Change POB rules (Core 1)

[Fluffyball]

I think it bothers and impacts roleplay aspect of the mod, as Core 1 bases are vurneable to attack without forum RP. As all we know, week without contact on forums is enough to destroy Core 3 and up bases. Some people even go with even shorter 2-3 days notice before destruction and it is good by server rules. Why not to remove no-RP base destruction aspect in the first place - and apply the very same rule for all bases as for Core 2 and up? If it is lolwhut's base and no RP reply onto forums is done, base is deemed for termination.

I'm more pointing it out to the fact that some bases, which were a legal and registered ones, got destroyed without proper RP notice.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=138636
Time left: (Permanent)

[Thyrzul]

How about constructing them where they survive better? I mean, setting up a Libby Rogue PoB right in front of Manhattan won't live a long life for sure (just an example).

---

[Fluffyball]

I'm not saying about suvirvality. I'm speaking more about no-RP on Core 1 OP, if the base was registered within the House boundaries.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=138636
Time left: (Permanent)

[Stoner_Steve]

So what if the base is registered to the house, Pirates don't follow rules

---

SLRC Faction Document | SLRC Recruitment | SLRC Feedback | SLRC Message Dump

[An'shur]

I completely agree with Toris.

---

User was banned for: Requested
Time left: (Permanent)

[t0l]

So what if the base is registered to the house, Pirates don't follow rules

this

Make sure you put up a shield, and work towards Core 2 ASAP so your base doesn't disappear in the middle of the night. Get connections that can log at any time, because they'll be there to defend your base. Hiring mercs to defend the base works too.

Sources: I owned a base that was ghost-sieged by New Zealanders. They didn't blow it up, though. Spire stronk base.

---

[Thyrzul]

A group of players can, in no time, get a base to Core 2, at which point you shouldn't really worry about no-RP sieges. Doing solo because you don't have a group of players to team up with? Oh, well, PoBs are meant to be a group effort...

---

[Connor]

Core 1 is fine as it is

---

[Fluffyball]

My point was rather that destruction of base, if killed by pirates, should follow the same style as actual piracy: fulfill demands or be destroyed - for ALL CORE BASES. It should be within line of the roleplay. And no, I don't have a base. I just pointed out some people just want a small base, without upgrading it (in roleplay, it have logical reasons like small unkeep).

It fact it feels more like: "Oh, sure, new base, Core 1. Hmmmmm, roleplay is going on... it is registered... I'll troll this guy and f**k up his base, because I'm bored." How this is not breaking Community Rules 1.2 and 1.7?

Not all factions are wealthy enough and only wealthy factions should have bigger and more advanced bases, just saying. SWD isn't Ageira or Interspace, so it is kind of logical they want to keep small unkeep - and Core 1 base is perfect for group of three players for example, because it makes sense inRP world.

Why to set up Shipyard on the orbit, while you can have a SkyLab?

Back to the topic.

Core One
- Players are not required to role play prior to building a Core 1 base
- Players are not required to role play prior to destroying a Core 1 base
- Name, location and IFF of bases are permanent

We should change this rule into Core Two ruleset, because Core One ruleset is now open to crapload of exploits from the not only from the "settler" side, but also only from the "attacker" side. TL;DR - Core One ruleset not only can lead but also encourage players into breaking Community Rule 1.2 but also 1.6.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=138636
Time left: (Permanent)

[t0l]

My point was rather that destruction of base, if killed by pirates, should follow the same style as actual piracy: fulfill demands or be destroyed - for ALL CORE BASES. It should be within line of the roleplay. And no, I don't have a base. I just pointed out some people just want a small base, without upgrading it (in roleplay, it have logical reasons like small unkeep).

It fact it feels more like: "Oh, sure, new base, Core 1. Hmmmmm, roleplay is going on... it is registered... I'll troll this guy and f**k up his base, because I'm bored." How this is not breaking Community Rules 1.2 and 1.7?

Not all factions are wealthy enough and only wealthy factions should have bigger and more advanced bases, just saying. SWD isn't Ageira or Interspace, so it is kind of logical they want to keep small unkeep - and Core 1 base is perfect for group of three players for example, because it makes sense inRP world.

Small, weak things don't last. See Darwin.

You want to play with a Core 1, you run the risks of a Core 1.

It's not breaking 1.2 because they aren't doing it to harass you, they're doing it because there's a new base on their turf and they don't like it. It's not breaking 1.7 because blowing up Core 1s allowed in the rules to begin with. (Stuff like this make me object the admin decision to further enforce 1.2, because now people can't partake in iRP hostile actions without people crying about m-muh oorp hate, see Xenon and that whole fiasco.)

The new PoB rules are to encourage teamwork and cooperation in an environment in which such traits are uncommon at best.

PoBs iRP upgrade their reactor core and whatnot upon different Cores. I don't think that three people couldn't piece together money to get such a conversion.

---