+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: News and Announcements (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: NOTICE: New Policy on POB Movement, IFF, and Name Requests (/showthread.php?tid=205563)
Pages:
1
2
RE: NOTICE: New Policy on POB Movement, IFF, and Name Requests - Xenon - 11-08-2024
Good luck implementing those changes on
I've seen so many bases moved weirdly, like Seward Station and more...
but some don't remember but Beaumont Spire... we have some terrible attitudes here, and that's not new... *vomits*
RE: NOTICE: New Policy on POB Movement, IFF, and Name Requests - EisenSeele - 11-09-2024
(11-08-2024, 04:22 PM)Fab Wrote:(11-07-2024, 12:16 AM)EisenSeele Wrote: In-system relocation due to mod system update related POB relevant solar object or mining field movements
EX: Shifting of a trade lane or mining field can justify the movement of a mining or trading POB situated deliberately in proximity to said trade lane or mining field
Major inter-system relocation due to mod system updates resulting in the loss of mining fields
EX: Removal of a resource mining field from a system can justify the movement of a mining POB to another mining system
Are bases that are built to collect encounter codes/blueprints/prototype components included in these conditions? Encounters/battlezones are pretty much mining fields, I guess.
If a POB was put there for a specific commercially viable reason like collecting encounter loot - I personally would consider that to be very similar to mining fields. Until there is an admin ruling on a specific request, which to my knowledge has not happened for encounter loot pobs yet, there is no precedent.