+- 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: POB Change Suggestions (/showthread.php?tid=180346)
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Sniper - 06-18-2020
Suggestion
Type: Rules
Title: Mandatory Offers of Surrender
Specifics
- Add a rule to RP PvP server rule 4
Make it RP compulsory for attackers of a PoB to offer chances/terms of surrender
Terms must be RP’d before the attack starts and once more when HP of PoB is reduced to 1/3.
Terms RP’d need to be fair and reasonable.
Terms of surrender must be RP’d in forums, or in game or a combination of both.
RP must be two-way, which means no surprise destruction of a PoB.
In the real absence of a spokesperson for a PoB, a PoB can be deemed captured after the Attack Declaration lapses (2 weeks max).
- What are the potential flaws or exploits or shortcomings of this suggestion that you can identify, but not resolve?
It requires more time to RP the siege event to make it fair and reasonable.
A PoB owner may not be aware of a siege and no response to the terms given. This would make it unfair on the besiegers unless compensated with the PoB’s capture.
Provide one or two brief examples of how the change would affect gameplay.
RP would need to be more thoroughly played out. Take Eldorado, it could have become an Enclave vassal, allowing BAF to seek to recapture it by siege or agreed battle outcome, booty if you will.
The ongoing battle over the same asset would enable PvP both on large scale fleet battles or smaller skirmishes.
Further Discussion
There is often the most pathetic RP surrounding sieges and as a dedicated RP server, this would encourage more in-depth RP. Surrendering means the PoB has not been destroyed but lives on under an oppressor who would want to exploit it somehow. The PoB is not destroyed, thus greatly reduced drama.
Eldorado may have had, as a condition of surrender, installed a factory, change IFF allegiance neutral/friendly or even add admin rights, or ordered to destroy or add WP’s etc.
By having such a rule it makes it possible to protect the huge investment in PoB’s, enable benefits to a big section of server membership who play here because of the PoB’s.
It does not stop the sieges either but makes it sensible when they do it. Capturing a PoB is a denial of economic support to the house it belonged to (E.g. BMM Goldgeist).
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Grumblesaur - 06-18-2020
Critique
Suggestion Addressed: @Sniper's Mandatory offers of surrender
Problem Summary
- The suggestion relies on the assumption that factions hostile to the owners of a POB desire to capture the POB.
- This also implicitly operates on the premise that bases ought to be preserved for their own sake, and only come to destruction by a means of inactivity or neglect, which is plainly opposed to the current intention as the game mechanics imply.
- Raise the standards of roleplay, or the wait time, but do not mandate the option for surrender.
For in-character reasons, a faction may have no desire to capture a base at all. Bases are a liability -- an asset that needs regular supply and protection. A faction attempting to project power or improve security will succeed at neither if it must commit more resources to an installation it does not even want. Such a faction would only capture the base to destroy it immediately after. Players themselves, outside of the trappings of roleplay, may have no desire to commit the time and credits toward maintaining a captured base, at which point, the base would wither and die anyway. In either case, this is a pointless extra step.
It is also not clear how much discussion must take place in the surrender negotiations, nor is it clear whether the defenders ever have a chance to lose their base outright. If the defenders are too greedy or recalcitrant in the negotiations, must surrender still be accepted, or shall destruction commence? Without addressing these points, this suggestion only serves to prevent POBs from ever being destroyed in sieges, and more rule language involving the term "reasonable" will be hard to understand and interpret by staff and players alike.
Better still would be to clearly delineate what the purpose of siege-related roleplay is, as some players have the notion that it's for inducing negotiations, and other players have the notion that it's for binding their actions to a paper trail to create an account of the siege events and provide a warning to the defenders.
If by "capturing" a base the attackers do not literally gain control (i.e. they are assigned a password for admin access and the old one is deleted), and this is merely a means of forcing the base to change IFF and docking permissions while the base is still operated by the original players, it is little more than a token gesture. As long as the original players control the base, then any changes requested by the conquering players are irrelevant, as they can be quietly reverted. The conquering faction would be hard-pressed to prove that all of their policies were respected. Correctly implementing a mechanic for vassalization would require adding complexity to the POB plugin in order to allow for this mediated form of ownership, or adding complexity to the rules, where players whose base is vassalized face punishment for breaking contract.
Then it must be decided whether the vassalized base's original players are allowed to stage a coup (break their contract and retaliate with force), or if they must be liberated by some third party.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Paddy. - 06-18-2020
Critique
Suggestion Addressed:
Mandatory Offers to Surrender
Problem Summary
- There is no indication of what would happen if the defender says no to both offers to surrender.
The cost of getting a name/IFF change is expensive at 500mil SC
Needs to clarify the point – surrender does not mean change of owner to attackers – just allegiance.
No RP at the end of two weeks is good idea, but it is surrendered. What happens then?
- If a defender refuses both surrenders, siege is completed, base destroyed.
For siege based enforced IFF/name change, costs to be reduced to 200million SC
Make certain surrender is not change of ownership, but under the authority of the besiegers.
If after a month since the Attack declaration is issued, and with no rp contact with PoB owner/rep, then besiegers can destroy it.
Representative of PoB must have Admin rights to PoB to effect surrender terms.
I actually like this concept because it is a very simple thing to implement. A rule added specifically for PoB sieges. We have PvP rules about practice around ship engagements, so why not around PoB’s.
It needs to be tidied up with some reflection on how it would work, and we would benefit from a trial period or even some faction doing an RP’d attack on these lines to see if the rule would work.
I can imagine an AD (Attack Declaration) being posted, more indepth RP being done on forums or even a RP face to face meeting between PoB owner and siege commander at the PoB, and surrender terms proffered. If the surrender term is turned down, then the attack begins.
The attackers should have the right to offer any other opportunity to surrender but mandatory ones before the attack commences and maybe 30% HP left.
Would not be happy to have a PoB set up where two AD’s are issued with the other one attacking only when the HP is at 30%. I would suggest if attacked previously and HP is reduced to 30% already then the second attacker only has the one mandatory offer to surrender to proffer. Also avoids rorting the intent (work arounds)
I think that if a PoB is Core 1, in a sensitive area, it should be considered a hostile act and set upon so long as it is fairly new. I.e. No shield and less than 50% HP perhaps. Normal AD applies.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Busy Miner - 06-25-2020
Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: make POBs great again
Specifics
- Increase the amount of modules buildable by POB level from 3 to 4 (or even more?), to a minimum of 4 at level 1 to a max of 20 at level 5; alternatively, if not possible, increase Cargo storage (POB itself and modules).
- Needs some scripting, I honestly can't say if it can be done without scrambling the POB code.
Discussion
We live in times where POBs get constantly sieged, so shields and weapon platforms on easily accessible bases are a must. The more platforms, the better, especially if you don't have many friends you can rally to the defense in case of an attack. Indys don't have a high chance to get their bases above level 2 or 3, and even bigger, official POBs don't have the manpower to defend them 24/7. There is now the thin red line to balance the defense capabilities against usefulness of the base. More weapons or more storage, or more factories? No easy decision.
With 4 buildable assets per base level the utility of bases would be much more diverse. The cargo storage space provided by each buildable cargo pod upgrade is pretty slim compared to the effort you have to put in to build the stuff (40k Hull Segments, ridiculous). Even so, the option to build more of them could help the base regain functionality and have bigger provision stacks during sieges. Or one could simply build more weapon platforms per level. The increased work the player has to put into building the base to make this work would balance out the better end results.
Alternatively, in case the scripting of this should be too flimsy, one could increase the storage space of cargo upgrades (like +50%) and increase the cargo storage of the base itself (like from 30k to 40k or 50k), which would result in similar advantages, like having to build less cargo storages and more weapon platforms instead while retaining the functionality of the base.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Groshyr - 06-25-2020
Suggestion
Type:POB Plugin / Economy
Title: "Make POBs great again" but easier.
Specifics
- Merging of POB manufacturing modules into one
- I see no issues with my proposal.
Some POBs exist for building modules on it and thus suffer from lack of space or defence. Merging all manufacturing modules into one should provide POB with additional slots for cargo or defence modules.
Further Discussion
Following @Busy Miner's idea without turning POB plugin into a mess with 100500 modules.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - kerfy - 06-26-2020
Suggestion
Type
OB Plugin /Title: even up the Losses
Specifics
Ships that get killed in a POB attack, are gone when killed.. same as a POB .. Defenders not ..
RE: POB Change Suggestions - LuckyOne - 06-26-2020
Critique
Suggestion Addressed: even up the Losses
Problem Summary
- I don't think it would be fair to perma-death attackers if you don't do the same for the defenders.
- Too easy to abuse by the defenders
- Instead of a permanent death a respawn in damaged state might be a better idea. Make it the same for the defenders. The defenders would have the advantage of retreating to the POB and docking to avoid death (and the subsequent repair bill). Attackers would need to retreat or jump out which is much harder to do without friendly bases nearby
Battleships are expensive (also time-wise to set up and purchase equipment, often with Sci-data), and it would be very easy to lose several dozens during a siege. I don't think it can really be made balanced with the base cost.
Critique
Suggestion Addressed: "Make POBs great again" but easier.
Problem Summary
- This would basically mean you only have one type of POB, we would lose the current variety
- I think variety in POB setups is cool and good, just like variety in ship loadouts. You can chose between heavily defended fortress, a lightly defended manufacturing center, or a simple storage container without any defense.
- Adding more slots for higher cores or making cargo module add more space like @Busy Miner suggested might be a better idea. Make Core 3 and up feel like a meaningful upgrade.
No further comments for now.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Binski - 06-27-2020
Suggestion
Type: Other
Title: Set Repair Ships as able to repair POB's in the same way they can repair shps.
Specifics
- Set it so Repair Ship tools add 5000 HP per second to any POB (or at least that the repair turret work on them, and not be based on rep, so any ship could be used on any base, rep/ID used would have inrp consequences). That equals to 18 million HP per hour (if uninterrupted). That way any repair ship with a repair tool could fly up to any POB and shoot it to repair. Exemption from triggering the base attack notice would be needed.
- Not sure on the technical limits.
This would add an extra advantage to alll bases, as players would have another quick avenue for keeping bases alive longer. Players could switch to repair ships in groups and attempt to compound their repair effect (3 ships would mean a repair rate of 15000 HP/s). The main desired effect would be to prolong sieges (base life) giving them better chances (especially in lieu of short respawn times).
Further Discussion
Why this change? I picture base sieges becoming less one sided, and more about maintaining a balance like a tug of war. Active attacks on well defended/manned bases would boil down to HP down vs HP up, and turn into battles where an attacking fleet lays siege from one side and repairers try to stay safe near the base and 'make repairs'. The rest depends on the players abilities.
So then it also becomes a battle to fend off repairers, and on the defense side, cover repair ships while they try to bring the strength up. All in all every base benefits from the additional option, which any player can use to chip in, without needing to be a major pvp'er.
My suggestions for the numbers are just a starting spot, the lower the rate, the more ships needed to keep up a high rate of repairs.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Groshyr - 06-27-2020
Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Set Repair Ships as able to repair POB's in the same way they can repair shps.
Problem Summary
- The proposed numbers are too high if defenders are numerous but assaulters are not. This kills any ability for outnumbered factions or unlawful factions without battleship to siege the POB they pointed as a target.
- Reduce the numbers. Make them 50% or 25% from currently proposed.
I like the idea of repair ships being used for POBs repairs during the siege, however, some factions would lose their capacity to siege POBs because of the lack of firepower, capable to overthrown the repairs from defenders side. Thus reducant should be made to balance the proposal. See no other issues except for turning this into @Kazinsal's nightmare.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Widow - 06-28-2020
Suggestion
Type: Rules
Title: Even the playing field
Specifics
- Slow down the frequency of attacks by restricting numbers of active attack declarations & adding a set time they are considered "active" to further slow the attacks.
- Add in more RP requirements before attacking - specifically adding the requirement to contact the base administration.
- Same groups of people making different factions/ships to attack multiple at the same time - rather than having 8 attack declarations open from the same group.
Slowing down the attacks will allow for organisation of defenses (or a defense force as it would seem a lot who have PoBs are not able to pull together a fleet as quickly/readily as those attacking) or construction of shields, allow for time to prepare and stock.
Adding in the requirement to contact the station administrators, this encourages interaction & RP rather than just a message dump and an AFK 8 hour siege.
Adding in the requirement to contact the station administrators, this encourages interaction & RP rather than just a message dump and an AFK 8 hour siege.
Further Discussion
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Example of changes