Player Owned Bases

[Monsieur Baguette]

It does have validity in the game, in fact. What we are doing is permitted by the rules. If base owners do not like the risk of their hard work being destroyed, they should be prepared to defend it, or not build at all.

You have made several threads already, and in each one you refuse to partake in any kind of constructive dialogue, and instead praise opinions that align with your own goals of preserving player bases.

I am on record as stating sieges are part of the game. And should be. Sieging Eldorado I have no problem with. Destroying Eldorado is stupid. No RP of any note I see.

You clearly don't want to open your thinking and understanding that your attacks come with with piss-poor RP and with slant regard to the damage caused to the community. This is the truth of the matter.

Destroying Goldgeist, which has seen a lot of RP, looking at the forums, and the collective benefit to the community on the whole, was stupid for the game.
Enclave have come in with just the bare legal RP and stopped all the RP that was going on.
If you milk a cow, you get years of benefit. You kill the cow, you feast for a moment and then starve. No more RP generated.

The goal here is to get people to roleplay in the game, not to roleplay on the forums.

So the reason you are destroying the bases is because you think PoB's are bad for the game, and your ideological outlook is the right one. That's what you are saying. I'm right aren't I. You want to destroy every ones fun building, maintaining and enjoying their little place in the game because Big Brother has determined that they should be Rping in the game, not building PoB's.

Heaven help us all.

Since it is not the first time you invoke the general rationality behind sieges and iRL sieges mechanics, let me tell you a few examples.

1. Mongols/Tamerlan. When the Mongols invaded Persia/Russia/China a lot of castles/towns were besieged and then wiped out, and then they would make a pyramid of skulls as a warning to the rest. This is vividly pictured by Vasnetsov in his art "The Apotheosis of War".

2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Were not sieges but the attempt to actually avoid more sieges. The command took a hard decision of wiping out two cities to spare both allied and Japanese lives, forcing the Japanese to surrender.

3. A lot of Nazi sieges in the USSR since acording to Hoebels the population of the USSR was to be eventually wiped out and the territories subsequently colonised.

There are a lot of other examples. Speaking about "miling a cow" is quite ignorant of history and the realpolitik. The way the besiegers behave and what they do after a successful siege depends by far not only on simple commerce or economic benefits, but also on:

• ideology
  
• war strategic/tactical/operational objectives
  
• nature and character of war
  
• previous conduct of belligerents
  

Etc.

The Enclave destroyed the bases rather than occupying them due to their strategic objectives of "scorched ground" over "expansion". Enclave in current state cannot control more installations in disputed territories, they are a liability. Thus, it is more reasonable for the Enclave to wipe them out to destroy local economy, foster chaos and lawlessness, and cripple Bretonia even more. Besides, the Enclave are xenophobes and act as such. Whatever you say inRP in defense of those stations, a valid RP counterargument can easily be found.

POBs issues have for multiple times addressed by the staff. The devs even kindly responded to you, indicating that POBs mechanics will be re-considered. Further discussion, hence, is irrelevant until the proposal from the devs is open to public. The number of these POB-drama-related threads and constant whining actually is undermining your position and on emotional level making people more likely to oppose your proposals just because of whining. And there is nothing wrong with that, just simple psychology.