POB Siege Balance

[St.Denis]

However, I worry that building troll core 1-s en masse might ruin this idea. The ammo will have to be costly, but troll core 1 POBs are very cheap to make (as far as I am informed, but admittedly I don't know much about POBs).

I haven't read past this post, yet, but if this has already been mentioned, then I apologise.

When I was an Admin (previous Administration) we were discussing the possibility of adding a Commodity, which could be bought on NPCs Bases, that cost 250 million credits. This would be needed and consumed on the deployment of the Base, along with the rest of the requirements. This 250 million would replace the 250 million required to upgrade to Core 3.

The price could be more. But the idea was that it would stop (reduce) the nuisance deployment of Bases.

If I remember correctly, the Commodity is already in the files, but made inactive.

---

'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are'
Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person

[Shiki]

Instead of whinning log bomber with SNAC And ASURAS and kill Attackers

They respawn in an hour and then it becomes too late xD. That's why I suggest the siege factories, which are destructible, and the defenders can actually do something meaningful during their prime hours, too.

Other side is having americans and yours does not. Its a playerbase issue, not balance issue.

---

[Sava]

You invest something into something with the healthbar yes.

If you are mining yourself full 5k of ore, flying 5 systems and encountering pirate who demands to drop cargo, its also different kind of effort. Game is risy otherwise it will lose all interest to everyone.

Pirate can be killed by a lawful and will have a 1-hour cooldown. It's a level field, both parties have comparable risks.
Then, while the POB defenders clearly risk losing an asset, attackers have nothing of a comparable nature.

It seems that while everyone agrees that the space is dangerous, many players who thrive on sieging POBs reject the notion that risks should apply to their side as well.

Edit: I think I need to say it - I have actually never built/owned a base.

---

XTF wiki ☼ XTF forum

[Shiki]

Trader loses 50m and time, pirate just time. Losses are not the same. Attackers can be killed by lawful too. Then again go and try to siege long island or whatever. You imply that attackers kill base in 100% of time, they dont. People just dont declare on bases that are not possible to kill.

There have been very few core 5 or 4 bases killed during my five years of play. Unlawful sieges in Liberty usually dont happen or fail. Last HF siege failed I think.

---

[Backo]

Currently there are 249 PoBs according to the forum utility listing them. Last few weeks during the events and sieges and such I believe the top player count reached around 110 people. Currently there are over 2 times more PoBs than players flying at a given time. Are PoBs really that fragile then?

---

Republic of the Sword and Sun

[Sava]

Trader loses 50m and time, pirate just time. Losses are not the same. Attackers can be killed by lawful too. Then again go and try to siege long island or whatever. You imply that attackers kill base in 100% of time, they dont. People just dont declare on bases that are not possible to kill.

While it might be hard to tell how much different are death timer vs a death timer+X amount of credits, there's a clear distinction between a 1-hour cooldown and a loss of an imaginary castle.

Yes, no one is attacking bases that are too tough. But there are quite many of them that are not, and will never be sieged, which kind of gives the owners a sense of safety on one hand, and makes them feel abused when their precious thing becomes arbitrarily targeted on the other.

Currently there are 249 PoBs according to the forum utility listing them. Last few weeks during the events and sieges and such I believe the top player count reached around 110 people. Currently there are over 2 times more PoBs than players flying at a given time. Are PoBs really that fragile then?

Aren't fragile enough, if you ask me.
Again, my proposition isn't buffing bases, but leveling the field by endowing siegers with some risks. Which isn't even meant to make them weaker, but can introduce some responsibility, and give their opponents a real way to counter things.

---

XTF wiki ☼ XTF forum

[Shiki]

Players being not aware of risk is not balance issue. It should be told on whatever pob guides that are there. But if you shift balance towards the defenders then currently unsiegable bases will become even more so. And more bases will be automatically added to that list.

Giving pobs even more special attack conditions like ammo and stuff is like protecting traders with special pirate guns and ammo with which only you can pirate. Because pirate trader intetactions are also not fair. By your logic pirates also need to mine ore themselves (build siege depot) to pirate someone with the ore.

---

[St.Denis]

Currently there are 249 PoBs according to the forum utility listing them. Last few weeks during the events and sieges and such I believe the top player count reached around 110 people. Currently there are over 2 times more PoBs than players flying at a given time. Are PoBs really that fragile then?

If you actually remove all the 'more' lines, there are actually only 174 POBs on the list.

---

'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are'
Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person

[Backo]

Currently there are 249 PoBs according to the forum utility listing them. Last few weeks during the events and sieges and such I believe the top player count reached around 110 people. Currently there are over 2 times more PoBs than players flying at a given time. Are PoBs really that fragile then?

If you actually remove all the 'more' lines, there are actually only 174 POBs on the list.

Oops, my bad then.

---

Republic of the Sword and Sun

[Haste]

As has been said numerous times, some "symmetry" in PoB sieges would be nice. Attackers build a siege platform which does the job of holding right mouse button with Siege turrets equipped for them (but better). This puts the defending PoB on a timer of sorts where it's going to die to the attacking platform sooner or later. Thus, the defenders need to defend their bases by killing a siege platform and the attackers need to attack the base by defending said siege platform.

Coincidentally this can fix the "asymmetry in risk" issue as well, by making the platform cost a certain amount of resources (and by extension credits) up front and perhaps making it consume some munition commodity over time as well. This way both the defenders and attackers would have something tangible to lose.

This would all have to be balanced in such a way that a platform can't kill a base overnight, and base owners can't kill the platform overnight either, so I'm sure it'd take some fine-tuning to get right. But it still sounds a hundred times better to me (and infinitely less boring for the attackers).

Sieging a PoB is the most mind-numbingly boring activity in the entire game, so it really wouldn't hurt to get a bit of an overhaul.

---