+- 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 - SnakThree - 03-17-2018
Few people would mind POBs if they were not denying areas. POB in mining field for example is atrocity for what this multiplayer community stands for and should be prohibited by rules but for some reason staff doesn't want to upset few owners and instead screws over few pirates. In the mean time, we have safe grind for money that allows people to get CAU8 Battleships and silently engage said pirates because most miners have not had to interact with someone in proper roleplay environment.
RE: Player Owned Bases - OldMiner - 03-17-2018
Hmmm You may be correct about those who rarely interact with other players but I am a miner/trader and both my characters, miner and trader, often get hassel from pirates and hostile players. I accept it is part of the game and I agree that PoBs in Mining zones should be a No No.
Mining ships are small, lightly armoured and armed and is no match for those fighting vessels that prey on them. Also many transports are no match for the hostile caps that stop them so interaction is essential.
RE: Player Owned Bases - SnakThree - 03-17-2018
This is the problem. Miner immunity is transcending into careless behaviour as a trader and later onto capital ship.
If Miners would be harassed by pirates with POBs ~20k away from mining field, they would find themselves in need of Armor Upgrades. As such, once they start trading the same ore they mine onto POB, they would also have this knowledge about interaction with/against pirate, would more likely ready themselves with armor and weapons.
This is what I am missing as pirate. I enjoy the challenge, but only when it is player-player interaction. I don't want to be screwed over by passive space object such as POB. I want Miners and Traders to become better and provide pirates much harder time.
For example, I trade in CAU8 Bison, full of Charons. I don't bend over to pirates and over 4 years of its existance, I was shot down or pirated only four or five times. At the same time, I probably shot down at least 20 pirates and escaped/forced to flee a bunch more.
If people started to be considerate to whole cycle of activity, we could thrive so much better altogether. That just cannot happen when greedy players are shielded from "hostile" interactions. To be fair, my fondest memory of my Disco career is when my Camara was pirated by two Molly ships in New London when I was delivering Mining Machinery to Graves Station. They forced me to drop it all. And I was totally fine with it. And you know what? That happened back in 2010 when I was newbie and used that very same Camara to explore Corsair Guard System because I had no clue what Guard systems were.
People need to be exposed to interactions, both good and bad, to experience full extent of what this community has to offer. POB that deny areas or are surrounded by bunch of weapon platforms are bad. I'd rather have more durable POBs than see them screwing over anyone's gameplay by being placed in such positions.
RE: Player Owned Bases - OldMiner - 03-17-2018
I question the phrase "Minor immunity"
As a Miner I niether feel or regard myself as Immune. Far from it in fact.
Of course I negotiate with those pirates who frequently fire first before any challenge but then how else would they stop me.
Yes I fight back but can easily wiegh the advantages or disadvantages of fight or flight after paying any "contribution to the pirate welfare fund"
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-18-2018
(03-17-2018, 03:16 PM)ronillon Wrote:(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.Could you provide some links? I would like to know how bad this "drama" actually is.
I find it hard to believe that you missed the drama around the mining-field base destructions involving Wesker, gamergirl, and Xenon, and also the base spam in Dublin and Munich. Although unless you talked to people about the later online you may have missed some of the "emotions" involved, which arent always vented on the forum.
For you and everyone who doesn't seem to understand why bases in mining fields are broken, consider this:
Mining is balanced to teamwork (small miner plus large hauler sitting side by side) gives that largest profit. More profit than mining in the more expensive Hegemon.
When a small miner (like a Clydesdale with 500 cargo for example) mines right next to a base, he gets DOUBLE the time-efficiency (because he's getting the same bonus without there being a second player spending time sitting there) of the efficiency intended for TEAMWORK, while mining alone, and he can dock without penalty as soon as he sees a pirate (or hears a cloaking device).
Even without the drama around base destruction, this breaks mining balance and encourages no-teamwork no-way-to-counter money making.
(03-17-2018, 03:16 PM)ronillon Wrote:(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.Now this explains a lot. I disagree with you completely. For me it is actually the other way around.
The major problem is the OUTCOME of both successful defense and succesful destruction.
If my base is going to be blown up fine, but I would like to at least see it and die defending it.
If you feel that you not seeing your base blow up is a bigger problem for you than your base blowing up, you're free to disagree.
But please don't act as if everyone agrees with you on that.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Thyrzul - 03-18-2018
Player owned Bases don't ruin mining balance, just reallocate required effort. You are required to either provide at least two players present on the site at the same time, or if you want to go around that, maintain a PoB to allow that. Required effort isn't less, just different. Of course if PoB maintenance credit costs are getting reduced, just as how some people in this community like to suggest, things can indeed get imbalanced, one of the reasons why I don't suggest such.
That PoBs provide quickdock points inside mining fields or that Core 1 bases can be spammed like mad are a lot more valid concerns than "ermagerd, mining is meant to be teamwork". So is PoB maintenance, just saying.
That PoBs provide quickdock points inside mining fields or that Core 1 bases can be spammed like mad are a lot more valid concerns than "ermagerd, mining is meant to be teamwork". So is PoB maintenance, just saying.
(03-18-2018, 04:42 PM)Karlotta Wrote: But please don't act as if everyone agrees with you on that.
I wish everyone would take that advice. Or at least those giving it.
RE: Player Owned Bases - OrignlGaminGeneration (OGG) - 03-19-2018
Hi Karlotta, when I suggested you post what is broken in Disco I did not think you would do it so soon. Well I read all of it and I think what you are proposing lacks any existing model to back your ideas. So why don't you scout one system from each of the Lawful Houses, write up a workable proposal of these Industrial Zone PoB and Community Zone PoB with your "Laws Governing" said Zones and Lobby each House to start an "experimental model of what could be in Disco". One of them just might take you up on it. Then over time it will either prove or disprove your ideas. I think those that want to keep bases far from these communities should be allowed to knowing what the consequences are to them and those that want a safer alternative would choose the PoB Zones. One step at a time. This will allow the status quo and PoBs Zones to exist at the same time thus allowing you to bypass the resistance and conflict to it being forced on existing PoB owners. Side note : Referring to it as "kind of like a trailer park" may not be in your favor when you RP your proposals. If you are living in the USA then you know what I am referring to and the stereo type has been well earned and you don't want that image floating around in governing group's minds as they consider your proposal.
RE: Player Owned Bases - OrignlGaminGeneration (OGG) - 03-19-2018
I also think that the PoB attack rules need to be adjusted to where the defending owner can call the day and time ( this servers UTC) of the attack within the 2 week post time frame of the Attack Thread if no settlement inRP is reached and it goes to battle. This will take away the different time zone issue for PoB owners RL obligations and take away the attacking parties control of the situation making it more even in RP. The Attack Thread would be more reasonable if a flat four days for PoB owners to respond with day and time no matter the core was required. This will be reasonable for the "weekend out of town" vacation/holiday members to get to Forums and not get caught off guard with the "What the F**k happened to my base???" when they log in. Just food for thought.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Laura C. - 03-19-2018
(03-19-2018, 09:08 AM)OrignlGaminGeneration Wrote: I also think that the PoB attack rules need to be adjusted to where the defending owner can call the day and time ( this servers UTC) of the attack within the 2 week post time frame of the Attack Thread if no settlement inRP is reached and it goes to battle. This will take away the different time zone issue for PoB owners RL obligations and take away the attacking parties control of the situation making it more even in RP. The Attack Thread would be more reasonable if a flat four days for PoB owners to respond with day and time no matter the core was required. This will be reasonable for the "weekend out of town" vacation/holiday members to get to Forums and not get caught off guard with the "What the F**k happened to my base???" when they log in. Just food for thought.
So you propose that attackers need to wait up to 18 days to attack (up to 4 days for owner to respond, then up to two weeks depending what what date owner choose what can be even the last day of the time frame)? That is insane. The person can happily use and build the base in the meantime including making -a lot- of defenses. If it would be area denial base like in the mining field or at jumphole, those who need to get rid of it will really appreciate being unable to deal with it for almost three weeks. And after the base is finally removed, nothing stops player to build another one in the same place and all this up to 18 days cycle goes again from the beginning. No, just no.
Also, the idea that the date and time of the attack will be chosen by the defending party is ridiculous. First, like you said, "it takes away the attacking parties control of the situation", but no, it is not "making it more even in RP". It is nonsense and thus there is nothing more inRP about it, when was the last time you heard that defender is the one who choose date and time of the attack? Second, it open nice abuse window because if the defender knows the faction which is going to attack and for example knows that the majority of their playerbase is from Europe, he may set the time of attack to like 3:30 in the morning on the working day so obviously attackers will not be able to log in enough numbers.
-----
Sidenote regarding the proposal in the OP - am I blind or I do not see there anything about forbiding people to continue making POBs anywhere they want except the mining fields? Because some replies act like it is there, but I don´t see it. As I understand it, all this proposal is about is about creating zones where the POBs will be indestructible if they will follow to local laws. It does not say it can´t be build somewhere else (except mining fields, what is something that part of the community asks for quite some time), just those bases built outside of the protected zones will simply risk they may be destroyed. If they do not want to risk it, they would have the option to build their bases in the protected zones (which should be few and little though).
RE: Player Owned Bases - Festus McBoyle - 03-19-2018
(03-18-2018, 05:14 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:Player owned Bases don't ruin mining balance, just reallocate required effort. You are required to either provide at least two players present on the site at the same time, or if you want to go around that, maintain a PoB to allow that. Required effort isn't less, just different. Of course if PoB maintenance credit costs are getting reduced, just as how some people in this community like to suggest, things can indeed get imbalanced, one of the reasons why I don't suggest such.
That PoBs provide quickdock points inside mining fields or that Core 1 bases can be spammed like mad are a lot more valid concerns than "ermagerd, mining is meant to be teamwork". So is PoB maintenance, just saying.
Player owned Bases don't ruin mining balance, Correct.
Player owned Bases just reallocate required effort. Correct.
Required effort isn't less, just different. Correct.
Mining is meant to be teamwork. So is PoB maintenance. Correct.