POB Siege Idea

[Binski]

Well we had a good way to speed up sieges, called NEMP's, and their removal ruined a lot of potential. They could have been used for a variety of things. The real problem is low player population and no open plans to really do anything about it. And what's next? Limiting pvp to certain hours? Shrinking only treats the symptoms but doesn't cure the illness. This whole game needs to be reworked so that it actually functions, and gives people reasons to come here and stick it out despite the curves.

POB's should be stronger starting out, not weaker, and still siegeable whenever. Ditching 24/7 activity and not fostering 24/7 activity is a big part of what killed this place, its not because its old. Chess is thousands of years old, people still play it.

There should be sieges going on all over the server all the time, of various types (POB and NPC bases). Something to join in on any time of day that generates activity like a place to defend and a supply route. I only bring it up because its how the game should have been played for at least 10 years now. Instead it seems like we just downgraded or something, seems like connecting is even harder since the patch.

Either way this place already has too many limitations as is, limiting people's actions to certain times of day is totally removing the free part of freelancer.

[Lemon]

I'd add a new rule
- players must make a roleplay demand on Core2 and higher player owned bases, and siege only if the reasonable demand is not fulfilled.

Then can sieges be shorter. But it makes little sense that on a roleplay server people do the bare minimum before sieges.

[Kalhmera]

I'd add a new rule
- players must make a roleplay demand on Core2 and higher player owned bases, and siege only if the reasonable demand is not fulfilled.

Then can sieges be shorter. But it makes little sense that on a roleplay server people do the bare minimum before sieges.

Core 2 and up you have to do RP to attack the POB. Whether the standard of RP needs to be raised or not remains to be seen but RP has to be done. To make it demand only is kinda weird.

---

Just as the constant increase of entropy is the basic law of the universe, so it is the basic law of life to struggle against entropy. - V. Havel

Amenhotep SRP Thread | Amenhotep Captains Log | Jean Holiday Dossier & Logs | Vermont History

[Haste]

Demand only means the Rogues could build a PoB in front of Manhattan and then - assuming they pay all demands - happily proceed to own a PoB in orbit of Manhattan. Let's maybe not.

The OP sounds a lot like vulnerability windows for eve citadels and uh.. they had a pretty mixed reception. Also not sure what's keeping anyone from saying "Tomorrow night at 2:30 am in your timezone we'll drive six Ranseurs at your PoB and blast it". That's why eve vulnerability windows were set by the owner of the "base", not the attacker.

It might still be better than what we have but I'd be more inclined to let the defenders pick a time window, which with sieges having to be declared individually is a bit.. Weird.

---

[Zentor]

The current "RP" in most cases is cursory and bare minimum- on both sides.

POB's honestly need a lot of big brain reworking. Its a catch 22 of,

"I'd like to RP all this cool stuff to get this base rolling" but instead, I have to keep it secret secret while I pour hundreds of hours into them (unless you have like the entire BAF or similar sized playerbase to defend - and to haul for).

So then you rush your POB to Core 2 as fast as possible while you and anyone supplying it lose their souls to endless hours hauling for them.

Upon arriving at Core 2, still anyone wanting to "kick over a sandcastle" as one player so eloquently put it (thanks @CommodoreShawn ) just basically does a /1 /2 "RP" before sieging.

Meanwhile defenders need to sit 24/7 by pobbot to respond to defense.

So its a mess indeed. Limiting to a few hours doesn't seem address the root cause of the pain. RP does need to be more significant- on both ends, the proposed attackers and the owners/defenders. But the mechanism of sieging needs to have a cost to both the attackers and defenders I believe (and the cost shouldn't just be time)

It'd be cool if attacking a POB (at least higher core ones) could start an "instance" where npc's of large ship class could come attack the siegers like in a PVE zone (although this sounds like an enormous amount of work to make happen)

or require more from existing POB's as far as RP and player interaction (rather then just having to feed it so much) in order to keep it around or advance to next Core level. Theres tons of decarying POBs that had a good bit of activity for a couple months after making it or upgrading it, but are now just decaying and many have 0 RP around them at all, or just "hey i need suppliers reeeee".

Also, governments and those that have "regional control" should demand more from these stations both in RP and regarding demands of placements, look and orientation (purchased models), docking clearances. (same for unlawfuls)

anyway, i'm rambling. Lots can be done. we just need to think and talk it over.

---

#JusticeForBurgundy

---

"Music gives Wings to the Mind, Soul to the Universe, and Life to Everything"

[CommodoreShawn]

Demand only means the Rogues could build a PoB in front of Manhattan and then - assuming they pay all demands - happily proceed to own a PoB in orbit of Manhattan. Let's maybe not.

The OP sounds a lot like vulnerability windows for eve citadels and uh.. they had a pretty mixed reception. Also not sure what's keeping anyone from saying "Tomorrow night at 2:30 am in your timezone we'll drive six Ranseurs at your PoB and blast it". That's why eve vulnerability windows were set by the owner of the "base", not the attacker.

It might still be better than what we have but I'd be more inclined to let the defenders pick a time window, which with sieges having to be declared individually is a bit.. Weird.

Personally, I like the timed attack window idea. To mitigate the "timezone taking" aspect, there could be an approach of multiple battles. Say 3 battles, 8 hours apart to give all timezones a chance to participate. Attakers have to win 2/3 in order to destroy the PoB.

Another, related idea that @WiseTaurus mentioned previously, is an insurance system. To soften the blow of a PoB being destroyed, have an option for the owner to "buy it back" in some extent. Not a full restoration, but give them an option to retrieve some of the effort put into the PoB. That might reduce the impact of someone losing a base they've sunk weeks of their life into.

[darkwind]

What if POBs only took a couple of hours to bring down, but in your siege declaration, you had to appoint a precise time of the day within a specific time interval depending on the level of the base, and you could only attack once a week?

I can't imagine it being any good/honest for base owners
The results of weeks/months of building a base
Destroyed in a few hours event
Too much disproportionately used amount of time
(1000h of building to 1h of destruction)

I would understand it more, if the base did not require constant resourse supplying, and instead bases were building in some iddle-waiting form. So the real time for base building would take few hours too, and all the rest is just monitoring

---

Interstellar	Autogit	Ctrl-V	Encryptor	Discovery At Linux
Dark Tools	DarkBot	DarkLint	DarkStat	DarkMap

[Egon Bigmemes]

make pobs fast to build and repair and equally fast to destroy

the weeks/months investment into them has done nothing but ruin the atmosphere because people who only know how to build pobs throw apocalyptic temper tantrums when their pobs are destroyed, and if theyre not destroyed, theyre gigantic eyesores, usually hostile to everything around them

[Paddy.]

make pobs fast to build and repair and equally fast to destroy

the weeks/months investment into them has done nothing but ruin the atmosphere because people who only know how to build pobs throw apocalyptic temper tantrums when their pobs are destroyed, and if theyre not destroyed, theyre gigantic eyesores, usually hostile to everything around them

There are 200 POB's which should tell you that PoB's are very popular, and that their demise would be the demise of DiscoveryGC. 200 PoB's cause in-game participation, and player retention.

So where would you be, Saronsen, if there were much, MUCH fewer players.

The whole stink about the way sieges take place without any decent RP to destroy them has cost this game a lot of active players.

[The_Godslayer]

The whole stink about the way sieges take place without any decent RP to destroy them has cost this game a lot of active players.

+1 order PoB on top of jumphole, and this one wasn't even on purpose. Most PoBs are killed hard and fast because there are actually people who intend to do this, and we've learnt the hard way. When abusing economy oversights, locking hostile factions out of systems, and being toxic when people get sick of it and break your stuff is the norm, of course PoBs are going to get a bad rep. Every time there's a system change and people use that as an excuse to throw their PoB next to a base or a Jump Hole to camp or stack weaps on it, you lose a few people willing to tolerate it, and you polarize the people. Every time a PoB owner acts up, people who don't deal in PoBs hate them more, and people who do get more defensive.

You want a fix to the issue? Get rid of every cancerous PoB owner, and keep the ones who don't cause issues. Until then, stop advocating to make PoBs unsiegable through extensive rules. It's pretty obvious that the goal is "Make sieging a base such an unbearably long process that no one can go through with it", and is only adding to the polarization. Make an actual solution, don't just be more of the problem.

And really, if "Sit my pob on top of a hostile factions base in order to make sure they can't log on" is the activity you want to defend, then forgive the mighty laughter I'm about to do.

---

I'll do something about my superiority complex when I cease to be superior.

"Whatever happened to catchin' a good old-fashioned passionate ass-whoopin and gettin' your shoes, coat, and your hat tooken?"