+- 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. - sasapinjic - 07-03-2018
It was alwais my opinion that siedges shuld cost money to attackers as.well.
If owner of POB can loose bilions of credits if its POB is destroyed , then why the heck attacking party cant pay measly 100 M or so (hole attacking group total pays 100 M , so thats 10 M each if there is 10 attackers) per attack declaration ? Exceptions are those just builded POBs that are out of place and shuld be destroyed for free .
Every punishment expedition have to spend lots of money to finance army, there shuld not be diference here , especialy becouse this server takes pride with RP element .
Want to feel all mighty by destroying somones hard work, then pay miserable 100 M .
Cant afford it or you are to cheapstick ? Go kill unarmed traders then, thats free !
I was proposing this several times ,but , well situation is still favorite by POB griefers .
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - E X O D I T E - 07-03-2018
The problem with sieges is that overwhelming gank fleets are required to even damage the base, and defenders more often than not trickle in. This causes a defeat by eating them one at a time until they're all pvp dead.
Also, those people who just shoot the base in snubs to drain fuel every few minutes, they're a pain in the ass to deal with.
Siege mechanics suck, sure, but I'll stick to the suckiness I know rather than a whole new level of paperwork.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Thyrzul - 07-03-2018
1. Buff hull points and nerf repair rates big time.
2. Introduce the requirement of a commodity costing 100m to base deployment.
3. Involve the staff more in RP QC regarding attack declaration justification, 8 and 24 hrs should give enough time for that too.
4. ???
5. Profit.
End of story.
2. Introduce the requirement of a commodity costing 100m to base deployment.
3. Involve the staff more in RP QC regarding attack declaration justification, 8 and 24 hrs should give enough time for that too.
4. ???
5. Profit.
End of story.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Laura C. - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 01:35 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: 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.
So RP of base owners is evaluated when they want to go past core 3, but RP of attackers should be evaluated even for core 1? How is that fair and not a double standard?
By the way there will be never an equality when it comes to high core bases which exist for months or even years. It´s basically not possible by any mechanism. Unless you want to "make it fair" by forcing attackers to spend same amount of time what the constructions and mantaining took, what would make those bases basically indestructible because no one will bother to siege base for weeks or even months. And if you make the destruction possible within some reasonable timeframe, then there still will be complaints it´s unfair (not to mention that any attrition warfare will end with attackers shooting the base in low activity hours with parked afk caps with locked right mouse button what will again end with owners complaining they can´t be defending their base 24/7 so it´s....unfair).
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Lythrilux - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 10:26 AM)Laura C. Wrote:(07-03-2018, 01:35 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: 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.
So RP of base owners is evaluated when they want to go past core 3, but RP of attackers should be evaluated even for core 1? How is that fair and not a double standard?
I did not say anything relating to that in the post you quoted. It is only Core 2 and higher that is processed via some form of request.
(07-03-2018, 10:26 AM)Laura C. Wrote: By the way there will be never an equality when it comes to high core bases which exist for months or even years. It´s basically not possible by any mechanism. Unless you want to "make it fair" by forcing attackers to spend same amount of time what the constructions and mantaining took, what would make those bases basically indestructible because no one will bother to siege base for weeks or even months. And if you make the destruction possible within some reasonable timeframe, then there still will be complaints it´s unfair (not to mention that any attrition warfare will end with attackers shooting the base in low activity hours with parked afk caps with locked right mouse button what will again end with owners complaining they can´t be defending their base 24/7 so it´s....unfair).
And what, the mechanics we have now are fine? Yes, we can't even reach true fairness because you can't reasonably factor in time as a value for the siegers that could be equal to the time spent by players constructing that POB (otherwise Sieges could last up to weeks, or even months). But I'd argue that we can at least make things much better for the POB owners - and why shouldn't we? They're the ones who have put in the time, effort and roleplay into their bases, and they arguably have the most to lose. Suggestions for a tax, roleplay requirement and admin involvement is the best we can do until solid, well-thought-out, POB mechanics are introduced.
Rant: what is the huge boner people have for flippantly blowing up POBs? Ok, if it's some Core 1 someone has made is in a mining field, or is blocking a jump hole, or is in hostile territory or is illegal, then blast it. In the case of the latter, if it reaches Core 2, kudos to them for getting it that far but they're not out the woods yet. But for all these other POBs that have earned their places and reached higher Cores, these so-called 'immortal' POBs, why are people salty about that? These players have invested, time, effort, money and roleplay into these constructions vs players who would rather blow those up and send that effort down the drain. Hell, Core 5s are SRPs. If they contribute to the roleplay and server environment, why blow them up? This is at least my approach when dealing with POBs. If there's an Order POB in Mu, I don't care. I just don't see the point in spending my time and effort destroying someone else's time and effort when it has no impact on myself, least of all negative.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - R.I.P. - 07-03-2018
Something does need to change, i noticed before the attack whomever it was made a new account to post the attack with to remain anonymous. This seemed like they knew they would be called out for oorp grieving or something. The account was made less than 24 hours before posting and was a piss poor RP post for the attack. I can understand siege for a problematic base by a jumphole with active guns, in mining fields etc. I have been saying for years some of this OORP crap of ruining someone else's gameplay needs to stop. But for some damn reason so many enjoy ruining someone else's enjoyment. Which is why this game is so dead anymore, players come into this game and get chased out of it all the time. I myself feel it is too late really, I left for 2 years and was never planning to return. Well i did come back and honestly i really have no desire to play for very long, seems like the only time i log in anymore is to get away from toxic behaviors in other games. Well all i do is maybe fly around with hauling random cargo, or sit somewhere in space doing absolutely nothing. This game has just gotten to the point it is not fun for many anymore. I have no desire to ever join an official faction, no desire to mess with bases and the headache of maintaining them. And before anyone says i am butthurt from losing a base myself, the base i was partial owner of is still standing to this day.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Karlotta - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 12:58 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: Rant: what is the huge boner people have for flippantly blowing up POBs?
There are several reasons.
Some people think they're doing the server a favor. Some of them actually are doing the server a favor at the cost of players who didn't know they were doing anything harmful.
Others want to inflict pain, be it out of sadism kicks or (not necessarily unjustified) personal grudges.
Others just like the feeling of power that blowing up bases gives them.
People tend to blame either the sadists, powermongers, or the "stupid" people who build bases.
But they should really blame the game mechanics and rules that encourage, permit, and even require players to do a lot of harm to other players.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Thyrzul - 07-03-2018
How about a change in perception regarding the issue? And why?
How about, instead of considering required time investment for maintenance vs required time investment for a siege, we consider required time investment for maintenance vs continuous availability of PoB-exclusive perks, as well as required time investment for defense vs required time investment for a siege?
That way we would compare two PoB-dependent factors with eachother (requirements vs rewards of having one) as well as two player-dependent factors with eachother. And suddenly things become balancable. Balance construction and maintenance costs to the available perks, ship modules, or storage space for ores virtually anywhere, or take the opposite direction, just like how module manufacture costs already determine module prices on the market. And then balance the offenders against the defenders in a siege, on which I'll elaborate more, after all this thread is about sieges.
What do I mean exactly? And why would that be good for us?
Stretch sieges long enough to eliminate issues stemming from a surprise attack of overwhelming forces, or from timezone differences, eliminate bases getting wrecked overnight within just a few hours, or minutes, by a fleet of a dozen dreadnoughts, allow players on both sides to meet before a siege is over. Buff hull points for that.
Of course we don't want unilateral changes favoring only defenders, that would immediately cause drama and complaints from the other side of the debate. Keep bases vulnerable enough not to require whole fleets to make progress, so that problematic bases can still be destroyed, even if it would take time. Nerf repair rates accordingly.
The resulting balance will require less ships and their DPS to overcome the repair rates, but more overall damage dealth to the base until its destruction. The resulting balance will yield a wider range of player count/time investment ratios in the case of a siege, making it more dynamic, but also quite robust by stretching the lenght of sieges long enough to allow defenders sufficient chance to react and attempt proper defense.
Would that not screw up things more than fixing them? Am I not biased a bit?
The aim of this proposal is to achieve a state in which, during sieges, the determining type of encounter isn't player vs PoB combat, but player vs player combat. However, keep in mind, that this proposal only defines the proposed direction of change, through rebalance of mechanics instead of more and more rules and restrictions, but leaves the decision over specifics to the balance development team. For that a detailed spreadsheet of several tabs visualizing the effects of various combinations of changes to each of the two factors - hull points and repair rates - to various extents has been provided to members of the team.
This proposal does not take the inequal distribution of opposing forces per region or per degree of lawfulness into account, leaving those factors for the members of the community to balance. This proposal does not take the validity of justification for constructing or destructing a base either, leaving that factor for the administation team to take care of.
Lastly, this proposal tries to stay free from any favoritism, subjectivity or bias, and thus is aiming to favor both sides by creating a safe middle-ground in which the two sides of a siege can duke it out between themselves. In short, it's not meant to decide who's right and it leaves (or grants) the decision to (for) players themselves about who's left.
Meh, tl;dr?
(07-03-2018, 08:09 AM)Thyrzul Wrote:1. Buff hull points and nerf repair rates big time.
Yeah, cool, but this thread is about rules, not balance...
And I find that to be part of the issue. That part where people fail to recognize the actual issue, where people fail to recognize which factors actually could and should be balanced against eachother, where people are more eager to look for more and more new rules to regulate a gameplay feature instead of looking for available options to balance its mechanics.
Read this or not, heed this or not, agree or disagree, it's up to you. Though, if you take the time to read all of this, I thank you very much. I cannot guarantee I won't respond to comments or try to argue in defense of the above points with reason, however.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Laura C. - 07-03-2018
I still wait for some numbers for the system you talk about Thyrzul. Basically how long will take for example for one/three/five battleship(s) to remove core 1/2/3 base. Because if we are to change current system with system in which it will take days to remove even core 1 base, we are just changing one flawed system for another.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Thyrzul - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 02:54 PM)Laura C. Wrote: I still wait for some numbers for the system you talk about Thyrzul. Basically how long will take for example for one/three/five battleship(s) to remove core 1/2/3 base. Because if we are to change current system with system in which it will take days to remove even core 1 base, we are just changing one flawed system for another.
Numbers like that depend on the base having 0/1 functional shield modules, 0/1/2/3 repair commodities, the hull points being multiplied by 2/5/10/25/50, and the repair rate being divided by 2/5/10/25/50. That "some" can mean 1800 numbers just by taking your or my examples of values into account, and there are even more to ask about.
The proposal isn't about changing the system, it is about changing values, the dynamics remain the same. If the system was inherently flawed, it will remain flawed no matter what. If the rebalance is a change for the better, then the system itself was not flawed, only the combination of values, which are currently in use, is. If the rebalance is a change for the worse, it can still mean the fault isn't in the system, but in the chosen values. So far the preliminary analysis indicated that the proposed direction of changes does what it is meant meant to do (which I explained previously). And as I said, the exact details are up to the balance devs.
The proposal isn't about changing the system, it is about changing values, the dynamics remain the same. If the system was inherently flawed, it will remain flawed no matter what. If the rebalance is a change for the better, then the system itself was not flawed, only the combination of values, which are currently in use, is. If the rebalance is a change for the worse, it can still mean the fault isn't in the system, but in the chosen values. So far the preliminary analysis indicated that the proposed direction of changes does what it is meant meant to do (which I explained previously). And as I said, the exact details are up to the balance devs.