Poll - POBs and Mining Areas

[Jack_Henderson]

2nd day back on Disco, 2nd POB siege because another POB is right inside the mining area. This sucks.

So, easy question: "Do you want a POB rule that forbids the construction of POBs closer than 15k from the edge of a mining area?" => Yes / No.

---

Quick summary of arguments:

Spoiler

1. It is a waste of gaming time for the attacker (right clicking for 1 hour at off-hours).
   
2. It is a waste of time and effort for the builder (permaloss of the investment of time/money)
   
3. It creates only negativity specially as most builders never even know that they are doing something that will get the BS fleet rolling their way. It's "learning things in the worst possible way", and that is what we do not want for Disco.
   

We could save ourselves a lot of trouble, waste of time and frustration if there were rules that would state where one can build and where one can't.

Anyway, let's see what the poll says.

[Lythrilux]

Was I dreaming or wasn't there literally a rule that said players couldn't build POBs in the mining area? What happened?

---

[Antonio]

Absolutely yes for so many reasons, as I said 100 times before.

---

SNAC Montage Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Thruster SNAC

[Sciamach]

Dear gods this must be some kind of record. First it was me and jack, but now it's me, Jack, and Lyth all agreeing on something...

Someone double check that the sky isn't turning red and/or falling on us all pls

---

[ sci·am·ach ]
/sīˈamək/

A simple, angry man casually working his way through life on a personal quest to acquire copious amounts of street cred.

[Freeroamer]

100%. It causes nothing but problems...

---

[Laz]

Yes

---

[Nekrotalis]

Does get a +1 from me

[Bellepheron]

Yes but 15 clicks may a tad far for sensible mining perhaps 10 ks which is within scanner range for loacations. Offending bases should be moved by admin and not destroyed out of hand.

[Freeroamer]

Can we get some green opinions on this?

---

[Sciamach]

Just to make my stance on the matter clear - as this is a thread asking for opinions on the subject -, here's a post I made earlier on the same topic for clarity:

Hi all, sorry to barge in but,
If its possible, could you add to the rules:
Dont place PoB´s in stupid bad places like mining fields ,
do not block normal space trafic/docking locations.
(Just so peapole dont say it wasnt clear.

Best regards
(and welcome back)

We have been campaigning for such a rule change for... literally years.
Currently, there are 3 POBs in mining fields, I am told.
Making players the "fixers" is just wrong.
It's a no-fun, no-winner activity that sucks energy and is deeply unfair in so many ways (offense vs defense bias, factions without BS, etc)

What is this world coming to when I'm forced to agree with you, Henderson?

I've been back in Disco roughly 1-2 months now. In that time, I've had to siege 4 Core1 POBs because of their asininely stupid locations, 3 of which were in mining fields.
This is a constant problem given just how easy it is to establish a POB.

In an ideal world, setting up a POB would require most if not all of the following:

A staff screening process
A large upfront credit payment
Distance-requirements from dockable solars/mining fields,
And a change to the siege rules to not require declarations for core-1 bases

The thing of it is: most of these bases are made by newbies just learning the POB system with absolutely 0 community contact or regard for how their bases effect the gameplay/roleplay environment - hell, one of the first ones I sieged was owned by a guy supposedly from china who tried to tell me to go to conn if I wanted to PVP him. Why are the besiegers being forced under the current rules to put in 10x more effort into destroying these nonsensical bases than the people that built them put into the construction?

This POB system as it is now just is not working. Plain and simple.

---

[ sci·am·ach ]
/sīˈamək/

A simple, angry man casually working his way through life on a personal quest to acquire copious amounts of street cred.