+- 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. - Lythrilux - 07-03-2018
(07-02-2018, 11:50 PM)Auzari Wrote: 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.
Seems like this needs clarification.
(07-02-2018, 11:59 PM)Auzari Wrote:(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.
Numbers are irrelevant. Whilst I won't say that |Aoi shooting Auxesia every now and then is bad in itself, but if we did it 24/7 and jumped on you whenever you logged in, that would be bad. Toxicity is toxicity, regardless of how many players are involved.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Jadon King - 07-03-2018
(07-02-2018, 11:59 PM)Auzari Wrote: read the post clearly.
I did. My issue is, you seem to not mind the fact that this person did it purely out of spite. When you and Auxesia would complain about Aoi Isejin ganking you in Inverness (And I'm not counting myself from this, I complained about it in length as well.) Keep in mind that Aoi does have /some/ reason to do what they do. Being a PVP centered faction that goes after anything they see fit. But you (And I did as well) take as a personal slight against Auxesia. This WAS a heavy handed slight against the player. And the fallout has been heavily effecting me. (One of the factions I'm in is getting flak for this.)
There needs to be /something/ to regulate these base sieges. A single post in Stories and Biographies, or a message dump in faction threads should not be enough to carry out a siege. (Nomads excluded because... How would you even? Nomads aren't going to ring up a base and go "Hey uhh... Yeah we're breaking that thing.)
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Nodoka Hanamura - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 12:09 AM)Jadon King Wrote:(07-02-2018, 11:59 PM)Auzari Wrote: read the post clearly.
I did. My issue is, you seem to not mind the fact that this person did it purely out of spite. When you and Auxesia would complain about Aoi Isejin ganking you in Inverness (And I'm not counting myself from this, I complained about it in length as well.) Keep in mind that Aoi does have /some/ reason to do what they do. Being a PVP centered faction that goes after anything they see fit. But you (And I did as well) take as a personal slight against Auxesia. This WAS a heavy handed slight against the player. And the fallout has been heavily effecting me. (One of the factions I'm in is getting flak for this.)
There needs to be /something/ to regulate these base sieges. A single post in Stories and Biographies, or a message dump in faction threads should not be enough to carry out a siege. (Nomads excluded because... How would you even? Nomads aren't going to ring up a base and go "Hey uhh... Yeah we're breaking that thing.)
I second this notion. I understand that Susu should have had shields on her base (Something of which, before the whole damn base was torn down - Kruger, O-| and ABH were working on helping her get going) - But this is deflecting fault inherently onto her. The attacker's intentions were blatantly belligerent out of RP, which is a problem. Toxicity is a problem in disco, and sadly always will be, but actually trying to dissuade people from matching it with inRP belligerence would do more good than harm, and actually deter people from taking such actions.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Vexykin - 07-03-2018
(07-02-2018, 11:15 PM)Laura C. Wrote:(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.
Core one validation 24 Hours with a 8 Hour prep time, with a 1 Month Cooldown.
Solved...
Or alternatively leave 3 days still, because you know PoB construction was always considered to be more of a group effort rather than solo shiny toys, but we were given the mercy that if we want to devote our lives to a personal PoB , we can do so...
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Kauket - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 12:09 AM)Jadon King Wrote:(07-02-2018, 11:59 PM)Auzari Wrote: read the post clearly.
I did. My issue is, you seem to not mind the fact that this person did it purely out of spite.
I do mind, and I already voiced how he was silly for doing it. You're letting your anger get ahead of yourself, hell you kinda ragequit without really talking to me indepth, not to mention I was busy playing Fallout and focusing on that. You're not even reading my posts, I said BOTH were at fault, more so on the attacker. Like I said with the baby in the park annotation, you don't just leave things undefended, you can prevent a singular person from harming like that, it's much harder to repel a group of people. It's still wrong, no matter how many people.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - DarkTails - 07-03-2018
The most blatantly obvious issue, regardless of defensive actions taken by the defenders, is the lack of consequence for the attackers. The primary issue in my eyes is, it's way to easy to pull off blatant BS like this. Be it a new player or fresh alt, a base siege notice can be posted by about anyone for the dumbest, senseless reasons. And ofcourse, without many defending allies it's hard to defend on your own, but the attacking side has absolutely zero responsibility. All that happens to them is restock fees and respawn in 2 hours like a normal pvp death.
Risk has to be added to the attackers, with the higher the base level, the higher the risk. Especially if some people typically log in the down time, most defenders may be asleep and/or at work or attending to IRL. This gives them riskless free opportunity to siege. Sure weapons platforms are invincible now but people will and probably already have found ways to circumvent most of the protection offered by such gun platforms. Adding a tax seems like a good temporary idea until a good one, putting real risk on the attackers' part, can be made. Atleast with a tax players are forced to make some form of risk of their own to take down dozens of hours of another players work.
And yes, Wesker, sieges do need some balance, which right now, they entirely lack.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Unseelie - 07-03-2018
First point, I think this poll is disingenuous: It divides the "no" vote, while leaving the "yes" vote intact. There's actually more noes here than yesses.
And furthermore, I really strongly feel that this is not a problem that ought be addressed through adding rules. That is, first of all, a stopgap measure made well out of "rp" or...the universe, when this community is actually the group who controls said. Not able to speak for what the development team intends PoBs to be, I hope to be forgiven for saying that they, of course, could be better implemented, and really think the discussion ought be about what simple variables in the engine have caused this problem, rather than what rules that people might not even read, might try to alleviate it.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Shiki - 07-03-2018
Any action should be mirrored.
For example: If only official factions can attack it, then only official faction can build it.
I am not sure what is this nonsense about making sieges HARDER. They should be made easier, so Core 4 and 5 bases will become killable. They are practically immortal now, and this isn't right.
About unsatisfactory or nonsensical inRP reasons... who is here to judge? Like yeah, let's make sieges admin voted player requests. This is going to work well.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Shiki - 07-03-2018
And one more thing. Even Core one can hold siege for days if you actually bother to defend it. This is how you make sieges not easy for your enemy, just defend it instead of whining.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Lythrilux - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 01:15 AM)Sicicega Wrote: About unsatisfactory or nonsensical inRP reasons... who is here to judge? Like yeah, let's make sieges admin voted player requests. This is going to work well.
If players want to upgrade their POB, they have to make a request. Past Core 3, they have to show the POB has done adequate roleplay and contributed to the server before they get the blueprint - this request can also be denied. Why should sieges be any different to that? Why do sieges get to bypass being processed or reviewed for adequate RP, when the POB owners who have infinitely more to lose have to be held to a much higher standard? As you said, any action should be mirrored.
Sieges do need to be made harder because right now attackers have nothing to lose. It's insanely unfair. Even in regards to Core 4 (which really are not immortal) and 5 bases, the owners of those bases can lose everything whilst the attackers lose only several hours of their time. It's imbalanced beyond belief. This is not right.
(07-03-2018, 01:34 AM)Sicicega Wrote: And one more thing. Even Core one can hold siege for days if you actually bother to defend it. This is how you make sieges not easy for your enemy, just defend it instead of whining.
And they blew it up anyway when no one was around to properly defend it. That's not solid game mechanics.