Attacking Player Owned Bases

[Haste]

I'm pretty sure that if I gathered a group of, say, four motivated players, I could build a jumphole blocker over the New York - Colorado jumphole that's core two and has a shield up within a day. After all, you can just buy half a billion worth of cheap, mid-cargo ships and fill them up to the brim, dock them close by (Rochester in this case), and unload it all. A base consumes commodities quite quickly - once the shield is up, killing it becomes very difficult, even for a large faction like the Liberty Navy (officials and indies combined).

What AshHill said - Hell's Gate was a pretty good example of how hard it can be to kill a base placed in a densely populated area.

Edit: Forgot to actually make a point.

The problem here is that, with how easy it is to get a base up to near-invincible status, adding paperwork (and thus, delaying the actual siege) is a problem.

---

[Echo 7-7]

Hmm. Perhaps this could be balanced by the forum RP only being required for bases which themselves have their own post in the POB thread. While the existence of the base would therefore be exposed to a degree (particularly if POB info posts had certain oorp information mandatory to be displayed), it would then be protected from random acts of aggression.

---

There was a sig here, once.

[Jack_Henderson]

Hmm. Perhaps this could be balanced by the forum RP only being required for bases which themselves have their own post in the POB thread. While the existence of the base would therefore be exposed to a degree (particularly if POB info posts had certain oorp information mandatory to be displayed), it would then be protected from random acts of aggression.

Yes. It's also my suggestion.
Put short: If you give roleplay, you deserve roleplay in return.
If not.. just shoot it.

---

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!

[Zen_Mechanics]

This is one of the reasons why Im in favor of the new law.
What a shame to see those people, and with an unusual guest.


see

---

Were fools to make war on our brothers in arms.

[Moberg]

An excellent example just now in the orbit of New Berlin. Somebody decided to build a base right infront of the capital which had absolutely no RP involved in the process, yet roleplay is required for the law enforcement who wants to remove it?
I think there are clearly the wrong priorities set here.

[Zen_Mechanics]

An excellent example just now in the orbit of New Berlin. Somebody decided to build a base right infront of the capital which had absolutely no RP involved in the process, yet roleplay is required for the law enforcement who wants to remove it?
I think there are clearly the wrong priorities set here.

I dont see the problem there, if he doesn't respond to law enforcements then he is liable to be treated as hostile to the nation.

---

Were fools to make war on our brothers in arms.

[Tibbles]

[...]
Put short: If you give roleplay, you deserve roleplay in return.
If not.. just shoot it.

Seems a reasonable protocol for me!

---

:: The orbitals faction information :: Recrutiment :: The scrap Jungle :: Brixton market auctions :: The Club ::

[Laura C.]

An excellent example just now in the orbit of New Berlin. Somebody decided to build a base right infront of the capital which had absolutely no RP involved in the process, yet roleplay is required for the law enforcement who wants to remove it?
I think there are clearly the wrong priorities set here.

I dont see the problem there, if he doesn't respond to law enforcements then he is liable to be treated as hostile to the nation.

Problem is that destroying even level 1 base shield is issue with current number of players, because you need several battleships or lot of cruisers. And second main problem is - sieges are boring. Sitting hours somewhere and shooting at one place is not fun.

General problem is that base building speed should be really less to give people time to react. At the moment, give me three friends and I can build over night shielded level 1 or even 2 base of Red Hessians on New Berlin´s orbit. Maybe even with one weapon platform shooting every undocking player. It would be nice trolling fun for us. Lawfuls then have to try to destroy it, but it is not going to be fun for them...

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[Thyrzul]

Thinking about this some more, what irks me most is that this promotes metagaming. A lot.

Imagine that I, John the Marduk, post in some weird mindshare thread a fancily-photoshopped image of a player base with some odd semi-Nomad-speech below it about death and destruction.

Now I'm obliged to post in an out-of-roleplay thread that I'm going to blow up this base or die trying. Cool. I understand why.

What's the owner gonna do however? If the base is ill-supplied, they're going to have a couple convoys heading to it with shield fuel and repair commodities. Do they have an inRP reason for this? No, they actually don't, but I think we can all agree that very few people would knowingly let their base be ill-prepared for a siege they know is coming.

This...

I don't like the system so much any more.

Reasons:

For organised factions, it is not much of a problem. You want to shoot at a base, you head to the forums and make that one ingame post that official factions would make anyway because they can't be caught not rping anyway.

But it does not work.
Why?

For a siege of a Core 1 base one needs a lot of caps. These are mainly indies.

How would I ever manage to make every one of them post some kind of rp (the link) or even to only post the first 2 lines into that thread?

This makes any attacks against any base totally impossible to do if you care about staying inside the frame of the rules. I know I would constantly spam the sieging group's channel and say. "REGISTER ON FORUMS!!! YOU MUST!!!" etc...

That's dumb.

It will result in mass-sanction against indies. You can't expect everybody to have forum account and know that rule change and find the thread. That's unrealistic.

I somehow fear that bases that would normally die fast now (in places where no one likes bases to be, e.g. blocking bases) would get the time they need to be shielded easily because the attackers waste their time, getting thigns right... and even core 1 sieges would be a real pain to oorply organise it and oorply educate everything, etc...

I think the change introduces an awful amount of oorp-ness into the process.

I do however like the general idea of making roleplay obligatory.
I don't think the approach works well enough.
I'll spend some more time thinking about what could be improved.

... and this...

Hmm. Perhaps this could be balanced by the forum RP only being required for bases which themselves have their own post in the POB thread. While the existence of the base would therefore be exposed to a degree (particularly if POB info posts had certain oorp information mandatory to be displayed), it would then be protected from random acts of aggression.

... and this. Or in short, how Jack summed it up:

If you give roleplay, you deserve roleplay in return.

The whole crap about attackers having to roleplay before attacking already near-invincible entities with the lack of obligation from base constructors having to do the same prior to construction makes the whole extremely one-sided. Player-to-Base combat is already imbalanced in the favor of constructors/suppliers/defenders, and this set of regulations just makes the whole even worse. I humbly request the Administrator Team to rething this, considering the points raised above.

---

[Zen_Mechanics]

Thinking about this some more, what irks me most is that this promotes metagaming. A lot.

Imagine that I, John the Marduk, post in some weird mindshare thread a fancily-photoshopped image of a player base with some odd semi-Nomad-speech below it about death and destruction.

Now I'm obliged to post in an out-of-roleplay thread that I'm going to blow up this base or die trying. Cool. I understand why.

What's the owner gonna do however? If the base is ill-supplied, they're going to have a couple convoys heading to it with shield fuel and repair commodities. Do they have an inRP reason for this? No, they actually don't, but I think we can all agree that very few people would knowingly let their base be ill-prepared for a siege they know is coming.

This...

I don't like the system so much any more.

Reasons:

For organised factions, it is not much of a problem. You want to shoot at a base, you head to the forums and make that one ingame post that official factions would make anyway because they can't be caught not rping anyway.

But it does not work.
Why?

For a siege of a Core 1 base one needs a lot of caps. These are mainly indies.

How would I ever manage to make every one of them post some kind of rp (the link) or even to only post the first 2 lines into that thread?

This makes any attacks against any base totally impossible to do if you care about staying inside the frame of the rules. I know I would constantly spam the sieging group's channel and say. "REGISTER ON FORUMS!!! YOU MUST!!!" etc...

That's dumb.

It will result in mass-sanction against indies. You can't expect everybody to have forum account and know that rule change and find the thread. That's unrealistic.

I somehow fear that bases that would normally die fast now (in places where no one likes bases to be, e.g. blocking bases) would get the time they need to be shielded easily because the attackers waste their time, getting thigns right... and even core 1 sieges would be a real pain to oorply organise it and oorply educate everything, etc...

I think the change introduces an awful amount of oorp-ness into the process.

I do however like the general idea of making roleplay obligatory.
I don't think the approach works well enough.
I'll spend some more time thinking about what could be improved.

... and this...

Hmm. Perhaps this could be balanced by the forum RP only being required for bases which themselves have their own post in the POB thread. While the existence of the base would therefore be exposed to a degree (particularly if POB info posts had certain oorp information mandatory to be displayed), it would then be protected from random acts of aggression.

... and this. Or in short, how Jack summed it up:

If you give roleplay, you deserve roleplay in return.

The whole crap about attackers having to roleplay before attacking already near-invincible entities with the lack of obligation from base constructors having to do the same prior to construction makes the whole extremely one-sided. Player-to-Base combat is already imbalanced in the favor of constructors/suppliers/defenders, and this set of regulations just makes the whole even worse. I humbly request the Administrator Team to rething this, considering the points raised above.

You forget that base constructers/suppliers/defenders are in a rp server, which means ignoring rp in any way/shape can result in a sanction/removal.

---

Were fools to make war on our brothers in arms.