(10-06-2017, 05:11 PM)DannyD Wrote: I agree with you adding similar POB features could benefit people who don't want to face risk but I think the risk factor is ultimately what's supposed to drive POBs
I don't believe that there is anyone who builds a POB for the thrill of the risk of losing it permanently (except when its done to annoy someone who will have to blow it up). It's different from the thrill of risking to blow up once and then respawn.
But I believe there are many people who play for the fun of feeling the power to ruin other people's day, week, or entire stay here. That can currently be done by building a POB in a certain place, or by blowing up someone's cherished POB. I think discovery needs neither.
(10-06-2017, 05:04 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Thinking of Heroine.
Horse is not that bad of a trip if you take out the addiction part. (^:
A friend who worked at a drug rehab clinic told me the problem with Heroine addicts is that they're proud to have felt happier than anyone who hasn't tried it. Or in the words of Chris Rock:
Posts: 2,750
Threads: 166
Joined: Nov 2009
Staff roles: Systems Developer
Regardless of whether the current system is or isn't flawed, you have no right to complain about your POB getting destroyed "because of the POB system" simply due to the fact that when you typed that /deploy and created the POB you automatically accepted the rules of the system, no matter how fair or perfect they are. No one forced or threatened you to do it, you did it voluntarily. You made disco's version of a "deal with the devil".
As for the system itself, it's pretty close to the devil. Not only is the siege concept bad, the mere existance and maintenance is even worse. POBs quite literally enslave and force you to play the game or they "threaten" they'll be gone in a few days. They're your pet, your Tamagotchi. A virtual pet that barely interacts back and brings little to no satisfaction while being much more demanding to maintain, especially knowing that sooner or later you'll come to a realisation that you spent so many hours afk flying from point A to point B hoping you won't meet any players because any interaction only prolongs the process or may end up in your death/loss of cargo. What happens then? You instantly regret making or maintaining it in the first place.
It happens with -everyone- at some point except those who die to Jorms see it being destroyed by someone, and for those whose base gets destroyed before the "realisation" - you can quite literally thank the people that blew it up because they saved you hours of boring and unproductive flying explained above. Perhaps my thoughts on POBs are too cynical, but I just compare it to something like a cap8 battleship and see what it gives me - I need 1.5 billions to make one which is roughly 15 hours of powertrading and once I got the cash it's mine forever. The only requirement for me to keep the ship is log it once every 6 months, I don't need to do anything else. I log it whenever I want, it can't die permanently, it's mobile and it doesn't require to be supplied.
Only then we come to the sieging part which I won't touch too much since it's explained already. Of course POBs have pluses as well, but in the long run they're not worth it compared to the minuses. The whole concept needs to be revamped, Sombra's suggestion is a step in the right direction but if that doesn't happen an instant hotfix would be to reduce the siege time from 2 weeks to 2 days and make the attackers pay a fee to siege a base (Sombra mentioned that as well). Also, people who "leave" discovery after their POB gets destroyed actually left months ago after their only purpose in this community became the survival of their pet.
Edit:
(10-06-2017, 01:57 PM)Shaggy Wrote: But if i'm not mistaken things were said before with Minerva Research Station when that was attacked and suppliers where hit during the 24 hours before it could be sieged.
(10-06-2017, 12:21 PM)Shaggy Wrote: It then starts to say any attack declaration for a Core 2 base or above must be given 24 hours in advanced before attack starts. This is an attack on the PoB it self, but what about if the attacking side camps the jumpholes, jump gates to said pob not allowing them to supply the base prior to an attack. There was a discussion before with Minerva Research Station in Coronado where NC- and Aoi and other factions camped jump holes to not allow IMG, CR transporters to supply the base and was informed not to do it. This needs to be made aware in the server rules. That time should be given to the players supplying the base making them some how attempt to defend there PoB against a over whelming force.
You are mistaken, the POB was quite literally hugged and it was impossible to hit the target without hitting the POB. It just so happened that the hugging ship was there at the same time the IMG and CR transports supplied the base and it just so happened that the transports were coincidentally supplying the POB during an unrelated event that day. The sanction was a joke, and apart from the few shield raises in that instance nobody was stopping transports from supplying the POB. You (IMG and CR) as a whole made yourself look like the victims and the admins bought it, but in no world was there any rule breaking.
And even if people try to stop the suppliers, just because there's an incoming attack in the next 24 hours it doesn't mean you're excluded from roleplay. It's ludicrous to assume that you get a free pass from anyone because your POB is getting attacked, and on top of that doing it is not a sanctionable offense yet people got sanctioned for it.
Why not upping the shield to negate 99% of damage but have deployable siege platforms that ignore PoB shields this will give defenders objectives "destroy siege platforms" you could essentially have the a ship like the station building ship and a similar command that deploys a large ranged cannon esque thing, the only issue i can see is how you would get the new weapon platform to target the PoB