Quote:Base Regulations
1. All bases constructed in Gallia need to have Gallic owners, this may be waived in zones of conflict if expedient. Sirian corporations can not act primary supplier and can only be hired on a contract-basis to import goods not found in Gallia.
2. All bases normally have to stay clear of any trade routes. This includes routes to lanes, gates, bases and planets. In exceptional cases, for example strategic military deployment by the Crown or extensions to existing bases, permits may be granted.
3. Weapon platform use is heavily restricted in House Space, Weapon platforms have normally to be at least 15 K away from any lane, base or planet. Weapon platforms may only be set to self-defence mode.
well good idea wiht the weapon platforms but is stupit to give a tradeport no direct at the tradeöane or a base were players can buy ore or other stuff ........... millitray bases and trade bases must 2 parts
(08-20-2013, 05:48 PM)yardworker Wrote: well good idea wiht the weapon platforms but is stupit to give a tradeport no direct at the tradeöane or a base were players can buy ore or other stuff ........... millitray bases and trade bases must 2 parts
While I strongly believe that base emplacement and construction should only be regulated by in-RP laws and restrictions (see the Kusari Legal Codex as an example for this), there could be an easier way to prevent PoB's from being (too) disruptive to general game play than some of the more drastic solutions and ideas being voiced in this thread. At the risk of my idea going unheard of or simply disappearing into the depths of this mass-posting thread, read on at your own leisure and reply as you'd like:
The idea is simple enough. PoB's wouldn't have the option of being set to hostile, initially. Instead of the three defence modes that we can currently set our bases to, we'd only have these two remaining:
Quote:defensemode 0 = Neutral to non-allied ships, docking rights for allied ships only. defensemode 1 = Hostile to non-allied ships, docking rights for allied ships only.
defensemode 2 = Neutral to non-allied ships, unrestricted docking rights.
No existing bases would need to be moved/removed, and the base would still have the strong defensive capabilities that it currently enjoys (granted, there are weapon platforms), as it would still go hostile upon taking damage from a player. It would still require a determined foe to bring down your hard-worked base, while the same time, it wouldn't be able to 'camp' a jump hole or system as they can do today, efficiently shutting down access to whatever the base is guarding.
Opinions?
I'm wondering if popular demand would be high enough to warrant 'aggressive bases'; fragile and easily destroyed, yet strong offensive capabilities and easy enough to build and maintain without the huge effort that we currently put into our bases. A base with the sole purpose of being hostile to invaders and enemies, like many of the bases that we see today near jump holes and planets.
(08-20-2013, 06:04 PM)Asbestos Wrote: While I strongly believe that base emplacement and construction should only be regulated by in-RP laws and restrictions (see the Kusari Legal Codex as an example for this), there could be an easier way to prevent PoB's from being (too) disruptive to general game play than some of the more drastic solutions and ideas being voiced in this thread. At the risk of my idea going unheard of or simply disappearing into the depths of this mass-posting thread, read on at your own leisure and reply as you'd like:
The idea is simple enough. PoB's wouldn't have the option of being set to hostile, initially. Instead of the three defence modes that we can currently set our bases to, we'd only have these two remaining:
Quote:defensemode 0 = Neutral to non-allied ships, docking rights for allied ships only. defensemode 1 = Hostile to non-allied ships, docking rights for allied ships only.
defensemode 2 = Neutral to non-allied ships, unrestricted docking rights.
No existing bases would need to be moved/removed, and the base would still have the strong defensive capabilities that it currently enjoys (granted, there are weapon platforms), as it would still go hostile upon taking damage from a player. It would still require a determined foe to bring down your hard-worked base, while the same time, it wouldn't be able to 'camp' a jump hole or system as they can do today, efficiently shutting down access to whatever the base is guarding.
Opinions?
I'm wondering if popular demand would be high enough to warrant 'aggressive bases'; fragile and easily destroyed, yet strong offensive capabilities and easy enough to build and maintain without the huge effort that we currently put into our bases. A base with the sole purpose of being hostile to invaders and enemies, like many of the bases that we see today near jump holes and planets.
Well man, I agree with this...
Two types of bases:
- Trade / RP hubs with great defensive power and a lot of health and high storage
These bases may not camp Jump Holes and will apply the rules above...
- Offensive posts with great offensive power but less health and storage are the exception to these rules above... They may camp intruders (but not hostile to everyone!!!). For example you have a Molly base, it may not shoot any other ships than the Mollies are at war with!!! So no pew pew insta kill of a Freelancer Trader...
I must say its a good idea, only thing that I think should be replaced is a "blacklist" mechanism, theres a limit of how much tags you can put ( not technicaly - humanily ) if you have an old foe, or if you own an official factions.
Flying around in the no-base-time showed me that I really like to be able to pass the former chokepoints that were guarded by bases. A Corsair raid, that does not lose 1 ship to King's Cross bc the player was not thinking... a simple jump between Dublin and O49 and on my Nomad I could even enter Omicron 74. That felt refreshing.
As much irp sense the chokepoint blocking bases have, I think this phase has shown (at least to me) that they are not good for the gameplay. They therefore should be changed or disallowed (existing bases would need to get a special solution).
OK first off I thought this was suppose to be a topic about the temporary base plug in being disable.
But after reading on and on it seems to of turned into a point the finger debate on base locations and who has the right to do what...
Personally I believe if anyone person or faction had any problem with the Zoner Alliance O-74 bases they have lost any chance of having them removed.
As for the subject of ROLL PLAY I guess a lot of you people out there have either forgotten about the mass fleet
action thats taken place in the O-74 system or just choose to ignore how much life has been brought back into
the region by the ZA Zoners struggle to become independent.
Theirs not point in trying to get someones bases deleted or removed just because you either don't agree why there there or from past records show you can't or don't have the power to remove them your self....
Can we please get back on post topic...
If anyone has a problem with the ZA O-74 bases may I suggest you send me a personal PM rather then try and use this post as a complaints department....
OK that said I welcome a server roll back and to help and promote base functions I second the comment of removing the defense mode 1 and replacing it with a Black List which will in affect stop a lot of complaints as a base/station will
only attack preset enemy s or act in self defense after being shoot at.
Maybe a further AUTO BLACK list where a base automatically adds people to it own list of enemys after being fired
apon.
Which in turn will help base owner keep a record of who's been using there installations as target practice.
![[Image: w3gBAeX.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/w3gBAeX.gif)
![[Image: 2ndnanobots.png]](http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2075/2ndnanobots.png)
