![]() |
|
Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - Printable Version +- 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: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas (/showthread.php?tid=160701) |
RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - Blodwyn O'Driscoll - 05-03-2018 Voted NO : Base within 15K are already limited to core 2, which make them easier to siege. There's house and variuous organizations'law. And last : bases are siegeable and destroyable anyway. RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - SnakThree - 05-03-2018 (05-03-2018, 03:54 AM)Darkseid667 Wrote: What Inquest2 said. We have enough House laws already that cover this topic. Voted no. Not all systems are covered under laws and not every house has strict POB rules. Gameplay should be more important than some inRP laws that may or may not exist in the first place RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - Hammerhead - 05-03-2018 What Inquest2 said. We have enough House laws already that cover this topic. Voted no. [/quote] Not all systems are covered under laws and not every house has strict POB rules. Gameplay should be more important than some inRP laws that may or may not exist in the first place [/quote] We get you are a pirate, and want the server to run your way. And you probably don't want to adapt to the inevitable reality that adapting to a declining server population is necessary. The fact you mention gameplay should be more important than inRP laws is contradictory to creating a variety of RP's in the gameplay in the first place. Nothing worse than the same old stale style of canned RP in every system. Homogenised hell. House's have the freedom to decide. The server rules are effective. RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - SnakThree - 05-03-2018 Ah yes. The good old "you are X so you are wrong" argument. I am a player concerned with the well-being of this community. And I have spent more time trading than pirating while still advocating for better gameplay for all sides. RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - sasapinjic - 05-03-2018 Voted NO , because then guys who loves blue messages will have no POBs to destroy every day , and they will turn to picking newbies in Pennsylvania . Also , i don't see problem with POBs near minings fields , real pirates pirate only big transports full of gold on trade-lines , they don't pick weaklings miners that in 95 % of cases don't have any guns except mining ones ! RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - SnakThree - 05-03-2018 (05-03-2018, 09:01 AM)sasapinjic Wrote: Voted NO , because then guys who loves blue messages will have no POBs to destroy every day , and they will turn to picking newbies in Pennsylvania . Real pirate doesn't care who to pirate. RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - Felipe - 05-03-2018 (05-03-2018, 09:01 AM)sasapinjic Wrote: Voted NO , because then guys who loves blue messages will have no POBs to destroy every day , and they will turn to picking newbies in Pennsylvania . Well, i havent voted yes for the pirates alone, are many reasons, one is stealing Wesker fun! Another is that, whelp, really incentivate lone-silent-filling, meaning ppl dont need interact with no one. Yes, many times needing fill pob i wanted be able to do it alone, but half the game fun for me are the mining ops! RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - Karlotta - 05-03-2018 (05-02-2018, 05:21 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Quick summary of arguments: A fourth, fifth,and sixth argument against POBs in minind field added to the list in the spoiler are: -They break the teamwork mining balance, as for example a BMM clydesdale solo-mining next to a POB outclasses all teamwork efforts in efficiency, and also outclasses the more expensive hegemon which is intended for solo mining -They make piracy impossible for someone who doesnt have a cloaking device, which is unfair to people who cant afford them, and breaks the creditgrinder->pirate->police food chain that is the lifeblood of activity -A base in a mining field draws activity away from a base built in a distance that is fair to pirates, wasting the efforts of the people who tried to stay fair for pirates RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - sasapinjic - 05-03-2018 (05-03-2018, 09:11 AM)SnakThree Wrote:(05-03-2018, 09:01 AM)sasapinjic Wrote: Voted NO , because then guys who loves blue messages will have no POBs to destroy every day , and they will turn to picking newbies in Pennsylvania . Dont mix REAL Pirate and petty thief , difference is huge . REAL PIrate ( for a sake of discussion , history Pirates age Pirates ) , Successful Pirate whose name mean something and who had some dignity . And we mainly take role models from those pirates and act like them in this game . Would Pirate Henry Morgan for example pillage fishing boats with his Frigate ? No , he will ignore them and attack only Merchant ships , Cities , War ships and other objects WORTHY of his attention . And same in this game , REAL Pirate will not waste his time with poor miner . On other hand , desperate , low life , worthless thief and "wanna be pirate" , now this kind will attack or pickpocket anybody , but they are not considered REAL pirates , they are just scum of society . And same in this game , you cant call one who pillage simple miners REAL Pirate , he is not , he is a petty thief . RE: Poll - POBs and Mining Areas - Sand-Viper - 05-03-2018 @sasapinjic, A miner should not be immune to piracy because he chose to be a miner instead of a hauler. A miner without weapons is simply asking to be pirated. In fact, a miner with all mining lasers could be seen as greedy as the pirates knocking on their hull frames for creds. A miner has the capability to sacrifice mining speed for more weapons. Miners are forced to sit still in one spot and regularly it is the same spot. Haulers do not sit still. A pirate who is in it for the $$$ would be a fool not to target a miner! This is not the 17th century. Honor and dignity will get you killed in the year 825 A.S. Space is dangerous! (Still on the fence as far as voting is concerned, but I feel that this had to be said). |