+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: POB destruction discussion thread. (/showthread.php?tid=147469)
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - NoMe - 01-29-2017
Difficult to be positive when our work can be reduced to nothing by a simple administrative decision. For example, I spent months trying to build an interesting civil base for everyone, spending monstrous sums in this business, giving transport to different pilots, helping to make a system uninteresting , A possible attractive passage for carriers etc. etc. the list is long! It is very difficult to leave with other ideas when you no longer have money or transport to rebuild.
we are in discussion thread right?
yes a base is very important, i know how it is difficult to build alone! the destruction is not a thing very interesting for me, i prefer the diplomatie
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Sombs - 01-29-2017
(01-29-2017, 01:53 AM)Haste Wrote: Attackers build a siege platform (PoB). Siege platform takes a given amount of time (and maybe supplies of some kind) to damage and eventually destroy an enemy PoB. Owners of the PoB can try to shoot down the siege platform, so the siegers will have to be ready to, and be capable of defending it.
Siege "platforms" would cost credits / materials, of course, making it so you don't want to just siege random crap. Although the cost should be proportional to the damage you need to be doing to destroy the enemy PoB. Getting rid of a pesky illegal Core 1 base in New York shouldn't cost the Liberty Navy a fortune every time.
So yeah, introducing some risk to the attacking side so the boring "taping your right mouse button down" grind can go away, and so base owners no longer have to be the only party actually risking assets/credits in a conflict.
I prefer my suggestion over yours, simply because this version you are suggesting actually twists the siege as in adding a PoB-ish element for the attackers that the attackers have to defend!? What is the purpose of the attackers having battleships, then? The defenders would switch to battleships instead, and the attackers will switch to something to effectively counter that, which is, given the nature of battleships the way they are in the mod currently, not logging battleships but bombers and cruisers. This makes things just unnecessarily complicated as it already is. Look at the recent sieges. People log snubs first to ensure they profit from the snub skill difference, as that difference is way, way higher than the skill difference when using battleships, as it mainly is dodging or tanking, given what kind of battleship you use. Once the defenders have been made PvP dead, the attackers switch to battleships and a few repair ships because weapon platforms that magically respawn all the time are evil.
If you add a second instance where the attackers have to defend something, that is weird and nerfs the reasons to use battleships for sieges pretty much, as there are only very few cases where a battleship is a good counter against other battleships.
People should really look at this instead, as it is a way easier solution instead of adding just more new elements to it. @Laura C. raised some valid points in the discussion thread about this concept, and those points would pretty much apply to your concept either: Place PoB Core 1 en masse to troll people, and the attackers would need to invest not only money but also ressources to counter something that is created within an hour.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Mr.Fabulous - 01-29-2017
(01-28-2017, 08:45 PM)JorgeRyan Wrote: Something I've been wondering for a week while was if pob seiges instead of destroying the base,lowered it down a core level, from which the attackers can try again later and the defenders don't lose immediately.
I honestly like this idea. I'd add further that the base becomes 'disabled' when its health runs out, and reverts to a lower core on next restart.
(01-29-2017, 01:53 AM)Haste Wrote: Attackers build a siege platform (PoB). Siege platform takes a given amount of time (and maybe supplies of some kind) to damage and eventually destroy an enemy PoB. Owners of the PoB can try to shoot down the siege platform, so the siegers will have to be ready to, and be capable of defending it.
Siege "platforms" would cost credits / materials, of course, making it so you don't want to just siege random crap. Although the cost should be proportional to the damage you need to be doing to destroy the enemy PoB. Getting rid of a pesky illegal Core 1 base in New York shouldn't cost the Liberty Navy a fortune every time.
So yeah, introducing some risk to the attacking side so the boring "taping your right mouse button down" grind can go away, and so base owners no longer have to be the only party actually risking assets/credits in a conflict.
IMO, I find this option kinda redundant. Build a 'base' to eliminate a 'base'?
Yo dawg, I heard you like bases, but I hate em, so I built a base to destroy your base.
Honestly, that's what Battleships are for. They're supposed to be the siege engines of Discovery.
Instead, I propose that there be a special "Siege Mortar" that deals astronomical damage, but have a projectile speed of 50m/s, and cost ~1 Billion Credits to purchase.
ADD: Also, that the siege mortar will have to be prepped with FLHook commands, and that while it's prepping a system-wide message saying, "#t is arming a siege mortar!" will play out. The prepping will last 10 minutes, render the battleship totally immobile and without shields.
With this, and the option that the base only lowers 1 core when it's downed on next restart, will mean defenders will have more than enough time to defend their precious base. At most, a core 5 will be taken down in 5 days.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - R.I.P. - 01-29-2017
Yea i do agree building something to destroy one is kinda overdoing it, but yea a core 3-5 does need to be a more work to destroy than they have been.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Haste - 01-29-2017
I'm not sure how people have grown attached to the current, awful, Battleship sieging mechanics. How often have you sieged bases? It's the single least fun activity in the game. It also creates issues that have been pointed out quite a few times in the past: groups like the Liberty Rogues have no large capital ships and thus have to do weird ooRP stuff like logging Ranseurs to kill a PoB they don't want.
The siege platform solves that issue, and it's nice and symmetrical, with both sides defending a persistent, vulnerable structure.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Durandal - 01-29-2017
Haste's idea has been the 'plan' for awhile now, but like all great things it requires FLHook work and nobody wants to do that.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Sombs - 01-29-2017
(01-29-2017, 02:01 PM)Haste Wrote: I'm not sure how people have grown attached to the current, awful, Battleship sieging mechanics. How often have you sieged bases? It's the single least fun activity in the game. It also creates issues that have been pointed out quite a few times in the past: groups like the Liberty Rogues have no large capital ships and thus have to do weird ooRP stuff like logging Ranseurs to kill a PoB they don't want.
Uhm, they could deal with the ooRP stuff by dealing with it inRP? Also, that's still nerfing battleship usage. At least make a compromise and add a very slow shooting or destroyable projectile, expensive, ammo-based weapon to have battleships be in a significant role during sieges. Those weapons should be for the heavy battleship slot. Or you add, like with the auxiliary thing, a special weapon slot to capitals of certain factions.
On the other hand, maybe there is a reason for some factions to not be able to siege bases? The Rogues for example are a loose bunch of yankees and weirdos without a real economy. Why would you want to make them able to siege bases? They are barely able to keep their Scyllas working. Exactly for that reason they have the mighty Outcasts as friends, just as the Gaians have the Corsairs.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Jack_Henderson - 01-29-2017
(01-29-2017, 02:01 PM)Haste Wrote: [...] awful, Battleship sieging mechanics. [...] It's the single least fun activity in the game. [...]
The siege platform solves that issue, and it's nice and symmetrical, with both sides defending a persistent, vulnerable structure.
Absolutely agree.
I was trying to find a good wording, and you nailed it with "symmetrical, with both sides defending a persistent, vulnerable structure."
> they built something, you have to build something (a constructive process that needs transports, etc)
> they invested something, you have to invest (commodities, money, time)
> you can destroy something, but your investment can die, too, without respawning.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Backo - 01-29-2017
(01-29-2017, 02:24 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: On the other hand, maybe there is a reason for some factions to not be able to siege bases? The Rogues for example are a loose bunch of yankees and weirdos without a real economy. Why would you want to make them able to siege bases? They are barely able to keep their Scyllas working. Exactly for that reason they have the mighty Outcasts as friends, just as the Gaians have the Corsairs.
Lore-wise Outcast presence in Liberty should be mostly to secure the cardamine trade route. It's why once upon a time LR banned Outcast capitals from Liberty and even went as far as to shoot them. Also I see no issue for Rogues to be able to siege bases in their own domains - Badlands, asteroid fields, etc as well as systems far away from the law such as Kansas.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - nOmnomnOm - 01-29-2017
Inb4 someone makes rp for the "death-PoB" (death star)
Can't PoB defenders simply place a seige base on top of their normal base to counter other seige bases?