Player Owned Bases

[Monsieur Baguette]

[quote="Grumblesaur" pid='2166514' dateline='1590985348']

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.

Kenghis Khan gave cities opportunity to capitulate, and those that refused he attacked until they surrendered. No RP = no opportunity to surrender.

Not always, lol. Look up the history if you don't know it well. They were employing the tactics of terror to appear to the enemies as "unstoppable juggernaut". To support this image, they sometimes would just smash. I see no reason why it can not be applied to Enclave.

2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Were not sieges

It was a seige. The whole country was the fortress.

And yet they were destroyed without negotiations before the atomic bombing to achieve certain objectives, one of them being to stop the Soviets from invading Japan and turning it into a communist puppet. As you can see, sometimes destruction serves the purposes better than negotiations.

3. A lot of Nazi sieges in the USSR

I wouldn't idolise the Nazi's as your role model. You are seiging a PoB, not a planet.

Firstly, when did I idolise Nazis? Secondly, how are Nazi related to besieging a planet and not a POB? If you are so careful with wording, as you subsequently state, then you should also care about replying in a comprehensive manner. Again, to the point I made about Nazis: they had certain ideology behind them that motivated them to eradicate instead of subduing. Same can be applied to the Enclave that as a part of Gallic Royal Forces glassed Leeds.

Its a game. It isn't real life. But people play this game without whom there would be no game. They want to be here to enjoy it.

Firstly, you were the first to compare the sieges to RL saying that the sieges in question are irrational:

For statement 4 I raise these points:

There is no need for sieges to always end in a PoB's destruction.
a. In RL territorial wars (e.g. WW2) resource producing areas, cities, even countries were annexed, not usually destroyed totally.
b. The annexed and captured peoples (read PoB's here) were made to pay tribute to their occupiers. In fact wanton destruction was never to an occupying forces benefit for that reason.
c. Wealth and booty were important to execute war. PoB's such as Goldgeist would be a key resource ro capture booty etc.
d.The Germans in WW2 lived very well for the most part as the Nazi's plundered France, Holland etc into starvation to feed their masses.
e. Occupiers used the captured resources to use as forward bases of operations. (Landing rights on PoB's to launch from)
f. Annexing rather than destroying a base means ongoing RP. Once destroyed there is no need for, in the case of Goldgeist, Bretonia to recapture the base. No base, no RP can be generated, no ongoing tussles.
g. If a PoB does not surrender to an occupiers (sensible) demands, then they can be destroyed. To do that there would be genuine, indepth, RP involved. This is an RP server, not a PvP one afterall.

Now shifting opinion to "it's just a game" after literally invoking RL examples and calling the besiegers on the basis of RL comparisons and rationality is simply hypocrisy. Secondly, if this is just a game - do not trigger over it and cause drama. Yet again, the devs promised you to look into the situation. Save your arguments until they roll out a revamped POB system.

You are harming the community.

Perhaps you need to start a new server to practice your ideology in. [/color]

If these actions harm a few individuals, it does not necessarily mean it harms the whole community. I did not participate in this adventure for my own reasons, but I haven't been affected in any way. Stop generalising, it is a way to making false conclusions.

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.

Not what feedback I am getting.
Each posting was deliberately worded and a lot of thought went into them. Each one has a different purpose, deliberately lancing the various festering wounds. And the one you are posting on now I did not start. It has provoked a response, and the message is getting through.

You are doing harm. It is a small-populated server. Losing 5 players is a sizable loss, and easy to do.

I wonder how long it will be before the approach you are taking is seen by the community as bulling, as negative to the game, against the principals of fair play, natural justice and the spirit of the game.

With 44 people on the server, when 11 of them were attacking Eldorado, not going to be long before server numbers begin to slide again.

What I cannot abide is the mistaken belief one can take horrible ideology from history and reenact them in a game, decimating the active population and thinking it is justifiable.

You are hurting people, you are damaging the game. You need to take stock an wise up to the damage you are doing.

Purely subjective argument. If these sieges will spare the community of people creating over 9000 threads just to whine and not able to adapt to the situation - then I say it is a good riddance. POBs are not the spirit of the server, just one of the mechanics that has its flaws that definitely do not lie within the scope of POB desctructability. Deal with it. And again, covering behind RL history examples you invoked before and now doing ad hominem arguments invoking those very RL arguments is a hypocrisy.