• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Rules & Requests Rules
« Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 198 Next »
POBs near mining fields

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Poll: Should POBs be allowed inside 15k of mining fields?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes, it should be allowed
29.76%
25 29.76%
No, it should not be allowed
70.24%
59 70.24%
Total 84 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Pages (8): « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
POBs near mining fields
Offline Jack_Henderson
10-20-2016, 09:25 AM, (This post was last modified: 10-20-2016, 01:04 PM by Jack_Henderson.)
#61
Independent Miners Guild
Posts: 6,103
Threads: 391
Joined: Nov 2010

@WildBill: Don't worry. That was everything I was going to say. Perhaps you can think about moving that base. It would be - in my opinion - the right thing to do and it would send a positive signal in general. We could do with some positivity at the moment. Smile

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!
Reply  
Offline Jack_Henderson
10-20-2016, 09:38 AM,
#62
Independent Miners Guild
Posts: 6,103
Threads: 391
Joined: Nov 2010

(10-20-2016, 07:57 AM)Xenon Wrote: How about a fix for the kruger base, once and for all - and you can apply that to the rest of the bases that have similar problems.
You cannot move the base without the base owner approval, i understand that specially when the rule is implemented after the base construction

Of course they can. And they should.
There is no entitlement by pointing to some old rulesets.
An example: I cannot say today "you are pvp dead, you left 10k of the fight" because that was a rule in like 2012.
The rules changed.
They should be enforced.

It is correct to give the former owners the choice to suggest new positions.
But if they are unwilling to play by the new set of rules, the staff should in my opinion just force them.
If I broke the rules, I would also get to feel the repercussions.
If I harmed gameplay as actively and as long as some POBs, I would likely have to expect a harsh sanction.


(10-20-2016, 08:16 AM)Mímir Wrote: I don't get it... Why don't staff just move the base when everyone in their right mind know what the problem with that base is.

So what if a group of players feel entitled to have their stuff anywhere, staff is in a position to complete ignore that, and so they should. It's these ridiculous prolonged discussions/situations that makes people salty and makes playing this game such a drag.

When the rule was fixed, you should just have done a sweep and made sure all bases complied with the new ruleset and work with the base owners to ensure that their bases would comply, rather than allow exceptions. Because exceptions make people feel super special and entitled, which in turn makes them very upset when that entitlement is challenged.[...]

[...] It's truly mind-boggling that this discussion is on, when there is a clear ruleset posted on the forum. Just enforce it.

I fully agree, Mimir.

And:
It's not too late to correct the "exception" mistake.

It's just a handful bases, likely less than 5. I know of 3 PoBs that could be classified as problematic for gameplay.

There is even hardly any controversy as > 70 % of the community have understood the problem (and many of the remaining < 30 % are those directly affected by the potential relocation and therefore are understandably against it)

If it happened quickly, we could likely save everybody the mess that is most definitely going to appear this weekend when the sieges go into "real mode".
Reply  
Offline DragonLancer
10-20-2016, 03:48 PM,
#63
Banned
Posts: 661
Threads: 37
Joined: Aug 2008

I would like to throw in it already happened that system stuff had been moved instead of a PoB.

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=147045
Time left: (Permanent)
Reply  
Offline Jack_Henderson
10-20-2016, 04:45 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-20-2016, 05:43 PM by Jack_Henderson.)
#64
Independent Miners Guild
Posts: 6,103
Threads: 391
Joined: Nov 2010

(10-20-2016, 03:48 PM)DragonLancer Wrote: I would like to throw in it already happened that system stuff had been moved instead of a PoB.

Has happened before, indeed.
However, I have my doubts whether it would in the Rheinland case.

Edit: Okay, a change to the field already happened. Smile I love to be wrong on this one.

I am convinced that this is fundamentally not a dev-matter, so in my opinion we should not primarily look for a solution there.

Nevertheless, if a relocation of the fields were already in the making, some problems would go away by itself.

Jack
Reply  
Offline WildBill
10-20-2016, 05:50 PM,
#65
Member
Posts: 268
Threads: 44
Joined: Jun 2011

(10-20-2016, 09:25 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: @WildBill: Don't worry. That was everything I was going to say. Perhaps you can think about moving that base. It would be - in my opinion - the right thing to do and it would send a positive signal in general. We could do with some positivity at the moment. Smile

Absolutely, just as soon as the system is completely disconnected from Liberty like we were promised it would be. iRP this is the only defense we have against LSF and their foul tactics of bringing in Liberty fleets to eradicate us from our homes.

[Image: uc?export=view&id=0B2Lt2LOfU6qySTRHdUNWaGxGeEk]
Wild Bill's Custom Interface
Reply  
Offline Redeemer
10-23-2016, 10:54 AM, (This post was last modified: 10-23-2016, 10:55 AM by Redeemer.)
#66
Banned
Posts: 25
Threads: 3
Joined: Sep 2016

(10-20-2016, 05:50 PM)WildBill Wrote:
(10-20-2016, 09:25 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: @WildBill: Don't worry. That was everything I was going to say. Perhaps you can think about moving that base. It would be - in my opinion - the right thing to do and it would send a positive signal in general. We could do with some positivity at the moment. Smile

Absolutely, just as soon as the system is completely disconnected from Liberty like we were promised it would be. iRP this is the only defense we have against LSF and their foul tactics of bringing in Liberty fleets to eradicate us from our homes.

As long as the scrap fields stay in house space where they should be, and dont mysteriously migrate to some remote corner of space where no man has gone before.

User was banned for: hello karlotta
Time left: (Permanent)
Reply  
Offline Piombo65
10-25-2016, 02:47 PM,
#67
Boh
Posts: 1,822
Threads: 126
Joined: May 2013

Curiosity:

But If I want to settle a POB within asteroid fields or right adjacent? If I want to hide a POB?

{AC}= Auxilia Coalition - Recruitment - Register your mercenary company
  Reply  
Offline Hina Nakamura
10-25-2016, 03:49 PM,
#68
Member
Posts: 542
Threads: 41
Joined: Sep 2016

(10-25-2016, 02:47 PM)Piombo65 Wrote: Curiosity:

But If I want to settle a POB within asteroid fields or right adjacent? If I want to hide a POB?

You can, because not all asteroid fields contain mining fields Wink

[Image: Hv9Zwdu.png]

☆ NEBULA DISCORD NETWORK ☆ NEBULA DELIVERY HUB ☆ NEBULA TECHNOLOGIES - CAMBRIDGE ☆
☆ NEBULA INFORMATION BOT ☆ XENON GRAND SHOP
☆
WHEN EXCELLENCY BECOMES A HABIT

Reply  
Offline Piombo65
10-25-2016, 04:02 PM,
#69
Boh
Posts: 1,822
Threads: 126
Joined: May 2013

(10-25-2016, 03:49 PM)Nebula Complex Wrote:
(10-25-2016, 02:47 PM)Piombo65 Wrote: Curiosity:

But If I want to settle a POB within asteroid fields or right adjacent? If I want to hide a POB?

You can, because not all asteroid fields contain mining fields Wink

Ah... is there a difference on rule point? Why?
  Reply  
Offline Hina Nakamura
10-25-2016, 04:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-25-2016, 04:08 PM by Hina Nakamura.)
#70
Member
Posts: 542
Threads: 41
Joined: Sep 2016

@Piombo65
It's simple, lets just agree on a simple fact, that most of the mining fields are inside asteroid fields.
If you build a POB inside an asteroid field that doesn't contain a mining field, then you are free to build defense arrays, and also will get blue prints for upgrades once you deliver the requested RP and fill the form created by the moderators/admins here, BUT, if you create a POB inside an asteroid field with a mining field inside, AND the POB is less than 15k away from the mining field, then from my point of view, it should not be allowed for that POB to build defense arrays and the rules stats that this POB cannot be upgraded more than Core 2. I hope that i made it clearer now.

[Image: Hv9Zwdu.png]

☆ NEBULA DISCORD NETWORK ☆ NEBULA DELIVERY HUB ☆ NEBULA TECHNOLOGIES - CAMBRIDGE ☆
☆ NEBULA INFORMATION BOT ☆ XENON GRAND SHOP
☆
WHEN EXCELLENCY BECOMES A HABIT

Reply  
Pages (8): « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode