When does a core 1 base die ? After 192456 years ?

[Knjaz]

[color=#FFFFFF]I am not mistaking any thing.
Many Navy have problem with this even some [LN] members were there and shoot shoot shoot ! But no effect.
The caps i meant was LABC/Dreads/Carriers mixed up and might be 1 or 2 LSC.
Also their were snubs and bombers firing at the base.

<...>

EDIT : The Dreads and carriers were more than LABC and LSC.There might be 4 or 3 LABC and 2 LSC.

That's part of the problem. First of all, ALL SNUBS ARE USELESS AT BASE SIEGE.
Use them only to attack base defenders, once those are gone, snubs can depart.
After that, lets do some math.

1 LAC with 3 cerberus turrets deals 0.40 (Cerberus energy efficiency) x 300.000 (Carrier regeneration rate) damage per second. Means, 120.000 damage per second.
1 LAC with primaries only deals maximum of 0.28x300.000 = 84.000 DPS.
1 LAC with Mortars only deals 0.23x300.000 69.000 DPS.

1 LiDread, 260.000 energy regen,with Cerbs deals 104.000 DPS, with prims - 72800 DPS, with mortars - 59800 dps.

1 LABC, 170.000 energy regen with prims/cerbs/basics deals 0.30x170.000 ~51.000 DPS, with mortars - 2 times less.
1 LSC, 90.000 energy regen, with prims deals 27000 DPS., with mortars - 2 times less, with FG - 23.130 DPS.

Nova bomber with 1800 energy regen would deal around 16500 DPS, SNAC bomber - around 8000 DPS.

Edit2, Note: Above is true only if you're at least able to prevent your ship from regenerating energy while using that weapon type. Means, you should drain as much or more than you regenerate. I think that's self-explanatory, but just in case

http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1036680

Repair every 16 seconds = base level x number of types of repair commodities x 60,000

So a core 1 base with 3 types of repairs and a shield generator will repair 180,000 points of damage every 16 seconds. As the shield blocks 99% of damage, you will have to do 100 X the amount of damage it repairs, to beat it, so you will need to do 18 million points of damage every 16 seconds.

So you will need a CONSTANT DPS of 1.125 mill.

(Knjaz's edit: Which translates into 375.000 DPS*X to breach the repair rate, ( X= base level * amount of repair commodity types). Base got 8/12/16/24 millions health on level 1/2/3/4)

Note that this will only do 600 points of damage every 16 seconds, - thats the wear and tear damage, the attacking damage is only cancelling out the repair at the moment. Therefore it will take 59 hours to kill at this rate, you must do more damage to kill it faster.

Of course it depends on how many repairs and fuel they have on the base.

Do the math (most of it was done for you, already)
Edit3: Fixed some errors.
TL;DR - Cerberus battleships are your friends.

[Laura C.]

I don't think time zone have to be an issue. If people cant manifest enough power in-game through cooperation with other players to keep their base safe then that base should be gone anyways IMO - that kind of gameplay and the prospect of losing even on what can seem as "unfair grounds" wouldn't hurt Disco IMO. People will do what's necessary to keep their stuff alive, they would work their butts off to make friends and allies in all time zones, and in the end it will lead to more of a coordinated effort rather than 1 person power hauling on his personal fleet of 5K'ers. Also regional powers that be could collect their base permit fees and it would feel less like just extortion - base owners would get a (limited) service in return.

So simply saying, base owners have to made lot of agreements, keep lot of friends, keep schedules with at least 5 players on shifts to be ready to defend base and make lot of roleplay about this.

Base attackers has to...just take their caps and without no required RP make few attack attempts until they will be lucky and will find a time when there is not enough defenders (like in the middle of the night when server is generally empty).

Sounds balanced... (/sarcasm)

Instead of keeping supplies what is enough time and money consuming, you want to force groups of players to be "on guard" 24/7 because they will not be able to make the base safe at least for time when they sleep. This really sounds like a "fun".

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[Anaximander]

Aye. Roleplay to survive. Devote most of your time to roleplay, rather than the grind. This isn't supposed to be a singleplayer game with singleplayer projects on a multiplayer server, and that's what bases quite often turn out to be.

I just had a short stint with Eve, our corporation was trying to take territory, but our progress would get undone when US players logged on and we logged off. So we had to use all our time and resources to form alliances with other corporations to ensure full timezone coverage. In the end we had to withdraw even though we got covered around the clock, but it was fun, fostered a whole lot of player-player interaction (of the non-shooty sort) - and that in a game that isn't supposed to be a roleplay game, mind you.

If Eve can manage that sort of challenge in a competitive and somewhat hostile environment, why can't we on a supposed roleplay server?

[Knjaz]

Aye. Roleplay to survive. Devote most of your time to roleplay, rather than the grind. This isn't supposed to be a singleplayer game with singleplayer projects on a multiplayer server, and that's what bases quite often turn out to be.

I just had a short stint with Eve, our corporation was trying to take territory, but our progress would get undone when US players logged on and we logged off. So we had to use all our time and resources to form alliances with other corporations to ensure full timezone coverage. In the end we had to withdraw even though we got covered around the clock, but it was fun, fostered a whole lot of player-player interaction (of the non-shooty sort) - and that in a game that isn't supposed to be a roleplay game, mind you.

If Eve can manage that sort of challenge in a competitive and somewhat hostile environment, why can't we on a supposed roleplay server?

Tbh, I do not agree with this. What is exactly different from EVE: Playerbase is not big enough, and POS's do not go into reinforced mode so you cant CTA at fixed time, and opposing force does not suffer material losses after unsuccessful assault. And even then, during alliance wars (like now forgotten Great War in the south), even with hundreds/thousands people participating on both sides, from all over the world, opposing factions could use time zones to their advantage, when their "enemies" were mainly sleeping or at work.

That's not a question of roleplay. That's question of phonecalling people in 4-5 am in the morning to log into the game and defend your base. Also, war of attrition - i.e. who would surrender quicker - base attackers, coming back each 2 hours, or base defenders.

IMHO, it'd be good if Discovery did not turn into this.

[Anaximander]

Well I do understand that. But I still think there should be a different balance - near-invincible bases with dozens of transports with basic commodities docked shouldn't be the only thing keeping your base alive, it shouldn't require hours and hours and hours wasted from 10-15 players to bring it down, along with crashing the server.

Something in between would be better.

[Knjaz]

So yeah, solution is absolutely same as in EVE, even slightly improved since there's a strict "prime time" on Disco.

1) Once a week, preferably on Sunday evening, all bases start to receive ~3 times more damage for 2 hours. I'd recommend 7-8 PM server time. Why for 2 hours only? Because under such conditions, all level 1 bases would be goners to a pack of battleships in minutes, except for the most supplied ones.

Pros: base siege always happens at prime time, and all sides can CTA as much people as possible.

Cons: THere still will be people who won't be able to participate in those on constant basis. Means, they'll always be missing base sieges, just because they live in Australia or USA. People in a "wrong" time zone, no matter how many of them, won't be able to build and defend their bases efficiently.

2) Base "siege time" is being defined by administration separately for each base, after negotiating with owners and defenders.

Pros: It might be easier to find the suitable time for opposing forces.
Cons: It might be harder to find suitable time for opposing forces, due to them living in totally different timezones But most importantly, admins would likely go "NOTHX" on their new "job".



Pros of both scenarios: It will become possible to destroy highly unwanted bases, while bringing as much people willing to participate in assault or defense, as possible.

Cons of both scenarios: Say GOODBYE to many bases out there, especially low level ones, since there will be groups of players willing to blow those up for the lulz. That may result in owners of those bases being frustrated enough to even leave the server, after they lose em. Even deleting Jorms from the mod would trigger less negative reaction.

If the base is "wanted" or "not" will not be based on RP. Alliances formed to destroy&protect bases will NOT be based upon RP, because both those approaches are simply inefficient compared to Player based alliances and decisions. It's the amount of friends you can CTA (Call to Arms) on skype that will define the fate of several billions/hundreds of man-hours. (like it is now, but since bases will have vulnerability period, it will become way more noticeable)


So yeah, main question would be - do we really want that?

<...> it shouldn't require hours and hours and hours wasted from 10-15 players to bring it down, along with crashing the server.

Something in between would be better.

Imho, bringing base down does not require hours upon hours from 10-15 players. You either have enough firepower to break the threshold and crush it within 1-2 hours or less (even as much as 5-10 minutes if there's really alot of you against small poorly supplied base) or not, or you leave 1 ship shooting base in semi AFK mode. Ofc, alot of bases are practically undestroyable right now, unless base suppliers will make a mistake and defenders will fail/wont come in time. (like the lawful ones in front of capital planets, or the ones with "emergency" barges/transports docked on them)

edit: Some minor additions.
Edit2: PS: I'd recommend to wait for 4.87 and see, how much battleships server would be able to handle (since, as far as I understand, Devs/AD took measures, related to ship textures, that reduce amount of lag formed by capfleets?)

[Skorak]

Supplied bases took too much work... Bases aren't supposed to be blown up just like that. Keep them like that.

[Hone]

Knjaz I dont like your idea as it stands because it makes bases too vulnerable, and its only one time, meaning people in the wrong timezone get shut out.

I did however make a post a while ago about something simillar, basically the idea was that bases would be invincible (though you could still put the shield up to stop dockers) most of the time, but for a few hours, at pre determined points of time every day, say 3 equally spaced times a day to get good timezone coverage, they would be vulnerable, and much easier to kill than normal.

This would mean that both attackers and defenders would know when they were needed for the seige, defenders wouldnt need to man it 24/7, and attackers wouldnt need to siege it for days at a time. The base would live or die by the fight outside it, by players, not AFK shooting caps, or endless repairs.

---

User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)

[Knjaz]

I did however make a post a while ago about something simillar, basically the idea was that bases would be invincible (though you could still put the shield up to stop dockers) most of the time, but for a few hours, at pre determined points of time every day, say 3 equally spaced times a day to get good timezone coverage, they would be vulnerable, and much easier to kill than normal.

Cons of that solution:
"Timezone holes" can be only exploited by attacking force.

Which means, it still allows the possibility of surprise strike while defenders are at work/school/university, because they only need to negotiate time of 1 assault sometime during the week, while defenders have to be on guard 3 times a day, every day.

P.S. Not saying my solution is idea either, it had plenty of cons.

[Thyrzul]

It's been proven before that for several reasons bases cannot be balanced gameplay-wise. Ship to base combat is imbalanced either favoring the assaulting side or - at the current state - the defending side.

Just god damn make them SRP only with lighter requirements than the current ones. Make assaults an inRP feature, like events, scheduled beforehand, and bases balanced that way to be destroyable during such an event. And of course regulate anything connected to bases via rules (something I've been missing for quite long). These things would ensure that bases will indeed be inRP objects, and not something to reward ooRP grinding and powertrading.

---