+- 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: Overhaul Sieging Rules. (/showthread.php?tid=162455)
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Wesker - 07-02-2018
(07-02-2018, 10:47 PM)Lythrilux Wrote:(07-02-2018, 10:31 PM)Laura C. Wrote: Uh, what? Is anybody who is behind this idea playing house lawful? So basically someone make an illegal base or start violating laws and lawfuls will be paying tens if not hundreds millions credits to be allowed to act? Are you guys crazy? Considering no RP or fee is required to build an illegal POB, this is perfect way to troll lawfuls just by throwing series of illegal bases on their turf and watching them pay incredible sums to be able to remove them.
Alright then, perhaps simply add an exception that the tax doesn't apply for POB that are in a space covered by laws, so that if they do break those laws, Lawfuls can act logically. The anarchic system we have now is not good. Ultimately, something needs to be done to stop POBs being killed with bare-bones RP for the sake of killing them.
And why the hell should I pay 100 million credits to siege a hiddin core 3 daumann base in omega-54?
Bases enable bad gameplay, bases are sources of salt and drama. Enabling them further to thrive in larger numbers is absurd. I’d rather not have this go through only to be met with a bunch of clowns builiding hostile pobs in unlawful core systems or in edgeworld/BW systems just so they can be sieged at the expense of the attackers money.
Bases aren’t random toys that should be granted immunity, this is literally no different than people complaining in favor of reasons to deny blue messages and engagements because they aren’t garunteed they’d be able to win tenfold.
Bases aren’t entitled toys that should come with minimal strings attached. If you’re going to make one for generating random special snowflake material or bottleneck trade for your own benefit, there needs to be some balance.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Kazinsal - 07-02-2018
There's a number of things to deconstruct here, and my personal favourite solution to all of them is this:
- Bases require an admin-granted component to construct that costs X amount of money and a mini-SRP of RP briefing (this is the big kicker that helps fix the base system)
- OFs are required to place a siege declaration and must pay out the nose to place on on behalf of someone who isn't them
- Admins need to look into sketchy base sieges ASAFP
- The use of alternate accounts should be straight up against the community rules
I've thought this way for years. Now it finally seems like it's well past the time to implement it.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Vexykin - 07-02-2018
I don't agree to the taxing for sieges, but however i think Omicron's idea of seeking Official faction approval first would be good, also if a player is playing a faction that isn't Official, it would be needed to be approved by the staff.
Also , change PoB attack declaration validation time to 3 Days, with a 1 Month Cooldown from the same group, and all PoB owners could breathe more freely.
PoB attacks shouldn't be Taxed, because it still should be part of the natural gameplay, that act as activity generators within different areas.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Lythrilux - 07-02-2018
(07-02-2018, 11:01 PM)Auzari Wrote: If you were presenting an opportunity to get striked at, of course some predators will take the bait, especially if it stays in the same state for so long.
An opportunity... to get struck at.... by a neutral ship... that was a blood dragon... of all things. Nyx pls. I mean Christ, the justification for it was that the base was a threat to civilian traffic, even though it was above the plane? Given the location, I'd expect at the very most Xenos, FA or Aoi to be trigger happy with it. But other local factions would either not be interested, or would tax it first.
(07-02-2018, 11:05 PM)Wesker Wrote: And why the hell should I pay 100 million credits to siege a hiddin core 3 daumann base in omega-54?
As I said, there would be an exception when it breaks laws. RHA would not be stopped from blowing up a POB in Omega-54 if it's in their home.
(07-02-2018, 11:05 PM)Wesker Wrote: Bases enable bad gameplay, bases are sources of salt and drama. Enabling them further to thrive in larger numbers is absurd. I’d rather not have this go through only to be met with a bunch of clowns builiding hostile pobs in unlawful core systems or in edgeworld/BW systems just so they can be sieged at the expense of the attackers money.
Bases aren’t random toys that should be granted immunity, this is literally no different than people complaining in favor of reasons to deny blue messages and engagements because they aren’t garunteed they’d be able to win tenfold.
Bases aren’t entitled toys that should come with minimal strings attached. If you’re going to make one for generating random special snowflake material or bottleneck trade for your own benefit, there needs to be some balance.
I think that's an extremely narrow-minded viewpoint that greatly dismisses the mechanics and potentials of POBs. Sure, they can cause harm, but they are also capable of doing good - like any mechanic in this game. In my time here, I have gone from something who has hated POBs with a passion to someone who has run four in his time here.
Bases right now have a huge number of strings attached - and are realistically speaking fragile to boot. The problem lies with the attackers, who have absolutely nothing to lose (and not really anything to gain either) other than several hours at most. This is incredibly unbalanced and insanely unfair to the people who put time and effort into creating POBs, especially the ones that don't actually do any harm at all.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Kauket - 07-02-2018
(07-02-2018, 11:12 PM)Lythrilux Wrote:(07-02-2018, 11:01 PM)Auzari Wrote: If you were presenting an opportunity to get striked at, of course some predators will take the bait, especially if it stays in the same state for so long.
An opportunity... to get struck at.... by a neutral ship... that was a blood dragon... of all things.
Neutral isn't friendly. The ID allowed it. But the choice of ID wasn't the point, it was the point that you were inviting people to harm you by not doing what everyone else did, which is making a shield module. You wouldn't leave your baby sleep unattended in the park, would you?
Like I said, I don't agree with it either.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Laura C. - 07-02-2018
(07-02-2018, 11:06 PM)Vex. Wrote: Also , change PoB attack declaration validation time to 3 Days, with a 1 Month Cooldown from the same group, and all PoB owners could breathe more freely.You are back at problem with core 1 bases. Someone discover it and can not be tolerated (it belongs to hostile faction or it´s illegal or in very wrong place or for whatever valid reason), yet he must watch it for three days before it can be removed, giving owner huge amount of time to fortify himself?
Also side note - the poll does not make sense because it´s double question with opposite meaning. "Poll: Should these rules be implemented as is or should they be changed?" - if I say yes, do I say yes, these rules should be implemented as it is, or yes, they should be changed? And same goes for no.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Lythrilux - 07-02-2018
(07-02-2018, 11:15 PM)Auzari Wrote: Neutral isn't friendly. The ID allowed it.
I don't see anything in the Blood Dragon ID that outright states it can shoot neutral POBs on a whim (at the very most, not without credits first, if you want to treat it as a ship - I would liken a POB to a transport more than a fighter). I can't think of any roleplay reason why a Blood Dragon would attack a POB for no reason. Even the roleplay itself was contradictory and made no sense within its own writing.
(07-02-2018, 11:15 PM)Auzari Wrote: But the choice of ID wasn't the point, it was the point that you were inviting people to harm you by not doing what everyone else did, which is making a shield module. You wouldn't leave your baby sleep in the park unattended, would you?
So if someone started making lots of ships to specifically to gank and hunt you into the ground, it'd be entirely your fault for inviting that in the first place? You can see the flawed logic here. You can't blame the player for inviting that toxicity - how could they have even known? And if they were supposed to have known, then that's just sad: has this community gotten to the point where we need to be constantly watching our backs, in fear of other player(s) trying to attack us for personal reasons?
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Kauket - 07-02-2018
(07-02-2018, 11:21 PM)Lythrilux Wrote:(07-02-2018, 11:15 PM)Auzari Wrote: Neutral isn't friendly. The ID allowed it.
I don't see anything in the Blood Dragon ID that outright states it can shoot neutral POBs on a whim (at the very most, not without credits first, if you want to treat it as a ship - I would liken a POB to a transport more than a fighter). I can't think of any roleplay reason why a Blood Dragon would attack a POB for no reason. Even the roleplay itself was contradictory and made no sense within its own writing.
(07-02-2018, 11:15 PM)Auzari Wrote: But the choice of ID wasn't the point, it was the point that you were inviting people to harm you by not doing what everyone else did, which is making a shield module. You wouldn't leave your baby sleep in the park unattended, would you?
So if someone started making lots of ships to specifically to gank and hunt you into the ground, it'd be entirely your fault for inviting that in the first place? You can see the flawed logic here. You can't blame the player for inviting that toxicity - how could they have even known? And if they were supposed to have known, then that's just sad: has this community gotten to the point where we need to be constantly watching our backs, in fear of other player(s) trying to attack us for personal reasons?
This is going off topic but what I'm saying is that you can potentially deter people from targetting you or harming you quickly or instantly. There's no way of stopping griefers and circlejerkers, they'll always be there, but the least that can happen is some rules that prevent their intended course of action or make it a lot less easier for them to attack other players personally. Of course it isn't your fault, but you can do things to help yourself, in this instance, their bases would have been alive if there were shields. And yes, Disco /is/ at that toxic state where you need to ensure you're grief proof, a lot more than what you need to do in other games. But generally in games, it's common sense to not allow yourself to get undermined. I've had my fair share of being circlejerked against for at least the last 6-8 years here, I've had people jumping on different factions to metagame against stations I've made, and I've had oorp alliances happen. (ever seen an Order| ally with a Keeper. ???) I KNOW what it's like to get bandwagoned against - and let me restate the fact that you aren't always at fault, I know that. It's pretty sad when hl2rp servers have higher consistency standards of roleplay when compared to disco sometimes. (yes, heavily derailing, but let's get back to the point)
Not all people can grief by destroying bases, they can also be a pest with building it too. What about factions without official groups? How would getting official backing work without a native official faction?
Side note, no IDs mention 'can attack POBs' - but this is still present. I don't think they're treated as transports by the rules.
Quote: Can attack any ships within their Zone of Influence, except transports.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Jadon King - 07-02-2018
Yeah I'm with Lyth on this one.
If you want to say that she was asking for it because she didn't put a shield generator on her bases because she was a faction that dealt with all sides as equals and those factions allowed it.
You can't complain about Aoi Isejin and Das Wilde Hunting Auxesia.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Kauket - 07-02-2018
(07-02-2018, 11:55 PM)Jadon King Wrote: Yeah I'm with Lyth on this one.
If you want to say that she was asking for it because she didn't put a shield generator on her bases because she was a faction that dealt with all sides as equals and those factions allowed it.
You can't complain about Aoi Isejin and Das Wilde Hunting Auxesia.
1 person =/= 8 people
read the post clearly.