+- 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: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. (/showthread.php?tid=111226)
Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Treewyrm - 02-01-2014
Disclaimer: personally I'm not really fond of the idea in OP there. I don't like the whole notion of SRP involvement and sure as hell selected bases turned permanently invincible. Not being too easy to kill at any time of a day.
tl;dr version:
Normally bases are in 'reinforced' state which is similar to current bases that are well supplied. A base has upkeep exponentially increasing over time. When upkeep cannot be sustained any longer the base enters 'vulnerability' state when it's much more open for raids. During this state defenders of the base should mobilize to fend off incoming attacks. This state lasts a certain amount of time before upkeep multiplier is reset back to normal and the base is switched back to 'reinforced' state. Due to exponent nature of upkeep increase such 'windows of opportunity' are periodic events, as well as being more or less predictable. Oversupply and undersupply can potentially adjust offset when a base becomes vulnerable for raids.
What this suggestion currently lacks are values such as duration of 'vulnerable' state, upkeep multiplier increase rate, how often it triggers and what maximum offset can be adjusted either positively by oversupplying or negatively by undersupplying.
----
So, base sieges. The crux of the whole drama surrounding POBs from either side of the 'camps' around. Rather than simply making bases much more vulnerable I'd imagine a different approach, which I think is technically possible to implement, although that would require effort too.
The idea is very simple: exponential upkeep. What it means is that upkeep to maintain base continuously increases over time, so eventually it'll become impossible to supply it enough. What happens then is rather than base dying on its own it simply becomes much more vulnerable for a period of time, after which if it is still alive - the upkeep modifier is reset to normal and rise starts over again. So if the numbers would be adjusted correctly the mechanics of this would mean that periodically bases are going through a time when they're fairly vulnerable, making a window of opportunity for those who seek to destroy it. If maintainers of the base are unable to defend the base through this 'critical' period (that lasts say two hours, just for example) then it is obviously destroyed. If maintainers are able to hold the base alive and this vulnerability period expires then they'll have to try again later.
Both those who defend and those who seek to attack a base will essentially play a tug war, as defenders run to supply it and are able to approximately estimate when the base will enter 'vulnerability' state, so by extensively oversupplying they can tad prolong the time before that happens, or by undersupplying to intentionally let that state hit a bit earlier than usual.
What this would create I think is periodic events of sorts where those who build the base and their allies have to defend the base from attackers. Not around the clock, which is impossible, but rather by knowing when the base is gonna enter 'vulnerability' state and prepare in advance forces to defend it. Attackers too would also have to keep a close eye on this and by intercepting supply ships they could try to make the base enter vulnerability state when it suits them most.
So that's the basics of it. A periodic round of defense for a base that can be predicted by defenders and attackers and a little influenced (postponed by oversupply and early by undersupply) by either side. Being exponential upkeep rise it would mean that eventually it will enter 'vulnerable' state for a brief time. And because that modifier resets after the 'vulnerable' state it ensures that such state occurs periodically. How often at what core stages - I don't know, haven't sat to calculate anything on that, so the only thing I'm presenting here is a conceptual idea.
RE: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Tunicle - 02-01-2014
Possibly a good idea especially for some as I guess it is the building that some people like.
Maybe over-complicated, may be easier to give all a finite life of a couple of months but during that life make them fairly invincible. Have the initial cost quite high so people have to actually play the game to afford one but after that free for the finite lifetime.
RE: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Treewyrm - 02-01-2014
Actually I think it's much simpler than all the weird rules and conditions surrounding what makes for base level advancement in that admin announcement thingy today. At least there is some clarity as to what defines it vulnerable and the core idea here is that it's more or less predictable periodic occurrences for people involved in defending and attacking.
RE: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Moberg - 02-01-2014
(02-01-2014, 01:04 AM)Treewyrm Wrote: The idea is very simple: exponential upkeep. What it means is that upkeep to maintain base continuously increases over time, so eventually it'll become impossible to supply it enough. What happens then is rather than base dying on its own it simply becomes much more vulnerable for a period of time, after which if it is still alive - the upkeep modifier is reset to normal and rise starts over again. So if the numbers would be adjusted correctly the mechanics of this would mean that periodically bases are going through a time when they're fairly vulnerable, making a window of opportunity for those who seek to destroy it. If maintainers of the base are unable to defend the base through this 'critical' period (that lasts say two hours, just for example) then it is obviously destroyed. If maintainers are able to hold the base alive and this vulnerability period expires then they'll have to try again later.
I personally like your idea, although it could need some improvement. Players on Disco play in different timezones and have a real life to worry about. The base owners/defenders/suppliers may simply have something more important to do than defend their POB when the vulnerability state has come again. Especially if it happens during the night of a certain timezone, which conveniently is afternoon in another, thus causing a siege that will most likely result in the loss of the base.
It really depends on how much you can change the event of vulnerability through over- or undersupplying. Making it have enough effect for people to change it by atleast 24 hours, it becomes a lot less predictable.
This is also an issue for those who actually siege the base. Nobody likes to do 3am raids, but otherwise they can't really destroy the base. Changing the vulnerability state to a time where you know not many enemy players can log their ship is a great strategy to keep your base invincible.
I however do not have an idea yet what to do against this. I am merely pointing out something I thought while reading.
RE: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Treewyrm - 02-01-2014
Well it's why it is a concept, not a fully developed idea. Just an idea on core mechanics of it. It needs numbers which I don't have at the moment, but posting it anyway so that may be others would state what kind of numbers they'd expect to see there and why. Like one of the critical ones you mentioned is how much those defending the base can affect offset when base enters 'vulnerable' state. 24 hours max? 12 hours max? Not sure, it's where I think feedback is needed from those who run those bases actively.
Another critical number there is how long 'vulnerable' state lasts before base enters back into normal reinforced state and upkeep multiplier resets back to 1. Also important how fast should multiplier increase, thus dictating how often 'vulnerable' state occurs.
RE: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Sabru - 02-01-2014
sounds kinda like EVE.
RE: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Murcielago - 02-01-2014
You have good concept here.
I like your idea and I have nothing to add (wierd)
RE: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Kirill - 02-01-2014
Bad idea. Cuz it will become no sence to supply base for 5-10 days forward by barge. And after filling base with repairs, it will "randomly" eat all this in 2-3 days and die. Good?
RE: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Treewyrm - 02-01-2014
(02-01-2014, 10:30 AM)Kirill Wrote: Bad idea. Cuz it will become no sence to supply base for 5-10 days forward by barge. And after filling base with repairs, it will "randomly" eat all this in 2-3 days and die. Good?Wrong. Within this concept the base doesn't die on its own from undersupply, it would only make it go into vulnerable state more frequently, more predictably so, possibly also increasing duration of vulnerable state as well.
RE: Yeah, POBs again. An idea about sieges. - Kirill - 02-01-2014
I HATE RANDOM.
Seriously, if this can be done, maybe just fully remove wear and tear damage and FWO? Then it will become harder to kill Core 4 with full supplies, but will still be killable.