+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Suggestion for base related rule changes (/showthread.php?tid=99630)
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Thyrzul - 06-01-2013
The job of House Governments is to have complete control over events happening within the house, that is the only way for the authorities to keep everything as lawful as possible. This includes complete control over a station too.
Would it be plausible for a house police faction to just let a station be there as is and hope it won't turn against it's surroundings? They struggle with enough unlawfuls already, they cannot risk the existence of an other one. They have to make sure the station will not commit law breaches. And having complete control over it is a good way to handle things.
Indeed human beings are not flawless, but then as everybody have their own set of rights, everybody have the responsibilities coming with each right. If the actions of a house police are unjust, they can be held accountable for those actions. If not, the whole Government can lose it's ingenuity.
On an other note, why build a lawful station where you don't trust the local authorities?
So far as I've experienced, there are efforts to have less issues handled by admins and more handled by game mechanics, e.g. the tech nerf system. I'm unsure whether the admins will take responsibility over such things as this.
Would it be plausible for a house police faction to just let a station be there as is and hope it won't turn against it's surroundings? They struggle with enough unlawfuls already, they cannot risk the existence of an other one. They have to make sure the station will not commit law breaches. And having complete control over it is a good way to handle things.
Indeed human beings are not flawless, but then as everybody have their own set of rights, everybody have the responsibilities coming with each right. If the actions of a house police are unjust, they can be held accountable for those actions. If not, the whole Government can lose it's ingenuity.
On an other note, why build a lawful station where you don't trust the local authorities?
So far as I've experienced, there are efforts to have less issues handled by admins and more handled by game mechanics, e.g. the tech nerf system. I'm unsure whether the admins will take responsibility over such things as this.
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Jack_Henderson - 06-01-2013
(06-01-2013, 12:33 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: On an other note, why build a lawful station where you don't trust the local authorities?
Because a very old sentence says: Homo homini lupus est.
Freely translated: Human beings can be assholes.
You mix up irp and oorp levels. Why would I (as a base builder) trust an unknown group of shadowy well-connected players who conspire in a a channel most people not even know of? There is no reason.
I do not give my car key to a person I do not know. Do you?
You say this "has to be bc Houses have to be omni-potent."
No. Admins have to be omnipotent. And Houses roleplay. And once the situation gets ridiculous and stupid, Admins fix it.
That's what this thread is trying to lay the foundation to.
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Hone - 06-01-2013
(06-01-2013, 10:06 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote:Quote:1.) Would prove useful for suppliers, but wouldn't solve the issue which caused the previous thread.Quote:cos BPA wanted a password that would let them control the base if it got out of hand
And after yesterday, no one will ever give anybody he does not know really well a pw any more.
So as a consequence, this is needed.
And: If this had been implremented, the problem would have never appeared bc the builder would never have been stupid enough to give a real pw away, when he can feed you the baby pw.
(06-01-2013, 12:17 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote:(06-01-2013, 10:38 AM)Thyrzul Wrote: [color=#FFFFFF]Besides, sharing an admin password with the authorities is incorporated with the contracts base builders make with the Bretonian Government.
I was told that it is not true that PoB builders have to give a password. No idea what is right or wrong now.
Clearly. The password was a special requirement for this base because it had weps platforms blocking the JG. So if it had given a baby password, it wouldnt have been allowed. See?
As for the rest of your; "who do you think you are?!" you're confusing characters and players, remember they're seperate, the players may not have the "right" to control peoples stuff in the real world, but in the game, their police/military "characters" do, by right of being the law.
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Hannibal - 06-01-2013
as for little base password and normal "co-admin" password..i dont see any need of that,both can damage/destroy the base in a matter of seconds in "wrong" hands
as for base placement..it should not be any rules toward that because i believe that's should be navy jobs to prevent/destroy this kind of installation and not hunt criminals[that's police jobs]
*unless it's a planet/base at a restart template location with weapon platforms near the base..
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Anaximander - 06-01-2013
Don't know much about bases, but I think they should be a lot easier to kill.
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Thyrzul - 06-01-2013
(06-01-2013, 12:39 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Because a very old sentence says: Homo homini lupus est.
Freely translated: Human beings can be assholes.
Applies both ways.
(06-01-2013, 12:39 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: You mix up irp and oorp levels. Why would I (as a base builder) trust an unknown group of shadowy well-connected players who conspire in a a channel most people not even know of? There is no reason.
As Hone said, you are doing just that, mixing inRP with ooRP. Won't copy-paste his thoughts, although I agree with them.
Also, this as well goes both ways. Why would the local authorities allow a shady person with unknown deals they have no complete access to to build a base at such a crucial point?
Also, this as well goes both ways. Why would the local authorities allow a shady person with unknown deals they have no complete access to to build a base at such a crucial point?
(06-01-2013, 12:39 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: I do not give my car key to a person I do not know. Do you?
Neither you give the keys of your house to the government. But they will freely seize it if they find out you got your basement full of weed plants. What would be the in-game representation of this, hm?
(06-01-2013, 12:39 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: You say this "has to be bc Houses have to be omni-potent."
No. Admins have to be omnipotent. And Houses roleplay. And once the situation gets ridiculous and stupid, Admins fix it.
Admins are the ooRP authority here, they have to be omnipotent ooRPly.
Houses are the inRP authorities, they have to be omnipotent inRPly.
The two doesn't exclude eachother, it is just a matter of decision, whether you want to deal with a situation inRP or ooRP.
Houses are the inRP authorities, they have to be omnipotent inRPly.
The two doesn't exclude eachother, it is just a matter of decision, whether you want to deal with a situation inRP or ooRP.
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Teerin - 06-02-2013
I'm not here to argue for or against the policies, instead just to share an idea.
This third tier (should we call 'em Admin, Moderator, and User?) password should probably also have the /base lsttag command, since that is another thing police factions are interested in. It makes inRP sense that they'd have access to the list of tags/shipnames and therefore know who else has access to the base.
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Jack_Henderson - 06-02-2013
As the Admins have reached a verdict on the recent case and as I have missed out on most of it due to RL absence, I'll not go on discussing the points mentioned before.
I would however like to bump the first post because I really think that there should be some positive development coming from this mess. And perhaps my OP can help in thinking about some reasonable base rules to prevent crap around PoBs in general.
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Jack_Henderson - 06-27-2013
Bumping this thread bc it was mentioned in another base thread a few times.
I also made some edits to the 1st post to include experience gathered since the suggestions were written down.
RE: Suggestion for base related rule changes - Govedo13 - 06-27-2013
Quote:This- it is simple and doable. I explained this 100 times already.My suggestion reposted since around 1 year time. I cannot find the original topic.
1:Base build Capital ship heavy gun that takes as much resource as 2 base cores.
2: Give it:
- short range
- slow speed
- no arc
- long projective life time
- very slow refire rate.
- one shot should cost 7m BS powercore
3.Give it enough DPS to kill level 4 base in 4-5 hours shooting. Note it cannot kill base alone or in team of 1-2 because of the gun platforms. At least 5-6 people team should be required to enable to gun base down that fast.
4.Make sure that the gun is lost if the battleship that mounts it dies.
5. The gun needs fuel to shot and I mean a LOT of fuel to successfully gun down a base.
6. So you got the full element of the siege including all types of ships both from defenders and attackers side. As result he base killing gun investment should cost as much time and should have the same risk and same benefits as base building.