Actually the description of the game on the main page barely mentions pvp and nothing about bvb at all.
It is all about PVE and building how about we follow that and just remove bvb from the game.

Just make sure destroyed bases don't count toward the limit maybe? Then all those T0s can be one hit killed, and new bases can be laid down. Destroyed bases would have to be unrepairable as long as the system's slots are full though.

TBH, I preferred it when nobody could deploy a base in an owned gal. That was the whole point of ownership. I say just go back to that rule and make bases a bit weaker (again) so that BvB isn't necessary.

I am ok with this provided it is only applicabel when both sides declare. Otherwise a team with high levels could easily take out a lower lvl guys bases because by the fact that he is lower level the lvl restriction on his ability to get equivalent station mastery to the higher level means he has no chance.

I would suggest an alternative that in a BvB situation ie placing bases in a hostile gal then bases cannot be transferred whilst hostilities remain. This would eliminate the possibility of pvp range avoiding and give the lower lvl (which is often on a smaller team) a fighting chance.

Otherwise I can see high level guys being able to arbitrarily go pooning low lvl bases with no real chance of losing.

Killer80

I have enjoyed reading this thread. Both sides have some compelling arguments. That said, I must add that I've never been involved in any wide scale bvb or wars. That doesn't prevent me from seeing the possibilities and what I think are mistakes in implementing these changes so quickly.
I do think it is patently unfair of the admins to allow a tactic one day and then to ban it the next. The Goose and the Gander maxim applies here. The appearance of favoritism is obvious.

I know that any argument at this point is, well, pointless.
It has been decreed and coded so it will become reality. Soon
Code can be just as easily removed. Let's hope that happens.

Most of us have neighbors we like and trust and build alliances accordingly. That's why these 2 warring teams are so far apart. They don't like each other. If a war were to break out between the USA and Argentina should the USA move the Pentagon to Columbia or take over all the countries in-between in order to maintain control over the first 50? Should we take a few Canadian provinces so we can connect to Alaska? That is an apt analogy. That's what the US Navy is for. Command and Control can be achieved from the bridge of an Aegis cruiser or a carrier or from any number of other ships that are mission capable. The same should apply here as well. To force a team to risk everything in order to war an enemy seems extreme. I think it's wrong. A battle HQ and Battle Outposts make much more sense than all of this other stuff. Have them coded so that war must be declared before they can be purchased. That way the surprise attack aspect is maintained and the target team won't know for sure where the attack is coming. All they will know is that one is imminent. This, to me, is a much more common sense approach to the issue. Team A will still have to transport massive amounts of gear across vast distances. Those transports would be vulnerable at many stages. Alliances would be tested. This to me has a much stronger "real world" feel. The 1st gulf war and all the preparation comes to mind. It's obvious that people who play the game and even some who quit have strong feelings about this game. Just as the re-balance created conflict, so too has this issue. Admins, in the future, please take the time to consult the playerbase before you make a decision that makes such a dramatic change in the mechanics of war. Even one of the devs thought that combat outposts were a good idea. It appears that it was originally a players idea. That makes the point that you missed that one originally. That also asks the question, did you miss something else in the rush to implement this? I think it's likely.

The resiliancy of the playerbase and it's ability to adapt to extreme changes is a credit to the quality of the players this game attracts. Yet you underestimate us every time. Why?

I hope that, in the future, the admins and devs would implement a player advisory board. That way when problems come up we can be a part of the solution.

Market

Now if the admins would realise they are not dealing with a bunch of children that can not be held accountiable for their actions. Then they would understand that they could talk to us from time to time about some issues that they dont have direct involvement in, and yet recive honest information.

< Klor >

lol... i'll say this again.. wouldn't a war outpost/HG be simpler and easier?? I know the development crew is going to add it... but i mean.. an outpost... to cut off number "2. the adjacent owned galaxy must have been owned for 24 hours before deployment in the victim's galaxy "

I just thought it's simplier to do offensive stuff first then this Proposed War Changes