Overhaul Sieging Rules.

[Shiki]

And one more thing. Even Core one can hold siege for days if you actually bother to defend it. This is how you make sieges not easy for your enemy, just defend it instead of whining.

And they blew it up anyway when no one was around to properly defend it. That's not solid game mechanics.

We are talking about Core 1-2 siege case here. Core 4-5, no? No one is gonna bother to even try it.

But I agree that this mechanics is not good. Mainly because we are talking about snub flying arcade space shooter. This game is not even made for caps, I am not talking about base building here.

---

[Kaze]

But I agree that this mechanics is not good. Mainly because we are talking about snub flying arcade space shooter. This game is not even made for caps, I am not talking about base building here.

/End thread.

<3

---

[08:11 PM] Dusty Lens said: Well in that case. NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKE & #SAVAGE & #STORIES

[Greylock]

• Furthermore, these attacks are sometimes done for ooRP reasons, and as such, further brood toxicity within the community. Ergo, the administration should without bias or preferential treatment, shun such behavior with reprimand if necessary, and also hinder and deter such action.
  

I wish...

• Factions and Indies may Freely participate in declared Sieges as long as the base in question is within their ZOI and they are either friendly or allied with the Declaring faction. Core cannot help BAF Siege a Corsair installation in Dublin, for instance, but a Freelancer can aid a Core siege of a Order POB in the Omicrons.
  

Freelancers should not be able to aid the Core since Freelancers are neutral to everyone iirc.

---

[Jadon King]

Freelancers should not be able to aid the Core since Freelancers are neutral to everyone iirc.

This falls to the Players rep Sheet. You can't actually be neutral to everyone.

[Shiki]

You can't actually be neutral to everyone.

https://discoverygc.com/wiki/Zoners

---

[Jadon King]

*Looks at rep sheet.*

*Sees two allies and two enemies*

You only proved my point. Also
If they were neutral to everyone. Why would this discussion even be held hmm? Tsukihime was a Zoner base that came under attack from a neutral party.

[Kalhmera]

The ABH Base really didnt cause any issues in terms of RP to the area. I do think there should be more RP and or special approval to destroy bases that really dont harm the area and if it does not oppose you.

---

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

[Wilfred]

If there was an unambiguous way to quantify roleplay, then I would suggest requiring at least as much roleplay for siegeing a base as went into building it up.

But I don't know how to even begin to quantify RP.

But at the very least, sieges should be admin-approved. (And base constructions, too.)

---

---

| ‹ « Character sheet » › | ‹ « Have feedback? Please PM me! » › |
| ‹ « Messing around with the "Manhattan" starsystem designer » › |
| ‹ « Corile's DSAce.log Filter tool » › |

---

---

[Gulryz]

Poles are useless, as our "Civil" OORP haters use fake accounts to vote

---

---

You can ignore reality but you can not ignore consequences of ignoring reality

[Erik-Kieber]

Likely wont have much todo with this tho... feel like my 2cents might help none the less.

As for sieges in the current form it realy does need changing imo, people invest a lot of time and effort into creating one and maintaining one. Look at that {Abh} for example, it was a big project and it was clearly not even done yet. It was also 54k up the plane and a great asset to the game world. Unless someone blew the wistle on her project it should not even be found. None the less, some new forum acount was made and on the very moment it was allowed to post it sended out 4 pob attack declarations. That alone should not be posible already.

The the mechanics... For a core 2... How can a owner stay in and ongame for a whole whoping 2 weeks while the attacker only have to wait a short time once such an declaration is send... It is unrealistic and very unfair to the owner. Add to that the fact that a core 2 is gone in no time by a small group of caps and it becomes realy problematic, the attacker only has to wait for an owner to get to bed and its all over for the owner. Add to that the fact it is only a small group that dedicates on pob sieges and you can see how oorp this whole thing gets. People simply make a temporary cap of the oposing faction id of the pob it self and they r set to kill it off and in no time. Give the attacker something to chew on as in core 1 should be able to stand at least half a day being pummeld by caps not the 5 mins it took for those 2 pob in kepler.

What i would like to see is valid reasons in the attack declarations, not just the i dont like you and so you have problems. True valid reason as to why an pob on that location is a problem is something that needs to be added and seen in such declarations imo. Also a onwer should be able to defend in the declaration, with ample of reason as to why a pob should stay there and thus should not be killed off. Then have a green look into it. Take in regard the location and function of a pob and how much rp it produces both on forum as ingame. Only when a green sees a true problem with an pob location or funtion on that spot the declaration is allowed for example.

I am honest when i say that killing off pob like this and so fast only drives people away and we all know that we need every member these days, it is more hurtfull at this point to allow such things then that it does any good.

I hope this post make a bit of sense and will result into better mechanics of the enitre siege posability's. Friendly regards from,
Erik Kieber

---

This player is no longer playing

ApS Faction page - Feedback - Requitment - Roster - Message dumb - Warehouse deliveries

A Pretty Helpful Tutorial Database