I would like to work to find some solutions of how situations like these can be avoided because I am pretty sure this madness is not what most people that play this game want.
I would like to have my list understood as a brainstorming to move towards such a goal.
1. Give us a "Little Base Admin Password" or "Babysitter Password"
I run Falster, one of the PoB that has been around for more than a year. What we need is a safe "Babysitter Password".
It allows for only 2 commands:
> /base login
> /shop (not: /shop price)
This Pw can be given to trusted people to check the levels of the base, to baby sit it once it has been set to the values you like. It can also be given irply to Police or House without enabling backstabs.
This would take off the complete workload of a base Admin while not making the whole project worth hundreds of hours and carried by dozens of players that vulnerable to the whim of a pw user. And we had that before. I only say IDF Seychelles by Phoenix Alpha.
Edit: The sabotage of Malaclypse Freeport has proven the necessity again.
2. "Master Base Password" and "Secondary Password" are oorp devices
You cannot use it for roleplay. Every owner of a base knows how incredibly oorp the process as a base administrator is. It is no rp to type "/shop price 24 900 50000 50000", it does not feel like rp. It should not be rp.
Destroying bases by irply "evacuating the crew" or "shipping off the repairs" is an oorp act of setting crap like "/shop price 2 0 0 0" and not "Crew, you are under arrest, board the ships."
3. Base placement rules
Admins have to state clear rules of what is allowed and what not. There was so much bad blood by "Location Blockade" bases that there has to be some rules about placement. Telling the players to destroy it if it does not fit is not the way to go for extreme cases like the one that triggered the afrementioned mess.
a) Bases cannot be closer than 5k from any stationary NPC object
Bases that stick in planets, block lanes, block station exits, etc should not exist.
Edit: The 5k distance also kills the concept of insta-killing setups at holes and gates. Guns can reach there, but cannot be arranged to create a real kill zone. Instaing people is not beneficial to roleplay and should not happen.
b) If a base is in visible range of a stationary NPC lawful infrastructure object (lanes, lawful bases, lawful gates), it can only have a lawful ID fitting the rp of the location, e.g. a base at a Bretonian lane has to have a lawful ID that fits for Bretonia.
NPC unlawful/semilawful bases are generally out of sight for rp reasons. The criminals don't not run their shop on Time Square. Imitate Freelancer NPC behaviour.
c) If a base has guns and is closer than 10k from a lawful infrastructure object, it has to have a lawful ID fitting the roleplay of its location.
Semi-/Unlawful factions have rephacks that cause lawful passerbys to be shot. Houses cannot accept that and would never accept that. I take Itabashi as the best known and thankfully already fixed example of this. Kusari would not have allowed the base to shoot GMG (no enemies of Kusari) right in front of New Tokyo.
Spotted problem: some lawful IDs do not work, e.g. I was told BHG ID (lawful) would shoot Junkers (not unlawfuls in some Houses).
Therefore the aim should be that base ID can be relatively free (e.g. a BHG base near a lane is possible if unarmed), but when armed AND near a lane/gate/base, it cannot have an ID that makes it shoot any lawful party of the region it is in.
d) The base's roleplay needs to fit its ID and environment
It's a badly worded 6.10 "Stick with your rp and the Freelancer rp!" rule that is supposed to mean: if you do something stupid and oorp, you can be sanctioned for it. This paragraph should create the basics for reporting a base for oorp issues, but needs to be worded differently.
4. Necessity of having an Infocard (idea by Swallow)
The infocard must be created. Deadline: 24h after base deployment.
In my opnion it should contain:
> IFF
> Irp contact address (the owner)
> OORP contact address (the player)
> short descripton of the roleplay (wirting "secret" or "unknown" is acceptable, but might draw more attackers)
That's all my stupid brain has seemingly been pondering about while I was sleeping. I hope I can sleep for another few hours now. Damn this. Hope it at least was worth anything.
1: A babysitter password would be useful to suppliers generally, but it wouldnt affect this situation, cos BPA wanted a password that would let them control the base if it got out of hand, for precisely this sort of situation. So this babysitter wouldnt even have been asked for.
2: I try to treat as much as I can as INRP, its an RP server and we're all supposed to RP as much as we can. I dont like it when people encourage treating things as OORP, as it leads to more people trying to brand anything they dont like as OORP, and more whining and rule lawyering, than actually RPing.
3: Again, Id rather deal with it INRP, and via gameplay mechanics, than make a set of arbitrary OORP rules. If you think its too easy to make an unlawful base near lawful areas, Id say that'd better be resolved by making bases easier to destroy, or heres an idea, how about making NPCs attack them, so if you build a base where hostile NPCs are, its gonna have its shield up all the time!
4: Unclear what your saying here, - "Stick with RP" Sure I can agree with that, however when you start talking about oorp, thats just open for everyone to start accusing anyone doing something different from themselves of being oorp, cos its the only way they can "win".
User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)
1) I like the idea of the secondary password. It would allow for needed help in running a base without having to wonder if it will be there tomorrow.
2) I understand it is an RP server. That is why I am here. Jack is also right however. Certain aspects of the game are OORP. It is not something we like, but it is what it is. knowing the difference between INRP and OORP is the trick to being a role player. You can find crafty ways of bringing these into RP, but they are OORP non the less.
3) I like both of these ideas combined. Do not restrict a players ability to place a base. If said player wants to place CR base 600k from a GRN battleship let them, but have that base open to attack from every GRN NPC and player alike, along with there allies. If a player sets a base next to a jump hole and sets up weapon platforms, treat it like a player attack. If it take the shields down to half then that player may return fire, and call for back up.
4) I think I understand this. (If not please tell me so) I believe Jack is saying the whole Rule needs to be rewritten. It should more clearly state the rules of engagement for both players, and player bases.
I agree on the smaller password allowing us to help with running bases with no real major access to all that high level stuff. All I simply want is to see what the base has in stock so I can go haul supplies for it. Simple as that.
I also agree on base placement. I'm starting to get extremely annoyed at how many bases are being built at Jump Gates and Holes with a bunch of Weapons Platforms literally on the Hole or Gate. FFS. Stop making it so hard for pirates or nomads in the case of Omicron-74 to even move around. Give them a chance to at least interact by placing your weapons 2k+ away from the hole rather.
I heard this from a few guys, make base building a SRP request. I agree on that. The ability for any lolwut to make a base or even 2 in any place just seems crazy. I'm tired of random bases spawning without me taking those base killing missions. Hahaha.
We got almost 100 bases online currently. 225 player slots available on the server. Its like the systems to players ratio. All these players need to supply these bases and then all the illegal ones need to be sieged which takes ages. I don't think having random bases spawning is a good idea. Make it a SRP request so number 1, its already legit and not illegally built and number 2, we don't have to siege the damned thing. Number 3, the people making it are serious about it and not going to just use it to annoy people.
Actually, edited this after checking 103 bases are up. And after thinking on that Manchester base mess... Look, do you think 1 player should have 2 bases in 1 system? In the game, NPC bases aren't just in every free spot, why? Because building a real base is tough and takes a lot of effort to set up. How the bases are being set up currently is way too easy. All you need is a yes from a house and there, make a base. I really think bases need SRP requests because you shouldn't be able to make a second base just because you feel bored with your Core 4 base in the same system.
1.) Would prove useful for suppliers, but wouldn't solve the issue which caused the previous thread.
2.) Why do you think it is ooRP for a base to have different levels of administration? What is the ooRP in it? Just because it's game mechanics, and consists of server commands mostly, it doesn't mean it isn't inRP and that it can't be roleplayed out.
As far as the first one goes - It would be simpler to edit the info icon in the top right corner to say this - I use it already to check what I need to stock the base with. As far as number two goes what would you suggest to replace it, off the top of my head you would have to link the base platform that built the base as the admin or some thing like that you mean. Now lets get started on number 3a seems reasonable. 3b seems reasonable, 3c is just an extension of 3b and thus should be incorporated into it. 3d is fairly obvious as your not going to get a BPA base in the middle of New York as an example.
Quote:1.) Would prove useful for suppliers, but wouldn't solve the issue which caused the previous thread.
Quote:cos BPA wanted a password that would let them control the base if it got out of hand
And after yesterday, no one will ever give anybody he does not know really well a pw any more.
So as a consequence, this is needed.
And: If this had been implremented, the problem would have never appeared bc the builder would never have been stupid enough to give a real pw away, when he can feed you the baby pw.
Either the local authorities have a tool to act in emergency or risk that the base goes rogue and that they can't do anything, but to have a lengthy siege against it. Besides, sharing an admin password with the authorities is incorporated with the contracts base builders make with the Bretonian Government. Either they comply with the terms of the contract or they will not be allowed to build a base in Bretonia.
What you offered does not seem to replace the need of complete control.
Yeah, I know this may seem a bit harsh. But I think that's how all houses should deal with legally built bases. It makes sense to have that level of password given to the people who openly defend and allow such a base to exist in their space. I just don't agree that they should act before issuing a warning. But then again, like you said, the owner may go rogue and yay, we have a week of terrible, terrible sieging, ahhhhhh. I can understand unlawfuls sieging a base, but lawfuls having to take down a base that's gone rogue is just the worst.
(06-01-2013, 10:38 AM)Thyrzul Wrote: Besides, sharing an admin password with the authorities is incorporated with the contracts base builders make with the Bretonian Government.
I was told that it is not true that PoB builders have to give a password. No idea what is right or wrong now. Anyway:
Quote:What you offered does not seem to replace the need of complete control.
Personally, I find even the idea of demanding the power or "complete control" over something of considerable worth in a game unethical to the highest degree. Why would you - as a player or a group of players - be entitled to have this kind of power? Who do people who invent rules like that think who they are? What makes you suitable for decisions of this scope?
What you write would work if human beings were flawless, players knew the responsibility they have, could judge the fallout and would never make bad decision.
Guess what... that's not the case. The WC have proven their inability to carry out decisions of that scope. So they - and no party ever - should ever have that power.
Unlimited power over other people toys comes from the Admins and from the Admins only.
If there is a troll base, Admins should smite it after it has been reported for rule violation and after rp failed.
That's the way it happens with a trolly ship and an idiot ingame.
That has to be the way it has to happen with a 1000-fold more important item ingame.
![[Image: OFPpYpb.png]](https://i.imgur.com/OFPpYpb.png)
![[Image: N1Zf8K4.png]](https://i.imgur.com/N1Zf8K4.png)
![[Image: LnLbhul.png]](https://i.imgur.com/LnLbhul.png)
