@Lythrilux you're basically talking about just having players decide where NPC bases go and that's a no from me.
Regarding the annexation I think the proposal is to change the IFF to that of the attacker, denying the access of the previous owner, enforcing use by the new hostile owners, probably still being maintained by the same players on re-affiliated characters. And if it dies anyway, serves the interest of the attackers anyway.
I'm not totally advocating for this idea, but I'd rather people understand how it would be implemented.
(05-31-2020, 12:21 AM)Shiki Wrote:
Capturing does not mean running a PoB. It comes under the martial law, where the citizens are forced to supply the invading army. (levies, tributes, portion of gold etc). Sweden's workers were made to make iron to be shipped to Germany - as an example.
PoB's that are included under the governance of a faction can be a legitimate target but why destroy an asset if you annex them? Less blood, more booty.
So basically POB will just stay under same ownership defacto not changing anything. So there is no point to siege it at all.
[/quote]
A siege is designed to force a surrender, a capitulation.
Annexed bases may be required to go neutral, or even swear allegiance to the new rulers. That is a change. No destruction is necessary. The attacking force wins. The PoB wins a reprieve from destruction.
(05-31-2020, 12:28 AM)Champ Wrote: @Lythrilux you're basically talking about just having players decide where NPC bases go and that's a no from me.
Regarding the annexation I think the proposal is to change the IFF to that of the attacker, denying the access of the previous owner, enforcing use by the new hostile owners, probably still being maintained by the same players on re-affiliated characters. And if it does anyway, serves the interest of the attackers anyway.
I'm not totally advocating for this idea, but I'd rather people understand how it would be implemented.
I like the way you have worded this Champ. There is a lot of scope for advanced RP. And a win-win for the community overall.
(05-30-2020, 11:50 PM)Maltz Wrote: Maybe we should implement a rule that gives the chance for the owner to pay quarterly "tax" or something like that, before the enemy start the siege. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Just an idea...
Yep! And over time things change. Occupying forces get pushed back, PoB's are still there, Win-Win. RL has given us the blueprint.
Counterpoint:
Money is not always the goal; it does not make sense for an enemy military to be accepting money or goods when the base still exists and can be used as a vector for infiltration or espionage. Furthermore, a lot of factions don't want to inherit a POB via capture because it's a burden on their players' time.
Depending on the demands of the annexing force who probably would require access to the previous forces to be curtailed. Even, as Champ notes, get the base to change its IFF, if that is possible. The RP opens up to endless opportunities.
I hope that this discussion remains civil and constructive.
The POBs are part of the game and the destruction of POBs also part of the game, both are valid but require a lot of enhancement and regulation. First of all, everybody must understand that there is no full perfect set of rules in life and every rule might require fixing and every rule can be evaded in a poor gaming spirit... It depends on the maturity of the community in my opinion to apply the set of rules and enhance it but not going around rules and causing troubles.
Since you recognize the past few lines then we can discuss the problem of POBs and it's sieging operations.
Aside from the defense arrays bug which is a great issue, i think that considering the balance between the POB's construction and the POB's destruction is very important, and I believe that it is the core of the problem. That balance should be abiding by the legal/good-spirit gameplay, roleplay, and server rules.
There should be a justification in roleplay to the high amount of capital ships brought to a certain siege. Some players would suggest that sieging operations should be justified in-RP especially the technology used and the number of capital ships used, etc.. & Some others would suggest implementing that in-game, BUT some players could still find other ways to evade that rule and maybe use indies and/or hire siege equipment ooRP and use it. The circle can keep going forever. The admins implement new rules and then others go around it. It can never end because the system itself requires a large fix and the community itself must help in it.
On the other side, constructing POBs should be justified in-RP no matter which core the installation is upgrading to. The construction & the destruction of Core (1) bases based on no-RP is a great mistake and I think that should be fixed. Neither the base owner(s) nor the attacker(s) should be allowed to construct or attack installations without RP especially on the discovery RP server. I would also strongly recommend using common-sense. Some players start shooting POB's because they tried to dock and the installation didn't let them.
They simply gather up and do minimal RP among each other and DO NOT include any of the POB administrators in that RP, then attach that link to the admins on a declaration of siege! - I think that this is such a brilliant way to go around common-sense. How can the base administrator even know that the installation is going to face an assault? ... and even if one of the administrators managed to find the declaration of siege thread and noticed that their installation is going to besieged then how can the POB owners contact the attackers in-RP? The POB administrator(s) do not know in-RP that the base is going to besieged.
They definitely can't because the current RP done by the attacker did not include any of the POB administrators and the POB owners have no idea about what is going to happen in-RP. Think about it for a second, it's common sense. There is no chance for the POB administrators to even RP with the attackers. Even if the POB is going to be destroyed, there was minimal-to-almost-none RP done in that case.
There are many benefits for discovery from the POB system, otherwise, it wouldn't be implemented from the beginning by @Cannon. I am not telling you that destroying POBs with minimal RP from the attackers and no chance for the defender to perform RP will kill discovery, no, but definitely will negatively affect discovery and even if that is happening, it's not a problem at all to siege or destroys a POB. Just use common-sense to give yourself and the opponent a real fair chance to RP and play the game...
Remember, You can fill a massive long thread with a complicated web of rules but at the end, if the community itself didn't use common sense by giving both sides a fair chance to RP and gameplay then that big wall of txt rules will be useless - I know that managing & fixing all these leaks at the rules is a tiring, boring, annoying and ugly process to do, but this mod is great and deserves another very good push regarding the POBs issue. Good luck xD
My English is horrible, I know - Sorry I tried my best
(05-31-2020, 12:40 AM)Sniper Wrote:
Depending on the demands of the annexing force who probably would require access to the previous forces to be curtailed. Even, as Champ notes, get the base to change its IFF, if that is possible. The RP opens up to endless opportunities.
And what if the demand is "destroy your base, or we will"?
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
(05-31-2020, 12:40 AM)Sniper Wrote:
Depending on the demands of the annexing force who probably would require access to the previous forces to be curtailed. Even, as Champ notes, get the base to change its IFF, if that is possible. The RP opens up to endless opportunities.
And what if the demand is "destroy your base, or we will"?
That is not necessarily a win-win solution. It is the same outcome either way. Harms the community.
It is not fair, not in the spirit of the game, and would be seen not as inRP intimidation to get a surrender, but bullying.
1. Sieges part of the game.
2. They happen.
3. POBs are destroyable object and when you invest time in those you know the risks of it being gone.
4. POBs that are being spammed in numbers, for example, around a single mining field are no way beneficial to the server in any shape or form, aside from blunt money-making.
5. Players who chose to siege POBs are the same as players who build POBs and I doubt that anyone has the moral right to demonize them, as you attempt to do for the last few days.
6. There are numerous problems with POB plugin that needs to work on without hotheaded drama that you are trying to create.
7. There are nunerous POBs in one system that should be cut
8. POB Drama happens 100%
We're currently having a discussion in the dev channels regarding POB decay and the fact that currently the only option to remove abandoned/dying POBs is to whip out a dozen battleships. We'll make a proper yellow text effortpost when we have a proposal nailed down to gather some thoughts. A solution to balance out the time and money investment for building POBs versus the lack of time and money investment for destroying them is also in the works but that's still in the earliest stages.
Keep discussing, of course. Every idea helps us formulate something that works for everyone.
[quote="Kazinsal" pid='2166001' dateline='1590882650'] Dev hat: on.
We're currently having a discussion in the dev channels regarding POB decay and the fact that currently the only option to remove abandoned/dying POBs is to whip out a dozen battleships. We'll make a proper yellow text effortpost when we have a proposal nailed down to gather some thoughts. A solution to balance out the time and money investment for building POBs versus the lack of time and money investment for destroying them is also in the works but that's still in the earliest stages.
Keep discussing, of course. Every idea helps us formulate something that works for everyone.
A base that is clearly dropped its HP's to half, and not a new construction should be considered a derelict. If actual contact is made to the owner by the governing authorities with a notification demanding to restore it to full health within 30 days or sell it to keen buyer. Failing that, it becomes a training exercise for the military for siege practice.
That way it is RP'd, is fair and reasonable and hopefully lessens any drama.