Admin Notice: Rules regarding Player Owned Bases

[Eugen]

hm maybe there should be a differ betwen pasive(neutral and open for everyone) and aggressive (faktion locked or hostile to everyone) bases.
So that the peacefull *lets call it research and/or tradeing facility * still needs to be maintained but can not be harmed by players(admins still can use /kill ^^ )
and the aggressive can be blown up by everyone who has the firepower for it (and the needet rp if its above core1)

[Murcielago]

I like new Rules about PoB that you devs put up.

I can also agree with what several people (PoB owners) had said here.

Soo repair this:

It's the number 96% that wrecked the thread beyond any chance of salvaging.


And the optimist inside me says that the number problem can be fixed, when things have become constructive again.

And perhaps add Rule that attacking side can't have some wirde aliances.
(soo that we will not see for example; RH and Bretonia( Or something like that) BSs atacking some base together.)

and everyone will be happy:

---

Lords will rule their land as they see fit, and the serfs shall merely beg.

[Krmloo]

So, any group of 10+ lolwuts (corsairs, as example) can come to any base and destroy it. Then they will lose their ships if anyone report it, and base won't be respawned by admins. Right?

[Knjaz]

Dev Notice of sorts:

Player Owned Bases will be adjusted with update 6 to become easier to build and maintain so these new rule implementations don't become yet another burden on base owners. Shield protection on said bases will also be reduced to 96% so the bases above core 2 don't become partially invincible. To give you a rough idea on the adjustments made for the new update: POBs will become 2x easier to maintain and 4x easier to destroy.

A dedicated group of players, after providing some random roleplay reason (fitting their ID's) will be able to remove any core 2-4 bases of their chosing. No "fortress", "outpost" and any other military/combat/area control related bases of Core 2 will be able to make it past those several months of existence.

I fully agree with Jack here.

96%? Hahahahah! Every lolwut group can take out every base then.
GG.

GG indeed.

P.S. with current 96%, that is.

P.S.2.

Well, now some actual proposal. From what I see with base survivability issue, with current stats you Devs are damned if you do and you're damned if you don't - you can't make them too survivable to prevent Core 4 being unkillable, and you can't make them too weak to avoid Core 2 bases being killed by few guys. Therefore, I'd recommend to consider reducing the gap in survivability between Low Core and High Core bases, which will likely end up with some Core 4 survivability nerf due to overall survivability nerf, and Core 2 /and potentially 3/ buff due to their stats buff. Basically, define a new balance "corridor" with lowest and highest possible and meaningful values of base survivability and work from there on.


And... was it 99% or 98% before? since some people insist it's 2x nerf, not 4x one. 4x is a disaster waiting to happen.
my2cents.

[Gulryz]

How does Core 5 bases look like

---

---

You can ignore reality but you can not ignore consequences of ignoring reality

[Krmloo]

Like aerelm base in Omicron Delta a while ago. But that was core 10, not 5.

[Stefz]

Finally.

---

[Jack_Henderson]

Just throwing out some numbers that I think are reasonable:

A Core 1 base should be rather easy to kill. They are not at the moment. I agree with the admin proposal (1st thread) that the community can police itself here by removing bases that do not fit, are in problematic positions, etc. Even small groups can get these numbers to remove something that would harm them.

My numbers: ~ 4 heavy BS should be able to kill Core 1 in ~ 1 hour.


A Core 2 base should be much more difficult to kill already. With the new rules, it also is not anonymous any more and most bases that make it here will not be annoying people (those that do are already gone at Core 1).

My numbers: ~ 10 BS (which is easily manageable if you put an effort into it) should be able to take it in 3-4 h. (the owner has likely spent a week in building it to core two, adding modules, and there is likely also already diplomatic rp behind it, etc). Some effort, but manageable for organised groups.


Core 3 already has Admin "blessing", and should not go down easily to pure brute BS force any more. A count of ~ 15 BS (still far from impossible, but would require a major effort and organisation) could be allowed to punch through it.

But sieging by draining should be the real weapon against it: BS counts > 10 for Core 3 should be able to force fast/many repair cycles and drain the base quicker.

Reasoning: The amount of time players have invested in it at that stage should protect it from "just being gone" without anybody noticing. Taking into account that Core 3 have weeks or months of pure playing time in them, these sieges should take days. Overwhelming should only be possible if there is a big effort beind it. E.g. if (random invented example) King's Cross managed to enrage all Corsair players and Rheinland declared war on Bretonia, the combined forces (player/cap count) should be able to kill a Core 3 with brute force.

Many Core 4 bases have been around for > 1 year. I do not know a single one that is in a visible position that does not have roleplay behind it. There are a few annoying ones that would have to be moved, perhaps, but that is Admin decision. A base that made it that far should not be overwhelmed by brute force any more. It should be a very hard to almost impossible effort to muster the force. Attacking it should be economic warfare, not nail-mouse-button-down and wait.

A strong oposition should be able however to force repairs from the base fast. Shooting platforms and the base would drain ressources fast, but would give the players a chance to realize it and come to its defense. We are talking about bases that ate up months of playing time in quite some cases, bases in whose constructions factions cooperated for weeks and bases whose rp channels have 9500 views and 132 replies.

I am firmly convinced that these should never be anywhere easy to dispose of.


In a medieval castle analogy: You can storm a house (Core 1) and a small fort (Core 2) with brute force. You have to siege a castle (Core 3) or use extremely big forces and big fortresses (Core 4) you cannot just storm those.

Yes, I am biased here.
Because I am the owner of the oldest Core 4 bases alive in Disco at the moment. And because I do not see why a easily manageable group of people (currently 8 BS, 30 minutes) should be able to take away something that makes sense, creates rp, and took months and likely tens of billions to make in a 2h one-time action that I cannot do anything about it.


Likely, a middle ground is what we should aim for:

Karst's idea of upping HP massively, slowing down repairs, while going with a lowered shield efficiency is good.

It would allow sieges to damage bases over a longer period of time, progress would not be lost, you would have to make a real effort (as the base builders did) over a longer period of time (as the builders did) and you would have to have (depending on the core) a large group of people to work with you for a prolonged time (as the builders had to have for the entire process for high Core bases).

It would give bases some reaction time, would result likely in more than just one attack, would require motivation and cooperation and also lead to more tense encounters.

This is imo the way to go.

---

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!

[Fifty.]

A very good idea in my opinion.

[Zen_Mechanics]

I understand that the devs made the move due to community cohesion, but after the talkbacks, i suggest canceling this thing before any qq, tears starts, only to inform people later that it was a bad decision. This needs to be reviewed, though I believe bases as they are now, pose no threat to anyone. That's right, no - threat.