(03-18-2016, 09:31 PM)LordVipex Wrote: While this essentially barely changes anything, I appreciate that it gives sieges more visibility for either side.
I agree with @"LordVipex" here ...
I suggest that core 1 bases should require RP for construction (on forum and in-game) so is attacking core 1 bases should require RP (on forum and in-game)
Why? because this is an RP server... but thank you for this step and thank you for discussing the notice time range too. that's all i can say.
(03-18-2016, 09:31 PM)LordVipex Wrote: While this essentially barely changes anything, I appreciate that it gives sieges more visibility for either side.
I agree with @"LordVipex" here ...
I suggest that core 1 bases should require RP for construction (on forum and in-game) so is attacking core 1 bases should require RP (on forum and in-game)
Why? because this is an RP server... but thank you for this step and thank you for discussing the notice time range too. that's all i can say.
LordVipex is correct. Hardly any real change with this rule. However, the lack of an RP requirement for building Core One bases is basically a bone thrown to those who never check the forums nor have an account here. If they want an upgraded base, they can sign up and do some RP to get one.
I think you people missed important part of the announcement.
(03-18-2016, 08:52 PM)TheJarl Wrote: In order to attack a Core 1 POB it is now required to post a notice in the Attack Declaration Thread as was already the case for Core 2 and higher bases. Unlike Core 2 and higher bases it is not required (though encouraged) to have forum RP with the base owners prior to the attack. Attack do have to make sense inRP (so no killing because of ooRP motivations only).
The marked part is very important. Admins now have a tool how to deal with all those stupid situations when for example Zoner base is attacked by Corsairs or Hessians without any previous roleplay, what does not have sense inRP in my opinion and if admins will have same opinion, they may sanction now (especially when the server logs now record at least one ship attacking the base due to local announcement). Not to mention situation when for example some indies are attacked by other indies of same faction or even their own official faction without a word of explanation on forums (yes, this happened in the past).
It will make people think more about what they do and what ships they use for the sieges and what are justifications for the siege. It should put to and end those silly "we attack you because we just don´t like your base/your base got in way of my space outlook etc." reasonings. So while it does not give POBs 100 % protection (but I doubt this was the goal of the rule change), it definitely improves the situation.
The "after announcement time protection period" some of mentioned is not easy issue, it is really hard to balance it to prevent creation of silly situations like when unlawfuls put a base near some lawful station but lawfuls won´t be allowed to do anything with it for certain amount of time (in which the base is getting shield or even weapon platforms, making the siege much harder and increasing number of ships needed for it). Solution can be reached, but so far when thinking about it I always ended with quite difficult rule system and I don´t think this is prefered solution.
(03-19-2016, 12:09 PM)Laz Wrote: However doesn't this just give zoner bases so much more potential now in the sense of bringing back that very old issue...
"I AM ZONER! I am Neutral you cant attack me! ZonerZonerZoner!"
Zoners are left alone by factions because they are useful to them. Neutrality does not exist, said "Zoner neutrality" is more like "allow us to dock or we will butcher your wife/family/dog/friends/entire base".
As for the rule, I am glad to see it was introduced. If you don't like that rule, you can blame your King Rheinland guys, which destroyed base bound to help newbies just because rules allowed them to do so.
(03-19-2016, 12:04 PM)Snak3 Wrote: Reason to attack any non-allied base in ZoI?
"We cannot trust you to not place weapon platforms that will then be used against us"
Well, we will see if admins will consider this as making sense enough inRP. Because I personally would say it makes sense only for very little amount of factions, if any, in case that base is in open space, far from any objects, so not a threat to anything. Very little factions have reason to destroy such base after first encounter without talking to owners first and setting up conditions for survival in their territory (docking access, tax etc.).
(03-19-2016, 12:09 PM)Laz Wrote: However doesn't this just give zoner bases so much more potential now in the sense of bringing back that very old issue...
"I AM ZONER! I am Neutral you cant attack me! ZonerZonerZoner!"
No, it doesn´t work like that. It just means you should talk to them first and tell them "yo zoner, you will do this and that and cooperate with us if you want to keep base in our territory, or we will turn your base into space junk". No guaranteed protection, that is a myth.
(03-19-2016, 12:22 PM)Toris Wrote: As for the rule, I am glad to see it was introduced. If you don't like that rule, you can blame your King Rheinland guys, which destroyed base bound to help newbies just because rules allowed them to do so.
As far as I remember that base was destroyed by some OC indie, if we talk about same base, King Rheinland was just watching. But don´t overestimate it, there were far more examples in recent months which proved this change is needed.
(03-19-2016, 01:29 PM)Laura C. Wrote: As far as I remember that base was destroyed by some OC indie, if we talk about same base, King Rheinland was just watching. But don´t overestimate it, there were far more examples in recent months which proved this change is needed.
"Oh, a Core 1 base, all alone in the middle of nowhere - better pop it up, cause imma bored."