+- 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: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers (/showthread.php?tid=144373)
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Shush Muppet - 10-18-2016
Well, you could always make it so that the only weapons that deal damage to base structures are ammo based warheads. That way it costs something to seige on the attacker side. Would make missiles and Torps have a purpose again.
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Lorelii_Darksaint - 10-18-2016
I guess it's time to express my own opinion... and I'll start by saying that I can see some merit in just about all the ideas that have been expressed.
It's my opinion that when you build or buy a PoB, you go into it knowing that there is some risk involved... but you do it anyways because you want to see if the reward our weighs the inherent dangers. So you pick a system (and if you're smart) apply for the proper permits from the local authorities in R/P, and in turn assume at least so me minimal sort of protection for you and your crew. Under the previous assumption, you build your base investing a considerable amount of time and money in construction costs and supplies.
Then you get noticed by an unlawful faction... more time and money is spent trying to negotiate "protection" so "something bad" doesn't happen to your base. And here's where I think it starts to get sticky. There is no real limit on what a reasonable offer for protection is... it's entirely up to the leader of the unlawful faction. They have the choice to keep the price reasonable -or- just a bit uncomfortable and look at the credits as a source of steady income. Or the cost of protection is so high it is impossible for the base owner to come up with every month and a siege against the base can be planned for.
My first questions to consider: Should in R/P extortion... er... protection offer attempts be kept fairly reasonable? And what constitutes a reasonable offer?
My answer: Keep it reasonable, perhaps with a set range of credits per level of the base. It gives both parties involved a bit of room to R/P with offer and counter offer, before a Siege is threatened.
Ok, now negotiations have broken down to the point where a PoB Siege has been properly announced. As a base owner (again, if you're smart) is now planning for the worst. Their base that has been their reason for coming on the server every day is going to be attacked.
Next questions to consider: When there is a PoB base Siege announced, and if a call for assistance made in R/P, should the lawful factions of that area commit to the bases defense? Should the attackers commit to a smaller window of attack so some sort of defense be planned by the base owner?
My answer: With as much R/P as involved with House officials in making a PoB, the lawful house factions should be obligated to field a certain number of defenders as increased patrols during the attack period. A smaller window of opportunity for the attack does not preclude the surprise attack tactics, and it also allows the defense to be readied.
By good fortune the first Siege attack has failed, your base still stands and as a player you realize that you've gotten lucky... this time. But you also know that the time for the attack is not over, and you'd like to re-open negotiations with the attacker as you've seen "their point of view".
Last questions to consider: Should there be a mechanic/rule change that allows for base surrender vs. base destruction? If the attackers get fought off, what losses or penalties do they incur and should they be allowed to attack again and again and immediately?
My answer: There should be some sort of surrender opportunity, but it should come with a steep price once the Siege has started. Associated costs could be considered to repair damaged systems, equipment and breached hull sections... again price should be based on the level of the PoB. If the attacker is fought off, they should have to withdraw from the Sieged base area for repairs and re-fit for a certain amount of time before they can resume the attack. It could be assumed that the damage inflicted costs a certain amount of credits that must be paid prior to the reopening of hostilities.
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Jack_Henderson - 10-18-2016
Okay, I will try to not do what you call as offtopic here.
The problem with the system atm (where you either do no damage at all, or kill it within < 2 hours) is that everything depends on the number of battleships an attacker can motivate to log at a given time. Key word: motivation.
Now, if you need more than 20 players to get Battleships that cost a lot, there has to be some very strong motivation to do that. Meaning in reality: People have to be mightily angry because no one in their right mind would waste time and money for an action that is 100 % no fun at all.
That's why only POBs that are in places that incite "hate" are attacked by large enough numbers to even have a chance to succeed. And that is where the "haters kill bases" idea comes from. It is somewhat right, anger is likely the only motivation that can motivate sufficiently big numbers to group up and do it.
If your base is not "hated", because it does not harm anybody (like most bases), you will likely not be attacked, demands will be bearable and generally such bases are tolerated or overlooked. Because: Why would anybody go to the length and waste his time and money on something that is no fun when there is no reason to be annoyed about it?
It's "live and let live" in that case.
And then there are the rare cases where there are whatever reasons (some more valid than others) to "hate" a POB for whatever reason. And when the anger and frustration level that is triggered by that POB is high enough, it becomes more likely that enough players group up to remove it. That's what is happening at the moment.
The system at the moment forces attackers to "pile the BS on" and to try to beat the repairs in an all out attack. Sieging, cutting supplies off, etc is not a valid strategy. Once the repair rate is beaten, the base is doomed, normally within less than 2 hours. If it cannot be beaten, nothing is going to happen at all.
The mechanics are far from perfect and that is known. It is no fun for a defender to wake up in the morning to see his base was popped 4 am after 2h of shooting. It sucks, to be honest.
There have been other systems suggested, like giving POBs A LOT more HP, but slowing down repairs considerably, so that base damage would not be completely repaired between attacks and could slowly "build up" over a longer period of time. That would be imo better than "beat repair = kill". Attackers would need to be go at it several times, however @Karst and some others tried to come up with numbers, but it proved just too complex.
I think however that the "a lot more HP" together with "slower repair" is a way to go.
Plus, to keep the hate levels from spilling over, we need better rules for placement of POBs that rule out any area denial, any blocking positions and any "avoid interaction" options, in my opinion. Disco is already short on interaction, we should not allow players to avoid interaction easily by the means of POBs. Also reducing hate levels by that would be good for the community in general, in my opinion.
Hope this is now the spirit you looked for, Skyelius.
Jack
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Clavius - 10-18-2016
(10-18-2016, 08:45 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Okay, I will try to not do what you call as offtopic here.
The problem with the system atm (where you either do no damage at all, or kill it within < 2 hours) is that everything depends on the number of battleships an attacker can motivate to log at a given time. Key word: motivation.
Now, if you need more than 20 players to get Battleships that cost a lot, there has to be some very strong motivation to do that. Meaning in reality: People have to be mightily angry because no one in their right mind would waste time and money for an action that is 100 % no fun at all.
That's why only POBs that are in places that incite "hate" are attacked by large enough numbers to even have a chance to succeed. And that is where the "haters kill bases" idea comes from. It is somewhat right, anger is likely the only motivation that can motivate sufficiently big numbers to group up and do it.
If your base is not "hated", because it does not harm anybody (like most bases), you will likely not be attacked, demands will be bearable and generally such bases are tolerated or overlooked. Because: Why would anybody go to the length and waste his time and money on something that is no fun when there is no reason to be annoyed about it?
It's "live and let live" in that case.
Solitaire didn't harm anybody and you saw what and how they did, same thing/people here, just different base
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Jack_Henderson - 10-18-2016
Not the same people, Clavius. That's a fact. I know lots who had no beef with S.M. and would not have logged for it who have no trouble finding motivation in this case now.
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Xenon - 10-18-2016
(10-18-2016, 08:45 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: If your base is not "hated", because it does not harm anybody (like most bases), you will likely not be attacked,
(10-18-2016, 08:50 PM)Clavius Wrote: Solitaire didn't harm anybody and you saw what and how they did, same thing/people here, just different base
I agree with @Clavius here and yes, it's always almost the same crew of people, just different bases and different characters.
I believe @Jack_Henderson that what is quoted from your words above is not happening on discovery with certain group of people, but i agree with you, that this should be the case so if a base give no harm then why would someone want to attack it? - I believe also that Solitaire Metropolis was a special case, because attacking it was based on a violation to server rules and good spirit gameplay but if you notice the cases before S.M and after S.M, you will find that bases are being attacked by minimal RP and no common sense at all, for example:
( Give me money every month of i will destroy your base ) , that's it - No detailed RP, no reason from the faction (raiders) lore
People must understand that if they don't like POBs then this does not give them the right to fake a reason and attack it, or deviate completely from their main lore and attack it
People must understand that if POBs are not their passion in game, IT is for others sometimes, their main reason for being on this server.
Discovery Server and Mod provides fun for POB lovers, PVP lovers, RP lovers and Trading lovers - It is a place for many people different kinds of fun so we must not let any kind of abuse to other people fun.
We need a better regulations regarding POBs and i am not talking about giving advantages to POB owners, NO, i am talking about balancing the situation so all kinds of players have fun without stepping on each others fun by abusing the system in a way or another.
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - GamerGirl - 10-18-2016
(10-18-2016, 08:45 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: That's why only POBs that are in places that incite "hate" are attacked by large enough numbers to even have a chance to succeed. And that is where the "haters kill bases" idea comes from. It is somewhat right, anger is likely the only motivation that can motivate sufficiently big numbers to group up and do it.So you admit your are just playing along and add more fuel to the fire? Just because it suits your best interest? May I add that you use your IMG station in the omega 7 system to dispatch the hessian ships? I think we should use this hate you call to POB's to the IMG in this case. Do I hear a docking bay hacking again?
If your base is not "hated", because it does not harm anybody (like most bases), you will likely not be attacked, demands will be bearable and generally such bases are tolerated or overlooked. Because: Why would anybody go to the length and waste his time and money on something that is no fun when there is no reason to be annoyed about it?
It's "live and let live" in that case.
And then there are the rare cases where there are whatever reasons (some more valid than others) to "hate" a POB for whatever reason. And when the anger and frustration level that is triggered by that POB is high enough, it becomes more likely that enough players group up to remove it. That's what is happening at the moment.
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Jack_Henderson - 10-18-2016
(10-18-2016, 09:35 PM)GamerGirl Wrote: So you admit your are just playing along and add more fuel to the fire? Just because it suits your best interest? May I add that you use your IMG station in the omega 7 system to dispatch the hessian ships? I think we should use this hate you call to POB's to the IMG in this case. Do I hear a docking bay hacking again?
Oh, wow. Right at the right time.
- I have just wasted more than an hour circling around Freistadt, making sure it is not used during the first round of the fighting.
- I requested a temporary rephack to Hessian IDs for the base siege period. Hope it gets through so that the siege happens the way it should happen: not from IMG bases.
- I asked an Admin for help who did a Console Message (threatening Hessian ships with deletion if they use Freistadt) to reinforce my warning while BDM| cloaked ships were doing nothing else but trying to catch excactly these Hessian ships undockine
I cannot do anything else.
So crawl back into your hole and keep your IMG hate to yourseelf or focus it on defending your base or on Hessians, because right after wasting time of my life on stupidity on the game just at this moment you are annoying me greatly at the worst possible time.
Read my statement again, if you are unable to understand it.
And... if you are clever, just request that move and save everybody this insanity that will happen. But... ye. A man can dream.
Jack
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Thyrzul - 10-18-2016
(10-18-2016, 08:45 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: There have been other systems suggested, like giving POBs A LOT more HP, but slowing down repairs considerably, so that base damage would not be completely repaired between attacks and could slowly "build up" over a longer period of time. That would be imo better than "beat repair = kill". Attackers would need to be go at it several times, however @Karst and some others tried to come up with numbers, but it proved just too complex.
Except it's not that complex - thought that's subjective, I admit, so perhaps it's better to say it's not too complex for me, but I digress. Should I have a few spare hours consecutively sometime in the upcoming days, I'll try to look up an ancient spreadsheet I got from @Karst and modified for my own calculations.
RE: POB Grieving and the Rule-Abiding Grievers - Shush Muppet - 10-19-2016
And here is a perfect example why there needs to be some rules about base sieging.
SEI DeltaBase Attack Announcement
No ultimatum, no discussion, heck the profile of this guy doesn't even have more than 5 posts to his name, a profile pic, or even an attempt at transmission bars. And yet, here he is claiming a base is in violation of Gallic law and immediately goes for the siege. That is NOT RP.
Really? How long has SEI DeltaBase even been in-game? Judging by the thread to the Junkers here, it was probably created TODAY.
That is a bunch of horse hockey. And it needs to stop.