Discovery Gaming Community
POB Change Suggestions - Printable Version

+- 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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

RE: POB Change Suggestions - Typrop - 06-28-2020

Suggestion
Type:POB Plugin / Economy / Other
Title: Make POBs manufacture more things.

Specifics
  • POBs being given the ability to manufacture codenames
  • Theoretically replace the existing scidata system, with minimal effect to other development departments (sysdev)
  • If not replace the existing scidata system, then cooperating with it through manufacturing. (EX. "research modules" that output scidata after a certain amount of time and resource investment)
Potential Problems
  • Devaluing of scidata weapons through increased presence. (The plebs get more access to the rich people special stuff)
  • Shifting more gameplay-related items behind the gate of POB ownership/interaction
  • Creating more incentive to create POBs in general, theoretically hampering server performance if taken to an extreme
  • Increased paperwork for GMs
Example of Effect
Faction A wants say, Maulers.
Faction A starts roleplay concerning the research of facilities for manufacturing specialized weapons of a given type (Restricted to ship class, maybe? 'Price bracket?')
After a (currently) nonspecific amount of scribbling, the faction files for a blueprint request in order to create a module to manufacture Maulers, or whatever else may be related.
When granted, the blueprint is constructed. Faction A can now manufacture Maulers after a notable investment of resources and time, and potentially build a stockpile for fitting ships further down the line.

Further Discussion
[+]Spoiler


RE: POB Change Suggestions - Havok - 07-02-2020

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: Make it less of a grind to supply a PoB.

Specifics
  • Instead of running the same iteration of code multiple times in correspondence of the Core level. So twice for core 2 and so forth, change the code per core level to run one iteration with double the repair rate at core 2, triple at core 3 etc
Potential Problems
  • I am unsure as to problems as I don't know the code, but I don't see any problems.
Example of Effect
This change would keep the current rate of repairs without making the repair commodities needed a day skyrocket, ending in hours daily needed to supply a PoB with the bare minimums. At current , a core 1 base needs 8640 per repair commod a day, depending on the repair rate you want. (For MAX repair rate, that is 25920 units of Repair commodities). Double the amount for Core 2, Triple it for Core 3.

With this change, the consumption of RM's stays at 8640 per Commodity per day, with the repair rate doubled and tripled per core as has been before instead of forcing players to grind 75k units of commodities per day.

RE: POB Change Suggestions - Piombo65 - 07-02-2020

Suggestion
Type: Rules - POB Plugin
Title: Reinforcement mode periods

Specifics
  • PoB base HP will be splitted in 3: 0-33%, 33-66% and 66-100%.
  • When the attacker siege the PoB and drains until 66%, a Reinforcement time activates and the PoB will be invulnerable for X hours/days
  • PoBs in Reinforcement mode can't be damaged, don't use materials to mainatin and can't be repaired
  • Once the reinforcement state time ends, the PoB can be repaired, damaged or use materials.
  • The cycle continues to the 33-66% area (when the attacker damages it to 33% it goes to reinforcement mode) and at 0%, it explodes
  • In the reinforcement times you can dock at the PoB and fill it but all the services (and shield) are off except the economy management (You can't build modules or items from modules and the WPs are disabled)
Potential Problems
  • After the reinfocement mode, for example, defenders could up the HP to 67% to considerate it still at the first HP section and once damaged to 66%, returned to reinforcement mode. This could be resolved introducing a cooldown where the Reinforcement mode can't be activated near the limits where that mode has been already activated (after some time, if the PoB has been repaired over 66% and it returns to 66%, Reinforcement mode can be activated)
Example of Effect
At the first stage, attackers can ambush the defenders and damage the base to 66% but with the reinforcement mode, the base will be invulnerable gaining time to defenders to prepare a defense fleet at the next attack when the reinforcement mode ends to repel the attackers and (exploiting the PvP timer or the PoB attack penality of other suggestions of this thread) repair the PoB just exited from the Reinforcement mode.

Further Discussion
The defenders, with this introduction has a more planned time to coordinate to defend a PoB that can be destroyed exploiting RL issues like sleeping and it makes the AFK fleets useless. It can transform a PoB siege in an official combat event, more enjoyable. Nerfing the PoB hull and shield mostly improve this feature

RE: POB Change Suggestions - NoMe - 07-02-2020

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: Time for shield regeneration and limit of a number of attack

Specifics
  • the regeneration of the shield is too slow! maybe 30 or 50% more could be fine! and the cosecutive limit of attack could be limited at three, before to have to wait several days before a new attack
Potential Problems
  • the shield of a core2 is too slow to regenerate because the siegers have just to wait, the shield not regenerate himself enough faster! After 4 attack the siegers won ofc! i mean also, with a base well supplied,it's not easy to do!
Example of Effect
recently attacked, i have seen! they come after 2 or 3 attack to finish their bad job! A core2 is respectable! Not a toy
sure a core 2 is fragile, if you kill the installation quickly, ok, the base is not sufficiently supplied. My example , they have destroyed the installatioon after 4 try, 3 have been breaked by the army! So after 3, you have to wait! 3 or 5 days or a week before to reattack. if not to easy, they have to wait!

Further Discussion
and to go even further, sometimes the head offices think they can do anything they want! They think they have the necessary power, but not everything is so simple to do! So we could keep the impact of the attack on the shield, but for a Core2, a faster regeneration, if it's feasible...

RE: POB Change Suggestions - dr lameos - 07-02-2020

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: Provide more base information through API

Specifics
  • Provide a base API (like the players API)
  • Be able to query the base API for base status and inventory
  • This would need some level of authentication so that people can only see their private base inventory if they have the shop password
  • To promote trade and activity, items which are available to buy from the shop should not need authentication to view
Potential Problems
  • Players would no longer need to log in to the base in game in order to see their base inventory and what supplies may be needed. Decrease in this type of activity.

    Example of Effect
    A player can perform the monitoring of their base through a discord monitoring bot (pobbot). However this is currently limited to information from the 'Player Base Status' page on the forums. Currently the bot is having to scrape the page and take the values from it in order to calculate the current base status (repairing, degrading, under attack) when we know from in game that this information already exists, it just isn't presented to us. If this information was given more regularly then it may promote more player interaction (base attacked - more instant response) as there is currently a lag of up to 15 minutes.

    If a base is not repairing, or a player wants to make a supply run to a base, currently need to log in and go to the base just to check what supplies may be needed. It can be frustrating to take a load of supplies just to discover that the base is already full or has those supplies already.

    I've seen lots of threads where base owners are saying they will buy and sell certain commodities, but this is almost always out of date/not accurate. I have flown to bases with a load of ore, and not been able to sell it, or gone to buy goods for an onward journey and this leads to logging off in order to wait until the base has those goods. With this information miners/traders and pirates can plan their routes more efficiently and this may create bottlenecks for activity. For example traders see that a base is currently stocked with ore and so would be a good one to visit, pirates see that a base is stocked with ore and so know that traders will be likely to visit and have valuable goods also.

    Further Discussion
    Since the discord pob monitoring bot was first made I've been asked several times to be able to report on the base inventory - which I've always declined as there is no current way to obtain this information.


RE: POB Change Suggestions - Lythrilux - 07-02-2020

Suggestion
Type: Rules
Title: Make POBs Considered to be Transports Within the Rules/IDs

Specifics
  • POBs are currently treated as ships. A means to fix a lot of problems with them may be to consider treating them as transports. POBs that are near gates/lanes/fields can be considered similar to transports with CDs.
Potential Problems
  • -
Example of Effect
Ie Unlawful IDs would have to make a demand before they can blow up a POB.

Further Discussion
-

RE: POB Change Suggestions - Champ - 07-03-2020

Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Make POBs Considered to be Transports Within the Rules/IDs

Problem Summary
  • Further complicates existing transport and ID engagement rules; may warrant a rewrite of same
  • Would require unlawfuls to make demands of house militaries or non-corporate hostiles; see discussion
Amendment
  • Rules around engagement of player bases should be clarified and detailed in their own paragraph / section in the player base post in the rules thread
  • Rules around reasonable demands may be permitted to be circumvented by the agreement of players e.g. @Lythrilux Core example, but this creates situations where hostilities might be unreasonably waived in a way incongruent with expected roleplay
  • Either player base balance or rules restricting range of engagements could mean that some attacks on bases are untenable, so that not every base must acquiesce to demands of hostiles to survive, but that factions may maintain expected hostility.
Further Discussion
Some things should probably always be hostile. Making player bases equivalent to transports would mean that, for example, the Liberty Rogues would need to make a demand of a Liberty Navy installation. To my mind, Liberty Rogues should always want to destroy, or occupy, the bases of the Liberty Navy, and vice versa. The only demand of sufficient value to warrant the permission of the other to exist, which ought to be extravagant iRP, should also be iRP, either untenable due to logistical or financial limitations, or unacceptable to the party receiving the demand, due to the sheer worth of the demand.

RE: POB Change Suggestions - Binski - 07-04-2020

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: Add separate price setting commands

Specifics
  • Make setting base prices as two separate commands. Example

    /set buyprice (x,x,x,x)
    /set sellprice (x,x,x,x)

Potential Problems
  • None that I know of mechanically.

  • Fees on mining bases may increase. (If kept in check it would still be well worth it)
Example of Effect
This one would be pretty simple hopefully and all for more practical use of a POB. You'd get a bit more out of a POB value wise, as each POB could buy/sell at better values. That would allow you to buy a commodity at a lower price than you sell it for. Instead of just dumping a huge float of money on the base to accomodate for the commodity in and out, it would generate profit automatically. A base could buy ore from miners at 2000/unit and the base could only sell it back for 3500.

Further Discussion
Why this change? Miners that fill bases can still make ok credits doing their short runs, and base owners can charge a better rate to traders. That should make it more worth their efforts. Credits can be earned by bases that succeed and the money you put into buying ore from miners would generate an automatic profit when sold. Bases that are for ore at least could earn their taxes/fees just by being a commerce center in the right place.

RE: POB Change Suggestions - Laz - 07-04-2020

Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Add separate price setting commands

Problem Summary
  • This is not possible without first reversing how the entire commodity window is built and constructed. I tried to get this to work when I was building the PoB rework, but it didn't work so well and the visual data was often misleading.


RE: POB Change Suggestions - LuckyOne - 07-04-2020

Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Add separate price setting commands

Problem Summary
  • Laz already described the technical issues, I would like to add that making POBs a wholly passive source of income would only lead to certain people being ever more annoyed by POBs

Amendment
  • Instead of selling the same commodity for a different price, a workaround using the factory modules and refining/crafting recipes was already suggested here Link.

    Sadly, the thread went nowhere because nobody bothered to do the math required for such a change...