Remove weapon platforms from POB

[SnakThree]

1. Weapon platforms are too safe. There's no drawback to having them built. Perhaps change to require Munitions to sustain them would force players to consider their need.

2. Weapon platforms enables toxic gameplay such as constant running back to POB safety while refusing to admit defeat and yield by either blowing up or combat docking. People have high egos and would rather be toxic than humble.

3. Weapon platforms act as area-denial. In case of mining field POB - it almost completely negates pirate threat. And pirates have no counter to that. "Go pirate traders" is not a solution to this, as miners are effectively taking themselves out of equation of activity cycle involving pirates.

4. They are not anti-siege. Sieging Core 1 or 2 bases with few platforms is not hard IF you have Battleships. Sieging Core 3 or 4 bases without platforms is hard even if you have battleships. As such, back to point 2 and 3.

Now please, tell me, when did Weapon Platforms ever created better interactions or gameplay?

---

[LaWey]

>1. Weapon platforms are too safe. There's no drawback to having them built. Perhaps change to require Munitions to sustain them would force players to consider their need.

We need enough of commodity to supply for alive in siege. This is easy only for peoples who play in houses. Outside this is already headache even without additional supply of weapons platforms. Damn, even building of platforms not easy for Omega and Omicrons, where it really needed.

>2. Weapon platforms enables toxic gameplay such as constant running back to POB safety while refusing to admit defeat and yield by either blowing up or combat docking. People have high egos and would rather be toxic than humble.

Dont think removing of platforms will change it, or cause it.

>3. Weapon platforms act as area-denial. In case of mining field POB - it almost completely negates pirate threat. And pirates have no counter to that. "Go pirate traders" is not a solution to this, as miners are effectively taking themselves out of equation of activity cycle involving pirates.

Agreed with that. No need platforms for making mining business. Dont understand for why people make it, honestly. For business enough shield and cargo modules. You anyway cannot much defense it in mining field by power game.

>4. They are not anti-siege. Sieging Core 1 or 2 bases with few platforms is not hard IF you have Battleships. Sieging Core 3 or 4 bases without platforms is hard even if you have battleships. As such, back to point 2 and 3.

They are indeed prevent BS from using cerbs loadout, and help defenders spread attackers and organise bomber harrasment of siege. But yes. Siege balance broken, and many peoples already say that. But problems not in platforms.

Upd: How it do better? Damn just only one thing how you additionaly can help to your base alive during serious siege in one month needed for core 3.

[Laz]

Dont think removing of platforms will change it, or cause it.

They add to the problem. Even I'll say it's seriously annoying to try and shoot someone when there are 4 cerb platforms trying to shoot you and they're not even trying to land hits back on you (knowing full well that they don't need to as you'll die before they will). It make not be the only cause of the toxic behaviour of the people on this server, but it's definitely just another thing people can exploit to annoy others.

---

[sindroms]

A reminder that weapon platforms were made invincible due to a bug with them not firing on hostiles after being destroyed a few times, and that being abused in previous sieges.

Removing them at all strikes me as a bad idea. If it was possible to write that the base takes up more commodity while the shields are up (Ammunition) and the platforms stop shootin/despawn only after this ammo is depleted would be nice. If they stay indestructible, the ammo being used needs to be expensive.

---

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------

[St.Denis]

1. Weapon platforms are too safe. There's no drawback to having them built. Perhaps change to require Munitions to sustain them would force players to consider their need.

Drawback is that it reduces 40k of potential Storage Space per Weapon Platform. As for their need, most Bases I am aware of do not have Weapon Platforms, and therefore I would suggest, using this as a basis to make a calculation, I would say most of the Bases, in the Game, do not have any. Now, if you are basing, your opinion on a very small amount of problematic (as you see it) Bases with Weapon Platforms, then I would suggest that it isn't a big problem.

2. Weapon platforms enables toxic gameplay such as constant running back to POB safety while refusing to admit defeat and yield by either blowing up or combat docking. People have high egos and would rather be toxic than humble.

What is this toxic gameplay that you keep quoting? It looks like that some people are denying you a kill message/docking message. Is your Ego that big, that you must be seen to win? (because, in my opinion, this is what this looks like). Will you next want guns removed, from NPCs Bases, because some Players hug them when they are losing? Learn to live with getting a moral victory that you effectively won a combat when this happens (not everything will/should go your way).

3. Weapon platforms act as area-denial. In case of mining field POB - it almost completely negates pirate threat. And pirates have no counter to that. "Go pirate traders" is not a solution to this, as miners are effectively taking themselves out of equation of activity cycle involving pirates.

Spookily enough, that is what they were designed to do, deny areas. Granted having them in Mining Fields, is a big problem, but how many Mining Fields have Bases in them, with Weapon Platforms?
Not all Miners run at the sight of a 'red' on scanners. Stop 'tarring everyone with the same brush'. In the same way that there are 'bad' Miners, there are 'bad' Pirates. I mine, generally, in a light Miner and the first 'sighting' of a 'red' I could be off and running at 425, it is unlikely to be caught, anyway, regardless of a POB or not. I have been pirated, as a Miner, by Cruisers, GBs, Transports etc. Learn to accept that there will always be both good and bad types in any Group and that everything shouldn't go your way.

4. They are not anti-siege. Sieging Core 1 or 2 bases with few platforms is not hard IF you have Battleships. Sieging Core 3 or 4 bases without platforms is hard even if you have battleships. As such, back to point 2 and 3.

With your greater experience, than a lot of Players, you know that WPs don't deter a determined Siege. But to some people, they give a sense of security (false or otherwise), so why restrict what they want to do?

Now please, tell me, when did Weapon Platforms ever created better interactions or gameplay?

As you should know, by now, you will have your opinion, on such things, along with some of a like mind, but you will, on the other hand, have people with a differing opinion. You idea of Gameplay, differs from other people.
You play this Game in a way that suits you and others play the Game in away that suits them. We all have differing 'wants' from this Game and as long as we all play, within the Rules, we should accept that and not try to enforce how we perceive the way this Game should be played on others.

---

'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are'
Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person

[Karlotta]

1. Weapon platforms are too safe. There's no drawback to having them built. Perhaps change to require Munitions to sustain them would force players to consider their need.

And how much munitions should they take? Enough to a pirate can fly to the base and dodge its fire for 10 minutes so it runs out and the POB owners need to restock 40 k? How should that be balanced?

2. Weapon platforms enables toxic gameplay such as constant running back to POB safety while refusing to admit defeat and yield by either blowing up or combat docking. People have high egos and would rather be toxic than humble.

Assuming that when a pirate wasn't able to prevent someone from getting to cover, he's still the legitimate winner and people should be "humble" before him. Maybe the pirate should be humble and admit that he wasn't able to win?

3. Weapon platforms act as area-denial. In case of mining field POB - it almost completely negates pirate threat. And pirates have no counter to that. "Go pirate traders" is not a solution to this, as miners are effectively taking themselves out of equation of activity cycle involving pirates.

Instead of asking for all POB owners to become defenseless for a pirate's benefit in a unrealistic way, you could try and suggest or support rules and laws that would stop the "problematic" area denial.

4. They are not anti-siege. Sieging Core 1 or 2 bases with few platforms is not hard IF you have Battleships. Sieging Core 3 or 4 bases without platforms is hard even if you have battleships. As such, back to point 2 and 3.

Rather than making destroying bases easier or harder, efforts should be concentrated on avoiding the construction of harmful bases and the destruction of players efforts.

Now please, tell me, when did Weapon Platforms ever created better interactions or gameplay?

The same way that NPC base guns and weapons platforms have. They're there to balance "safeness" and "danger" for different parties to keep things realistic. Leaving a base defenseless in space isnt exactly realistic or conductive to immersive gameplay.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)

[-Rax-]

Actually remove npcs who break server rules, fps and your jaw. Don't forget about the infinite razor spam, base hugging, following you to the other part of sirius and disrupting your engine / the lanes to kill you slowly .

---

[sasapinjic]

3w, 5d, 10m remaining...until all POBs problems will be solved.
But, population of game will probably shrink again.

[Charo]

1. They cost time, materials, and base slots to build

2. See: NPC Bases

3. See: Point 2

4. Bases should be hard to siege.This isn't the singleplayer campaign where Trent can solo an entire station in a starflier. Bases are a moneysink, and if you could take one down with a few fighters then what would be the point?

"Now please, tell me, when did Weapon Platforms ever created better interactions or gameplay?"
>>>he hasn't been a part of a 20+ man coordinated siege on a defended core 4

---

[Binski]

Back in the day you could destroy a weapons platform. But, they'd come back in just a few seconds (as long as there was supplies?)

Although I get the difficulty presented, we just can't go without them. (for the record, I don't have a base)

However, I would be all for going back to being able to take them out, and have them stay down for a good 2mins. That would make it so that during a siege, tactics could be employed by the attackers to work their way in closer to the base targeted. Only thing is, during a real base siege, big capitals can come back after 2 hours from being eliminated, and that leaves the base far more disadvantaged than the attacking side, always (in real organized attacks). If its an organized attack, most bases, regardless of weapons platforms, fold quickly,without help from defending ships. If anything I see it usually being too easy for the attackers (until recently with indestructible wep platforms), even with how it is, since like I said, attackers can return in a couple of hours on the same vessel to resume siege, yet the base must continuously endure, when if a big ship was taken out during an assault, they'd be eliminated for far longer than 2 hours.

Otherwise, having made them invincible seems to be too far in the other direction.

As a lone pirate, I had to learn how to try to blockade a base, keep the fleeing ship from docking, while avoiding weapons platforms on top of that. If you're meticulous, you can just draw the weapons fire into the camped vessel. If its in an asteroid field or debris field, using the debris to protect yourself as you go is an option. I did that to a guy once that told me he was just going to 'xbox' while sitting there on top of the base letting the platforms keep me at bay. He didn't pay attention for a while, and eventually saw I had taken his hull down almost by half using his own weapons platforms, angling my ship so he was in the middle of me and the weapons platforms. Thats what you get for thinking you can just xbox while sitting pretty. norp definitely deserves some harsh methods.

But without the option at all, so many bases would just disappear. There has to be a deterrent. Maybe less platforms, and up the damage caused by the actual base mounted turrets(?), which would mean the deadliness only ramps up at very close range, and platforms could still be set for the event of organized attack.

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############