Station Siege Mechanics

[Burnside]

I still reject the inhibitor mechanic in favor of the fleet ratio mechanic, I might be amenable to siege windows, but it's super-gamey and I'd rather avoid it in favor of literally anything else that could work in its place. In making an attacking fleet, which is needed to trigger the siege, a less annoyingly mobile objective, the radius in which a fleet ratio is registered can be tweaked to provide a close danger-space that the attackers need to risk being in if they want their numbers to count for the siege, defenders might have a wider bubble- and I think they ought to have more room to maneuver and defend against encroachment. Ships can leave this zone freely but if they do the siege mechanic drops them from the ratio count which can stall, reverse, or reset a timer/flag/etc. That ships can be disabled, but not necessarily removed as ships from the ratio count, depending on how the mechanics qualify valid attackers and defenders, also adds potential for emergent objectives like sweeping/cleaning the battlespace.

As far as mechanics to instance sieges, like the inhibitor... what if an attacker had to build a "command station" with a specialised core module or something (i.e. the "inhibitor") within the economic zone the faction wants to attack? If the module itself is destroyed, the station loses its siege functionality until replace- and the station can also always be destroyed or captured as well. Allied fleets can then threaten the stations (with or without siege window settings) in that zone and... what if the "command station" had some specific vulnerability in addition to its siege window, like entering a longer siege window (3.5~5hrs maybe?) every time an allied fleet starts siege gameplay on any other station in the zone? So, attackers need to invest in an expensive and time-consuming structure to lay siege to an area, just like inhibitors; it needs to be local to that area, slightly more flexible than inhibitors; and using it puts the attackers at risk of losing assets, so sieges can't necessarily be spammed without cost.

EDIT: if making an entire economic zone vulnerable is out of bounds, what if the station's inhibitor could target one station at a time within a certain range, an actual couple dozen kilometers of range or within the economic zone, kind of like a war-dec. I think sieges having some interaction with economic zones would also promote the actual dispersion of stations and economic zones, creating a reasonable strategic layer to territory instead of it just being points in space- you also have a casus belli here as well, waging sieges to preserve/expand/join the boundaries of economic zones for various reasons

So, summary of thoughts:
Siege Windows: probably still need to exist, no contest
Fleet Ratio Siege Radius: attacker needs to be closer than the defender to count towards the safezone-drop mechanic
Command Station Inhibitor Cores: are needed to grant access to another station's siege window, can target stations within the same economic zone and/or a maximum range, inhibitor core may be able to be upgraded for greater range or something, core may be only able to access one siege window at a time, so large sieges of entire zones would need multiple command stations; any time a command station enables a siege window it also enters a (longer?) siege window alongside the besieged station

 

[Recatek]

I still reject the inhibitor mechanic

I think the past four pages of this thread are a testament to that. There isn't much to add there beyond what I've already said, and everyone has their own ideas.

However, the inhibitor is already primed for a role as a "command center" of sorts. Think of it as an office-building-like structure (essentially a large station module) with an interior and an objective inside that needs to be fought to and neutralized on foot. This is why I propose the inhibitor as a big heavy thing that needs to be towed (or piloted) to the target station and anchored there before the fight. The core, too, is a structure with an interior objective requiring fighting on-foot. I find this "assault craft" fantasy incredibly compelling and would like to make sure it has an enshrined place in a station siege. Plus, requiring either structure to be neutralized up close and personal prevents the anti-pattern of teams simply sniping it from however many kilometers away to win the fight.

 

[Meetbolio]

Hey Recatek! Love the idea of this setup capture-the-flag-esque gameplay that the inhibitor and station core allow. I wanted to propose an idea of how both could be neutralised: They could have some sort of puzzle minigame that any decent 12-year old could solve in a bit of time, OR if we would like to go full hardcore, make the hacking require some basic knowledge of YOLOL; This would incentivise the learning of this language even for people who are just "I'll just buy a ship and pirate people and that's it". Nonetheless, with all the interesting movement magboots offer, I can see raiding a base or defending one being a space dogfight that then turns into a little bit of a R6S-like tactical foot-based operation.

 

[Blue]

I think that if you have a bigger base and company or faction the time you have to prepare is less but the smaller the base the more time you have. I also believe that instead of having an inhibitor, once the siege start you should be able to damage the safe zone or put strain on it to take it down, once down you can then enter and take out the core.

 

[Blue]

Minimum time for the biggest stations and companies or factions should be 12 hours and maximum time for the smallest stations and companies or factions should be 2 days

 

[Blue]

Another suggestion is no public reports on raids, saying these things as the discussion goes on but some stations are secret and would not like their locations revealed, if the attacker wants to tell other people were the station is thats fine but I dont want the system to be the one to reveal to everyone were my base is.

 

[Blue]

Also other special items, structures and ships for raids can also be a thing as long as they arent necessary for the sieges only optional.

 

[Burnside]

I think the past four pages of this thread are a testament to that. There isn't much to add there beyond what I've already said, and everyone has their own ideas.

However, the inhibitor is already primed for a role as a "command center" of sorts. Think of it as an office-building-like structure (essentially a large station module) with an interior and an objective inside that needs to be fought to and neutralized on foot. This is why I propose the inhibitor as a big heavy thing that needs to be towed (or piloted) to the target station and anchored there before the fight. The core, too, is a structure with an interior objective requiring fighting on-foot. I find this "assault craft" fantasy incredibly compelling and would like to make sure it has an enshrined place in a station siege. Plus, requiring either structure to be neutralized up close and personal prevents the anti-pattern of teams simply sniping it from however many kilometers away to win the fight.

So the inhibitor, in your vision, is a station that's not a station, needs to be towed around, and now has be captured with infantry to be stopped? Where's that part about it needing a corrosion bubble so it can't be protected by a civilian shell-ship? Like, if you need to cap it to stop the siege, why even worry about invulnerability exploits? Your idea is inconsistent and is more like a wishlist of oh-so-cool elements and not a cohesive and unified whole- I'm not reading through four pages of what amounts to rambling to try and figure out what this thing is supposed to look like, it's your job to keep a tidy high concept document on your baby and be able to reiterate the core conceits of that document throughout the debate. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter how good anyone thinks your version of sieges looks, it's an unworkable mess filled with exploitative gimmicks that won't create fun for anyone but brand zealots hooked on the idea instead of the implementation.

Look, the discussion has me continually coming to the table with compromises and questions on the parts you have made interesting enough to work with. Some of your stuff is slowly warming on me because it has the potential to produce something fun down the road- as it is, I'd just sit on NPC stations all day or drop the game to avoid your mechanics, I can't reiterate that enough, I'll go play FPSs from five and ten years back if I feel like getting in on mechanics like that, it's what they were designed to be fun for, they're inappropriate for an MMO that isn't something like Planetside. It's your job to make this concept palatable to detractors, you don't get a pass on the work if you want it to get respect and traction with the parts of the community that are sneering at the idea and will oppose and ignore it on principle alone, regardless of whatever merit it might have at any point in the design process. So... screw it, let me give you the benefit of the doubt again and tear into your linked answers:

The goals of the system are pretty clear:
- Make sure the hundreds/thousands of man-hours invested in a station don't disappear overnight
ﾠﾠﾠﾠ- Hence, the safe zone and 36-59 hour lead up time to a siege

Not addressing this as I've mostly capitulated on siege windows of one sort or another.

- Make sure that when the fight happens, it's big, it's fun, and it doesn't overstay its welcome and become boring
ﾠﾠﾠﾠ- Hence, the 2-3 hour siege time after both sides have advance notice and time to prepare

The premise of "when the fight happens, it's big, it's fun, and it doesn't overstay its welcome" is flawed, that's a massive experience-crafting goal and unless you have some kind of mockup playtest to show us, this point is rejected with prejudice for being absurdly bombastic.

- Allow players to engage in station building without having to log on at odd hours of the night
ﾠﾠﾠﾠ- Hence, the fact that when building a station, you pick your siege window at a time you can defend it

Not Addressed, see the first item response.

- Allow players to engage in station sieges without hours of boredom, waiting, or shooting inanimate objects
ﾠﾠﾠﾠ- Hence, the fact that between when the inhibitor is anchored and the siege window, nobody needs to do anything until the real fight

I reject this idea as the key flaw in your concept, the fact that nothing can be done but build up and skirmish with military ships, and stop with all this "Hence, the fact" you aren't stating facts, you're making assertions and predictions on gameplay flow and player behavior, it's pretentious in the extreme and I will make fun of you for it in the future.

- Make the siege battle itself proactive, so that both sides have a goal they can work for without being forced to wait for the other
ﾠﾠﾠﾠ- Hence, the mechanic of making the inhibitor a target for the defenders, just as the core is a target for the attackers
In that I don't see how any of this is self-contradictory.

Making the map symmetrical by giving the attackers an 'attack core' to the defenders station core doesn't make the fight more or less proactive, you just made an asymmetrical fight into a symmetrical one- you removed a key gameplay element of why sieges are interesting and fun and called it an improvement. That's not an improvement, that's called making the game stale. What you're trying to create is called a "set-piece battle" (or at least it's the closest analogue with how strictly you've designed your system), in wargaming terms, it's a fight arranged around specific scenarios and conditions and often has strict unit lists or strongly limited unit types based on the scenario- they're used for both reenactment games and pickup games to teach beginners the basics of play.

Further the idea of forcing people into a given tactic (i.e. assault boat fantasy) to promote the fun of it is highly flawed, it's better to ease off the tyrannical game design reigns of mandatory fun enforcement and allow players to find the fun at the risk of missing it, the great hurdle of open world and sandbox games, than to make things that can be fun a boring hellish slog through behavior chokepoints.

 

[CalenLoki]

So the inhibitor, in your vision, is a station that's not a station, needs to be towed around, and now has be captured with infantry to be stopped?

It's an module that becomes static once activated.

Where's that part about it needing a corrosion bubble so it can't be protected by a civilian shell-ship?

Here, first post.

- Once anchored, the inhibitor is surrounded by a field that persistently damages anything within [25] meters of it
ﾠﾠﾠﾠ- This is to make it harder to build impenetrable shells around the inhibitor (they'd have to be quite big)

There are no civilian or military ships, so no related exploits.

Your idea is inconsistent and is more like a wishlist of oh-so-cool elements and not a cohesive and unified whole- I'm not reading through four pages of what amounts to rambling to try and figure out what this thing is supposed to look like, it's your job to keep a tidy high concept document on your baby and be able to reiterate the core conceits of that document throughout the debate. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter how good anyone thinks your version of sieges looks, it's an unworkable mess filled with exploitative gimmicks that won't create fun for anyone but brand zealots hooked on the idea instead of the implementation.

Knowing what you consider as clear and consistent idea, I'd take it as compliment.
There are ways to make your posts more readable. Using less multiple-compound sentences is a good start. Separating explanation of your ideas from opinions about other people's ideas is an good second step. Preferably all in points.

Could you please list the possible exploits of inhibitor system?
So far only ones you mentioned (using ally to lay fake siege) was rendered impossible due to neutral nature of active inhibitor and new safezone activation delay.

Regarding set-piece battles: It's matter of opinion. I find them more fun than staring in the sky for hours or fighting doors. And so far nobody suggested anything resembling valid alternative.

Making it symmetric maybe is less creative, but again, so far it's the simplest and the most exploit-proof system around.



Regarding your station "command station" idea:
Because of it's high range, it splits the battle into two instances. Nobody's gonna fly between those mid battle, as it takes too much valuable time.

That forces attackers to leave some players behind to defend it, and there is large chance that they won't see any combat. And they showed up for it. Not fun.

It also prevents defenders from ending the siege before the time if attackers don't show up, Because that de facto makes them attackers, and now they have to leave a lot of soldiers behind to die of boredom. Attackers don't loose anything by not showing up at besieged station, they just need to defend their "siege camp".

It also makes siege symmetrical, as you open you station to attack to drop enemy safe zone. And you were so against symmetric system.

EDIT. Reading through your thread ATM, so I may revise this post.

2nd EDIT. I've read your thread. Much more clear than posts here, good work. I left some feedback there.

 

[Recatek]

Where's that part about it needing a corrosion bubble so it can't be protected by a civilian shell-ship?

The corrosion aura is to help prevent people making the inhibitor interior inaccessible by layering tons and tons of plates on top of it so nobody can get in without hacking away at it for hours. You can still build around it, but the point is to expand the surface area enough to make total, thick coverage impractical. As with all the numbers in the proposal, any exact measurement is just a tweakable guess. You could also localize the corrosion aura to the entrances of the inhibitor to allow closer building in other spots.

that's a massive experience-crafting goal and unless you have some kind of mockup playtest to show us

As I mentioned in the original post, this is a "port" of the system commonly used in other PvP MMOs featuring city/station/outpost-building -- Shadowbane, EVE, Darkfall, and someone earlier in the thread mentioned Gloria Victis, among others. In my experience those systems are generally well regarded and those games enjoy large and satisfying battles for major objectives.

Making the map symmetrical by giving the attackers an 'attack core' to the defenders station core doesn't make the fight more or less proactive

It gives the defenders some recourse and a way to end the fight early if the attackers hang around instead of attacking, or fail to show up at all. Without a way for the defenders to close the window, they could be stuck waiting around for 2-3 hours without any opposition. I think that would be boring and if I were in that situation (as I have been in other PvP MMOs), I would rather be doing other things in-game.

Look, the discussion has me continually coming to the table with compromises

I appreciate that, but this is a suggestion thread for the devs, not a bargaining process with you. Of course everyone has ideas on everyone else's suggestions, but this is mine. Nothing is stopping you from making your own suggestions. The devs will pick and choose what they want, if they want.

The goal of this suggestion is to try to keep things simple and direct while achieving the experience objectives I laid out. There's plenty of room for the devs to build upon a system like this and add complexity if that's what they ultimately want, but I think this is the most atomic core of mechanics to make siege battles fun and avoid huge IRL quality-of-life impacts when playing the game. Is it perfect? Far from it. Do I expect them to implement this system? Certainly not. But I hope there are some takeaways and pain points they recognize when they finalize the design for theirs. Every PvP MMO has struggled with this problem and I think it's telling that they've all generally landed on the same flavor of solution.

 

[Recatek]

One thought about the corrosion aura thing:

The corrosion aura is intended to make sure it's possible to get inside the inhibitor so the attackers can't just layer it under impossibly many armor plates. The same concern applies to the station core. Another way to make sure the interior is accessible (not necessarily easy to get into, but possible) is to switch to a capture-the-flag mechanic. If the attackers want to extract something from the core and bring it to the inside of the inhibitor, and vice versa, it gives both sides an incentive to design a defensible but not impenetrable structure. I think this could be interesting and would play more to the game's engineering ethos.

 

[CalenLoki]

One thought about the corrosion aura thing:

The corrosion aura is intended to make sure it's possible to get inside the inhibitor so the attackers can't just layer it under impossibly many armor plates. The same concern applies to the station core. Another way to make sure the interior is accessible (not necessarily easy to get into, but possible) is to switch to a capture-the-flag mechanic. If the attackers want to extract something from the core and bring it to the inside of the inhibitor, and vice versa, it gives both sides an incentive to design a defensible but not impenetrable structure. I think this could be interesting and would play more to the game's engineering ethos.

I like it. More natural limitation, instead of arbitrary.

Even better if the "flag" is big enough to require whole ship to fly in and slowly drag it out. With even bigger hauler just outside to fly it back faster. Extracting the "flag" should be slow enough to avoid "run in, run out", and require securing the place beforehand.


I was also thinking about inhibitor defences (inhibitor shell).
Attackers can't really build shell for it during battle (no time, enemy fire, ect.).
If they have to do it between anchoring inhibitor and battle, then it's not protected from defenders (due to neutral nature of inhibitor)
If we allow attackers to build it around inhibitor before anchoring, then friendly "attacker" (keep trading) could anchor inhibitor shell designed to be easy to attack. So it's not neutral any more.

So I think the most fair solution would be prohibiting entering by anyone within wide radius until the battle starts. After that attackers can just fly over inhibitor with heavily armoured ship with big hangar, and close the gate.


I also think that there is no need to limit inhibitors to one per battle. There is no harm if there's many, and that could lead to interesting battles. And it's minor advantage for attackers at quite high price (buying more inhibitors, splitting forces to defend them all).

 

[Zistack]

I have a couple of thoughts. First, I don't like that the attackers have full control of the siege window. There should be a mechanism for the defenders to choose a 3-hour window within a larger window set by the attackers. Also, this 3-hour window should then be announced some time before it occurs. This way, attackers can't force the siege window to be at the defenders' 2am. I recall reading about a system like this in another game somewhere, but it was too long ago for me to remember where.

I also think the lack of capture mechanics is a weakness. It would be nice if stations could be captured more than simply destroyed. This should be easy to add in. Just add an interaction with the core that requires the same level of access as destroying it that allows for it to be captured instead.

I don't think the corrosion aura is a good idea. It makes the goalposts asymmetric, since the station core couldn't possibly have such an aura, or it could not be part of a station. The capture-the-flag mechanics are a much better idea, though some sort of plausible justification for that ruleset needs to be concocted.

I don't think the core itself needs to be all that complicated a part. I think it can be a simple core part that isn't particularly armored. It'll be up to the players to construct a shell that would prevent sniping and force ground combat (or whatever form of combat they feel comfortable with). This will make the resource cost of building an inhibitor scale with the resource cost of the station it is trying to lay siege to. This assumes that armor in the game is relatively tough as compared to the strength of the weapons, though. This also assumes that there is some way to allow the attackers time to construct their inhibitor structure. A thought that comes to mind is that someone could fly in an inhibitor on a vessel constructed as the fortress, but then the inhibitor would become stationary as soon as it was activated. Another possibility would be some sort of safe-zone erected around the inhibitor that lasts for some amount of time, but this might have problems scaling with the enemy station.

I also think that there is no need to limit inhibitors to one per battle. There is no harm if there's many, and that could lead to interesting battles. And it's minor advantage for attackers at quite high price (buying more inhibitors, splitting forces to defend them all).

I agree. If having multiple inhibitors doesn't change the timing all that much and the defenders can choose the siege window, then multiple inhibitors shouldn't be a problem. The resource cost should balance against the incentive to have more than one. This also allows multiple factions to pool their resources into a siege, with each one fielding an inhibitor (or even more than one). This will make siege politics interesting.

 

[CalenLoki]

I have a couple of thoughts. First, I don't like that the attackers have full control of the siege window. There should be a mechanism for the defenders to choose a 3-hour window within a larger window set by the attackers. Also, this 3-hour window should then be announced some time before it occurs. This way, attackers can't force the siege window to be at the defenders' 2am. I recall reading about a system like this in another game somewhere, but it was too long ago for me to remember where.

It's included in the first post. Defenders choose the time window that apply permanently to that station. Can be changed once a month.

I also think the lack of capture mechanics is a weakness. It would be nice if stations could be captured more than simply destroyed. This should be easy to add in. Just add an interaction with the core that requires the same level of access as destroying it that allows for it to be captured instead.

How do you prevent cheesing the system by letting ally capture your station?

Also there is already capture mechanics: besiege -> destroy the core -> place new core -> defend the station until new safe zone is working. Station captured.

I don't think the core itself needs to be all that complicated a part. I think it can be a simple core part that isn't particularly armored. It'll be up to the players to construct a shell that would prevent sniping and force ground combat (or whatever form of combat they feel comfortable with). This will make the resource cost of building an inhibitor scale with the resource cost of the station it is trying to lay siege to. This assumes that armor in the game is relatively tough as compared to the strength of the weapons, though. This also assumes that there is some way to allow the attackers time to construct their inhibitor structure. A thought that comes to mind is that someone could fly in an inhibitor on a vessel constructed as the fortress, but then the inhibitor would become stationary as soon as it was activated. Another possibility would be some sort of safe-zone erected around the inhibitor that lasts for some amount of time, but this might have problems scaling with the enemy station.

With capture-the-flag mechanics, you need to bring piece from the core to the inhibitor, or the other way around.
Which means you can't just destroy in in conventional way - only by actually getting there on foot. So no armour is needed to protect core/inhibitor from sniping (they're invulnerable), only to prevent enemy personel access.

 

[Meetbolio]

I had this idea to make raiding small bases ore affordable to small pirate gangs, and to reduce the cost of building a tiny station for the purpose of it being a warehouse, for example.

The Station Core module would be renamed to "Shield Generator" as not to cause confusion, because a core is a vital component, but we already know that building a station without a shield is possible.
Shield Generators would also have multiple tiers. The bigger the station you wish to protect, the better you need your shield gen to be. Of course, this means more resources spent, and of course, it means it sucks more power, therefore requiring more solar panels, which take up more space, blah blah blah you know the drill.
Different tiers of shield gens would "emit" an imaginary signal on a frequency that is different for every tier, these frequencies being measured in sHz (superhertz, because why not.)
This signal would be the frequency using which the inhibitor, AKA UMP AKA Shield Hacking Device, would disrupt the shield for a set period of time.

This is where things get a bit more funky. You see, in my vision, inhibitors are made out of modules, being something along the lines of the generator modules bit much bigger.
The construction system would include different sorts of parts, including but not only: emitters (decides distance from the shield that the EMP needs to be at), hacking terminals (where the declaration of siege is made and where the defenders are trying to get into to disable it), transmitters (decides what range of frequencies this EMP can disable), and power plants (they plant power plants)(just kidding, they make power and are one of the biggest components of the EMP) and some other modules. I didn't think all of them through.
Once an EMP has been constructed, it can be towed by ships to the shield of the base being raided, from which point everything unwraps according to Recatek's plans.

This system would allow small gangs of pirates to make smaller inhibitors, ones being able to access only some of the lower frequencies that the small generators use. I decided to have them modular to suit the raider's needs and strengths, while also lining up with the whole game's idea of "bigger gadgets are made out of modules", as seen with the engines, missiles, and torpedoes.

 

[Zistack]

It's included in the first post. Defenders choose the time window that apply permanently to that station. Can be changed once a month.

Then I missed it. I think that might be a bit too inflexible though. Ideally, the defenders could choose the window on a case-by-case basis, since real-world constraints are ever-changing.

How do you prevent cheesing the system by letting ally capture your station?

Exploit multiple inhibitors. Simply capturing the station's flag with your inhibitor doesn't stop the other inhibitors from working. Also, if we're going for CTF mechanics here, letting the ally move the flag to their inhibitor isn't necessarily a good thing, since now the attackers only have to take it from the allied ship/endoskeleton/inhibitor rather than actually doing the work of extracting it from the station core themselves. Allowing the flag(s) to be passed around from inhibitor to inhibitor actually makes for a neat battlefield where multiple parties can have multiple places where they can hide flags and such (especially if you can build dummy inhibitors that don't have active flags in them inhibiting the core). The battle ends when all the inhibitors are shut down, or the time window expires.

With capture-the-flag mechanics, you need to bring piece from the core to the inhibitor, or the other way around.
Which means you can't just destroy in in conventional way - only by actually getting there on foot. So no armour is needed to protect core/inhibitor from sniping (they're invulnerable), only to prevent enemy personel access.

Some of the earlier text in this thread seemed to suggest that the inhibitor module was a fairly detailed unit with internal structure that forced ground play, but with CTF mechanics, this becomes unnecessary since destroying the inhibitor is usually not the goal. I'm not sure I like the idea of making the inhibitor/core truly invulnerable, though. Destroying a station core or inhibitor should be a viable strategy.

If inhibitors and station cores are not invulnerable, then there's still some asymmetry that needs to be dealt with. An inhibitor might be a significant investment in resources, but if the inhibitor means nothing outside of sieges, then there's no reason that the station forces shouldn't simply destroy it, thus eliminating the attackers' ability to actually capture the station's flag. The way to fix this would be for the flag to be the thing that maintains the siege window, and destroying/capturing the flag to end the window should require that it be taken to an inhibitor or station core under one's own control. This means that in a multi-inhibitor (or should I say, multi-flag battle), the battle ends with all flags are either captured or disabled by the owning party (attackers should be able to throw in the towel early, but only if they actually retain control of their flag).

That all said, if these flags actually directly represent control of a facility, then perhaps inhibitors should be persistent objects that can be captured as well, which would make the inhibitors a bit like station cores.

I have a question for the room. What is stopping large factions from using this inhibitor-based system for declaring war to noob-stomp all the new players coming in? The system proposed seems to be robust to cheesing, but a large faction doesn't need to cheese in order to win against a much smaller and weaker one.

 

[CalenLoki]

I have a question for the room. What is stopping large factions from using this inhibitor-based system for declaring war to noob-stomp all the new players coming in? The system proposed seems to be robust to cheesing, but a large faction doesn't need to cheese in order to win against a much smaller and weaker one.

AFAIK nothing. That system is built to make stronger party win.

Life of small faction gonna be hard and demanding. Probably requiring joining alliance, paying taxes to bigger faction or keeping peaceful relations with all potential threats.

I have no idea what system would allow fair fight in case of such disproportions without being extremely artificial.

 

[Burnside]

FFS, really? Then there isn't even a point in having siege mechanics, safezones should just stay on permanently. There's no point in trying to compromise if that's your best answer.

 

[Cavilier210]

Ya.... no. This would be terrible.

People siege the SZ, its brought down at any time. Stations become capturable for a certain period the owning faction decides upon building the station.

Why on earth make it more complicated? Make a 2-3 hour window for station capture. Invaders fail, they have to wait 21-22 hours to try again while the SZ builds again, meaning they have to maintain their siege.

I see no reason to tow this inhibitor or to even have the thing. It's not capture the flag, its king of the hill.

 

[alex slime]

Ya.... no. This would be terrible.

People siege the SZ, its brought down at any time. Stations become capturable for a certain period the owning faction decides upon building the station.

Why on earth make it more complicated? Make a 2-3 hour window for station capture. Invaders fail, they have to wait 21-22 hours to try again while the SZ builds again, meaning they have to maintain their siege.

I see no reason to tow this inhibitor or to even have the thing. It's not capture the flag, its king of the hill.

It's a video game not a job dude, maybe there are a few people out there willing to guard an internet space station or be on call to guard an internet space station for an 8 hour shift every day but uhh it's not something myself or like anybody I know or respect would do.