Dw Bvb in the future will be about who knows the Sekret lag killer commands

I wouldn't mind seeing the balance between player ships and bases increased further, to make up for future additions to player ship strength. And with a new client that can handle gameplay better, things will look more promising than they do now, because right now it is at a terrible state.

And another major issue is PvP ranges. Those needs to be looked into as well. Or else I'm worried that overly arrogant Steam players will just get griefed by level 2000-3000's when they reach level 1000.

rekage

So, here's a question to test this suggestion, let's say the defenders have 2 accounts that own bases in a star system. Attackers deploy 2 accounts worth of bases to fight them, all bases owned by just 2 characters of course. What then? You can't deploy any more bases whatsoever? Because if defenders can deploy some more, they deploy another account's worth of bases, attackers then do the same, defenders deploy more... rinse and repeat until you get the same situation.

If you change it so that the starting amount is the max you can have, if there are industry bases when the attackers attack, that means the attackers can deploy more offensive bases than the defenders can deploy defensive bases, no? Because those industry bases, ExE or CA, those would count to how many occupying accounts there are, despite not being for defence... make em not count, and then you would see people using non-StM kits to bypass this and win fights from sheer numbers.

If you want fights to be more strategic, RTS doesn't work well at all, but it won't be fixed because it would be OP if you can tell them what to target, just like how bosses and AI will be so foolish to have a certain targeting scheme, typically based on hostility and/or DPS output, or special like Poseidon's range thing, and they don't bother shooting the important targets such as shield monkeys (or HPS kits in this case). Not only that but tweaks also can make a good amount of difference, which just leads to who has more tweaks at that point doesn't it?

If a team has more resources, they should be able to win a war just from that if you ask me. You can't just get resources out of the blue, so it's not like it's unfair. If unlimited BvB slots are an issue, why not just... limit them normally? Like, 30 bases max, for instance, or something like 40 or 50. That results in the same situation as your solution if there were 5 accounts used on either side assuming max 50 slots, but you know, you don't need fully developed characters on multiple accounts, instead you can have let's say 20 accounts fill up those 50 bases' ownerships instead of just 5, if you ask me your suggestion just makes it more difficult for newer teams because better teams will have better developed accounts meaning they can deploy more bases in the end, with no chance of a newer team being able to match it, because if they do, the attackers can deploy even more since they're using multiple accounts to be able to do that while attackers only need like 1 for the same amount of bases.

Resources (virtual and personnel), technique, and dedication. These are the things that should decide a war. Luckily, these also happen to be the things that decide wars.

Just a bit curious, but based on your statement, who do you think should win the war between Traders and EF if such should arise?

I guess the other way of dealing with this issue is to change the Wild Space layout to actually favour being more defensive.

As in, being able to defend more space with fewer border gals. That way you can put more kits in a few select galaxies, thus making them harder to P/BvB. If you want an example, look at Faulkner/Lumley/Alderamin. You could build up those 3 galaxies and use them to defend that entire chain NW of it. You can already do this to a certain extent, it's just a lot more work.

Something like this would also favour smaller teams, rather than larger ones, depending on their positioning and how far these little 'havens' are from one another. Larger teams would have to expand into more open space so they can have their members build. It does also mean that in the event of a war, a team can have a group of galaxies which are safe and can keep the team functioning, but at a reduced rate.

Just a thought, not sure how it would work in practise. The other issue is teams starting a war/aggro with all their characters already in the chains and blowing up from the inside.

Hober has the right idea, but again it's not all about resources. Generalize your statement and you've got my opinion on the matter.

Do you really have to ask?

Should arise its been going for a while now

I haven't played in a while so i didn't know; was under the impression that it was just humor and jokes. I'm happy to know that EF isn't this majestic team that can stomp anything they want.