Playerbase Siege Adjustments

[Fab]

They are not attacking the base.

It's an indirect attack. allowing a base to take damage by destroying the defending forces is indeed an attack. Not by rules or technicality, but it still is.

Likewise anyone can hop along to attack the attackers that are intending to besiege a base. Once upon a time, I did argue against this too when we had Order gang up on our base in Kappa ages ago when ONLY the Corsairs were sieging it. But its ultimately dismissed because apparently anyone could show up.

They can because it's not enforced. It's a mess and it doesn't needs to be like that. It'll be healthier and more immersive to limit the factions that are attacking to the ones that declared a valid siege. Maybe defenders could use such limitations, too. but that's another discussion.

---

[Kauket]

They are not attacking the base.

It's an indirect attack. allowing a base to take damage by destroying the defending forces is indeed an attack. Not by rules or technicality, but it still is.

Then it will be applied the other way around too for those that defend it. (Liberty lawfuls would not defend an untaxed POB unless it was directly involved with the military. Random unhired Freelancers/gallic corps assisting the base... etc.) -

[Haste]

They can because it's not enforced. It's a mess and it doesn't needs to be like that. It'll be healthier and more immersive to limit the factions that are attacking to the ones that declared a valid siege. Maybe defenders could use such limitations, too. but that's another discussion.

Except now you're arbitrarily turning parts of the server into closed invite-only events. A player sees a large group of players in a specific system and goes to investigate. Turns out it was a party he wasn't invited to, so he has to just.. Leave and log off, I guess? Bad luck. This is also just a non-solution. If people want to affect the outcome of a siege they'll generally have plenty of options available regardless, the simplest one being to just set up a quick indie ship for the sieging/defending faction(s) and join in. If they didn't already have one, that is.

You're really just trying to fix a problem that either doesn't exist, or cannot be fixed. People who want to hop on the Siege (Defense) Train can and will do so. A random Rogue seeing a big group of Liberty Navy ships grouping to defend a base should be allowed to go mess them up, regardless of whether or not they're involved with the siege itself.

I also feel like the vast majority of the time third parties joining in on fights surrounding bases will have plenty of reason to do so, and will be allied with the defenders or aggressors, meaning they should naturally want to aid them anyways. And if they're not, because they're angry terrorists, they'll end up nuking (or being nuked by) both sides equally, which is fine too.

---

[Kosa]

... repairs that are further "amplified" by reduced wear & tear. ...

Reduced wear & tear? I missed on that info. Reduced by how much?

---

[Czechmate]

They are not attacking the base.

It's an indirect attack. allowing a base to take damage by destroying the defending forces is indeed an attack. Not by rules or technicality, but it still is.

Then it will be applied the other way around too for those that defend it. (Liberty lawfuls would not defend an untaxed POB unless it was directly involved with the military. Random unhired Freelancers/gallic corps assisting the base... etc.) -

What do you think about the SCRA Carrier's behaviour? I think that one was the Most eyebrow raising

[Kauket]

They are not attacking the base.

It's an indirect attack. allowing a base to take damage by destroying the defending forces is indeed an attack. Not by rules or technicality, but it still is.

Then it will be applied the other way around too for those that defend it. (Liberty lawfuls would not defend an untaxed POB unless it was directly involved with the military. Random unhired Freelancers/gallic corps assisting the base... etc.) -

What do you think about the SCRA Carrier's behaviour? I think that one was the Most eyebrow raising

I told him I didn't want it there.

[Nika]

I've little obligation to justify my actions before any of you but, since you're so annoyingly persistent - I will duly remind you that Coalition indirectly benefits from weakening the Houses and that is my take on the Tempest's presence in Kansas - in Liberty's border system where Coalition can, and does take advantage of mild destabilisation to make sure Liberty suffers certain casualties at minimal expense.

For the sake of decency and keeping the thread on topic I will not bring here the refuting of notions coming from most dubiously famous factions playerbases. And this is much as I will get involved here, either.

Have a problem with my ship's presence? File a VR but, considering the staff on staff ships have seen my Tempest in Kansas - I do not believe you'll succeed in these vain attempts. Alas, does not stop you from trying.

[Saronsen]

I've little obligation to justify my actions

im more interested in the coalition trying to justify massive capital ships that need support in the form of logistics convoys and other combat craft being anywhere but their home system
or justifying how they exist considering their home planet is a nuclear wasteland with small villages
but you do you trying to justify SCRA having sirius-wide presence with capital ships as possibly the weakest faction in existence
EDIT: Sorry jiangxi isnt the homeworld anymore
still, lol, lmao.
inhospitable ice rock, radioactive wasteland, and a shipyard that eats 3/4ths of ALL h-fuel production the SCRA have, not including whatever they can buy/steal
im certain they can afford the money/supplies to field capital ships halfway across the sector to fight liberty right?

[Reeves]

minimal expense

I loathe being anywhere on the spectrum of agreeing with @Saronsen - but you could have at least been a little tasteful and exercised restraint, namely in using a cruiser or gunboat. Surely it would have also been simpler to just use a ship belonging to a faction that's more relevant to the region as well. You're a highly critical person in this regard when these tables are turned, so perhaps it would be best to not do things you yourself would voice as objectionable in principle, even if technically possible.

---

[Czechmate]

@Haste you are keeping the two weeks though? This seems like not enough of a change?