. In fact wanton destruction was never to an occupying forces benefit for that reason.
c. Wealth and booty were important to execute war. PoB's such as Goldgeist would be a key resource ro capture booty etc.
d.The Germans in WW2 lived very well for the most part as the Nazi's plundered France, Holland etc into starvation to feed their masses.
e. Occupiers used the captured resources to use as forward bases of operations. (Landing rights on PoB's to launch from)
f. Annexing rather than destroying a base means ongoing RP. Once destroyed there is no need for, in the case of Goldgeist, Bretonia to recapture the base. No base, no RP can be generated, no ongoing tussles.
g. If a PoB does not surrender to an occupiers (sensible) demands, then they can be destroyed. To do that there would be genuine, indepth, RP involved. This is an RP server, not a PvP one afterall.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Sniper - 05-31-2020
(05-30-2020, 11:33 PM)Champ Wrote: On a personal note I cannot fathom why you started this anew, but I hope we get some good arguments (I.e. reasoned opinions) out of it.
This is different. The community needs a win-win.
Very simply, this is an opportunity to make the game-play around sieges less bloodlust and more strategic for those doing the siege.
Sieging is a part of the game. An illegal Outcast base in Corsair space is an act of war. RP it well and take it down if it doesn't surrender.
A mining PoB servicing miners that had permission to build can be annexed by an invading faction. If it shows hostile actions (not allowing access, supporting enemy fleet etc) it can be sieged until it does comply and then destroyed if it does not).
It doesn't make sense to utterly destroy everything.
It does make sense to annex and exploit a PoB.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Grumblesaur - 05-31-2020
(05-30-2020, 11:26 PM)jammi Wrote: Even that time investment is trivialized by AFK sieging.
A base with a healthy arrangement of weapon platforms can allow for AFK defense. The entire notion of POBs is to have a presence in the game without actually being logged in. AFK sieging vs AFK ore transactions is just an eye for an eye.
(05-30-2020, 11:26 PM)jammi Wrote: POBs do need to be re-examined, in terms of both the mechanics of health/regen/decay, and the current investment disparity between attackers and defenders. My preference is to add an upkeep cost to sieges by implementing a specific siege-weapon that is necessary to damage POBs, which itself consumes ammo in order to fire. This adds a cost to attacking bases as well as maintaining them. Sieging would still have no-where near a similar cost to building, but it would provide pause for thought on whether flippant sieges were worthwhile.
The investment for a base could also be lowered, instead of raising the cost of sieging, that way the potential for hurt feelings is reduced because the time, money, and emotional investment over constructing the base doesn't have the argument of "hours/weeks/days/years" spent maintaining the base.
Reducing the number or distance of trips necessary to build them would play into this. While this may allow for more POBs to be built, it would also normalize them as being targets for demolition. More POBs means more POB sieges, which makes that kind of interaction more common. This may be a good way to drive large fleet fights.
But I think we should keep in mind that also, while a single player may not be able to effectively defend a base, it's all too easy for a single player to trade endlessly in support of a base. Nobody can siege alone. It takes a fleet to destroy a base, and it's not even possible for some factions to rally an adequate siege force without assistance. You probably wouldn't see the Mollys trying to siege on their own, since the largest ships they have in their arsenal are Scyllas. Meanwhile you have Hessians, Corsairs, and Outcasts that have access to battleships, which are practically necessary for sieging. Thus, some groups will not only need to coordinate within their faction, but bring in support from the outside, and coordinate the supply line for the ammunition.
Suggesting the ammunition supply mechanic deliberately downplays the value of the coordination necessary to effect a successful siege. It's not just "grab seven valors and go AFK" unless the base mounts no defense. Contested sieges have fighters and bombers and repair ships. The recent clashes in Dublin have brought lots of ships on both sides. Long-running voice calls, lots of Discord @mentions. It's a busy time, and involves a lot of effort on either side of the siege that isn't readily visible in the game proper.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Shiki - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 12:00 AM)Sniper Wrote:(05-30-2020, 11:33 PM)Champ Wrote: On a personal note I cannot fathom why you started this anew, but I hope we get some good arguments (I.e. reasoned opinions) out of it.
This is different.
Very simply, this is an opportunity to make the game-play around sieges less bloodlust and more strategic for those doing the siege.
Sieging is a part of the game. An illegal Outcast base in Corsair space is an act of war. RP it well and take it down if it doesn't surrender.
A mining PoB servicing miners that had permission to build can be annexed by an invading faction,
It doesn't make sense to utterly destroy everything.
It does make sense to annex and exploit a PoB.
You do realize that some people don't want to own or supply POBs, right? Why would they capture them? It would be nice to have as an option, probably. I agree. Besides, mining POB that is registered under a state that is hostile to other states is also a legitimate target. Since they have chosen a side on whom to contact and whom to pay. You don't really need to wonderer when enemies of the House that you pay taxes show up and try to destroy you. Especially if it's some Nomad tier villan like Enclave.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Hokan - 05-31-2020
Lowering the cost is preferable to making the cost of the siege more.
While at the same time, PoB's ought have a scaling decay that decays faster the longer they are out of supplies for. Thereby killing the inactive ones faster, and not having them take 1.75 to die.