Siege bloodlust

[jammi]

On principle, I don't entirely agree with points 3 or 4. POBs were always intended to be destructible, and the fact that someone may destroy the base is an inherent risk to constructing one. They were pitched as group activities, with the expectations that groups would invest into both the maintenance and defence of the asset.

That said.

Currently a lot of the negative sentiment around sieges comes from the fact that the time and value investment is extremely asymmetrical between attackers and defenders. Defenders will have potentially invested hundreds of hours and billions of credits over a protracted period of time and stand to lose that permanently should the base be destroyed. Attackers conversely, stand to lose very little save shield batteries and a couple of hours spent in-game. Even that time investment is trivialized by AFK sieging.

POBs do need to be re-examined, in terms of both the mechanics of health/regen/decay, and the current investment disparity between attackers and defenders. My preference is to add an upkeep cost to sieges by implementing a specific siege-weapon that is necessary to damage POBs, which itself consumes ammo in order to fire. This adds a cost to attacking bases as well as maintaining them. Sieging would still have no-where near a similar cost to building, but it would provide pause for thought on whether flippant sieges were worthwhile.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.