(11-21-2023, 06:24 PM)Karst Wrote: 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.
Can you bring an example for 2 people who don't even log in and kill a pob?
Pobs are hard to kill in only case if DEFEND side is gathering and having more people than the ATTACKER side. Also don't forget defenders might hire Hunters, haulers, etc. to defend the base. Yes, it takes now MORE effort to defend Pob, unlike before Patch if you slap 4 WPs and overlog the attack side you need to play this game and/or find/pay to defend your Pob via other people, which makes it positive RP(=PVP) moment.
Limiting and/or making Siege Guns/Ammo more expensive isn't necessary right now.
PoBs were always about who overlog other side, but now it is easier because of more damage during the window vulnerability.
Ammo should not be cheaper in any way, the attacking force should have to pay something! they should have some expenses. They are getting by so very cheap as it is now.
Honestly Look how much it cost to build and maintain a base, and look at all the expenses your causing the POB owner/s. and Honestly don't you think you should have to pay something for destroying a base that might have taken Years to Maintain and Supply countless Millions put into a base that you can kill in just a few short days.
Base defense's are so worthless that you hardly never lose a ship to a POB, how is that fair. a base should Easily be able to kill a ship every now and then it's only fair because your ship will be right back in the fight where is your real loss? Siegers want to kill bases with out any losses or having to pay anything to kill POB's.
POB Owners lose bases that have been maintained for years and there is no Base insurance to bring back a base, and where as your ships Auto Respawn full health.
I strongly believe POB Owners should be allowed to purchase Base insurance to be able to have there base resurrected with Only Base need supplies on the new base if it has been destroyed, the base would be restored to it's pre destroyed state minus anything stored on the base, this can also be used to pull a base from the game if your going to stop playing for some pierid of time where you can not maintain the base. if the base is pulled all Item's on the base would also be restored. but the base placement can not be contested in the new location and has to follow all the current rules for placement etc. People are not going to be leaving the game cause there base got destroyed if the have base insurance so this also should strongly be thought on hard. to keep the old long time players. before I know of 2-3 players that left the server and never came back. but they would have stayed if they had the chance to have base insurance. Yeah they might have had to find a new System and location setc. but they would still be here now...
There needs to be some serous thought on how to make it harder to kill POB bases not easier. I think that each POB should come with Long range fast heavy hitting missiles, one mounted on top and one below. each firing 2 missiles. the same turret could also have standard guns mounted on them. the base should be able to hit targets rather out that a BB can fire, so a good change at hitting a BB and doing some damage, I mean come on now really, a POB is like shooting a duck in a cage that can't run or fight back.
(11-21-2023, 06:42 PM)Couden Wrote: Can you bring an example for 2 people who don't even log in and kill a pob?
I can. The XA dec on that place in Ontario.
Like half the days we couldn't even get people to log at all, and when we did, it was like 2-3 max. I think that maybe if you can only log for half the dec and can generally only get 2-3 people, maybe you shouldn't be able to kill a (supplied) base. Defenders or not.
And I'm saying that literally having been the attacker in that scenario.
Overhaul and update the current siege mechanics so it provides an event like for both parties involved, both with fair chances of success.
1: Solid inRP - respecting RULE 1 and 3.1 (As they are at the submission of this post): diplomacy, multiple options, no strongarm/intimidation tactics unless no other options are left. Yes, this means unlawfuls will have to TRY DIPLOMACY FIRST, 2ND and 3RD before submitting to threats. inRP must be based on solid evidence - yes, if the builder made time to build a pob core 2-3 or more, you make time to gather inRP evidence of wrongdoing on their behalf.
2: Siege declaration must be validated by community selected staff - yes I realize this is work for you and you are shorthanded, but you made PoBs a focus for refining and equipment manufacturing this patch. They are vital to the inRP, economy and gameplay of DF-FaF. Validation includes inRP verification - that it respects rules 1 and 3.1 from both the siegers and the sieged, with an emphasis on diplomacy and mutual agreement on both sides - and attacking and defender forces balance (treat it as an event). Yes, I KNOW THIS IS WORK FOR STAFF!
3: Siege duration reduced to 1h / 1 week - simply put some of us can't afford 2 hours for 14 days. Its grueling and stressful.
4: Stop all PoB sieges and organize NPC Siege Events with Balanced sides for testing. Live testing is unethical without players consent, and letting the community go wild is not a good move if you want to keep your PoB owners (see point 2 about PoB importance) and attract new players - lots of new players just want to build now - see Valheim, Minecraft, etc.
5: Siege ammo availability is ok, damage is not. Lawfuls have a lot of access, while unlawful do not. Restricting that further will make it almost impossible to successfully siege a PoB bordering a house system, let alone one in a house system. I need to think and do some calculations , maybe increase power usage, or restrict GB access to siege weps - yes, cry about your factions lack of caps. You're old on the server, you have caps. GBs are hard to kill now. Maybe a dedicated siege vessel with 1 gun only, energy based? I need to think on this, so maybe I provide something useful.
6: Interdict access to 3rd parties at the siege - if someone wants to join a siege, pick a side and make an indie or join the faction. No more "Who knows what faction I want to fly my cap ship there and pew cause I am special!"
Point 4 about organizing events to test new mechanics should be implemented on all future developments that involve Player mechanics - PoBs, Sieges, Ships etc.
Propose to old veteran players, especially builders, if they want to be part of staff - Admins. With limited roles - surveillance, self-teleport, evidence gathering. And if they are ok, gradually to upgrade them to full admins. Why builders: it shows responsibility, dedication and patience. A certain degree of maturity
Bumping this again as today's battle has shown the convenience of (too) easy restock / refit of caps to siege configurations.
Had the Outcasts been forced to fly all the way back to Alpha to get siege guns / ammo at least one more Corsair cruiser could still have lived. Plus any Corsairs that weren't PVP dead could have tried to stall the restocking while not having to deal with the whole fleet.
Most of the ships involved didn't even need to restock, I don't see how the ones that did having to fly to Ibizia instead of Pygar would have changed anything.
(12-02-2023, 10:20 PM)LuckyOne Wrote: Bumping this again as today's battle has shown the convenience of (too) easy restock / refit of caps to siege configurations.
Had the Outcasts been forced to fly all the way back to Alpha to get siege guns / ammo at least one more Corsair cruiser could still have lived. Plus any Corsairs that weren't PVP dead could have tried to stall the restocking while not having to deal with the whole fleet.
![[Image: cdSeFev.png]](http://i.imgur.com/cdSeFev.png)
![[Image: jWv1kDa.png]](https://i.imgur.com/jWv1kDa.png)
![[Image: eHPLi2z.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/eHPLi2z.gif)