' Wrote:A faction that does not have the manpower to destroy a base, not the diplomacy to get enough allies together - does not deserve to be blowing up bases.
That being said, i do have an idea for a 'troop landing' system for attackers...
None of our capital allies are hostile to the Bretonians.
And the GRN don't count, they're not allies.
It's not an issue of manpower either.
If the molly attack on wallace had replaced scyllas with battleships, we would have taken it down.
I myself have spent fourteen of the last twenty four hours shooting wallace in my little greyhound.
Only to realize, when i got a skype message in a group chat, that a trader, not even knowing i had been shooting wallace, decided to replace all the commodites i wasted in about half-an hour.
' Wrote:You are bringing unofficial vs. official here? Who should be able to access a very fun and dynamic feature of the game based on whether they were the first to fulfill an arbitrary set of requirements?
I hope nobody takes you seriously, Govedo.
You missed the point completely, Kai.
What three dudes with transports can upkeep should be destroyable by a faction capable of fielding ten or more.
And i happen to take all of Govedo's post seriously, he has great insight.
gone four years, first day back: Zoners still getting shot in Theta :|
Whoa, what a thread. Not just I find myself to agree with Mr S3, (on top of that - against Gov and the Mollies), but it happens the second time.
On topic: Weeks of hard work of 3-4-5 players shouldn't be undone by 6-7 other players shooting even for a day. As far as I hear neither battleships can't do that on a developed base.
Your way is to starve them out. I heard Mollies can catch transports, even making profit on selling the wrecks. And the more you shoot the base, the more transports will come. Isn't that jolly?
My opinion on the matter: Drying the base? Sure! Just make it so that resupplying the base that is frequently raided takes time within margin of 20-40% of the time it takes the attackers to deal the damage.
Right now attacking the base for 6 hours with 2-3 people, then seeing the base refilled to full capacity within half an hour by a single person isn't exacly fair, since the "damage" they dealt is neglible for the suppliers. What I'm thinking is increasing the consumption of the fuel/repair commodities, while at the same time increasing the storage space maybe? Your opinions?
Increasing fuel consumption makes sense since it's turing off automatically, and we have same ratios we had when shield had to be controlled manually.
Increasing storage and consumption rates just means you'll need more people supplying the base. It makes it harder for smaller groups to maintain a base, but does nothing to hamper large groups. It doesn't solve the issue you're trying to address.
And to be honest, I don't think it should. Most bases are siegeable, with 8-10 hours worth of fuel on them. But most unlawful factions can't seem to be arsed to get their sh#t together and organize a prolonged assault on a base, keeping pressure up and being in it for the long haul and having a cap-heavy killforce on standby to finish the job once the sieging is successful... It's something completely new to those factions, who tended to focus around raids - quick in, get pews, get out.
It requires a different mindset, something other then PvPwhoring. So far I've seen almost no faction do so on the unlawful side. Funny fact: A single Corsair Gladiator chewed more shield fuel on Falster today, then a cruiser and 3 gunboats combined - simply by razoring the base every now and then for giggles (and dodging the Cerberus blasts of the platforms with almost no effort).
Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.
Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.
' Wrote:What about Capships becoming produced only on players bases?
:crazy:
I have thought of it before but decided not to post the idea as I think it would have brought way more Q_Q than I see currently. Despite having a few caps, I approve the idea.
I see a lot of pvpwhorage whine. Oh my god! I can't log in and destroy a base in the two hours I want to play! Whaaaaa. Cry more please. Bases take a long time to build and require constant attention to keep alive.
Bases are time intensive and expensive. Attacking a base isn't nearly as time intensive nor is it as expensive. Nor do the attackers share the same fate as the base should they be the losers in the battle. They can click respawn. If the base fails, there is no respawn button for it.
Factions like the Mollys, Rogues, Hackers, etc etc shouldn't be able to destroy a base all on their own. They are not military forces. They are criminals. Instead of whining that you can't destroy a base you despise, spend that time role playing with your allies who have heavy guns. Then plan your attack. The execute the attack.
If you allies don't aren't hostile to the base you want to burn, figure out a way to get them to commit. Or accept that your faction has a weakness.
If you keep a stations shield up as much as you can every day - that means your enemy has to keep running fuel to it daily. After awhile they might slip up on keeping it topped off. Attrition. That is the name of the game in sieges.
Super Supernovatorp.. hmm no thanks, it could be abused when fighting bigger caps.
And to the whole thing, siege the base 24/7 for 1 or 2 days and the base will run dry of fuel.
It just would be fair, it takes days or even weeks to get the base to a nice level so you also should need some time and manpower to take it down, hm?