+- 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 - ronillon - 03-15-2018
I will be honest, I do not like this one bit.
Restriction restrictions restrictions. And for what? This is the kind of thing, that would drive me away.
@The.Outlaw.Star wrote it right, I will try to simplify it for you even more:
POB sits in space, where everyone can get to it.
POB has HP.
If POB HP get to 0, POB dead for ever.
This is something, that everyone knows even before they start building the base, and they surely know that once the base pops up.
You either accept the risks and live with potential consequences, or you do not.
You either build a POB or not build a POB.
It is THAT simple!
YES! Building a POB is a commitment. No one is forcing you to do so though.
You just can not have the mentality: I did work hard for it, so therefore, it shall stay there for ever.
But if someone decides to invest their time and effort, it should be up to them, whether they want to build a station on Manhattan orbit or 200k above the plain in Omicron Iota. You either want interaction, or not. (I have something similar to both examples.)
I'm not saying the system is totally perfect. Personally I would not mind, if Wear&Tear was decreased to 1/2 or 1/4. And POB owners given more time to react to Attack Declarations (Even 24 hours for core2 is not enough, if one is out for a weekend or more.)
As for pirates crying they cannot touch miners, before they disappear to POB:
How about you try to catch those transports hauling ore instead? I mean seriously, how much can you get from a miner? This is more about harassment, than anything else.
P.S.: Yes, I'm the owner of Copper Storage Depot in Kansas copper mining field. It is exactly the fact, that the POB is right in the mining field (I have always saw it as a next logical step, after Emlenton in Penny for starting miners.), which increased miner&trader activity in the area to the point, that CSD is pretty much maintained by its users, on its own. I would not call this "spreading people out" Mining POBs are actually activity hubs.
And those POBs hidden in darkest corners of Sirius... those hardly decrease player interaction. If their owner chose such place, he probably does not want to interact much anyway. So if you force him to build in the spotlight, he might even leave the server completely. And even though said person is not bringing much to the server, he is not harming it either.
RE: Player Owned Bases - LaWey - 03-15-2018
Damn, i'm agree with every word of ronillon, this is what i said too. Problems not in PoBs, problems in mind of players who create this farfar away restricted to anybody PoBs. They will not change their mind if you do restrictions.
Why other community, who really create activity hubs through PoBs should worry about this players? Also about pirates, how i said - i saw how miners near Copper Storage Depot was successful blown up by pirates. PoB not a promblem here.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-15-2018
To those who say or think "everything's fine people just need to do diplomacy RP who cares for people too stupid to do it":
Diplomacy and RP is a two-way street. People who enjoy doing harm to others (and there'll always be enough of those on the internet), won't care for any attempts at diplomacy RP their victim makes, and they'll just brush it aside with "I roleplay as crazy so watcha gonna do har har?" or manufacture "incidents" to get what hey want.
A lot of things that make discovery shiny and attractive for players (bases, caps, the ability to develop your own faction and RP) end up like this:
The shiny and attractive thing is at the end of a long corridor the player has to walk through to get to it. That corridor is packed with people who kick the player who tries to walk through it. Packed with people who won't get kicked themselves because they don't try to get to the shiny thing, or because they've already managed to secure it for themselves, or because they have enough friends to collectively kick back.
Some of them say that kicking is a good way to regulate and balance the game so not everyone gets the shiny thing. Others say they're only kicking because the shiny thing is in fact bad and they want to save players from it. A lot just join in the kicking because they were lead to believe that it's thing that's expected of them. And some say that everyone stupid enough to try to get the shiny thing (which advertises the mod) deserves to get kicked.
This is what gives this community such a bad reputation. No matter what excuse is given, it looks and feels like people are kicking simply because they like the feeling of power that it gives them, even if they won't admit it, not even to themselves.
I'm not even asking that people stop kicking, but that some body armor, warning signs, and fences be introduced to reduce the number of severe injuries and "fatalities" we keep having.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Thyrzul - 03-15-2018
(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote:-Bases currently give players the opportunity to completely destroy other players’ creations and hard work, which has already caused countless players to leave and unmeasurable amounts of hatred.
Alternatively: Bases currently give players the opportunity to construct something through hard work, which has rewarded countless players with unique items impossible to acquire without a PoB.
It's basically the same thing from a different point of view. Bases can be built and destroyed. Whether each of these features or both together are overall good or bad, is subjective.
I'm personally more concerned about how the two are balanced against eachother, or rather, how a siege is balanced in favor or against either side. I'm convinced - and so are/were two balance devs in the past - that considerably buffing hull points and nerfing repair rates would create a wide middle ground and significantly reduce the amount of grief as sieges would become a lot more balanced, and players would have a lot more control over the outcome and opportunities to intervene on their side of the siege.
(EDIT: Tbh blaming bases themselves for the opportunity to destroy bases sounds like blaming marriage for divorce. I mean, lol.)
It's basically the same thing from a different point of view. Bases can be built and destroyed. Whether each of these features or both together are overall good or bad, is subjective.
I'm personally more concerned about how the two are balanced against eachother, or rather, how a siege is balanced in favor or against either side. I'm convinced - and so are/were two balance devs in the past - that considerably buffing hull points and nerfing repair rates would create a wide middle ground and significantly reduce the amount of grief as sieges would become a lot more balanced, and players would have a lot more control over the outcome and opportunities to intervene on their side of the siege.
(EDIT: Tbh blaming bases themselves for the opportunity to destroy bases sounds like blaming marriage for divorce. I mean, lol.)
(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote:-Bases currently give players the ability to block or “own” areas of space, inhibiting other players’ freedom.
First you point out why destruction of bases is bad, now you point out why the construction of bases is bad, I guess these two points could have been concluded with a "PoBs are bad, period" within a single line. I wonder which would cause more grief though, the construction of an area-denial base, or the destruction of it.
This one has some merit though, but I'd say the removal of the active area denial feature of weapon platforms would be sufficient enough to solve this issue.
This one has some merit though, but I'd say the removal of the active area denial feature of weapon platforms would be sufficient enough to solve this issue.
(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote:-Bases currently force owners to invest time shipping food, water, oxygen, and alloy, while taking care to avoid pirates and people who want to harm their base. Every additional hour spent doing boring shipping avoiding interaction is an hour less having fun interacting with people, because people have limited time to spend on discovery.
The construction and maintenance of a PoB is optional. It rewards with unique items, requires responsibility and dedication in return, but it's not obligatory at all, nobody is forcing anyone to build one. It's a choice. If you think it worths the hassle, feel free to have one, if you think it's more of a chore than not, don't do it. It's that simple.
(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote:-Bases currently spread players out, away from busy routes and activity hubs, because bases tend to be built in remote or secret places. That leads to even less player interaction.
Distance also balances that out somewhat. Placing your base closer to the source of supply materials means maintenance is less of a chore. On the other hand, the more spread out your base is and the more distant it is from activity hubs, the more likely it is that you'll have to invest a lot more time than otherwise required.
Once again it seems your last two points are kinda related, and the chore you are concerned about in your third point actually contradicts your concerns in your fourth point regarding bases getting spread out.
Overall reviewing what you are concerned about and what you left out of your list, I'm not convinced you've gathered enough experience and information regarding PoBs, or if you've drawn the correct conclusions so far.
I also find your proposed changes either unnecessary (1.), resolvable through game mechanics and player interactions instead of rules (2.), or entirely moot (3.; PoBs are already easy to maintain even by a single individual, despite the initial concept upon implementation was that PoBs are mean to be a group project).
Once again it seems your last two points are kinda related, and the chore you are concerned about in your third point actually contradicts your concerns in your fourth point regarding bases getting spread out.
Overall reviewing what you are concerned about and what you left out of your list, I'm not convinced you've gathered enough experience and information regarding PoBs, or if you've drawn the correct conclusions so far.
I also find your proposed changes either unnecessary (1.), resolvable through game mechanics and player interactions instead of rules (2.), or entirely moot (3.; PoBs are already easy to maintain even by a single individual, despite the initial concept upon implementation was that PoBs are mean to be a group project).
RE: Player Owned Bases - LaWey - 03-15-2018
Quote:Overall reviewing what you are concerned about and what you left out of your list, I'm not convinced you've gathered enough experience and information regarding PoBs, or if you've drawn the correct conclusions so far.Agreed.
Quote:I'm personally more concerned about how the two are balanced against eachother, or rather, how a siege is balanced in favor or against either side. I'm convinced - and so are/were two balance devs in the past - that considerably buffing hull points and nerfing repair rates would create a wide middle ground and significantly reduce the amount of grief as sieges would become a lot more balanced, and players would have a lot more control over the outcome and opportunities to intervene on their side of the siege.
Hm...difficult question.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-15-2018
Dear Thyrzul,
I think you would find my post easier to understand if you try to put all points together into a unified context, which weighs positives against negatives to mitigate negatives without removing positives in the proposed solutions. If you just pick out certain sentences and treat them as if other sentences don't exist, you'll not be able to grasp their full meaning and intent, as you obviously didn't. You may also notice that some of the things you chose to explain as if I didn't know them (a.k.a mansplaining) were actually already said in my post (your very first sentence, for example, echos what I said right before the part you quoted). If you find that too difficult after reading it only one time, try reading it several times before answering. Once you've done that, I'll be happy to address any remaining comments and questions point by point.
As a helper, I'd like to borrow the phrase of a great american thinker, and point out that the proposed solution is for the game mechanics and community that we have, not for the game mechanics and community that we wish for.
p.s: This reminds me... how are your infinitesimally superior and more elaborate plans for a 3D Sirius coming along? It's already mid-march. You can answer that in a more appropriate thread.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Thyrzul - 03-15-2018
Except you did not compare good features with bad features, only pointed out (subjectively) bad features and then your own ideas to solve them. And I did not take those points out of context either, rather reflected on them both in their own self and within the context of your entire post. It would actually have been a bit difficult to take each of them out of context because of how those points were related to eachother (and I also pointed those relations out).
That you've failed to notice that feels like a justification for me to respond with the same "read what I wrote again because you obviously did not even understand" rebuttal of yours, but if we both keep doing that instead of actually reflecting on what the other said, there sure as hell will not be any advancement within our discussion. I'm not sure about you, but I prefer to stay a bit more productive than that.
Sadly at this point I cannot do much more than to echo my previous observations regarding the issues you pointed out being either non-issues at all, issues of choice (as they stem out of having a PoB in the first place), or issues resolvable by mechanics without the need of actual rules. It's your turn to actually respond to my post with anything valuable, I've done my part.
That you've failed to notice that feels like a justification for me to respond with the same "read what I wrote again because you obviously did not even understand" rebuttal of yours, but if we both keep doing that instead of actually reflecting on what the other said, there sure as hell will not be any advancement within our discussion. I'm not sure about you, but I prefer to stay a bit more productive than that.
Sadly at this point I cannot do much more than to echo my previous observations regarding the issues you pointed out being either non-issues at all, issues of choice (as they stem out of having a PoB in the first place), or issues resolvable by mechanics without the need of actual rules. It's your turn to actually respond to my post with anything valuable, I've done my part.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 01:58 PM)ronillon Wrote: Yes, I'm the owner of Copper Storage Depot in Kansas copper mining field. It is exactly the fact, that the POB is right in the mining field (I have always saw it as a next logical step, after Emlenton in Penny for starting miners.), which increased miner&trader activity in the area to the point, that CSD is pretty much maintained by its users, on its own. I would not call this "spreading people out" Mining POBs are actually activity hubs.
There are indeed bases that focus activity. That's why my proposal is aimed at keeping alive and promoting those bases. I'm not saying I'd like to see your base explode, but I wonder if you wouldn't be of diametrical opposed opinion after your base got blown up because someone didnt like it right in the mining field, and it would still be alive if it was 15k away.
(03-15-2018, 01:58 PM)ronillon Wrote: And those POBs hidden in darkest corners of Sirius... those hardly decrease player interaction. If their owner chose such place, he probably does not want to interact much anyway. So if you force him to build in the spotlight, he might even leave the server completely. And even though said person is not bringing much to the server, he is not harming it either.
My proposal doesnt stop anyone from building bases anywhere except near JHs and mining fields, which are busy places. It only promotes building bases in busy and secure locations. I have a base in a dark corner of Sirius myself right now.
RE: Player Owned Bases - ronillon - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 04:13 PM)Karlotta Wrote: There are indeed bases that focus activity. That's why my proposal is aimed at keeping alive and promoting those bases. I'm not saying I'd like to see your base explode, but I wonder if you wouldn't be of diametrical opposed opinion after your base got blown up because someone didnt like it right in the mining field, and it would still be alive if it was 15k away.
My proposal doesnt stop anyone from building bases anywhere except near JHs and mining fields, which are busy places. It only promotes building bases in busy and secure locations. I have a base in a dark corner of Sirius myself right now.
Currently it seems to me, that you are the one who "didnt like it right in the mining field". Just saying.
That aside, if something like that happened, it would mean I have chosen wrong spot for my POB. The next one I would build in better location. It is still about the mindset.
When my first POB got destroyed, I was naturally upset, I raged! Of course, how could someone else dared to destroy it!
A year later I build CSD, I did not expected it to survive more than a few days. Now look at it more than a year later, after 4 or more attack declarations. It is more than alive.
Yes, now I wish I have built it 15k away from mining field. You know why? - Bases located within 15k of mining fields will not be permitted to advance beyond Core 2. If it was not for this rule I'm sure it would be Core3 or 4 already.
What we actually need is an easy way to move POBs. Easy for POB owners and admins alike.
You know, something better than destroying the whole thing and building it again 15k away.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-15-2018
Sigh.
(03-15-2018, 03:00 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote:-Bases currently give players the opportunity to completely destroy other players’ creations and hard work, which has already caused countless players to leave and unmeasurable amounts of hatred.
Alternatively: Bases currently give players the opportunity to construct something through hard work, which has rewarded countless players with unique items impossible to acquire without a PoB.
It's basically the same thing from a different point of view. Bases can be built and destroyed. Whether each of these features or both together are overall good or bad, is subjective.
I mentioned the positive aspects of bases right before the part you quoted. My proposals don't change them, since it doesn't ask for removal of bases, nor for removal of the positive aspects of them. It's possible to keep a positive aspect of something without keeping the negative aspect of it if they aren't inseparably linked, you know? It's also possible to give someone the chance to do something constructive and fun without giving someone else the power to completely muck it up for them. The necessary work and cost to build things remains even when pure base-maintenance is made cheaper.
(03-15-2018, 03:00 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:
I'm personally more concerned about how the two are balanced against eachother, or rather, how a siege is balanced in favor or against either side. I'm convinced - and so are/were two balance devs in the past - that considerably buffing hull points and nerfing repair rates would create a wide middle ground and significantly reduce the amount of grief as sieges would become a lot more balanced, and players would have a lot more control over the outcome and opportunities to intervene on their side of the siege.
(EDIT: Tbh blaming bases themselves for the opportunity to destroy bases sounds like blaming marriage for divorce. I mean, lol.)
No amount of hull re-balancing will change the fact that:
-bases will get steamrolled by people who can gather more ships, and being able to gather more ships doesn't make it "right"
-the players who had their bases destroyed will be furious and frustrated
-there's no incentive to be "fair" in base sieges
Your edit sounds, again, as if you don't understand that I'm not asking for removal of bases. I'm asking for rules and incentives that make them more sustainable and less detrimental. Which also makes sense for marriages.
(03-15-2018, 03:00 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote:-Bases currently give players the ability to block or “own” areas of space, inhibiting other players’ freedom.
First you point out why destruction of bases is bad, now you point out why the construction of bases is bad, I guess these two points could have been concluded with a "PoBs are bad, period" within a single line.
Strawman conclusion drawn from strawman misrepresentation of two arguments. That was very constructive, and I'm happy you made me spend time answering to it. Thank you.
What I actually did was point out certain aspects of construction and destruction that are bad. I in fact propose to mitigate these aspects without removing bases. To be honest I thought it would have been rather easy to understand that for anyone who reads the OP properly.
(03-15-2018, 03:00 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: I wonder which would cause more grief though, the construction of an area-denial base, or the destruction of it.
I propose the non-construction (or removal without destruction by moving them) of area denial bases and the non-destruction of many bases. The amount of grief related to both is therefore reduced. If by "destruction" you refer to admins or players removing an area-denial base at a very early stage before a lot of work has been put into it and before the area-denial causes a lot of grief, then read the OP or this sentence again and try to understand that it actually causes less grief.
(03-15-2018, 03:00 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote: -Bases currently force owners to invest time shipping food, water, oxygen, and alloy, while taking care to avoid pirates and people who want to harm their base. Every additional hour spent doing boring shipping avoiding interaction is an hour less having fun interacting with people, because people have limited time to spend on discovery.
The construction and maintenance of a PoB is optional. It rewards with unique items, requires responsibility and dedication in return, but it's not obligatory at all, nobody is forcing anyone to build one. It's a choice. If you think it worth the hassle, feel free to have one, if you think it's more of a chore than not, don't do it. It's that simple.
And it remains a choice in my proposal. There's still the construction cost, some of the maintenance cost, the unique items, and the other benefits. There is, however, an incentive to build bases in a manner that leads to less grief and less avoiding of interaction. There is, in case you haven't noticed, a lot of grief concerning area denial, destruction of bases, and avoiding of interactions in the current system. You say "people should be responsible" while promoting a system that promotes irresponsible behavior. I want a system that promotes responsible behavior, because what you want to keep as is has proven to not work.
(03-15-2018, 03:00 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote: -Bases currently spread players out, away from busy routes and activity hubs, because bases tend to be built in remote or secret places. That leads to even less player interaction.
Distance also balances that out somewhat. Placing your base closer to the source of supply materials means maintenance is less of a chore. On the other hand, the more spread out your base is and the more distant it is from activity hubs, the more likely it is that you'll have to invest a lot more time than otherwise required.
Once again it seems your last two points are kinda related, and the chore you are concerned about in your third point actually contradicts your concerns in your fourth point regarding bases getting spread out.
People build bases in remote places because they're afraid of being spotted and because some governments have laws that forbid building close to NPC bases and lanes. They don't do it because maintenance is time-efficient or cheap.
Even if remote bases become cheaper to maintain like all other bases do, the longer traveling distances remain. And even if the overall time needed to supply a remote base is reduced, it still means less time spent avoiding interaction doing boring things and more time doing more fun things. My proposal also provides positive incentives for building bases in busier areas, which wont eliminate remote bases completely, but make them less likely.
(03-15-2018, 03:00 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:
Overall reviewing what you are concerned about and what you left out of your list, I'm not convinced you've gathered enough experience and information regarding PoBs, or if you've drawn the correct conclusions so far.
I also find your proposed changes either unnecessary (1.), resolvable through game mechanics and player interactions instead of rules (2.), or entirely moot (3.; PoBs are already easy to maintain even by a single individual, despite the initial concept upon implementation was that PoBs are mean to be a group project).
And you're obviously looking for ways to discredit a solution using all sorts of tricks and fallacies for reasons you keep to yourself. I also maintain that you could have easily gathered every answer that your post required in the OP, if you were really interested in being constructive.