Posts: 873
Threads: 73
Joined: May 2020
Staff roles: Story Developer
Player Govs are unable to regulate placement of PoBs outside (and sometines inside) of House Space, that's why this system solution is absolutely necessary. Some factions even lack effective siege options.
And as a bonus - it is fair - there is no favoritism if it's judged by automated script and not by biased human. Harsh, but necessary in this community - especially when we are speaking about the life and death of PoBs, where players invest a lot of their time and effort. Total fairness is a must.
(10-11-2023, 08:47 PM)Erremnart Wrote: Some factions even lack effective siege options.
The irony in this is that said factions are usually unlawfuls who will be impacted the most by this change, yet remain unable to rectify the negative consequences.
let houses enforce pobs in borderworlds again and since theyre going to be part of the economy, i promise we'll go back to charging them more money monthly so only those that matter can exist (in liberty) : )
the huge distances away from stations/large solars is still dumb and i agree with most posters
dunno what the change is for still
The implementation of new PoBs rules should not affect existing bases and players should be able to place them next to each other for added protection.
The distance between PoBs should only be considered for those belonging to different owners.
Having them too far from planets or TL crossings does not make much sense as the preferable location for a Space station will always be a planet orbit as the planet provides a magnetic shield from sun rays as well as defends the space station from spacial debris.
Regarding other NPC bases distance In example: a Samura PoB next to a Samura NPC base would make sense wile a BMM PoB would NOT make sense next to a IMG or DHC station.
Spreading the PoBs will overpopulate systems.
What should be mandatory is to place PoBs in reasonable locations, the game itself shows were NPC installations are placed (TLs corners and planet orbits).
In my opinion Admins should ask for locations that would organize and level PoBs with the surrounding environment, centering them between tradelanes, as well as positioning PoBs around the planets in a decent organized way that becomes eye pleasing just like the NPC ones.
(10-12-2023, 08:05 PM)Cpt. Dylan Hunt Wrote: The implementation of new PoBs rules should not affect existing bases and players should be able to place them next to each other for added protection.
The distance between PoBs should only be considered for those belonging to different owners.
Having them too far from planets or TL crossings does not make much sense as the preferable location for a Space station will always be a planet orbit as the planet provides a magnetic shield from sun rays as well as defends the space station from spacial debris.
Regarding other NPC bases distance In example: a Samura PoB next to a Samura NPC base would make sense wile a BMM PoB would NOT make sense next to a IMG or DHC station.
Spreading the PoBs will overpopulate systems.
What should be mandatory is to place PoBs in reasonable locations, the game itself shows were NPC installations are placed (TLs corners and planet orbits).
In my opinion Admins should ask for locations that would organize and level PoBs with the surrounding environment, centering them between tradelanes, as well as positioning PoBs around the planets in a decent organized way that becomes eye pleasing just like the NPC ones.
With siege rework in mind, what kind of protection would clusters of POB give? Please read the dev diaries to get familiar with the subject
(10-10-2023, 01:54 PM)RaumDeuter Wrote: Personally I find the 10k from other dockable stations too harsh. The point of some PoB's is to close to stations to act as a kind of hub.
Not only that, but if PoBs are literally littered all over the systems because they can't be close to stations, it just means that pirating will get even harder if there is always a PoB in range to escape to.
That's a good point, actually. The proximity limitations are going to cover some systems (Omega-3) in a lattice of PoB docking points.
That's my fear as well. For example instead of all the POBs being cluttered around New London orbit, we'll get something like this:
All these red spots are potential fight/piracy-denial spots for the hostile IDs, on top of another change I think is coming back which is POBs shooting hostile IFFs by default. If anything, it's way more immersion breaking to see a POB every 20k than the status quo.
The rest of the changes look fine.
Oh. in other words, making it so players can't Pirate in the open and are made to perform criminal, illegal acts in the dark corners and alleyways of the universe (the way things really are and should be) would be totally unfair?
Sorry. but I'm gonna give here the EXACT same answer that Pirate players always regurgitate whenever I bring up how the balance between Trader/Pirate is completely unrealistic and unfair. (ie: 4 Transports being engaged and destroyed by 2 cloaked pirate cruisers)
"This is FL, not real life. Get over it and Play!!"
Also, may I just suggest areas akin to "industrial parks" near the major hubs? Businesses tend to cluster together to facilitate efficiency and cooperation. Allied POB's and those with like and complementary industries should be allowed to cluster, just set some areas where it's not allowed. (ie: capitol planet's orbit)
User was banned for: Possibly compromised account.
![[Image: v1zVWKX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/v1zVWKX.png)
