Validity for POB assault threats?

[SnakThree]

Attack declaration thread is stupid. Safeguarding community in such ways only leads to being more butthurt when even these measures fails to protect stations from being popped up.

Just accept some risks and stop complaining that your unsupplied and unprotected Core 2+ base was destroyed by other players. It's your own fault for failing to take care after it.

---

[Hauler]

Attack declaration thread is stupid. Safeguarding community in such ways only leads to being more butthurt when even these measures fails to protect stations from being popped up.

Just accept some risks and stop complaining that your unsupplied and unprotected Core 2+ base was destroyed by other players. It's your own fault for failing to take care after it.

+1 *Facepalm*

---

User was banned for: Editing ini files
Time left: (Permanent)

[Laura C.]

But if this atack threat warning posts becomes a reality than perhaps siegers not the owners are the ones who need a Phone aplication with alarm when PoB hull starts going down cause someone is lazy to suply it.

Actually I see as valid question if player base status page on the web shouldn´t be changed to not show base health. It seems that it is (ab)used by attackers much more than base owners. I find it fair that you should scout manually the base ingame to see if it´s losing health so you will know it´s without supplies. Using base status page is metagaming in my opinion. After ingame base´s health bar was introduced, health status could be removed from the base status page.

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[Hauler]

But if this atack threat warning posts becomes a reality than perhaps siegers not the owners are the ones who need a Phone aplication with alarm when PoB hull starts going down cause someone is lazy to suply it.

Actually I see as valid question if player base status page on the web shouldn´t be changed to not show base health. It seems that it is (ab)used by attackers much more than base owners. I find it fair that you should scout manually the base ingame to see if it´s losing health so you will know it´s without supplies. Using base status page is metagaming in my opinion.

I agree with it... base list is cool but health percentage should be remowed less metagaming it would force siegers to fly to the station and check on itself and who knows they might be even ambushed by the defenders and increase interaction, so yeah cool idea.

---

User was banned for: Editing ini files
Time left: (Permanent)

[Garrett Jax]

Attack declaration thread is stupid. Safeguarding community in such ways only leads to being more butthurt when even these measures fails to protect stations from being popped up.

Just accept some risks and stop complaining that your unsupplied and unprotected Core 2+ base was destroyed by other players. It's your own fault for failing to take care after it.

The attack declaration thread isn't stupid, Snak3. It is a way to protect the time many in the community have invested in their POB's, while still allowing this investment to be attacked.

Before it, and the rules governing POB's were implemented, there was chaos and much grief. These guidelines haven't removed this completely, but it has mitigated it considerably.

There are those on both extremes that will not be happy of course. Some don't want any warning given, they just want to "see base, destroy base", with no regard for the effort taken to build and upgrade it. This mentality would destroy the POB concept as no one would bother taking the time to build one, knowing it would get destroyed immediately by such players.

On the other hand, there are players that place too much value on their POB's. These players want every opportunity to protect their investment, placing conditions so steep, that their POB would never realistically come under attack.

The Attack Declaration Thread, along with all the other rules, were designed to find a middle ground approach that made things fair for both the attacker and the one being attacked.

---

[St.Denis]

I think that the problem lays in that most Base sieges are done at low activity time when it easier to destroy the Base with no chance of being stopped. These are done when people 'see' through some supernatural abilities that the Base is taking 'Wear and Tear' damage and know instinctively that it is out of Repair Materials. This done by people who couldn't care less for the other people's feelings.

This type, of siege, is done using ooRP knowledge or possibly by magic.

There are some sieges that are done at high activity time and generally these are done by people who are quite happy to have the interaction and are there mainly for a fight. They siege the Base regardless whether it has Repair Materials or not.

This type, of siege, is done inRP.

Just some numbers for people to ponder. These numbers are approximate times and are based on that the Base has a shield, it is out of Repair Materials and the people doing the siege are using Capital Ships with 3 Cerberus firing constantly.

Core 1 Base vs 1 Ship - 32 minutes
Core 1 Base vs 2 Ships - 16 minutes
Core 1 Base vs 3 Ship - 10minutes
Core 2 Base - 49, 24, 16
Core 3 Base - 65, 32, 22
Core 4 Base - 98, 49, 32

Seeing it takes many days worth of hours to build a Base I can see why people can get upset if their work goes down the drain in such a short, comparable, time.

So If somebody posts that they are sieging another's Base and then late one night, 6 months later, they attack after the owner has forgotten about it I can see why they would get upset.

The problem, at the minute, is there isn't a time limit from posting an intention, to attack, to the time when the attack starts. This means that the scenario above can still happen even if a ruling of a time limit for the ending of a siege intention.

I think there should be a minimum and maximum time limit for a siege intention. I have seen some people give a day or even a couple of days notice to attack a Base and even to a Core Base 1 (as the rules stand this isn't necessary for Core 1s).

Some of the reasons, given, why there shouldn't be any intention of attack is because this is unrealistic for enemies to do this. InRL quite true, but, this is a, supposedly, a RP Server and an expected level of civility is expected. We do it for fights so why not the POBs as well?

.
.

---

'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are'
Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person

[Emile]

It seems my pob was under attack this morning. I just received a message from some people. But not that i care a lot, it gives interaction. If it will be destroyed, then its sad for all the effort we did for it till now. But so be it, in the end it would be partly my own mistake.

---

User was banned for: duvelske
Time left: (Permanent)

[Thyrzul]

Lesson: Do not leave your base alone without enough repair materials and shield fuel stored. How about calculating these things into the equation as well?

---

[Laura C.]

Lesson: Do not leave your base alone without enough repair materials and shield fuel stored. How about calculating these things into the equation as well?

This.

Attack declaration thread was not introduced to save asses of people who are not supplying their bases fully and regularly and are (ab)using the fact that it takes more than week before base without supplies dies itself (and because I see repeatedly same bases in the list in this state over longer time, it is obvious some of base owners rely on fact nobody declared attack on their bases so they don´t supply them properly).
Declaration thread was meant to
a) force players to at least try to create some roleplay
b) as attempt to remove the worst cases of lolwutism
c) to give people some warning they should watch carefully what is going on, but mainly for case when properly supplied base might get under attack of big fleet which is able to destroy it even over active repairs, thus active "bomber defense" is necessary to be maintained

Remember that bases were introduced as team project. And if team fails to properly supply it, it´s their fault if base is destroyed.

Also, in some cases almost no RP is possible anyway. If Daumann or Kruger build base in Omegas, what RP they can do with hessian attackers? Or Corsairs with Outcasts? There are almost no options between sworn enemies if you don´t want to go against your ID.

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[R.I.P.]

Next thing they would ask is an Android Phone aplication with instaled alarm in case shield of their PoB is turned on.

This is very very very stupid....

I was only a bit sarcastic bro...

My friend if you feel lazy lazy lazy to suply your base than dont build it at all in the first place.
All i see are some people who whant to get a reminder of every time someone intend to atack.
Also if you making a base in someone's yard (teritory) what better RP validity you need for the base atacker to atack it.
And you should be aware of the risks for example if you decide to make a pirate base in KNF space.
You dont suply it you lose it than!

I meant the idea of an app was dumb, it has nothing to do with me being lazy about supplying a base, i am saying your complaining cause your too lazy cause it is too much effort to post again if you do not manage to siege a base within a week or two, month or 6 months down the line you should spend a few minutes to repost your intent to attack. Anyone who has an attack thread and their base is still going after 6 months is not going to expect an attack, this has nothing to do with supplying this has to do with someone waiting to attack for months then out of the blue at a dead time or after watching when the person is on they go and attack. Personally the base i am partial owner of is well supplied.