Siege bloodlust - Printable Version +- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums) +-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23) +--- Thread: Siege bloodlust (/showthread.php?tid=180256) |
RE: Siege bloodlust - Sniper - 05-31-2020 (05-30-2020, 11:50 PM)Maltz Wrote: 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. RE: Siege bloodlust - Grumblesaur - 05-31-2020 (05-31-2020, 12:08 AM)Sniper Wrote:(05-30-2020, 11:50 PM)Maltz Wrote: 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... 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. RE: Siege bloodlust - Shiki - 05-31-2020 Don't really mind having capturing as an option, but it should not replace POB being destroyed. RE: Siege bloodlust - Sniper - 05-31-2020 (05-31-2020, 12:03 AM)Shiki Wrote:(05-31-2020, 12:00 AM)Sniper Wrote:(05-30-2020, 11:33 PM)Champ Wrote: 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. 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. RE: Siege bloodlust - Karlotta - 05-31-2020 I made some proposals on how to reduce the drama around POBs: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=159051 In essence, players need more guidance when building bases, and be rewarded with a sense of security if they follow them. RE: Siege bloodlust - Shiki - 05-31-2020 (05-31-2020, 12:19 AM)Sniper Wrote:(05-31-2020, 12:03 AM)Shiki Wrote:(05-31-2020, 12:00 AM)Sniper Wrote:(05-30-2020, 11:33 PM)Champ Wrote: 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. So basically POB will just stay under same ownership defacto not changing anything. So there is no point to siege it at all. RE: Siege bloodlust - Grumblesaur - 05-31-2020 (05-31-2020, 12:19 AM)Sniper Wrote: 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. RE: Siege bloodlust - Kazinsal - 05-31-2020 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). RE: Siege bloodlust - Lythrilux - 05-31-2020 (05-30-2020, 11:13 PM)Sniper Wrote: 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. 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. RE: Siege bloodlust - Groshyr - 05-31-2020 (05-31-2020, 12:18 AM)Shiki Wrote: 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. |