(03-16-2018, 12:25 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 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).

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.

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.

(03-16-2018, 12:25 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 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, 12:25 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 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, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

(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.

(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.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: 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.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: 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.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: 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.

(03-13-2018, 11:55 PM)Karlotta Wrote:

(03-13-2018, 06:42 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: @Karlotta
After Lyth's "let's not fly outside the ZoI" thread I was under the impression you prefer consequences over prohibition. And now suggesting the prohibition of mining field PoBs by rules before considering a consequence-based solution, really?[/color][/align]

I prefer fairness and avoiding frustration over people getting their game messed up at the whims of other people.

Game mechanics, consequences, and prohibition are just several posible means to that end. Which one is the right means depends on the situation and on the positive or negative impacts in that situation.

Dogmatically pursuing or rejecting certain means to an end regardless of context is rather silly imo.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

(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.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: - 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.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: - 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.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

(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.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

(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.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: 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.

(03-16-2018, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

(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, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

(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, 12:20 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

(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.

(03-16-2018, 01:48 PM)Anton Okunev Wrote: I didnt noticed any restriction about building near of NPC bases in Bretonia, Liberty and Rheinland, this is why i still think, people do this not because this reasons. Im see bases near of London, Manhetten, Huston, New Berlin. I think, this is ENOUGH encouraging for building base in it. If i sometimes will want build base for lawful char, i build it near of NPC place with police patrols.

I mean, we already have this encouraging, not?

(03-16-2018, 01:48 PM)Anton Okunev Wrote: Yes, we have this zoners cloack factories, maybe you are right about this. But, i still not see RPwise justification for really safe zones in border\edge worlds. About facilities in Order or Core home-systems... hm i think only theyselves can siege this PoBs and obviously Nomads, but how you justificate this "nomads cant crush what they want"

(03-16-2018, 01:48 PM)Anton Okunev Wrote: I'm not against this, but ask how you want do this.Concretely. Because it force diplomacy of RP factions and in some cases like Houses not needed, because it already safe.

(03-16-2018, 01:48 PM)Anton Okunev Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 12:25 PM)Karlotta Wrote: 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.

I dont think this rule means "no base in mining field", because even core 1 can be good for mining operations. In really im against only about this one. No need more restrictions for it.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Waiting for you to tell me that building bases in mining fields and jumps is a good things now, despite all the drama it caused and the IRP laws already forbidding it.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Your proposal doesn't affect the true cause of the drama at all.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: I think you misunderstand that your proposal which merely changes the number of needed attackers doesnt have any positive effects that outweigh the same negative effects that come with it. Having more ships does not make anyone more right or wrong, and doesnt make any more happy or unhappy when they lose.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: No, that is not the main reason for the frustration of losing a siege, at all, no matter which is the losing side.

The real reason on the defending side is the frustration of losing something you worked very hard for.

The real reason on the attacking side is the frustration of someone blocking your ingame activity (piracy or traveling through a jump) without you being able to do anything about it.

Whether it happened because you lost to 5 or 10 or 20 adversaries does not change that frustration, at all.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: There is no incentive to be fair for players who "impose consequences", because they don't have to be fair.

Admins, how ever, are required by the rules to be fair when they enforce rules, including the one I proposed.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: You want to keep the current system with a bit of changes to the amount of needed attackers, which doesn't mitigate any negative consequences to game play at all.

Your promoted system doesnt encourage people to be responsible, it perpetuates the existing mob mentality and mob rule which is the opposite of responsible.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: I wouldnt call repair rates which make the shipping of around 15k per day, which make it impossible to leave the base unattended for a weak even with many additional storage modules, minimal. In addition to not being healthy, together with the constant danger of destruction through players with 24 hours notice and the impossibility to fix a single date for the fight, for the community both ingame or IRL.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: It's hard to tell for if you think you're being clever, being intentionally annoying, or genuinely unaware of your inner motivations as well as outwards appearance.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Here's another good example that may help you understand:

If your mom makes rules that say "don't touch the hot plate, don't eat too many sweets, and you may go outside the house and play even if you risk skinning a knee", it's a mom being a good mom.

If your mom says "eat all the sweets you want so you'll know your mistake when you got diabetes, touch the hot plate so you know its bad, and you may never leave the house and if you do I'll kill you", it's child abuse.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Only it doesnt really solve it, because people who organize large fleets within a 5 minutes for a surprise are exactly the kind of people who cause the grief around here?

(03-16-2018, 04:05 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

Buffing the hull points would ensure sieges last a lot longer, negating the effects of timezones, and mitigating the relative additional damage output each additional attacker would provide.

(03-17-2018, 12:49 PM)Laura C. Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 04:05 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

Buffing the hull points would ensure sieges last a lot longer, negating the effects of timezones, and mitigating the relative additional damage output each additional attacker would provide.

This caught my attention. I really hope this does not apply for core one bases or god save us. Lawfuls already have to spend more than enough time with POBs which are deployed without any roleplay in places where they can not stay and must be removed. RFP had four these bases in last two months, poor BPA even more. The last thing we need is to be forced to shoot them even longer, dealing with them is annoying enough already.

(03-16-2018, 03:15 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Waiting for you to tell me that building bases in mining fields and jumps is a good things now, despite all the drama it caused and the IRP laws already forbidding it.

(03-16-2018, 06:25 PM)Karlotta Wrote: The major problem is not the DURATION or NUMBER OF SHIPS required to destroy a base, nor is the lack of ability to defend it.
The major problem is the OUTCOME of both successful defense and succesful destruction.

(03-17-2018, 12:49 PM)Laura C. Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 04:05 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:

Buffing the hull points would ensure sieges last a lot longer, negating the effects of timezones, and mitigating the relative additional damage output each additional attacker would provide.

This caught my attention. I really hope this does not apply for core one bases or god save us. Lawfuls already have to spend more than enough time with POBs which are deployed without any roleplay in places where they can not stay and must be removed. RFP had four these bases in last two months, poor BPA even more. The last thing we need is to be forced to shoot them even longer, dealing with them is annoying enough already.