+- 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. - Thyrzul - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 04:06 PM)Greylock97 Wrote:(07-03-2018, 08:09 AM)Thyrzul Wrote:Buff hull points and nerf repair rates big time.
Speaking from the perspective of a person that just had his core 2 base destroyed...
... is resulting in a subjective and biased comment filled with emotions enough to even misinterpret my post to a great extent. What am I to do with you?
(07-03-2018, 04:13 PM)Karlotta Wrote: No matter how you tune the hitpoints, the repair rate, the declaration times, and the amount of RP required.
Mob rule will remain mob rule for as long as you let the mob rule.
The only way to stop or at least reduce the drama about bases is to make rules to stop both base spam and the destruction of positive-impact bases. It's not that hard.
Mob rule is mob rule regardless of bases, neither rebalance nor selective PoB rules will change that. I am aware of that, as I explained the aim of the proposal wasn't to get rid of it, rather to allow both sides to deal with it and with eachother.
The introduction of a special commodity costing 100 million credits required for base deployment can reduce the chances of base spam greatly without any rules required.
On the other hand I do not intend to address subjective terms, such as "positive-impact" bases. Increased chance to defend any base, regardless of personal opinions regarding its impact, however, is included in the proposal (even if you don't believe in math).
The introduction of a special commodity costing 100 million credits required for base deployment can reduce the chances of base spam greatly without any rules required.
On the other hand I do not intend to address subjective terms, such as "positive-impact" bases. Increased chance to defend any base, regardless of personal opinions regarding its impact, however, is included in the proposal (even if you don't believe in math).
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Lythrilux - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 03:51 PM)Sciamach Wrote: That wasn't a requirement until relatively recently. Things worked just fine in the core1 department before.
It's arguably infinitely better now. Nothing was worse than leaving a Core 1 POB for several hours and coming back to it being shot at by several Capital ships. Or worse. Or if not that, just having to be completely alert 24/7 before it got to Core 2. The Core 1 period for POBs was incredibly stressful before.
(07-03-2018, 04:10 PM)Sciamach Wrote: Then maybe you should do some RP with nearby factions to protect or at the very least, not attack the bases, while also keeping them hidden. It encourages smart placement, while also requiring anyone who actually will put the RP effort into a base to do so properly.
What does the RP of the base owner matter if the sieger can use barely any, or no RP by your proposal, to blow it up? Your viewpoint here is extremely one-sided. As I said earlier, POB owners have to make a request for Core 2 and do the same but with substantial RP as well for Core 3, 4 and Core 5 but as an SRP as well. All siegers need to do is write several lines of bad RP to attack a POB, and wait an inconsequential period of time, compared to that of the time spent constructing the POB, before they can attack it. How is this fair?
(07-03-2018, 04:10 PM)Sciamach Wrote: As I said: that rule was in effect literally for years. There is justifiable 0 reason it should have gone away.
And it went away because it was still problematic. The only 'justifiable' reason to bring it back is so that we can have more ABH-like situations where players can grief others without the affected player being aware - if that's what you want.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - E X O D I T E - 07-03-2018
If such a commodity is introduced (indeed, FL Companion reveals it to already exist), it can at least wait until I've dropped my Core 1. Why yes, I am being unbelievably self-centered right now.
Side note: Admins are people too. Let's think before we inflict more paperwork on them to process in some attempt to enforce our individual standards on people.
Yes, the current system is flawed as hell[How?], but at least the almighty Shield Module exists to prevent a small party of bass hunters from having their way with someone's pixels.
(Actually, speaking of bass hunters, remember these guys?
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Binski - 07-03-2018
Sorry I'm late to this party as usual but I would like to point out that in my own experience, the main problem stems from being able to return to a base siege within 2 hours of being eliminated. That's what can make the odds for the bases drop significantly. The base doesn't get a respawn in 2 hours. Groups assemble, and even if warded off or destroyed by defenders (or base defenses), they only have to wait a short time before they can just reappear and bring that same amount of resources back against the base, when the base owners have to worry about keeping stocked with necessities constantly from the same ships over and over and over ever so many hours. With base sieges, once you're gone, you should be gone for a while.
I would like to see it so that for capital ship class vessels, there be special respawn rules along the lines that a ship destroyed while participating in a base siege must remain PVP dead to THAT BASE for 5 days. I think at least a few days of a buffer should be there. That way base sieges would be 1 time battles per go, and attacking forces would have to use their first go well. If they are destroyed or warded off, no real significant attempt could be made for days, unless comprised of fresh ships. No name changes either! That way if the siege goes on, you aren't facing the same ships every couple of hours who basically laugh at 'death' while the base owners must work a lot harder to keep up.
I voted no to this specific set of rules since I still think it should be more open and not really cost money up front to siege a base. With a change in base PVP death times instead, it changes the value of base defense/offense. You'd just have to break momentum of an attacking force to get a more realistic reprieve when under long term siege.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - E X O D I T E - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 04:53 PM)TheUnforgiven Wrote: a ship destroyed while participating in a base siege must remain PVP dead to THAT BASE for 5 days
NEMPS exist. In exchange for 200 Sci Data, up to 5 enemy caps are unable to kill your base for the better part of the week.
The problem with the solution you have suggested is that players or groups with deep pockets are more than able to buy a ship with the exact same loadout and carry on as before. (trading faction POBs can have upwards of 30 billion on them, so...)
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Kauket - 07-03-2018
Then they've wasted money doing that, not everyone has credits to waste or the time to do it. Or alternatively, you can say that player is pvpdead or give a number of 'lives' that they can siege with
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Karlotta - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 04:43 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:(07-03-2018, 04:13 PM)Karlotta Wrote: No matter how you tune the hitpoints, the repair rate, the declaration times, and the amount of RP required.
Mob rule will remain mob rule for as long as you let the mob rule.
The only way to stop or at least reduce the drama about bases is to make rules to stop both base spam and the destruction of positive-impact bases. It's not that hard.
Mob rule is mob rule regardless of bases, neither rebalance nor selective PoB rules will change that.
The idea is to leave it up to rules which base is "bad" enough to be removed or "good" enough to not be removed, not the mob. And there are some pretty straightforward criteria like location, name, affiliation, and purpose to classify bases as good, bad, or "no opinion let the mob decide". Some are already in place via rules and irp laws, and it would require 1 rule change and 1 additional line to avoid most of the drama.
(07-03-2018, 04:43 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:The introduction of a special commodity costing 100 million credits required for base deployment can reduce the chances of base spam greatly without any rules required.
And it will result in even more drama when the base gets nuked. Making it more expensive does not fill the builder's head with wisdom.
(07-03-2018, 04:43 PM)Thyrzul Wrote:
On the other hand I do not intend to address subjective terms, such as "positive-impact" bases. Increased chance to defend any base, regardless of personal opinions regarding its impact, however, is included in the proposal (even if you don't believe in math).
I know enough about math and human nature to know that two kids kicking in each other's sand castles won't result in less drama if you change the number of hours needed to build or destroy the sand castles into another number. And since you "believe in math" unlike nomath-me, why don't you give some concrete numbers that will deliver the miracle you promise, and don't leave us hanging like you did with 3D Sirius.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Thyrzul - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 05:32 PM)Karlotta Wrote: The idea is to leave it up to rules which base is "bad" enough to be removed or "good" enough to not be removed, not the mob. And there are some pretty straightforward criteria like location, name, affiliation, and purpose to classify bases as good, bad, or "no opinion let the mob decide". Some are already in place via rules and irp laws, and it would require 1 rule change and 1 additional line to avoid most of the drama.
Ye, so I guess it's subjective set of rules and categories vs objective mechanics then. I'd rather consider a change in mechanics before turning to rules enforced by the admins, so I'm not saying I disagree, but my priorities lie elsewhere.
(07-03-2018, 05:32 PM)Karlotta Wrote: And it will result in even more drama when the base gets nuked. Making it more expensive does not fill the builder's head with wisdom.
Core upgrades already cost significantly more than 100 million credits while a Core 1 base can be deployed and built up to 8 million HP from just a few million credits, an extra Shield Module would cost about 20-30 millions more. Drama happens when a base gets nuked either way, drama happens all the time someone feels wronged, justifiedly or not, but this change would affect serious builders relatively less than those who just lolspam Core1 bases with little to no effort invested into them.
(07-03-2018, 05:32 PM)Karlotta Wrote: I know enough about math and human nature to know that two kids kicking in each other's sand castles won't result in less drama if you change the number of hours needed to build or destroy the sand castles into another number. And since you "believe in math" unlike nomath-me, why don't you give some concrete numbers that will deliver the miracle you promise, and don't leave us hanging like you did with 3D Sirius.
I already explained my proposal isn't to regulate the kids' behavior, but to give each chance to defend their own sand castles. And I already told Laura C. that I can give an exact answer if I receive an exact question.
On the other hand I'm now considering the refusal of doing so, leaving this matter to balance devs even regarding sharing exact information. The misinterpretations and misunderstandings greatly concern me, making me believe providing exact numbers of possible scenarios before any dev decision is made about these numbers would just end up in more speculation and drama than necessary. Those, who understood what effects hull buffs and repair nerfs can have can already draw their conclusions without exact numbers either way, those, who didn't, could easily just receive drama fuel by those numbers. And I kinda start feeling the same about that idea of the 3D Sirius.
On the other hand I'm now considering the refusal of doing so, leaving this matter to balance devs even regarding sharing exact information. The misinterpretations and misunderstandings greatly concern me, making me believe providing exact numbers of possible scenarios before any dev decision is made about these numbers would just end up in more speculation and drama than necessary. Those, who understood what effects hull buffs and repair nerfs can have can already draw their conclusions without exact numbers either way, those, who didn't, could easily just receive drama fuel by those numbers. And I kinda start feeling the same about that idea of the 3D Sirius.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - WesternPeregrine - 07-03-2018
How about an increase of rp requirements for declarations? In a way that "no bounties can be anonymous " , base siege declarations shouldn't be done by faceless people with zero existence or paper trail.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Sand-Viper - 07-03-2018
I agree with the notion that RP behind base sieges should be:
Sensible,
Reasonable,
& Open (Seriously, who makes a forum alt just to siege a base?).
Sieges should also have some sort of "cool down" period, relative to the Core Level of the base in question. The higher the Level, the longer the cool down (Perhaps with the exception of Core 1s). To me, it would make inRP sense if a failed siege required the attacking party to "regroup/reorganize" for another attempt. Even if sieges wouldn't cost money, they should have a cool down.
I feel as though base sieges should be reviewed by at least 1-2 admins/mods/devs to ensure the RP behind the declaration makes sense. As an example, it seems to be accepted that the "role play" behind the ABH Complex assault was shoddy at best and completely out-of-character at worst. Sieges should make some sort of inRP sense, and they should in some cases (barring ex: at-war factions finding an opposing base), be a last-resort once other options have been exhausted.
Lastly, in the case of unlawfuls sieging a base, player bases should be treated similarly to transports in the sense that a "demand" should be made first towards the base owners. Only if the demand is declined, or not met fully, should a base siege be possible. Only the Terrorist, Xeno (in some cases) and Nomad IDs can attack players without making a demand - why should attacking a player's base be any different?
Maybe if we start with that, we can look into whether or not base sieges should be OFL-only initiate-able. Baby steps, here!
That's my $.02 regarding all of this, anyways.