POB's for some are a vital element of Disco but have always been a focal point for problems especially with respect to their destruction vs. their construction.
In an effort to try and implement a final solution to this imbalance we would welcome input from the community.
Assume we are aware of the "POBs should go" and "POBs should be permanent" ends of the spectrum, so try and suggest workable ways forward.
Try and be civil and constructive because the mods are presently a little bored.
Take away the declaration requirements, necessary RP, and place them all in Rheinland.
Srs tho: they're fine the way they are, people just get over dramatic about whole system.
People put a lot of time and effort in to building and maintaining a POB. I've always felt that the Roleplay for them should be a lot heavier to build/destroy.
For example: Players would be required to roleplay the making of the station, as well as those looking to shoot it would need a really justifiable reason in-roleplay to do so. Not simply: Oh, I don't like that, let's shoot it. The fine system some people use, house laws, investigations in to who owns it, upscale those and make them more required than a single RP post. (Not for Nomads, though. We're lucky enough to have figured out a way to be able to do that kind of stuff.)
The other alternative would be to make POBs an SRP thing so they don't spring up out of no where, modify the time required before a siege, modify the hull strength of the station (per level) and limit the amount of ships that could shoot it by Core Level, as well as how the shield mechanic for it works. That way, defenders have a bit of a fair chance of fighting back. Alternatively, don't do anything, and people can stop whining about every single thing in the game being a result of some OORPly motivated action against themselves and acting offended when proven otherwise.
Idk. I just woke up.
Quote:Given that Discovery took a major, if not even critical setback today, we may need to come up with temporary solutions to the current problems we have. While I don't know what exactly the issue with the PoBs right now is, I might have an idea on how to regulate base sieges, to have them a bit less unfair.
PoB Siege events
Let them be approved by Admins. (I know, the greens don't like the idea already. Even more work. ._. )
The idea behind this is to make this more fair for both sides. The amount needed to build a higher Core PoB is way higher than to destroy it, we all agree on this. You write one demand, instantly after that you make the attack declaration and if the demand is not met within 8 or 24 hours, there is enough time to siege the base ANY TIME. You can do it when people are online, you can do it when people are offline. Make it an event with a set starting time, limit that event maybe to four hours - so everyone knows when to log, both to siege and both to defend the base. If the attackers don't manage to do it within the set time, they have to try again later.
Four Hours, set time, multiple attemps
Weaker factions have shown they need hours of sieging to bring down a medium-prepared Core 1 base. For example, BD/AFC sieging the PMS network. It took around two hours with three, later two additional capitals. Not every faction has 20 Full-Cerberus Jorms, although RHA will still have it fairly easier with sieges, obviously. For a siege, either people coordinate event-like to bring up the attacking fleet or they have to attack multiple times, which is, in my opinion, something worth thinking about. So far, when people wanted to destroy a PoB, they did. With this concept, they actually can fail, if they don't coordinate well. Also, more than two hours actually allow people to send a second defense wave (or a second attack wave) during the same event.
Roleplay required
As we already know: Bad facshun makes demand, in the worst case the base owner has only a few hours, in the best case a few days time to respond. Along with the demand, people already post the attack declaration, which is weird, because the attack declaration should be something that comes after the demand, like we do it the way ingame. Demand, if not met, then engagement lines. Is that fair? It could be worse, but it also could be better. This way, you have four steps:
1. Make the comm.
2. Wait for response or no response in time.
3. Create event.
4. Event permission granted.
That's a bit of burocracy, maybe, but I think it's a fair one. The created event would work the same way as the Attack Declaration Thread, just with a set time. Approving the siege events should be a thing done in a few seconds, as those events happen not every day and are created without thousand pages of roleplay.
Why the admin permission, though?
Money required
From what I have seen, everyone was agreeing that the attackers should have to pay something for the siege, be it like said something like a special weapon ammunition or something else. We want and need a money sink here, so it's fair for both sides. So why don't we deal with this like SRP Requests are dealt with?
Attempt to siege a Core 1 Base: 100.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 2 Base: 400.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 3 Base: 600.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 4 Base: 800.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 5 Base: 1.000.000.000 Credits Fee
Too low, too high? 100.000.000 Credits can be farmed by one person in 1-3 hours of trading, depending on what kind of trade route you are. But you don't siege a base on your own. There is usually a faction doing so. So you'd need to pay one fee per created siege event. An admin takes the fee when they approve the event. Since it is just too easy to build a Core 1 Base to annoy people, that should be a little bit cheaper, however, the more effort people put into their bases, the more effort the attacking factions will need to put into it to bring it down.
And if the attacking faction didn't manage to do it during the first siege event, they have lost money, just as the base owner did, as they need to resupply the base now. So if people want to destroy a base that existed for years, they will need to pay for it as well. If they lose, they need to rethink it. Is it worth trying a second assault?
The good thing about the fees is the fact that it animates factions maybe a bit to do more trades. Okay, RHA surely will pay the sieges with the taxed moneys, but even that is fair. So we not only have people showing more trading activity for supplying and upgrading a base, but people will also show more trading activity for the preparation of a siege event.
Other things
So we have covered the payment fee and the event duration. I'd say people don't need to register for this event, at least not as partaking individuals. However, the defending forces should make sense as usual, just as the attacking forces should have a fitting diplomacy to each other. No K'hara-Outcast-Rogue-Lane Hacker-alliance. Only factions that are good with each other. That would also be checked by an admin, so I don't have to make another long post in someone's feedback thread and cause chaos.
I think that's a fair solution concept, but feel free to add you opinion on it here. Please, keep it civil. No snarky comments, no memes, no off-topicing, no inventing of new terms. 
----
From:
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1849302
I personally enjoyed the times prior the PoBs becoming a thing as back then people seemed a bit less salty about dying and losing and such. Though that could be just rose tinted glasses at this point.
Anyways since it' already too late to remove PoBs I'd rather have thinks kept the way they are. If destroying a PoB required any more effort (in number of people present that is) they might as well be invincible and at that point we're better off just making them a SRP/Official Faction only thing as I don't want to see bases that don't make much sense or don't contribute much everywhere. I'm actually pleased they can't be put at jumpholes anymore to kill activity so that's that.
tl;dr: I'm fine with how they are at the moment.
To be honest, they should just go away.
Previously people flocked together to mine and haul, nowadays I take it's easier to mine, drop it on the PoB and later someone hauls it. Interaction literally zero if people really want.
And ofc people get riled up when some other people shoot their shinies.
To elaborate on what Sombra posted, I suggested bombers be used as siege engines to allow all factions to potentially attack a base rather than it being limited to caps. Something like a slow moving torp that does no or very little damage to ships so attackers must chose between risking a close up attack or fire from a distance with the possibility of the torp being destroyed.
For simplicity's sake an attackers fee would probably be more managable, maybe half to 2/3rds the base's cost including modules?
Hm,some POBs require way too much maintenance,like daily maintenance,especially for inactive factions who want to maintain a POB.
I would suggest radically decreasing the necesary commodities necessary for the maintenance of the POB.
Something I've been wondering for a week while was if pob seiges instead of destroying the base,lowered it down a core level, from which the attackers can try again later and the defenders don't lose immediately.
Introduction of special siege ship, which can be destroyed once and for all and costs a fortune might make things interesting and balanced.