Base balance and other such matters

[Skipper]

And I'm all ears about your "arguments" as to why this change in a BETA is so tragic it makes you screech like a little girl.

So now your argument is, that this rule is okay, because:
1) Other parts of the rule update is okay.
2) One doesn't need to point out parts which make one lose sanity faster than a conversation with the great Cthulhu.
2a) The loudness, and desperation of one's protest doesn't need to be proportionate to the insanity of a new rule.
3) I'm a little girl.

You may have some truth about 2a.
Regarding the rest, I think I have no further need to argue with your poor lonely braincell.

---

[Username removed]

*Bows*
Excellent work gentlemen.

[Tunicle]

Impressive.




(as a point of accuracy sea cucumbers do not have brains)

[Stuart.croll]

I vote for the 'Suck it and see' approach as opposed to the 'Rant like a crazed loon' approach.
But hey that's just me.:$

---

[Slartibartfast]

I think these guy's points is that the bases' locations are balanced by the amount of effort put in by the owners. The proportion of effort put in by pirates versus the owners is ridiculous at this point.

If one of your mission goals was to provide a safe-haven at a choke-point or to act as a trade outpost, you're sinking hundreds of millions of credits and literally days of man hours into making it work.

A single player can render both of those roles moot in 2 seconds and a single click of the right mouse button. How is that fair? The proportional amount of work and investment is totally out of synch.

Alright, this seems reasonable. It's just that the "pirates vs. the lawfuls" thing is a non-issue IMHO, as lawfuls have just as much of a chance of hiding their base and sieging the things as well ingame.

Which isn't exactly perfect and logical, but we all know that's just what happens ingame.

Well, what exactly on this is balanced?!

I was referring to their location. Basically, I'm trying to draw parallels between the ability of denying a ship to dock with a base which can be spawned -anywhere- and taking down a lane. Which is an argument that crawled out of my behind, I don't know if that's what the dev team were aiming at.;)

EDIT: and all other points could be answered with: well, you were told in advance bases are supposed to be giant cash black holes.

[Skipper]

It's just that the "pirates vs. the lawfuls" thing is a non-issue IMHO, as lawfuls have just as much of a chance of hiding their base and sieging the things as well ingame.

In RP it makes sense to hide an unlawful base.
In RP it makes no sense whatsoever to hide a lawful base. Save maybe some special exceptions.

Pretending that a lawful vs. unlawful base distinction does not exist is a folly.

---

[Madvillain]

oh my , this is gonna cause some tears.
good thing I don't have a base....

---

Baila Morena | Toilet Trouble | Elder Presidente[TBH] | The Titan Combat Manual | Confession
♰ Join the Corsair Brotherhood ♰

[Slartibartfast]

In RP it makes sense to hide an unlawful base.
In RP it makes no sense whatsoever to hide a lawful base. Save maybe some special exceptions.

Pretending that a lawful vs. unlawful base distinction does not exist is a folly.

And ignoring what happens ingame is oh so productive.

Does anyone need more stations inRP? For the record, I'm not saying that the number of bases from here on in should be static, only that player controlled stations aren't a necessitiy to the mod and are supposed to take a lot of manpower exactly because of that. Does it make sense for the lawfuls to suddenly start spawning bases like mad inRP? Does it make sense for unlawfuls?

One of the bigger perks of player-owned bases is producing state of the art equipment. Doesn't it make sense to hide that production even for the lawfuls?

Does it make sense for lawful bases to be invunerable? InRP, it nearly does. In a perfect world, lawful bases would rely on overwhelming protection and unlawful bases would rely on not being discovered. Ingame it's not a perfect world. Perfect world is an unbalanced world.

EDIT: in other words, what my poor lonely brain cell is trying to tell me is this:
Pirate RP-ing part of the braincell: Yay, I won't have to worry about the possibility of miners being invonurable any more (not a thought that would cause any sleepless nights, mind)
The part of the poor braincell that cares for a player-owned base or two: Hm, I (even though I'm just a part of a single braincell, what a burden) might have to start worrying about the base being besieged. BRING IT ON!

EDIT2: high time to eject from the thread.

[Skipper]

And ignoring what happens ingame is oh so productive.

Does anyone need more stations inRP? For the record, I'm not saying that the number of bases from here on in should be static, only that player controlled stations aren't a necessitiy to the mod and are supposed to take a lot of manpower exactly because of that. Does it make sense for the lawfuls to suddenly start spawning bases like mad inRP? Does it make sense for unlawfuls?

One of the bigger perks of player-owned bases is producing state of the art equipment. Doesn't it make sense to hide that production even for the lawfuls?

Does it make sense for lawful bases to be invunerable? InRP, it nearly does. In a perfect world, lawful bases would rely on overwhelming protection and unlawful bases would rely on not being discovered. Ingame it's not a perfect world. Perfect world is an unbalanced world.

EDIT: in other words, what my poor lonely brain cell is trying to tell me is this:
Pirate RP-ing part of the braincell: Yay, I won't have to worry about the possibility of miners being invonurable any more (not a thought that would cause any sleepless nights, mind)
The part of the poor braincell that cares for a player-owned base or two: Hm, I (even though I'm just a part of a single braincell, what a burden) might have to start worrying about the base being besieged. BRING IT ON!

EDIT2: high time to eject from the thread.

1) So your problem is too many bases now? Well it's a hype as any new feature would bring. It'll die down. Unecessary bases will also die as interest vanes. But if you1re so worried about them, maybe think licencing, or something as with Caps, or admin granted access to them like with Barges in the beginning.

2) It takes a rather warped, and superhero-comic socialized brain to think high tech production facilities would be best hidden and possibly as far away as possible. In fact, supply of raw materials, access to skilled labour, know-how, and even simple cost/benefit ratios would unquestionably put high tech production facilities next to existing and preferrably large industrial centers.

3) It doesn't make sense to have any base indestructable in RP. And they aren't. Even without making certain bases undockable when you would need them. In fact, it is simply idiotic, moronic and altogether mindblowing to implement at great runtime expense a fancy gun that shoots only when you don't need it to. In fact it's the most unfair thing I can think of, since it promises protection then you fnd out, yeah, it gives protection, but only to your enemy who has the big guns anyway.

4) Finally we get to your underlying problem. "Oooh, I'm a pirate. Oooh, I wanna kill stuff. Ooooh, stupid undefended other bloke docked so i can't kill him. Waaarghh! Rage, make everything undockable. Better yet, destroy them." Idiot.
If you have a problem, solve the bloody problem. You don't need to nuke a city to make 1 bankrobber stop robbing banks.

Shields blocking docking is stupid. It should be rethought and removed.

---

[Slartibartfast]

I'm indeed an idiot for even bothering to try to answer someone that takes a part of my post that suits his agenda and humps it till it bleeds, ignoring the rest of the post.

Good night.