+- 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 - Jack_Henderson - 03-19-2018
(03-14-2018, 04:36 PM)Karlotta Wrote: After gathering some experience as a POB owner and being somewhat in tune with the drama around POBs over the years, here are some thoughts on them, with solutions/mitigations to problems.
Technically, they’re a great addition to the mod that has potential to be fun and creative and give people more reasons to play. But there are ways in which they also do harm to gameplay:
-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.
-Bases currently give players the ability to block or “own” areas of space, inhibiting other players’ freedom.
-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.
-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.
Therefore I propose the following fixes. They require no mod changes or programming, only changes in rules and IRP laws.
1. Creation of dedicated areas for POB construction, where bases are protected by IRP laws and server rules as long as they obey certain laws/rules. Admins should offer to move existing bases to these locations on request, and manage those zones if there’s no government or faction willing to manage them in a reasonable non-abusive way. These areas would differ in nature and have differing laws, but should focus activity onto certain areas. For example:
a) “Industrial zones” where factories may be built. Base construction must be requested on the forum and obey naming, positioning, and reputation requirements. These zones should be near IRP industrial bases (Baltimore Shipyard in liberty or Planet Akabat in Mu for example), with good visibility to all players and attached to trade lanes or busy routes. The bases should be encouraged to allow public docking and buy materials needed to build equipment.
b) “Low budget space colonies” Kind of like a trailer park, where players can build core 1 bases to stash and exchange their stuff. People are free to build as they please in those areas, but will have their base destroyed if it violates the trailer park owners rules (no excessively stupid placing, no prohibited goods or factions, no weapons platforms, no factories). These zones should be in “cheap” places that aren’t central but still close to a lane or base (for example near planet Pittsburg for liberty lawfuls or near Niverton or Gonzales Station for unlawfuls)
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).
3. All bases should have their crew (and thereby food/water/oxygen consumption) and wear and tear damage decreased dramatically, so people don’t become slaves to their bases, can keep them unattended for longer, and don’t have to spend so much time doing boring and detrimental things. I think it’s possible to do that without additional programming already.
This would require adding the following rules:
-Bases built closer than 15 k to mining fields or jump holes/gates will be deleted by server administrators, and receive no protection against attacks from players.
-Bases situated in protected areas may only be attacked if they violate the area’s regulations. Protected areas are collectively managed by admins, official factions, and governments.
And the following IRP laws:
-Bases manufacturing equipment must be built in designated industrial areas.
-Designated low Budget zones provide protection for Core 1 bases which follow the rules of the regulations of management.
I support most of it, and could live with all of it.
Especially the "15 k away from mining areas" is absolutely central.
Quote:-Bases built closer than 15 k to mining fields or jump holes/gates will be deleted by server administrators, and receive no protection against attacks from players.
I already asked around whether it is possible to hard-code such a "cannot build in this zone" for POBs. That would decrease Admin workload to police POB placement.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Karlotta - 03-19-2018
(03-19-2018, 10:38 AM)Laura C. Wrote: 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).
(03-19-2018, 04:57 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: I support most of it, and could live with all of it.
Especially the "15 k away from mining areas" is absolutely central.
I already asked around whether it is possible to hard-code such a "cannot build in this zone" for POBs. That would decrease Admin workload to police POB placement.
Finally some people who know how to read.
Laura, you are not blind and understood it correctly. About the "indestructible" areas, the funny part is that many areas that could be "industrial zones" are so well protected that it pretty much already makes then indestructible through game mechanics. For the "trailer park" areas, not necessarily, depending where they are. The rule would not only encourage building the bases in certain areas, but also encourage people to tolerate bases and not blow them up for fun or other selfish reasons.
As Jack correctly pointed out somewhere else it also takes the pain and drama for the builders and pirates. Admin workload can also be reduced by just not protecting these bases with the attack declaration thread rules, and writing it into the rules instead of house laws.
(03-19-2018, 10:55 AM)Undertaker Wrote:(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.
POBs broke the balance of the way mining plugin was originally intended. For example, it's now more profitable to mine alone with a cheap clydesdale right next to a base than with a more expensive Hegemon. And no, it doesn't require the presence of two players at the same time.
If the base lets everyone dock even if they don't participate in base construction or maintenance, it's not teamwork for those people, and requires no additional effort for them.
RE: Player Owned Bases - OrignlGaminGeneration (OGG) - 03-19-2018
Hello Laura C, Not 18 day cycle but the 4 days in the current 14 day cycle ( it should be cut down to 8 days for Attack Thread). The window of abuse is already existing on the side of attacker groups now. So you have a group with their choice as to when to attack against 1 or 2 people. The only exception to what I propose should be the bases in minable zones and those attacks should be at the discretion of House military/police . As far as PoB inside the mining zones the ONLY way you will be able to stop that is for Disco's current controlling board to not give power cores to bases inside the 15k of minable zones rule. No "Laws" will stop People from building in MZs only the denial of the one commodity critical for bases to function= power core. There will always be those that don't follow certain guide lines in RL what makes anyone think they will here if you pass some new law???
RE: Player Owned Bases - Jack_Henderson - 03-19-2018
Quote: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.
They ruin mining balance. Only those who never actually played in O7 when Reutlingen was still alive can state such a thing.
=> POBs must be more than 15k away from mining areas. It's as easy as that.
Effort is different, but in a bad way. POB supplying means afk-hauling materials and doing grindwork while avoiding any interruption (like roleplay) instead of doing something creative in active places.
=> Reduce grindwork to give players more time to do things they actually like to do. Less flights, perhaps a little more money requirements? Moneysinks are missing anyway. The pure flight time however has to be reduced. 8k RA / day is insane!
POB maintainance sucks when done alone and it sucks when done as a team. I have had bases from nearly moment 1 and I can state from painful experience of many years that doing it as a team makes it possible, yet not anything you want to do. Not even as a team.
=> see above about the necessary reduction of pure grind flight time.
RE: Player Owned Bases - OrignlGaminGeneration (OGG) - 03-19-2018
Hello Jack_Henderson,
MY Disco mentor (who showed me ore routes) came up with a way to off set costs in materials by not leaving the required crew for continuous repairs. After repair pull the crew and keep them stored in a cheap freighter on the base, and let the base degrade for 2-4 days then come back and put the crew back for repairs. Then pull them after repairs are done and this will reduce the overall cost. By accident I delivered 5k too much Robotic Hardware on a build project and He noticed that the base repair went way faster after that. The Base owner does not allow base to degrade passed one third of full health. This will save you billions in credits and hours of the supply grind in the long haul. Smart man my Disco mentor is.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Thyrzul - 03-19-2018
(03-19-2018, 05:23 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Finally some people who know how to read.
"Agrees with Karlotta = can read" confirmed.
(03-19-2018, 05:23 PM)Karlotta Wrote: For example, it's now more profitable to mine alone with a cheap clydesdale right next to a base than with a more expensive Hegemon. And no, it doesn't require the presence of two players at the same time.
Do you know what's also more profitable? Not having to build and maintain a PoB. Thing is, you can't solo mine with a Clydesdale that way. Sounds more like a "something for something" for me.
(03-19-2018, 05:23 PM)Karlotta Wrote: If the base lets everyone dock even if they don't participate in base construction or maintenance, it's not teamwork for those people, and requires no additional effort for them.
That "if" is still there. Sure it is up to the base owners whether they want to lease the base for miners to dock on, but it's also more profitable to hand out docking access for cash, like a monthly fee, than not.
(03-19-2018, 05:47 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: They ruin mining balance. Only those who never actually played in O7 when Reutlingen was still alive can state such a thing.
=> POBs must be more than 15k away from mining areas. It's as easy as that.
Cases like Reutlingen brought us the Core 2 limit on bases inside mining fields by proving how virtually indestructible higher level bases are cancerous to mining. Now mining field bases are more vulnerable at maximum allowed core level than before (read: less HP).
That's not a step in the direction of mining base prohibition (else what you guys are suggesting would have been done already), that was a step in the direction of allowing players to sort it out among themselves ingame, without admin intervention. It wasn't executed too well, not without the actual rebalance I am still suggesting, but it's still the direction admins decided to take, and it's still the direction of what I believe should be taken further, through better, effective ways.
That's not a step in the direction of mining base prohibition (else what you guys are suggesting would have been done already), that was a step in the direction of allowing players to sort it out among themselves ingame, without admin intervention. It wasn't executed too well, not without the actual rebalance I am still suggesting, but it's still the direction admins decided to take, and it's still the direction of what I believe should be taken further, through better, effective ways.
(03-19-2018, 05:47 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Effort is different, but in a bad way. POB supplying means afk-hauling materials and doing grindwork while avoiding any interruption (like roleplay) instead of doing something creative in active places.
=> Reduce grindwork to give players more time to do things they actually like to do. Less flights, perhaps a little more money requirements? Moneysinks are missing anyway. The pure flight time however has to be reduced. 8k RA / day is insane!
AFK haulers exist everywhere, it's not a feature invented by PoBs, it's a feature invented by non-roleplaying folks grinding for cash. The silent trader syndrome (vs 2milordie pierat) is a recurring topic of discussion and debate, without the need to mention PoBs at all. PoB supplying is just simply trading/smuggling.
(03-19-2018, 05:47 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: POB maintainance sucks when done alone and it sucks when done as a team. I have had bases from nearly moment 1 and I can state from painful experience of many years that doing it as a team makes it possible, yet not anything you want to do. Not even as a team.
=> see above about the necessary reduction of pure grind flight time.
Mathematics helped me conclude it "sucks" less per individual when done as a team. The more you are the easier it gets for each of you.
As for it being something you don't wan to do, well then, don't do it. Or do it in a better way. If it feels like a chore, you likely do something wrong. Either built too far away, with too few people, or already got what you wanted out of it but can't release, the reasons can be many and various on a case by case basis.
Council used to have a base in 2012, pmuch a few months after their introduction. It lived 14-15 weeks, got destroyed once and had to be rebuilt during that time, it wasn't rebuilt after the second destruction. I've got plenty of RP out of it, and I liked that. I did not mind the gind, I did mind it was destroyed, but I do not mind it by now. A few years later I got the keys for an other, allied one, for maintenance. It was in a bit tricky location, could be sustained at first, later a few updates and commodity sell point and price changes made it a bit difficult. It eventually fell but the previous owners haven't really returned since then either.
Now we are planning another one, with clear cut goals, plans and calculations regarding the best location, distances, costs, commodity accessibility, factories, modules, market competition. The numbers are decent, about a hour or two maintenance per week even for a Core 4, significantly less for smaller levels, etc. I am optimistic.
PS: No, it won't be in a mining field.
As for it being something you don't wan to do, well then, don't do it. Or do it in a better way. If it feels like a chore, you likely do something wrong. Either built too far away, with too few people, or already got what you wanted out of it but can't release, the reasons can be many and various on a case by case basis.
Council used to have a base in 2012, pmuch a few months after their introduction. It lived 14-15 weeks, got destroyed once and had to be rebuilt during that time, it wasn't rebuilt after the second destruction. I've got plenty of RP out of it, and I liked that. I did not mind the gind, I did mind it was destroyed, but I do not mind it by now. A few years later I got the keys for an other, allied one, for maintenance. It was in a bit tricky location, could be sustained at first, later a few updates and commodity sell point and price changes made it a bit difficult. It eventually fell but the previous owners haven't really returned since then either.
Now we are planning another one, with clear cut goals, plans and calculations regarding the best location, distances, costs, commodity accessibility, factories, modules, market competition. The numbers are decent, about a hour or two maintenance per week even for a Core 4, significantly less for smaller levels, etc. I am optimistic.
PS: No, it won't be in a mining field.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Festus McBoyle - 03-19-2018
There are pros and cons for everything.
Don't forget Disco is not in its heyday where you might have 800+ on the forums.
And getting into the game required waiting and waiting for someone to log off.
It is not easy for some when the numbers playing drop to 12 -15 to get a mining team together. Mining with a Hegemon really, REALLY is not that efficient.
In Bretonia building a POB in a mine field is illegal. Some don't care, and illegally build one and build another when BPA) destroy it. That won't change.
It ain't broke, so why try to fix it.
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
RE: Player Owned Bases - Thyrzul - 03-19-2018
(03-19-2018, 07:08 PM)Undertaker Wrote: It ain't broke, so why try to fix it.
Siege balance is broken, though. Can confirm with maths.
RE: Player Owned Bases - NOVA-5 - 03-19-2018
Finally , someone added subtraction to where it should be.
RE: Player Owned Bases - Laura C. - 03-19-2018
(03-19-2018, 06:35 PM)OrignlGaminGeneration Wrote: Hello Jack_Henderson,
MY Disco mentor (who showed me ore routes) came up with a way to off set costs in materials by not leaving the required crew for continuous repairs. After repair pull the crew and keep them stored in a cheap freighter on the base, and let the base degrade for 2-4 days then come back and put the crew back for repairs. Then pull them after repairs are done and this will reduce the overall cost. By accident I delivered 5k too much Robotic Hardware on a build project and He noticed that the base repair went way faster after that. The Base owner does not allow base to degrade passed one third of full health. This will save you billions in credits and hours of the supply grind in the long haul. Smart man my Disco mentor is.
Yes, this is nice example how something what was meant to help base owners to make their life easier is immediately abused by part of them. Before the mandatory attack declarations and waiting times were a thing, no one would dare to leave his base degrade. Now you see like third of them constantly being not on full health because owners feel safe. What you describe is completely out of roleplay and abuse of game mechanics, nothing else. Long time ago several base owners got even sanctioned for something similar (not supllying the bases with FOW, just letting the crew die and once a week just deliver missing amount of crew). The crew "stored" on a freighter idea to prevent it from dying but also consuming FOW is not much better and it calls for adminteam´s attention in my opinion. It makes people who properly supply their bases feel stupid and asking themselves why they bother to do things right.