This idea strikes me as treating a symptom rather than the illness.
This petition is to move area denying bases from jumpholes/gates and mine fields in order to increase piracy and other such interaction yet many of the bases that fall under this category have been doing so for years but only now has the issue been raised? Not to mention the previously stated double standard of allowing similar bases to exist over NPC bases.
What of the other interaction avoidances created by the PoB system itself? Cloaks, Jumpdrives and the store-all nature of bases themselves have all effected the core principle of this petition but are seemingly overlooked.
I don't doubt the intentions of this thread, it just seems to me as a tad skewed.
(10-26-2016, 07:20 PM)Croft Wrote: This idea strikes me as treating a symptom rather than the illness.
This petition is to move area denying bases from jumpholes/gates and mine fields in order to increase piracy and other such interaction yet many of the bases that fall under this category have been doing so for years but only now has the issue been raised? Not to mention the previously stated double standard of allowing similar bases to exist over NPC bases.
What of the other interaction avoidances created by the PoB system itself? Cloaks, Jumpdrives and the store-all nature of bases themselves have all effected the core principle of this petition but are seemingly overlooked.
I don't doubt the intentions of this thread, it just seems to me as a tad skewed.
Please do explain to me how POBs over NPC bases (especially with the same/simillar IFF) are an issue that prevents piracy? You do realise that any trader with half a brain cell, if running away from a fight will head straight for the NPC base and dock?
As for your first point, the issue has been raised many times over the years, only now has it been raised in the form of a petition. Perhaps that is because people believe the admins are currently more receptive to ideas from the community than they have previously been.
With regards to items such as cloaks and jumpdrives, I agree. However I'm probably right in guessing that the majority of the community disagree with us on that matter and enjoy these shiny toys. I'm willing to bet however that most people would like to see a removal of POBs in mining fields (as shown by the large number of supporters of this petition).
They offer a safe haven for those running from piracy or PvP without incuring any form of "death" simply by hiding behind the turrets and the base itself. If the petition is based around the denial of an area then it must deal with all its forms and the considerations required therein.
(10-27-2016, 12:13 AM)Croft Wrote: They offer a safe haven for those running from piracy or PvP without incuring any form of "death" simply by hiding behind the turrets and the base itself.
And why is that a problem?
It removes consequence from a decision and can effect how people will react to a situation, for example:
You stop a trader mid lane and demand your fee, at the end of the lane is an NPC base with a PoB on top of it. The trader decides to risk running rather than pay.
After a bit of a fight the trader gets close to the base with only a little hull remaining but the PoB guns open fire on you before the killing blow is dealt.
The next day you catch the same trader in the same lane, this time they don't bother waiting for your demand and just runs knowing they can escape you without issue because the PoB and its guns will keep you at bay.
But as I've said previously, this is only one aspect of a larger issue.
(10-27-2016, 12:13 AM)Croft Wrote: They offer a safe haven for those running from piracy or PvP without incuring any form of "death" simply by hiding behind the turrets and the base itself. If the petition is based around the denial of an area then it must deal with all its forms and the considerations required therein.
So do NPC bases, if a trader docks on an NPC base they are not dead as per the rules. So again I ask you to explain how POBs next to NPC bases (especially those of the same/similar IFF) has any negative impact on piracy.
A POB of this nature may well have an effect on PVP, however the intention of this petition is to allow interactions (specifically pirate/miner/trader interactions) to happen, which if approved would be the case.
I think people are also missing the point that this petition is not calling for a change in rules, it is only calling for bases that have been allowed to break the rules to be moved in accordance with them. So why then should we be demanding that new rules be brought in place if a few people that previously haven't been are to now be subjected to the rules?
It seems like people support the idea of one rule for the majority and a different for a select few, quite sad really.
I've just given you a scenario that explains my point, perhaps something more obvious? How about personally being pirated directly outside of Curacao? I'm fairly postive that wouldn't happen if half a dozen gun platforms surrounded the docking rings.
The fact of the matter is calling for some area denial bases to be moved while others remain is a double standard, regardless of how well intentioned the idea may be. For example, placing a PoB above a guard station meets the critera of both being near a gate but above a station of the same IFF.
(10-27-2016, 02:17 PM)Croft Wrote: The fact of the matter is calling for some area denial bases to be moved while others remain is a double standard, regardless of how well intentioned the idea may be.
I agree, moved all PoB's all 15k away from the nearest station/Jumphole/Jumpgate/planet/lanes or move none of them
Another point is that some of these PoBs were built within rulings and now folk want
new rules in place when they themselves are all sitting neat & tidy in their self righteous
billets, again, in place before petitions & new rules which doesn't include their own PoB.
You made a stab Jack!
& i've read aye, & saw your so called classified area denial evidence of La Fortaleza, lit up
nice & green there for that slag you sent into Puerto, where's the intended pain Jack?
Now if i'm running you down loaded with the last materials for one of your builds aye,
materials that i'm in want of, i'll have ButterBeans hit your shields out so you can't dock,
but that doesn't matter does it, you've got Aland grinning as it opens it's doors for you,
a nice safe haven on the flip side, untouchable if you like.
(10-27-2016, 02:17 PM)Croft Wrote: I've just given you a scenario that explains my point, perhaps something more obvious? How about personally being pirated directly outside of Curacao? I'm fairly postive that wouldn't happen if half a dozen gun platforms surrounded the docking rings.
The fact of the matter is calling for some area denial bases to be moved while others remain is a double standard, regardless of how well intentioned the idea may be. For example, placing a PoB above a guard station meets the critera of both being near a gate but above a station of the same IFF.
No, if there is a trader right outside an NPC base then they will hit dock the second a pirate is nearby. If they don't then they enjoy RP and aren't the type to run away to a POB anyway.
This is not a double standard, this is calling for POBs in mining fields (prolly should include jh/jg's as well) to be moved as they are harmful to game play. These specific AoD bases cause harm to game play, thus the petition is to remove them. Stop nit picking with the term AoD, especially when you have to consider that unless you are playing against an idiot a POB next to an NPC base (if it has the same/similar IFF) has ZERO additive AoD effect that was not already provided by the NPC station.
If you want to cry double standards look to the bases in mining fields that are being allowed to actively break the rules for no other reason than they have been in existence for a long time, whilst anyone else wanting a core 4 base in a mining field won't ever be allowed to have one simply because they aren't old bitter vets.
