Bretonian Government Feedback

[The Kingdom of Bretonia]

Old Trafford alongside 2 other bases were destroyed because they were decaying and did not get supplied within the proposed timeframe.

Please cease spamming our PMs and the feedback thread every other few days about this as the matter is decidedly closed and they will be ignored. As a general statement and recommendation for PoB owners in Bretonia, we will continue to pursue a similar policy in the future just as much to remove inactive bases. As it stands, there are 25 PoBs, out of which people utilize, at best, 4 to 5. Most do not contribute anything, thus our move to remove inactive bases is all the more justified to make up space for other bases that can serve a purpose. In other words, please take care of your bases if you believe them to be that important to the game world.

In line with that, we've also updated our base registration regulations (article 4.3.4 has received several other points to make it clearer what happens if a base is decaying). That aside, and, as a last note, Couden has no say in neither what BretGov does nor what the BAF does. His comment here is done on his own behalf and stating his personal opinion on the matter. The consensus in BretGov is that this move to remove inactive bases is justified.

Thank you for your questions.

[BPA)Sgt.Sharpe]

Old Trafford alongside 2 other bases were destroyed because they were decaying and did not get supplied within the proposed timeframe.

Thank you for your questions.

This is feedback on your practice and RP as a faction. Don't shut this down as it is a valid discussion and you need to receive feedback.

From what I understand, people in BretGov based on a belief that there are too many PoB's have decided to cull them, irrespective of the RP that went into them to get built with the Governments permission. The decision is based on the decay level. What level of decay was Old Trafford BTW when you destroyed it? Seriously answer this please because for over four years someone has been committed and has provided supplies to Old T.

What you have just said means that players outside of RP have made a decision to use the BretGov to destroy the hard work of players. To cover your backside you have retrofitted a clause that means 15% decay maximum is allowed. And yet there was nothing saying anything about decay rates prior to this hastily included 15%. So you had zero right to destroy these bases in the first place.

You cannot tell how active a PoB is as many players, if not most players, use them passively. Storage, transfer, etc.
You can't also tell what goes on in a player's Real Life that prevents or limits time in-game. This is an arbitrary decision that makes no sense, is contrary to developing and safeguarding the health of the Discovery Freelancer community. This decision should be fair and treat all players equally.

The opinion of Couden underlines there is bias against PoB's that exists and did influence the decision. That the BretGovt decided this shows others have this same anti-PoB bias. Otherwise you would not destroy them, would you?

It is an own goal. Get the Admin to reinstate these bases and learn from your mistakes. Simple and fair decision don't you think?

[Couden]

The opinion of Couden underlines there is bias against PoB's that exists and did influence the decision. That the BretGovt decided this shows others have this same anti-PoB bias. Otherwise you would not destroy them, would you?

If no one need my opinion I'd say I would nerf Shield DMG % + PoB Health bar for each Core level, but this is not here. Bret Gov make their choice and this can't be undone. Go and build another 10 PoBs that will decay somewhere else.

---

---

[Binski]

Just stop complaining about a space tamagotchi.

Move on and play the game.

The opinion of Couden underlines there is bias against PoB's that exists and did influence the decision. That the BretGovt decided this shows others have this same anti-PoB bias. Otherwise you would not destroy them, would you?

If no one need my opinion I'd say I would nerf Shield DMG % + PoB Health bar for each Core level, but this is not here. Bret Gov make their choice and this can't be undone. Go and build another 10 PoBs that will decay somewhere else.

It is head scratching the anti-POB angst we have here, this is Discovery Freelancer. If you don't like it, don't play here. It really didn't do any favors to the server to reduce the 'load' by a few of POB's. Giving priority to those who rarely use, or don't build their own POB's, rewards the crowd that wants to succeed by doing less. It's dragging down those willing do more, and earn more. POB's keep this place alive, and help players carve out some real purpose. So they get out to enjoy sieging POB's. Don't siege POB's to take out your angst on them, do it for real reasons. If the server needs help with the load, let's upgrade.

Besides, what lack of creativity! For hard sieges, someone could come up with a slow moving siege barge, like a trebuchet, that fires big single shots from 7-8k, once every 2 minutes, a huge high powered shot. It would need constant protection too. Without needing to change anything with POB's, well populated factions could qualify for getting a siege ship opened up to them. And imagine, if players had bases to siege other than POB's.

I had suggested they auction these bases first. In 2 cases the base owners were caught off guard by this. To be fair, if these bases were supposed to be paying base fees and were behind, it would have undoubtedly been [legally] justified.

For years I haven't really considered the BretGov or the Admiralty as playing to their roles properly. I partially blame from the lack of closed rolelpay, and too much story dept dominance. Why is a player who's signature is coalition, sieging bases for Bretonia? Also fighting for the Coalition against the Corsairs? Sieging bases all around, they hate them, but it's also...fun? Cognitive dissonance?

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############

[BPA)Sgt.Sharpe]

15% degradation is not reasonable. I would suggest when a PoB is 1/3 decayed it would start to be considered as abandoned.

In the spirit of goodwill and to right wrongs, BretG should quietly request the Admin to return these bases. It would be fair as the BretG had no right to issue a decree to destroy decaying bases when there was no law regarding it. It would be fair and in the spirit of the game.

[Darius]

15% degradation is not reasonable. I would suggest when a PoB is 1/3 decayed it would start to be considered as abandoned.

In the spirit of goodwill and to right wrongs, BretG should quietly request the Admin to return these bases. It would be fair as the BretG had no right to issue a decree to destroy decaying bases when there was no law regarding it. It would be fair and in the spirit of the game.

Core 1 = 60 million hps
Core 2 = 90 million
Core 3 = 120 million
Core 4 = 180 million

This is 15% of PoB HP. Let's take, for example, a Core 1. As priorly calculated, that base will decay at a rate of 864k per day, thus taking 70 days of no supplies to reach a level of 85%. Now remember that going up by core levels only increases that needed time. For a base to reach 85% HP at core 2 or 3 it would take several months. It is enough time.

[Kherty]

I can imagine how loud y'all be crying if Discovery would wipe all pobs every 2-3 months like Rust or Day Z.

That's exactly because it's not the case that these players are rightfully discussing and questioning the aspect of sieging POBs in this manner.

---

"Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." - Hunter S. Thompson
Favorite song
Second favorite song
Third favorite song (Changed: 26th Oct. 2025)
Did you sent something to me/factions/etc. and I forgot about it? Please send a message >here<!

[Kanzler Niemann]

I can imagine how loud y'all be crying if Discovery would wipe all pobs every 2-3 months like Rust or Day Z.

That's exactly because it's not the case that these players are rightfully discussing and questioning the aspect of sieging POBs in this manner.

What is there to question? Your government told you to supply the bases or it will get sieged, but you did not answer and it got sieged, and now you are "debating" how this is ANTI-POB-BIAS.

---

[Erremnart]

I am fairly certain that the government would stop the siege if the owners would reply at least with: "Could you give me more time? I have something (inRL) on the way now, but I will supply them in two weeks, no worries.". Is a week a really short time to not be able to answer with such a simple reply or request?

If Bretonia would be biassed against these PoBs, they wouldn't be taking measures like bumping those demand threads every few days so they will stay visible.

---

Captain Virginia Belle
Task Force Phoenix
Battlecruiser Roanoke
Feedback Thread

[Lemon]

Yes, obviously a week is way WAY too short for a Pob existing on for years. It's like you never owned a high-core PoB. As far as I know, a violation report was submitted, I don't see what law allows them to do this - these were fully licensed bases, and the law wasn't changed. I hope admins act. Gov is supposed to protect bases, not do this BS arbitrarily.

What's hilarious is that you wouldn't take 20 seconds to ask PoB owners next to NL to disable WPs that are disrupting the gameplay based on feedback, but you do go out of your way and spend many hours tryhard siege bases you are supposed to protect? Well done, and you wonder why your house is dead you geniuses