(06-01-2020, 02:57 PM)Haste Wrote: By not using the same ridiculously flawed mechanics of requiring Battleships to kill a platform

(06-01-2020, 03:01 PM)Sava Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 02:49 PM)Shiki Wrote: Its about player balance and not balance dev as I see it.

When defenders and attackers mainly live in different timezones, it becomes very one-sided, don't you think so?
Attackers can do their thing unopposed, while the defenders don't even have stuff to shoot at by the time they log.
Platforms or siege factories could solve this issue.

(06-01-2020, 03:04 PM)Shiki Wrote: Dev balance is considering basic mechanics and numbers in parameters. Players involved in each and every interaction and their timezones cannot be considered by the balance team. Not with the metric tools that are available

Spoiler

1) POBs should be made as temporary as they called. Conception should be based around fast to deploy - fast to kill.

To achieve this i propose drop out in window recipes with 1000500 of garbage to deploy base and build base's module, Instead, implement "base construction kits" commodities with certain characteristics:

• Very high price - so you invest your credits, and its actual money sinks from the economy.
• Big volume - player forced to haul it on transport. This is just organisational moment to spice risks and RP behind building (i.e. you can't just deliver all modules on LF, which nobody can intercept.)

Example:

• "Modular Base Core" - 700 volume, 250-500+ millions. (this is starting module for BCP deployment)
• "Modular Base Storage" - 1000-1500 volume, 100-300 millions.
• "Modular Base Shield Generator" - 1000-1500 volume, 500 millions.
• "Modular Base Core Extension" - 1000-1500 volume, 1 billion.
• And etc..

To balance risks, or to create chances for cargo piracy, or to allow place PoB somewhere in uncharted asshole, or to set bigger price without breaking freelancer money limits, it obviously can be divided on like 5-10 of 1000-1500 volume commodities required to build a module. Like, make shield generator constructed from 10 parts with 1000 volume, cost 50 million every. Or like, core extension from 20 parts with cost 100 mils every.

That just shouldn't go further than 1-2 5kers per module. Players should waste their time farming that money on conventional trade routes or on missions to benefit healthy interactions.

2) POBs-related mining and ore distribution should be studied, considered and regulated.

The best way here, make plugin check if player inside some dummy area and prevent BCP deploy inside it, implement those spherical areas in every volume, where we don't want to see PoBs. For example, placing POB ~60k out of the field can naturally solve economic and piracy issues. That way, miners groups who use excavator-dump truck gameplay won't be harmed, solo relog mode - discouraged.

3) POB maintenance should be separated from POB production.

Nuff said, separate "Modular Base Maintenance Kits" commodity, with a high price. Selling locations of them along with base factories materials should be considered to favor POBs along main roads, preferably industrial. POB should be startup business project/or Tamagotchi for wealthy boys. Money consuming, not time.

Obviously there more and more else what i didn't covered here, but those - critical.

Spoiler

So let's speak about siege time setting. If we speak about the mechanic of it, the first comparison which rises to minds - EVE citadels.
So how it works?
Citadel depends on size, have several hours in a week, during which it can be sieged. Siege going in 3 stages, defence on any means drop of stage counter. Lose of 3rd defence means base go boom.

What main gameplay conceptions we see there?

• Elementary act of siege short, but have multiple stages.
• The owner should set time when his base can be sieged. Time depends on size and sector safety.

So how we can achieve this crap in freelancer?

1) Specialised siege weapon, which success of usage determined by control of space.

I think it should be big, ammo-based (for economic purposes) gun. Missiles, unfortunately, can be countered without achieving space superiority. Should be BS, BCr and cruisers variants. It should deal dmg to POBs only.

2) The owner should be able to set time window in UTC when the base will be vulnerable (like 2-4 hours long period in a day).

During this vulnerability period, the base shouldn't repair at all and should suck all intended damage from a specialised weapon.

3) The base should have 2-3 step by step sieged phases before die, and be able to repair itself if one phase failed.

If we take 3 steps, siegers should be able to deal no more than 2/4 damage per vulnerability time. The base should repair 1/4 for the time between sieging. So if siegers not fail, they will kill it in the last phase.

The main problem with it - adjustments of plugin required. Without forcing siege gameplay in short (2-3 hours max) stages, we will have cancer, whatever repair rates or economic behind it we will set.

Spoiler

There have been some Attack Declarations that have been an excuse for a Fight. The Attackers turn up, fire a few shots at the Base and wait for the Defenders to organise and turn up. Fight ensues, everyone is happy. If the Attackers win, they go back home and talk about how good they were. Losers cry to themselves and tell each other how they will do better next time.

(06-01-2020, 04:14 PM)Anton Okunev Wrote: No, ammo shouldn't be related to POB. This is should be the PROPER money sink instead.

Quote:Making siege POB-related means that defenders can shoot stuff, too, partially solve the timezone issue, and on its own could be an improvement to what we have now.
An inherent irony of this proposition is what makes it particularly attractive to me Smile

(06-01-2020, 01:10 PM)Sava Wrote:

(06-01-2020, 01:04 PM)Groshyr Wrote: I had and still have pobs. Few of them were sieged but we managed to defend it without whining about "reee, make battleships destructible" or "reee, add rules to protect pobs from any siege". Maybe the problem is not sieges but pobs plugin itself? The only good thought came from LaWey in one of your 100500 threads, full of tears.

This is my 1st POB thread, it's flooding with bile, not tears.
The suggestion is to force attackers to use POBs, making them vulnerable to the very treatment they offer. Making it more similar to regular PvP.
To kill a ship, you need a ship. To kill a base, you need a base. Simple as that.

(06-01-2020, 05:01 PM)Binski Wrote: I dont mind that suggestion at all. It is easy for a faction to just capship up and go sieging. On an RP server, if they really cared, they'd wouldn't mind? So you can build a fleet but to go on the offensive against POB's, you have to have your own POB. That way both sides have need to defend something, and to maintain the ability to fully function. But, most players would say its not worth it to play anymore if they have to do all that just go go sieging. That would separate the hardcore RP'ers from the those just here for pvp.

(06-01-2020, 05:25 PM)Grumblesaur Wrote: If "hardcore RPers" need to be separated from the PVP environment, perhaps they should just stay on the forums. Wanna RP without losing pixel bases? Write fanfiction. That's a single-player activity. Nobody is entitled to keep their established status quo unchallenged.