Given that Discovery took a major, if not even critical setback today, we may need to come up with temporary solutions to the current problems we have. While I don't know what exactly the issue with the PoBs right now is, I might have an idea on how to regulate base sieges, to have them a bit less unfair.
Let them be approved by Admins. (I know, the greens don't like the idea already. Even more work. ._. )
The idea behind this is to make this more fair for both sides. The amount needed to build a higher Core PoB is way higher than to destroy it, we all agree on this. You write one demand, instantly after that you make the attack declaration and if the demand is not met within 8 or 24 hours, there is enough time to siege the base ANY TIME. You can do it when people are online, you can do it when people are offline. Make it an event with a set starting time, limit that event maybe to four hours - so everyone knows when to log, both to siege and both to defend the base. If the attackers don't manage to do it within the set time, they have to try again later.
Four Hours, set time, multiple attemps
Weaker factions have shown they need hours of sieging to bring down a medium-prepared Core 1 base. For example, BD/AFC sieging the PMS network. It took around two hours with three, later two additional capitals. Not every faction has 20 Full-Cerberus Jorms, although RHA will still have it fairly easier with sieges, obviously. For a siege, either people coordinate event-like to bring up the attacking fleet or they have to attack multiple times, which is, in my opinion, something worth thinking about. So far, when people wanted to destroy a PoB, they did. With this concept, they actually can fail, if they don't coordinate well. Also, more than two hours actually allow people to send a second defense wave (or a second attack wave) during the same event.
Roleplay required
As we already know: Bad facshun makes demand, in the worst case the base owner has only a few hours, in the best case a few days time to respond. Along with the demand, people already post the attack declaration, which is weird, because the attack declaration should be something that comes after the demand, like we do it the way ingame. Demand, if not met, then engagement lines. Is that fair? It could be worse, but it also could be better. This way, you have four steps:
1. Make the comm.
2. Wait for response or no response in time.
3. Create event.
4. Event permission granted.
That's a bit of burocracy, maybe, but I think it's a fair one. The created event would work the same way as the Attack Declaration Thread, just with a set time. Approving the siege events should be a thing done in a few seconds, as those events happen not every day and are created without thousand pages of roleplay.
Why the admin permission, though?
Money required
From what I have seen, everyone was agreeing that the attackers should have to pay something for the siege, be it like @Croft said something like a special weapon ammunition or something else. We want and need a money sink here, so it's fair for both sides. So why don't we deal with this like SRP Requests are dealt with?
Attempt to siege a Core 1 Base: 100.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 2 Base: 400.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 3 Base: 600.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 4 Base: 800.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 5 Base: 1.000.000.000 Credits Fee
Too low, too high? 100.000.000 Credits can be farmed by one person in 1-3 hours of trading, depending on what kind of trade route you are. But you don't siege a base on your own. There is usually a faction doing so. So you'd need to pay one fee per created siege event. An admin takes the fee when they approve the event. Since it is just too easy to build a Core 1 Base to annoy people, that should be a little bit cheaper, however, the more effort people put into their bases, the more effort the attacking factions will need to put into it to bring it down.
And if the attacking faction didn't manage to do it during the first siege event, they have lost money, just as the base owner did, as they need to resupply the base now. So if people want to destroy a base that existed for years, they will need to pay for it as well. If they lose, they need to rethink it. Is it worth trying a second assault?
The good thing about the fees is the fact that it animates factions maybe a bit to do more trades. Okay, RHA surely will pay the sieges with the taxed moneys, but even that is fair. So we not only have people showing more trading activity for supplying and upgrading a base, but people will also show more trading activity for the preparation of a siege event.
Other things
So we have covered the payment fee and the event duration. I'd say people don't need to register for this event, at least not as partaking individuals. However, the defending forces should make sense as usual, just as the attacking forces should have a fitting diplomacy to each other. No K'hara-Outcast-Rogue-Lane Hacker-alliance. Only factions that are good with each other. That would also be checked by an admin, so I don't have to make another long post in someone's feedback thread and cause chaos.
I think that's a fair solution concept, but feel free to add you opinion on it here. Please, keep it civil. No snarky comments, no memes, no off-topicing, no inventing of new terms.
