A simple way to create activity around a base siege, would be to have a time period set for Killing off Transports that supply the base.
So, an attack is declared in the appropriate thread with the background roleplay.
As it is now, there is a certain amount of time given to defenders to organize themselves.
During this time, make it a requirement that the Aggressor kill off "X" amount (10-15 for example) transports supplying the base. If the aggressor meets the "X" amount within the amount of time specified, then and only then does the aggressor have a clear path to killing off the base in question.
On the other end, if the defenders manage to get twice the "X" number of transports on base safely before the attackers get their kill quota, then they have "Saved" the base.
This solution, would put an extra step in between declaring an a attack on a POB and killing it.
This would generate activity. Ships supplying the base would now need escorts. The Faction or group owing the PoB, could hire mercs and extra transporters and pay for that service, ect, ect. Proof of Kills and Deliveries is easy enough with screen shots and having ships register just as a player would do on a bounty board.
This would be a more "fun" way to go about attacking a PoB, instead of putting a coke can on your mouse fire button and sit there statically for how ever long it takes to kill the PoB.
I would leave the Admins out of having to approve a POB attack. Keeps them out of being accused of Bias or acting with a biassed motive.
Anyone who Farms 100 mill in three hours is more interested in a bigger ship than in roleplay. The fact that it can be done, is beside the point. More grind is not what players need in Disco.
Just my thoughts on it.
Cheers.
That doesn't work, though. First of all, it's off-topic and an entirely different concept - please don't post this here in this thread but make your own, because I don't want this thread getting messed up by different concepts.
Apart from that, that won't work, because you'd need to restrict people to only supply their bases during that time, otherwise, people would just do as usual and supply the bases whenever they want. Aside from that, many PoBs are located really close to NPC stations. Nichols, Long Island Station, Park Avenue Station, Canary Warth, Isle of Skye... nope. You won't be able to kill those transports with NPC stations that close. Especially not those in Bretonia.
That's also a horrible amount of programming needed here. But the concept is not about making activity around PoB Sieges, but to regulate them. Grinding is what keeps Discovery alive, as people always have something to aim for: Another CAP8 Battleship with Cloak, costy RP things and what not. You shouldn't underestimate that. The more transports are out there, the more pirates will log, the more law enforcers will log.
(12-14-2016, 03:04 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: Given that Discovery took a major, if not even critical setback today, we may need to come up with temporary solutions to the current problems we have. While I don't know what exactly the issue with the PoBs right now is, I might have an idea on how to regulate base sieges, to have them a bit less unfair.
Let them be approved by Admins. (I know, the greens don't like the idea already. Even more work. ._. )
The idea behind this is to make this more fair for both sides. The amount needed to build a higher Core PoB is way higher than to destroy it, we all agree on this. You write one demand, instantly after that you make the attack declaration and if the demand is not met within 8 or 24 hours, there is enough time to siege the base ANY TIME. You can do it when people are online, you can do it when people are offline. Make it an event with a set starting time, limit that event maybe to four hours - so everyone knows when to log, both to siege and both to defend the base. If the attackers don't manage to do it within the set time, they have to try again later.
Four Hours, set time, multiple attemps
Weaker factions have shown they need hours of sieging to bring down a medium-prepared Core 1 base. For example, BD/AFC sieging the PMS network. It took around two hours with three, later two additional capitals. Not every faction has 20 Full-Cerberus Jorms, although RHA will still have it fairly easier with sieges, obviously. For a siege, either people coordinate event-like to bring up the attacking fleet or they have to attack multiple times, which is, in my opinion, something worth thinking about. So far, when people wanted to destroy a PoB, they did. With this concept, they actually can fail, if they don't coordinate well. Also, more than two hours actually allow people to send a second defense wave (or a second attack wave) during the same event.
Roleplay required
As we already know: Bad facshun makes demand, in the worst case the base owner has only a few hours, in the best case a few days time to respond. Along with the demand, people already post the attack declaration, which is weird, because the attack declaration should be something that comes after the demand, like we do it the way ingame. Demand, if not met, then engagement lines. Is that fair? It could be worse, but it also could be better. This way, you have four steps:
1. Make the comm.
2. Wait for response or no response in time.
3. Create event.
4. Event permission granted.
That's a bit of burocracy, maybe, but I think it's a fair one. The created event would work the same way as the Attack Declaration Thread, just with a set time. Approving the siege events should be a thing done in a few seconds, as those events happen not every day and are created without thousand pages of roleplay.
Why the admin permission, though?
Money required
From what I have seen, everyone was agreeing that the attackers should have to pay something for the siege, be it like @Croft said something like a special weapon ammunition or something else. We want and need a money sink here, so it's fair for both sides. So why don't we deal with this like SRP Requests are dealt with?
Attempt to siege a Core 1 Base: 100.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 2 Base: 400.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 3 Base: 600.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 4 Base: 800.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 5 Base: 1.000.000.000 Credits Fee
Too low, too high? 100.000.000 Credits can be farmed by one person in 1-3 hours of trading, depending on what kind of trade route you are. But you don't siege a base on your own. There is usually a faction doing so. So you'd need to pay one fee per created siege event. An admin takes the fee when they approve the event. Since it is just too easy to build a Core 1 Base to annoy people, that should be a little bit cheaper, however, the more effort people put into their bases, the more effort the attacking factions will need to put into it to bring it down.
And if the attacking faction didn't manage to do it during the first siege event, they have lost money, just as the base owner did, as they need to resupply the base now. So if people want to destroy a base that existed for years, they will need to pay for it as well. If they lose, they need to rethink it. Is it worth trying a second assault?
The good thing about the fees is the fact that it animates factions maybe a bit to do more trades. Okay, RHA surely will pay the sieges with the taxed moneys, but even that is fair. So we not only have people showing more trading activity for supplying and upgrading a base, but people will also show more trading activity for the preparation of a siege event.
Other things
So we have covered the payment fee and the event duration. I'd say people don't need to register for this event, at least not as partaking individuals. However, the defending forces should make sense as usual, just as the attacking forces should have a fitting diplomacy to each other. No K'hara-Outcast-Rogue-Lane Hacker-alliance. Only factions that are good with each other. That would also be checked by an admin, so I don't have to make another long post in someone's feedback thread and cause chaos.
I think that's a fair solution concept, but feel free to add you opinion on it here. Please, keep it civil. No snarky comments, no memes, no off-topicing, no inventing of new terms.
(12-14-2016, 05:10 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote:
(12-14-2016, 04:57 PM)oZoneRanger(III) Wrote:
A simple way to create activity around a base siege, would be to have a time period set for Killing off Transports that supply the base.
So, an attack is declared in the appropriate thread with the background roleplay.
As it is now, there is a certain amount of time given to defenders to organize themselves.
During this time, make it a requirement that the Aggressor kill off "X" amount (10-15 for example) transports supplying the base. If the aggressor meets the "X" amount within the amount of time specified, then and only then does the aggressor have a clear path to killing off the base in question.
On the other end, if the defenders manage to get twice the "X" number of transports on base safely before the attackers get their kill quota, then they have "Saved" the base.
This solution, would put an extra step in between declaring an a attack on a POB and killing it.
This would generate activity. Ships supplying the base would now need escorts. The Faction or group owing the PoB, could hire mercs and extra transporters and pay for that service, ect, ect. Proof of Kills and Deliveries is easy enough with screen shots and having ships register just as a player would do on a bounty board.
This would be a more "fun" way to go about attacking a PoB, instead of putting a coke can on your mouse fire button and sit there statically for how ever long it takes to kill the PoB.
I would leave the Admins out of having to approve a POB attack. Keeps them out of being accused of Bias or acting with a biassed motive.
Anyone who Farms 100 mill in three hours is more interested in a bigger ship than in roleplay. The fact that it can be done, is beside the point. More grind is not what players need in Disco.
Just my thoughts on it.
Cheers.
That doesn't work, though. First of all, it's off-topic and an entirely different concept - please don't post this here in this thread but make your own, because I don't want this thread getting messed up by different concepts.
Apart from that, that won't work, because you'd need to restrict people to only supply their bases during that time, otherwise, people would just do as usual and supply the bases whenever they want. Aside from that, many PoBs are located really close to NPC stations. Nichols, Long Island Station, Park Avenue Station, Canary Warth, Isle of Skye... nope. You won't be able to kill those transports with NPC stations that close. Especially not those in Bretonia.
That's also a horrible amount of programming needed here. But the concept is not about making activity around PoB Sieges, but to regulate them. Grinding is what keeps Discovery alive, as people always have something to aim for: Another CAP8 Battleship with Cloak, costy RP things and what not. You shouldn't underestimate that. The more transports are out there, the more pirates will log, the more law enforcers will log.
Posts: 3,194
Threads: 196
Joined: Nov 2009
Staff roles: Systems Lead
The POB plugin never was broken in the first place. The reason LIS and Iejima died so easily while the SEI bases in Leeds didn't was due to cheater(s), nothing more.
Yeah bumping this, uh Wake up admin squad, when traders gave up... well, u know better than me trader grinding cash are the essential part of disco, no traders, means no pirates and thus no lawfuls
You could try give a little more love to ppl actually making activity (trade fakshuns?) and less on conn squad?
Try pay attention on what happened after mining pobs been killed in rhein last time?
All that could be done, on defense side was done inRegens siege, i got 3 factions hauling to make 4 wp in one day, wasted a billion paying ppl
What for? For em to shoot wp, bug em and they simple dont shoot.
![[Image: BMdBL0j.png]](https://i.imgur.com/BMdBL0j.png)
![[Image: RyoAxdd.png]](https://i.imgur.com/RyoAxdd.png)