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.
I really think the real impact of 8.0 faction wars is the removal of the Red walls.
From what I’ve seen of GG, bases have staged against the red walls as a defensive strategy.
Now even if you build against the northern or southern most building line where the red walls were, your bases are now vulnerable to 360º attacks. Before attacks were limited to 180º in these scenarios (realistically 170º), as such defenses could be concentrated to maximize protection from those sides, now defenses will need to be spread out to ease attacks from all sides, inherently reducing overall base defense.
Reducing base damage would allow small attack groups to do significant damage to undefended bases while the base owner is attacking the faction/allies currently mostly in defense mode. It would potentially introduce more balanced or thoughtful attack and defense methods from both sides.
750-1000meters ally base distance to start, tweak along the way.
Extras are part of the problem of core caps etc., so no extra HVs.
With the 15/10/2-5 rule about to be reinstated, GG begins with 27-30 cores per faction. If I’m reading your global restriction system correctly, it means 19.85 PvP (non-private) structures for a 1-person faction plus 4.85 extra structures per faction member. If this is accurate, then a 3-player faction can place 29 structures. This heavily incentivizes separate factions, which with ally help can all be placed/used on the PvP planet being “held” by an alliance. 1 person making 19 structures (or 3 people making 27-29 structures) means it only takes 10-11 separate 1-person factions (which means less than 10 people if they use alt accounts) or 7 3-person factions (21 non-alt account players) to easily core cap a planet. This is about 1/8 to 1/4 of the population of the server during busy times, which means it could theoretically be done 4-8 times over without anyone exceeding max global structures. Every planet could be “owned” this way if people were organized enough to do it.
The global cap, if I’m reading the numbers correctly, doesn’t have any direct bearing on the limits I’m proposing, because the limits I propose always stay well under the global cap.
As described… 7-8 factions with 3 members per faction (21-24 players total) can core cap GG/etc. with these limits if they want to. However, if you bring their 27-30 max GG cores down to 5/7/10/12/15/17/20 (with active players per faction of 1-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-15, 16-19, 20-23, etc…) per faction, it becomes much more difficult for NON-alt-account-ing players to core cap GG/etc. 20 3-member factions would contribute a max of 100 cores to a planet, which IIRC is around half the core cap. Suddenly the number of players/alt accounts required to core-cap the planet increases to about the peak population of the server.
This all may not impact game performance much/at all, but it will make it much harder to abuse certain game limitations/features on a single playfield. However, as long as alt accounts are allowed on the server, there will be people trying to abuse the system using them. 1 person having the relative value of 2+ in a system that adds bonuses for more players creates many potential problems if people decide they want to abuse it. The system I propose makes them have to work a lot harder to accomplish the same thing, and we all know that people trying to exploit/sidestep/bend rules are always looking for the easy, oblique solution to “get around” problems.
Again, global structure limits = no effect on the situation happening now. If you want to reduce the faction/alliance ability to take and hold multiple planets (I don’t see that as a problem currently or in the future), then reduce the global structure max for faction PvP and bonuses per faction member. I’d start by cutting bases down to 2+0.5 per member and svs/hvs to 3+1 per member, and see if people start complaining and what they complain about. If no complaints, then drop it a little more until complaints begin, at which point you raise it to the threshold of few/no complaints.
I do not propose changing the PvE structure limits at all. Large factions and alliances sharing paid planets already have no trouble capping core limits on those planets, partly because there many be 30+ players inhabiting the same planet.
Bases already take a LOOONG time to deal with a single class 1.49 SV, By reducing base damage all you’re doing is essentially removing any chance a base has to do a moderate amount of damage. If anyone on this thread is finding bases too hard to handle then they need a new SV design.
Why? It can be fun to have bases set-up close to one-another and to share in the defensive zone. Though TBH this isn’t a killer for us as this season we’ve done just fine with bases being nearby but not on-top of one-another.
This is the root of the problem; not the core-limit, or the global limit; but purely people abusing the mechanics; this is the real conversation that needs to be had, as once again us lot on EU are having the rug pulled out from under-us despite not doing anything wrong.
Just like OLP, if your ideas were constrained to NA then i wouldn’t care, but trying to apply a whole-scale ‘solution’ to both servers when only one of them has a ‘problem’ just gets really frustrating to deal with. A constantly changing series of events due to one alliance in a galaxy far, far away not playing honourably.
If i had it my way i’d put a disclaimer in the ‘fairplay’ section stating: “If the server owner believes that a single faction or alliance is purposefully using the ‘core-capping’ technique then he reserves the right to delete structures at will after seeking their removal from the owners.”
This is my two cents. I’m just starting to get the same nasty taste in my mouth here that is identical to the taste I had during the OLP discussion; people making a whole lotta ‘solution’ ideas to problems that come down to people not playing honourably, and comes down to a single server.
Best regards
Wise.
So in practice your idea is an idea. But i disagree with the entire principle of us trying to change the whole meta to cater to a minority of players who aren’t playing well.
3 Likes
I have not said that I believe the same rules should exist for NA/EU servers. I’ve heard over and over how the EU players tend to be more respectful (cultural thing perhaps) and I see no reason to push them into the same limits as the NA players. However, I also don’t see the suggestions I’ve just made as very limiting to anyone who isn’t trying to abuse the rules. If anything, I think my suggestions encourage more planning and less excess cores on any server/playfield affected by them.
And if the players manipulating things to bend the rules are truly a minority, then the effects of their behaviors shouldn’t be allowed to be so large. Yet, they are.
I’m proposing no changes to PvE limitations. Many players are content with PvE for the most part, and they will not be affected. Single players visiting these prime PvP planets only occasionally will also not be affected much/at all since they typically won’t exceed the core caps except for bases…and what does a 1-player faction need multiple bases on GG for, anyway?
1 Like
Hey Form, firstly cheers for the quick reply! 
That’s a certain start! I’d be perfectly happy if these changes applied strictly to NA. That said, however it is more work for Rexxus to do so therefore it may be applied to both which scares me as it’s another NA fix to an NA problem hitting EU (Similar to the very heated OLP discussions in the past) and with Eu i think it’s just because we’re a bit older server-wise than NA so a lot of the issues NA are having were already ironed out on EU in the past, as historically all of the North Americans I know are some of the politest folks out there
I believe that this once again falls down to a moderation issue; albeit more blurred than the kinds of things that were going on in the OLP thread as there are no super explicit rules or means against ‘core-capping’. But perhaps limiting an alliance to so many factions is the only way to go. I’d start with 5 factions per Alliance; and if we need to then we can limit it down to 3 after extensive testing. Moreover i’d just like to see the cheeky buggers punished (the ones trying this strategy; whoever they may be).
This is a point we both agree on yet I’m not sure how one would set this up so it didn’t annhialate solo factions on the prime-time playfields (Though i don’t think they frequent them much either). For this i’d like to here of any ideas that folks such as @Daddystu may have; as he’s one of the fiercest one-man faction players I know!
Best regards
Wise
1-man factions can’t be expected to hold a prime battleground. They’re visitors, they come in, get some stuff, and leave unscathed if they’re careful. They don’t need a permanent presence. To give them the ability to do more also gives too much free range for other factions to abuse features related to core counts.
I believe it is far easier for Rex to just set limits than for him to have to constantly investigate/count/decide/punish every complaint sent his way.
I think this is pretty valid. How would the proposed limits affect you on EU? Remember they are just for GG/Arma/HW not global.
I avoided mentioning faction alliance limits partly because AFAIK it’s not implemented in a way for that to be possible ATM or in near future…and also because I still think the potential for abuse is stronger as long as alliances can build close to each other.