+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: PoB Siege Mechanics (/showthread.php?tid=165900)
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Thyrzul - 11-19-2018
Just a few words in defense of the recent change, since I was (at least one of those who were) propagating the direction of change and helped devs picking the extent of it by visualising possible outcomes of each change through spreadsheets made out of an old one originally made by Karst about four years ago.
Many were complaining (and for some reason still complained after the change) against timezones and that huge fleets can destroy their bases within just a few hours while they were working or asleep. Buffing the hulls was meant to fix that by stretching siege lenght to days so the defenders have enough time for their attempts at defense. Side effect: sieges became more RMB-grindy.
Others complained that they don't/can't have the required warship fleets or even the ship classes to effectively siege a PoB. Nerfing the repair rates was meant to fix that by reducing PoBs' regeneration capacity so the attackers can achieve progress with less firepower while additional ships won't make much of a difference. Side effect: with a big enough fleet siegers could reproduce the timezone issue.
A mathematical example for comparison: in the old system a Core 5 PoB with 3 repair materials was immune to 12 warships, fell in 3.1 hours to 13; in the new system a Core 5 PoB with 3 repair materials was immune to 1 warship, fell in 155 hours to 2, and even 20 warships would need 6.1 hours to take it down.
Actual example: the Tau-29 event lasted over two days despite the massive playerbase and fleets on both sides, the massive battles and only 30 minutes respawn penalty.
I consider the test resulting positively, because the implemented changes did what they were meant to, fixed at least some of the issues, while pointed out other flaws.
Perhaps we can't fix all of the issues with these mechanics, but until we have a viable and sensible alternative of a mechanic - and turning them into SRPs isn't a mechanic, just administrative restriction of the system in order to mitigate the effects of this mechanic and what Disco's playerbase does with it - I'm of the opinion that we should seek further means to tweak what we have at hand.
In accordance to that I'd rather look into what possible tricks can be added to how repair material consumption and repair mechanics work, perhaps adding a synergy effect or other balance to each material individually. That's something the recent balance change did not cover, but maybe the next one could.
Additionally, since Laz said he's looking for ideas for new mechanics, and that he's about to finish the rework, I'm curious about whether it would be possible to add a partial deconstruct feature, according to which destroyed PoBs would respawn upon next restart with one less core, only Core 1 PoBs would be destroyed permanently. It's not a new idea, and it's not mine originally, but I've always found it an interesting one.
Many were complaining (and for some reason still complained after the change) against timezones and that huge fleets can destroy their bases within just a few hours while they were working or asleep. Buffing the hulls was meant to fix that by stretching siege lenght to days so the defenders have enough time for their attempts at defense. Side effect: sieges became more RMB-grindy.
Others complained that they don't/can't have the required warship fleets or even the ship classes to effectively siege a PoB. Nerfing the repair rates was meant to fix that by reducing PoBs' regeneration capacity so the attackers can achieve progress with less firepower while additional ships won't make much of a difference. Side effect: with a big enough fleet siegers could reproduce the timezone issue.
A mathematical example for comparison: in the old system a Core 5 PoB with 3 repair materials was immune to 12 warships, fell in 3.1 hours to 13; in the new system a Core 5 PoB with 3 repair materials was immune to 1 warship, fell in 155 hours to 2, and even 20 warships would need 6.1 hours to take it down.
Actual example: the Tau-29 event lasted over two days despite the massive playerbase and fleets on both sides, the massive battles and only 30 minutes respawn penalty.
I consider the test resulting positively, because the implemented changes did what they were meant to, fixed at least some of the issues, while pointed out other flaws.
Perhaps we can't fix all of the issues with these mechanics, but until we have a viable and sensible alternative of a mechanic - and turning them into SRPs isn't a mechanic, just administrative restriction of the system in order to mitigate the effects of this mechanic and what Disco's playerbase does with it - I'm of the opinion that we should seek further means to tweak what we have at hand.
In accordance to that I'd rather look into what possible tricks can be added to how repair material consumption and repair mechanics work, perhaps adding a synergy effect or other balance to each material individually. That's something the recent balance change did not cover, but maybe the next one could.
Additionally, since Laz said he's looking for ideas for new mechanics, and that he's about to finish the rework, I'm curious about whether it would be possible to add a partial deconstruct feature, according to which destroyed PoBs would respawn upon next restart with one less core, only Core 1 PoBs would be destroyed permanently. It's not a new idea, and it's not mine originally, but I've always found it an interesting one.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - MotokoSusu - 11-19-2018
well infant bases get an no-kill option for say 3 days then they can siege them sort of like a invincibility as you get on a respawn in mmo. srp's are stupid because you are going to tax the already over worked admin team and no one is going to sit around writing a wall of text for something that some asshat is going to knock over later. the 3 day is fine, the one team gets to build it as fast or as slow as they want the attackers get to siege, that or 2 days. i sure the attacker can wait for it not like it going to be towed away and they get to siege it. it almost has become the proverbial bully kicking over the sand castle at the beach
P.S. oh also everyone is scream RP RP RP well the bases seem to generate that and give people other things to do other then circlejerk with themselves
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Laz - 11-19-2018
(11-19-2018, 04:29 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:Additionally, since Laz said he's looking for ideas for new mechanics, and that he's about to finish the rework, I'm curious about whether it would be possible to add a partial deconstruct feature, according to which destroyed PoBs would respawn upon next restart with one less core, only Core 1 PoBs would be destroyed permanently. It's not a new idea, and it's not mine originally, but I've always found it an interesting one.
This has been on my mind as well. The current direction I am taking is making all modules destructible. Within the rework, a bunch of modules have been turned into "external" modules. These external modules have a space representation, and can be destroyed by players. Currently, if destroyed they will respawn at the next tick as if nothing had happened, as I'm still talking with the devs to figure out how we want to handle their death. This reminds me, I'll me making a post about the rework's current state and progress in the next few minutes/hours/whenever I actually do it.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Cursetantine - 11-19-2018
How about some sorta battering ram mechanic? A specialized weapon that deals a percentage of the POB's health, but fireable only once per hour or so. This would give POB's to assemble defense fleets and react and would remove the RMB fest if attackers come out as victors of the fights.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Egon Bigmemes - 11-19-2018
The real question is
What would we really lose if PoBs were deleted?
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Laz - 11-19-2018
Players. A lot of them.
Edit: This is best summarised by my comment in one of my Discord servers:
Let really explain what I am saying here. PoBs are, as the others have said, not really meant for this game. It was not meant by the original developers, but this is what we have to work with. I am all for adding new mechanics, but this one causes problems. It's been a part of Discovery so long now, we simply can't remove them without having irreparable damage.
Since the moment I got the devs on board with my rework and changes, I've done my own thing, yet told them whenever I added something new and why I did it. I want to make sure everyone is on board and agrees, just as I said in the OP of this thread; the same rule applies here.
Edit: This is best summarised by my comment in one of my Discord servers:
Person 1 16:36: Wrote:Hey Laz
My opinion on PoB Changes.
Remove this cancer.
Just freaking remove it, ever since they came to existance, no year passed without several massive dramas only about pobs and the way people abused them to troll people or got trolled for building a pob. Otherwise make them unavailable to the huge majority, have them require an official faction, would also boost the value of being official, which, to be honest, holds zero value for any faction not being a house military or OC/Sairs/Hessians atm.
Laz 16:38 Wrote:The problem is Discovery was made with this cancer. Moulded by it. Ultimately, I agree. Yet a flat out removal is just not on the cards, so I have to make them less cancer. Treat it rather than amputate, you dig?
It is not my decision to make such drastic changes, but through my own development choices and designs, I can make certain options more preferable, and therefore more likely to get in.
It's an odd position. I have all the power, and yet at the same time, none at all. Without me there will be no rework, but with no rework, we stick to the current system.
I am of the mind to get as many people agreed as possible. I don't want to shimmy people to have my own views and force my own ideas on the dev team. I want everyone, players, devs, and admins, to agree. Now ofc that's not entirely possible, but some is better than none.
Let really explain what I am saying here. PoBs are, as the others have said, not really meant for this game. It was not meant by the original developers, but this is what we have to work with. I am all for adding new mechanics, but this one causes problems. It's been a part of Discovery so long now, we simply can't remove them without having irreparable damage.
Since the moment I got the devs on board with my rework and changes, I've done my own thing, yet told them whenever I added something new and why I did it. I want to make sure everyone is on board and agrees, just as I said in the OP of this thread; the same rule applies here.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Wesker - 11-19-2018
Delete them and be done with it.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Karlotta - 11-19-2018
Making POBs SRP oly would be better than what we have now, although I think there is a better way (kind of depends of what you call "SRP"). For those who say that's too much work for admins... how much work it will be depends on how high the bar is set, and how much of the burden is placed on players to conform to objective guidelines.
Better than SRPs would be a system that protects SOME bases so you can call it "SRPing invulnerability" if you want. The "SRP" should be less linked to the stories people spin around the base, and more based on whether the base fulfills simple criteria like:
-no blocking routes, jhs, and ore fields
-no drawing players out to the middle of nowhere
-area should be safe for that faction irp
-name, location, affiliation, make sense
Adding simple guidelines in exchange for protection should already solve most problems. I made a suggestion on how a while ago:
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=159051
But the real elephant in the room is: how did we manage to keep this terrible system for so many years, and how did the people who take decisions manage to make it even worse with this "upgrade", when everyone should have been able to foresee exactly the way things turned out. This is really just on example of glaring and fundamental flaws in how decisions are being made here.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - SnakThree - 11-19-2018
Have anyone considered making rule, instead of rework, so that they cannot be built too close to dockable objects or mining fields? This way, they would be less of an annoyance and more like background (without weapon platforms) things.
RE: PoB Siege Mechanics - Karlotta - 11-19-2018
(11-19-2018, 06:42 PM)SnakThree Wrote: Have anyone considered making rule, instead of rework, so that they cannot be built too close to dockable objects or mining fields? This way, they would be less of an annoyance and more like background (without weapon platforms) things.
Yes, someone has. Although, POBs near dockable objects are not a problem, and can even be better than POBs that are far away from dockable objects, unless they're set to hostile to ships that can dock on those objects.