POB Siege Balance

[Karlotta]

I agree that letting the pob owner define a time window in which the base may be harmed would make sieges less harmful for the community.

However, the fairness in fights is only one part of the problem here.

A larger part of the problem is that letting whoever can raise the bigger mob decide what pob gets to stay and which one is destroyed is a terrible idea in so many ways.

While some pobs are destroyed as a chore that keeps the game fun and immersive for all, there are at the same time many people here who destroy pobs out of sadism, revenge, personal biases, or even boredom.

Both things could be amended with just a few lines of additional rules for pob construction (and it would still be shorter than the horrible way pob rules are written now): remove rules protections for bases that commit certain no-nos (oorp names, built to close to a mining field or blocking travel), provide more protections for bases that fulfill certain criteria (no closer to mining fields than npc bases, well placed near npc bases of the same affiliations or in designated areas, no wps, conform to lore), and keep as is for the remaining pobs which serve the obvious purpose of "territorial conquest" or "area interdiction".

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)