Overhaul Sieging Rules.

[Lythrilux]

If players want to upgrade their POB, they have to make a request. Past Core 3, they have to show the POB has done adequate roleplay and contributed to the server before they get the blueprint - this request can also be denied. Why should sieges be any different to that? Why do sieges get to bypass being processed or reviewed for adequate RP, when the POB owners who have infinitely more to lose have to be held to a much higher standard? As you said, any action should be mirrored.

Sieges do need to be made harder because right now attackers have nothing to lose. It's insanely unfair. Even in regards to Core 4 (which really are not immortal) and 5 bases, the owners of those bases can lose everything whilst the attackers lose only several hours of their time. It's imbalanced beyond belief. This is not right.

So RP of base owners is evaluated when they want to go past core 3, but RP of attackers should be evaluated even for core 1? How is that fair and not a double standard?

I did not say anything relating to that in the post you quoted. It is only Core 2 and higher that is processed via some form of request.

By the way there will be never an equality when it comes to high core bases which exist for months or even years. It´s basically not possible by any mechanism. Unless you want to "make it fair" by forcing attackers to spend same amount of time what the constructions and mantaining took, what would make those bases basically indestructible because no one will bother to siege base for weeks or even months. And if you make the destruction possible within some reasonable timeframe, then there still will be complaints it´s unfair (not to mention that any attrition warfare will end with attackers shooting the base in low activity hours with parked afk caps with locked right mouse button what will again end with owners complaining they can´t be defending their base 24/7 so it´s....unfair).

And what, the mechanics we have now are fine? Yes, we can't even reach true fairness because you can't reasonably factor in time as a value for the siegers that could be equal to the time spent by players constructing that POB (otherwise Sieges could last up to weeks, or even months). But I'd argue that we can at least make things much better for the POB owners - and why shouldn't we? They're the ones who have put in the time, effort and roleplay into their bases, and they arguably have the most to lose. Suggestions for a tax, roleplay requirement and admin involvement is the best we can do until solid, well-thought-out, POB mechanics are introduced.

Rant: what is the huge boner people have for flippantly blowing up POBs? Ok, if it's some Core 1 someone has made is in a mining field, or is blocking a jump hole, or is in hostile territory or is illegal, then blast it. In the case of the latter, if it reaches Core 2, kudos to them for getting it that far but they're not out the woods yet. But for all these other POBs that have earned their places and reached higher Cores, these so-called 'immortal' POBs, why are people salty about that? These players have invested, time, effort, money and roleplay into these constructions vs players who would rather blow those up and send that effort down the drain. Hell, Core 5s are SRPs. If they contribute to the roleplay and server environment, why blow them up? This is at least my approach when dealing with POBs. If there's an Order POB in Mu, I don't care. I just don't see the point in spending my time and effort destroying someone else's time and effort when it has no impact on myself, least of all negative.

---