Suggestion Template

Critique Template

NUMBERS TOOK OUT OF ASS WITH INTENTION TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONCEPT (lower than needed, and I not joking, disco inflation that bad).

1) POBs should be made as temporary as they called. Conception should be based around fast to deploy - fast to kill.


2) POBs-related mining and ore distribution should be studied, considered and regulated.


3) POB maintenance should be separated from POB production.


*No production recipes balances here, cos this one require more math justification behind certain numbers and sellpoints placement.

Why this change?
1. a base is so underpowered to defend itself it is time for a major base upgrade. why should dit only be the base that dies in a PvB Battle. in real life a base would have options to defend itself against such attacks, and everyone is so tired of POB Owners Getting on the bandWagon Gripping about there base being killed. Well the reason is because the base doesn't have a chance. If you want a challenge why not go try to kill a Ingame base at least it can fight back and have a chance. That's all POB Owners are asking for is a chance for there bases.

2. New Plugin
(Base Red List) for Base Heavy Hitters, for Cap Buster Missiles Launching Approval. Separate from Base enemy (Blacklist) - Fires standard Weapon Platforms, By Damage done to the base, So little players shooting at NPC's and hit the base by Mistake never get on that list because they raised the shields. we don't want any Deaths due to activating the shields! Also allow the Plugin to Remove players as well from Red List.

3 - Plugin:
Give Base weapons Multiple options for Defense Modes.

• 3.1. Set Cap Busters to Stay locked onto target if still in MAX range Option.
  
• 3.2. Always attack Closest target.
  
• 3.3. Auto change target if Target it not hit within Set amount of time.
  
• 3.4. Always attack Closest enemy.
  
• 3.5. Attack Farthest to Nearest Targets
  
• 3.6. Attack Nearest to Farthest Targets
  
• 3.7. Attack targets doing the most damage
  
• 3.8. Option to set Weapon 1 to one setting and weapon 2 to different options.
  
• 3.9. Maybe other Options.
  

4 - Battleships Don't fear a POB
Why don't they, simple Bases are not dangerous to CAP ships at range. Since a Battleship doesn't fear a POB, why not allow a POB Owner to replace the Base Guns themselves, with CAP Busters.
And here is the thing, The Ammunition has to be specially made for it to fire. Now the Ammunition are Fast Attack Long Range Missiles up to 12-15k away. since BS's can fire Missile from 10k away. Nightmare 10k, or Hurricanes 5.5k away.
The Ammunition Could be made, and Stored, Even Sold on POB's and maybe on House Permanent Base (maybe).
(Reason) for such Long range of 12-15k and maybe Longer Ranges and the speed. is because BS's can fire and go to cruise and get out of range before the missiles even got near the base.
So maybe even range up to 20k or something. If they want to kill a base make them work at it not go to sleep firing lol

5 - Missile abilities
now here is the thing, You have to do X amount of Damage to a Base to activate the Missiles. Once the Activation has happened a Warning Message would Automatically Post to System Chat Warning the Base Defense Missiles have been armed, and 20-30 seconds later anything that fires on the base is fired upon. so the Next Hit Fires the Missiles. Basic Shield Activation will not Ever activate the Missiles, it would take at least 1-2 Heavy Mortar Hits or something equal that in x Amount of time to activate the Missiles, Unless it is during the 1 hour Siege Defence Mode. and a cool down for 1 hour. but during that 1 hour anything that shoots at that base heavier than Accidental Firing will be Destroyed. Anything Smaller than a BS would be destroyed in a Single firing of the 2 Missiles. (any Hit during that 1 Hour to the Hull, Or shield Resets the clock)

6 - The Missiles always fire in Pairs, and the Damage is enough to take down a BS's Shields Instantly with the First Missile, and Hull with 4.0 Armor, Down by 50% with Second Missile. and the missiles are fast enough to Hit a BS in Cruise at least 15k away.

7 -The point
The point is to make a base where it can hold its own for a while and fight back. and make a BS owner Respect a base, not fall asleep while he is firing at it.
Right now the big thing is a Base Does not even have a chance, from Venilla Freelancer Yeah it is strong, But we are WAY past that!.

8 - Base Major Upgrade Needed
So bases are in Need of a Major Upgrade to keep up with times! the point is give a Base a Chance. Look at all the work a Base owner would have to do to have a chance at surviving, what does a BS have to do? Nothing Just respawn if they die, so nothing lost. as opposed to month and months or Years gone in just a few hours. NOTE Remember that as it is a Base can't really Kill anything, take out a couple turrets and then everyone Mostly sets outside of range and fires. they bring 10 BS's and at least the Base could kill a couple hear and there. I would set it where to destroy a base the base Cap Busters should be able to maybe kill at least 5 BS's in an Hour that don't leave and repair.

9 - Rule Change:
Base Attacker Death Cooldown should count for a base same as for a Player killing the Ship. and if a BS leaves the Combat Area it is same as fleeing a battle.

10 - Coding:
Note: this would not be a weapons platform, But base Gun Replacement, and would not take up any slots on base. 2 Weapon replacements, each firing 2 missiles.

Thoughts and Discussion Please..

If the defenders can repel the attackers during the attackers' phase, and the defenders can supply the base during the downtime phase(s) between the attack and defense phases, the base will net no damage, even if the attackers brought a larger force during the defense phase than during the attack phase. If the defenders and attackers choose the exact same time window for their phases, and the damage cap rule takes precedence, the base is nearly invincible due to the downtime period permitting repair materials to be supplied in an amount sufficient to regenerate all or nearly all of the damage sustained during the overlapped attack-defense phase.

Having a damage cap also means that large factions with lots of players effectively lose the advantage they earned by recruiting and outfitting additional members, while bases maintained by small groups get to enjoy the effective benefits of greater manpower and coordination without actually having to organize additional players. Base owners should be motivated to organize players for defense, either through recruitment, or by forging contracts/alliances with other groups; allowing off-hours POB supply traders to replace defense-phase combat ships subverts the intrinsic fleet-style PVP qualities of a siege.

Note: off-hours POB supply traders will naturally receive the benefits of the rules which prevent transports from being treated as combat targets without a demand, unless an additional rule is specified which permits the attacking party of a siege to destroy supply ships bound for the besieged installation. In this, and in the time windows themselves, the very idea of a siege (being a military operation to starve out a city, base, or other fortified target of interest) is eliminated. Supply lines cannot be cut off when downtime is always guaranteed to be allocated to them.

While I think eliminating the damage cap during the defense phase of the base would improve this idea, I think it weighs too heavily in favor of the defenders regardless. Siege is a PVP engagement, and defenders should still need to muster forces for that engagement, even if these limited-time phases are utilized.

Temporal disparity was a major discussion point in other threads, and was usually assumed to be malicious scheduling on the part of the attackers. I think it does a severe disservice to the community at large to assume that people deliberately choose inconvenient times to siege; it is impossible for users to know every other user's personal routines and country of residence. Attackers are more likely to choose a time to siege based on its convenience for them, not its inconvenience for their adversary.

There is no misunderstanding here about the function of Sava's original suggestion, deliberate or otherwise; but it leaves questions unanswered about whether policy, programming, or both will determine the times of siege, and what should happen if the attacking players and defending players have schedules near enough to overlap.

What's 3AM for some players is 6PM for others, and it could hypothetically be any time assuming we have Discovery players in every populated time zone. Furthermore, there seems to be an underlying assumption that every POB encounter will be between attackers and defenders of disparate, incompatible schedules, which in practice is demonstrably not true, because we know that players in opposing factions exist in the same time zone. Likewise, we know that one faction can have members from multiple time zones.

Hence the concern regarding overlapping attack and defense phases. Sometimes there will not be a temporal disparity. Is this change optional in those cases, or should it be used in a special way? This is unclear.

Additionally, should ever two separate factions declare siege on a single base, without specifically forming an alliance to do so, would they be given simultaneous attack phases, or separate attack phases? Would the defenders have to pick two defense phases, or keep only one? The current, organic system of POB siege does not need to make this consideration because that kind of complexity is not currently necessary to account for.