As for target prioritization, I think it would be necessary for bases to heal players as well. Even while being healed, it's still possible for teams to obliterate a target player.

And of course the usual: if AAA team attacks a defending small/mediocre team, defenders will have a hard time fending them off in pvp without those heals. Of course since drones are more likely to target players (After other drones), it makes a bit of sense when you add drones capable of healing into the equation.

Probably something that would be best to wait and see how things turned out before considering that.

Say the defenders have 10 bases, and the attackers decide to bring an amp to get 10 bases.

Attackers = 10B
Defenders = 10B

The Defenders have 10 active players while the attackers have 20.

Attackers = 20P
Defenders = 10P

The Defenders have 20 Perma drones which roughly equate to 10 players.

Attackers = 20P
Defenders = 20P

So both the attackers and the defenders have roughly equal forces. The problem is that the attackers are always on a timetable. If they can't kill all bases in 10 hours, they lose. Complete defeat and what's worse, the defenders are probably going to be able to take their kits at the end of the abandon timer.

Under the current situation using 13 tactics of bases only and no or limited player support, you need 3-5x the bases as the defenders because the defending players and perma drones will actually gives the defenders an edge over your attacking bases. So under equal forces without players both attackers and defenders you will lose.

I'm also talking about a sound victory, not one where you achieve victory in the last few minutes before the bvb timer expires and your kits auto-self destruct. You can do it that way, but what's stopping the defenders from deploying a clutch set of defending perma drones or suddenly your window of opportunity is gone when half the team wakes up and logs in?

The attackers need enough DPS kits to break through the defending kits' regen+resist, or enough player power to break through the defending player formation and then debuff enemy bases to overcome the defending bases.

At the lower end of defenses, you'll need 3x the forces. At the upper end, you'll need 5x or more.

All bases are being buffed the same way, of course, but the balance between attack and defense is being adjusted so that bases are tankier. This will make it so that more bases are required to break through.

This seems like an attempt to limit or do away with "Galaxy Assault". Which would give inactive players the ability to deploy kits and walk away. The ability for a large PvB squad to do anything is removed. This does two things in my opinion. It completely takes away an aspect of game play and the second which is very important. it allows players to spam kits all over the place and prevents any retaliation without a tremendous cost. So I spam a few kits in 10 gals, no pvb to deal with since bases now pawn players... my teamies do the same, throw an HQ down and bam, 100 gals claimed with little to no ability for other teams to do anything about. Now I can just sit back and collect the rewards as the rest of the player base goes crazy about not having any gals. Yeah, this won't piss off the entire player base besides those that want to spam at uni reset and take the rest of the uni off to collect their rewards... Grand idea...

There should always be a strength in numbers advantage! There has never been a war fought that if you overwhelmed an enemy with brute force you don't come out on top. yes you take casualties as the cost of war but you should be able to utilize players to beat a station. Galaxies should be built to withstand a pvb assault, not buff stations until there is no pvb assault...

Completely disagree with this change in it's current form. There should only be small changes to the current form.
1. The ability of base owners to prioritize targets. If I want station X to just heal teamies, there should be a button to push to prioritize player ships. If I want my station to attack station 12345. Then it shouldn't be magic if it works or not. Again, a button that will bring up a list of what is available to attack. Hit said button and boom it prioritizes that station. This will change gameplay as players will be docked at stations to prioritize attacks which adds to gameplay and doesn't subtract gameplay.
2. The ability to repair stations on the go, there should be a long wait to repair a station. Right now it's pretty much instant. Just on a logical point of view, if it takes 10 minutes for a station to be ready, then it should take even longer if it dies to rebuilt it to fight again.

Think of it this way:

The death of a base is like sinking a 1000 ft long super carrier.

The death of a player is like accidentally drowning a trainer airplane.

The cost of the trainer is 1/1000th the cost of the carrier. Ergo, you need to drown 1000 trainers before the cost comes anywhere near the carrier.

A galaxy is typically defended by about 10 kits worth of firepower. A typical ada kit is going to be valued at ~25b market value. So thats about 250b worth of stuff sunk into a typical galaxy.

How much does it cost to repair a player? Your typical player is going to cost 50m to repair his shit one death ignoring temp drones and stupid slaves. Assuming there are 20 attacking players and they each cost 50m a death, each of those 20 players need to die 250 fucking times.

People can argue all day long about how 250b value galaxy is paltry to 20 players valued at 500b worth of gear, but you don't actually lose any of that gear upon death and each player death is worth so little compared to a dead base.

Random PvB is cancerous as fuck and the reason why the dev team doesn't like it is this:

Say you're a British team. Bunch of blokes from the pub, all friends, decide to make a team and invest in some galaxies to build out of. They go to sleep. 3 hours later, them damn Yankees who go to sleep 6 hrs after you come over and wreck the place. When you wake up, you find all your galaxies are now dead and your ships docked in enemy galaxies.

Thats pretty shitty. How would you defend against that? Easiest way: Get some American teammates, people whom you met over the internet, to be your buddies. Easy way: Have people stay up half the night to ensure them crazy Americans o'er thar don't come looking for a fight. Expensive way: Overkill the galaxy with 4x the invested assets.

All for some random PvB that comes from a team you've never had issues with and whom based out of a territory nowhere near you.

Let me build upon this analogy...
Entire fleets of super carriers can battle each other until the end of time. Neither side will ever win no matter what. Because super carriers are so tanky.

The outcome of the battle is actually largley decided upon by whoever can win the trainer airplain fight. What the super carriers do prior to this time is largely irrelevant in the outcome of the battle.

You talk about galaxy assault this like it's a dynamic and intertwined process involving all elements coming together to win a battle (like how real life wars work). However, i'm seeing it more or less as two separate battles going on in the same galaxy. One that is much less important, and more of a formality (BvB), and the other a much more critical fight that carries disproportional weight when determining a victor (PvB). It is the imbalance i'm worried of. I'm worried BvB may happen a lot less because of the increased difficulty too.

This is my one and only gripe.

That can still happen under the proposed system. Infact, it could be worse. Currently, if you get AFK BvB'd your bases will at least attempt to kill players. In the proposed system your bases will be 100% distracted. You better hope your permanent drones can hold off enemy players because if not, you're going to die.

Increased difficulty will only happen to teams that are made of very few members, namely Ada Souls with its current 3 on off members (13, You, and NeonSword). You are technically banned, and NeonSword is fighting DSF on f2ps. It will be very hard for Ada Souls under the new system to fight a team like Aero with its 15 members because you can't field the PvP fleet needed to batter back Aero's members and eventually debuff the enemy bases. So per enemy base Aero fields, Ada Souls needs to deploy 5 of equivalent or better status to win on a reasonable timetable.

This isn't to say small teams cannot survive alone. It means they cannot take the offense alone. They need to expand their ranks to attack without requiring massive amounts of station assets to secure an enemy held galaxy.

I see it as one total battle because having air superiority does not mean you can completely sweep torpedo bombers from the sky or take out torpedoes already in the water. It just means theres a low chance of bombers dropping their load into the water, but any that do get into the water are still a huge danger to a mostly evenly matched capital ship slugfest, as disabling one or two ships can swing the advantage to the bomber's side and make an ultimate victory.

As for the "Secret Blitzkrieg BvB" you mentioned. A team needs to hold a galaxy next to its target for 24 hours. It also needs to be at war with the target team. When I said random PvB, I meant out of the blue no war done in 5 minutes PvB. You can't respond to that PvB. You can respond to someone declaring war and sitting outside your galaxy, though. Perma Drones and stations will be built and deployed by all but the most inactive teams. EXE kits will transform into STM kits even if they're piddly T12s. Every bit helps in case you are outnumbered by the attackers. More defenses mean more time to contact members so they can be online and dig in.

Under the new system, as the current system, I can only attack a handful of teams without them noticing. Zephyr, Aero, DM, EF, SRX, OLPG, and Traders are all teams that are active enough to recognize a new war and owned galaxy off their territory within the past 24 hours. Besides Aero and OLPG, these teams also need you to deploy station amps to produce enough attacking bases to reasonably win that side of the battle. So those guys need you to sit there for at least 3 days.

The rest of the teams? If they get wiped because they were afk, so be it.

So unless perma drones get buffed they'll be completely wrecked by bases, more than they already are? I fail to see how this change actually does what you're proposing.

If you're not online to defend a bvb, some joker can roll a 5 recov dem kit in, kill all your drones with it and then debuff the bases to zilch.
If base hps gets nerfed and regen gets increased there will be no such thing as "hps" kits. There will be dps kits with a shield trans. I fail to see how the defender meta will change from all hps unless it becomes all dps or recovery auged kits; if anything the lack of a need to kill players will finally remove that pesky SL kit and it'll be true 100% hps.
Of course, borders will be impossible to kill anyway if you manage to get this 3-5x the cost thing working (how?). stm kits will all be concentrated in the border gals, forcing an attacker to spend ridiculous sums on exponential cost amps.
I know there isn't exactly much small team bvb happening now but I really don't see how there could be if it actually became so expensive to attack one another.


What is meant by "increasing" base resistances? Do you mean everything except ada kits, or will ada kits become even tankier?

I just can't see how this change makes it easier to hold a galaxy without being online. The only thing it really does is mandate that pvb squads be accompanied by a recovery auged kit and possibly deck out to snipe drones

Bases won't attack perma drones if there are any bases in range to shoot.

All kits will see some increase to resistance as part of the increase to pulse gun damage.

It doesn't matter what they want to shoot. I can just make 500 range kits and fly them into drones.

Looks good to me (only giving my opinion because I was asked to, not trying to be arrogant)