POB Siege Balance

[E X O D I T E]

Destroying bases is harming the community. Ships respawn, PoB's don't.

Your arguments are naive, discriminatory and biased Dektare. This is the same old regurgitated narrow minded view we see all the time by those who are more anti-PoB and want to get rid of them. Perhaps I should add hypocritical to the mix

You have argued a defence to the way you want things to be. Where are your viable solutions?

His arguments make perfect sense to me. All you need is the WAAC mentality that plagues EVE.

Decktare is willing to apply EVE logic to a game with a fraction of the players and assets, and if he wants to be the win-at-all-costs tryhard who will give up sleep and stuff, he is free to do so.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=182360
Time left: (Permanent)

[Sava]

Destroying bases is harming the community. Ships respawn, PoB's don't.

It's the way POB mechanics and economy work that harms the community.

There are different models that can be implemented, including making POBs invulnerable. It was decided to make them destructible.
Don't blame people for playing the game by the rules. Change the game so it becomes more enjoyable.

---

XTF wiki ☼ XTF forum

[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)

[Thyrzul]

Just a reminder: the hull point and repair rate rebalance applied before the Basilica vs Helios event does not allow instances which were possible before, such as a base requiring a dozen warships to overcome the repair rate, but then taken down in two hours overnight, add one more and it's 30 minutes. The rebalance turned the curve a lot smoother, less ships required to overcome the repairs, but more time required to take out a base even with the same amount of ships as before.

Unless there were changes since then, of which I am unaware, according to that rebalance sieges take days, unless you have a huge fleet against a weak base, then it can take just one day. There is plenty of time to react and find a solution. Keep that in mind.

@Devs
An unintended side effect was an increase in construction time during peaceful periods as well, because of which I'm asking if it's possible to implement a switch and different w&t and repair rate settings for times of peace and of siege.

---

[Champ]

• If powertrading to supply a POB is torture for you, then either this is the wrong game for you, or you shouldn't be involved with POBs in the first place. Either way, you were aware of this from the outset, and it's on you.
  
• Honestly, POBs are destroyable, and will remain so. You were aware of this from the outset.

---

[Grumblesaur]

I would expect that people with extenuating external obligations would not be so concerned with maintaining a pixel base. Has has been established, it's a labor-intensive process that's very risky. If you know you can't defended effectively on your own nor gather the requisite forces from elsewhere to defend it, why is it the fault of those who attack it that you are unable to maintain it?

Even if nobody could AFK siege, Even if player distribution was even through all time zones and sleep schedules, there would still be instances where a base is destroyed by an overwhelming force. Crying foul because somebody has more time than you is nonsensical. The time you have available to play the game should determine the choices that you make in the game.

it took the cooperation of three factions and several independent players to destroy all of the bases that have been destroyed in Dublin and Newcastle over the course of the last week. POV maintainers need not even be online at the same time to supply and repair their base. So that's the investment everyone assumes here that you need to defend it. MdG alone could not do this. EDA alone could not do this. BFC alone could not do this.

The bases were lost fair and square according to the rules of the server and the mechanics of the mod as implemented. Asking for them back undermines every wrist wrenching hour that the attackers spent. It wastes every minute of behind the scenes coordination, every message sent

It is not my problem if you lack the time to defend your base. It is not the staff's problem if you lack the availability to defend your base. If you cannot accept this, you were not responsible enough to be building a base in the first place.

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

[AuruemSaber]

*Snip* Oh! Look how much of a post is here without that quote. ~Champ
The pobs had the chance to be defended but they werent defended well enough so they should stay gone. Ignoring the heavy reliance on pobs for ore due to our broken economy what benefit did these pobs provide which required 3 of them.

[Impyness]

The biggest rule change that needs to be made immediately (although this hasnt come up in any recent sieges) is that there needs to be a cooldown on attack declarations. Even when a group does successfully manage to defend over a two week period the attacking group can just file a new declaration. It's even happened a few times where people have filed declarations with no intention to attack just to mess with people.

---

#Snakded

[E X O D I T E]

*Snip* Oh! Look how much of a post is here without that quote. ~Champ
The pobs had the chance to be defended but they werent defended well enough so they should stay gone. Ignoring the heavy reliance on pobs for ore due to our broken economy what benefit did these pobs provide which required 3 of them.

I dunno, back in the CSD days before Copper Ore became completely worthless, it was nice to have another pob nearby in case someone accidentally shot the base which caused its shields to be raised. This happened repeatedly.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=182360
Time left: (Permanent)

[Groshyr]

4. I would further recommend that in the interests of finding a fair and reasonable way to undo the harm done, that PoB's like Eldorado, an Goldgeist be restored, considered booty for the Enclav, Change IFF at the Enclaves discretion in Eldorado's case, and a name change and either an Enclave IFF or perhaps a neutral (Freelancer?) IFF for Goldgeist. Win-win.[/b][/color]

You're going to change your bases IFF to Enclave only to back it from the other side? What's wrong with you?