+- 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: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases (/showthread.php?tid=111221)
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - Omi - 02-01-2014
(02-01-2014, 12:32 AM)Haste Wrote: [dutch genius calculations or something]
Assuming these are accurate:
As a self-professed POB 'hater', I guess this change makes me personally happy - but I empathise strongly with those who currently run POBs. A Core 4 taken down in half an hour by 10 battleships? Really?
Don't get me wrong, I think reducing the strength of bases is a very good idea, but (and this is coming from me) this might be a step too far. POBs may as well be removed altogether with this change, honestly, for all the time they'll last.
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - St.Denis - 02-01-2014
(02-01-2014, 12:47 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: Guys!
Listen up, all is not lost. If you worry about your base getting blasted, then install weapons platforms. The guns of a weapons platform can't be blown off anymore.
Furthermore, grab some player defense. Hire people to defend your base for you etc.
You were complaining about the Weapon Platforms before and how Over Powered they were. Now you are advocating the building of them. There are a few Bases out there that don't have WPs and pose no threat. I am sure that the required RP will be done just so that certain groups can destroy Bases.
How many people do you know that are willing to be ready at a minutes notice 24 hours a day? Some of us have lifes, which involve work, Wives/Girlfriends, Children etc that also require attention. Must a group plan their Year, deciding who can go on Holiday in which weeks so that there is constant cover for all the hard work that has been carried out over the last 18+ months (some of the existing Bases have been around that long).
Also now Players will have to Power Trade just to get the money together to pay the , fictitious group of people who will supply the 24 hour, 365 days a year cover.
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - Haste - 02-01-2014
Also, just so I'll have this posted in case it happens:
In before a developer posts an announcement that they had planned all along that base hitpoints are going up drastically as well, so that base owners have time to respond to a siege while limited numbers of caps will still be able to damage a base.
We're all just stupid for not knowing this before it was posted.
And it totally was planned all along - this decision to up base hitpoints was in fact not triggered by them reading the maths here and going "Oops".
(:
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - Sava - 02-01-2014
(02-01-2014, 12:55 AM)Wizard. Wrote: Aren't you sopose to be banned for heavy cheating during base siege?
Talking about irony here...
...sorry for off topic guys but i just had to,he's the last one who should be commenting here
Don't call me what I am not, mister CGS.
Also, banning anyone who knows what proxy is ends up nowhere.
Edit: I am one of those who began whinning that bases as they were are no fun long before this basechange drama started.
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - Treewyrm - 02-01-2014
Suggesting a brainstorm for alternative idea here: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=111226&pid=1476812#pid1476812
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - Lythrilux - 02-01-2014
(02-01-2014, 01:01 AM)St.Denis Wrote:(02-01-2014, 12:47 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: Guys!
Listen up, all is not lost. If you worry about your base getting blasted, then install weapons platforms. The guns of a weapons platform can't be blown off anymore.
Furthermore, grab some player defense. Hire people to defend your base for you etc.
You were complaining about the Weapon Platforms before and how Over Powered they were. Now you are advocating the building of them. There are a few Bases out there that don't have WPs and pose no threat. I am sure that the required RP will be done just so that certain groups can destroy Bases.
Don't take my point out of context. Now that bases are actually kill-able and not stationary battleships x10000 of death anymore, I'm much more open to there being weapons platforms situated around the PoB.
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - Karst - 02-01-2014
Before you bring up any argument on how bases should be balanced, please read these very simple calculations:
(02-01-2014, 12:32 AM)Haste Wrote: Core 4 base hitpoints =
24,000,000
Once repairs have been neutralized, damage per second of one additional battleship =
4,920
Time to actually destroy a core 4 base, in minutes =
24000000 / 4920 = 4878 seconds =
81.3 minutes
A little over an hour of sieging.
That's with a theoretical "8.3" heavy Battleships. With the actual feasible number of 9, it's about half that time.
Do you think you can cover a base around the clock to the extent that you'll be able to respond in time to a siege that's over in 80 minutes?
I can answer that question.
No.
Of course, how a Core 2 base with far less hitpoints that also happens to die to half the number of battleships is supposed to ever make it to core 4 in the first place is.. A mystery, too.
We're talking about well-supplied, high level bases going down in an hour against a relatively achievable number of battleships.
I don't think anyone's going to argue that player bases weren't too difficult to destroy previously, or that it's not a very sensitive balance that needs to be struck between the effort required from both sides.
But simply suddenly quartering shield effectiveness is too radical. It doesn't really matter how much easier they are to supply, if literally any base can be removed in that sort of time frame. Nobody is going to go through the process of building a base, supplying it, and doing everything necessary for these upgrades if bases can be unavoidably removed so abruptly - not to mention no base will actually survive long enough to get to that point.
I'd like to suggest at this point what I did a long time ago: lower shield effectiveness, lower regen, vastly higher base hit points. Having lower shield effectiveness is good, because previously the server simply couldn't handle the amount of battleships necessary to actually damage a base.
At the same time, lower regeneration would mean a siege doesn't become entirely fruitless if interrupted. If heavy damage has been done to the base and the siege force is removed, the base would still be more vulnerable for a longer time afterwards.
Finally, depending on just how effective the shield is set to be, the base hitpoints need to be increased by a massive factor. Base defenders need to have much more time to their base being under siege.
Edit: That having been said, I do like the other changes regarding core upgrades. Getting a higher-level base will require something more than pure manpower, which is great.
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - Jack_Henderson - 02-01-2014
(02-01-2014, 12:53 AM)Sava Wrote:(02-01-2014, 12:45 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Look at who were the most successful base hunter groups were.If they were successfull, what's so lolwut about them?
A significant part of them are permabanned now, a large number of caps involved are banned and rotting in Bastille and it is linked to cheating on a large scale.
Answer enough?
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - Jack_Henderson - 02-01-2014
(02-01-2014, 12:57 AM)Soul Reaper Wrote: And if you also include the psychology of the discovery community into the parameters..well, that basically means any base that isn't a Core 5 will probably be shat on.
Everyone's base will die because gathering a few battleships in a timezone where the base owners aren't around isn't really hard to achieve. QQ will happen, and then the devs will probably try and implement a system that EVE uses in order to compensate for the timezone problem and then fail horribly with the coding and implementation (of course, they might not even try to get around the timezone problem). Then, QQ will continue and bases will be buffed a tad more to make sure they aren't that easily destroyed but the old destroyed bases won't be given back to the players even though it was a dev decision to nerf them anyway, more QQ, then, well, nothing will happen, disco will continue as it has done for the past years, in tears.
Boring.
Wow.
I agree with Burak.
For the first time in my life.
RE: Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases - Haste - 02-01-2014
(01-30-2014, 10:02 PM)Kazinsal Wrote:(01-30-2014, 01:31 PM)Papa Oomaumau Wrote: SRP by forum RP + in game event(s)
Or remove entirely
This. Really the only option unless we want bases that go up and cap (say, at core 2) in a few hours and go down in a few minutes flat while the owner's not watching.
I just read this again, and found it amusing to post it in this very thread.