First, I can't recall a time when the turnaround between a Core one and Core two base has occurred within 8 hours. It's definitely possible on the players part, but the Staff doesn't normally run through the Core upgrade requests that fast. In fact, it sometimes takes weeks depending on workload and activity. So, I don't think that part of it is a huge deal. I suppose a persistent fellow could poke a couple Admin/Mod friends and try to push it through so that their base could be upgraded ASAP. In that case, the Community is deprived the opportunity of easily removing a potentially hostile POB.
Secondly, I don't think people spotting a Core one base and deciding to destroy it simply because it is a Core one base is necessarily a bad thing. It cuts down on the glut of POB's, it forces POB owners to place them carefully and if they wish to survive, they are forced to RP with locals. All good things in my opinion.
Third, I think the posting rules in the Declaration thread are going to be confusing for the majority in the Community as well as Admins who have to figure out if an attack on the POB occurred outside the 8 hour allotment. Not to mention, was the attack continued beyond the 2 week time limit? It is possible to determine, if there are appropriate screenshots. But what if those are absent? I always resisted enforcing a time limit for declaration posts because of the amount of effort required to research these incidents. (Evil thought just came to mind) You could make the Mods invise all time expired declaration posts, but that would require more kicks than even I have energy for.
(03-28-2016, 05:48 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: This actually really raises some important questions. What defines an attack or construction making 'inRP sense'?
What would someone making a POB in Iota clarify as? The system is the Nomad home system, and realistcally building a POB there would be extremely difficult. Probably impossible. Would someone be barred from upgrading a POB there?
And the POBs that exist in systems like Mu, Rho, Alpha or Gamma. Core/Order/OC/Sairs would be able to construct more installations in their own home systems with ease, but attacking forces would find it impossible to be able to sucessfully blow up an installation there. Would an attack be allowed, or would it be halted because it doesn't make inRP sense for a faction to exert so much effort and resources into destroying a hostile installation in the heart of enemy territory?
In the case of a Unlawful Faction building a Base outside of a Lawful Planet, that would be deemed ooRP.
Corsairs building a Base in their main System would be inRP. An enemy finding it and wanting to destroy it would also be inRP but RP would be expected (ie the Base has been found etc. etc.)
We don't expect, as has probably been the case before: "Oh! look a Core 1 Base, lets destroy it because we can.
You talk of ooRP, when introducing rule that forced ooRP delay on sieging hostile base. Ha, what a joke. Staff, your intentions are good. Implementation is bad.
(03-28-2016, 06:30 PM)Garrett Jax Wrote: Third, I think the posting rules in the Declaration thread are going to be confusing for the majority in the Community as well as Admins who have to figure out if an attack on the POB occurred outside the 8 hour allotment. Not to mention, was the attack continued beyond the 2 week time limit? It is possible to determine, if there are appropriate screenshots. But what if those are absent? I always resisted enforcing a time limit for declaration posts because of the amount of effort required to research these incidents.
Situation improved thanks to Alley - if the POB is under attack, the announcement appear in the system where the base is and (at least I assume so) it is recorded in server logs. Thus it is known when the base was under attack and who was shooting it even without any screens.
Posts: 2,757
Threads: 166
Joined: Nov 2009
Staff roles: Systems Developer
8 hours is way too long, should be a maximum of 4. Even though I don't understand the change at all, you know the risk when you're making a base, and you should have a plan of upgrading a shield and core 2 as soon as possible. If you don't (~90% people) then your base gets found out and dies before you got to do anything. Yes, every situation is different but that's what usually happens, and then you get pob owner tears on the forums.
(03-28-2016, 10:27 PM)Antonio Wrote: 8 hours is way too long, should be a maximum of 4. Even though I don't understand the change at all, you know the risk when you're making a base, and you should have a plan of upgrading a shield and core 2 as soon as possible. If you don't (~90% people) then your base gets found out and dies before you got to do anything. Yes, every situation is different but that's what usually happens, and then you get pob owner tears on the forums.
Unnecessary change.
So , in essence , you support the idea of players taking their chances when building a PoB , cause griefers gonna grief and summon the gank-squad everytime somebody catches somebody else with a base building ship ?
Think about what message this is sending to 1. The people already playing here. 2. The people THINKING about playing here.
Most of you are already in a faction with a base , or have been here long enough to possibly have your own base. What is wrong with giving new people a shot at having their own base ?
Now , I can understand the reasoning behind NOT putting one in the tradelanes , directly in front of the dockring at a planet , in the middle of a mining area , guarding a jumpgate or jumphole. That's just common sense........but..Disco being what it is , these things HAVE happened. I've seen my share of stuff happen here.
Most of the time I see a 2 to 1 ratio of "guests" vs people logged onto their accounts......so people are looking at what is being said here. Make the choice that's good for the community , not a select few............
(03-28-2016, 06:06 PM)St.Denis Wrote: We are trying to to be as fair as possible.
Perhaps implementing Karst's ideas would be a good start then. Sure it is likely to be a dev than admin thing, but until then the system stays quite badly balanced and any change like this will grant a too huge advantage to either attackers or defenders.
Multiply PoB HP with X, divide repair rates with X, then sieges would finally become sieges, multi-day long events, where defenders won't get utterly rekt if hit unprepared but won't be impossible to rek if they are prepared either.
Hoooly hell.
So much angst over details... when literally like half of this server is well-represented on the forums as either mods/admins/devs/regulars. Are people seriously worried so much that we would not be able to properly identify a griefing/targeted attack, that these rules need to be written to a lawyer-proof degree to stomp out possible shennanigans?
The POB Attack Declarations forum is not exactly the busiest place on the forum, its not like we need rules that are applicable only a myriad of underhanded situations in order to stomp out the possibility of said shenanigans. Something that occurs rather sparingly, and should rarely play itself out the same way twice, is being completely suffocated in both directions (for attacking and defending RP) by a whole gluttony of rules about how-to.
A general set of expectations that has two simple parts might keep things fluid and creative, but have enough structure to punish abusers::
->Ensure Awareness of Roleplay
-Provide a would-be attacker the means to start dialogue with a base owner [yep already have this]
-Provide a would-be attacker and defender the explicit limitations of how (quickly, and strongly**) an attack can form [we've somehow managed to create this in its most obscenely complex form]
->Ensure Fairness of Roleplay
-Provide a means by which a separate authority can authorize an attack before a Roleplay response is generated [its not realistic or fair RP to wait a day]
-Provide a means by which a defender can, in lieu of continuing with an RP response, contest the validity of Roleplay of an attack. [in case of unrealistic or unfair RP designed to circumvent the Owners]
The foundation of this is that there is an established process, but to further smoothly implement gameplay as an organic (and not frustrating) process. An admin, mod, or elected group/member would be able to halt or approve an attack.
If done this way, factors such as: player activity, previous Roleplay involvement, base location, and other [ie personal/griefing-based] facts can be considered while making a decision to/to not approve an attack as well, which would be much more organic and healthy with our server state.
Having lawyer-esque regulations surrounding these damn POBs is only going to serve to alienate everyone, as I guarantee very few people are satisfied with the current state one way or another.
Go with a more organic process for such a low-frequency occurrence... Honestly if we cant use common sense then we are hosed regardless
Anybody with a proper mindset will be able to find a way to exploit overly-complex POB rules, whether in constructing or deconstructing them.
Edit: **its worth noting that there is no variation or fluidity to the build-up of sieging, it could make plenty of sense to allow Sieges to start rather quickly (almost immediately?) with snubs and smaller craft, while allowing there to be time for [contested] reinforcement attempts while Capital Ships need an reasonably larger amount of time to prepare