+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: PoB Siege Mechanics (/showthread.php?tid=165900)
PoB Siege Mechanics - Laz - 11-19-2018
Oh look here boys and girls, it's that same thread that comes up several times a year!
This time though, we have more things to discuss thanks to the recent change made to PoBs. In case you're not familiar with the new changes, let me give you a basic summary. Base's have been given a vastly higher health value, at the cost of reducing their regen rate to 10% of the original value - aka, 6000 per 20 seconds, rather than 60000. On the surface this looks like a good change, as it makes sieges more tactical, and battles are no longer decided by who has the most players on at a single time. But as many people who attended the Tau-29 event would attest, it's not that simple.
The main problem, in my eyes, is how this hasn't really innovated player base sieges but rather reinforced the old system (of which, in my experience, almost everyone will unanimously agree is terrible and flawed to no end). Instead of get 8 people to log and sit there in battleships for an hour, it's now get three people to sit there for three days shooting this static brick in space. In many ways, it is worse the PoB death timer now means pretty much nothing as in the grand scheme of things one hour isn't going to really affect the PoB.
The old system was flawed as can be, and this new system only makes it worse. Another issue is new PoBs. When a PoB is deployed it has 5% of it's total health. If it is regening all day, it still wont get close to it's maximum, leaving it very easy to siege by even one or two battleships. That, combined with that fact it wouldn't take very long, allows the base to be dead while the defenders are a sleep (which, lest I'm mistaken, was one of the things meant to be changed by this new mechanic - stop sieges happening while the defenders are asleep).
Using the example of the the Kepler base from yesterday. From what I can see from my various chats, people were supplying that base for over 14 hours, and yet the attackers killed it while everyone was asleep within the space of two hours with three battleships.
I am greatly of the opinion these mechanics need to change, but I'll be honest and say that I have no idea what I think should replace them. They are bad and there is room for improvement, but I could not tell you what improvement that is. That's why I would like everyone else to tell me what they think would work - and have a good-natured and completely calm discussion about this.
The PoB rework that I have been working on for months and months is in it's last stages of work, and that is why I am asking this question. The devs that have collaborated with me on this were not informed prior because I am asking this as a member. We are in a position to integrate a wide range of different ideas so I am looking for something a good portion of the community can unanimously agree on for a new mechanic. If we can get that, and the devs approve, we can integrate it into the new plugin.
tl;dr - The PoB Siege mechanics need to change in my opinion and I would like people to suggest new ideas / new systems for handling it.
This time though, we have more things to discuss thanks to the recent change made to PoBs. In case you're not familiar with the new changes, let me give you a basic summary. Base's have been given a vastly higher health value, at the cost of reducing their regen rate to 10% of the original value - aka, 6000 per 20 seconds, rather than 60000. On the surface this looks like a good change, as it makes sieges more tactical, and battles are no longer decided by who has the most players on at a single time. But as many people who attended the Tau-29 event would attest, it's not that simple.
The main problem, in my eyes, is how this hasn't really innovated player base sieges but rather reinforced the old system (of which, in my experience, almost everyone will unanimously agree is terrible and flawed to no end). Instead of get 8 people to log and sit there in battleships for an hour, it's now get three people to sit there for three days shooting this static brick in space. In many ways, it is worse the PoB death timer now means pretty much nothing as in the grand scheme of things one hour isn't going to really affect the PoB.
The old system was flawed as can be, and this new system only makes it worse. Another issue is new PoBs. When a PoB is deployed it has 5% of it's total health. If it is regening all day, it still wont get close to it's maximum, leaving it very easy to siege by even one or two battleships. That, combined with that fact it wouldn't take very long, allows the base to be dead while the defenders are a sleep (which, lest I'm mistaken, was one of the things meant to be changed by this new mechanic - stop sieges happening while the defenders are asleep).
Using the example of the the Kepler base from yesterday. From what I can see from my various chats, people were supplying that base for over 14 hours, and yet the attackers killed it while everyone was asleep within the space of two hours with three battleships.
I am greatly of the opinion these mechanics need to change, but I'll be honest and say that I have no idea what I think should replace them. They are bad and there is room for improvement, but I could not tell you what improvement that is. That's why I would like everyone else to tell me what they think would work - and have a good-natured and completely calm discussion about this.
The PoB rework that I have been working on for months and months is in it's last stages of work, and that is why I am asking this question. The devs that have collaborated with me on this were not informed prior because I am asking this as a member. We are in a position to integrate a wide range of different ideas so I am looking for something a good portion of the community can unanimously agree on for a new mechanic. If we can get that, and the devs approve, we can integrate it into the new plugin.
tl;dr - The PoB Siege mechanics need to change in my opinion and I would like people to suggest new ideas / new systems for handling it.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Foxglove - 11-19-2018
For the love of God, make PoBs only available as SRPs.
The system is cool and can be really helpful, but the amount of tears and unncessary drama they generate usually isn't worth them being a feature in the first place. With the siege mechanics changed, it doesn't take a single concerted effort of three hours anymore but a single slightly less concerted effort of a single person doing it for a week. Nothing about being alt-tabbed and shooting at a base after the defenders have been unfairly murdered is fun or engaging gameplay. It needs to stop.
In my honest opinion, the only real way of handling PoBs is the following:
- Make them SRP only.
- They may only be constructed in places where your faction/character is the dominant power and/or has roleplayed with the dominant power in the area for it to be constructed there.
- Make PoBs indestructible.
- A faction may only deny someone to construct a PoB if their roleplay contradicts that of the NPC faction they represent.
- Once a faction has consented to a base construction, it cannot be withdrawn. To this end, documentation on the forums is needed.
- PoBs may only be removed if the owner of the PoB gravely wronged the hosting faction. In this case, the faction posts a player request to have it moved or removed.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Vexykin - 11-19-2018
(11-19-2018, 03:25 PM)Foxglove Wrote: In my honest opinion, the only real way of handling PoBs is the following:
- Make them SRP only.
- They may only be constructed in places where your faction/character is the dominant power and/or has roleplayed with the dominant power in the area for it to be constructed there, or in contested/independent systems.
- Make PoBs indestructible, until a siege declaration has been issued with proper proof of identification and RP from the opposing side.
- While base declaration for the Siege is approved, a proper sets of mini-events will occur, daily, valid within couple days 3-4 max, with properly set server times to defend or attack the station.
- A faction may only deny someone to construct a PoB if their roleplay contradicts that of the NPC faction they represent.
- Once a faction has consented to a base construction, it cannot be withdrawn. To this end, documentation on the forums is needed.
- PoBs may only be removed if the owner of the PoB gravely wronged the hosting faction. In this case, the faction posts a player request to have it moved or removed.
While I agreed to most points you pointed out, I did small corrections to what I would see a proper PoB mechanics, and not to lose the ability to siege them, highlighted in blue.
And of course back to siege mechanics, the shield would need to block 90%-95% of the incoming damage, to reduce times to successfully siege a base, and bases HP reverted back to original values.
Also, make BS Siege codename weaponry available for purchase without needing Sci-Data for it, would be another approach, compared to the Shield Module nerf, or both of them could be tweaked to balance the time needed to successfully siege a base, and/or for defenders who gain superior firepower, due to the Siege guns being extremely slow and would be meaningless to use in battles.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Foxglove - 11-19-2018
Sieges are the reason why the system is busted. The efdort people put into it combined with the inherently combative nature of their removal makes it necessary to be really restrictive with PoBs. My proposal would actually fix the problem. Yours would try to mitigate it but ultimately fail because it will do nothing to prevent the unfairness that goes along with them.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Vexykin - 11-19-2018
Well what point of the Player Spawned bases would have, if we lose the ability to siege them
In that case just delete PoBs entirely, and yeah...I would never be okay with indestructible PoB spam...
That really wouldn't differ much from Developer added static bases, which would ultimately be a much better solution, due to PoB ticks taking chunks of Server load, but static bases wouldn't.
Therefore the line where sets of mini events become available, it would only be fair for both sides.
(11-19-2018, 03:42 PM)VÆX Wrote: While base declaration for the Siege is approved, a proper sets of mini-events will occur, daily, valid within couple days 3-4 max, with properly set server times to defend or attack the station.And if a defender side cannot defend their base, they shouldn't have a public base in the first place, more organized and active factions will gain upperhand in maintaining bases , yes , but there are other options, I'm sure of it, we all just need to put our heads together on this one.
And of course couple of proposed lines wouldn't fix the problem, but hey, there's a start, so there's always room to improve.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Laz - 11-19-2018
People on Discord were poking me to explain how the PoB repair system actually works, so I'll quickly state that. From my experience most people think it works like this:
• Every 20 seconds the base will run a repair cycle.
• This repair cycle will do the following: 60000 (now 6000) * by the core level * the amount of different repair commodities it has
• This repair cycle will do the following: 60000 (now 6000) * by the core level * the amount of different repair commodities it has
However, this is not how it works. This is how the code actually does stuff:
• Every 20 seconds do the following:
• Run the 1 repair cycle per core level
• For every repair cycle check if the base is above the max health - if it is, conduct no more repair cycles and set the base to max health.
• If the base is not above max health, take away one lot of materials and then continue to the next cycle, if applicable.
• If the base reaches the end of its cycles (let's pretend it's a core 4 for the sake of this example) and it's still not at full health, it will repeat this after another 20 seconds.
• This means it will have done four repair cycles, consuming four lots of a single material type (assuming that type did not run out.
• Run the 1 repair cycle per core level
• For every repair cycle check if the base is above the max health - if it is, conduct no more repair cycles and set the base to max health.
• If the base is not above max health, take away one lot of materials and then continue to the next cycle, if applicable.
• If the base reaches the end of its cycles (let's pretend it's a core 4 for the sake of this example) and it's still not at full health, it will repeat this after another 20 seconds.
• This means it will have done four repair cycles, consuming four lots of a single material type (assuming that type did not run out.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Lafayette - 11-19-2018
(11-19-2018, 03:25 PM)Foxglove Wrote: For the love of God, make PoBs only available as SRPs.
What a ludicrous suggestion. The server survives on PoB activity which appears to be an inconvenient fact to many.
The solution is simple:
PvP Death Cooldown in a contested system: 30 minutes
PvP Death Cooldown: 1 hour
PvP Death Cooldown while attacking a PoB: 12 hours
That will solve the problem.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Sombs - 11-19-2018
Someone calculated that a freshly placed Core 1 PoB, untouched, would remain alive for around 23 days without any repair commodities.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Lythrilux - 11-19-2018
Foxglove is right. I have tried to consider many times how this system can be balanced, but players just have much room to be dickheads on either side of the spectrum.
Why must POBs be destructible? They can create activity and roleplay by simply existing - and all that goes down the drain as soon as players decide to fancy a siege.
So yes, I agree with most of Foxglove's points as to how the system can change, but with a few minor differences:
- POBs are indestructible and cannot be sieged. Wear and tear significantly reduced to just requiring RA once every couple weeks.
- POBs can only exist within 5k of an allied or friendly solar (station, battleship etc). No POBs within 20k of a mining field. No POBs within 15k of a jump gate/hole.
- Official factions may build POBs at their leisure.
- Return the upgrade system back to when it didn't need requests for everything past Core 2. Core 2 still needs a request.
- Independents must apply for POBs via an SRP.
- Players can still SRP event bases as per normal.
- I like Foxglove's 4th, 5th and 6th points. On the fence about 2.
POBs only become problematic when players use them in a cancerous way (dropping POBs in mining fields and at jump connections) or interacting with them in a cancerous way (ooRP hate sieges, going "hurr durr POBs r bad" and blowing them up as soon as they see one).
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Omicron - 11-19-2018
PoBs are from the start, a feature not suited to nature of Freelancer gameplay and nature of the game itself. Digital Anvil from the start made the singleplayer and multiplayer as more of semi-exploration shooting game with rich roleplaying background where you have nothing to loose from being shot down. You are investing time and money (which in majority of cases is never going to be refunded in money/assets that could be earned from factories) that could be deleted at almost momenth's notice. PoB's unlike your guns and ships will not respawn, your investment will be lost and you are at net loss rather than mild inconvenience from loosing your regens.
The PoB plugin in its past and current design fits Elite Dangerous and Eve Online where you are penalized for dying and are at threat of loosing the ship entirely. Freelancer? Not so much.