+- 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)
RE: Siege bloodlust - Binski - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 12:22 AM)Kazinsal Wrote: The biggest issue with POB sieges is that only one side faces permadeath of an entity. This has been the issue with POBs and sieges from the get-go and I don't think the original implementers of them thought through the long-term ramifications of having them be permanently killed by fleets of ships where the only penalty for dying is "come back in an hour".
I would personally much prefer to fix this with a simple base game mechanics solution (an actual proper class of siege turrets that aren't just really slow sci-data battleship heavies) than with a rules one (eg. failing a siege prevents you from re-attempting it for a few days).
That is exactly it. But I still think it should made it a rule that if your capital ship is destroyed during a declared base siege, you are pvp dead to the base (and system) for a few days or even a week. Bases do need to repel constant attacks by ships that can come back after an hour while a base can barely repair in that time, and don't get respawns. This would also make many think twice about pointless sieges, since it best be worth it, as they could wind up cut off from those systems if they fail and are taken out near the base.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Binski - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 02:20 AM)Wesker Wrote:(05-31-2020, 02:11 AM)Binski Wrote: That is exactly it. But I still think it should made it a rule that if your capital ship is destroyed during a declared base siege, you are pvp dead to the base (and system) for a few days or even a week.(05-31-2020, 02:11 AM)Binski Wrote: few days or even a week.(05-31-2020, 02:11 AM)Binski Wrote: a week.
![[Image: fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=10...Fvault.jpg]](https://wompampsupport.azureedge.net/fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=100&width=700&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F027%2F242%2Fvault.jpg)
But isn't this an RP server? Why should you need to destroy the same battleship attacking a base ten times a day? How is that fair to a base that only needs die once?
3 days is reasonable, thats a 72 hour pvp death. And thats the point, penalty against frivelous sieges. You'd only risk it if it was important enough for your faction/rp, or are ok with risking one time every 3 days. If the base is destroyed before your pvp time is up, like a ship being gone from a system, that would end the time early. That is not that so crazy.
RE: Siege bloodlust - darkwind - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 02:29 AM)Binski Wrote: But isn't this an RP server? Why should you need to destroy the same battleship attacking a base ten times a day? How is that fair to a base that only needs die once?
3 days is reasonable, thats a 72 hour pvp death. And thats the point, penalty against frivelous sieges. You'd only risk it if it was important enough for your faction/rp, or are ok with risking one time every 3 days. If the base is destroyed before your pvp time is up, like a ship being gone from a system, that would end the time early. That is not that so crazy.
It actually sounds good. It would turn sieges into mini events automatically, which would happen only with three days interval if the previous time it was defended.
The time for death interval should be thought, but 3 days interval between repeated sieges looks good enough.
Perhaps one day is enough though.
I would prefer a solution at PoB mechanics though. The solution with PVP death is not looking easy track in case of abuses and there are some other issues in the long run. Perhaps there could be other solution at 'rule-level'. I don't like this one just because it's hard to track one and has other things not good.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Grumblesaur - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 12:49 AM)Sniper Wrote: That is not necessarily a win-win solution. It is the same outcome either way. Harms the community.
It is not fair, not in the spirit of the game, and would be seen not as inRP intimidation to get a surrender, but bullying.
It does not harm the community. It harms the base. Sometimes the only goal is to get a base out of the way because it's a threat, a nuisance, or an obstruction. Why is preserving bases in the spirit of the game, when destroying them isn't? Damn near every ship in the mod has at least one gun on it, which is a clear statement that blowing things up is not only part of the game, but the intended primary course of play. Player bases even themselves can have guns, through weapon platforms. This design indicates that they are supposed to be a focal point for conflict, and the fact that they can have weapon platforms indicates that they will, at times, need to defend themselves from utter destruction, regardless of whatever negotiations come.
Furthermore, giving a faction the opportunity to remove their own assets in lieu of getting the hammer dropped on them gives them the opportunity to evacuate instead of being outright murdered. Even then, though, sometimes the goal is literally to kill the members of the enemy side. For a lore example, Royalist Gallia glassed Leeds to damage Bretonia's economy and infrastructure and to send a message that they are a powerful, dangerous force unrestricted by moral quibbling over such trivialities as "war crimes". The sieges of player bases can be viewed in such a way.
Destruction without negotiation is roleplay in such circumstances, but because it's roleplay that harms a thing that players can invest time in, it's suddenly bad? Player bases are a risky, optional endpoint to server gameplay intended to be a money sink and designed to be maintained by a sizeable group of players for maintenance and protection. Trading, mining, and smuggling have various protections regarding "reasonability" because they are more common modes of gameplay intended to populate the server with generic civilians and criminals, and to give players a means of funding their characters and projects.
Player bases already benefit from the protections offered to traders because POB maintenance and creation necessitate trading. Outside of engagements with nomads, or in certain small, protected areas, traders are given the protection of their adversaries needing to make a demand. In saying that a POB must be met with a "reasonable demand", you not only get all of the little graces offered by the rules of trading, but one final opportunity to subvert destruction with roleplay whose consequences are difficult or impossible to enforce in-game.
It should be the burden of the base operators to source their own security. If they will be unable to ensure that they or their allies are able to defend the base, then they have no business building a base at all.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Karlotta - 05-31-2020
There are 2 things that are commonly being intermingled which are really 2 separate topics.
1. Siege mechanics that are unhealthy for the community
2. The continued existence of pobs getting decided on by the size of the mob either size can gather and being totally up to the whims of a few influential people who can organize such a mob
A solution to problem 1 will not fix problem 2 and vise versa. These 2 separate problems also require 2 separate solutions. For example:
1. Sieges being possible only during convenient times of day
2. Having better guidance for building pobs, and differentiating between pobs that can and cant be sieged before they are built, depending on objective criteria they fulfill. One such criteria is the pob being a "area conquest POB" or not. A pob that is nearer to an ore field than an npc base is an example of an "area conquest" pob.
RE: Siege bloodlust - darkwind - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 12:40 AM)Xenon Wrote: I hope that this discussion remains civil and constructive.
The POBs are part of the game and the destruction of POBs ...
I think bases should be considered as roleplay objects from when they have shield modules built.
That's is to leave the opportunity for smuggling bases building, which aren't going to be upgraded and meant being destroyed if found anyway.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Jayce - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 02:29 AM)Binski Wrote:(05-31-2020, 02:20 AM)Wesker Wrote:(05-31-2020, 02:11 AM)Binski Wrote: That is exactly it. But I still think it should made it a rule that if your capital ship is destroyed during a declared base siege, you are pvp dead to the base (and system) for a few days or even a week.(05-31-2020, 02:11 AM)Binski Wrote: few days or even a week.(05-31-2020, 02:11 AM)Binski Wrote: a week.
But isn't this an RP server? Why should you need to destroy the same battleship attacking a base ten times a day? How is that fair to a base that only needs die once?
3 days is reasonable, thats a 72 hour pvp death. And thats the point, penalty against frivelous sieges. You'd only risk it if it was important enough for your faction/rp, or are ok with risking one time every 3 days. If the base is destroyed before your pvp time is up, like a ship being gone from a system, that would end the time early. That is not that so crazy.
Because all I would have to do is crash 3 opposing battleships into one of the attacking BSs every hour, and then it's deleted from the game for 3 days. Think about it.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Kazinsal - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 03:31 AM)Jayce Wrote: Because all I would have to do is crash 3 opposing battleships into one of the attacking BSs every hour, and then it's deleted from the game for 3 days. Think about it.
All I have to do is crash a number of battleships into a POB every hour and then it's deleted from the game forever. Think about it.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Binski - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 03:31 AM)Jayce Wrote: Because all I would have to do is crash 3 opposing battleships into one of the attacking BSs every hour, and then it's deleted from the game for 3 days. Think about it.
Ok so if you siege a base with 8 ships, thats 3 defenders per attacker needed to pop an attacker? For the lone sieger, it makes it a bigger risk yes. Core 1's could be excempt, or like suggested, shielded bases could be where the line is drawn.
I see it more likely one will be lost every half hour to hour of active defense, unless a big (almost equal) cap fleet forms to route them and goes in all at once.
If its a weak base, the attackers may still get the chance for taking it out fast, and only a few specific ships may be pvp dead. If strong, when an attacking force loses its numbers, however it goes, they give up for a few days. In the mean time any non pvp dead ship can harass a base and its suppliers.
It could also be allowed to come back on a lower ship class with a different name. So if your battleship is pvp dead, you could come back with a BC, then cruiser. At least there is still some penalty on the heaviest ships first.
RE: Siege bloodlust - Jayce - 05-31-2020
Quote:Ok so if you siege a base with 8 ships, thats 3 defenders per attacker needed to pop an attacker?
only have to do it 8 times and your base is now free and clear for 3 days, BCs and below don't put out appreciable DPS against a base
this also assumes the worst case scenario of only killing 1 bs for your 3