Overhaul Sieging Rules.

[Lythrilux]

Uh, what? Is anybody who is behind this idea playing house lawful? So basically someone make an illegal base or start violating laws and lawfuls will be paying tens if not hundreds millions credits to be allowed to act? Are you guys crazy? Considering no RP or fee is required to build an illegal POB, this is perfect way to troll lawfuls just by throwing series of illegal bases on their turf and watching them pay incredible sums to be able to remove them.

Alright then, perhaps simply add an exception that the tax doesn't apply for POB that are in a space covered by laws, so that if they do break those laws, Lawfuls can act logically. The anarchic system we have now is not good. Ultimately, something needs to be done to stop POBs being killed with bare-bones RP for the sake of killing them.

---

[Omicron]

Indies or unofficial factions should seek permission from the OF before mounting such an attack. The fact that a group of day-1 battleships can siege what is effectively an ally of the main group which represents said NPC faction. Lacking so, they should be taxed severely or contact the next allied OF of kin to their group to avoid the fine.

I agree with the spirit of Nodoka's suggestion. It will still allow legitimate sieges to carry on as they did, and all memes will be punished in some way. The circumstances in which it happens will become better though.

---

[Kauket]

Uh, what? Is anybody who is behind this idea playing house lawful? So basically someone make an illegal base or start violating laws and lawfuls will be paying tens if not hundreds millions credits to be allowed to act? Are you guys crazy? Considering no RP or fee is required to build an illegal POB, this is perfect way to troll lawfuls just by throwing series of illegal bases on their turf and watching them pay incredible sums to be able to remove them.

Ultimately, something needs to be done to stop POBs being killed with bare-bones RP for the sake of killing them.

Pretty much this.

---

[Stefan]

The only opinion I entitle myself to right now - since I hardly participated on anything related to sieges - is that the declaration of attack behind Tsukihime Labs was in the poorest of sportmanships ever.

The account was created for exactly those five posts - the threat and the four declarations. No face, no responsibility, no risk, no effort. Way under the grade of what should be expected from something related to these things.

---

Fade's Files • Sever • ✎ ✉

[Karlotta]

Making sieges harder, more expensive, or exclusive to certain factions will not make them fairer.

The assumption that larger wealth/power/numbers makes players more responsible and fair is wrong, as was proven time and time again. If anything, it makes them feel more entitled to having the "right" to screw others over.

Apart from that, I believe the recent bases were destroyed so quickly because whoever did it wanted to do it before they're able to get shields or reach core 2. Making bases who have more modules and higher core level even more expensive to siege will only amplify the desire to kill them faster.

Making sieges harder (or even better, impossilbe) must be accompanied by incentives and rules that make base builders build bases in a way that they have a positive impact.

Like this, for example:
https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=159051

---

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

[Laura C.]

All 4 of the bases had /no/ shield or (some had some, some not) repair commodities - apparently. Bases are harder to kill than you think.

Not having a shield or repairs is a death sentence, really, that's error on the user.

*shrugs*
Here we go. Like I said in the other thread, if the time and effort invested into making four cool looking bases would be invested into making one core 3 or 4 base with proper supplies and shield, it would still be there.

I can understand the griefing argument, but a Core 1 should be just as protected as others. Ergo, a flat 100 million credits would be suitable for a Core 1. If it's a act of trolling, report it to the admins.

There is nothing admins can punish, just like they have nothing to punish in these fishy base destructions. You can not punish player for repeatedly building a POB, it is not against rules in any way. Basically once again, because of one fishy siege out of many properly done sieges where bases even had literally no protection due to owners bad judgement, some again want to make all sieges even more difficult for everyone while the base builders can happily continue with building without any requirements, just with need to invest hour of time to gather necessary commodities for base deployment.


But just for the record - I do not say that current system does not need some improvement. But it must be done reasonably and not just in a way of "let´s make all sieges even more difficult because all attackers deserve to be punished for touching the bases regardless of circumstances". Usually all the changes are made only from base owners point of view while no other points of view and scenarios (like lawfuls which has to remove illegal bases from place where they can´t be) are considered.

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[Lythrilux]

Here we go. Like I said in the other thread, if the time and effort invested into making four cool looking base would be invested into making one core 3 or 4 base with proper supplies and shield, it would still be there.

And does that justify the roleplay that was used to destroy it? lol.

---

[Laura C.]

Here we go. Like I said in the other thread, if the time and effort invested into making four cool looking base would be invested into making one core 3 or 4 base with proper supplies and shield, it would still be there.

And does that justify the roleplay that was used to destroy it? lol.

I did not say that. But owner made it way too easy for the attacker. We are on the internet in multiplayer game. There will be always some players which just enjoy to destroy other peoples fun and you must expect it.

But again

But just for the record - I do not say that current system does not need some improvement. But it must be done reasonably and not just in a way of "let´s make all sieges even more difficult because all attackers deserve to be punished for touching the bases regardless of circumstances". Usually all the changes are made only from base owners point of view while no other points of view and scenarios (like lawfuls which has to remove illegal bases from place where they can´t be) are considered.

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[Kauket]

Here we go. Like I said in the other thread, if the time and effort invested into making four cool looking base would be invested into making one core 3 or 4 base with proper supplies and shield, it would still be there.

And does that justify the roleplay that was used to destroy it? lol.

If you were presenting an opportunity to get striked at, of course some predators will take the bait, especially if it stays in the same state for so long.

Don't get me wrong, both sides are at fault - you shouldn't have had shieldless installations for months - you're basically saying 'kill me' - and the predator shouldn't have taken the opportunity to harm another player without reason. For Disco's sake, having a consistant rp environment is needed, circlejerking is pretty much running the place, sketchy 'rp' can be done to strike at other people. Having something to stop bass hunters would be nice.

---

[Omicron]

I do not believe topic of the discussion is matter of whether it deserved to be dispatched as fast as it happened (it deserved) but actually the fact that it took a random fresh alt-account with freshly made capital ship to destroy it within the rules.

---