I think the bases should be handled like the current faction activity rules. need 5 active users or more and certain level of activity or the base goes kaput after a review by the staff. thats not to say resupplying = activity either.
(12-01-2015, 10:34 PM)Freedom Phantom Wrote: how about removing every pob first
then moving on from there
ffs just look at gamma or new york
+1
PoBs generate so much drama, and that same drama lowers the player count. Core and the corsairs used to have huge awesome pews in gamma over the summer. But then core decided to build the pob my first reaction was that it would generate drama because of cores false reputation. When the corsairs brought loads of players to seige it and ofc, Core defended by piling loads on the corsairs and drama spurred up so much and now look were the corsair playerbase is: gone. As is the core playerbase, it's just a few of us now it hurts both sides and isn't healthy for the server in my opinion. There are further examples of this but those examples involve sanctions/bans which I'm not allowed to discuss but yea just my input.
What's happening to the server have nothing to do with POBs, it might have something to do with some certain actions from certain known players.
But i don't think that POBs are any reason for loosing activity, in-fact many players do log in here everyday just because this server is one of the last organized ones with
the ability to build your own installation and start some giant RP around it.
Maybe some people should control their actions so they don't lead to a disappearance of certain players or certain factions/groups. but not the POBs to blame sir.
IF someone is to be blamed, then i think it's the known trouble makers that might be behind some repeated problems leading to factions getting disappeared from the server.
Respect to your opinion and respect to all, i just wanted to flag my opinion here.
Respecfully, Malmsteen
(12-02-2015, 01:58 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: Perhaps you indeed should, if you prefer spending less time with supplying. Or you could spend extra time with that and locate your base away from all of those you don't want to get close, the choice is yours. But right now it looks like you want them both, like a hungry man with a hamburger, wanting to eat it and keep it for later at the same time, but you can't do both.
Nope, I'd want it away from those I don't want close, plus lolwuts and trolls, who rather shoot my core 1 base cause ... well I don't know what good is in that for people.
(12-02-2015, 01:58 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: Again, what I told to Protege too, if you got more folks to do the same amount of job, you'll have time for other things too.
So here's the scenario I was planning , but since I will probably not going to make it happen due to the before mentioned, I guess I can disclose it now.
I wanted to have a PoB somewhere out of clear sight for an RP story of mine, which would have served as a hideout, so A.) it shouldn't obviously be in the neighbourhood of NPC bases , B.) shouldn't be known by every second trader that flies around. in this sense, I'd have to get it done alone, which would most probably take all the time away from everything else.
And this is only one thing that came into my mind, and the reason behind it is if you don't need hundreds of people to RP a BS , you shouldn't need people to RP a base.
That's totally correct. You don't need people to RP a base, I know it from experience, because I have an other base I don't need any supplies to keep alive, no other people, I don't need anything... only roleplaying it's existence. A science facility hidden deep in the Bagatelle Mountains on the northern hemisphere of Toulouse, just about 15 degrees north of the equator. Nothing in-game apart from the existence of The Council, Roussillon and Toulouse are really needed.
Sure, it's a bit different in nature than the base you were talking about, perhaps that one could be RP'd as a carved out asteroid in a field, or an abandoned platform far from anything else repressurized for your own use, etc. If you want to RP you don't need much other than creativity. (And of course knowledge of the rational bounds of this universe, like no 10 yr old catgirl admirals pls.)
There are around 80 PoB's by my acount today.
125 slots on server,30-50 players average in game .
We have 2 times more bases then players online (average).
This numbers don't make sense.
It's impossible to have anything but damage to gameplay with this ratio.
Number of PoB's we're having would make sense with 500+
players online and evan that is small number of players imo.
It can't work right with this ratio,it's not logical by any means.
Having more bases then players online can't work.
Something must be done and small changes won't work either.
Paying money insted of suplaying is better considering
players/bases ratio but that change alone is not enough.
We need more radical solution.
POB's were supposed to be a group activity and I'm not saying people out there aren't doing that, but there are alot of solo player POB's as well (I know because I was one of them). This becomes self-defeating, as one player invests many hours, then feels they cannot simply allow the base to die because "muh hours", creating an ever increasing spiral for themselves as they don't have time for anything else. I only recently got out of my POB spiral by realizing that the POB's value is only what I (the owner) thinks it is, and I finally reduced that number to zero in my mind.
(12-02-2015, 02:02 PM)Hidamari Wrote: I think the bases should be handled like the current faction activity rules. need 5 active users or more and certain level of activity or the base goes kaput after a review by the staff. thats not to say resupplying = activity either.
This is not a bad idea, but there are factions that supplying = a large chunk of the faction's activity (I'm looking at .:j:. in particular)
By the way for those who have nothing to do today, there is a core 4 POB on 9% 17K above plane in the Pequena Negra, there will be no claims or repercussions for its destruction. Go and pop it!
That's totally correct. You don't need people to RP a base, I know it from experience, because I have an other base (...)
But that wouldn't be shunned upon for roleplaying a small settlement on e.g. Planet Houstron, technically being a Kusari version of Chinatown, with Hogosha having secured agenda there? Just giving a pretty legit example here.
(12-02-2015, 07:59 PM)|nfrared Wrote: This is not a bad idea, but there are factions that supplying = a large chunk of the faction's activity (I'm looking at .:j:. in particular)
This is true, but supplying a base solely to prevent it from dying is not what a group should "waste" their time doing. I'd be in favor of providing alternative systems down the road with things like below.
An hydroponics module could account for something like 100 FOW while providing something to do with it while at it.
A junkyard could be filled with scrap or premium scrap and provide random commodities. Scrap could provide basic alloys/high temp or stuff like that, pscrap could provide tungsten, aluminum, platinum etc...
A refinery could refine raw ores into refined ores, selling for more profit but requiring the player to feed the refinery with fuel and display some patience.
A repair station could reduce the wear and tear, maybe like 50%, but instead require energy or consume base money instead to pay the hired dwarves.
A lot is possible to make discovery more dynamic and a better experience overall, it's a matter of time and manpower.
(12-02-2015, 08:19 PM)Alley Wrote: A refinery could refine raw ores into refined ores, selling for more profit but requiring the player to feed the refinery with fuel and display some patience.
A repair station could reduce the wear and tear, maybe like 50%, but instead require energy or consume base money instead to pay the hired dwarves.
Posts: 6,123
Threads: 310
Joined: Aug 2007
Staff roles: Story Dev Economy Dev
Long descriptive and detailed jammi post (LDDJP) inbound:
Initially I didn't much like the sound of this - the idea of buying your way out of supply obligations. But the more I thought about it, the more I began to like the idea; at least, I did as I started filling mechanics out in my head. This thread probably isn't the best place to suggest ideas at this point, honestly, because it's been derailed into people who love or hate PoBs as a general concept. I'll give it a shot anyway.
Concept:
The use of credits as an alternative to supplying upkeep commodities could be implemented via modules. In this case, there would be a module for wear and tear (Reinforced Alloy consumed to offset the natural degradation of a PoB) and another for FOW (food, oxygen and water used to sustain the crew). In this case, a Maintenance Centre and a Hydroponics and Recycling Centre.
Maintenance Centre:
The centre replaces the need to constantly ship in Reinforced Alloy in order to offset wear and tear. PoBs consume 8,640 units of RA per day, regardless of their core level. At the default commodity price of $250, this costs $2,160,000 if you were to supply yourself. The Maintenance Centre would expend 10 million credits per day at an average cost of $1,157 per unit. This would be taken directly from the PoB's bank balance in the same 10 minute 'ticks' as the RA would've been.
It's important to note that the Maintenance Centre would only affect the wear and tear value: you would still need to stock repair materials separately to account for the eventuality of being attacked. If you went without and were simply counting on the Maintenance Centre to see you through, you'd have a very bad day indeed. The module wouldn't add RA to your inventory, it would simply disable wear and tear for the duration of its operation.
Hydroponics and Recycling Centre:
This centre can be instructed to produce Food, Oxygen and Water. In other words, you could ask it to produce all three, or just food, or any combination of the above. You would only pay for the commodities you were actively "producing". Producing in this case would actually be a misnomer. The module wouldn't add the desired commodity to your store - it would simply remove the requirement for it for the duration of its operation. So if you ran out of cash, your base would immediately go into starvation mode unless you'd been cunning and set aside a small supply of FOW to keep things steady until you could intervene.
The cost of a daily supply of FOW varies wildly in cost depending on where your base is located. Consequently, I'd high-ball the daily operational costs of this module. 200 crew members consume 480 of each type of FOW per day - a sum total of 1,440 units a day. The Hydroponics Centre would cover each of the three at a cost of 1 million credits per day per commodity. So supplying all three would cost 3 million a day. This cost would double with each successive core level - so a core 2 would cost 2mil per commodity, core 3 4mil, core 4 8mil, core 5 16mil.
Module Construction:
The modules themselves should be relatively large projects, approaching either factory or core modules in complexity and scale. For example:
The other question would be whether or not the centres should scale with the core module of the base. To use the Hydroponics centre as an example - should one centre entirely remove the need for FOW for the entire station, but with a scaling cost? Alternately, should it remove the need for FOW for a set number of crew, requiring more to be built for larger stations? For the latter, as an example, a module could cover the requirements of 400 crew members, meaning you would need to build a second upon reaching core 3 if you wished to have a fully automated (if expensive) station.
Model Example:
Assumption being that there is a 30 month day, and both FOW and wear and tear are being fully automated.
Pros Associated with the above idea and implementation:
Siphons credits out of the player economy by exchanging wealth for convenience. This is possibly the most effective manner this can possibly be done, because the money isn't being invested in any kind of reward that possesses monetary value, as is the case with PoB equipment (which doesn't deflate the economy; quite the opposite). The best thing about draining cash this way is it directly targets those who are sat on vast stockpiles of credits without harming newer players with fewer assets (as death penalties would, for example).
Promotes a healthier game environment. Suppliers grinding PoB supplies make exceedingly poor targets to interact with, because they are generally hauling goods that are either exceptionally low value or PoB specific, and therefore removed from the standard economy and technically useless for any other purpose. That makes pirating base suppliers difficult (if not impossible based on PoB positioning, i.e. outside a planet). This instead encourages regular trading as an alternative, in order to raise revenue. This ensures traders spend the maximum possible time invested in the actual game itself, widening the chances of interaction.
Building the modules themselves would still be relatively challenging, and neither of the proposals would make the actual construction of the base any easier. Most people receive more gratification from the objective orientated building phase than the ongoing maintenance phase after. This effectively enables players to get the best of both worlds, if they so choose.
Enables PoBs to be established purely for roleplay purposes, without being shackled to ideal supply locations. Also stops factions being chained to their PoBs, so to speak. A trade faction could be supplying their PoB by playing their role and trading in the game, flying convoys, earning money, etc. More more satisfying for the players involved than grinding supplies.
The steep cost involved in automating your supplies predisposes it towards groups of players working in tandem, just as the original intent was behind supplying. The amount is still more than possible to attain each month individually though, with enough hours.
Supplying manually would probably be about 100x more efficient and cost effective. Means players who want to invest time into manually running supplies would be rewarded for doing so.
Cons Associated with the above idea and implementation:
(Possibly a pro?) Your base's supply status is tied to its cash flow if automated, the bank balance being visible on the base status page (when it's fixed). This means opponents would effectively be able to see the inside of your PoB inventory so far as deciding the optimal time to siege goes. Solution: remove the cash display from the forum.
Using credits as the primary resource for maintenance decouples physical supplies from sieges. If a base runs out of cash and begins to degrade an attacker could attempt to take advantage of this fact, only to be foiled by the owner logging into a bank ship and depositing a billion credits in a matter of minutes. A similar effect could be achieved by logging off a 5k transport full of supplies, but that's also a very expensive ship and a limited number of supplies. A bank ship can be a starter character with two months worth of funds on it. Solution: disable bank deposits while shield is raised. Disabling withdrawals would just be draconian.
As a corollary to the above, changing to a non-physical maintenance resource means interdiction for the purposes of starving a base becomes impossible. Never mind the fact that this is already effectively impossible and a non-issue. Bases degrade when they're neglected, not because some eagle eyed group of players somehow managed to kill every inbound transport for a period of several days to a week. Solution: be a normal pirate and attack the far more lucrative traders instead.
tl;dr - Miaou you lazy bastard
lets start to change the toxic attitude surrounding PoBs by first diversifying supply mechanics to entail options that aren't a chore, draining cash out of the economy and promoting more active trading instead of supply grinding. Traders get to do something more fun, pirates get more active traders and lawfuls get more active pirates.