Being that my team is at war right now, I've notice a few things about how the warring mechanics work and wanted to point out some flaws with it since the way it currently is seems bad.

1) Should Team A war Team B, then Team B is aggroed to Team A's defenses yet Team A is not aggroed to Team B's defenses. There are really no circumstances under which I wouldn't want my defenses to not auto fire against the team that wants to attack me.

There's also the mechanic about how warring costs money. If the economy were balanced and if the cost of warring were actually proportionate to a team's power, then it would work pretty decently. However, if you take into consideration new, young teams with new players, this really sets them up for failure in a war against an opponent with a strong economy.

2) Now, I'm not sure how much it is exactly, but I think it's about 50m a tick for the war bills. Obviously that isn't much to me or any other big team, but to a new, small team, that may be over their budget. Sure we have a lot of ways to make money, but that's because of our experience and knowledge of the game.

They would have no chance against an older team, which, let's be honest, wars between a big team going off against a smaller one tend to happen quite often for a lot of reasons. Don't want to point any fingers here *cough* -13- *Cough*, but you get the point.

3)In order to be able to war a team you need skills in warmongering. I noticed that at once instance, a team warred against a team member and we attempted to war them back. However, I wasn't able to because I apparently didn't have enough levels in "warmongering" when I already had a level in it. It was solved by using team skills to get a level in it.

It doesn't make sense that a team warring yours would take up your "war slots" and prevent you from warring them back. Sure I got plenty of SP to spare but it is flawed in this sense. And again, for newer teams with players using their SP on other much needed skills, I doubt they'll be wanting to spare for it even if it does only take 5 SP. And add on top of what I mentioned in the first point.
-
At the moment, this would seem as something trivial since most of us are experienced and have plenty of funds and skills to easily plug this minor problem to us. But if things should go well during the, someday, Steam release, this minor problem to us would be a set back for new teams that are looking to grow and prosper one day.

Agreed, the "you can bvb adjacent galaxies in 1 hour" doesn't really give the defenders much time to react.

Needs to just be instant defensive aggro from the defending team, on the same timer as the attackers active war.

The amount of times we've killed teams because our ShMs didn't have aggro is a bit too high. And yes, it has been done back to us. Feels quite shitty but hey, that's SS PvP.

I want to make certain i understand this correctly, because my brain is flatly rejecting what i just read.

IF a team (a) wars another team (b), then the declaring (a) teams defensive bases/drones will automatically shoot at the declared upon (b) teams ships/stations/drones, but the declared upon (b) teams Bases/drones will not shoot at the declaring (a) teams ships/bases/drones?

If DSF ever goes back to WS, remind me to STRONGLY recommend we sink max points in warmonger and per-emptively war everyone, just to be safe.

Yea that's exactly how the current system works. If you war a team, your shit shoots them. Their shit doesn't touch you.

Also, how exactly is it fair that a team with T22 is perfectly allowed to attack a team whose best setup would be a bunch of people in shrimps? As long as endgamers have the right to stop progression of anyone they deem "unworthy", the game will never get lots of people.

That would be solved relatively easily if people bothered curating the wiki. I have repeatedly seen Lemon and other high tier players make reference to items that are no where to be found as if people are supposed to magically know these things exist. Adding a section of base builds would be helpful as well. What is an Shmdm or whatever shorthand you guys keep using for your base builds?

Now, the ability to shot at your attackers would be massively helpful in defending systems, but not for the reason Xonok is probably thinking.

Because the uni is now halfway done and RE ruined the plan anyway, I will reveal to you DSF's top secret Operation MercChin! And by DSF i mean the plan i kept proposing to people every time going back to WS has been suggested.

Because DSF has incredibly few P2P players, it is necessary to maximize our use of defenses to seize any territory at all. Thus, looking at the WS map, the idea of claiming the systems Merced and Chinook, packing them with defenses, then using those two strong points to hold Condit, Griffith, Vulpecula, Mandelr, Caligo, Hannor, Beteguise and Confusion was floated (by me). Motley-Gashville and Crevace-Blockelous where also suggested, if MercChin was considered to ambitious.

However, all of these plans are contingent upon two pieces of information, one of which is now evidently false. 1) That you can only BvB a system if you control an adjacent system, and 2) that defending bases will fire on any team they are at war with the instant the ships enter the system. Having War Mechanics on the WIki would have been really, really helpful. Having the permanent drones weapons specs listed would be even more helpful.

Bottle necking is a very strong strategy, if you look at RF's galaxies this uni, we have 8 galaxies cut off by 2 front gals. If you really want to hit my noobs, you have to go through me and my councilor first.

Actually, there is a question i have been meaning to ask someone. Do Jux gates count towards adjacent owned systems?

No. You can't own the Juxta itself so it will always be a blank spot of no ownership.

Juxtas shouldn't refuse entry. They are another wormhole and they don't even provide a means for bvbing so they are fine as they are.

But definitely shunting an enemy team from a team that is at war with them are that they are warring would be a good thing to add.

I'd like to also suggest removing the requirement of needing a team score of 250 to bvb someone. Be fun to see smaller or younger teams have bvb fights of their own. Gives them a chance to fight back against the bigger teams if they find an opportunity.

I think it was lowered to 50 or something.

it is exactly 50, tested and confirmed. this is a good spot for it