+- 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 - SlappyTheRoach - 06-01-2020
(06-01-2020, 07:33 AM)Hubjump Wrote:(06-01-2020, 07:32 AM)SlappyTheRoach Wrote: I am not defending my actions no.(06-01-2020, 07:32 AM)SlappyTheRoach Wrote: But yes I am defending myself.
Would you mind elaborating what you mean by these contradicting statements?
![[Image: cool.png]](https://discoverygc.com/forums/images/smilies/cool.png)
Bottom line if you didn't get it was a smart ass comment.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Grumblesaur - 06-01-2020
(06-01-2020, 07:37 AM)Hubjump Wrote:(06-01-2020, 07:33 AM)Grumblesaur Wrote: I don't see how that's a loss for the game environment.
Less players means less interactions which leads to less players which leads to the mod finally dying.
You have to be trolling at this point. We need to compromise and keep as many people as happy as we can for as long as we can to keep the mod alive for as long as it possible can be for all of us, our collective entertainment.
I'm not trolling. Players with an unhealthy attitude toward the game environment are not a loss if they leave the game. Keeping as many people happy for as long as possible does not mean keeping all people happy all the time. I don't believe that POB operators are a majority segment of the game environment, and I assume that people who are this emotionally attached and easily-inflamed are not a majority of POB operators.
That is to say, it would be no great loss numerically, and a potential improvement in the health of the server community, for people who cry foul at losing a gamble in a very risky scenario to show themselves the door.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Monsieur Baguette - 06-01-2020
(06-01-2020, 07:21 AM)Sniper Wrote: [quote="Grumblesaur" pid='2166514' dateline='1590985348']
Since it is not the first time you invoke the general rationality behind sieges and iRL sieges mechanics, let me tell you a few examples.
1. Mongols/Tamerlan.
Kenghis Khan gave cities opportunity to capitulate, and those that refused he attacked until they surrendered. No RP = no opportunity to surrender.
Not always, lol. Look up the history if you don't know it well. They were employing the tactics of terror to appear to the enemies as "unstoppable juggernaut". To support this image, they sometimes would just smash. I see no reason why it can not be applied to Enclave.
(06-01-2020, 07:21 AM)Sniper Wrote: 2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Were not sieges
It was a seige. The whole country was the fortress.
And yet they were destroyed without negotiations before the atomic bombing to achieve certain objectives, one of them being to stop the Soviets from invading Japan and turning it into a communist puppet. As you can see, sometimes destruction serves the purposes better than negotiations.
(06-01-2020, 07:21 AM)Sniper Wrote: 3. A lot of Nazi sieges in the USSR
I wouldn't idolise the Nazi's as your role model. You are seiging a PoB, not a planet.
Firstly, when did I idolise Nazis? Secondly, how are Nazi related to besieging a planet and not a POB? If you are so careful with wording, as you subsequently state, then you should also care about replying in a comprehensive manner. Again, to the point I made about Nazis: they had certain ideology behind them that motivated them to eradicate instead of subduing. Same can be applied to the Enclave that as a part of Gallic Royal Forces glassed Leeds.
(06-01-2020, 07:21 AM)Sniper Wrote: Its a game. It isn't real life. But people play this game without whom there would be no game. They want to be here to enjoy it.
Firstly, you were the first to compare the sieges to RL saying that the sieges in question are irrational:
(05-30-2020, 11:52 PM)Sniper Wrote: For statement 4 I raise these points:Now shifting opinion to "it's just a game" after literally invoking RL examples and calling the besiegers on the basis of RL comparisons and rationality is simply hypocrisy. Secondly, if this is just a game - do not trigger over it and cause drama. Yet again, the devs promised you to look into the situation. Save your arguments until they roll out a revamped POB system.
There is no need for sieges to always end in a PoB's destruction.
a. In RL territorial wars (e.g. WW2) resource producing areas, cities, even countries were annexed, not usually destroyed totally.
b. The annexed and captured peoples (read PoB's here) were made to pay tribute to their occupiers. In fact wanton destruction was never to an occupying forces benefit for that reason.
c. Wealth and booty were important to execute war. PoB's such as Goldgeist would be a key resource ro capture booty etc.
d.The Germans in WW2 lived very well for the most part as the Nazi's plundered France, Holland etc into starvation to feed their masses.
e. Occupiers used the captured resources to use as forward bases of operations. (Landing rights on PoB's to launch from)
f. Annexing rather than destroying a base means ongoing RP. Once destroyed there is no need for, in the case of Goldgeist, Bretonia to recapture the base. No base, no RP can be generated, no ongoing tussles.
g. If a PoB does not surrender to an occupiers (sensible) demands, then they can be destroyed. To do that there would be genuine, indepth, RP involved. This is an RP server, not a PvP one afterall.
(06-01-2020, 07:21 AM)Sniper Wrote: You are harming the community.
Perhaps you need to start a new server to practice your ideology in. [/color]
If these actions harm a few individuals, it does not necessarily mean it harms the whole community. I did not participate in this adventure for my own reasons, but I haven't been affected in any way. Stop generalising, it is a way to making false conclusions.
(06-01-2020, 07:21 AM)Sniper Wrote:Quote:The number of these POB-drama-related threads and constant whining actually is undermining your position and on emotional level making people more likely to oppose your proposals just because of whining. And there is nothing wrong with that, just simple psychology.
Not what feedback I am getting.
Each posting was deliberately worded and a lot of thought went into them. Each one has a different purpose, deliberately lancing the various festering wounds. And the one you are posting on now I did not start. It has provoked a response, and the message is getting through.
You are doing harm. It is a small-populated server. Losing 5 players is a sizable loss, and easy to do.
I wonder how long it will be before the approach you are taking is seen by the community as bulling, as negative to the game, against the principals of fair play, natural justice and the spirit of the game.
With 44 people on the server, when 11 of them were attacking Eldorado, not going to be long before server numbers begin to slide again.
What I cannot abide is the mistaken belief one can take horrible ideology from history and reenact them in a game, decimating the active population and thinking it is justifiable.
You are hurting people, you are damaging the game. You need to take stock an wise up to the damage you are doing.
Purely subjective argument. If these sieges will spare the community of people creating over 9000 threads just to whine and not able to adapt to the situation - then I say it is a good riddance. POBs are not the spirit of the server, just one of the mechanics that has its flaws that definitely do not lie within the scope of POB desctructability. Deal with it. And again, covering behind RL history examples you invoked before and now doing ad hominem arguments invoking those very RL arguments is a hypocrisy.
RE: Player Owned Bases - LaWey - 06-01-2020
Can you guys try to apply your experience with sieges and PVP in proposals about gameplay-mechanics improvement?
It is of course very amusing to see rare Jeuge serious mode on, but can we use this thread, not as Enclave factions feedback?
So let's speak about siege time setting. If we speak about the mechanic of it, the first comparison which rises to minds - EVE citadels.
So how it works?
Citadel depends on size, have several hours in a week, during which it can be sieged. Siege going in 3 stages, defence on any means drop of stage counter. Lose of 3rd defence means base go boom.
What main gameplay conceptions we see there?
- Elementary act of siege short, but have multiple stages.
- The owner should set time when his base can be sieged. Time depends on size and sector safety.
So how we can achieve this crap in freelancer?
1) Specialised siege weapon, which success of usage determined by control of space.
I think it should be big, ammo-based (for economic purposes) gun. Missiles, unfortunately, can be countered without achieving space superiority. Should be BS, BCr and cruisers variants. It should deal dmg to POBs only.
2) The owner should be able to set time window in UTC when the base will be vulnerable (like 2-4 hours long period in a day).During this vulnerability period, the base shouldn't repair at all and should suck all intended damage from a specialised weapon.
3) The base should have 2-3 step by step sieged phases before die, and be able to repair itself if one phase failed.If we take 3 steps, siegers should be able to deal no more than 2/4 damage per vulnerability time. The base should repair 1/4 for the time between sieging. So if siegers not fail, they will kill it in the last phase.
The main problem with it - adjustments of plugin required. Without forcing siege gameplay in short (2-3 hours max) stages, we will have cancer, whatever repair rates or economic behind it we will set.
Current mechanic absolutely not based on gameplay. Current mechanic work around "WHOSE DESIRE TO PLAY WILL BE BROKEN FIRST".
Arguments about losing accepting can be applied to siegers as well, not everybody of them stops siege after a successful defence, but continue it till POB destruction. Both sides want to win, and if attackers have gameplay determined finish of siege (base dies), defenders have no in-gameplay end of it. This is why only real defence tactic - gank attackers as deep as possible to break their will to play.
This is absolutely bland, terrible and player-hating approach to gameplay. No ruling, no rates changes will fix this shit. It should be either fixed or removed.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Mick - 06-01-2020
I think some of you take this way to seriously - If you were there on the base seige like i was (granted not involved i was mining gold) But did you see the roleplay no! did you know what was going on no! why? because you'd rather try and rally a movement for change that is already being discussed on the forums pin pointed at one base - Yes i agree to a lot of logical points but i think a lot of you need to take a step back and think about how you look to the community because honestly i can guarantee you that this forum toxicity is not good for the promotion! Three threads, all for the same thing! One of which was quite disrespectful and closed! I think this matter should be discussed no longer if you can't all achieve some neutrality in your discussions! I have to say this is one of the worst game forums i have ever been involved in for player toxicity! The Moderators should step up and close this discussion!
RE: Player Owned Bases - Lucas - 06-01-2020
Building a PoB has always come with the risk of people being able to destroy them for whatever reason they consider sufficient.
If you don't like that, don't build a PoB. Or build it in a safer location. There is a reason for stations such as Siloso being sieged, while other stations like the one infront of Manhatten literally being untouched for eons. One might say that it is because it does not bother anyone (which is false), but in reality it is just the fact that a properly placed PoB is pretty much impossible to destroy unless you can field absurd amounts of players.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Paddy. - 06-01-2020
(06-01-2020, 10:23 AM)FrodoTheFluffy Wrote: I think some of you take this way to seriously - If you were there on the base seige like i was (granted not involved i was mining gold) But did you see the roleplay no! did you know what was going on no! why? because you'd rather try and rally a movement for change that is already being discussed on the forums pin pointed at one base - Yes i agree to a lot of logical points but i think a lot of you need to take a step back and think about how you look to the community because honestly i can guarantee you that this forum toxicity is not good for the promotion! Three threads, all for the same thing! One of which was quite disrespectful and closed! I think this matter should be discussed no longer if you can't all achieve some neutrality in your discussions! I have to say this is one of the worst game forums i have ever been involved in for player toxicity! The Moderators should step up and close this discussion!
You are new here huh?
Take some time to familiarise yourself with the politics and the practice. Then when you do gain an understanding, you might, just might start to appreciate that what some of the issues are.
This post was started over two years ago. Today, her PoB, which was well kept, lawful, passive (no defence platforms) and has been standing there for 3-4 years was destroyed. I was managing the Goldgeist. It was destroyed 2 days ago. It was there 2 1/2 years. Well used, appreciated by many players and encouraging RP.
How do you think we feel?
The motive for destroying it? I am not going to judge or condemn. But its upset a lot of players.
There is anger there. And there are counter arguments. What is clear is two long established built PoB's and maintained for years were destroyed pretty much in a day each.
Ships can respawn, PoB's can't.
Unless the GM's deem otherwise I guess.
You can earn enough for a basic Battleship in about - what - 10-15hours trading.
It takes at a guess... what... 120 - 150 hours to get a base supplied to a basic Core 3.
See the problem? See why people are upset and others see the injustice?
RE: Player Owned Bases - Groshyr - 06-01-2020
Let me calculate for you.
One battleship is ~500m, it's like 5 hours of nonstop trade without outcome to piracy, miners, etc. Then CAU8 (CAU6 can work too but you should be more durable). It's about 900M, what's 9-10 hours more without outcome. Then siege turrets, for maximal DPS. Every siege turret is 525M credits, you need at least 2 for optimal DPS, it's 1,05B. ~10 hours of trading more. Not to say about additional equipment like docking modules for snubs repairs, jump drive for siege mobility, battleship scanner for long-range scanning (it's about 8K, iirc) and of course this is only "pure siege" battleship that has only specialization. It costs more than the entire core construction or even two. Thus, you are wrong in that case, Paddy. Sieges are expensive for both sides.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Sava - 06-01-2020
(06-01-2020, 11:06 AM)Lucas Wrote: unless you can field absurd amounts of players.Hmmm
RE: Player Owned Bases - Mick - 06-01-2020
(06-01-2020, 11:11 AM)Paddy. Wrote:(06-01-2020, 10:23 AM)FrodoTheFluffy Wrote: I think some of you take this way to seriously - If you were there on the base seige like i was (granted not involved i was mining gold) But did you see the roleplay no! did you know what was going on no! why? because you'd rather try and rally a movement for change that is already being discussed on the forums pin pointed at one base - Yes i agree to a lot of logical points but i think a lot of you need to take a step back and think about how you look to the community because honestly i can guarantee you that this forum toxicity is not good for the promotion! Three threads, all for the same thing! One of which was quite disrespectful and closed! I think this matter should be discussed no longer if you can't all achieve some neutrality in your discussions! I have to say this is one of the worst game forums i have ever been involved in for player toxicity! The Moderators should step up and close this discussion!
You are new here huh?
Take some time to familiarise yourself with the politics and the practice. Then when you do gain an understanding, you might, just might start to appreciate that what some of the issues are.
This post was started over two years ago. Today, her PoB, which was well kept, lawful, passive (no defence platforms) and has been standing there for 3-4 years was destroyed. I was managing the Goldgeist. It was destroyed 2 days ago. It was there 2 1/2 years. Well used, appreciated by many players and encouraging RP.
How do you think we feel?
The motive for destroying it? I am not going to judge or condemn. But its upset a lot of players.
There is anger there. And there are counter arguments. What is clear is two long established built PoB's and maintained for years were destroyed pretty much in a day each.
Ships can respawn, PoB's can't.
Unless the GM's deem otherwise I guess.
You can earn enough for a basic Battleship in about - what - 10-15hours trading.
It takes at a guess... what... 120 - 150 hours to get a base supplied to a basic Core 3.
See the problem? See why people are upset and others see the injustice?
I understand folks anquish! Don't get me wrong but theres a thing called OORP and RP - Why should their be Player on Player Hate for a Roleplay situation! This situation has been taken out of Roleplay and into OORP - While i understand i am New but i am not new to Roleplay servers i certainly am not New to how things work in roleplay worlds! And out of roleplay conflict is completely pointless when it can easily be defended in Roleplay - It doesn't matter wether the base has been there for 3 years or five minutes it doesn't matter how many oorp feelings are hurt due to this situation what matters is what happens in roleplay and how you decide to take action in Roleplay - see it from my point an easily solvable roleplay situation that can be combatted in roleplay has been forced on the community in an Out of Character way causing an out of character rift between players. to me that is a disgraceful performance from you guys who have been here for a long time!