+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Overhaul Sieging Rules. (/showthread.php?tid=162455)
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - A.B. - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 06:31 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: How about an increase of rp requirements for declarations? In a way that "no bounties can be anonymous " , base siege declarations shouldn't be done by faceless people with zero existence or paper trail.
This. I honestly sign under that statement.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Sciamach - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 06:31 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: How about an increase of rp requirements for declarations? In a way that "no bounties can be anonymous " , base siege declarations shouldn't be done by faceless people with zero existence or paper trail.
The only way that'd work is if the requirements for POB creation were also similarly tightened, otherwise any random yahoo could make any base anywhere, while the number of people that can effectively do anything about it would tank, and we'd have walls of stupid pointless lolwut bases in just about every system. We're already approaching that now with the Core1 ballocks I mentioned earlier but it'd be 1000x worse if the process to siege is made harder.
Implement some large 500m or so credit fee to initially build a Core1, or have some application process with the staff to allow a specific base's construction in a certain area, and the rules for sieging can similarly be tightened- otherwise it makes 0 sense to change anything beyond the Core1 rules right now.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Lythrilux - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 04:48 PM)Lythrilux Wrote: POB owners have to make a request for Core 2 and do the same but with substantial RP as well for Core 3, 4 and Core 5 but as an SRP as well. All siegers need to do is write several lines of bad RP to attack a POB, and wait an inconsequential period of time, compared to that of the time spent constructing the POB, before they can attack it. How is this fair?
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - sasapinjic - 07-04-2018
(07-03-2018, 06:56 PM)A.B. Wrote:(07-03-2018, 06:31 PM)WPeregrine Wrote: How about an increase of rp requirements for declarations? In a way that "no bounties can be anonymous " , base siege declarations shouldn't be done by faceless people with zero existence or paper trail.
This. I honestly sign under that statement.
Or make it rule that forum accounts with no or little posts cant declare attack on POB . Lets say you need activly used account with at least 200 post to declare attack , that way lot of anonimius jokers wuld be eliminated , and also old, nearly forgeten accounts with 5 posts created long ago that can be used just for troll attack on base then forgeten again .
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Durandal - 07-04-2018
Just chiming in here to say from a developer standpoint that the POB siege mechanics are being reworked entirely. Expect more on this in the near future.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Binski - 07-04-2018
(07-03-2018, 05:29 PM)Exo the Plier Guy Wrote:(07-03-2018, 04:53 PM)TheUnforgiven Wrote: a ship destroyed while participating in a base siege must remain PVP dead to THAT BASE for 5 days
NEMPS exist. In exchange for 200 Sci Data, up to 5 enemy caps are unable to kill your base for the better part of the week.
To me that's the beauty of it. But using NEMP's is harder than it seems at first glance, and combined with the launchers and need for 2 ammo per shot, that ability seems pretty fair to me. Is it really fair to do all that and only knock those 5 attacking ships out of commission for 2 hours? Let them plan around the possibilities of NEMP defense. Maybe you learn hard not to send all your ships in on the first wave from now on. The point of that change is to make you really have to want to put effort into planning a base siege. That should help narrow them to more serious parties and require more organization to oust one. If the attackers aren't that big a force like a navy, they can also use NEMP's or it may discourage lulwats that just want to break stuff without real RP reasons just because they got a new shiny carrier/bs. They try, they die, 5 day diffusion before they try again. Of course to be fair it would be the same for defenders. If you die during a base siege period you should remain eliminated (cruisers and up at least) for that time. Attackers also shouldn't have to face the same defending carrier every 2 hours. 5 days though is my suggestion. 8 hrs, 12hrs, 24hrs, 3 days...any would be a great help, and the longer the better.