Given that Discovery took a major, if not even critical setback today, we may need to come up with temporary solutions to the current problems we have. While I don't know what exactly the issue with the PoBs right now is, I might have an idea on how to regulate base sieges, to have them a bit less unfair.
Let them be approved by Admins. (I know, the greens don't like the idea already. Even more work. ._. )
The idea behind this is to make this more fair for both sides. The amount needed to build a higher Core PoB is way higher than to destroy it, we all agree on this. You write one demand, instantly after that you make the attack declaration and if the demand is not met within 8 or 24 hours, there is enough time to siege the base ANY TIME. You can do it when people are online, you can do it when people are offline. Make it an event with a set starting time, limit that event maybe to four hours - so everyone knows when to log, both to siege and both to defend the base. If the attackers don't manage to do it within the set time, they have to try again later.
Four Hours, set time, multiple attemps
Weaker factions have shown they need hours of sieging to bring down a medium-prepared Core 1 base. For example, BD/AFC sieging the PMS network. It took around two hours with three, later two additional capitals. Not every faction has 20 Full-Cerberus Jorms, although RHA will still have it fairly easier with sieges, obviously. For a siege, either people coordinate event-like to bring up the attacking fleet or they have to attack multiple times, which is, in my opinion, something worth thinking about. So far, when people wanted to destroy a PoB, they did. With this concept, they actually can fail, if they don't coordinate well. Also, more than two hours actually allow people to send a second defense wave (or a second attack wave) during the same event.
Roleplay required
As we already know: Bad facshun makes demand, in the worst case the base owner has only a few hours, in the best case a few days time to respond. Along with the demand, people already post the attack declaration, which is weird, because the attack declaration should be something that comes after the demand, like we do it the way ingame. Demand, if not met, then engagement lines. Is that fair? It could be worse, but it also could be better. This way, you have four steps:
1. Make the comm.
2. Wait for response or no response in time.
3. Create event.
4. Event permission granted.
That's a bit of burocracy, maybe, but I think it's a fair one. The created event would work the same way as the Attack Declaration Thread, just with a set time. Approving the siege events should be a thing done in a few seconds, as those events happen not every day and are created without thousand pages of roleplay.
Why the admin permission, though?
Money required
From what I have seen, everyone was agreeing that the attackers should have to pay something for the siege, be it like @Croft said something like a special weapon ammunition or something else. We want and need a money sink here, so it's fair for both sides. So why don't we deal with this like SRP Requests are dealt with?
Attempt to siege a Core 1 Base: 100.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 2 Base: 400.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 3 Base: 600.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 4 Base: 800.000.000 Credits Fee
Attempt to siege a Core 5 Base: 1.000.000.000 Credits Fee
Too low, too high? 100.000.000 Credits can be farmed by one person in 1-3 hours of trading, depending on what kind of trade route you are. But you don't siege a base on your own. There is usually a faction doing so. So you'd need to pay one fee per created siege event. An admin takes the fee when they approve the event. Since it is just too easy to build a Core 1 Base to annoy people, that should be a little bit cheaper, however, the more effort people put into their bases, the more effort the attacking factions will need to put into it to bring it down.
And if the attacking faction didn't manage to do it during the first siege event, they have lost money, just as the base owner did, as they need to resupply the base now. So if people want to destroy a base that existed for years, they will need to pay for it as well. If they lose, they need to rethink it. Is it worth trying a second assault?
The good thing about the fees is the fact that it animates factions maybe a bit to do more trades. Okay, RHA surely will pay the sieges with the taxed moneys, but even that is fair. So we not only have people showing more trading activity for supplying and upgrading a base, but people will also show more trading activity for the preparation of a siege event.
Other things
So we have covered the payment fee and the event duration. I'd say people don't need to register for this event, at least not as partaking individuals. However, the defending forces should make sense as usual, just as the attacking forces should have a fitting diplomacy to each other. No K'hara-Outcast-Rogue-Lane Hacker-alliance. Only factions that are good with each other. That would also be checked by an admin, so I don't have to make another long post in someone's feedback thread and cause chaos.
I think that's a fair solution concept, but feel free to add you opinion on it here. Please, keep it civil. No snarky comments, no memes, no off-topicing, no inventing of new terms.
No?
Your talking about making things fair but your far off the point you dont even ... let's try again with an example of how it can be abused/ exploited:
you set the event when there's no base defenders able to log due to either sleep , work , school etc.. and then you just blow up the base.
The only way to make it a little more fair will be to rebalance the requirements needed for building bases and equipment so there won't be such a huge loss for one single party
People want to believe that God has a plan for them.
They don't wanna believe that anyone else does..
(12-14-2016, 03:37 PM)Hannibal Wrote: No?
Your talking about making things fair but your far off the point you dont even ... let's try again with an example of how it can be abused/ exploited:
you set the event when there's no base defenders able to log due to either sleep , work , school etc.. and then you just blow up the base.
Nothing prevents the attacker from already doing the siege at a time where nobody logs. So much about being far off the point. The only difference here would be giving the defender the chance to organize a defense while they can't defend the base themselves. Also, you limit the attack time with this concept, to prevent exactly that.
One could add a rule that say the siege needs to be set during peak time, or an admin just says "no" if the time is impracticable. However, you should remember that also the attackers need a good amount of ships to siege the base. It's not like we have factions that consist only of students or only of workers. The playerbase is mixed.
Throwing it out there... how about base owners can pay to have their base restored?
Edit:
It is a bit off topic but not far from it.
If you allow for the bases that are attacked by the attackers to be renewed by credits, it would begin to balance out what we have now that attackers can just come and shoot the base with small amounts of RP and do so in a matter of hours.
Sure... this is not the final solution, but it would be a nice money sink and would get the people trading in order to repair the base.
Perhaps even some RP of reparations.
Part of the problem is starting from scratch that base owners do not want to do. If you give them a way to get their base back to it's status before the seige, then that would help.
First what comes to my mind - your fee system is perfect way how to troll law enforcement and suck their money (which they usually don´t have much to spare, they are not trading factions with billions on their accounts). Bulding core 1 base costs almost nothing, so what prevents people from spamming illegal core 1 bases all around house space and forcing lawfuls to pay 100 million to remove each of them?
(Edit: This actually applies to unlawfuls and bases in their turf as well, I just see it from lawful point of view mainly)
Only possible solution is to make this refundable deposit which is returned to the faction if the siege is successful. Though problem with this (and with whole payment system) is that it adds another workload to the the staff. Not to mention that now we have quite responsive staff because sindroms sold his soul to Disco, but there were (and possibly again will be) time periods when admins were much less responsive. Thus system depending on admins (be it with fees or with event) has problem that there may be days or even week(s) gap between the siege announcement and actual siege, what provides defender signifiant benefit because he may reinforce the stronghold while attackers have to sit and wait.
(12-14-2016, 03:52 PM)Laura C. Wrote: First what comes to my mind - your fee system is perfect way how to troll law enforcement and suck their money (which they usually don´t have much to spare, they are not trading factions with billions on their accounts). Bulding core 1 base costs almost nothing, so what prevents people from spamming illegal core 1 bases all around house space and forcing lawfuls to pay 100 million to remove each of them?
Only possible solution is to make this refundable deposit which is returned to the faction if the siege is successful. Though problem with this (and with whole payment system) is that it adds another workload to the the staff. Not to mention that now we have quite responsive staff because sindroms sold his soul to Disco, but there were (and possibly again will be) time periods when admins were much less responsive. Thus system depending on admins (be it with fees or with event) has problem that there may be days or even week(s) gap between the siege announcement and actual siege, what provides defender signifiant benefit because he may reinforce the stronghold while attackers have to sit and wait.
The fact that all those Core 1 PoBs have to be supplied. In fact, that is what prevented trolls so far from spamming PoBs. The Fee, however, is not inRP, just as the Fee for SRPs or OFCR/Tracker is. How you can explain law enforcing factions to do sieges inRP is not different from how you did it already in the past.
The refunding is an idea, however, I'd do that only for Core 1 PoBs, as people put more effort into Core 2 and higher bases. I guess, however, if people want to troll this way, it'd be something the admins have to deal with, as it is already now and still would be with this concept a thing that shows the sole intention of harming the game.
(12-14-2016, 03:52 PM)Laura C. Wrote: First what comes to my mind - your fee system is perfect way how to troll law enforcement and suck their money (which they usually don´t have much to spare, they are not trading factions with billions on their accounts). Bulding core 1 base costs almost nothing, so what prevents people from spamming illegal core 1 bases all around house space and forcing lawfuls to pay 100 million to remove each of them?
Only possible solution is to make this refundable deposit which is returned to the faction if the siege is successful. Though problem with this (and with whole payment system) is that it adds another workload to the the staff. Not to mention that now we have quite responsive staff because sindroms sold his soul to Disco, but there were (and possibly again will be) time periods when admins were much less responsive. Thus system depending on admins (be it with fees or with event) has problem that there may be days or even week(s) gap between the siege announcement and actual siege, what provides defender signifiant benefit because he may reinforce the stronghold while attackers have to sit and wait.
The fact that all those Core 1 PoBs have to be supplied. In fact, that is what prevented trolls so far from spamming PoBs.
Not really. You can supply base like once a week (higher core bases can survive up to two weeks I think, not sure about lower core) just to keep it alive, everyday grind is not needed because no one can touch your base (that´s why you don´t even have to bother with shield). And we already had problems with trolls/persistent illegal base builders in the past.
Anyway, what bothers me is that you are punishing lawfuls for mistakes of others. I mean, if people approach us and speak with us, they can have their base. We shoot them only when laws are broken. So why are we forced to carry any costs just for playing our role? I mean imagine situation when new owner of some high core POB goes nuts (we already saw that on Disco) and starts doing illegal stunts and then gives authorities middle finger when held responsible for it. Why should be lawfuls forced to go grind money and pay 600-1000 million credits (for each attempt!) for playing their roles when fault is entirely on base owner?
(12-14-2016, 04:17 PM)Laura C. Wrote: Not really. You can supply base like once a week (higher core bases can survive up to two weeks I think, not sure about lower core) just to keep it alive, everyday grind is not needed because no one can touch your base (that´s why you don´t even have to bother with shield). And we already had problems with trolls/persistent illegal base builders in the past.
Anyway, what bothers me is that you are punishing lawfuls for mistakes of others. I mean, if people approach us and speak with us, they can have their base. We shoot them only when laws are broken. So why we are forced to carry any costs just for playing our role? I mean imagine situation when new owner of some high core POB goes nuts (we already saw that on Disco) and starts doing illegal stunts and then gives authorities middle finger when held responsible for it. Why should be lawfuls forced to go grind money and pay 600-1000 million credits (for each attempt!) for playing their roles and when the fault is entirely on base owner?
That's a few 'if's we have here. First of all, it's not a punishment, but rather a thing of fairness. The 'mistake' is something that happens inRP. Everyone can build bases everywhere, but everyone has to deal with the consequences, no matter if lawful or unlawful. Yes, everything can be abused to troll - that's where either some suggestions have to brought in, like you said, the money getting returned once the Core 1 PoB is destroyed - as nobody would troll you with Core 2 PoBs, since you need the blueprints from an admin - or have that regulated by an admin directly. However, those PoB Core 1 trolls are a rare case and we definitely should not take them as norms.
In any case, even when it's not a troll base, people put effort into it, and it's only fair that the other side puts effort into it as well. It's not intended to be a punishment, but it should on some level be eye on eye rather than sieging the base with the battleships you already have for months or years, while the base is something you need to build, maintain, supply and upgrade. Please keep in mind I'm not only talking about Core 1 PoBs for this concept. And as I said, 100.000.000 Credits are something you get within 1-3 hours alone - when you have some people helping you, it's faster. When you ore-trade, it's even more faster. Those "mistake" bases are surely not often bigger than Core 1, right? If you didn't find them in time, you may need to ask yourself why your law enforcing faction didn't find them in all that time. It's fair, I think.
Why are you forced to carry any costs? Because that's how law enforcement in real life works. You tax bases, so you profit from them. It's only fair that you have to pay something for those bases you don't benefit from, since you are going to destroy them.
A simple way to create activity around a base siege, would be to have a time period set for Killing off Transports that supply the base.
So, an attack is declared in the appropriate thread with the background roleplay.
As it is now, there is a certain amount of time given to defenders to organize themselves.
During this time, make it a requirement that the Aggressor kill off "X" amount (10-15 for example) transports supplying the base. If the aggressor meets the "X" amount within the amount of time specified, then and only then does the aggressor have a clear path to killing off the base in question.
On the other end, if the defenders manage to get twice the "X" number of transports on base safely before the attackers get their kill quota, then they have "Saved" the base.
This solution, would put an extra step in between declaring an a attack on a POB and killing it.
This would generate activity. Ships supplying the base would now need escorts. The Faction or group owing the PoB, could hire mercs and extra transporters and pay for that service, ect, ect. Proof of Kills and Deliveries is easy enough with screen shots and having ships register just as a player would do on a bounty board.
This would be a more "fun" way to go about attacking a PoB, instead of putting a coke can on your mouse fire button and sit there statically for how ever long it takes to kill the PoB.
I would leave the Admins out of having to approve a POB attack. Keeps them out of being accused of Bias or acting with a biassed motive.
Anyone who Farms 100 mill in three hours is more interested in a bigger ship than in roleplay. The fact that it can be done, is beside the point. More grind is not what players need in Disco.