Overhaul Sieging Rules.

[Sand-Viper]

I agree with the notion that RP behind base sieges should be:
Sensible,
Reasonable,
& Open (Seriously, who makes a forum alt just to siege a base?).

Sieges should also have some sort of "cool down" period, relative to the Core Level of the base in question. The higher the Level, the longer the cool down (Perhaps with the exception of Core 1s). To me, it would make inRP sense if a failed siege required the attacking party to "regroup/reorganize" for another attempt. Even if sieges wouldn't cost money, they should have a cool down.

I feel as though base sieges should be reviewed by at least 1-2 admins/mods/devs to ensure the RP behind the declaration makes sense. As an example, it seems to be accepted that the "role play" behind the ABH Complex assault was shoddy at best and completely out-of-character at worst. Sieges should make some sort of inRP sense, and they should in some cases (barring ex: at-war factions finding an opposing base), be a last-resort once other options have been exhausted.

Lastly, in the case of unlawfuls sieging a base, player bases should be treated similarly to transports in the sense that a "demand" should be made first towards the base owners. Only if the demand is declined, or not met fully, should a base siege be possible. Only the Terrorist, Xeno (in some cases) and Nomad IDs can attack players without making a demand - why should attacking a player's base be any different?

Maybe if we start with that, we can look into whether or not base sieges should be OFL-only initiate-able. Baby steps, here!

That's my $.02 regarding all of this, anyways.

---

The Gaelic Wyvern Inn
If you've interacted with us recently, please consider checking out our in-character Public Guest Reviews thread!