+- 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: Dear devs and admins: (/showthread.php?tid=84350)
Dear devs and admins: - _FUNK - 07-23-2012
What if PBs were modified, so that only a certain amount of damage can be dealt to it in a certain period of time (maximum of x %, then 30 minutes of invulnerability, just an example). And then what if bases were modified so that they were able to move. You could theoretically have short lag bursts and the potential to hide your base in between those moments, given that you push off the invaders. This might even put off the 12 battleship mortar fire that you talked about, since bases will be practically able to dodge. I don't understand the FL engine that much, but I suppose this would mean bases will be ships with mobile docking rings and unlimited docking capacity. Someone would have to actually fly the base. If there is a way to make it so that the base doesn't go away after its pilot F1s - this could perhaps work.
Then again - you could just implement some really hardcore base defense system that will throw most raiders off, making siege situations less common.
Dear devs and admins: - Prysin - 07-23-2012
' Wrote:Actually, I think Daedric is right, albeit slightly snarky. (Which is fine, it's Spazzy after all.)
Anyone remember the days of the massive faction battles? Where we'd have the BHG|Core vs Order battles, where'd there'd be 20 ships in a single system all pewing at each other? WHILE everyone else was still on the server - that's the key thing. You get 100 players out in all the systems spread across Sirius, and then concentrate 20 additional people in one system shooting at them, server stability goes into the toilet.
Which is odd - because we were possible, without any issue, to have 50 people in about 3 systems shooting the heck out of each other and not have ANY issues whatsoever. (Thinking back to the special events I ran.)
I know what it is - Freelancer doesn't like having lots of players! Seriously though - there has to be some certain number that once it's reached for universe population, and then you concentrate 10 people in one system pewing - that's where the problem lies. Finding that number - meh - that's not what I do. <Summon code monkeys!>
aye, good old Gamma raids; 25 OC caps n snubs duke it out against whoever can actually log a corsair cap...
Minor raids; 10 threshers enter, 30 osirises undocks from ISIS (yup, that happened once, i was there, BHG Lost all their ships, Order lost some 20 or so Ossies before half of them reengaged)
PoB is infact a major "lag" inducer. As i see it, there is but three solutions
A; remove PoB, sell JD/Cloaks and Docking modules at ridiculous prices at guard stations
B; get a new server box with better hardware
C; make attackers do more damage to shielded base, just 2% more damage is enough to make a base siege be over really fast
Option A is way extreme, but its an option non-the-less, B is tricky too, we pay outta our own pockets, and this server litterally runs on goodwill alone.
C is probably the best answer, but that will leave individuals with the grand delusion that "bases should be possible to supply and maintain alone" crying.... Bases without a massive support network would fail, but hey. This game should be about teamwork anyway, just too damn sad to see so many "loners" run around on the server, silently grinding money/kills or whatever to get a few nice things for themselves.
Dear devs and admins: - Blackvertigo1 - 07-23-2012
' Wrote:C; make attackers do more damage to shielded base, just 2% more damage is enough to make a base siege be over really fast
Biased to anti-player bases, *cough*.
Not being biased would probably suit better. You need both sides to loose resources. Finding that loosing resources helps RP.
By the way, "shielded base" is only applicable if the base has a shield bar.
Dear devs and admins: - Miranda - 07-23-2012
C isnt a bad idea Prysin. I wonder though how much is a server issue and how much is a decade old code and engine running on hope alone? If its a server issue maybe we just need a paypal button at the top of the page. Im sure with a small funding drive we could raise enough cash for an upgrade.
Dear devs and admins: - Blackvertigo1 - 07-23-2012
' Wrote:C isnt a bad idea Prysin. I wonder though how much is a server issue and how much is a decade old code and engine running on hope alone? If its a server issue maybe we just need a paypal button at the top of the page. Im sure with a small funding drive we could raise enough cash for an upgrade.
Way to encourage server attacks.
Dear devs and admins: - Ipuvaepe - 07-23-2012
Players bases should be under no circumstances easier to siege than they are now. No, just no, there is no intelligence behind such a notion.
Dear devs and admins: - Miranda - 07-23-2012
' Wrote:Way to encourage server attacks.
Huh?
Dear devs and admins: - Daedric - 07-23-2012
Regarding option C.
I'm almost certain, though an admin can correct me, that the dev/admin team has made it clear if bases are made easier to kill they will also be easier to build and maintain.
I'm not against it, just remember that the reason they are balanced the way they are now is because of the time, effort, and cost of building and maintaining one and due to the fact that defeat is permanent as opposed to ship defeat which has a handy respawn button.
Dear devs and admins: - farmerman - 07-23-2012
You know, I notice all these problems seem to be when there are lots of caps around. You could always remove player capships. I'm not entirely serious though.
I remember there had been an idea about using multiple connected server computers to run the server. Would something like that be possible but only for systems that are drawing a lot of resources? That'd be cool, if not necessarily practical.
I think removing player bases at this point would just be more counterproductive than anything.
Dear devs and admins: - Prysin - 07-23-2012
First of all, i WAS a base owner, it got blown up. then i helped blow up ONE base, so im in no way biased. I Lost one, i destroyed one... I consider myself outta the "bias" question since iv'e been on both sides.
bases ARE too hard to siege... you need a minimum of 4 people to keep a lvl 1 base w/shield running while under siege.
You need a MINIMUM of 10 9m Core Dreadnoughts with 3 cerb turrets shooting continuously without interuptions at all for about 2 hours + to destroy the same base. If even ONE cap is lost, you fail killing it.
The average cost for a LVL 1 Base w/shield and Storage is around 3-400m, maybe more if you hire folks to bring you the goods,
Yes that is expensive. Contrary, it costs 4 850 000 000 to set up the attack force....
and you talk about "expenses"???
IF we go by the assumption that said attack force is created from scratch to destroy that base, said base can be rebuilt about 10 times before the base builder has spent as much money as the attackers...
Now if we add cap armors into that to survive the inevitable bomber and BS spam that will come to stop their siege we are WELL above 13 billions. TO SIEGE A BASE....
cost is an argument? i think not.
EDIT; its also harder to assemble a fleet large enough to siege a base, then it is to build one.
EDit 2;
4 850 000 000 = Legate/Ranseur dreadnought pluss roughly 50m worth of guns
10x 850 000 000 = 8 500 000 000 + "base cost" = 8 500 000 000 + 4 850 000 000 = 13 350 000 000 total cost for 10 legates w/guns and armor.