(04-14-2021, 08:29 PM)LuckyOne Wrote: In-RP taxes and rules exist, so it's not much of an abandoned base problem. It's more of a everyone wants their own POB problem. Right now most POBs don't lend themselves to being useful to a lot of people, and most owners prefer to have tight control of what is bought and sold or stored on each POB.
In addition to that there is not much incentive to use POB facilities, besides the mining storage ones (equipment market is almost oversaturated for most stuff).
(04-14-2021, 03:59 PM)darkwind Wrote: [*] 5e3d150 improved siege mode trigger condition
instead of 8 million sum of damage by all players, the damage must be made by ONE particular person
in this it will be more abuse proof and will help better to justify rule enforcing against triggering siege mods
Isn't this like, more easy to abuse, in some cases ? I guess it depends if it's ONE account / IP address / charname ? I can picture a scenario where someone keeps switching chars to avoid ever triggering the siege mode and activating the defenses (granted it would be much more labor-intensive than just parking your BS and putting a paperweight on RMB)
Activation of base self defense system agaist one particular player happens already in 400'000 damage, which is also logged to console for all. Such strange activity would be noticed.
I can't imagine real situation when somebody would be able to abuse it. 8 mln damage limit is before shield reduction. Just two full payloads from battleship to waste his energy twice (in reality caused damage will be only 0.03 * 8000000=240 000)
It is just a small scratch for a base. While player switches war ships, it will be already fully healed
I am not a POB owner or an expert on the topic so my opinion might not be worth much but I will add my two cents worth anyway. From flying around Sirius as well as reading this thread it seems to me that there is an issue which exists with with abandoned bases. If this assumption is correct then why not apply a simple life tested solution to this problem as is being done everyday in real world.
In real world abandoned properties (taxes have not been paid, health violations, and etc. or simply abandoned) get reposed by federal, state, or municipal governments and then get actioned off. Can do the same thing here, first you establish a criteria of what an abandoned base is ( an example could be, hull 75% and the base has not been supplied for a period of no less then 90 days, or any other criteria for that matter) and then based on that criteria the base gets reposed by the Feds (Server Admins) or by local authority (House Governments) and gets actioned off. If the auction fails and the base is not sold it can then be destroyed.
I think this will add some activity to the gameplay that revolves around POBs. Like I said before, I am not an expert on the topic but it seems it might lessen the issue of the abandoned POBs and add some adyditional gameplay.
Thanks for reading
I don't think it is a good idea to try
There are more worthy ideas to implement for activity
This idea also requires heavy human supervision in order to work, which makes it especially unefficient
Wow I can't wait for the hordes of ranseurs and repair ships to appear out of thin air now that they can camp Manhattan orbit and just right click whatever undocks, the sole reason there's so many angry weapons platforms there in the first place!
They don't even have to hit the station to make it hostile, they have to deal 8 million damage!
Is that any different to a smuggler refusing a FR5 while on Manhattan and then getting nuked as soon as they leave by the WP right by the docking rings? And if spawn killing like that did become a problem, could you not submit violation report for trolling/harassment? (Rule 1.2)
Weapon platforms should primarily be for defending the base from attackers, and then maybe, maybe, for area denial, but I really don't even think that, since I don't think anyone wants to see pobs & WP's camping jump points again
(04-15-2021, 07:58 AM)JorgeRyan Wrote: Weapon platforms should primarily be for defending the base from attackers, and then maybe, maybe, for area denial, but I really don't even think that, since I don't think anyone wants to see pobs & WP's camping jump points again
I find that ironic, the busiest times in the past were when there were sieges of bases that tried to stake out some territory. People get their inrp desires confused with oorp desires. People should be happy at this point if someone has the drive and ability to get a base up to a good strength that can actually block a jump hole. The worst thing ever done here was the promotion of the idea that actually doing stuff like that is somehow bad. It all generates gameplay and therefore RP. Instead of trying avoid everything that remotely causes players inconvenience, it should be promoted that this is the type of place where we do that sort of epic gameplay. People shouldn't be afraid of some inrp controversy. Why? When you've done it all, the one thing that will always provoke someone to log is necessity. Those situations create real jobs to be filled, allow fo real involvement.
I don't know why every faction isn't trying to secure their route access points and territory entry points with POB's all the time, even a core 1 works as a border station since it can have a shield and two weapons platfoms. All in all when the game is rolling along like that there is always more activity and more epic times.
As to the OP, I also find that making it only change stance after 8 mil damage seems to open up a window for abuse. how often does that count? one ship comes along, does 7 mil, logs and comes back with another, etc. I think its fine being activated right off the bat, but the ability to set hostile IFF's should take care of the rest, and is long overdue. With that, people can just set safe IFF's and set the rest to be automatically hostile, on top of the rep that may be set by the base IFF. That should help stations avoid being a pain to passing traders over a marginal rep choice on either side.
(04-15-2021, 07:58 AM)JorgeRyan Wrote: Is that any different to a smuggler refusing a FR5 while on Manhattan and then getting nuked as soon as they leave by the WP right by the docking rings?
Go ahead and find me a recorded event of this, I'll wait.
Namechanges are also 2 million and the cooldown can be worked around in 2 minutes, rendering this theoretical pointless.
(04-15-2021, 07:58 AM)JorgeRyan Wrote: Weapon platforms should primarily be for defending the base from attackers, and then maybe, maybe, for area denial, but I really don't even think that, since I don't think anyone wants to see pobs & WP's camping jump points again
I find that ironic, the busiest times in the past were when there were sieges of bases that tried to stake out some territory. People get their inrp desires confused with oorp desires. People should be happy at this point if someone has the drive and ability to get a base up to a good strength that can actually block a jump hole. The worst thing ever done here was the promotion of the idea that actually doing stuff like that is somehow bad. It all generates gameplay and therefore RP. Instead of trying avoid everything that remotely causes players inconvenience, it should be promoted that this is the type of place where we do that sort of epic gameplay. People shouldn't be afraid of some inrp controversy. Why? When you've done it all, the one thing that will always provoke someone to log is necessity. Those situations create real jobs to be filled, allow fo real involvement.
I don't know why every faction isn't trying to secure their route access points and territory entry points with POB's all the time, even a core 1 works as a border station since it can have a shield and two weapons platfoms. All in all when the game is rolling along like that there is always more activity and more epic times.
As to the OP, I also find that making it only change stance after 8 mil damage seems to open up a window for abuse. how often does that count? one ship comes along, does 7 mil, logs and comes back with another, etc. I think its fine being activated right off the bat, but the ability to set hostile IFF's should take care of the rest, and is long overdue. With that, people can just set safe IFF's and set the rest to be automatically hostile, on top of the rep that may be set by the base IFF. That should help stations avoid being a pain to passing traders over a marginal rep choice on either side.
8 million of damage can be done by battleship in 30 or 60 seconds.
I think any person would run out of battleships and time to switch battleships
plus, the system activates to defend against particular battleship much earlier (in just 400'000 damage, or less than 5 seconds)
![[Image: EjUDu1h.png]](https://imgur.com/EjUDu1h.png)
