Quote:But still, even if it costs "only" around 15-30 man-hours, is it really balanced and fair that the same thing can be destroyed with 1,5 man-hours? Ratio 10(20):1? And if the siege fails, attackers lose almost nothing and can try another day. Owner(s) of the base lose money.
A few things to point out here: 1) Does it even HAVE to be fair and balanced, considering that it is easier to destroy something than create? (thank you Spock, ST II: Wrath of Khan) That's LIFE!
Even with 3-4 hours needed to destroy as I proposed, it´s still not "balanced and fair" by far as you can see from numbers in my example. It is still ratio around 5(or 4):1 in invested effort. Because to be completely balanced, it would need those 15 hours to destroy it (what would be impossible).
Not speaking about one more thing which I forgot in my example. After the rule change, you need to have core 2 at least for a month and core 3 at least for two months before you can apply for blueprints for higher core. In other words, in fact it takes at least three months of dedicated effort to build core 4 base. But it takes just 1,5 hour to destroy it. So increasing of this time to three or four hours shouldn´t be an issue. Attackers should show some effort too.
My point is that now it´s really massively unbalanced so I just propose to make it at least "only" unbalanced. Not speaking about fact attackers always has upper hand because they choose time of attack. What is critical factor with current setup.
