+- 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. - Hubjump - 07-03-2018
I wish people would stop doing sieges for the sake of doing sieges... Keeping them alive gave more reasons for pirates to be about since if there are more traders making profit or supplying these bases there are more targets for pirates. And i never see pirates anymore...
I only see the ones who player log snipe known trader characters.
And yeah what @"Exo the Plier Guy" said was pretty correct about why sieges suck with people trickling in. And i don't think point defence platforms take a big enough role whilst as @Thyrzul said the base repair rate is too damned high. If there were more active defences and some organised defenders then maybe the station wouldn't need as much health either.
Sieges do happen too often though...
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Vexykin - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 03:28 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: Numbers like that depend on the base having 0/1 functional shield modules, 0/1/2/3 repair commodities, the hull points being multiplied by 2/5/10/25/50, and the repair rate being divided by 2/5/10/25/50. That "some" can mean 1800 numbers just by taking your or my examples of values into account, and there are even more to ask about.
This idea could actually work with the existing system, but currently the validation time is too long , and could become too exhausting for the defending party, as such...
(01-11-2014, 02:19 AM)Garrett Jax Wrote: Please note an Attack Declaration is valid for 2 weeks after posting.
It should be valid for maximum 3 days for Core 2 and above, and 24h+8 Hours prep time for Core 1's.
With a week cooldown for Core 1, and a 2week up to month for core 2 and above...
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Sciamach - 07-03-2018
I've raved about this before, and I'll do it again:
Remove the declaration requirements for Core 1 Bases.
99% of POBs that get made are made by newbies that have 0 idea what they're doing, and end up generating bases with 0 RP reasoning behind them. The people then that want them removed from the frequently illogical positions that they're built in, then have to put in more RP effort than the people that build these bases to have it removed. In my first 2 weeks back, I had to siege 3 of these things by myself because of their locations, just to give you an idea of how bad it is.
For the love of gods: remove this asininely pointless bureaucratic requirement.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Sombs - 07-03-2018
That would make griefing rather easy.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Sciamach - 07-03-2018
That wasn't a requirement until relatively recently. Things worked just fine in the core1 department before.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - E X O D I T E - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 03:48 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: That would make griefing rather easy.
You mean to say making a 5-post alt with the most half-assed justification possible to kill a base one has to metagame to even find, belonging to a group that just so happens to fill a similar inRP niche to the group you mainly operate in, and proceed with the right clicking is not griefing?
Considering the events that prompted this thread...
EDIT: Considering the location of certain POBs I've built *cough* Iota *cough* Major *cough* I'm not exactly squeaky clean in terms of the "making in-RP sense" here, but it takes a special kind of player to make a Blood Dragon character and go after ethnically Kusarian civilian characters. Like, dude, make a Rogue char, that would make more in-RP sense because "I want to see it go boom for pretty lights" is a valid excuse for the average drug-addled loon to blow things up.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Nodoka Hanamura - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 03:47 PM)Sciamach Wrote: I've raved about this before, and I'll do it again:
Remove the declaration requirements for Core 1 Bases.
99% of POBs that get made are made by newbies that have 0 idea what they're doing, and end up generating bases with 0 RP reasoning behind them. The people then that want them removed from the frequently illogical positions that they're built in, then have to put in more RP effort than the people that build these bases to have it removed. In my first 2 weeks back, I had to siege 3 of these things by myself because of their locations, just to give you an idea of how bad it is.
For the love of gods: remove this asininely pointless bureaucratic requirement.
I would rather not my under construction Faction base be blasted to bits whilst we try to get it to core two without getting a damn dear john letter before hand, Sciamach.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Greylock - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 08:09 AM)Thyrzul Wrote:Buff hull points and nerf repair rates big time.
Speaking from the perspective of a person that just had his core 2 base destroyed in less than 20 minutes by a fleet of 12 arbiters and a HF ranseur (???), I believe that neither of those would be very effective since there is no way in hell that the repair rate as is can do anything against that, and you still want to nerf it? Then again, if 13 battleships show up, you're still screwed no matter what core you have.
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Sombs - 07-03-2018
Canberra is Core 1 as well. ^^
RE: Overhaul Sieging Rules. - Sciamach - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 04:04 PM)Nodoka Hanamura Wrote:(07-03-2018, 03:47 PM)Sciamach Wrote: I've raved about this before, and I'll do it again:
Remove the declaration requirements for Core 1 Bases.
99% of POBs that get made are made by newbies that have 0 idea what they're doing, and end up generating bases with 0 RP reasoning behind them. The people then that want them removed from the frequently illogical positions that they're built in, then have to put in more RP effort than the people that build these bases to have it removed. In my first 2 weeks back, I had to siege 3 of these things by myself because of their locations, just to give you an idea of how bad it is.
For the love of gods: remove this asininely pointless bureaucratic requirement.
I would rather not my under construction Faction base be blasted to bits whilst we try to get it to core two without getting a damn dear john letter before hand, Sciamach.
Then maybe you should do some RP with nearby factions to protect or at the very least, not attack the bases, while also keeping them hidden. It encourages smart placement, while also requiring anyone who actually will put the RP effort into a base to do so properly. As I said: that rule was in effect literally for years. There is justifiable 0 reason it should have gone away.