+- 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: Player Owned Bases (/showthread.php?tid=159051)
RE: Player Owned Bases - Paddy. - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 01:36 AM)Shiki Wrote:(05-31-2020, 01:10 AM)Paddy. Wrote:(05-31-2020, 01:01 AM)Xenon Wrote:(05-31-2020, 12:29 AM)jammi Wrote: No Opportunity to parley =/= Dumb stuff RP.
Sometimes there isn't anything the base owners can do, no demand they can satisfy, to appease the attackers. An opposing military force don't want taxes or compliance, they want to destroy an enemy economic asset to deny its use to the people they're fighting.
That if the POB being attacked is an enemy to the attackers but that is not what is happening in most of the cases. In some cases, attackers besiege an installation without even knowing the IFF of the installation or which side does it belongs to... Do you know why? - Because they didn't even contact or do any RP comms with the installation. What happens then in that case
There are rules about PoB's to better the game. An RP server should demand really good RP especially about an established base etc. Games should be played fairly and reasonably and that is not happening. Had Enclave opened up a dialogue to tax/annex Goldgeist or face destruction it might still be there.
All bases in Dublin had time, many months to talk to Enclave and ensure their safety, not talking about Goldgeist here though, it had no chance as it had BMM- literally in its name. Bases chose to register under Bretonia and ignore Enclave. Now maybe, people who would wish to build new POB in Dublin will consider RPing with Enclave prior to construction, if POB owners are all about RP that much. Or so they all suddenly claim right now, playing victim card 24/7.
Festus McBoyles Shipyard construction was RP'd with Enclave and that was fun, although a tough sell.
On the other hand, unless this was before my time so I don't know, but Goldgeist hasn't been in any comms with Enclave.It was left alone as I can tell during the war.
Also I could not change its IFF and name because I can't, even though the base was now effectively a neutral freeport type operation.
I still don't know why it was necessary to destroy an asset the Enclave could have used. Forcing docking rights on a (almost former) BMM base would have been a win in the propaganda wars, if not a place to launch from closer to NL.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Reacher - 05-31-2020
For those who are upset about Goldgiest being destroyed I suggest this: Make some Outcast, Core, or Rhienland caps and siege the Corsair POB "Prison Station Nicosia" in Omicron Xi.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Shiki - 05-31-2020
In all honesty I cannot imagine Enclave docking at BMM base. It doesnt make sense equally for both BMM and Enclave.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 01:36 AM)Shiki Wrote: All bases in Dublin had time, many months to talk to Enclave and ensure their safety, not talking about Goldgeist here though, it had no chance as it had BMM- literally in its name. Bases chose to register under Bretonia and ignore Enclave. Now maybe, people who would wish to build new POB in Dublin will consider RPing with Enclave prior to construction, if POB owners are all about RP that much. Or so they all suddenly claim right now, playing victim card 24/7.
They have never even been contacted by Enclave but "had months to RP with Enclave and deserve to have their year old bases destroyed because they didnt beg for mercy the moment the Enclave came into existence years after their bases had already been built".
Lovely.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Sava - 05-31-2020
Ideally, space should be dangerous, and sieges should encourage POB owners/builders to work in teams and consider risks.
It evidently doesn't happen, partially because sieges of lawful bases in house systems are relatively rare and don't happen unless some veterans gang up and come to such a decision, partially because of the ease of setting up a new base without thoroughly understanding possible implications. People are feeling down after losing their precious asset, and it's not like losing a pvp or paying to a pirate.
In their present form, sieges... well, they are meh. Most POBs are meh, too. It's more of a rule than an exception, so blaming people isn't an option, you gotta change the system.
Karlotta came up with some ideas, I think they deserve more attention.
RE: Player Owned Bases - LaWey - 05-31-2020
1) POBs should be made as temporary as they called. Conception should be based around fast to deploy - fast to kill.
To achieve this i propose drop out in window recipes with 1000500 of garbage to deploy base and build base's module, Instead, implement "base construction kits" commodities with certain characteristics:
That just shouldn't go further than 1-2 5kers per module. Players should waste their time farming that money on conventional trade routes or on missions to benefit healthy interactions.
- Very high price - so you invest your credits, and its actual money sinks from the economy.
- Big volume - player forced to haul it on transport. This is just organisational moment to spice risks and RP behind building (i.e. you can't just deliver all modules on LF, which nobody can intercept.)
- "Modular Base Core" - 700 volume, 250-500+ millions. (this is starting module for BCP deployment)
- "Modular Base Storage" - 1000-1500 volume, 100-300 millions.
- "Modular Base Shield Generator" - 1000-1500 volume, 500 millions.
- "Modular Base Core Extension" - 1000-1500 volume, 1 billion.
- And etc..
That just shouldn't go further than 1-2 5kers per module. Players should waste their time farming that money on conventional trade routes or on missions to benefit healthy interactions.
2) POBs-related mining and ore distribution should be studied, considered and regulated.
The best way here, make plugin check if player inside some dummy area and prevent BCP deploy inside it, implement those spherical areas in every volume, where we don't want to see PoBs. For example, placing POB ~60k out of the field can naturally solve economic and piracy issues. That way, miners groups who use excavator-dump truck gameplay won't be harmed, solo relog mode - discouraged.
3) POB maintenance should be separated from POB production.
Nuff said, separate "Modular Base Maintenance Kits" commodity, with a high price. Selling locations of them along with base factories materials should be considered to favor POBs along main roads, preferably industrial. POB should be startup business project/or Tamagotchi for wealthy boys. Money consuming, not time.
Obviously there more and more else what i didn't covered here, but those - critical.
RE: Player Owned Bases - darkwind - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 06:06 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: 1) POBs should be made as temporary as they called. Conception should be based around fast to deploy - fast to kill.
To achieve this i propose drop out in window recipes with 1000500 of garbage to deploy base and build base's module, Instead, implement "base construction kits" commodities with certain characteristics:Example:
- Very high price - so you invest your credits, and its actual money sinks from the economy.
- Big volume - player forced to haul it on transport. This is just organisational moment to spice risks and RP behind building (i.e. you can't just deliver all modules on LF, which nobody can intercept.)
To balance risks, or to create chances for cargo piracy, or to allow place PoB somewhere in uncharted asshole, or to set bigger price without breaking freelancer money limits, it obviously can be divided on like 5-10 of 1000-1500 volume commodities required to build a module. Like, make shield generator constructed from 10 parts with 1000 volume, cost 50 million every. Or like, core extension from 20 parts with cost 100 mils every.
- "Modular Base Core" - 700 volume, 250-500+ millions. (this is starting module for BCP deployment)
- "Modular Base Storage" - 1000-1500 volume, 100-300 millions.
- "Modular Base Shield Generator" - 1000-1500 volume, 500 millions.
- "Modular Base Core Extension" - 1000-1500 volume, 1 billion.
- And etc..
That just shouldn't go further than 1-2 5kers per module. Players should waste their time farming that money on conventional trade routes or on missions to benefit healthy interactions.
2) POBs-related mining and ore distribution should be studied, considered and regulated.
The best way here, make plugin check if player inside some dummy area and prevent BCP deploy inside it, implement those spherical areas in every volume, where we don't want to see PoBs. For example, placing POB ~60k out of the field can naturally solve economic and piracy issues. That way, miners groups who use excavator-dump truck gameplay won't be harmed, solo relog mode - discouraged.
3) POB maintenance should be separated from POB production.
Nuff said, separate "Modular Base Maintenance Kits" commodity, with a high price. Selling locations of them along with base factories materials should be considered to favor POBs along main roads, preferably industrial. POB should be startup business project/or Tamagotchi for wealthy boys. Money consuming, not time.
Obviously there more and more else what i didn't covered here, but those - critical.
You have really hard prices here for PoB owners without yet giving any defense or changing siege mechanics in terms of prices.
On second thought it would be nice to see the maintenance mechanism before saying the final word. Adjust prices for Core 1 being cheap (50 mils) and shield leaving as expensive as you offered(300-500mils) and it would be nice to see I think
The idea to have siege weapons with ammo consuming a lot of credits quite nicely sounded somewhere. People would lose not only their AFK siege timing but credits as well.
FLhook prevention for deployment? Heck no.
I'm actually not seeing the problem at all with it. Are you what, can't fire CD to trigger shield preventing base docking? I asked GMs, they answered it's allowed.
They implement radar inhibition in mining fields already. It should be enough.
RE: Player Owned Bases - LaWey - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 08:09 AM)darkwind Wrote: You have really hard prices here for PoB owners without yet giving any defense or changing siege mechanics in terms of prices.
On second thought it would be nice to see the maintenance mechanism before saying the final word. Adjust prices for Core 1 being cheap (50 mils) and shield leaving as expensive as you offered(300-500mils) and it would be nice to see I think
Well, intentions here honestly not to kill "containers", but cut newbies from making mistakes before they heard about possible scenarios and realise what they deal with. PoB initial investment should be a considerable pity to waste. Prices numbers I took obviously from my ass, but not far with the current inflation. But yes, POB popping can be balanced by having 400-500 mils shield module, and 50-100 mils deployment (seriously - its 5ker's hour profit, and my intention indeed to not let people, who don't know how to make money go for a POB)
(05-31-2020, 08:09 AM)darkwind Wrote: FLhook prevention for deployment? Heck no.
I'm actually not seeing the problem at all with it. Are you what, can't fire CD to trigger shield preventing base docking? I asked GMs, they answered it's allowed.
They implement radar inhibition in mining fields already. It should be enough.
Piracy promotion just a bonus. Real intention - prohibit solo mining in 5k without touching guys who do full-scale mining ops for POBs. Around 30-60k still left excavator - dump truck viable, but effectively killing solo drop-relog-catch. Yes, that one is "containers"-killer.
*Edit - Extended elaboration. While many people see trader getting ore from POB as something wrong and "silent" (like interactions with miners can't be just literally /givecash and 1 line), I see POB as a tool to connect economically people playing miners and traders in different time zones. Group of miners filling POB still work in both game design and economy conception, they just don't want play haulers, they want to play excavator and quarry dump track.
But solo reloggers and POB-dockers should be removed, because breaking game design phylosphy and just ruin economy.
About piracy - Neither current system's design, neither current economy design suppose the safe dock right near with mining field. I doubt this can be really solved other than moving POBs out of certain zones and forcing them rival with conventional "at place" mining.
RE: Player Owned Bases - darkwind - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 09:29 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote:(05-31-2020, 08:09 AM)darkwind Wrote: You have really hard prices here for PoB owners without yet giving any defense or changing siege mechanics in terms of prices.
On second thought it would be nice to see the maintenance mechanism before saying the final word. Adjust prices for Core 1 being cheap (50 mils) and shield leaving as expensive as you offered(300-500mils) and it would be nice to see I think
Well, intentions here honestly not to kill "containers", but cut newbies from making mistakes before they heard about possible scenarios and realise what they deal with. PoB initial investment should be a considerable pity to waste. Prices numbers I took obviously from my ass, but not far with the current inflation. But yes, POB popping can be balanced by having 400-500 mils shield module, and 50-100 mils deployment (seriously - its 5ker's hour profit, and my intention indeed to not let people, who don't know how to make money go for a POB)
(05-31-2020, 08:09 AM)darkwind Wrote: FLhook prevention for deployment? Heck no.
I'm actually not seeing the problem at all with it. Are you what, can't fire CD to trigger shield preventing base docking? I asked GMs, they answered it's allowed.
They implement radar inhibition in mining fields already. It should be enough.
Piracy promotion just a bonus. Real intention - prohibit solo mining in 5k without touching guys who do full-scale mining ops for POBs. Around 30-60k still left excavator - dump truck viable, but effectively killing solo drop-relog-catch. Yes, that one is "containers"-killer.
About piracy - Neither current system's design, neither current economy design suppose the safe dock right near with mining field. I doubt this can be really solved other than moving POBs out of certain zones and forcing them rival with conventional "at place" mining.
Solving newbie cases when their bases would be crushed should be done not buy harming smuggling affairs, but instead making better information about how good pob defending capabilities.
even if the base has
PoB Core Upgrade, + Shield + A lot of other things
Until it's repaired... it's a target for quick destruction in less than half of an hour.
Even if it is repaired even. The base still remains weak against blood-lusting siegers with siege guns.
Basically, no matter what they would install for the base, it would be still destroyed.
Current mechanics just don't allow protected bases, unless you are living in Liberty and in front of Manhattan.
And price cost... newbies go with CAU8 Battleships around. Not even knowing English language. What are you talking about with deterring newbies by costs? (Istanbul or something like that named)
The only thing that prevents newbies I think it's speaking and writing.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Lonely_Ghost - 05-31-2020
(05-31-2020, 09:40 AM)darkwind Wrote:(05-31-2020, 09:29 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote:(05-31-2020, 08:09 AM)darkwind Wrote: You have really hard prices here for PoB owners without yet giving any defense or changing siege mechanics in terms of prices.
On second thought it would be nice to see the maintenance mechanism before saying the final word. Adjust prices for Core 1 being cheap (50 mils) and shield leaving as expensive as you offered(300-500mils) and it would be nice to see I think
Well, intentions here honestly not to kill "containers", but cut newbies from making mistakes before they heard about possible scenarios and realise what they deal with. PoB initial investment should be a considerable pity to waste. Prices numbers I took obviously from my ass, but not far with the current inflation. But yes, POB popping can be balanced by having 400-500 mils shield module, and 50-100 mils deployment (seriously - its 5ker's hour profit, and my intention indeed to not let people, who don't know how to make money go for a POB)
(05-31-2020, 08:09 AM)darkwind Wrote: FLhook prevention for deployment? Heck no.
I'm actually not seeing the problem at all with it. Are you what, can't fire CD to trigger shield preventing base docking? I asked GMs, they answered it's allowed.
They implement radar inhibition in mining fields already. It should be enough.
Piracy promotion just a bonus. Real intention - prohibit solo mining in 5k without touching guys who do full-scale mining ops for POBs. Around 30-60k still left excavator - dump truck viable, but effectively killing solo drop-relog-catch. Yes, that one is "containers"-killer.
About piracy - Neither current system's design, neither current economy design suppose the safe dock right near with mining field. I doubt this can be really solved other than moving POBs out of certain zones and forcing them rival with conventional "at place" mining.
Solving newbie cases when their bases would be crushed should be done not buy harming smuggling affairs, but instead making better information about how good pob defending capabilities.
even if the base has
PoB Core Upgrade, + Shield + A lot of other things
Until it's repaired... it's a target for quick destruction in less than half of an hour.
Even if it is repaired even. The base still remains weak against blood-lusting siegers with siege guns.
Basically, no matter what they would install for the base, it would be still destroyed.
Current mechanics just don't allow protected bases, unless you are living in Liberty and in front of Manhattan.
And we are back to the initial point of our journey- Are you sure you want to create your POB ?
It's really an RL projection into the game: You invest your money, your time and efforts, but you cannot be 100% assure that nothing bad would happen.