PoB Siege Mechanics

[SnakThree]

Have anyone considered making rule, instead of rework, so that they cannot be built too close to dockable objects or mining fields? This way, they would be less of an annoyance and more like background (without weapon platforms) things.

Yes, someone has. Although, POBs near dockable objects are not a problem, and can even be better than POBs that are far away from dockable objects, unless they're set to hostile to ships that can dock on those objects.

It's more about the idea that out of sight POBs that don't impact gameplay would be less prone to being sieged due to ooRP distaste. Looking at few POBs that are near dockable objects but belonging to same faction, it's fine. More problems arise when people decide to missmatch. But we also have people abusing ID and IFF choice to max out performance instead of making it part of greater RP. It's double edged sword.

---

[Laz]

A new feature of the rework I forgot to mention is that certain zones prevent PoBs from being made. If the internal zone name contains the word "nobuild" PoBs cannot be deployed there.

---

[Lythrilux]

Making POBs SRP oly would be better than what we have now, although I think there is a better way (kind of depends of what you call "SRP"). For those who say that's too much work for admins... how much work it will be depends on how high the bar is set, and how much of the burden is placed on players to conform to objective guidelines.

Better than SRPs would be a system that protects SOME bases so you can call it "SRPing invulnerability" if you want. The "SRP" should be less linked to the stories people spin around the base, and more based on whether the base fulfills simple criteria like:
-no blocking routes, jhs, and ore fields
-no drawing players out to the middle of nowhere
-area should be safe for that faction irp
-name, location, affiliation, make sense

Adding simple guidelines in exchange for protection should already solve most problems. I made a suggestion on how a while ago:
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=159051

But the real elephant in the room is: how did we manage to keep this terrible system for so many years, and how did the people who take decisions manage to make it even worse with this "upgrade", when everyone should have been able to foresee exactly the way things turned out. This is really just on example of glaring and fundamental flaws in how decisions are being made here.

I like this idea.

And yes, I agree on your last point. Something that has stunned me is how a system that has so obviously and desperately needed change or new rules gets so heavily neglected in the that regard. It's insane how long it took to get riles to ban POBs from mining fields when it was proven how awful they were for gameplay.

---

[Kazinsal]

Damn things should have been SRP only from the get go, but we didn't have the framework back then for things like events and the like that we do now, so doing "realistic" sieges was out of the question.

---

Retired, permanently.

[Venkman]

POB's should be SRP only, period.

---

Orex Armaments

[JorgeRyan]

My quick 2cents tldr from my phone: if it takes a player request to upgrade a pob it should take a player request to remove one

---

Feedback and comm bumping here

[Hammerhead]

The real question is

What would we really lose if PoBs were deleted?

There are a lot of players who simply enjoy the creation of a base, and building it. Keeps them happy and in the game. Gives them a sense of belonging and a sense of purpose and this adds to their retention as a player. I know of players who haven't the time to commit to full on hard core RP due to RL, and supplying a base with commodities, adding another core level and all that entails is relaxing and generally fun for them. Some love PvP, some love RP, some love PoB.

My view, given zones can now be "no-build blocked" is let it happen. I liked the Freeport 7 Memorial base simply because someone saw it as a fun addition. but it has probably been destroyed now and that is sad. It had commercial (no minefield near) nor military strategic benefit.

People play Disco for a lot of reasons,. RP, admin, POBs, programming and coding, PvP, collegiality, etc.

---

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." Einstein

[Thunderer]

We'd lose the RHA and one of the worthiest members of the community.

---

Bretonian Treaty Database Bretonian Armed Forces Recruitment Center
Bretonian Charter of Interstellar Law Bretonian Secrets Act

[Ash]

There's alot of people here who would opt to torch it all, which is a bit saddening. Seems the shine has worn off.

But here's my two cents.

While calling out that POBs should be SRP only would have been a good argument from the get go. The cat is pretty much out of the bag now since everyone has access to the POB feature. If you make POBs SRP only you either defeat the purpose by making every existing POB a SRP, you hold some sort of controvertial qualifier to seperate the wheat from the chaff, or take people's POBs away from them. Karlotta's suggestion of SRP based on criteria is an interesting one, but overlooks the underlying issue.

Better than SRPs would be a system that protects SOME bases so you can call it "SRPing invulnerability" if you want. The "SRP" should be less linked to the stories people spin around the base, and more based on whether the base fulfills simple criteria like:
-no blocking routes, jhs, and ore fields
-no drawing players out to the middle of nowhere
-area should be safe for that faction irp
-name, location, affiliation, make sense

These criteria would be pretty easy to fulfill and the POB equivalent of a 'keep off the grass' sign. Add more restrictions like RP basis and it becomes arguably unfair against those who aren't able to bash out 10 pages of lore. Then there's the issue with new POBs that have to go through a long period of vulnerability while they cut through all the red tape. As we saw yesterday, it can take an hour or two to steamroll a new POB these days.

The POB feature was implemented and barely changed much since the latest rework. It's only normal that it's a bit rough around the edges. Hell, it took the devs years and dozens of tries to iron the creases out of trade lanes and jump gates and they're still not perfect. I argue it's a trial and error process, which is harder than most since it involves reshaping what are 'assets' as opposed to features. It's gonna need some tweaking which requires patience and tolerance.

An idea i hadn't given much though to was to cap the dps you can deal during sieges. Bring the hull rating back down to something less rediculous and strike a balance between the two. This would give you a minimum siege time that will last overnight and overcome the 'sleeping defenders' problem. I'm going off into a bit of a minefield here but this could perhaps make bases siegable by factions unable to fly caps. The difference would be the number of people required to siege depending on what they're packing. Once the dps cap is met, surplus siegers will be free to defend or do any number of other things that could diversify the operation. But i'm getting carried away.

How about some sorta battering ram mechanic? A specialized weapon that deals a percentage of the POB's health, but fireable only once per hour or so. This would give POB's to assemble defense fleets and react and would remove the RMB fest if attackers come out as victors of the fights.

I'm all for thinking outside the box. I'd like to see more ideas like this discussed.

---

[Thyrzul]

My quick 2cents tldr from my phone: if it takes a player request to upgrade a pob it should take a player request to remove one

Or also a player request to construct one in the first place. Not a bad idea, certainly a lot of drama would cease to be in either case. Although I'm sure this thread is still about possible new mechanics, not ruling and regulations.

---