POB Siege Idea

[LordBuglette]

Maybe turn them into multistage events with gathering win/lose points?

I feel like this would be a good approach to it, because not only will it cause incentive to log it will also allow the POB to survive longer when declared upon. The only thing is how is the event going to work?

[Darkseid667]

Haha, dream on, guys. There have been so many attempts and good ideas regarding POBs and sieges, but they all fall on deaf ears.

[Paddy.]

Haha, dream on, guys. There have been so many attempts and good ideas regarding POBs and sieges, but they all fall on deaf ears.

I agree. Champ put out a very positive discussion about POB's and there were terrific ideas presented. Nothing happened with it. Thinking such as compulsory terms of surrender offered once before the siege began, ships on site, and one 60% damage done which could have worked. Ignored.

[sasapinjic]

The best option in my opinion would be to "somehow" include siege time of each installation, in which the owner/protectors know that they can attend.

It sucks to have your PoB sieged in time when you are at work, or it's not favorable for your faction's timezone. Attackers already choose day of the siege, what if defenders could choose time?

There is game i play where base/city you own can only be attacked in time owner had specify,and he naturaly set time when most of his members can be online (lets say he set time from 14:00 - 17:00) , so attackers can only declare war at that time,and fight happens exactly 24 hours later.
After attack is finished,and defense suceed,city is safe(cannot be declared war/attacked) from any attack in next 7 days (safe from same faction that attacked them for 4 weeks).
If attack suceed, city become owned by attackers, and it is also safe from any attack for 7 days.
That can be impemented here as well.


Also un-related idea: what if attackers can capture base and claim it for it self?
When you destroy base, you can request in forum RP capturing of base you destroyed,and admins will restore it as you base, for a price maybe.
Or,when base is dropped to 1% HP, local system message apears : "base surrenders , claim it as your own?", everibody presnts there vote with Y/N ,if mayority vote N,base is destoyed, if Y, base is made invisible/invicible, previus owner loose admin rights,and base waits for forum RP claim of base.

[LuckyOne]

There are only a few relatively small changes required to fix most of the issues people have with POBs.

As far as I know the first one is already in the works and it's related to the area denial abilities of Weapons Platforms, which should be severely reduced in the future, after the changes are implemented.

The second one exists as a proof of concept, and it's about time to build vs time to destroy. Currently it takes on average a lot more time to build a base than to destroy it. That is because the build rate is effectively capped by the amount of "ticks" available per day.

The destroy rate on the other hand is theoretically uncapped, but in practice limited by the amount of attackers available to siege, and the amount of defenders available to drive the attackers off.

I'd say the effort required is currently about the same, if we look at a case of a single POB - grinding cash for caps vs hauling stuff to the POB, with the caveat that once you get the caps you can effectively use them to siege an unlimited number of bases.

The current mechanics put the defending side at a noticeable disadvantage.

There are basically three ways to fix this disadvantage:

1. Make repair ships able to repair bases. The overall effort stays about the same, but bases can be brought up to full health more quickly by a sufficiently large group of players. The repair rate could be halved if the shield is up, thus allowing attackers to still maintain pressure.

This would balance out theoretically uncapped destruction rate with the capped construction rate by allowing the builders to increase the construction rate by active participation.

2. Cap the destruction rate artificially, by the plugin. Basically, this would make the base ignore an amount of DPS larger than X.

This balances out theoretically uncapped destruction rate with the capped construction rate by putting a hard limit to the sensible attacking force.

3. Make attacking each base require some additional effort from the attackers. Just like the defenders need to haul repair materials, the attackers could also need to haul destruction materials / munitions. The required amount would have to be adjusted so it is smaller than construction materials, seeing as it's much easier to destroy a battleship with a cargo hold full of ammo than the base.

This balances out theoretically uncapped destruction rate with the capped construction rate by removing AFK siege ability, so it would be hard to balance, as the defenders keep their AFK repair ability.

[Groshyr]

Maybe turn them into multistage events with gathering win/lose points?

I feel like this would be a good approach to it, because not only will it cause incentive to log it will also allow the POB to survive longer when declared upon. The only thing is how is the event going to work?

some time ago, about 2 or 3 years, I remember there were official events with pre-registration. This has helped to keep sides more or less balanced. The same approach could b used here. Shall we say, we have 2 or 3 stages (events) in a row. Each with pre-registration and a strict number of participants. The first one won by defenders, the second one won by offenders. Then, the third one decides who won the siege at all. Of course, two may be no enough when we talk about player's property, so maybe make it 4-5? Of course, bearing in mind that what we're talking about is a theory

1. Make repair ships able to repair bases. The overall effort stays about the same, but bases can be brought up to full health more quickly by a sufficiently large group of players. The repair rate could be halved if the shield is up, thus allowing attackers to still maintain pressure.

Ah! A volunteer to code this out! So nice

[Lusitano]

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?

No. that would only benifit the defenders, and ruin the surprise attack from the agressors. also poorly equipped factions would have no chances, one good example, the gaians are preparing to attack one pob, don't remember each one, if your idea goes forward, baf would know when to park their dozens battleships and cruisers against few destroyers that the gaians might have.

in other words, in real life, was if the nazis would know when the alleis would land in 1944.

[Pepe]

Time limit is good imho, but if it's limited. Time limit could make a game for both sides. This we can get by:

- shields should be weaker, but armor should be stronger
- shields can up or down only manually by owner
- changing shields status should take 2-3 hours in both directions. Huge energy changes need time
- docks would be closed when shields are up. Bases are not to be dumb money machines.
- shields status should be visible on forum, so traders can see it. Siegers too.

This might stop abusing time zones and generate gameplay. With shields up and fuel refilled, owners can have a life actually. Some owners might even announce shield status changes on Forum and make business. And where is business, there are security issues.

---

[Erremnart]

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?

No. that would only benifit the defenders, and ruin the surprise attack from the agressors. also poorly equipped factions would have no chances, one good example, the gaians are preparing to attack one pob, don't remember each one, if your idea goes forward, baf would know when to park their dozens battleships and cruisers against few destroyers that the gaians might have.

in other words, in real life, was if the nazis would know when the alleis would land in 1944.

This is a game and not real life. And "owners" are already at disadvantage by putting a way more effort into running a base, while attackers' only risk is being blued by successful defenders.

"Vulnerability windows" would allow actual gameplay - attackers and defenders fighting each other. If your faction is not big enough to siege at given time, then get allies or don't declare siege.

---

Captain Virginia Belle
Task Force Phoenix
Battlecruiser Roanoke
Feedback Thread

[Enkidu]

Vulnerability windows means that the winners arn't just those who have players in European work or sleep hours.

---

THE SYNDIC LEAGUES
(A co-operative of Rheinland's outlawed trade unions, determined to take the underworld for themselves.)

Information | Recruitment | Message Dump |
Feedback | Diplomatic channel

(Links pending redevelopment).