Without changing the 8 hour rule before attacking a POB after a correctly posted declaration of intent, I have a couple of concepts/solutions to promote RP before it is destroyed, and to make things more sporting/fair.
These thoughts came about over the latest destructive attack on the Dublin Miners Pub, and how things transpired.
1. Make a mandatory 48 hours minimum between posting good RP surrounding the purpose of destroying/attacking the POB and the attack declaration.
2. The RP should be fair, reasonable and sportsmanship should be displayed.
3. If at all practical, given many/most bases are legally built, a PM be sent to the actual owner which can be found easily enough in the forums where the request to build can be found. Just a heads up and a link to the RP post.
Inquest.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." Einstein
1. 48 hours give very much time for making defence of PoB. This is give some ways of abusive game and make law-enforcers live more boring and harder.(even if small amount of players can use this time for abuse, possibility for coordinated group exist)
2. How you can define fair and sportsmanship around PoBs?
These threads appear every now and then, and almost always consider the whole complicated matter only from perspective of base builders and how to give them even more protection they have now. How about to consider a point of view of law enforcer or unlawful which has to deal with illegal/unapproved base in his area of operation? So, to adress your points from this standpoint and somewhat standpoint of "attacker":
1. It´s already annoying enough when you discover illegal/unapproved base (which are constructed mostly without any RP at all) in location which is untolerable, and you still have to wait mostly to another day (because you usually discover it in afternoon or evening when you play) before you can remove it. Waiting 2+ days is going over the reasonable limit, because in the meantime owner can be preparing huge defense while the attacker can do almost nothing with it and just watch.
2. Who and how will consider if the RP is "fair, reasonable and follow sportsmanship"? Admins, which are already overloaded, so it will take them like at least week to even get to the matter? Also, the base sieges are, unfortunately, predetermined to be unfair by their current game mechanics. In the past it was proved repeatedly that if you organize the siege "the fair way" and give defenders chance to gather, it will almost never succeed unless the attacker can gather strong superiority in numbers (what ends in unfair fight and complaints anyway).
Also, I don´t see it really balanced when attacker is forced to be fair, reasonable and follow sportsmanship and make "good RP" to justify attack and gather several players (because shielded well supplied base can not be destroyed by one or even two players) while base builder is not obliged to do any of that for construction.
3. This could be done, but somehow it would have to be set how to make clear what account is the right one. But honestly, if I would be a POB owner, I would have Attack Declaration Thread submitted to make sure I won´t miss an attack declaration to my base.
"Oh look, a modular construct that anyone can plonk down in under thirty minutes."
Though the one POB I own is basically there to be an activity draw far from mining fields.
There is one saving grace for mining field POBS, and that is when pirates use the mining field POBs to instantly catch traders and miners.
Like, it's not even fun to catch traders like that. I don't pirate for money, I pirate as a public service to bored traders.
To answer your question though, mining field POBs deserve no protection whatsoever. Anyone and their dog should be able to raze them at their discretion. (The exception being Core 2s, as those are obviously RP'd for and whatnot, which is not the problem plaguing us i.e. No-RP Core 1s.)
I mean, I'm guilty as hell of this too, I've lowkey dropped temp mining field POBs in the past because low activity made hiring a miner impossible. As far as my chars, both miner and hauler, were concerned, it was a temporary supply depot that wouldn't be necessary longer than a few hours. (Then hours stretched into days, which stretched into a week, then we just let it burn.)
(04-11-2018, 07:10 AM)Inquest2 Wrote: 2. The RP should be fair, reasonable and sportsmanship should be displayed.
The attacker should at least introduce himself/group and state reasons why the POB in question needs to be demolished.
So the defending party knows who they are dealing with and why. The idea here is to promote communication and thus RP.
From what I saw, most government forces do this very well already.
(04-11-2018, 09:49 AM)Laura C. Wrote: 3. This could be done, but somehow it would have to be set how to make clear what account is the right one. But honestly, if I would be a POB owner, I would have Attack Declaration Thread submitted to make sure I won´t miss an attack declaration to my base.
Part of me wants to increase the core 1 declaration timer to 24 hours.
But part of me thinks that if you want to build a POB, you should have the time, assets, and personnel to get it into a relatively secure state within a day of it being deployed.
A shield generator should be the very first thing a new POB has built. That'll eat 97% of incoming damage as long as it has fuel for its shield, and a core 1 with no storage modules should have enough cargo space to hold two days' worth of RAs and I think about half a day's worth of shield fuel. If no one's laid siege to your base at that point, you're probably good to move some of the shield fuel off to a 4.3Ker or something that's parked on the base for emergencies, and then start constructing your core 2 upgrade.
Disclaimer: I have not owned a POB since 2014. I have made plans to construct one as part of a faction and its core RP, but it will not be in restricted or high traffic space.
(04-11-2018, 10:37 AM)ronillon Wrote: The attacker should at least introduce himself/group and state reasons why the POB in question needs to be demolished.
So the defending party knows who they are dealing with and why. The idea here is to promote communication and thus RP.
From what I saw, most government forces do this very well already.
If they do, it is very apparent who is the owner/creator/maintainer.
1. "Hello my nemesis. Your [PoBname] make shadow on [sun\planet\void] in [systemname].I'm demand you deconstruct it, or i will blow it myself" or "Hello, my blue friends said, your PoB is ~Warmth~"
Of course goverments do, because this is their RP, but this is looking completely bad for factions in bloody war in contested systems)
2. Most of mining PoBs dont have any information about, this sad.
Update: @Kazinsal all the same, also stocked with RA, RH, HP base under shield cannot be sieged by solo capitals, yes.
Im think, case with Paddy sad because it had RP with local lawfuls and unlawfuls, but!Bretonia are warfare zone now, and Kazinsal right - need make defense first.
@Laura and the OP, there needs to be a balance between rights and responsibilities for base owners. More protection for better placement and behavior, less protection for bad placement and behavior.
(04-11-2018, 10:22 AM)Exodite Asmodai Wrote: To answer your question though, mining field POBs deserve no protection whatsoever. Anyone and their dog should be able to raze them at their discretion. (The exception being Core 2s, as those are obviously RP'd for and whatnot, which is not the problem plaguing us i.e. No-RP Core 1s.)
Then how about you support that idea when it's actually proposed in a thread?
(04-11-2018, 10:22 AM)Exodite Asmodai Wrote: I mean, I'm guilty as hell of this too, I've lowkey dropped temp mining field POBs in the past because low activity made hiring a miner impossible. As far as my chars, both miner and hauler, were concerned, it was a temporary supply depot that wouldn't be necessary longer than a few hours. (Then hours stretched into days, which stretched into a week, then we just let it burn.)
And by building your trash bases, you knowingly drew activity from bases which respected gameplay by building at a distance from mining fields and which had solid RP behind them. Thanks for that.
Then there is the admin factor of handling core upgrades. While thankfully our admins arent biased, if we were at .84 or 85, we could have admins stalling the core upgrades just to give their favourite faction an advantage and screwing with defense. I believe core upgrade acquisition should be automated for core 1 to 2 and core 2 to 3 if its not on a mining field.
I don´t think that core 3 bases whose owners would not make a single line of roleplay on forums (and possibly even ingame) is something what would contribute to the server and community. Current system of handling core upgrades prevents that from happening at least little.
It could also create possibility for making core 2 (or even 3) hostile bases overnight in unfitting places and causing troubles without giving the opposing side opportunity to react.
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Signature:
