Should access to siege weapons / ammo be limited

[Karst]

And sieging way too easy with preset JD coords, docking modules, siege guns and ammo in conn and every dockable base for everyone.

I think you're right about bases being too easy to siege now. But not for those reasons.

Mostly, it's because the damage cap is absurdly fast and easy to reach, even with very low numbers of ships, to the point you can successfully repel an attack and in the very same window, have just a handful of people "sneak in" an almost full cap damage attack at the end of it. It's disturbing that two gunboats can hit the cap comfortably in just over half the window, and an actual group can do it in minutes.

Second is the comically low repair rate, which might as well not exist. Repairs are so slow that the defenders have to essentially win every single fight, every single siege window, throughout the entirety of the dec. The defenders can rally their strongest and win, say, three attack windows in a row and offer complete protection throughout, but it doesn't matter, because the repair rates are too slow to make up for even one attack.
Basically the attackers can afford to fail most of the time, while the defenders have to be both perfectly vigilant AND succeed in combat pretty much every single window.

---

[Lemon]

not most of the time
they can fail in 79% of fights for core 3 and still kill it
If it is defended at all times with maximum repairs, defenders have to be ready at every window at all times, attackers just come and shoot.

[Karst]

Yes, that qualifies as "most of the time", doesn't it?
Or would you prefer the phrasing "almost all of the time"?

---

[Lemon]

Yes, that qualifies as "most of the time", doesn't it?
Or would you prefer the phrasing "almost all of the time"?

"Large majority" is more fitting

I just want people to know how insanely lopsided it is now, some here seem to claim otherwise.

[Karst]

Well, anyway.

I don't think the availability of siege ammo is all that relevant. Though I might lower the ammo counts a bit.

The bigger issues are the incredible ease with which even small numbers of ships can reach the damage cap (like, call me crazy, but I feel like maybe if all the attackers can muster is two light gunboats, they shouldn't be able to hit the cap), and the incredibly slow repair rate.

---

[Lord Helmchen]

Maybe Increase the Price of Siege Weapons? Or Reduce the Siege Times. 2 weeks for a Siege is a bit long with the New Reduced POB Helath.

---

---

Orbital Spa and Cruise

---

<> Information <> Recruitment <> Bounty Board <>

[Couden]

Maybe Increase the Price of Siege Weapons? Or Reduce the Siege Times. 2 weeks for a Siege is a bit long with the New Reduced POB Helath.

Maybe defend your pob?

---

---

[TheSauron]

Well, anyway.

I don't think the availability of siege ammo is all that relevant. Though I might lower the ammo counts a bit.

The bigger issues are the incredible ease with which even small numbers of ships can reach the damage cap (like, call me crazy, but I feel like maybe if all the attackers can muster is two light gunboats, they shouldn't be able to hit the cap), and the incredibly slow repair rate.

What's wrong with gunboats? Would it be better if it was two battleships instead? The manpower invested is the same in either case.

---

One MD Admiral

[Haste]

Well, anyway.

I don't think the availability of siege ammo is all that relevant. Though I might lower the ammo counts a bit.

The bigger issues are the incredible ease with which even small numbers of ships can reach the damage cap (like, call me crazy, but I feel like maybe if all the attackers can muster is two light gunboats, they shouldn't be able to hit the cap), and the incredibly slow repair rate.

I feel like maybe if all the defenders can muster is Literally Nothing, they shouldn't be able to stop any number attackers from hitting the cap.

It kind of works both ways. If the aggressors are truly that small a group they should be trivial to repel, especially as at that scale weapon platforms are highly impactful. While sieges are historically associated with large groups, virtually every activity in the game is available to solo players. From building a PoB, to mining, to trading, to PvE. I don't see why sieges should suddenly require some large force.

We're likely going to reduce the siege window to a single week, however, as two weeks of "high alert" is a little much. It'll also help reduce the required winrate of the defending side.

I've been trying to figure out how to give Weapon Platforms some form of AoE pulse damage to help them be more effective against larger groups of attackers, too, with the only caveat being that that is also going to affect ship powercores. We're likely going to figure out a decently functional system that doesn't impact sieges where no defenders are present, however.

---

[Karst]

I feel like maybe if all the defenders can muster is Literally Nothing, they shouldn't be able to stop any number attackers from hitting the cap.

It kind of works both ways. If the aggressors are truly that small a group they should be trivial to repel, especially as at that scale weapon platforms are highly impactful. While sieges are historically associated with large groups, virtually every activity in the game is available to solo players. From building a PoB, to mining, to trading, to PvE. I don't see why sieges should suddenly require some large force.

We're likely going to reduce the siege window to a single week, however, as two weeks of "high alert" is a little much. It'll also help reduce the required winrate of the defending side.

I've been trying to figure out how to give Weapon Platforms some form of AoE pulse damage to help them be more effective against larger groups of attackers, too, with the only caveat being that that is also going to affect ship powercores. We're likely going to figure out a decently functional system that doesn't impact sieges where no defenders are present, however.

But this isn't about defenders mustering "literally nothing".

Envision a scenario in which a base is attacked by two players, in two gunboats. And they're good. The defenders can get people to defend, but not always, and they can't always win - still, they defend successfully in 3 out of 4 windows. That's below the 79% Lemon mentioned, which I haven't done the math for but assume is most likely accurate.
The base dies. To two people in gunboats who lost most of their fights.

That doesn't seem quite right. Nor do I think weapons platforms are the solution to this. Bases without platforms should also have a reasonable survival chance in such a scenario. Like yeah, a base that is in an area, of an IFF, that is expecting attack, should be significantly better protected, but bases shouldn't be required to have platforms to survive an attack.

Don't get me wrong, bases should die to dedicated groups of attackers that overcome their opponents regularly. But to some incredibly half-assed attempt by like two people that don't even log or are defeated most days? Nah, I don't think they should.

---