+- 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 - Karlotta - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 04:51 PM)ronillon Wrote:(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.
(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 2. Building bases closer than 15 k to mining fields and jump holes/gates (but not trade lanes) will be against rules and they also receive no protection from attack via rules or IRP laws (admins should offer to move bases that currently violate this).
If you read carefully, you will notice that the OP proposed admins moving existing bases away from mining fields, giving you everything you wished for, and it would also have prevented you the pain of losing your first base, had it been implemented earlier.
EDIT: POBs can easily be moved by admins by adjusting a few numbers in a file. It's been done before.
RE: Player Owned Bases - ronillon - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 05:55 PM)Karlotta Wrote:(03-15-2018, 04:51 PM)ronillon Wrote:(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.
(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 2. Building bases closer than 15 k to mining fields and jump holes/gates (but not trade lanes) will be against rules and they also receive no protection from attack via rules or IRP laws (admins should offer to move bases that currently violate this).
If you read carefully, you will notice that the OP proposed admins moving existing bases away from mining fields, giving you everything you wished for, and it would also have prevented you the pain of losing your first base, had it been implemented earlier.
LOL
So you want to solve my problem, which is existence of server rule, by creating another rule, that is even more strict, than the original one? That is a good one!
Regarding my pain of loosing that first POB? I would never take it back. It was a valuable lesson, its effects were beyond FL.
I still think, that the ability to move POB (for proper payment and RP around towing) would be the best solution. For admins, it is the same amount of work they already do when approving core upgrades.
P.S.: As @"Thyrzhul" mentioned, or at least I think he did mean that: Prohibiting something by game mechanics is something else, than prohibiting the same thing by rules.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: LOL
So you want to solve my problem, which is existence of server rule, by creating another rule, that is even more strict, than the original one? That is a good one!
You said:
(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: 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.
That sounded like it would have been better for you if you had already built your base(s) 15k from the field from the start.
The rule I proposed would have helped you make the decision to build it 15k away before (for both bases).
And it would also help you move your existing base 15k now, where it could become larger.
That's a 3 times win for you, as well as for everyone in the same situation.
But still you manage to not see it as such. Because 1 more rule. (after I already reduced the number of words in the rules from 4510 to 2645 btw)
(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: Regarding my pain of loosing that first POB? I would never take it back. It was a valuable lesson, its effects were beyond FL.
Well I'm happy for you if you see it that way now, but you didnt always feel that way, and neither will others.
(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: I still think, that the ability to move POB (for proper payment and RP around towing) would be the best solution. For admins, it is the same amount of work they already do when approving core upgrades.
Moving POBs to unpredictable locations after they hav high core and shield and wep platofrms has lead to drama in the past, and can have some pretty bad effects. Not only for admins.
(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: P.S.: As @"Thyrzhul" mentioned, or at least I think he did mean that: Prohibiting something by game mechanics is something else, than prohibiting the same thing by rules.
That sounds very nice in theory, but it would need a game mechanic that would actually really give the desired result (which changing hull hitpoints wont), and be possible/realistic to implement too. If you have a concrete suggestion for an actually implementable game mechanic that will actually solve the problems I mentioned, shoot.
RE: Player Owned Bases - LaWey - 03-15-2018
Karlotta, i think, you need rephrase what you want do, because now i think, we all see your posts like "Restrict bases in mining fields, move bases in restricted areas, because people not think before to do and they suffer from it"
Im start understand what you want only after clarification in your answers to Thyrzul and ronillon. Hmm... now i can say why your proposal still bad.
1)Towns grow on trade routes. Not trade routes grow on towns. Creating restrictions for mining PoBs, you are not only save people who just not thinked before built, but you are ruin gameplay of peoples who love make supply chains. We are need server rights build PoBs everywhere where we need in current moment. All another things should do current diplomacy. I mean, i work with some PoBs in mining fields which created not for avoid pirates or solo mining, but for create working economy.
2) I think, it obviously, but your proposal about industrial zones....eemmm not have sense? Because it only will turn Liberty in complete JD manufacturing centre, just because all commodities close to this. It change nothing else, because a) Houses restrict nomad materials. b) Omegas/Omicrons factions restrict foreign activity/dont had RP-wise justification for guarded areas, Tau under gallic feet. So, for what is it?
Oh.. sorry, my engrish not allow me write minds about it in good form. Only "trailers park" looks good from your proposals, because its can be sandbox for people who "suffer and make drama". I really think all other people is normal now, without rules changes.
Please, look firstly how PoBs work around freel economy, how work RP around it, factions laws about not only PoBs but needed resourses, and you will rework it good
RE: Player Owned Bases - ronillon - 03-15-2018
(03-15-2018, 06:49 PM)Karlotta Wrote:(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: LOL
So you want to solve my problem, which is existence of server rule, by creating another rule, that is even more strict, than the original one? That is a good one!
You said:
(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: 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.
That sounded like it would have been better for you if you had already built your base(s) 15k from the field from the start.
The rule I proposed would have helped you make the decision to build it 15k away before (for both bases).
And it would also help you move your existing base 15k now, where it could become larger.
That's a 3 times win for you, as well as for everyone in the same situation.
But still you manage to not see it as such. Because 1 more rule. (after I already reduced the number of words in the rules from 4510 to 2645 btw)
(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: Regarding my pain of loosing that first POB? I would never take it back. It was a valuable lesson, its effects were beyond FL.
Well I'm happy for you if you see it that way now, but you didnt always feel that way, and neither will others.
(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: I still think, that the ability to move POB (for proper payment and RP around towing) would be the best solution. For admins, it is the same amount of work they already do when approving core upgrades.
Moving POBs to unpredictable locations after they hav high core and shield and wep platofrms has lead to drama in the past, and can have some pretty bad effects. Not only for admins.
(03-15-2018, 06:25 PM)ronillon Wrote: P.S.: As @"Thyrzhul" mentioned, or at least I think he did mean that: Prohibiting something by game mechanics is something else, than prohibiting the same thing by rules.
That sounds very nice in theory, but it would need a game mechanic that would actually really give the desired result (which changing hull hitpoints wont), and be possible/realistic to implement too. If you have a concrete suggestion for an actually implementable game mechanic that will actually solve the problems I mentioned, shoot.
Well, you might have understood it like that. But the truth is, that I like my POB where it is. What I do not like, is that bloody rule.
The rule you are proposing would not helped me, it would have FORCED me, to build it 15 away. I have chosen to build it inside the mining field for some reason, event though I knew the rule preventing it to advance beyond C2 was there.
Again, the rule would not "help" me, rather it would FORCE the move on to me.
This is what you are failing to understand. Yes, even one more rule is one rule too many. Good job on you for doing that overhaul, I'm yet to finish proof reading of everything you wrote.
I was not happy, when my mom told me not to eat those sweets. Now I'm happy not being a fat pig.
Who is talking about unpredictable locations, where has that come from? Admins are now approving core upgrades, they could approve POB movement as well. That is why I wrote "(for proper payment and RP around towing)". Also it is not like the owner can not remove the weapon modules from base.
I guess this is a matter of perspective, what exactly is the desired result?
For me making POB siege a thing, that can take a weak or more, would be more than enough. That would give all involved parties enough time to change the final outcome, by whatever means they see fit. Stuff like modules being destroyed, instead of the whole installation would be also nice. As I see it, the biggest problem here is, that you can have your POB destroyed while you sleep or work, just because the attacking party has different time zone.
I have lost 4 bases to attacking players, only once I was there to see its demise.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-16-2018
(03-15-2018, 07:22 PM)Anton Okunev Wrote: Karlotta, i think, you need rephrase what you want do, because now i think, we all see your posts like "Restrict bases in mining fields, move bases in restricted areas, because people not think before to do and they suffer from it"
I do sometimes get the impression that I'm speaking Chinese to some people, but after re-reading my posts and reading the posts of people who don't seem to understand anything I say, it becomes clear that problem does not come from a language barrier on my side. Some people just miss things that were clearly stated before, and it seems to always be the same people, while others are able to understand me just fine.
(03-15-2018, 07:22 PM)Anton Okunev Wrote: Im start understand what you want only after clarification in your answers to Thyrzul and ronillon. Hmm... now i can say why your proposal still bad.
1)Towns grow on trade routes. Not trade routes grow on towns. Creating restrictions for mining PoBs, you are not only save people who just not thinked before built, but you are ruin gameplay of peoples who love make supply chains. We are need server rights build PoBs everywhere where we need in current moment. All another things should do current diplomacy. I mean, i work with some PoBs in mining fields which created not for avoid pirates or solo mining, but for create working economy.
You can do everything on a base 15k away from a mining field that you can do on a base right inside a mining field, except dock as soon as you see a pirate and mine in the smallest most efficient miners alone (which were balanced for teamwork, not solo-mining). Both of the things that you need a base inside the field to do are detrimental to game play. No matter if it's built by "people who just not thinked before built", or "peoples who love make supply chains". You can make a supply chain 15k from the field, in a "town" closer to an already existing trade route/lane.
(03-15-2018, 07:22 PM)Anton Okunev Wrote: 2) I think, it obviously, but your proposal about industrial zones....eemmm not have sense? Because it only will turn Liberty in complete JD manufacturing centre, just because all commodities close to this. It change nothing else, because a) Houses restrict nomad materials. b) Omegas/Omicrons factions restrict foreign activity/dont had RP-wise justification for guarded areas, Tau under gallic feet. So, for what is it?
It's for encouraging players to build bases near existing NPC bases and lanes, in locations that won't draw their activity to some remote place where no one but the base owners go. This doesnt even need a rule, only a house law that focuses industrial bases to certain locations instead of granting them in lonely places instead. The rule would just support the houses in that policy, and make sure that they stay fair in it. Supporting "open docking and sale" policy would also help engage players in supply of those bases, and facilitate supply chains and speed up production.
As far as I know only cloaks need nomad remains, not jump drives. The permitted factories and goods would be defined by the faction/government that manage the specific zone. Cloaks, for example, wouldnt be produced in Bretonia or Liberty, they would be produced in Omicron Mu, in a centralized, well protected, and busy place like Planet Akabat, selling and buying only from Order ships. The Core or Zoners can create and manage their own zones where allow what they want.
(03-15-2018, 07:22 PM)Anton Okunev Wrote: Oh.. sorry, my engrish not allow me write minds about it in good form. Only "trailers park" looks good from your proposals, because its can be sandbox for people who "suffer and make drama". I really think all other people is normal now, without rules changes.
Please, look firstly how PoBs work around freel economy, how work RP around it, factions laws about not only PoBs but needed resourses, and you will rework it good
I know PoB economy quite well, thank you. I've had several bases on various servers for a long time, including in mining fields, including factories, including in remote places, including in active places, and including open economy bases.
Trailer parks were one example of the most simple kind of zone, where people can build much more freely than now (no need to ask house permission first), as long as they stick to simple rules like "no core above 1, no weapons platforms, no contraband, no hostile rep".
I believe your English may not only be a problem for making yourself understood, but also for understanding what I said. That and that you also don't seem to think about the implications and the larger context of what I say, only about small parts of the post that caught your attention or that you understood while not understanding other parts.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-16-2018
(03-15-2018, 07:28 PM)ronillon Wrote: The rule you are proposing would not helped me, it would have FORCED me, to build it 15 away. I have chosen to build it inside the mining field for some reason, event though I knew the rule preventing it to advance beyond C2 was there.
Again, the rule would not "help" me, rather it would FORCE the move on to me.
This is what you are failing to understand. Yes, even one more rule is one rule too many. Good job on you for doing that overhaul, I'm yet to finish proof reading of everything you wrote.
I was not happy, when my mom told me not to eat those sweets. Now I'm happy not being a fat pig.
And just like your mother kept you from eating those sweets to prevent you from getting fat and then having to deal with the problems of being fat, making that rule will keep people from making the same mistakes you made when no one kept you from making them, and will keep them from the negative consequences of having a base they sunk lots of effort in blown up.
It's better to not get fat first because your mom stopped you from eating, than to get fat and have to learn it that way. That's exactly why I want to make that rule.
In case you didnt know, that the no-pob in mining field rule is already enforced as an IRP law in Bretonia. But even then, there is base spam in Dublin where people keep building new bases every time one gets blown up, and base builders spend days or weeks supplying their base before the Bretonian police goes through the process of destroying it. That's annoying for both base builders and people who destroy the base.
(03-15-2018, 07:28 PM)ronillon Wrote: Who is talking about unpredictable locations, where has that come from? Admins are now approving core upgrades, they could approve POB movement as well. That is why I wrote "(for proper payment and RP around towing)". Also it is not like the owner can not remove the weapon modules from base.
I guess this is a matter of perspective, what exactly is the desired result?
It's kind of off topic, but one example I remember was when some base change was made and a junker base was moved to a place where GRN didnt like it, and a LSF base moved to a place where liberty unlawfuls didnt like it. I want to move mining bases 15k away from the field, and factory bases to certain locations where they fit well. Not move a base to any place the owner wants got 500 mil. That just creates all sorts of problems to people hostile to the base.
(03-15-2018, 07:28 PM)ronillon Wrote: For me making POB siege a thing, that can take a weak or more, would be more than enough. That would give all involved parties enough time to change the final outcome, by whatever means they see fit. Stuff like modules being destroyed, instead of the whole installation would be also nice. As I see it, the biggest problem here is, that you can have your POB destroyed while you sleep or work, just because the attacking party has different time zone.You just strengthen my point. You have to be on 24/7 alert to defend your base, which is impossible for people who have a job, a social life, and who go on holidays. It either reserves bases for people with an unhealthy life style, or creates and unhealthy life style for base owners. That alone is enough reason to change it, in addition to all the other reasons why the proposed changes would be good.
I have lost 4 bases to attacking players, only once I was there to see its demise.
RE: Player Owned Bases - LaWey - 03-16-2018
Karlotta, im understand what you are want, prevent people from bad experience, right? Create good conditions for friendly interactions.
My English not barrier for understand you, yes, but it barrier for me write things in productive key. I understand this problems, but just not think your way is good.
I hate this dock-restricted far far away bases too. But i think, people who create it, probably, dont want interaction? For what we should force them? To get more lolwut RP? Because industrial zones means it. We just would see more silent traders blowed by pirates, nephs still would farm remains, and macos still would log to get blue from remain haulers. Good activity,
I'm still think this is useless but more restrictions. And..if this people build PoBs in restricted area in Bretonia, when their laws allow all just for small credits fee, i dont see how this should change their mind, honestly. After experience of PoB administrating in really dangerous zones im not understand how it can encourage peoples who already dont read laws and dont want play even small RP on forum to protect their base. They just not care about it, and still would not care if you create good conditions for them.
Also, dont forget, some people enjoy their PoBs conspiracy,its like cats who dig in box to enjoy hide. And also some peoples would want build their PoBs in mining fields despite any sieges. I cant understand how you want change their mind without of assuming direct control.
Hm..hm. I just not understand what should changes, actually building PoB in houses, near of NPC bases for lawfuls after small forum request to goverments granted them FULL safety. What should change adding of industrial zones?
This proposals dont create nothing instead of new bad interactions and more restrictions.
But, im agree about cheap core 1 zones. I think many peoples want create their small piese of disco, or just test this PoB system before more expensive ways,without any another purposes.
This is one thing on what i want draw attention. Why I built my own scrap base in Texas. Before im tried do RP with another base in Hudson, im tried support this, but owner just lost interest, base's credits ends, i lost any chances to support it, im tried notice owner, but i cant did anything with it. And we have alot of this already dead PoBs. And we still have it even with your proposals.
I want say, you cannot change peoples, and..hm if ronillio did what said his mom, not all did. And i dont know what better, many of peoples prefer their own mistakes.
Maybe zones what you want, needed. But no need restrictions. Let people do their own mistakes. Loosing in game is fun too. When i was blackmailed by HF, im was ready play RP of junkers, terrorise liberty borders in answer of base destruction, this no less fun then have a PoB. When Corsairs siege my another PoB, im was prepared to change my RP goals on another way, maybe build mobile laboratory ship instead of stationar lab. This is fun too.
Hm. Sieges still bad in this game, and really looks like attakers and defenders dont get what they want in every case. This is gank vs gank in today state. Badly, we dont have something like heavy but human controlled and ammo-base weapons for PoBs to do siege more funny for defenders, and dont have ways to get high-core base down instead of grabbing much of cerbs and shoota while repair commodityes not will drained out, what not add fun for attackers side.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Thyrzul - 03-16-2018
(03-15-2018, 05:52 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 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.
Your proposal actually asks for the removal of bases from certain areas, such as the vicinity of Jump Gates or mining fields. Whether it's through relocation or deconstruction, it's still a restriction my proposal does not intend to impose, rather allow players to act if they can and feel the need. You want rules and the staff to enforce them while I would let the players chose, on both sides, making up their mind whether they want to risk placing and keeping their base on problematic places or not, or whether they are bothered with a base in a certain place or not.
Overall your proposals are more restrictive while I try to aim for better and more balanced enforcement of consequences, which is ironic because previously in Lyth's thread you were the one arguing for consequences over restrictions.
Overall your proposals are more restrictive while I try to aim for better and more balanced enforcement of consequences, which is ironic because previously in Lyth's thread you were the one arguing for consequences over restrictions.
(03-15-2018, 05:52 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 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
I think you still misunderstand the core of my proposal, it is not meant to change things (which by the way cannot be changed with a new bunch of rules either), but mitigate their effects or provide opportunities for such:
- With an increased amount of hull points, each additional sieger would add relatively less DPS to the overall damage output than currently.
- The main reason behind the frustration of losing a siege, no matter which side, is the lack of a middle ground. It's either the siegers have no chance to overcome the DPS, or the defenders have no chance to respond in time, because with the current balance a single ship can mean the difference between a siege lasting until eternity, or just a mere hour.
- There is no incentive to be "fair" anywhere, that's why we still have the occasional drama about ganking and skill gaps in feedback threads. If players are considerate to eachother, they are fair, whether sieging or not, if they aren't, they aren't, whether sieging or not. My proposal isn't meant to provide incentive, but opportunity.
- With an increased amount of hull points, each additional sieger would add relatively less DPS to the overall damage output than currently.
- The main reason behind the frustration of losing a siege, no matter which side, is the lack of a middle ground. It's either the siegers have no chance to overcome the DPS, or the defenders have no chance to respond in time, because with the current balance a single ship can mean the difference between a siege lasting until eternity, or just a mere hour.
- There is no incentive to be "fair" anywhere, that's why we still have the occasional drama about ganking and skill gaps in feedback threads. If players are considerate to eachother, they are fair, whether sieging or not, if they aren't, they aren't, whether sieging or not. My proposal isn't meant to provide incentive, but opportunity.
(03-15-2018, 05:52 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 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.
1.) I say "people should be responsible" while promoting a system that allows for better consequence enforcement and teaches people how to be responsible through those consequences. Instead of tying their hands, you know.
2.) I don't want to keep the current system as is. I wouldn't have a solution proposal alternative to yours in that case. I don't know where you got that part.
2.) I don't want to keep the current system as is. I wouldn't have a solution proposal alternative to yours in that case. I don't know where you got that part.
(03-15-2018, 05:52 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 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.
Decreasing consumption of repair commodities while increasing their cost at the same rate could decrease required supply time investment while costs remain the same. Your third point mentions things like decreasing wear and tear damage, which is already minimal and decreasing it even further would cause literally no change at all, so I don't know what you wanted to achieve with that. Crew requirement decrease could work though.
Also your proposal with the industrial zones and space colony trailer parks sounds more like enforcement than incentive, unless we consider "if you build here, your base is protected by the rules" as "incentive", but I guess that's just a matter of perception.
Also your proposal with the industrial zones and space colony trailer parks sounds more like enforcement than incentive, unless we consider "if you build here, your base is protected by the rules" as "incentive", but I guess that's just a matter of perception.
(03-15-2018, 05:52 PM)Karlotta Wrote: And you're obviously looking for ways to discredit a solution using all sorts of tricks and fallacies for reasons you keep to yourself.
That's quite far from the truth. I have no agenda against you to try discrediting you with dirty tricks, I just disagree with your restriction-based proposal, just like how you did in Lyth's thread against his idea, and trying to propagate my own consequence-enforcement-based proposal, just like how you did not in Lyth's thread. It's interesting to note though how you changed your views between the cases, yet never backing from your own idea, while in both cases I was the one coming forward with an attempt at a compromise and brainstorming for a solution preferable by everyone.
(03-16-2018, 01:47 AM)Karlotta Wrote: And just like your mother kept you from eating those sweets to prevent you from getting fat and then having to deal with the problems of being fat, making that rule will keep people from making the same mistakes you made when no one kept you from making them, and will keep them from the negative consequences of having a base they sunk lots of effort in blown up.
It's better to not get fat first because your mom stopped you from eating, than to get fat and have to learn it that way. That's exactly why I want to make that rule.
Jeez, I wish I would have thought of this decent example back in that other thread where the subject was about ooZoI conduct. It would have helped Lyth's cause as well. Like, a lot.
(03-16-2018, 01:47 AM)Karlotta Wrote: You just strengthen my point. You have to be on 24/7 alert to defend your base, which is impossible for people who have a job, a social life, and who go on holidays.
Oh boy, guess what's one of the main things my proposal aims to solve.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-16-2018
(03-16-2018, 03:14 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: I hate this dock-restricted far far away bases too. But i think, people who create it, probably, dont want interaction?
I thought, and also thought about WHY the people who create far away bases don't want interactions. And I've talked about why in my previous posts too. So while you tell me to think you and doubt my experience, I was already two steps ahead of you long before you told me to "think", and even talked about it explicitly in several posts. I'm sorry, but this is exactly the kind of post that makes me feel like I'm speaking Chinese here.
People create far away bases because:
1. They don't want to get spotted out of fear of consequences (I already said it before)
2. They have no good reason to build closer (I said it before)
3. Some house laws prohibit them from building near busier places (I said it before).
What I'm doing is providing INCENTIVES (not restrictions) to factory build bases in busier places:
1. Less fear of getting their base destroyed when spotted, if they build in protected areas
2. The protection will give them a reason to build in busier areas
3. The laws will encourage instead of discourage interaction with bases like they do now
(03-16-2018, 03:14 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: For what we should force them? To get more lolwut RP? Because industrial zones means it. We just would see more silent traders blowed by pirates, nephs still would farm remains, and macos still would log to get blue from remain haulers. Good activity,
First of all, it would be nice if people stopped calling everyone who doesnt play a computer game like a pro or exactly the way you want them to a "lolwut". People can find a reasons to call anyone a lolwut, and I'm sure they could find them for you too. I've observed that people who use the term largely over-estimate the quality, logic, and entertainment value of their own RP, mainly because they manage to take themselves too seriously over a game. Everyone was a "lolwut" when they started playing, and will stay one the longer they're isolated from the rest.
(03-16-2018, 03:14 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: I'm still think this is useless but more restrictions. And..if this people build PoBs in restricted area in Bretonia, when their laws allow all just for small credits fee, i dont see how this should change their mind, honestly. After experience of PoB administrating in really dangerous zones im not understand how it can encourage peoples who already dont read laws and dont want play even small RP on forum to protect their base. They just not care about it, and still would not care if you create good conditions for them.
What you seemingly still don't understand is that putting incentives for people to put bases in certain areas is not a restriction. It's even REMOVING a restriction that houses like Bretonia have on bases. And the "no base in a mining field" already exists in the form of the "no core above 2" everywhere and in the form of IRP laws in houses like bretonia. The additional rule only saves the trouble of having to destroy them and the frustration of having a base destroyed after working it for days or weeks.
(03-16-2018, 03:14 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: Also, dont forget, some people enjoy their PoBs conspiracy,its like cats who dig in box to enjoy hide. And also some peoples would want build their PoBs in mining fields despite any sieges. I cant understand how you want change their mind without of assuming direct control.
No-where did I say that I want to make a rule that says people cant build bases in hidden places. I had a hidden base not populated by cats and dogs, but rats, and I'm hoping it will get found one day to have it sieged (at a time of day when I can participate in it).
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
secret(03-16-2018, 03:14 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: Hm..hm. I just not understand what should changes, actually building PoB in houses, near of NPC bases for lawfuls after small forum request to goverments granted them FULL safety. What should change adding of industrial zones?
I've repeated the answer to that in pretty much every post here. If you didn't understand it until now, there's nothing more I can do, sorry. It looks like you simply refuse to understand everything single thing because you have a base in a mining field.
(03-16-2018, 03:14 AM)Anton Okunev Wrote: I want say, you cannot change peoples, and..hm if ronillio did what said his mom, not all did. And i dont know what better, many of peoples prefer their own mistakes.
Even if you can't change people, people's behavior is influenced and motivated by their surroundings, so you can influence the behavior. You can even if those people who don't understand how.