PSA: Mass POB Migration, other POB info

[Lord Chaos]

The implementation of new PoBs rules should not affect existing bases and players should be able to place them next to each other for added protection.
The distance between PoBs should only be considered for those belonging to different owners.
Having them too far from planets or TL crossings does not make much sense as the preferable location for a Space station will always be a planet orbit as the planet provides a magnetic shield from sun rays as well as defends the space station from spacial debris.
Regarding other NPC bases distance In example: a Samura PoB next to a Samura NPC base would make sense wile a BMM PoB would NOT make sense next to a IMG or DHC station.
Spreading the PoBs will overpopulate systems.
What should be mandatory is to place PoBs in reasonable locations, the game itself shows were NPC installations are placed (TLs corners and planet orbits).
In my opinion Admins should ask for locations that would organize and level PoBs with the surrounding environment, centering them between tradelanes, as well as positioning PoBs around the planets in a decent organized way that becomes eye pleasing just like the NPC ones.

With siege rework in mind, what kind of protection would clusters of POB give? Please read the dev diaries to get familiar with the subject

Assuming that i am not familiar with the Dev diaries does not change the reason behind most stacked PoBs as most were built before the rework.

[Egon Bigmemes]

With siege rework in mind, what kind of protection would clusters of POB give? Please read the dev diaries to get familiar with the subject

theres none easily searchable that would suggest theres information on the pob siege rework
please enlighten us by providing a link instead of assuming we have an encyclopedic knowledge of the unfiltered garbage posted on the forums daily

[Leo]

What should be done first, is to give priority to POB's not able to function anymore because of the patch.

This was not their decision, so relocation to another system of their choice should be done free of costs.
For some of them, it completely destroyed their gameplay.

Decisions of the admins should never victimise the players.

All those moves will be free, if that wasn't clear enough. As for the distances, we're discussing the possibility of lowering them, we should have an answer by tomorrow, but the very idea was not to have bases stacked on top of existing solars like Leicester, Freeport1, or Manhattan currently do.

Do we need to do any RP prior to this move request? What are the distance limitations? Will we be able to move our station(s) outside of the system they are presently in or will we be restricted to the system they are in at present?

Do we have an update on these questions? Would like to know ahead of time so that I can plan my player request around these answers.

Thank you.

---

You fear oblivion. Yet you forget. The universe remembers every atom of your being. Even dust hums your name in the dark.
The Banished Legion

[Lukas]

What should be done first, is to give priority to POB's not able to function anymore because of the patch.

This was not their decision, so relocation to another system of their choice should be done free of costs.
For some of them, it completely destroyed their gameplay.

Decisions of the admins should never victimise the players.

All those moves will be free, if that wasn't clear enough. As for the distances, we're discussing the possibility of lowering them, we should have an answer by tomorrow, but the very idea was not to have bases stacked on top of existing solars like Leicester, Freeport1, or Manhattan currently do.

Do we need to do any RP prior to this move request? Usually no, if yes we will ask - Tunicle What are the distance limitations? Theoretically no more than previously published, any odd movement request will be asked about - Tunicle Will we be able to move our station(s) outside of the system they are presently in or will we be restricted to the system they are in at present? Generally no - Tunicle

Do we have an update on these questions? Would like to know ahead of time so that I can plan my player request around these answers.

Thank you.

Yeah im staying on the same point, dont know why such importand questions dont get an answer..
Would be good to know what's about now to continue stuff.

[Sava]

Is there a coherent reasoning behind POB migration?
This is a big change with its own pros and cons.
It doesn't fix many of the core POB issues, but instead looks like a one-sided solution to somebody's grievance.

---

XTF wiki ☼ XTF forum

[Tunicle]

As it is the last day of October just quoting from the OP, with a bit of emphasis.

"Starting in November, bases that didn't had (sic) a request submitted may be moved at Admin's discretion to fit the criteria."

---

[Karlotta]

Didn't think you'd actually go through with this madness which will just make all the problems around POBs worse.

How many have you already moved?

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)

[DSE-]

Is there a coherent reasoning behind POB migration?
This is a big change with its own pros and cons.
It doesn't fix many of the core POB issues but instead looks like a one-sided solution to somebody's grievance.

I am not opposed to change, and one such as the 5.0 release is a massive amount at one time. I do, however, wonder about the reasoning behind POB changes. Moving mining fields means moving POBs to fairly compensate the disadvantaged POB owners.

Moving and mandating POBs be moved from their approved placement and layout is not fair nor reasonable. Long Island is not in the way of any movement around Manhattan. Albany PA could be mildly realigned for ascetics' sake, but isn't a problem overall. Same as the cluster of POBs around New London. I think the purpose-built and properly RP'd trinity of Lab Reactor POBs in the stacked format is a feature of that system and a historical one at that. They should remain as they are if the owner so desires.

So who is pushing this ideologically driven mandate? And why? Fair questions.

[Chenzo-]

Is there a coherent reasoning behind POB migration?
This is a big change with its own pros and cons.
It doesn't fix many of the core POB issues but instead looks like a one-sided solution to somebody's grievance.

I am not opposed to change, and one such as the 5.0 release is a massive amount at one time. I do, however, wonder about the reasoning behind POB changes. Moving mining fields means moving POBs to fairly compensate the disadvantaged POB owners.

Moving and mandating POBs be moved from their approved placement and layout is not fair nor reasonable. Long Island is not in the way of any movement around Manhattan. Albany PA could be mildly realigned for ascetics' sake, but isn't a problem overall. Same as the cluster of POBs around New London. I think the purpose-built and properly RP'd trinity of Lab Reactor POBs in the stacked format is a feature of that system and a historical one at that. They should remain as they are if the owner so desires.

So who is pushing this ideologically driven mandate? And why? Fair questions.

PoB's are now much, much more vulnerable as intended by the dev team.

Moving them further away from solar's makes them that much harder to maintain.

Moving them further away means they can be attacked from all sides with no protection.

---

[Karlotta]

PoB's are now much, much more vulnerable as intended by the dev team.

More destroyed POBs mean more drama around destroyed POBs.

It increases anxiety and stress for POB owners.

It turns disco more into the direction of a place ruled by mobs, seal-clubbers, and bullies. That one isn't a surprise, if you look at who is in the dev team.

Moving them further away from solar's makes them that much harder to maintain.

Makes POB owners waste more time supplying pobs doing boring things trying to avoid interaction. Time they could be spending having fun interacting with people.

Moving them further away means they can be attacked from all sides with no protection.

See point one.

In addition, this move encourages POB owners to try and "hide" the location of their base, amplifying the problems, around long boring hide-and seek cruises and drama when they get found.

Having POBs randomly spread out far from other solars will make systems much uglier and un-immersive.

More spread out bases means more "interdicted space" and more escape-docking from enemies than bases that are right next to each other, which will make them impact gameplay MORE not LESS.

What you SHOULD have done is give POB owners models and tools to position their bases neatly attached to other NPC bases, creating rules about positioning, IFF, defense modes, wps, and blacklist/whitelist that makes them fit in well with their surroundings and they don't bother anyone.

For example:

- make them small docking port models that can be attached to industrial np bases.
- The Ring in Berlin, which should IRP be a cluster of inter connected bases surrounding the planet could house many such pobs
- Freeports could be majestic space cities of multiple inter-connected pobs (plus the npc Freeport)

Here are some examples using the simplest POB model, the use of custom models gives even more possiblities:





The last image shows a POB for which several people told me they had been regularly shipping iridium to Sabah Shipyard and never even noticed the POB.

Now I have to put it in a location where it will look totally out of place and will be "interdicting" more space. Good job team.

In case you still don't get it:



These 2 pobs would look considerably better and have considerably less negative impact on gameplay if they were attached to Freeport 9 in a way that make it look like 1 station, with zoner iffs and hostile/friendly lists that dont break zoner RP.

They way they are now, which is the way POBs everywhere will be with these changes, is less immersive and more game-breaking.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)