It seems to me that the POB system leans massively on expenditure of the one commodity that's most precious to us all: time.
Right now it takes a rediculous amount of time to get anywhere with POBs and we're only looking at ways to make this more so. I'll bet you'll find the root of most of the drama surrounding POBs comes from peoples frustration about wasted time.
Perhaps we should be looking at reducing time consumption across the board. What if we made the difference between core level stats much larger and have them increase exponentially? Keep the repair rate as is and reduce Cores 1, 2, 3 and 4 hull ratings significantly to 1%, 10%, 25% and 50%. To prevent 'elitist' POBs chilling in the safety of core 4 and 5, you implement a demoting system where the core level is dropped 1 tier if the base isn't supplied/logged into/active etc. over the course of a couple of weeks.
That way you'd get a dualitous system of 'pop-up POBs' that are easily set up/shot down and more integrated POBs where the owners and siegers willingly invest the time required to maintain/siege it. Only thing is you may need to reduce the investment required to build advanced equipment so as to make it more accessible to the lower tiers.
(11-21-2018, 09:35 AM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: I'd like to point out once more that a freshly placed Core 1 PoB, without any supplies or repair commodities, stays alive for 23 days right now with the current changes.
Once healed, a core 1 pob can survive for almost 1,3 years without supplies under the current system.
Fixed that for you.
Something must be done with this. Or we will end with immersion breaking amount of POBs in a few months if all abandoned POBs will stay there floating for more than a year. Popular POB hotspots will look like this:
(11-21-2018, 01:35 PM)St.Denis Wrote: The amount of commodities does matter as the process is quicker if there are more than one.
This is not correct and is an Discovery urban myth. I made a post addressing this on page 1. I can also post the code with an explanation of it if you require proof on the matter.
I will be interested in seeing this. I have built a multitude of Bases over the years and from my experience, a Base with 3 RMs heals 3 times faster than 1 with 1 RM.
'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
(11-21-2018, 01:35 PM)St.Denis Wrote: The amount of commodities does matter as the process is quicker if there are more than one.
This is not correct and is an Discovery urban myth. I made a post addressing this on page 1. I can also post the code with an explanation of it if you require proof on the matter.
I will be interested in seeing this. I have built a multitude of Bases over the years and from my experience, a Base with 3 RMs heals 3 times faster than 1 with 1 RM.
How about a live test. Make 3 POBs side-by-side. Fill them with different number of materials. Look at repair rates.
Annnyways.
The thing with POBs is that they are both a Success and a Failure. If you look at certain POBs they have done very well and have added things, Nichols Trade Centre, The Golden Coin so on. They can and do add certain elements. As someone said earlier, some people like to log on and just be worker bees and supply the base, its quite rewarding especially when the base gets upgraded etc. There is alot of potential with the bases especially for groups of people not necessarily official factions, look at games like Rust, you can have a group of people where some go out raiding others gather and build, its very true here, POBs offer this activity and mentality.
I do have 2 suggestions as to how to add to things in regards to the Sieges.
The First is link POBs with NEMPs:
I dont know if its possible with POBs but when a static is NEMPed it triggers an event, so what if in order to siege a POB you need to NEMP it first, to make it vulnerable, and then starts an event, the owners need to resupply it, the attackers need to try and blow it up before its resupplied.
You could easily make it so that you can only NEMP a POB x amount of days after an attack even if you have more NEMPs. This way rather then police POBs you police NEMP acquisitions and NEMP Events. Make it so theres RP to back it up and so on.
My Second is to make defensive modules not take up slots:
At the moment weapons platforms and shield generators take up module space (as far as i know) maybe make it so that Shield Generators don't take up a module and maybe give bases an allowance of Free Weapons platforms before you have to take up module space. So the station itself has its turrets and then maybe 2 weapons platforms and if possible tweek the platforms to add a bit of risk to attacking a station with no defenders.
I built a POB recently and been repairing it with RA and RH, it looks to me that it consumes one commodity after the other and not simultaneously, it's been 6 days and multiple repair commodities were present at times (not usually tho) and the base is slightly below half HP. So it looks like it'll be fully repaired in 14 days and consumes a single commodity.
Ok, so I have to be gone very soon so I'll make this quick. I'll be honest when I say I fucked up. So in my rework what I am saying is true, but I didn't realise it was not true on the reverse. I sent the base repair code to @Its Raisu a few weeks ago explaining what everyone else thinks vs what it actually does and he agreed with me on why it doesn't do that (which was also wrong). The result was me not looking at the code and actually realising how it actually works until a few minutes ago. An unintentional flaw if ever there was one.
It was only after I had drafted up an entire thing about explaining how it works that I realised I had actually made such a glaring mistake. There is one word missing from the old base code that is present in mine.
"break;"
This one line that is missing from the current plugin causes it to loop over the code more times than it actually should, causing this behaviour of more commodities = more repairs. You all have my apologise for such a mistake, know it was not my intention. Turns out it was a simple bug I overlooked when updating the repair values. I did write up all the code explanation, if it's still wanted I can post it, but it does in fact prove I was wrong and simply overlooked it entirely. With that all being said, I have noticed some very janky mechanics about the old PoB system about when it actually decides to conduct more than a single repair. If the rework wasn't around the corner, I'd look into it a lot more.
With my idiocy out of the way, let's get back to the matter at hand concerning new siege mechanics and how PoBs should progress in the future. Provided an idea is good and approved I am willing to implement it, so I appreciate all the oddball ideas you guys are throwing this way.
(11-21-2018, 03:48 PM)Aazalot Wrote: I do have 2 suggestions as to how to add to things in regards to the Sieges.
The First is link POBs with NEMPs:
I dont know if its possible with POBs but when a static is NEMPed it triggers an event, so what if in order to siege a POB you need to NEMP it first, to make it vulnerable, and then starts an event, the owners need to resupply it, the attackers need to try and blow it up before its resupplied.
You could easily make it so that you can only NEMP a POB x amount of days after an attack even if you have more NEMPs. This way rather then police POBs you police NEMP acquisitions and NEMP Events. Make it so theres RP to back it up and so on.
So someone builds an illegal POB in a house space and law enforcement will need a NEMP event every time to remove simple core 1 base which can be set up within hour with minimal investment and will stay there for months even without supllies with the new mechanic? Now that would be excellent trolling material for sure...
(11-19-2018, 10:44 PM)Ash Wrote: While calling out that POBs should be SRP only would have been a good argument from the get go. The cat is pretty much out of the bag now since everyone has access to the POB feature. If you make POBs SRP only you either defeat the purpose by making every existing POB a SRP, you hold some sort of controvertial qualifier to seperate the wheat from the chaff, or take people's POBs away from them. Karlotta's suggestion of SRP based on criteria is an interesting one, but overlooks the underlying issue.
(11-19-2018, 06:42 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Better than SRPs would be a system that protects SOME bases so you can call it "SRPing invulnerability" if you want. The "SRP" should be less linked to the stories people spin around the base, and more based on whether the base fulfills simple criteria like:
-no blocking routes, jhs, and ore fields
-no drawing players out to the middle of nowhere
-area should be safe for that faction irp
-name, location, affiliation, make sense
These criteria would be pretty easy to fulfill and the POB equivalent of a 'keep off the grass' sign. Add more restrictions like RP basis and it becomes arguably unfair against those who aren't able to bash out 10 pages of lore.
In your eagerness to dismiss the suggestion you seem to be overlooking the fact that POBs can be moved, renamed, and that there can be a transitional period during which existing POBs are given the occasion to adjust to the new system. Also note that making a base invulnerable would be a relatively easy to obtain perk, not a requirement for survival.
10 pages of lore is more than anyone should be asked to write, but asking base builders to have a good grasp of English and existing lore to fit their base into it shouldn't be too much to ask on a RP server.
(11-19-2018, 10:44 PM)Ash Wrote: Then there's the issue with new POBs that have to go through a long period of vulnerability while they cut through all the red tape. As we saw yesterday, it can take an hour or two to steamroll a new POB these days.
There are attack declaration time requirements, and invulnerability could be requested before the base is built.
(11-19-2018, 10:44 PM)Ash Wrote: (more suggestions about re-tweeking hp, repair rate, and dps)
All this talk about re-adjusting siege mechanics just changes the subject to a technically that will equally affect people who inflict harm to the server population (destroying bases that do no harm for the fun of it or to assert their dominance) and people who try to keep the server fun for everyone (destroying bases that do harm to game play although they hate to destroy other people's efforts).
You don't prevent the problem of people getting run over over by cars by changing adjusting horse powers and shoe prices, or by simply blaming road kills on the fact that people suck without doing anything about it. You make laws that forbid cars on the sidewalk and pedestrians in the middle of the road.
The “lets keep tuning damage, hp and repair” mentality totally fails to address the actual problems:
-The frustration felt by people who have their week/month long work permanently destroyed when a base blows up
-The frustration people get form area-denial bases
-The fact that some POB owners get motivated to hide their bases in secret remote locations and to meet as few people as possible while building or supplying it.
Whether a POB gets to stay or explode shouldn't be policed by whoever can gather the biggest base-demolisher mob (which will always be the case no matter how much you play around with hp and repair rates), but by finding common ground on what makes an enriching and a harmful POB, and adjusting rules and game mechanics to reward or prevent them accordingly, or at least mitigate negative effects even if they're not fixed 100%.
Harmful for server gameplay:
- spreading players out where they are likely not to interact with others, or motivating them to stay hidden from other players (counter measure: reward bases that are built near NPC bases and lanes)
- oorp or immersion-breaking names (counter measure: make adequate naming and lore conformity a factor)
- oorp collaboration of factions in hidden places because that's easiest (counter measure: Make commodities buyable/sellable by more factions)
- breaking the existing balance of NPC base locations such as distance from mining, accessibility and pvp dominance/advantages, aka denial (counter measure: make building too close to mining fields, jh, gates against rules, encourage no-weapon bases by potentially making them invulnerable)
- permanent stress and anxiety that a base will get sieged (counter measure: provide a possibility for not having to fear sieges by making bases invulnerable)
- losing effort and rp/lore linked to bases (counter measure: make rules that reduce the number of player sieges by having harmful ones removed by admins instead of players, and that make enriching ones invulnerable)
Enriching for server gameplay:
- Focusing supply and building on the regularly frequent trade routes, where they are likely to interact with friendlies and also hostile without risking to lose more than one cargo load (incentive: encourage building near lanes and existing friendly bases)
- Giving players the ability to write lore and background for their base (incentive: give people who do it the reward of not having to fear loss of the base)
Everyone is invited to discuss this.
Meanwhile, here's a first draft on how it could be implemented:
1. Add to POB rules:
Base construction is forbidden in these locations and offending bases will be removed by administrators without compensation:
- Within 15 k of a jump gate, jump hole, or closest point of a mining field
- Locations taht block dock/launch points or lanes
- Within 15k of a POb or Non-Player-Base (NPB) of hostile affiliation
2. Amend POB rules:
Every core level should need 24 hours advance in attack declaration
3. Allow people to request invulnerability
Bases that fulfill all of the following criteria may apply for invulnerability to attack (and maybe also lower consumption rates):
- Is within 5k of a Non-Player-Base (NPB) of same or allied affiliation
- Is not hostile to any faction, group, or players, except those already hostile to neighboring NPBs
- Respects their NPC faction's diplomacy IRP
- Is not in the way of a lane, does not block a dock or launch point or impede travel in any other way
- Is aligned with, and not more than 1k above or below, the main plane
- Is at least 20k from the closest point of a mining field
- Has a name that does not break immersion or lore
- Has an infocard and forum thread that explain the bases background and function
- Does not have weapons platforms
- Does not allow docking for ships that are hostile to neighboring bases (does nodock work for pobs?)
- Bases of lawful affiliation must conform to the laws of the house space they are in. Those laws may involve assigning certain areas to certain kinds of bases (for example "factory" type bases for one area and "personal stash" type bases to another)
Processing of applications for invulnerability will cost 500 million. Applications may be submitted before the base is built.
Existing bases may be requested to be moved into a safe zone (not out of one) for an additional fee of 500 million (maybe for free for a transition period of 1 month after this gets implemented).
Bases can be requested to have their alignment with the plane and other bases improved for a fee of 100 million (must provide desired pos numbers)
Bases can be requested to have their name changed to something non immersion or lore breaking for a fee of 100 million.
(11-21-2018, 03:30 PM)Laura C. Wrote:
(11-21-2018, 12:52 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:
(11-21-2018, 11:48 AM)Laz Wrote:
(11-21-2018, 09:35 AM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: I'd like to point out once more that a freshly placed Core 1 PoB, without any supplies or repair commodities, stays alive for 23 days right now with the current changes.
Once healed, a core 1 pob can survive for almost 1,3 years without supplies under the current system.
Fixed that for you.
Something must be done with this. Or we will end with immersion breaking amount of POBs in a few months if all abandoned POBs will stay there floating for more than a year. Popular POB hotspots will look like this:
The problem would be less dramatic if "trailer home" type bases were confined to certain areas like near Rochester base, Planet Pittsburgh, or Ouray.
(11-21-2018, 03:48 PM)Aazalot Wrote: I do have 2 suggestions as to how to add to things in regards to the Sieges.
The First is link POBs with NEMPs:
I dont know if its possible with POBs but when a static is NEMPed it triggers an event, so what if in order to siege a POB you need to NEMP it first, to make it vulnerable, and then starts an event, the owners need to resupply it, the attackers need to try and blow it up before its resupplied.
You could easily make it so that you can only NEMP a POB x amount of days after an attack even if you have more NEMPs. This way rather then police POBs you police NEMP acquisitions and NEMP Events. Make it so theres RP to back it up and so on.
So someone builds an illegal POB in a house space and law enforcement will need a NEMP event every time to remove simple core 1 base which can be set up within hour with minimal investment and will stay there for months even without supllies with the new mechanic? Now that would be excellent trolling material for sure...
It has also been the case when a PoB was built legally in house space, sanctioned by the house government and destroyed within 25 minutes (Core 2, with defense platforms. I didn't even know it under siege until I got home from work. So, it would be OK for a house sanctioned PoB to have a NEMP event. However, criminals like Xeno will never get a House-approved PoB so they have to RP an illegal PoB, so they should also have a NEMP event happen too! Blatant pop-up mining bases used as a temp should simply be removed by Admin.