And I agree, it is pointless. I come to GG to reap those rewards and for action. As I have said repeatedly Op4 doesn’t have a lot of assets on GG; we don’t need a lot. I will use the same battered SV or HV for multiple skirmishes until there is a point of no return and I remove it from planet to be scrapped. I don’t have 12 HVs or SVs sitting around ready to go. Currently I have 2. As you know Grizzly I don’t speak for the rest of the faction or the alliance, they do what they want. RexXxus can put in the restrictions, and the same result will happen.
I would like to add some perspective from a solo player. I’m just now getting my footing on the server and so far have only ventured once into GG. I was able to mine a couple asteroids and most of a meteorite on the planet surface before I was attacked by 2 SVs. Fortunately I was able to escape with my gold with minimal damage to my SV.
I rather enjoyed the experience and the challenge it presented, it gave me an opportunity to address some weakpoints in my SV build which I have now fixed and I look forward to my next trip.
Having said that, I honestly think addressing this is somewhat of a waste of time on Rexxxus’s part. I would much rather has as much of his time and effort focused on preparing for 8.0 and I think this issue will be addressed in 8.0 simply by virtue of the planet size. Right now with 100+ cores you can easily cover the entire planet and with a handful of SVs set up a system of patrols and effectively lock down the entire planet. In 8.0 the planets are going to be so big I doubt you could accomplish that with 3x that many cores. So I anticipate there being much more of a hunt in 8.0
To back this up let’s do some simple math. In 8.0 it is estimated that it takes and SV at full speed 20+ minutes to circle the planet. So to cover the entire surface would take 20^2=400 minutes. So even with spread out single ship patrols with 10 SVs, that would still take 40 minutes to cover the entire surface. As you can see at this scale it becomes much or of a hunt which is what I’m looking forward to.
3 Likes
Maybe, but we do not know what size GG will be…or IF it will BE at all.
So far this is the consensus.
I would rather they be huge; would make much more difficult scouting given the time it would take to allow other factions/ players the chance to setup instead of an instant Zerg attack. Plus add in all the extra resources the planet would offer, seems like a win/win to me.
2 Likes
Last season TAW along with ACP and HPG/NPC had control and monopoly over golden globe. The reason that for the most part they didn’t go over the core limit was because they didn’t split that one faction into multiple factions like they have this season, and because there was a hard cap on cores per faction last season, and because these factions were huge; mainly TAW. Last season at its peak it had 60+ members and ACP around 30+ and HPG/NPC around 30+.
Now the smaller factions like OP4, TPP, PKA, GRG and a few other even smaller factions; have united to defend and hold their positions. Theres not much new sense last season except that on this season the core limits have been overseen in different ways: per faction. At the moment its about how many members you have; before it was about hard core limits per faction. The main problem with last season was the spam of bases put down not only as huge clusters which TAW did have along with ACP and HPG/NPC but as outposts and attack bases, oh…and the ones they sometimes put down called Salty#1 and Salty#2 etc. xD
The 10 base per faction spam was fixed but the main problem wasn’t addressed which was the monopoly system which allows a faction that is huge! Big! or small to ally with as many other factions as it wants.
I did address this issue by 1) Suggesting Ally Faction Limits. Core caps just don’t make sense without faction caps.
- making a few large indestructible bases that can be used as a staging ground and protection ground for new and old players to mine and or fight on Golden Globe and no base spawning or only hand built bases with 1 to 3 as a limit; which would have the affects of less worrying about base spawning and more time fighting and mining gold.
Unfortunately, my advice wasn’t taken and the new issues that have arisen are no surprise to me.
Lastly this is not a bashing against TAW or their allies; for as Scipio Africanus told Hannibal before the battle of Zama when Hannibal told Scipio that he had made him; Scipio responded “no, you caused me to be.” 
The organizational skills of TAW/ACP/NPC and the strong adversity they provided us made us stronger and helped us get our act together to unit more effectively, if anything thank you my fellow enemies of battle. 
2 Likes
Here is your problem, and the alliances failure. You did not heed your own suggestion! You try to shift the blame to RexXxuS or Elion for allowing you to do something that you know shouldn’t be done. Learn a bit of SELF control.
So you do the same thing this season…
I fixed it for me when I left the giant LAG alliance. Have fun making excuses.
Let’s not force RexXxuS to do this again…
You left a giant so called lag alliance by joining another giant lag alliance plus their alt factions? haha Smart move bud heres your medal! 
You talk about restriant? pffs your a funny joker! Your allies have split factions. Ours are atleast original like pka, op4, tpp, grg etc.
For some strange reason your disappointed that we did something good like organizing our-self’s with other underdogs like our-self’s to create something truly remarkable; we smaller factions united and beat back and expelled a much larger bigger faction from places they used to control.
The reason i suggested faction limits last season and which i will continue to do so this season; is because i’m being realistic about the core cap limits of the planets. The problem is that if its not implemented in the game by way of faction limits to complement core cap limits on planets; one way or another a faction or a group of factions will abuse it by creating alt factions like TAW? Love you TAW but just pointing out some facts here to get to the truth of the matter.
3 Likes
i very strongly hope that game will change to allow only 1 alliance, its pretty pointless to try anything now, there is in EU and NA alliances that count up to 50-70 members and even more, that is crazy in any means
1 Like
ACP would do this to me after I gave them a hard time with my decoy bases lol. They would place “salt bases” where I had decoy bases on.
2 Likes
I have joined no such thing. Get your facts before accusing people.
1 Like
You did not get better TAW has 10 active members at most hpg had 5 so did ACP. it’s a far cry from 120. breaking the Alliance to give you guys a chance was a bad move because you guys abused it by allying with everyone. While ACP tried to help PvP you guys drive the final nail in the coffin.
1 Like
I was in on that organizing, you weren’t. Part of the plan was to split up and not take over GG.
You did no such thing. Last season ended with TaW still controlling GG. TaW was first to GG this season and it was Speed who met them there and attacked while they were building their first bases. Why they pulled out I do not know, you would have to ask them.
Yeah, YOU are!
etc = LSD, TCO, DAR, BOB (DARs kids?), SBF (Super Best Friends PKA alt faction that we vetoed and was deleted(Not to be confused with SNA Karouxa’s alt faction from last season)), AVE, and PoR (a 1 person faction).
1 Like
1 Like
I remember back in the day before alliances even existed…
Alliance: ‘Why you shooting me bro?’
Trader: ‘Sorry your ship was painted black, thought you were a pirate’
Oh how the times have changed, hopefully Eleon gives MP some lover after they get done with 8, but we’ve been saying that for 2 years now * le sigh *
1 Like
haha
#theoldguard
Reworked Anti Grief
AG device
Localized render (instead of the whole playfield, this will have HUGE impact in MP)
Bigger/better playfields
Countless other things we aren’t even aware of yet
I’m sure I’m missing some things.
Every patch people complain that either MP or SP is left out. From where I see things both sides have always gotten equal love (the other side just never acknowledges it, see examples above)
Based on info I’m hearing about current and future plans for GG and the current situation preventing a more balanced PVP environment due to core cap blocking of attacks:
First, I’ll define abuse as I would like my post to be interpreted: In this context, abuse constitutes being aware of and intentionally using an in-game limitation (e.g. max core count on a planet) in order to decrease or prevent the capability of an enemy launching effective attacks, mounting effective defenses, etc. For example, multiple factions allying together to reach a planet-wide core cap in order to achieve a mutual goal of preventing the non-allied factions from being able to spawn ships/bases/etc., especially when doing so prevents or greatly reduces size/scale/frequency/balance of PvP on the planet, creates a situation that cannot be countered, and/or prevents anyone outside the alliance from having any chance of gaining any kind of foothold.
There are two facts currently unavoidable: Abuse of game mechanics is guaranteed (e.g. intentional core capping by a large group of factions), and large numbers of separate factions forming as a workaround to per-faction core caps. Therefore, in order to limit the benefits of faction dividing, I propose greatly reducing the initial core cap per faction and increasing the benefits of having a large faction:
Reduce max sv/hv/bases per faction to 2sv/2hv/1base, and give a sv/hv cap bonus per 4 active members and base cap bonus per 8 active faction members for each faction (for instance, a faction with 24 active members gets a 6/6 sv/hv bonus and 3 max base bonus, etc.). Max base size ~class 3-5. This maxes small factions at 5 cores, 4+members gets 3/3 sv/hv, 8+members gets 4/4 sv/hv and 2 bases (10 cores), 12+ members 5/5 sv/hv, etc.
Set/increase max distance between allied bases to a significantly larger span to reduce their ability to share defense capabilities and abuse small faction formation. Giving a max base cap increase with higher faction counts encourages larger faction formation in order to make bases close.
Slightly reduce base weapon damage and/or durability to compensate for reduced number of max attacking units per faction.
The little guy who is alone typically has never benefited from any limitations, and this doesn’t help them either, but it does create a larger incentive for consolidating many small factions into fewer large ones. However, a faction with 30 active members will still only have a core cap of 9/9/4 SV/HV/Base, meaning 22 cores max for a big faction on GG. The effect is reducing total cores on GG significantly, and greatly increasing minimum build distance between allied factions preventing the 1-member factions from helping larger factions effectively. It decreases the abuse potential of game mechanics.
Realistically, most of the big fights I was present for this/last season involved a total active sv/hv count of about 6-12 total svs+hvs on each side of an attack. There’s no need for any small faction to have 15/10 sv/hv cores, and very little need for even larger factions to have that many. On average it’s more than twice the amount actively being used at any time by any one faction.
Giving small factions permission to have 3-5 bases, or even 2, increases abuse potential, especially if allied bases can defend each other.
I’m proposing these things all for GG/similarly contested worlds only.
There should not be the possibility to have an impenetrable fortress or base cluster on any hotly contested planet because of allied shared defense, or, especially, the ability for 10+ small allied factions to cooperatively core cap a planet and prevent most/all building and attacking against them. The small factions should be defensible by mobile allies, but not by allied bases. Alternately, they can join a larger faction that can create more bases tightly wound together for concentrated defense. With a 3-member faction having 5 max cores, it would take 20 of them to put 100 cores on the planet. That makes core cap abuse much harder. It’s still possible, but the persons would have to have multiple accounts and would have to rotate them frequently to keep things active.
Net goals: Reduce core cap abuse, reduce benefits of having many small factions in both offense and defense, make all structures more temporary and holding of planet more tenuous on GG/etc., make each sv/hv/base per faction more valuable, reduce redundant/unnecessary spare sv/hv cores on GG/etc., increase average faction size by increasing large faction incentives, keep PvP strong on primary PvP planets.
A new tactic will also become viable as a result: In a large scale attack, having a few defenders break off to attack the attackers’ more vulnerable bases (especially a small faction). Because allied bases would not be mutually protecting due to allied build distance increases, small factions could be taken down by such a strike. It could force new tactics, e.g. split forces defending and attacking on both sides, and more dynamic battles. To enhance this potential, I especially would encourage considering at least modest reduction of base turret damage.
I am a proponent of having limited offline raid protection (e.g. takes effect 30-60 minutes after all players are offline, but lasts only 24 hours), and I am not for having GG/etc. be PvE at any time. I think having greater distance between allied bases reduces abuse, and I also think that offline-protected bases should NOT attack (to make them not attack invites abuse of factions to put a bunch of svs/hvs at the ready waiting for a player to join; however, it would need active presence on the attackers’ side because otherwise the sv/hv turrets would all run out of ammo/fuel waiting for the defender to return). I think PvP should be active at all times on GG/etc., and I think the planets should be mine-able at all times.
And just remember: The more players within factions currently abusing/manipulating the meta who complain or dislike my suggestions, the better my ideas probably are.
1 Like
I like where you are going with this, however I have questions about a few things:
1
Why is this necessary? (I mean, more proof that this might be needed)
2
What distance are you thinking? 1000, 1500?
3
So 30 players all online and only 18 can be in battle vehicles.(9 HV 9 SV) The other 12 can be supplying ammo, base repair, tank repair/recycle/replacement, or logistics on/off the battlefield. I like it!
Should there be an extra HV or 2 for mining?
A 3 man faction could have a base down and:
- mine with 1 garage SV and defend with 2 HV tanks and a base
- mine with 1 HV and defend with 1 tank HV and 1 SV
- Mine with 2 HV’s and defend with 1 SV
- etc.
I see a lot of possibilities here. We like to drop 2 or 3 tanks each just to swap out quickly and preset the turrets. Smaller core numbers though would make it harder for others to zerg as that would leave no defenders. . . The more I think about this the better it sounds overall. @RexXxuS, @Smally, @Supreme_Admiral, @BigRed, @TheState, @Wiseman738, @WhoAmIForgetting
I have a strong belief this will have 0 impact on performance once you have it rendered and in battle.
I like when numbers are in play but can you refer your calculations and ideas based on this global limit too?
This is the big player here and I want to change it dramatically for HWS 8.
Maybe some can do some math for it.