Player Owned Base shield

[Zayne Carrick]

Well, I've mentioned that idea before. And I'll do it again. We need shield effectiveness based on base level. The smaller base-the harder shields. 99, 98, 97, 96, for base cores 1, 2, 3, 4 for example. So the bigger the base, the more damage it receives. It won't harm small bases, but the big ones will suffer.

[Spike Seadra]

It's ok how is it.
No need to change any thing.
As for your maths, no idea what you caculated, but in order to do that 19 K damage, you need 4 cerberus guns, not 3.
So if a core 1 base have all 3 kinds of commidies and a single BS with 4 Cerbs firing each cerb 16 times per 16 seconds.....by having 7

BS with the status i mentioned, it will take 98 minutes to destroy the base and yes if it have shields.
Multiply the numbers by two if the base core is 2 and so on.


You forgot that the shield absorbs 99% of the damage.

No, i didn't forgot any thing.
What i meant was, 19,000 Hull damage.


@Hell Hunter

Wrong, make your own base then post if it dies.
Core 4 bases are not invincible, altough it requires too much of hard effort to make and survive a core 4 base.


Also sorry for the double post, i couldn't see my last post containing any thing.

EDIT : WTF, triple post.

[Syrus]

It's ok how is it.
No need to change any thing.
As for your maths, no idea what you caculated, but in order to do that 19 K damage, you need 4 cerberus guns, not 3.
So if a core 1 base have all 3 kinds of commidies and a single BS with 4 Cerbs firing each cerb 16 times per 16 seconds.....by having 7 BS with the status i mentioned, it will take 98 minutes to destroy the base and yes if it have shields.
Multiply the numbers by two if the base core is 2 and so on.

You forgot that the shield absorbs 99% of the damage.

Doj, you bring up a valid point, but due to the fact that you're one of the head guys of the Bass Hunters, it's hard to not count your statements as biased, and disregard what you say as just wanting to make popping bases easier for the Bass Hunters.

What you say is valid, but since YOU'RE the one saying it, it discredits it.

If Hitler invented the cure for cancer, and it proved to work, would you also disregard it just because it was made by Hitler?

The answer is yes judging by the post you just made. The only one who's biased here is you, simply disregarding something completely flawless and accurate because of the person who posted it

I brought up that the shields are too strong long before they did.
It's quite obvious why they'd want them to be changed now, pretty much for the same reasons why I brought it up: because there was some base they, or when I brought it up, I, wanted to see gone.
As it is at the moment, seeing how many people are willing to step out of line and cross rules and break RP to kill bases, I'm against changing anything of that kind.

Also, those people suggesting "use 2% then!" (or even more) - you do realize that that practically halves the amount of ships needed? That's quite a significant nerf on the shields. That'd mean a Core 2 shield can withstand less battleships than a Core 1 shield could (even if only slightly less)!

---

[Jack_Henderson]

OMG. Bass Hunters suggest making shields weaker? They send the permabanned problem child to put that suggestion forward? He announces in the same post that he is the leader of BH?

100 % way to not get what you want.

Tnx for the great laugh, though.

---

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!

[Omega472]

OMG. Bass Hunters suggest making shields weaker? They send the permabanned problem child to put that suggestion forward? He announces in the same post that he is the leader of BH?

100 % way to not get what you want.

Tnx for the great laugh, though.

I sense some buttmad. Regardless, it does seem a bit silly that a LF is just as effective at base killing, and honestly if you're so bothered by the fact that a member of the Bass Hunters suggested this (Which I find hilarious, that the ones destroying the POBs are trying harder to fix them than the cryin- er, other half seems to be) look at it this way. Base shields get weaker. We have less unmanned bases floating around, and the ones left are being actively defended by the owners. Thus we have more activity on the defense's side (In fear of being blown to oblivion) and possibly more activity on the attacker side (You would need more people to attack the defenders as well as the base itself.) I only see a win win situation here. But that's coming from someone who's legally blind past an arm's length, so take that for what you will. Now, to balance my argument and constructive feedback *cough cough*, it would seem you have calculated these numbers assuming you would use a fleet of one ship class to destroy a base. This is stupid, imho, unless I'm missing some secret signal that says otherwise, wouldn't it be wiser to use a variety of ships? For example, let's say we have a Core 1 base with a single commodity repair. That's four battleships, right? Why not, say, three battleships, a couple battlecruisers, and a small group of bombers (4-5), and a few fighters for the hell of it? That seems much more practical for whatever stupid reason my head is coming up with, if nothing more than the fact you need some smaller ships to deal with players trying to defend said Core 1 base.
I digress. All I really am trying to point out that it's silly to ignore numbers and facts because someone with a label said it.
/thread

---

[Knjaz]

As I've mentioned before in similiar threads, you can't make supplied bases destroyable without solving the timezone problem, like mid-night CTA's to wipe the base off the server, especially in the environment where attacking force loses nothing except for 2-3 hours, if base siege fails.

You'll have to create a controlled and predictable environment.

Abovementioned applies to current bases with current material and human resource consumption levels.

[Sly]

Hi there. A simple group of pirates doesn't usually have 234923842983 battleships. So unless capspam is fixed, shields will be overly dumb.

Sometimes I wish there was a full server wipe to start it over again.

[Blodo]

Full server wipe would only last as long as it takes for the organised groups to earn back their caps. It's not a sustainable solution. Knjaz is right: the main reason why bases are so hard to kill is to prevent 3 AM base rapes and the resultant griefing.

I would say there needs to be a different way to rebalance bases, one that allows a sustainable base but also one that means a base is destructible if you go after its profit and suppliers. Furthermore, offensive bases should be harder to maintain than trade hubs (easily explainable in RP).

Here's a list of changes that I would do to bases:
1. Make defense platform respawn take a small amount of resources from the base, increase respawn times. This will allow an offensive base to be "raided", which will be a good offset to the power that it projects across an area. An offensive base like this will be a bigger money sink than a normal one, especially one with a lot of turrets - the more turrets there are, the faster the resources will drain during a sustained siege.
2. Make it so that base commodity sale price can be different to the buy price. This will allow trading bases to be less reliant on micromanagement and buy/sale time curves. It will allow people to more easily create an "economic eco system" whereas bases will be established for aggregation of commodities then resell at higher price. It will be like a free market system where the best buyer/seller wins. For the purposes of trading posts this will be fine.
3. Finally, there was a proposal somewhere about base "tech trees", where you would choose a base specialisation and according to that you'd be able to build it up in a specific way. The ideas were roughly: trading post (focus on storage), science centre (focus on factories), military outpost (focus on defence). A specialisation would place varying limits on the amounts of modules you could construct. It could also provide different benefits like varying numbers of base HP, varying entry storage and varying module costs. All in all it would ensure that you need a substantially greater amount of work to for example manage an area lock down but also successfully run a trade facility out of the same base. It will ensure that even factions who have bases will still strive for cooperation with other base owners, perhaps creating things like confederations.

Those are my relatively short and fairly doable ideas. I'd welcome people to build on them.

[DarthBindo]

The destructability (or lack thereof) was an issue myself and others argued about at length when POBs were first introduced. My opinion on such has not changed appreciably in the intervening time.
High-end bases are very durable.
Extremely so.
Barring malfeasance or negligence a Core 4 is impenetrable, and the supplies used per hour of assault, minimal to the effort put into destroying it.
Yes, bases take a lot of effort to build. I would not debate that, nor should base destruction, especially of developed bases, be an easy thing, but there is a vast difference between difficult and impossible.
It takes 40 (39.92, to be exact) battleships (Doj, your math was slightly off, although certainly approximate. No BS can sustain 3 cerbs, you have to use figures for 2 cerbs and 2x prims) to punch through the combination of damage reduction and repair on a core 4. Doing it by straight force is impossible, to say the least.
The most stringent limiting factor on how long a base will last under assault by a given number is the maximum storage capacity.
for a core 4 base, assuming 5-8 storage modules, it is 200000-320000 units, avg core 4 using half that for mat storage, so 100.000 to 160.000 units used.
Here it gets complicated, with different usage rates of repair materials depending on total dps and usage of shield mats.
but, to take the three most common,
A Dueterium shield storing 100,000 units of mats at optimal ratio repairing at:
lvl1 (only alloy)=1575 units usd per hour, for 63 hours to exhaustion of resources
lvl2 (alloy and robotics)=2025 units used per hour, for 49 hours to exhaustion of resources
lvl3 (all three mats used per cycle) =2475 units used per hour, for 40 hours to exhaustion of resources.
I'll stop here. Mox uses even less space, it would be pointless to calculate
The cost of such? Dependent on location, but using averages of 500 to 2000 credits per, we arrive at a cost of between 50,000,000 and 200,000,000 credits. A pittance, to protect a player base for 40 hours.

SO, TLR.
To protect a core 4 base for 40 hours against 26-39 battleships firing continuously, it costs an average of 125,000,000 credits and takes 23 trips in a 5k.
That is to say, to overcome (assuming even the generous half hour per trip) 11.5 manhours of defenders work and 125,000,000 of his credits (maybe another ten hours), it takes ONE THOUSAND AND FOURTY MAN HOURS of attackers work.
Yeah, talk about wasted effort, huh?
The problem doesn't exist at Core 1, or 2, simply the top-tier bases being rendered effectively invulnerable.

My suggestion for the dev team? Figure out how many man hours you want attackers to put into destroy a given core base, and then work the numbers backwards from there, and please, keep in mind, nobody can field more than say 10 battleships, 4-5 cruisers and a dozen bombers/fighters.
Don't just put down arbitrary numbers.

---

gone four years, first day back: Zoners still getting shot in Theta :|

[Sabru]

i agree. core 1 and 2 bases seem fine, but core 4 seem way overpowered in defence.

as has been suggested before, make them easier to maintain

or another idea....
radically increase core 4 commodity usage rates under siege and use the admin hammer on all ooRP base supplying.

maybe make core 4 bases only for groups that can prove they can supply it within RP means. combine that with the adminhammer being used on ooRP supplying, it cuts down on the number of OP bases.

TL;DR
my idea:
make core 1 and 2 bases easier to supply so people can have their bases, but maybe limit the amount of turrets they can have.

make core 3 and 4 bases for factions only.

that way, people have their bases still but the chance of someone using a base to screw around is lessened.

perhaps also incorporate the tech tree ideas blodo mentioned. but again, limit any military outpost bases to factions only and then only to ones who would have a reason to have one.

a few ways to control things this way:
crack down heavily on any ooRP base supplying
remove bases which cause undue problems (mainly talking about core 3 and 4 which are used stupidly i.e ZA bases in O-74).

You cant really solve the timezone problem though.

---