+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers (/showthread.php?tid=144373)
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Wesker - 10-18-2016
>POB blatantly breaks server rules
>faction does nothing about it
>i need a penalty for killing pobs that break the rules
And im the bad guy
Lmao
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Moberg - 10-18-2016
As I see it, POB sieges need a complete overhaul. The current system - where the massive effort, time, money and roleplay required to upgrade and maintain a base that can be destroyed within hours by overwhelming numbers alone - seems massively flawed. A siege can be planned to make sure many players are available, whereas defenses have to be organised spontaneously and as such have a much harder time finding a matching force. This in turn leaves the door wide open for, as you put it, rule-abiding griefers.
In short, the defenders of a siege face a disproportionate disadvantage in both organization and risk/reward. If the attackers fail, they at worst have to wait two hours before they can retry.
Something I've pondered about is to give siege events an official aspect. I've already sent such a suggestion to sindroms, but this seems to be a good place for it as well. Basically, turn sieges into an event. How?
Regular players don't deal damage to the base, they make sure a specialized ship can do it.
- To prevent abuse, admins can fly a siege ship for the attacking party with a short range weapon that will deal massive damage to a base and is very robust. Attackers defend it until the job is done, defenders have to try and kill it (either by doing an all-in on the siege ship or defeating the attacking force first).
//edit: This system will also allow factions without access to battleships to siege a base, if it's feasible inRP. Factions with relatively few players will also get a chance to siege.
Balance the number of participants
- The event will allow both sides to gather limited forces for the siege. There should be a minimum amount of ships allowed for both sides, but also a maximum dependent on the amount of ships the defenders can gather.
If a siege fails, the attackers may not request another siege on the base for a limited amount of time (2 weeks to 1 month, maybe).
At the same time, building POBs should become less of a grind to build and maintain. Instead, replacing this grind with adequate RP requirements should make the implementation of POBs less tedious.
Right now, there's in my opinion little fun in building, maintaining and destroying a POB.
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Wesker - 10-18-2016
>balancing for sieges
>making events for sieges
Lmao because i can balance 20 battleships on either side
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Jack_Henderson - 10-18-2016
Im am with Auriec's call for a complete reorganisation of the "siege mechanics". It's not a siege anyway, it's a "take by storm by using overwhelming numbers".
It's however - imo - not the time to discuss large scale changes that would at best be implemented in months, or even never.
What is building up is acute trouble, clearly linked to one base, for one reason.
Fix the acute problem, then use this lesson in "how fast things can go bad" to develop the system at a calm moment, without all the mess that is already happening.
The only good aspect of the current situation is the urgency that it puts on the issues with POBs.
And the first and foremost is: Enforce the POB rules. On all bases. There is no alternative to that.
By doing that, time is won for substantial (and also necessary) changes in the system.
Jack
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Skyelius - 10-18-2016
(10-18-2016, 06:30 AM)Thyrzul Wrote: "Your proposal, if implemented, would decrease the frequency of sieges, mine would not, instead elongate them..."@Thyrzul (1): You're repeating the obvious (perhaps to sound more convincing), nevertheless, not illogical yet...
(10-18-2016, 06:30 AM)Thyrzul Wrote: "...to provide more ground for fairness and balance. "@Thyrzul (2): There. You've already posted twice and not made an effort to justify your posture. That's the opposite of impartiality. I can't even say "nice try".
(10-18-2016, 06:30 AM)Thyrzul Wrote: I don't see how my proposal would be more anti-siege in general than yours. I don't see how my observations and conclusions drawn from your tone are illogical either.@Thyrzul (3): Why are you even replying if you don't realize what's being argumented and how? Spam? Buddyism? The same partiality you're calmly accusing me of?
(10-18-2016, 08:30 AM)Mímir Wrote:@Mímir(1): Over 10 years? The effect of time is significant, duh. But what is being addressed here is the obvious correlation between POB griefing and the helplessness that drives people away.(10-18-2016, 03:08 AM)Skyelius Wrote: It is no secret that POB grieving and OORP hate are the primary cause of people leaving our community.I think most people have left because it's a decade old game with 50 players online,
(10-18-2016, 08:30 AM)Mímir Wrote: -"...molester when I shoot up your dinky base."@Mímir(2): I find it both sad and funny how you've exposed yourself as part of the group that thinks people online are less real than people you physically meet, and that you expect people online to receive the pain that group of people dish out to serve their need for a thrill.
-"It's a game, you shouldn't care."
-"...have fun, maybe re-evaluate priorities a little?"
(10-18-2016, 08:30 AM)Mímir Wrote: "I'm going to donate all my Disco belongings to whoever burns it."@Mímir(3): How much is your word worth? How much are online human beings worth to you? Perhaps answering may not be a good idea.
(10-18-2016, 08:30 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Skyelius, while I can see the "cooldown" times as a potential way of changing the system (even though you lean a lot too much to the POB owner side there), you make one big mistake.@Jack_Henderson(1): Hey Jack. I appreciate your input; agreed it may not be the best way, but it's a valid one and I think it will work too...
(10-18-2016, 08:30 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: -"You ignore the damage that the placement of this base has been causing for years."@Jack_Henderson(2): ...however, you're also unfairly assuming that this is "all about that base". As I explained earlier in all honesty, when I learned about this Kruger base siege, it made me think about the issue about POB risk. I cannot state that either side is justified in this particular case, but nobody can disregard most of my post and rename it to "Kruger Base Grieving by RHA" either; that would be an unfair attempt to de-value the core of my message, which is, as you said: "Doing the right thing is what matters. "
-"It is one out of 2 remaining bases that are doing area denial."
-"So, Skyelius, you are placing the blame too one-sidedly onto the future attacker."
The issue is that while OORP hate was present in Discovery before POBs, it was mostly powerless, with only Skype drama.
Now with POBs, grieving is extremely powerful with the great value and risk of owning a POB and no risk to its attackers.
An honest thank-you to everyone that at least had one valid point in their post (most I guess).
^__^
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Tex.Mex - 10-18-2016
As a new player (been around about 2 months) it might not be my place to voice my opinion, but then again, it just might be. Like any enterprise I'm sure the game would like to get out of it's stagnating rut and grow again at some point. I keep hearing stories from vets about 4.85 and having the servers chock full at over 200 people in peak time. I understand and appreciate the fact that the servers and game is run by volunteers, no one gets paid to do any of this and trust me, you have my utmost respect for that.
Being new I'm currently trying everything I can get my grubby paws on. Having the insane luck of meeting some awesome people that dedicates a lot of their time to helping out newbies (shout out to the Junker's Congress and Skorak) it gave me the means to try out different stuff in the game, keeping what I enjoy and chucking what I don't. Just like any dewey eyed newbie, one of the things I had on my list of things to do, was a POB. Please note the past tense HAD and WAS. It was obviously not going to be an overnight thing, but more of a goal to work towards. Something big, shiny, expensive, to keep me logging in and playing the game to hopefully one day be able to achieve. My own little footprint in the Sirius universe. A quick browse of the equipment dealers section and all the unanswered WANTED threads, including my own month old thread found here , showed there definitely still was room in the market for another active POB. A quick browse of the POB attack thread however, changed my mind completely. Reading all the threads of POB's spending months and years in RP, all the resources needed to build and sustain the base, all the work going into getting your base up to the stage where you can start producing items, and then the effort of getting the necessary materials was already a daunting task but it was a mountain worth climbing to get the end result I wanted to achieve. Then I took a glance at the section where people declare they are going to be destroying bases. Such a simple feat. New base pops up, find it and charge it rent. Don't like the owner? No problem, rent is now more than what that base can make in the state it's in in a couple of months, never mind every month. Guy refuses to or can't pay because he is saving up to get the base to actually make money? Good, time to pew. Battleship got shot down in the process? Don't sweat it buddy, come back in 2 hours, we're gonna be rotating till she's nothing but a memory, basically like her owner is gonna be nothing but a memory from the server after she pops. I mean, we have tons of active players, who's gonna notice another 1 or 5 or 10 people that dedicated all their time to this POB leaving. Defense fleet shows up in caps and bombers to take on our caps? Ok, we hop into some bombers and fighters and shoot them down. I'm sure that's totally justifiable inRP. People show up to defend the base that can't be justified inRP, since the rules are there to pick and choose from, even better, time to play some sanctionlancer and get even more people out of the game. Who cares, we're having fun right, that's all that matters. Pretty soon our group of what...20? 40? people will be the only ones left then we can run the entire universe! How much fun won't that be when we have no one to oppose us, no one to...pew...no...bases...to blow up...oh...wait...where did everyone go? This isn't fun anymore!
My point is, the current system maybe worked up to a point, I don't know, I wasn't there when or if it worked. It is totally lopsided pitting industrialists against 'leet PVP'ers. The entire system is a smoke screen. In the end, the people that don't want you to have a shiny for whatever reason will find a way to take it from you. I'm not saying make the bases indestructible. Reward must have risk. I do however suggest implementing a mixture of what Skyelius and Auriec suggested, as both of them gave good ideas. It's on the table now, the people doing the blowing up doesn't just need to go sit in a corner either, they can make their own counter suggestions. Bring all parties together and find something that works. Compromises are gonna have to be made but the end result should have EVERYONE in mind, not just an elite few.
At the moment I just fly through space, making money, learning to pvp (shoutout to the peeps that has showed endless patience with me in conn learning me new stuff and waiting for me to untangle my fingers before blowing me up), and in another two months I'll probably have lost interest and moved on. Or, changes can be made for the better. I can have my long term goal realize on risk/reward terms I find acceptable, I can maybe convince others to play as well, and of course I'm not the only one that would be able to do that. And then, in 10 years time, I could also be sitting on the forums moaning about how everything is one or the other admin's fault, which actually sounds very pleasant (not the moaning bit, the being around in 10 years still bit).
Anyway, that is my two cents. Please note that I do not know 99% of the people involved in this. My viewpoints aren't jabs at any person or group, it is merely my impression that I have gotten of the situation in my mere 2 months around. I do not speak for anyone but myself. I have had pleasant interactions with people from all over and my only bias is that of an industrialist, as that has been the meta I have been playing.
TL;DR Current system bad, Revised system where all parties give input good.
P.S. On the base that caused the bucket to spill over, I can't see a way where it staying where it is ending in anything good. Neither can I see a way where blowing it up or deleting it will be good. My suggestion, move it. Please Kruger, come to the table with this and help find a suitable solution for all.
Tex.Mex
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Croft - 10-18-2016
Simple solution to PoB sieges:
Make PoB's immune to all ship damage except a special bomber torpedo.
Torpedo does very little damage to ships but lots to bases.
Price ammo according to how many are required to destroy a PoB at each core level.
All factions can now effectively attack bases but require heavy investment, a money sink has now been included and Disco can happily backslide further into the MMO-styled mudpit.
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Epo - 10-18-2016
(10-18-2016, 02:21 PM)Croft Wrote: Simple solution to PoB sieges:
Make PoB's immune to all ship damage except a special bomber torpedo.
Torpedo does very little damage to ships but lots to bases.
Price ammo according to how many are required to destroy a PoB at each core level.
All factions can now effectively attack bases but require heavy investment, a money sink has now been included and Disco can happily backslide further into the MMO-styled mudpit.
Not a bad idea actually, but the question is if it's possible to split POB damage and regular ship damage.
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Mímir - 10-18-2016
Quote:@Mímir(1): Over 10 years? The effect of time is significant, duh. But what is being addressed here is the obvious correlation between POB griefing and the helplessness that drives people away.
@Mímir(2): I find it both sad and funny how you've exposed yourself as part of the group that thinks people online are less real than people you physically meet, and that you expect people online to receive the pain that group of people dish out to serve their need for a thrill.
@Mímir(3): How much is your word worth? How much are online human beings worth to you? Perhaps answering may not be a good idea.
Are you trolling or for real?
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - sasapinjic - 10-18-2016
(10-18-2016, 02:35 PM)King Epo Wrote:(10-18-2016, 02:21 PM)Croft Wrote: Simple solution to PoB sieges:
Make PoB's immune to all ship damage except a special bomber torpedo.
Torpedo does very little damage to ships but lots to bases.
Price ammo according to how many are required to destroy a PoB at each core level.
All factions can now effectively attack bases but require heavy investment, a money sink has now been included and Disco can happily backslide further into the MMO-styled mudpit.
Not a bad idea actually, but the question is if it's possible to split POB damage and regular ship damage.
Or make base Siege sort of mini event which you had to finance . For example every ship thats wants to be involved in base siege has to PAY before start firing , bombers 5 M , Cruisers 10 M , Battleships 20 M , that way organizer of Siege cant simply say "lets trash this base for fun" , he had to find people wiling to pay or to cover expenses him self . That will also be logical in RP , since organizing raid to destroy powerful enemy base requires considerable amount of resources .
Money can be paid either to Government of where base is or even owner of attacked base ! With current system owner is just happy if his base survive , this way he can finance some defensive players/ships from cash that been payed up , and thats good thing , right , more activity , more people , more fun , and POB owner is not always one that can loose something !
