Open Petition to the Admins: POBs

[sindroms]

I personally would not mind implementing this change to any and all POBs currently used for things like ''area of denial'', but only if we smite every base that is squatting over an ingame location regardless if it is a gate, station or field. However, someone would need to submit all POBs that currently fall under that category.

---

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------

[Danny-boy]

@Mercarryn
Stop being silly, we have been having this conversation for donkeys years, yes that base is certainly one of the offending ones though.

Having a POB is near Aland is not area of denial (henceforth AoD because it takes far too long to type it out 10 times), having an IMG POB next to an IMG station has the least AoD effect because the NPC station provides that AoD by itself, i.e. traders can fast dock at Aland the second they see a pirate coming. If you were ever pirating outside Aland then you were a n00b and need to learn how to hunt traders a little bit better.

If anything, Falster was moved to Aland in order to give pirates a better chance, previously the POB was providing an AoD effect at the O3/O7 jumpgate. This is why the IMG| asked for Falster to be moved. It also has no effect on piracy, except maybe that pirates will have to cruise for 10 seconds longer because the base shoots the lanes down, but if a trader made it to Aland then they were safe anyway.

However a POB in a mining field is a different issue, it stops piracy in a spot where piracy was previously a possible thing (don't say it doesn't, we have had this discussion too many times and it is really obvious that it makes piracy nigh on impossible). That is AoD, moreover it has an AoD effect in a place where there should be the potential for a lot of activity involving mining /piracy factions, which makes it really sad that a core 5 base is allowed in the mining fields.

Finally we should also consider that as of the new POB rules you can't upgrade a POB above a certain point in a mining field (I forget which Core POB it is), this is because the community and admins felt that AoD bases in mining fields were a huge problem, for some silly reason though POBs already in mining fields were grandfathered in and allowed to stay. Surely if the admins and community feel that said mining field AoD bases are harmful, the only people that benefit from such a clause are those few people with POBs in mining fields.


Doesn't really seem fair that the few are allowed to ruin it all for the rest.

[TheShooter36]

Im in support of this moving pob thingy
/signed

---

[Durandal]

Seconded with Alley's addendum.

[Zyliath]

I support the petition as well, for AoD POBs should be no more.
/signed
-----
Side note 1: @Danny-boy is bloody damn right, Jack.
With this petition, I hope that ALL AoD POBs with no exceptions will be moved.
-----
That's all, folks! ~Zyl

[Angry Zoner]

Thought through idea.

/signed

---

Characters

• • ♥ James Duvall, Zoner; Blistering.Sky's captain
    
  • ♣ Adrien Vega, Zoner; Blistering.Sky's first officer
    
  • ♠ Jackson Telford, ex-con, Zoner, Ceannarcach
    

Do not open if unauthorised

[Antonio]

Alley is right, Jack. Only going for one type of Area-denial-bases is one-sided and shows quite well your intention "behind the scenes" so to speak, namely
just trying to get rid of Reutlingen somehow while keeping the benefits from Aland denying pirates a nice piracy spot.
Go for all types of areal denial POBs or keep it as it is. Otherwise this petition is just poor form, because the siege recently failed.

What a wonderful way to start the day, with a good laugh. If you're pirating in front of an NPC base I suggest you dock on it, press F1, delete the character and never make piracy-related ships again. NPC bases aren't even the topic of discussion, and if we go by that logic might as well move all bases that ever get in the way of anyone.

Technically, all POBs can be considered "area denial bases", regardless of the location - as an example you can construct one 100k above the plane in Magellan in A1 sector and although it's in the middle of nowhere, it still technically "denies" that small area around it. It's the area itself that matters, and mining fields + jumpholes/jumpgates should never have any of them near. The former kills of any miner-trader activity before it even had a chance to begin, and the latter is problematic because of ships jumping in being stuck in the cutscene while the base is already shooting them, resulting in inevitable instakills or loss of repairs.

Sure, there are "ways" around it which are extremely ineffective and should never be a mandatory for players such as /stuck macro, not to mention it's technically considered cheating, or the famous Reutligen-lovers argument "just use a cloak and cd the base" even though there are 15 weapon platforms with battleship weapons around it. Mining field and hole/gate POBs should've never existed in the first place, and if you're trying to defend the argument that they should stay you're either a "proud" owner of one or are absolutely clueless about how the game works.

We think that area denial bases and hole/gate blocking bases should not have a place in today's Disco any more.

I could get behind this if this petition also prevent POBs from being within 15k of any NPC base.
These are as harmful as mining field POBs.

Although I personally wouldn't mind such a change, I don't think it's necessary. However, calling them as harmful as mining field or gate/hole POBs is silly for the reasons stated above. POBs around NPC bases do nothing but make you waste 30 more seconds by cruising around them which is a minor drawback compared to the problematic POBs.

[Danny-boy]

Although I personally wouldn't mind such a change, I don't think it's necessary. However, calling them as harmful as mining field or gate/hole POBs is silly for the reasons stated above. POBs around NPC bases do nothing but make you waste 30 more seconds by cruising around them which is a minor drawback compared to the problematic POBs.

This, essentially.

[Alley]

Although I personally wouldn't mind such a change, I don't think it's necessary. However, calling them as harmful as mining field or gate/hole POBs is silly for the reasons stated above. POBs around NPC bases do nothing but make you waste 30 more seconds by cruising around them which is a minor drawback compared to the problematic POBs.

The issue for me is more of a consistency one. If we're going to move bases like Reutlingen for being "harmful" aka within 15k of a "zone of activity", all bases should fall under the same precept.

I can certainly find some rogue players deeming Long Island a harmful base for preventing Manhattan interactions (as stupid as that can be) or Pirates considering Falster harmful, etc. It's really all a matter of perception.

This is why if we're doing this we should apply it fair and square to all bases.

---

Alley was right.

[Danny-boy]

Although I personally wouldn't mind such a change, I don't think it's necessary. However, calling them as harmful as mining field or gate/hole POBs is silly for the reasons stated above. POBs around NPC bases do nothing but make you waste 30 more seconds by cruising around them which is a minor drawback compared to the problematic POBs.

The issue for me is more of a consistency one. If we're going to move bases like Reutlingen for being "harmful" aka within 15k of a "zone of activity", all bases should fall under the same precept.

I can certainly find some rogue players deeming Long Island a harmful base for preventing Manhattan interactions (as stupid as that can be) or Pirates considering Falster harmful, etc. It's really all a matter of perception.

This is why if we're doing this we should apply it fair and square to all bases.

Sorry, I dont quite see why this is an issue of consistency for you Alley. This petition about POBs in mining fields is already a rule, all we are calling for here is that POBs that were grandfathered in (I.e. When the rule was created that POBs in a mining field couldn't go past a certain level POBs that had already surpassed that level were allowed to remain) should be moved from their current position in accordance with the current rules. So surely this change should make things more consistent for you, not less.

Sorry for the terrible prose, I am on my mobile. I will edit this post later when I get home.