POB Change Suggestions

[LaWey]

---

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin / Economy
Title: POB economy rework.

Specifics

• Finally study how indeed POB interact with economy.
  
• Change recipes for POB deployment and modules building with small amount of very high cost commodities.
• Separate maintenance commodities from production ones.
• Rebalance the production's economy.
• If it possible, limit the POB deployment in 30-60k zone around a mining field plugin-wise (cross with Grumblesaur "Placement Constraints").

Potential Problems

• The head of the economical development.
• Math skills.
• Dirty hacks needed to solve the mining POB problems.

Further Discussion
The general idea - POB should be money sink and right now they don't. POB interact with the economy, but it was ignored since implementation. POB should waste money and not time. Conventional money farm, incrusted in general game design, instead of unneeded, disconnected from other mechanics grind.

repost of examples elaborating thought behind it

NUMBERS TOOK OUT OF ASS WITH INTENTION TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONCEPT (lower than needed, and I not joking, disco inflation that bad).

1) POBs should be made as temporary as they called. Conception should be based around fast to deploy - fast to kill.

To achieve this i propose drop out in window recipes with 1000500 of garbage to deploy base and build base's module, Instead, implement "base construction kits" commodities with certain characteristics:

• Very high price - so you invest your credits, and its actual money sinks from the economy.
• Big volume - player forced to haul it on transport. This is just organisational moment to spice risks and RP behind building (i.e. you can't just deliver all modules on LF, which nobody can intercept.)

Example:

• "Modular Base Core" - 700 volume, 250-500+ millions. (this is starting module for BCP deployment)
• "Modular Base Storage" - 1000-1500 volume, 100-300 millions.
• "Modular Base Shield Generator" - 1000-1500 volume, 500 millions.
• "Modular Base Core Extension" - 1000-1500 volume, 1 billion.
• And etc..

To balance risks, or to create chances for cargo piracy, or to allow place PoB somewhere in uncharted asshole, or to set bigger price without breaking freelancer money limits, it obviously can be divided on like 5-10 of 1000-1500 volume commodities required to build a module. Like, make shield generator constructed from 10 parts with 1000 volume, cost 50 million every. Or like, core extension from 20 parts with cost 100 mils every.

That just shouldn't go further than 1-2 5kers per module. Players should waste their time farming that money on conventional trade routes or on missions to benefit healthy interactions.

2) POBs-related mining and ore distribution should be studied, considered and regulated.

The best way here, make plugin check if player inside some dummy area and prevent BCP deploy inside it, implement those spherical areas in every volume, where we don't want to see PoBs. For example, placing POB ~60k out of the field can naturally solve economic and piracy issues. That way, miners groups who use excavator-dump truck gameplay won't be harmed, solo relog mode - discouraged.

3) POB maintenance should be separated from POB production.

Nuff said, separate "Modular Base Maintenance Kits" commodity, with a high price. Selling locations of them along with base factories materials should be considered to favor POBs along main roads, preferably industrial. POB should be startup business project/or Tamagotchi for wealthy boys. Money consuming, not time.

*No production recipes balances here, cos this one require more math justification behind certain numbers and sellpoints placement.

---

Critique
Suggestion Addressed: New low-efficiency high-speed repair commodity
Problem Summary

• This is just further patchwork approach to problem of implemeting "vulnerability time and reinforcement" mechanic.
• Just a subpart of more complex mechanic, cannot be considered in separation from it.

Amendment

• Develope new siege mechanic concept.

Further Discussion
In short, this idea just further downgrade of Thyrzul proposal for "siege mode repair rate", which already was the downgrade of EVE "vulnerability window/reinforces" mechanics. Both of those proposals, in fact, trying to achieve EVE's multi-stage nature of siege through the distinction of in-siege and in-still modes. This is not bad idea itself, I just pointing out, that its all just different ways of how certain conception (relatively short, but multiple and intense fights determinating siege) can be executed. For proper discussion, we should first set a clear vision of siege conception, and only after this consider possible solutions for it achieving. That how we won't miss the problem's core.