+- 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 - darkwind - 07-04-2020
Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Add separate price setting commands, addition to Laz comment
Amendment
- We had suggestion about making Ore Processing factories at pobs, what if PoBs all onboard ore is processed from Gold Ore to Processed Gold Ore automatically at high speed without literally any additions. We would be able to set different sell/price conditions for Processed Gold Ore
P.S. uh, I didn't finish reading Lucky answer, well basically he said it. Just do it in more simplified way, no need to make a lot from it. Just automatic converting from simple ore to processed one by default. And literally the same Ore selling prices for processed ores.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Binski - 07-04-2020
Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Add separate price setting commands
Problem Summary
- In reply to Laz, I didn't think of that. I suppose you'd need two info lines per commodity on the shop list, an A and B.
Or, would it be possible to fit in an additional value to the current formula (second price field)?
So it could look like
/shop price (item) (price a) (price b) (min) (max)
where price 'a' can be what the base buys the item for, and 'b' can be what it sells it back for. Thats all I got on that one.
In reply to the others, it came to mind a few times when just filling bases. Miners may demand base owners not try to grill a huge profit (squabbles over profit margins), and build up of supply would then mean an owner may temporarily justify lowering its buy price until it sells off stock at the higher price. That seems worth trying if it can be worked. With respect to the refinement suggestion I think it best to keep mining and ore handling like it is in general.
Also, in theory, those who get credits from bases may be expected to get a bit more out of it. If a base starts making a lot from high activity, perhaps whats reasonable may go up a bit. It could mean more profits all around, depending on rp deals. A faction may be able to demand to know how much a base is making inrp and go from there.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - LuckyOne - 07-04-2020
Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: Turn POBs into a strategic cap-docking asset
Specifics
- As far as I can tell, this is already partially implemented, but an expansion should be considered
- Remove most cap-ship dock points on common stations, planets and smaller pirate bases (for cruisers and up)
- Cap ships should be based at shipyards and naval bases (inRP strong points / sell points) and POBs
- Optional: Make POB level correspond to the size of capital ships that can dock. Core 1 - up to gunboats, Core 2 - up to cruisers, Core 3+ - up to battleships
Potential Problems
- Not sure if it's possible to limit docking for cap ships without affecting transports so some additional coding would probably be required
- Possibly the amount of needed materials for building should be rebalanced, so that lower level POBs are a bit less time consuming to build.
- Might cause lots of whine because of limiting options for people who love their caps
- 1 hour PVP cooldown makes this a bit moot, as most of the time you can reach the system you died in in your cap in less than an hour, however it would still serve as an (in)convenience and leave a bigger vulnerability window to intercept reinforcements.
- There should be a possibility to override the limits for events
- May encourage more POB-spam in place of cap-spam
- May limit RP options in some cases instead of expanding them (but who says you can't RP building a cap mooring point on an NPC base???)
Example of Effect
- Reduces the amount of caps in non-core far away systems naturally, even without strong ZoI rules
- Reduces the amount of POBs that are built where the builders don't already have a strong in-RP presence (harder to defend if you can only undock from the camped POB).
- Reduces the ability to meta-game with 10 different / shared caps docked on every planet and bigger station in a system / House.
- Adds goals for both the lawfuls and unlawfuls to aim for, if they wish to contest a system (both gameplay and RP-wise).
- Adds importance to inter-faction treaties on docking rights / shared stations.
- Reduces problems of caps docking to places where it doesn't make inRP sense (Ranseurs at Rochester, I'm looking at you!) .
- Makes sieges in systems on the edge of ZoI a bit more inconvenient if there is no friendly base where a cap could be docked.
- Makes faction logistics more important (ammo / nanobots / shield batteries running to POBs)
- Makes jump drives more important
Further Discussion
I believe this would make Discovery and POBs a more interesting option for both lawful and unlawful factions and make POBs more useful for both gameplay and role-play. Also building "secret" POBs might become a more common thing, so the lawfuls / unlawfuls would mount search and destroy missions to maintain better control of a system and reduce cap-spam.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - darkwind - 07-08-2020
Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: Load/Unloadable bases
Specifics
- Using admin password, base owners can use load/unload base from game, basically logging it in and out.
- Logging takes no times, logging out takes 24 hours
- it makes awesome situation when they can go out of the game during need, leaving base without supervision and base is not loading server meaninglessly
- It makes awesome situation, where they need to defend the base no more than 24 hours per one siege time.
- I see no problems
Some player is building base, during siege or when he wishes to stop taking care of base he inserts command /base unload BaseName Password.
He protects it for 24 hours, base disappears.
When he returns and wishes to play again he inserts /base load BaseName Password, base appears.
Further Discussion
resolves a lot of problems.
Can be implemented in the laziest way for the base to disappear/appear during server daily restarts
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Piombo65 - 07-08-2020
Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Load/Unloadable bases
Problem Summary
- No problems, but so much abuse, yes. Some PoB is threatened? Unload the base until the Siege time expires.
- Repeat every PoB siege.
- Putting a "You can't unload during a siege or when the shield is on" could resolve.
None.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - Czechmate - 09-08-2020
Suggestion
Type: Rules
Title: Remove and/or add harsh criteria for PoBs built on top of NPC bases
Specifics
- Disallow a PoB built within e.g. 5 or 10k of an existing NPC Base. If one is built it must fulfill criteria like
- dockable to the entire faction of the base
- disabled weapons platforms except when defending against a siege
- being useful for the whole faction
- added RP criteria, as it becomes essentially an extension of the NPC base
- Extra GM work and needed rule change should they be allowed
Someone wants to build a base e.g. right on top of planet gammu atmospheric entry point.
They would be allowed to do so only when fulfilling the harsh in-rp and oorp criteria and becoming in effect an extension of the base - with potential of becoming canon extensions
Further Discussion
Bases like Velvet one next to FP11, Crayter next to Minato or Order one next to Dabadoru are very harmful. Their weapons platforms disrupt PvP interactions, make people hug the base and try to trigger fire and CDs (even against you when you are part of the NPC faction of the PoB) and are just bad for gameplay. And on top of that not only don't provide any benefit to the faction, they don't even let them dock and just act like personal storage for the owners. A PoB built on top of an existing NPC base should be open useful to the faction, or not be there at all.
At the very least, the criteria should be harsher for them to be built and maintained than a random PoB that nobody ever sees.
RE: POB Change Suggestions - puppytaste - 09-17-2020
Suggestion
Type: Siege approvals by GMs and Rules surrounding participants.
Title: GMs will approve or deny all POB siege requests. Siege participants must actually RP in attacking faction and cannot be characters created for the sole purpose of siege.
Specifics
- Persons posting in POB attack thread will be subject to a 24 hour review before post is visible and required wait period begins (So it would be a 48hour wait for most bases). Persons wishing to preform a siege will provide a list of players involved in siege. GMs will review basis of intent by attacking party and insure that it is not a group looking to Grief other players. For example, If Faction A wishes to siege POB B, players wishing to participate in said will have some level of activity in the faction that controls the ZOI base is in. GMs will insure that participants (Both attackers and defenders) are not chars created specifically for the siege.
- -Extra work for GM team.
-Extra RP requirements for factions who want to siege.
-Only factions active members may participate in a siege, thus it is more difficult to create a 'Gank Squad'. (IE: each char involved should have min. 12 hours logged on that ship over the last 90 days.)
-Fixing some weird ZOI's like Omicron Kappa. (IE: It makes no sense why Gammu Homeworld is in same system as Outworld Zoners 'Home Planet' and Main Shipyard but is also in Corsairs ZOI for example. So who actually controls Kappa ZOI? At the moment its whomever can log the most caps, and the Gammu have little defense against a dozen Corsair dreddys no matter how many log in to defend. We can't have systems where 2 groups actually live there but group 3 from next door can just attack whenever and the other 2 groups can't do anything due to not having big enough ships or other RP reasons that they cannot defend their neighbors against a siege in their own system.)
A declaration being moderated in this way will help dissuade griefers from attacking POB's with thin RP reasons. Players will have to actually participate the official factions that are making the declaration and have a reasonable amount of activity in said faction. This will help ensure RP is being preformed by all attackers and the siege is not performed by chars created for the singular purpose of attacking a POB. A minor exception to this could be allowing either attackers or defenders to hire a 3rd party as mercenaries to defend/attack base. Merc's would have to follow the same guidelines as attacker/defenders as far as faction activity goes.
Further Discussion
***Please note that when I refer to 'official' faction I really mean that your group is known to the server (IE: on the faction activity page where activity is tracked) but may still use generic ID***
- Groups/ Factions should have a good reason to Siege a POB. I will list a few examples,
- Base was built unlawfully in factions ZOI
- Base refuse's to pay any lawfully required taxes or use fees to controlling faction in their ZOI
- Base will not RP with controlling faction or has conflicting purpose to controlling faction in their ZOI
- Base is used as a hub for groups considered to be unlawful to controlling faction in their ZOI
- Base is derelict or unused and it is a reasonable action by controlling faction in their ZOI
- Nomads are the exception, they will always have a good reason to attack a human installation.
Basically, RP reasons that make sense. Nothing not already in rules.
-Bad reasons to siege a POB
- Greifing for the sake of destroying something of value to another person.
- Siege because you don't like the owner or their personal beliefs that do not have anything to do with the game.
- Siege because you don't feel like the base owner RP's at the same level as yours (IE: New Players that need time and help from the community to develop RP skill set or don't have the best English language skills)
- Siege because the base serves no purpose to you personally but not necessarily other players.
- Siege because the base may have reasonable docking restrictions or other inRP protocols and you find that offensive but are not in anyway illegal (but yet you wont ask for docking rights or even read why the base made that choice in the 1st place. Instead of just assuming and making a declare. Sometimes it makes perfect sense for a base to restrict docking during specific operations such as a core upgrade or when available space for sell-able wares is limited. Not everything is meant as an offense to you personally.)
In essence, I'd like to see POB owners that at least try to add something positive to the community not have to worry about people coming to Grief your hard work because of reasons that had nothing to do with the game or RP. I've seen a few attacks that seem to have stemmed from reasons like this. I would hope that a POB owner creates the base for reasons that benefit all of us. Its just way to easy right now for a group of players to band together, buy some caps make a couple of posts and go blow something up for little real reason other then they can. This dissuades new players and small groups of players from making a vital contribution to the community and economy. Making siege available to only 'official' factions and only allowing players who actually RP that faction on a regular basis to participate will give much needed protection to POB owners making an effort.
I do own a POB. I shed no tears for the many that have been destroyed over the last few months that did not even try to RP and were just there to take up space and be an eyesore. That being said, a few of those POBs were obviously the victim of a situation that had little to do with RP circumstances. They deserve some protection from players who only seek to spam. I really don't intend to offend anyone with that statement, I know the POB's only live to die. But I think as a community we owe each other a bit of common respect and should support those willing to risk so much of their time and resources to add something for all of us to potentially enjoy.