+- 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. - Langolier - 03-09-2017
(03-09-2017, 03:23 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: Link
I still think this is the most viable option that's been put forth to fix the broken risk/reward factor for each side involved.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Wesker - 03-09-2017
(03-09-2017, 03:18 PM)SkyNet Wrote: Remove them and make npc stations more usefull. Give offical factions more control over their npc bases.
This is a good idea I've been unsure of pushing towards, police factions can nodock people with bases for RP reasons, this same sort of "control" should be given to unlawful factions as well.
Quote:The biggest issue i see here is that base sieges are always connected with ooRP hate. Or have you ever seen a Kudos of former PoB owners after their beloved base got killed? You usually hit the respawn button after losing PvP. This does not work for PoBs. Hence base sieges will never be in favor of PoB owners.
Oorp hate or no oorp hate, base sieges always go maliciously and turn up maliciously weather the intent was malicious or not. The cold reality is, if you keep pobs in the game and keep a siege mechanic -regardless of what it is- people will always get angry.
Quote:Furthermore you need battleships to do some damage to bases. I believe that factions without access to battleships are disadvantaged here once again. And those who have access to battleships, are logging a fleet that does not exist iRP. Why? Because you need them to -win- the siege. Today you see offical factions logging ~20-50 battleships for sieges, maybe only a few of them with offical tag, to use this ridiculous excuse: "Hey, you can't control indies."
This is still a RP server after all. A fleet that does not exist iRP, should not exist. Period.
Going by this logic there should only be a total of 20 dunkirks on the server including BAF
There should only be a total of 4 legates and 8 murmillos including tagged
There should only be 12 Jorms tagged included
There should only be 12 Kusari Battleships tagged included.
This logic is flawed, there has to be a line between "super heavy must follow RP precisely" and having fun in general. Large cap fights of 20-40 Bss spread on each side is really fun, but going by the "we must limit numbers to RP numbers" logic takes that away completely.
On a separate note, Zayne's idea sounds interesting, I'd take a look into that, or give factions more control over their npc bases.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Major. - 03-09-2017
Wenker, stop.
Edit: Just ban Wenker :>)
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Sola Virtus Invicta - 03-10-2017
(03-09-2017, 03:53 PM)Wesker Wrote:(03-09-2017, 03:18 PM)SkyNet Wrote: Remove them and make npc stations more usefull. Give offical factions more control over their npc bases.
This is a good idea I've been unsure of pushing towards, police factions can nodock people with bases for RP reasons, this same sort of "control" should be given to unlawful factions as well.
Quote:The biggest issue i see here is that base sieges are always connected with ooRP hate. Or have you ever seen a Kudos of former PoB owners after their beloved base got killed? You usually hit the respawn button after losing PvP. This does not work for PoBs. Hence base sieges will never be in favor of PoB owners.
Oorp hate or no oorp hate, base sieges always go maliciously and turn up maliciously weather the intent was malicious or not. The cold reality is, if you keep pobs in the game and keep a siege mechanic -regardless of what it is- people will always get angry.
Quote:Furthermore you need battleships to do some damage to bases. I believe that factions without access to battleships are disadvantaged here once again. And those who have access to battleships, are logging a fleet that does not exist iRP. Why? Because you need them to -win- the siege. Today you see offical factions logging ~20-50 battleships for sieges, maybe only a few of them with offical tag, to use this ridiculous excuse: "Hey, you can't control indies."
This is still a RP server after all. A fleet that does not exist iRP, should not exist. Period.
Going by this logic there should only be a total of 20 dunkirks on the server including BAF
There should only be a total of 4 legates and 8 murmillos including tagged
There should only be 12 Jorms tagged included
There should only be 12 Kusari Battleships tagged included.
This logic is flawed, there has to be a line between "super heavy must follow RP precisely" and having fun in general. Large cap fights of 20-40 Bss spread on each side is really fun, but going by the "we must limit numbers to RP numbers" logic takes that away completely.
Considering the server population barely nears 80 people at a time during peak hours these days, the numbers you quoted on how many battleships would exist only in RP would still be half the server. The fact that people only get on certain characters when there is action for that character is what kills the RP. I agree that if a fleet doesn't exist inRP, then it shouldn't be able to zerg in randomly just because people get bored.
A lesson I learned a long time ago for RP applies here: In Roleplay, if you're bored, then you're boring. The server, by its own rules, puts RP before PvP every time, so having a Cap Ship in reserve just to use it when there is a fight isn't just a form of Metagaming, it's also completely missing the point of the server.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Cursetantine - 03-10-2017
Imo the siege platform idea is good however I think the destructability of a POB should scale with a larger curve than now, i.e. siegeing a core 2 base should be easier, but a core 4 harder.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Benoit - 03-10-2017
If I could compare a base siege to something in reality it would be the shore bombardment of coasts during the WWII.
The problem of shore bombardment wasn't finding the firepower to make it happens but rather making the logistics doable in order to supply the immense need of munition.
Why not simulate this by making the attacker needs a power supply chain via the need of transporters to maintain his capacity of shooting?
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Sombs - 03-10-2017
(03-10-2017, 12:35 PM)Arda Wrote: Imo the siege platform idea is good however I think the destructability of a POB should scale with a larger curve than now, i.e. siegeing a core 2 base should be easier, but a core 4 harder.
The stupid thing about the siege platform is simply that you suddenly switch the roles of defender and attacker without taking the problem away. People complained the old system was unfair towards the attackers in the aspect of requiring battleships in order to cause enough damage. Now what about the siege platform? If you give it too much HP, you have literally the same issue, as the defenders would require battleships themselves - which would make it in favor of the attackers if the defenders don't have battleships available. If it's too low, it makes no sense either, as the attackers would simply do the same as they usually do: Log snubs/bombers to clean out the area and then bring in the damage dealers. In this case it would be the siege platform, in the old case the battleships.
Making it an event is pretty much the best solution, as people have to bring in all the stuff they have from the beginning, without switching to whatever they need to be in favor.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Langolier - 03-10-2017
(03-10-2017, 12:59 PM)Benoit Wrote: If I could compare a base siege to something in reality it would be the shore bombardment of coasts during the WWII.
The problem of shore bombardment wasn't finding the firepower to make it happens but rather making the logistics doable in order to supply the immense need of munition.
Why not simulate this by making the attacker needs a power supply chain via the need of transporters to maintain his capacity of shooting?
Good point.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Enkidu - 03-15-2017
Bombers definitely need to be an anti-POB weapon just as much as caps.
RE: POB destruction discussion thread. - Sola Virtus Invicta - 03-16-2017
(03-15-2017, 10:24 AM)Tanith Wrote: Bombers definitely need to be an anti-POB weapon just as much as caps.
I agree, although they are obviously MUCH cheaper than a battleship, or siege cruiser, so we might end up with bomber swarms that cost 30 mil taking out a quarter-billion SC POB.
I guess it all comes down to the players, and whether or not they are decent enough people to not abuse the system, though abusing the system seems to be the reason for this discussion, or at least that it's too faulty to NOT be exploited easily by the average player.