POB Change Suggestions

[Champ]

---

Suggestion

Type: Rules
Title: Increased base attack declaration lead time

Specifics

• Change the time required for a base attack declaration prior to attack in the server rules to 24-72 hours.
  

Potential Problems

• Base owners may be more prepared for an attack having the notice. May be countered by heavier automatic penalties for neglected bases.
  
• Attackers have to wait a little while longer.
  

Example of Effect
Players are required to provide more notice for attack declarations. This prevents attacks being declared and commenced inside of a work or sleep cycle, and allows more time to notice the attack, organise, and maybe have a little time to prepare the base.

Further Discussion
It is unfair to use the OORP unawareness of players to gain an advantage, when inRP base staff would absolutely be aware of an attack, and when players, even groups, are not available every day of the week, let alone every hour of the day. This suggestion doesn't change how many players are likely to defend the base, meaning that if the attackers were going to win before, they're probably still going to win anyway, as they ought to in such a case.
Link for further rambling (this one's in a secret forum)

---

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: New low-efficiency high-speed repair commodity

Specifics

• Create a new repair commodity sold on "lawful capitals" and "unlawful capitals"
  
• Bases consume this repair commodity at a much lower efficiency, but have a much greater repair speed
  

Potential Problems

• Not sure if the base plugin can have individual repair commodities count for different amounts / speeds of repair.
  
• Sufficient trading would overpower military attacks on the base, which doesn't necessarily make total sense iRP, but it doesn't have to; this is OORP balance.
  
• Attackers have the advantage of the first move. But this isn't really a problem; it makes sense that you have to suffer damage before you can fix it.
  
• Speed-runs during attacks. Docking must be disabled for every tick that a base is under attack, shield or not.
  
• Practicality of this strategy is highly linked to distance from a lawful or unlawful "capital". More isolated bases are more vulnerable, but bases at a capital are just about invulnerable. The cap to usefulness is determined by base storage limit. This commodity should be so space-ineffective that leaving it there for repairs over time shouldn't at all be practical. Precision of the balance would be essential.
  

Example of Effect
Ten battleships attack a base for 2 hours, for a total of 20 hours game time. Later, in their own timezone, 10 defenders log transports, deliver this space-ineffective high-speed repair commodity for 2 hours for a total of 20 hours game time, and repair up to or a percentage of the damage caused by the attackers in the same timeframe. Whoever plays more wins. Groups are still able to intercept / blockade each other, so numbers do matter, but individual attackers / defenders still have a chance to deal some damage or supply some.

Further Discussion
Timezones are a pain! Bases have to be militarily defended when they're being attacked, but what if no defenders are available or awake? Currently there is no way for people to defend a base between the attackers actually being online. But what if there was? Imagine you have 10 battleships sieging a base for two hours. They log off. Hours later, defenders wake up, but there's nothing to defend against. So what if they could compensate for the damage dealt in a non-automatic way that doesn't cheat attackers of the damage they've achieved? Introducing, high-speed low-efficiency repairs. Defenders log transports, go to the nearest friendly "capital" where this fixed-price commodity is sold. It is far, far less space effective than normal repair commodities, but it is way faster. So, if 10 defenders fly 5K transports for two hours each, they can make up for the damage incurred in the same amount of game time. This means that bases right on top of inRP well defended locations are even safer than they already are with NPC patrols, and bases in isolated and dangerous locations far from civilisation are less safe.
NB: Lawful and unlawful "capitals" are literally house capitals and the unlawful equivalents and the further respective factions stray from each, the more dangerous the base is. This assumes unlawfuls can access each others' bases, which will have to be considered when selecting these locations.
Link for further rambling (also in a secret forum)
Reply to critique by darkwind: The commodity is for if the defenders are online, but the attackers are not. If the attackers are actively sieging the base, the best thing for the defenders to do is log a bomber or battleship and destroy the attackers. Indeed, as covered in the suggestion, docking during sieges must be blocked to prevent nonsensical blockade running to the base under siege.
Reply to critique by Anton Okunev: This is indeed a suggestion aimed at rectifying the problem of attackers and defenders being online at different times, but the point of this thread is to develop concepts as solutions for problems. I don't understand how your critique applies to the suggestion aside from that it is apparently similar to EVE which I don't play and Thyrzul's post which I didn't read in detail.

---

Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Delete the POB plugin

Problem Summary

• Deletion would greatly affect existing established POBs and their surrounding RP and activity. It is likely to disenfranchise many players.
  
• A replacement model would need to be sought for cloaks and special equipment.
  
• The function of POBs as a motivator and money sink would leave a gap in the economy requiring rebalancing and redesign, including the creation of new models for money sinking.
  

Amendment

• Instead of deleting the plugin, changes should be made to it that would make it easier, simpler, more pleasant, etc.
  

Further Discussion
The changes in detail are: what Champ says, because he is righteous and just the best, really. I would write more, but is it necessary to further flesh out why that's correct? Well, this is an example, so no. But if this were a real critique, it's quite probable.

---