Admin Notice: Player Owned Bases

[CaptainAlamo]

All i want to know is, will there definitely be a roll back? any official confirmation one way or the other??

---

[Hell Hunter]

heres a statement from Aerelm on skype a few days ago:

[10:41:21 AM] aerelm: there's not even been any talks of a roll back
[10:41:40 AM] aerelm: just felix goin around speakin his own mind without considerin the childish tearfest it'd cause
[10:42:33 AM] aerelm: so yea, here I am sayin it for the 20th time today:
[10:42:52 AM] aerelm: That was not an official admin statement, so you do not need to be concerned about it

There's your answer

---

[hungry-bank]

While I strongly believe that base emplacement and construction should only be regulated by in-RP laws and restrictions (see the Kusari Legal Codex as an example for this), there could be an easier way to prevent PoB's from being (too) disruptive to general game play than some of the more drastic solutions and ideas being voiced in this thread. At the risk of my idea going unheard of or simply disappearing into the depths of this mass-posting thread, read on at your own leisure and reply as you'd like:

The idea is simple enough. PoB's wouldn't have the option of being set to hostile, initially. Instead of the three defence modes that we can currently set our bases to, we'd only have these two remaining:

defensemode 0 = Neutral to non-allied ships, docking rights for allied ships only.
defensemode 1 = Hostile to non-allied ships, docking rights for allied ships only.
defensemode 2 = Neutral to non-allied ships, unrestricted docking rights.

No existing bases would need to be moved/removed, and the base would still have the strong defensive capabilities that it currently enjoys (granted, there are weapon platforms), as it would still go hostile upon taking damage from a player. It would still require a determined foe to bring down your hard-worked base, while the same time, it wouldn't be able to 'camp' a jump hole or system as they can do today, efficiently shutting down access to whatever the base is guarding.
Opinions?


I'm wondering if popular demand would be high enough to warrant 'aggressive bases'; fragile and easily destroyed, yet strong offensive capabilities and easy enough to build and maintain without the huge effort that we currently put into our bases. A base with the sole purpose of being hostile to invaders and enemies, like many of the bases that we see today near jump holes and planets.

Players that are hostile to the PoBs faction will still get shot at...

[CaptainAlamo]

very good then, doesnt matter either way, but the tearfests can be avoided with a little warning, which i hope we get if they change their minds.

---

[Sabru]

While I strongly believe that base emplacement and construction should only be regulated by in-RP laws and restrictions (see the Kusari Legal Codex as an example for this), there could be an easier way to prevent PoB's from being (too) disruptive to general game play than some of the more drastic solutions and ideas being voiced in this thread. At the risk of my idea going unheard of or simply disappearing into the depths of this mass-posting thread, read on at your own leisure and reply as you'd like:

The idea is simple enough. PoB's wouldn't have the option of being set to hostile, initially. Instead of the three defence modes that we can currently set our bases to, we'd only have these two remaining:

defensemode 0 = Neutral to non-allied ships, docking rights for allied ships only.
defensemode 1 = Hostile to non-allied ships, docking rights for allied ships only.
defensemode 2 = Neutral to non-allied ships, unrestricted docking rights.

No existing bases would need to be moved/removed, and the base would still have the strong defensive capabilities that it currently enjoys (granted, there are weapon platforms), as it would still go hostile upon taking damage from a player. It would still require a determined foe to bring down your hard-worked base, while the same time, it wouldn't be able to 'camp' a jump hole or system as they can do today, efficiently shutting down access to whatever the base is guarding.
Opinions?


I'm wondering if popular demand would be high enough to warrant 'aggressive bases'; fragile and easily destroyed, yet strong offensive capabilities and easy enough to build and maintain without the huge effort that we currently put into our bases. A base with the sole purpose of being hostile to invaders and enemies, like many of the bases that we see today near jump holes and planets.

Players that are hostile to the PoBs faction will still get shot at...

while i generally agree with getting rid of def mode 1, i do have one concern.

Ravenhurst watch, in Baffin, is set to Def mode 1 because people kept, and keep, docking on Pueblo Bonito without going through the appropriate RP channels. if def mode 1 is removed, that will cause no end of problems for TAZ in trying to regulate the docking.

and to, again, pre-empt all the "PB is a zoner base, all zoners shoudl be allowed to dock there" QQ......

Pueblo Bonito is roleplayed as a sacred temple, and has a zoner IFF simply because there is no TAZ IFF.

anyway, my point being.....

if def mode 1 was removed, the devs would have to make a TAZ IFF and give Pueblo Bonito it to allows us to continue to regulate docking.

apart from that, removing def mode 1 is fine with me.

---

[Black Widow]

meh regardless of TAZ RP, Pueblo Bonito is an NPC Base and as such you have no rights to decide which players especially zoners can dock there. Cos well if TAZ were to go down the pan and loose officiality pueblo bonito would still be there.

Basically with Ravenhurst Watch your just doing another ZA lockdown which is wrong thus indicating Ravenhurst is just another powerhungry lolwut base spoiling ppls RP, No one I believe should have to ask you permission to dock on a base that sells ships Zoners are entitled to buy.

[Sabru]

meh regardless of TAZ RP, Pueblo Bonito is an NPC Base and as such you have no rights to decide which players especially zoners can dock there. Cos well if TAZ were to go down the pan and loose officiality pueblo bonito would still be there.

Basically with Ravenhurst Watch your just doing another ZA lockdown which is wrong thus indicating Ravenhurst is just another powerhungry lolwut base spoiling ppls RP, No one I believe should have to ask you permission to dock on a base that sells ships Zoners are entitled to buy.

When the Admins gave Baffin to TAZ, that gave us the right to decide. Baffin is not just 'a zoner system', it is a TAZ system. TAZ has official ownership of the system, so what we say goes within Baffin.

and how does one base 50+ km from the main jumpholes equal lolbases locking down a whole system?

it doesnt.

and by your 'regardless of RP' logic, and your statements, it seems like you are fine with ZA's lockdown.

explains a lot actually.

---

[Daedric]

@ Sabre

Unless the admin team is ignoring server rules or giving TAZ special treatement you're very wrong regarding Baffin (or rules have changed).

Mal had the same idea in his head and he got warned by the admin team regarding said idea. TAZ cannot prevent Zoner ID'd ships from using Pueblo (or any station in Baffin for that matter).

While I support TAZ using a PoB to bar access to Pueblo to non Zoners, using it to kill other Zoners seems very much like a rule violation to me (though there aren't any hard set rules on PoBs that I know of).

Again, I'd point out that the admin team warned Mal about shooting down other Zoners who were docking to Pueblo in the past and I don't see a difference in a TAZ ship shooting them down and a TAZ PoB doing it. Same people after the same ends.

Edit: Regarding Asbestos' suggestion. I'm against it. Bases baring access to certain systems and such is fully within role play. How does using a base in a role play fashion disrupt game play? I'm looking at Henderson's examples right now. He wants to be able to stroll through O74 as a Nomad and stroll into Bretonia as a Corsair. Zoner bases in 74 shoot at Nomads on sight. Bretonian lawful bases shoot at Corsairs on sight. How is a player base doing the same disrupting gameplay? Cause the player's behind the base were smart enough to place them at a choke point? No, those of you whining for the removal of this ability based on examples like Henderson's are disruptive to game play.

That said, I do think some people disrupt game play with that aggressive setting. They are a minority and shouldn't be used to justify removing an ability. The admins should be dealing with them on a case by case scenario.

---

Helpful Discovery Guides

Get Help Here! | Player Base Guide | Mining Guide | Trading Guide

Reputation Guide | Zoner Rep Guide

OSI Information | Join OSI! | Nichols Trade Center
OSI Bounty Board | OSI Feedback

[Zen_Mechanics]

Ignore him, he speaks before he thinks, anyway I agree with that as long as it sells whales its gotta be open

---

Were fools to make war on our brothers in arms.

[Ajmar]

I honestly don't have a problem with Pueblo Bonito belonging completely to the TAZ, because it makes sense in RP. TAZ is an old zoner faction with their own ID, tons of roleplay and they have a legitimate claim to the station, as TAZ built it in RP and it is a closed off sanctuary.

The only issue I can see is that the Aquilon is sold there, but if that could be moved to O-74 or maybe GC in the next update, that'd be super.

This is pretty much the opposite of what ZA is doing in O-74. The ZA is a small non-official faction without any RP that makes sense that goes against their own ID by blowing up other zoners/zoner allies. Their entire reason of being is also their POBs, with them gone, the ZA is gone.

Anyway. In my opinion, no one should be allowed to build bases ontop of jumpholes/gates. Stations are also subject to admin review if they don't live up to the rules set on their owners ID. Like, POBs put down by zoners that shoot everyone, including other zoners.

Ignore him, he speaks before he thinks, anyway I agree with that as long as it sells whales its gotta be open

Whales are sold in O-74, that's where I get mine. Also, you hardly think before or after you speak (post) and you're still an attentionwhore.