Intro:After some thought, I came up to a way how in the best way to disable 'pob area denial' effect fully.
Together with my previous suggestion it would be perfect.
Short description:I suggest forbidding defensemods 1-2-3 at code level
which target enemy ships based on IFF hostility (or in case defense mode 3, base shoots just everything that is not in /base addtag friendly list)
In exchange, I suggest an increase in the amount of PoB Module Slots per level to 5 (except core1)
Core 1: 3 modules
Core 2: 8 (+5 modules)
Core 3: 13 modules (+5 modules)
Core 4: 18 modules (+5 modules)
Core 5: 23 modules (+5 modules)
Also, hostile list (which is added by command /base addhostile) to auto nullify during server restart. So its use would be only during sieges if the owner is around, or to chase away some ship only if the owner is present and having effect of pob weapon platform hostility only for one day.
Effect: PoBs will stop shooting anything that is not sieging them. They will be purely for cargo storage, roleplay, device manufacturing.
Side effect #1: It will decrease their defense because they aren't protected by friendly pobs around. But, an increase in module slots will allow them to create more weapon platforms to defend themselves.
Side effect #2: There will be no meaning in having second pob to main one full of weapon platforms. One pob will not defend another one, unless ship names specifically written in the hostile list. It will lead in a roundabout way to decrease of pobs around. People will have only meaning to invest themselves fully into one pob, not multiple ones in one place.
Side effect #3: With hostile list being only temporal. Base owner will have to be present and writing specifically for his pob to participate in pob area denial. It will be able to happen only if he is present, and this effect will remain only temporal until the server restart
Example after change #1: One person has two bases near Daboduru. One Core 2 with 4 weapon platforms and one Core 1 with 2 weapon platforms. With this change the person will have no meaning to have second Core 1, removing her 2 weapon platforms. But her Core 2 will have two more slots, which will make person adding weapon platforms to it. The amount of defense in weapon platforms was not changed. The amount of PoBs was decreased. Meaning in investing only into only one PoB is increased for all people across Sirius.
Example after change #2: Siegers make siege against Core 2 base. Every sieger will become hostile to base and being shot by weapon platforms in a matter of 2-3 full cerb blasts (amount of shots to active defense regulated by my other idea).
the one thing pobs were good for were keeping the fleet of scyllas and ranseurs that prowled new york from sitting on top of planet manhattans undock instantly engaging anything red that came out of the planet
im not sure area denial is much of an issue anymore
I don't really see the problem with using POB's for area denial, or non peaceful purposes. It used to be one of the only things stirring up activity. I think people tend to confuse/mix their inrp sentiment towards a pesky base with their oorp sentiment. Your characters may see the area denial as a problem, but as players we should see it as a challenge.
The real way to deal with the difficulty in overcoming area denial in game, via gameplay, is to place ammo requirements on weapons platforms respawns. That way people could attack the WP's until they are destroyed, and continue until a base has used up all of the cargo stored as ammo, similar to how shields use fuel. I had suggested 100 units of munitions or armaments per respawn, per def module.
That might mean WP's would get stronger but at least give the ability for a smaller sieging force to harass bases, and have a chance to neutralize the defenses entirely, without totally destroying it.
Your proposal makes destroying POBs even easier than now, and I don´t think it should be done considering that as far as I noticed, almost all sieged bases got destroyed in recent weeks despite sometimes even considerable effort to defend them. You basically require owner/defenders to sit on-line non-stop because every time attack starts, the weapon platforms will not start shooting until names of attackers won´t be added to the list manually. On top of that, you suggest that list gets wiped automatically, putting yet another strain on owner/defenders.
What scenario will be probably happening with your change implemented: attackers start shooting base and can do that without WPs doing anything for hours until someone who has admin access to base log and add their names to the list. Attackers take a break, wait for one or two hours hoping that the owner/defenders won´t be able to sit at Disco waiting for another wave, they will rename their ships (it´s cheap and you can do it forever, every longer member of the community knows how), return and continue the attack, again until someone logs the base and update the list of attacking ships.
Basically, this would be another big step to make POBs literally indefensible (what they seems to be already). Like, only thing left would be to remove WPs entirely.
(09-22-2020, 11:05 AM)Lumik Wrote: Your proposal makes destroying POBs even easier than now, and I don´t think it should be done considering that as far as I noticed, almost all sieged bases got destroyed in recent weeks despite sometimes even considerable effort to defend them. You basically require owner/defenders to sit on-line non-stop because every time attack starts, the weapon platforms will not start shooting until names of attackers won´t be added to the list manually. On top of that, you suggest that list gets wiped automatically, putting yet another strain on owner/defenders.
What scenario will be probably happening with your change implemented: attackers start shooting base and can do that without WPs doing anything for hours until someone who has admin access to base log and add their names to the list. Attackers take a break, wait for one or two hours hoping that the owner/defenders won´t be able to sit at Disco waiting for another wave, they will rename their ships (it´s cheap and you can do it forever, every longer member of the community knows how), return and continue the attack, again until someone logs the base and update the list of attacking ships.
Basically, this would be another big step to make POBs literally indefensible (what they seems to be already). Like, only thing left would be to remove WPs entirely.
no, no, no. Every sieger will get weapon platforms auto-activated to attack him in a matter of few blasts. Weapon platforms will remain self-activating if you shoot the base. Together with my 'trigger from damage' idea, they will start attacking every sieger who made damage more than 400'000 units (2-3 shots with cerb guns).(Separate counter for every ship name)
Defensive capabilities against sieges will be not decreased. Weapon platforms will remain operating in full capacity for those cases, without a need for base owner presence.
If you wander too close to a hostile base, you get shot, it's only normal.
Space is dangerous, pilots are meant to be aware of where they're flying at all times, stop trying to dumb down the server so you can power trade with the game alt-tabbed.
I dont think making the hostile list temporary really fixes anything, because it requires almost no effort to just type in the name or tag every day or as soon as the the enemy shows up.
I'd also prefer if the higher core numbers were unlocked and maintenance was made to require less effort, instead of allowing more modules per core. The former would add a bit of variety to how pobs look.
As for the pobs near Dabadorou specifically, all anyone had to do to have them de-activated was ask. The pobs didnt have wps before the first siege, and I warned the siegers what would happen should they not call it off. I also offered to de-activate them afterwards if they were willing to have a conversation about creating some sort of pvp code at least between the official factions, because the amount of vitriol going around at the time was pretty ridiculous.
Nobody asked, nobody was willing to have a conversation, and nobody complained to me about the wps until after the second siege started. The current main sieger rather seems to be more interested blowing up any pob he can and spewing bile about them, than in having a serious conversation. So forgive me if I say that to me, the "wp issue" around thos bases seems to be no more than an excuse for the same people to destroy any pob they can because they like to do that, wps or no wps.
About "fixing" pobs...
It is not the pob plugin that is broken. No amount of plugin tuning will address the main problem, which is how players behave around pobs. And you cant really expect players in an online game to just be responsible by themselves either. What really needs to be fixed is discos "staff's" inability to make more useful rules around pobs. And that inability to sit down, communicate, and work things out together isnt really limited to pobs, or even to rules in general, its literally everywhere in disco, and linked to the way people in "positions" are never held accountable, and any attempt to talk about it gets buried by the same brainless meming and brown nosing that is integrated into disco's groupthink.
(09-22-2020, 03:48 PM)Karlotta Wrote: It is not the pob plugin that is broken.
Karlotta, while you have many valid points, I would disagree with one of them.
Until pob mechanic/code/plugin is changed, we will always get 'git gud' in the broken situation we are in.
Through plugin changes, we make the situation less troublesome and more versatile.
Players can destroy anything as long as it is allowed a) by rules b) by mechanic. and c) they have desire
eliminate one or few problems, and they will stop sieging anything in sight on their own.
admins are not changing rules, so we can just approach problem from different angles to reach the same result ;b
(09-22-2020, 03:48 PM)Karlotta Wrote: I dont think making the hostile list temporary really fixes anything ....
Temporal hostile list will fix the problem because base owners are present rarely.
(09-22-2020, 03:48 PM)Karlotta Wrote: I'd also prefer if the higher core numbers were unlocked ....
Unlocking higher core numbers interesting but.... we already have all rules made for 5 core levels. And many players already have core 5 as end result they wished with getting all benefits. So it would be ethical problem too. Plus more transport hauling for new core upgrades...Urgh... In anyway this idea will require new rules to unlock new core numbers, quite bothersome idea.
(09-22-2020, 03:48 PM)Karlotta Wrote: ... Nobody asked, nobody was willing to have a conversation....
No diplomacy from siegers, that's a problem. We already have reasonable demand rule that has to be fulfilled. And we get only 'no message' and silent demand 'to die'. I think it is not reasonable demand. But administrations is not willing to enforce it I guess. So we better change things from other angles if we can. I can't create any code solution that would make pob siegers to have diplomacy and being respectful roleplayers. I change what I can.
Rules are easy to change, if changes affect people they can be compensated, "recipes" for upgrades, maintenance, and constructions are easy to change by editing ascii files.
Some things can be fixed by either rules or plugins, some cant. The fact that mobs and ganks decide who gets to keep their pob and who doesnt cant be fixed with plugins.
(09-22-2020, 04:39 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Rules are easy to change
Yes but they don't change them. That's why we are going through different way.
(09-22-2020, 04:39 PM)Karlotta Wrote: , if changes affect people they can be compensated, "recipes" for upgrades, maintenance, and constructions are easy to change by editing ascii files.
change in recipe will still leave a lot of transport hauling no matter how small it will be left. And too small amounts will be possibly hard to accept? Or hard to regulate being money costy instead of money costy? So... hard to break I guess people view that transport hauling should not be in the same amount?
My way to change it (through matter replicator) makes it easy to accept I guess. That's why I am making it. Plus it is fun to make.
(09-22-2020, 04:39 PM)Karlotta Wrote: Some things can be fixed by either rules or plugins, some cant. The fact that mobs and ganks decide who gets to keep their pob and who doesnt cant be fixed with plugins.
at least plugin changes can make better odds. Making it less disastrous and more fun. New features open new doors.