You've got 24 hours to integrate those posts into your respective suggestions and critiques, because the critique template is not for circular arguments that go nowhere. If one of you has failed to adequately address the concerns of the other, that should be plainly obvious to an independent reader of each of your posts. The more succinct and clear you can be, the more plain a difference it is.

Edit: Thank you!

---

SnakThree don't look at this.

---

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: More Defmod loadouts

Specifics

• Simple ini and cfg edits for expanded defmod loadouts
  
• I did a little bit on that.
  

Potential Problems

• The AI will only shoot nightmares if it is *perfectly* lined up to the target enemy cap.
  

Example of Effect

>Players attack a POB
>They want to afk siege with Siege Turrets
>Base owner deployed Heavy Mortar defmods
>At least one of them has to actually play the game as a 3D space shooter and doj shots
>feelsbadman.jpg


Further Discussion

Honestly, dual Heavy Mortar defmods. They won't overshadow the pulse/cerb defmods for most situations, but will shut down any afk siege attempts.

EDIT: Yes, in the files, there is an event boss infinite Nightmare Torpedo Launcher. It was this or just using event_torpedo but I decided to go for rule of fun on this one.

---

---

Suggestion
Type: Rules / Other
Title: A system to quantify the "minimal amount of RP needed to declare POB attack"

Specifics

• Current rule states "must do minimum amount of RP before declaring attack on a non Core 1 POB"
  
• The rule should be clarified and a system implemented to give defenders a chance to find out about the attack inRP before it happens
  
• Proposed system of declaration / siege would consist of 3 phases
  
• Reconnaissance - the attackers need to scout the system containing the POB and post a report on the forums (generally already happens most of the time) and the attack declaration
  
• Preparation and planning - the attackers must show proof of effort in supplying and preparation of their military operation and post a report on the forums. This should include matériel delivery (Munitions, Marines, Side-arms, Fuel, Military-Hardware), in proportion to their planned attacking force and the targeted station defensive capabilities to a station nearby the point from which the attack will be launched
  
• Siege proper - stays the same as it currently is
  

Potential Problems

• Makes sieges even more tiresome for the attackers. An option to resolve the actual siege phase faster should be explored.
  
• The potential to bypass RP force size requirement by recruiting indie players
  

Example of Effect

This requirement would naturally extend the time between the attack announcement and the actual attack, without the need to specify a hard limit. A bigger planned force would be able to go through the preparation phase somewhat faster but it would take significantly more effort. It would also give the chance for the defenders to find out about the attack earlier through spotting / capturing the scouts in the system, nearby the POB to be sieged.

The defenders would have a chance to further delay the siege through launching harassing attacks on the attackers' supply lines and would be able to better gauge the size of the expected attack.

Another effect would be the inclusion of more ship classes besides the fighters / bombers / capships in the siege system.

The system could enhance / increase the amount of RP done, with factions not having access to the required matériel needing to contact other factions to scout / supply their effort, or opt for smaller ships / numbers.

Further Discussion

Further ramblings about actual game mechanics based implementation:

---

Suggestion
Type: Rules / POB Plugin / Economy / Other
Title:

Specifics

• Primary siege platform is changed from battleships to transports.
  
• Ammo-based siege weapons are added to transports.
  
• Cruiser-grade transport shields are added that consume approx 3,000-/+ cargo space.
  
• Wear and tear is entirely disabled, and replaced with a flat 5% decay rate if the crew has run out of FOW.
  
• FOW is implemented exclusively as a single combined commodity.
  
• Add variant module construction recpies that use credit cards at a 1:1 exchange for traditional construction commodities.
  
• Reduce the quantity of goods required to construct modules; massively increase the base purchase price for POB commodities.
  
• Lower base hull massively and increase regen speed. Bases now only consume repair commodities when attacked.
  
• Set weapon platforms to consume Armaments in order to respawn.
  
• Weapon platforms respawn in a randomised 50m radius sphere.
  
• POBs are made invulnerable to damage unless a /siege command is used. This removes the protection for that particular character. Defenders who are subscribed to a base are notified on log-in if an active siege declaration is ongoing.
  
• Destroyed bases that have been upgraded to core 3, 4 or 5 should be allowed the chance to rebuild without having to independently satisfy the specific requirements a second time.
  
• Add commodity cloning modules for ores to allow differentiated prices to be set for buy and sell.
  
• Rebalance POB commodity sale locations to be more fair on a regional level. Certain Houses should not have a massive advantage over others in terms of building or maintaining POBs.
  

Potential Problems

• POBs become easier and less time intensive to build, and should be balanced to be easier to kill. This design philosophy may be construed as a problem by many who either don't want them to be easier to build, or alternately, don't want them to be easier to kill.
  

Example of Effect

• Swapping to transports makes sieging more egalitarian: all factions can siege equally effectively without gating access behind the chosen few with access to heavy battleships.
  
• Siege ships become far more vulnerable, instead of being the biggest, tankiest area-control class in the game. Defending siege ships becomes far more important.
  
• Adding heavy-duty pseudo-capital ships for transports allows battle transports like the Uruz to be 'retrofitted' into non-trading Q-ships. This has implications outside of POB balance, but could also be paired with an overhaul of heavy transport turrets.
  
• Ammo adds an upkeep cost and investment to sieging. Looting the ammo becomes a de-facto reward for defenders who manage to kill siege ships. Setting ammo this way also allows us to balance DPS and cost on the basis of an idealised siege cash cost per core level.
  
• Module recipes should be changed to require less of a time sink, and more of a cash investment. Time input is one of the main reason POB destruction causes so much animosity. Adding the bulk of the cash cost to the commodity purchase price also allows us to use POBs as an actual cash sink, instead of a cash redistribution mechanic from the owner to suppliers.
  
• Enabling decay only when FOW is depleted and setting that decay to a fixed % value ensures that abandoned bases die within 20 days. It also removes current exploits relating to the low decay rate.
  
• Setting weapon platforms to consume Armaments allows POBs to be 'bled out' in a siege situation, making life far easier for siege transports when a POB has been softened up first. Randomised platform location means platforms cannot be targeted automatically by AFK sieging.
  
• A /siege command would remove the invulnerability from a POB for 14 days on that character. This requirement means all ships participating in a siege would be explicitly recorded in the server logs, making the enforcement of relevant rules far more straightforward. This also removes the issue of random ships taking potshots at POBs and getting sanctioned for it. Being able to subscribe to a base as a defender means there is very little chance of a declaration being overlooked, as they will be notified as soon as they log in to supply / play. The siege command could have the waiting period built into it, i.e. invulnerability turns off either 8 or 24 hours after first use depending on the core level. If a time delay was built in, this should be paired with a /siege join #t command that would enable others to add themselves to another ship's declaration instead of making their own from scratch.

Further Discussion
There's a lot to discuss above but I've run out of motivation to go further in depth here. Happy to respond to points of criticism or query though.

---

---

Critique
Suggestion Addressed: To Jammi Idea

Problem Summary

• Cruiser Shields for every transport around is bad idea in terms of roleplay
  
• Rebalance POB commodity sale locations to be more fair on a regional level... this is wrong. This is looking again at hauling around.
  
• Wear Tear 5% when no FoW? Would we change hauling a lot of repair materials for hauling to a lot of FoWT?
  
• 5% decay rate is too strong.
  

Amendment

• Use Corvo. It has already cruiser shield. and unique gun slot for siege weapon
  
• Just make expensive PoB Commodities everywhere available. Less hauling, more money.
  
• Expensive, little consumed in units FoW, that could be hauled enough by single transport carrying. Consume money, instead of giving another annoying hauling for FoW instead of repair materials.
  Like 125'000 credits per Fow, Which is consumed 2 units for one core level per 12 hours. ;b
  
• 1% decay rate should be enough. the base would be destroyed in 3 months without FoW. (Curent bases don't get destroyed in years, some time pause allowing base owners not tracking too much should be)
  

Further Discussion
Free reign of Cruiser Shielded transports are bad thing for lawful/unlawful RP around. Limiting it to Corvo fixes it.
Rebalancing commodities through House Spaces should be making them to any house space. Less hauling, more money.
Be sure to not make with FoW another hauling obligation. Better consume credits.

FoWT should be cheaper though in industrial centers? To make more expensive base wielding at the edge of universe and more logical to have them cheap in industrial centers.

---

---

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin / Other
Title: Replace / augment siege mechanics with a "boarding" option

Specifics

• a new Transport missile / torpedo (?) is introduced called Boarding Pod Launcher
  
• slow refire rate and consumes ammunition called Boarding Pods produced on POBs using Marines, Light Arms / Side Arms and whatever else deemed appropriate
  
• the projectile travels slowly and can be brought down by CDs / swayed off target by CMs
  
• the projectile upon successful impact spawns a non-buyable by any ID commodity in the POB storage called Boarders
  
• Boarders take significant amounts of cargo space on the targeted POB, effectively "securing" it from further use by the POB owner
  
• should work only on deshielded POBs
  
• if the POB contains Marines/Security personnel of their own their number is reduced instead of spawning more Boarders
  
• if the POB has no available cargo space an amount of RMs or other commodities are destroyed
  

Potential Problems

• Given enough players with launchers, it might be possible to board the POB very quickly / overnight by the attackers. Weapons platforms might be used to counter this though.
  
• There might be a problem checking if POB is unshielded in the code as that is the default state
  
• I'd imagine it would require extensive coding and potentially spawn unforeseen bugs
  
• The defenders could just delete the storage module I guess? I see that as a potential trade-off, you delay the takeover but also lose the cargo space upgrade.
  
• It's not clear how the siege would end when Boarders take all the available cargo space. I guess you could make it turn Neutral and / or delete / disable the admin passwords programatically?
  

Example of Effect

Maintaining the POB shield becomes as important as maintaining hull integrity. The defenders need to balance keeping the shield up, disrupting boarding attempts and repairing the POB.

The attackers have the option of ending a siege through forcing the defenders off the POB. This could be used in cases where the attackers want to take over instead of destroy the installation.

The defenders can prevent the use of this strategy by countering the boarding projectiles, even if they have inferior numbers. Transports become a viable alternative for siege instead of just battleships. Snubs / gunboats become more useful both for defense and attack. Freighters become useful for quickly slipping in detachments of Marines for defense.

Further Discussion
This one might be a bit of a stretch and I don't know if it's technically possible... But I include it nonetheless because it might spur further interesting discussion.

This suggestion would add an alternate (potentially riskier and more expensive, but faster!) option for the attackers to deal with the POB, and provide an attack mechanic based on a timesink to produce / coordinate attack instead of requiring massive amount of credits / AFK sieging.

It could be used to resolve hostile faction POB takeover RP situations.

Could also be used for events I guess?

---

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin / FL Hook / Other
Title: Attackers need to have supplied siege ships to destroy a POB

Specifics

• Similar to my first suggestion, but more technical than rule based. Also builds off some ideas from other suggestions.
  
• Before the siege the attackers need to use /scout command on the target POB to generate an "intelligence report". The report states how many Siege supplies (Munitions, Marines, Fuel ?) will be needed for participating siege ships
  
• A siege is started through the /siege start command already proposed by jammi
  
• The /siege command can only be used on a ship that has enough Military intelligence commodity (to start a siege) or enough Siege supplies (to join a siege)
  
• The amount of required Military intelligence depends on the base Core level (the higher the level the more Military intelligence is needed)
  
• The amount of required Siege supplies depends on the "intelligence report" generated in the first step and / or the participating char's ship class. It stays unchanged for the duration of the siege
  
• Attackers need to "register" through the /siege start or /siege join n command to be able to damage a POB
  
• The amount of needed commodities can be found out either by /siege join (printed on error) or /siege intel n commands
  
• Start/join commands should only work when the targeted POB is selected (the ships need to actually haul the commodities to the target system)
  
• If the ship is destroyed / sold / there are not enough commodities on the ship the character is unregistered from the siege
  
• The character can still participate but not damage the POB, unless he re-registers again
  

Potential Problems

• Seems like a ton of coding, and the gains from such a system might not be proportional to the work required or the system might end up being too complicated
  
• The attackers could use a POB or parked transport / cloaked carrier of their own to make their ships ready for the siege again faster (not that big of a problem I suppose, hello strategy!)
  
• I foresee getting the balance right would be hard. Perhaps one type of commodity (just Demolition Charges) would be enough to keep things simpler
  
• Would perhaps spread out the siege activity too much instead of centralizing it in one place (the actual POB being sieged)
  
• Might be a bit too easy to min/max with multiple accounts / characters and a friendly dockable base... Then again the defenders can do the same (and they can be docked on the POB itself) so it's only fair

Example of Effect

The planned effect is as follows: adds a cooldown that can be bypassed by good organization to the sieging ships, similar to the one defenders have (the need to supply to keep damaging the POB). All without hard-coding a specific (time) limit. It would basically act as variable-time variable-cost "spawn ticket".

Adds a strategic target for the defenders (identify the source of attacker's supplies to reduce siege ships respawn rate or the actual siege ships to reduce the DPS and you might be able to put off the damaging of the POB, but perhaps not the actual siege).

Other ship classes become more viable siege tools (freighters for faster resupply of the re-spawned battleships, fighters/bombers for scouting / interception, cloaked transports / carriers as Forward Operating Bases).

Siege ships will generally have less CAU upgrades (if the numbers are balanced right), because they will need it for the Siege supplies, making them both easier to identify as the priority targets and destroy by the defenders (unless defended by other, non sieging vessels that should not be AFK if they want to be effective!).

Further Discussion
Would make sieges more interesting and dynamic instead of the current meta of "the side with the most ships always wins". A tactical counterattack or strategic Jump Hole / Jump Gate / NPC base blockade at the right time and place might just be enough to give defenders a better chance to organize a proper defense and fend off the siege.

---

Suggestion
Type: POB Plugin
Title: Reduce the POBs daily use of Food/Water/Oxygen
Specifics

• Reduce the Crew of each station according to the POB level like this:
  Core level 1 = 100 Crew
  Core level 2 = 200 Crew
  Core level 3 = 300 Crew
  ...
  

Potential Problems

• None, just the script of the POBs would need to be changed and people would need to be made aware to halve the Crew of their POBs.
  
  Discussion
  Since the Reinforced Alloy use per day has been reduced, reducing the Crew necessary per POB level and therefore the F/W/O need is just the necessary second step. Doesn't make sense to cram 200 people per level into a base of such underwhelming size. People have been complaining for years that after you have to build up a base bringing in countless loads of far-spread ingredients you are basically blocked from playing the game since one has to keep bringing in resources for base repair every 1 or 2 days. Even stockpiling stuff isn't sufficient since the cargo modules are only 40k large, which is pretty miniscule for the ammount of ingredients you typically need to store at a half-decent mining operation. So you can't just fill your base to the brim with F/W/O and RA as long as you want some practicality out of it.
  Now that most people play the game for the missions and ore trading has been nerfed, bring back the fun in (ore) trading and POBs, everything else would be unfair.

---

Suggestion
Type: Rules / POB Plugin / Economy
Title: Change player death timer penalty for [capital?] ships that die as part of a declared siege, add ammo requirement for Weapons Platforms.

Specifics

• Make it a server rule that any ship killed in pvp during a base siege cannot attack that base for 48 hours.
  
• Add a requirement to POB mechanics: Each WP module requires at least 100 units of (any plausible ammunition commodity or commodities) to respawn.
  

Potential Problems

• RE: Death timer: Players will be required to schedule around common availability for additional waves if they took heavy losses a previous time. (no forseeable mechanical problems)
  
• RE: Weapons Platforms: Programming will require the base check for units of ammo before initiating the respawn, no known mechanics problems but that's for a Dev to decide.
  

Example of Effect
RE: Death Timer: Bases will not be destroyed as fast since ships lost to defenders will not be able to oorply respawn and return to the siege within just one hour.

RE: WP Ammo - bases could slowly be disarmed and depleted of WP's simply by targeting them and continuing to focus on them until ammo is depleted. This will require base owners to ensure a flow of ammo supplies on their own, and like shield fuel, require supplying during a siege (for those less prepared).

Further Discussion
Why this change? : Bases that are here for years should not be getting destroyed because their attackers are nearly infinite in quantity (which is what one hour death timer's allow). Capital ships wield a great deal of power, and are much cheaper and easier to put together than a core 3 or 4 base. Also in the interests of RP continuity, you could actually RP encounters with ships that if destroyed won't just be back within one hour. I'd say if they make their attack, and fail, those destroyed ships should stay out of that system for the 48 hours. But I do accept it should be the same for defenders. Perhaps this really only also needs to apply to Capital class ships, as snubs don't do that much base damage, and could still be used for blockading a base in between big attacks.

As to the Weapons Platforms, adding the ammo requirement will make bases that use WP's no longer invincible weapons arrays. Even without destroying a base, players could attack a base just with the purpose of disarming it by continuing to take out its WP's until its ammo runs out and no more WP's spawn. The game then becomes keeping your bases that need or use WP's supplied. This creates an even level of fairness as bases will have more traffic to interdict, of a useful commodity that could be stolen and used at another base. It also means bases could be pretty much neutralized of its danger without taking it out, and actually removing a base will be another option of you're able and deem it necessary.

---

---

Suggestion Weapon platforms rework
Type: Rules / POB Plugin
Title: Turnable on/off weapon platforms

Specifics

• 1) Making weapon platforms being disabled/enabled by owner base command
  
• 1) Creating rule: #?.? Weapon platforms are allowed to be turned on only during an active attack declaration to base.
  
• 2) Better Alternative, weapon platforms become activated only if base registered damage made at least equal to 5 Heavy Mortar shots in the last half of an hour.
  
  
• Making Super big HP/Shield to weapon platforms, stopping abusing the bug to disable them.
  
• Buffing weapon platforms attack as they would perform only base defense role, stopping to be area denial and harming gameplay.
  

Potential Problems

• People could declare attack siege just to make area denial in the first choice, but I think it would be quite easily spotted if some base would be sieged more than several times in a row. The second choice has no such problem if weapon platforms are activated by sufficient damage to the base.
  
• Some people believe area denial is good. Not sure why
  
• in self activated choice, people could damage base on purpose almost triggering defense, it could be fixed by limit randomly changed from 2 to 7 hm shots.
  

Example of Effect
1) No weapon platforms around any base. But if someone declared an attack, owner log and inserts command to turn them on, possibly with timer how many days they are needed until siege ends. Which makes their normal work or even buffed one to do a better job.

2) Alternative, for self-activated weapon platforms, battleship fires to base damage more than 5 Heavy Mortars in less than half of hour, weapon platforms become being activated until last half of hour the damage was still made of the same 5 Heavy Mortars damage. Weapon platforms target all around as usual(today) while they are turned on.

Further Discussion
What can I say. That would turn their work to be base defense only, stopping to harm gameplay by having area denial. And potentially making their job to defend better as they could be buffed in health and attack.

Actually both ideas can be implemented at the same time.
1) mod: ON always (allowed for sieges only)
2) mod: Activated by sufficient damage (the standard mod for forgetful people)
3) mod: off

---