Siege bloodlust

[Sniper]

Maybe we should implement a rule that gives the chance for the owner to pay quarterly "tax" or something like that, before the enemy start the siege. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Just an idea...

Yep! And over time things change. Occupying forces get pushed back, PoB's are still there, Win-Win. RL has given us the blueprint.

[Grumblesaur]

Maybe we should implement a rule that gives the chance for the owner to pay quarterly "tax" or something like that, before the enemy start the siege. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Just an idea...

Yep! And over time things change. Occupying forces get pushed back, PoB's are still there, Win-Win. RL has given us the blueprint.

Counterpoint:

Money is not always the goal; it does not make sense for an enemy military to be accepting money or goods when the base still exists and can be used as a vector for infiltration or espionage. Furthermore, a lot of factions don't want to inherit a POB via capture because it's a burden on their players' time.

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

[Shiki]

Don't really mind having capturing as an option, but it should not replace POB being destroyed.

---

[Sniper]

On a personal note I cannot fathom why you started this anew, but I hope we get some good arguments (I.e. reasoned opinions) out of it.

This is different.

Very simply, this is an opportunity to make the game-play around sieges less bloodlust and more strategic for those doing the siege.

Sieging is a part of the game. An illegal Outcast base in Corsair space is an act of war. RP it well and take it down if it doesn't surrender.

A mining PoB servicing miners that had permission to build can be annexed by an invading faction,

It doesn't make sense to utterly destroy everything.
It does make sense to annex and exploit a PoB.

You do realize that some people don't want to own or supply POBs, right? Why would they capture them? It would be nice to have as an option, probably. I agree. Besides, mining POB that is registered under a state that is hostile to other states is also a legitimate target. Since they have chosen a side on whom to contact and whom to pay. You don't really need to wonderer when enemies of the House that you pay taxes show up and try to destroy you. Especially if it's some Nomad tier villan like Enclave.

Capturing does not mean running a PoB. It comes under the martial law, where the citizens are forced to supply the invading army. (levies, tributes, portion of gold etc). Sweden's workers were made to make iron to be shipped to Germany - as an example.

PoB's that are included under the governance of a faction can be a legitimate target but why destroy an asset if you annex them? Less blood, more booty.

[Karlotta]

I made some proposals on how to reduce the drama around POBs: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=159051

In essence, players need more guidance when building bases, and be rewarded with a sense of security if they follow them.

---

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

[Shiki]

On a personal note I cannot fathom why you started this anew, but I hope we get some good arguments (I.e. reasoned opinions) out of it.

This is different.

Very simply, this is an opportunity to make the game-play around sieges less bloodlust and more strategic for those doing the siege.

Sieging is a part of the game. An illegal Outcast base in Corsair space is an act of war. RP it well and take it down if it doesn't surrender.

A mining PoB servicing miners that had permission to build can be annexed by an invading faction,

It doesn't make sense to utterly destroy everything.
It does make sense to annex and exploit a PoB.

You do realize that some people don't want to own or supply POBs, right? Why would they capture them? It would be nice to have as an option, probably. I agree. Besides, mining POB that is registered under a state that is hostile to other states is also a legitimate target. Since they have chosen a side on whom to contact and whom to pay. You don't really need to wonderer when enemies of the House that you pay taxes show up and try to destroy you. Especially if it's some Nomad tier villan like Enclave.

Capturing does not mean running a PoB. It comes under the martial law, where the citizens are forced to supply the invading army. (levies, tributes, portion of gold etc). Sweden's workers were made to make iron to be shipped to Germany - as an example.

PoB's that are included under the governance of a faction can be a legitimate target but why destroy an asset if you annex them? Less blood, more booty.

So basically POB will just stay under same ownership defacto not changing anything. So there is no point to siege it at all.

---

[Grumblesaur]

Capturing does not mean running a PoB. It comes under the martial law, where the citizens are forced to supply the invading army. (levies, tributes, portion of gold etc). Sweden's workers were made to make iron to be shipped to Germany - as an example.

PoB's that are included under the governance of a faction can be a legitimate target but why destroy an asset if you annex them? Less blood, more booty.

This is not feasibly enforceable -- the subjugated group could just stop logging in or switch to another faction and let the base die to spite the captors. Unless of course you mean transforming the thing into an NPC base, which is a bad idea for a multitude of reasons.

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

[Kazinsal]

The biggest issue with POB sieges is that only one side faces permadeath of an entity. This has been the issue with POBs and sieges from the get-go and I don't think the original implementers of them thought through the long-term ramifications of having them be permanently killed by fleets of ships where the only penalty for dying is "come back in an hour".

I would personally much prefer to fix this with a simple base game mechanics solution (an actual proper class of siege turrets that aren't just really slow sci-data battleship heavies) than with a rules one (eg. failing a siege prevents you from re-attempting it for a few days).

---

Retired, permanently.

[Lythrilux]

I start this post with a request for robust debate but please! Leave the negativity, and toxic/personal attacks out. No rules-lawyering, but constructive challenging of a view appreciated.

I have made an impromptu list which I think may facilitate discussion, which I hope will benefit the game and engender more enjoyable and positive player experience.

1. Sieges are a valid and part of the game.
2. PoB's are the heart and soul of many peoples raison d'etre to play Discovery.
3. Sieges that destroy the hard work of players is harming the community.
4. Sieges that destroy POB's also destroy ongoing RP, ends potential in-game interaction and substantially reduces PvP gaming pleasure.

Yeah, I can see the arguments for each of those points. I think sieges are often inherently toxic and not constructive to server health. But in some cases they are a necessity to combat toxic POB placement (area denial, JH/JG POBs, mining field POBs etc).

I think Disco as a whole would be much better off if POBs had stricter rules with their placement and couldn't be sieged.

---

[Groshyr]

Don't really mind having capturing as an option, but it should not replace POB being destroyed.

This could be a part of ooRP deals between people if they don't want their POBs to be destroyed but this also should be regulated by RP performance and GM's approval in special cases.