+- 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: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? (/showthread.php?tid=100260)
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Jack_Henderson - 06-13-2013
(06-13-2013, 08:37 AM)Potter Harry Wrote: And you call that a good addition?
I already start to regret my post in your "Should we be allowed to return" thread.
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Zen_Mechanics - 06-13-2013
30 against 10 is a tiny number, given that we have more than 120000 members in this forum, I will leave this accord as it is, why don't you play rp in the vanilla then? This is a RP server yes, but its features are the only thing that keeps people dragging into this game, so dissmiss it as you want.
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Oystein Baadsvik - 06-13-2013
Well we built a whole faction around our first base and it has been a pleasure dealing with all the RP which has sprung as a result. If it weren't for bases my presence on disco would be very much diminished if I'd even still be here at all. From what I've seen the majority of bases do contribute what seems little and there are many which cause a stir and make me roll my eyes. But to me it is clearly down to the players running them. Unlike what Black Widow said you DO have time for RP and supplying them. It is very easy to even make RP out of the process of supplying them for instance.
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Potter Harry - 06-13-2013
(06-13-2013, 11:01 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: I already start to regret my post in your "Should we be allowed to return" thread.
It's not like any changes have been made yet. Regardless, I value your unexpected less-than-hostile view on the matter, but I still don't like you as a person, and shouldn't have to, but that doesn't mean coexistence is impossible.
Back to the topic at hand;
(06-13-2013, 10:09 AM)GTB Wrote: I don't blame some breaking the re-engagement rule to protect their base. Why shouldn't they when generally no RP takes place with them while under attack
Because rulebreaking does not warrant more rulebreaking. And even then, there aren't any real rules on baseraiding. To be honest, it's time some of them should be put together. It's like the whole basebuilding feature is in an abandoned alpha phase.
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Oorn - 06-13-2013
(06-13-2013, 11:24 AM)Potter Harry Wrote: Because rulebreaking does not warrant more rulebreaking. And even then, there aren't any real rules on baseraiding. To be honest, it's time some of them should be put together. It's like the whole basebuilding feature is in an abandoned alpha phase.
I chalenge you to write rules you think would work with bases. So far every successfull high level base siege involved ton of oorp alliances in order to work. Try imagening rules which will stop oorp while not making bases invincible.
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Potter Harry - 06-13-2013
(06-13-2013, 11:35 AM)Oorn Wrote: I chalenge you to write rules you think would work with bases. So far every successfull high level base siege involved ton of oorp alliances in order to work. Try imagening rules which will stop oorp while not making bases invincible.
Those alliance will always exist for as long as RP identities are connected to people. Only when everyone plays anonymous, you'd be able to get rid of those.
The rules I have in mind should exist to prevent, for instance, Zoners juggernauts shooting Zoner bases with no actual repercussions for it. Even a basic rule like..
"When attacking a player owned base, ensure you have diplomatic reason to do so."
Would already solve some issues and complaints. Add a rule which specifically states the inability to defend or supply a base using an ID which does not match the one of the owner of the base either neutrally or friendly, and you're pretty much good to go.
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Draconyx - 06-13-2013
(06-13-2013, 11:48 AM)Potter Harry Wrote: Those alliance will always exist for as long as RP identities are connected to people. Only when everyone plays anonymous, you'd be able to get rid of those.
The rules I have in mind should exist to prevent, for instance, Zoners juggernauts shooting Zoner bases with no actual repercussions for it. Even a basic rule like..
"When attacking a player owned base, ensure you have diplomatic reason to do so."
Would already solve some issues and complaints. Add a rule which specifically states the inability to defend or supply a base using an ID which does not match the one of the owner of the base either neutrally or friendly, and you're pretty much good to go.
What about the bases that have not fitted an affiliation?
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Karst - 06-13-2013
(06-13-2013, 11:48 AM)Potter Harry Wrote: The rules I have in mind should exist to prevent, for instance, Zoners juggernauts shooting Zoner bases with no actual repercussions for it. Even a basic rule like..
"When attacking a player owned base, ensure you have diplomatic reason to do so."
If I remember correctly, there are engagement rules of some sort regarding bases in the making.
Although really, there's already a rule in place that should prevent oorp diplomacy regarding POBs:
Quote:6.9 You must follow the restrictions/allowances of your ID, as well as the diplomacy of the NPC faction it represents. If your ID does not represent an NPC faction (generic IDs), then your reputation and conduct must match the actions of your character. You must not dock at bases that your NPC faction is hostile to, or attack allies of your NPC faction.So if you're supplying a Hessian base with your RepEx transport or attacking a base with an oorp alliance, you should be open to a 6.9 violation sanction.
Problem is, generally a base's ownership is not entirely obvious.
Now, about bases in general: Yes, I do think they add to server roleplay.
From my experience running a base for a while, it produced plenty of nice rp opportunities, even if it was just asking a certain faction to supply a certain product.
Or another example: I met an Outcast transport hauling what was obviously base supplies on my KSP funboat.
This gave me the opportunity to roleplay with him, and receive a massive bribe. Ahahaha!
It's the same as with players: If players don't roleplay, chances are their bases will serve no roleplay purpose, either.
Hell, it might even make players roleplay since a lolwut may build a base, and then be contacted by the local authorities and forced to roleplay.
Overall, they certainly need some work in the balancing department, but they are a great addition with massive potential.
Edit:
(06-13-2013, 12:35 PM)Draconyx Wrote: What about the bases that have not fitted an affiliation?They would be free game, or at least free game for anyone that would normally be able to kill stuff wherever they are.
That would be the price for not showing who owns the place.
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Potter Harry - 06-13-2013
(06-13-2013, 12:35 PM)Draconyx Wrote: What about the bases that have not fitted an affiliation?
If it's a reasonable neutral station such as a Freelancer or Zoner one, sure, anyone should be able to supply it. Defending it is as any ship you can think of is another thing, that part should be up to the Freelancers or Zoners who own the base.
In reality, military forces (which I mean any kind of combat ship belonging to any kind of faction) wouldn't waste their own resources on a random Zoner installation which doesn't even function as anything of interest to them besides one of the many potential destinations of cargo for a small profit.
Though that all seems a bit confusing already, and confusing rules are bad rules. I'd say it's a start, though, in the case of any initiative on the staff's part in creating such rules.
RE: So what's up with bases and Roleplay? - Potter Harry - 06-13-2013
(06-13-2013, 12:40 PM)Karst Wrote: If I remember correctly, there are engagement rules of some sort regarding bases in the making.
That's a good start, then.
(06-13-2013, 12:40 PM)Karst Wrote: Although really, there's already a rule in place that should prevent oorp diplomacy regarding POBs.
Problem is, generally a base's ownership is not entirely obvious.
Perhaps an IFF system for bases would be possible, the same way as when you accurately target an NPC base on your scanner (double click on the name of the base), it will show you which base its affiliated with.