Posts: 6,893
Threads: 413
Joined: Aug 2007
Staff roles: Story Dev Economy Dev
(04-16-2015, 07:35 PM)Toris James Gray Wrote:
Quote:Miners mine right next to a POB with 99999999 Battleship weapons platforms and can quickly dock and log straight off whether they see the pirate approach them in the field
Not to be rude here, but shouldn't it be considered "tactic"? Why placing a highly fortified base in the dangerous/important/Class A area is wrong? It's a tactical movement to secure areas and is more than valid, even more, LOGICAL for the roleplay.
To be fair here however, bases should not be overarmed for balance reasons.
I fully get where you're coming from, however it seems that in many cases, 'logical' RP has to be curtailed for the good of the server environment. As an example, building security stations for area defence around unsecure jump gates could be considered highly logical.
Despite this, they were considered detrimental to the server and gameplay, and if a base is made for that purpose now, you'll not receive blueprints from the admins. In an ideal world, we'd have a limitless number of players, and when facing adversity they'd just adapt.
Unfortunately, that's not the case and people play here to be entertained. If there is a mechanism which is causing widespread disillusionment for the majority, that's a serious issue that needs addressing. The entire dynamic of systems like Dublin and Omega 7 relies on the interplay between miners, traders, pirates and lawfuls. Leaving a mechanic alone that entirely removes one of those from that dynamic is frankly irresponsible.
'Area denial' bases have been phased out because they had an adverse impact on interaction, raids, etc. Surely mining bases should be relocated / phased out for the same reason? Otherwise the justification for any tampering at all was fundamentally inconsistent. 10k difference is all it'd need.