I think you should limit team ownership of the amount of bases in w0-1 to 5 then that will fix the problem of people laying down hostile bases to block content. Then you can go back to allowing 5 bases in a warred teams owned adjacent gals. I think re-writing the wheel here will cause another giant catastophe of ironing out details and future bugs. Create a fix that works now, easily able to spot exploiters, easy for you to code and implement now.

You need to have a minimum team score of 250, as well as a direct border between the galaxy you want to seige and your HQ. Fake teams cannot easily get over 250, i assure you, nevermind securign large amounts of space to hit that score, without getting invaded by another real team. Makign fake teams to do that is just not viable.

The system of extra base slots for a second team if warred works.

Well, even ignoring fake teams, you still have alliances of real teams, or taking 1 real team and breaking it into 4 min-teams who could all have 250. Also, what's to stop someone from unowning their galaxy in w3? If the galaxy is unowned, then how do you determine if an "attacking" team should get 5 extra slots or not?

Well, to break this down a bit...

1) Alliances warring eachother would cause so much gg loss and credit loss from the wars it simply becomes not viable whatsoever. Not to mention chances are that if your alliances borders your gal in question, chances are your enemy does not, and in the RARE exceptions of this, if peopel do decide to defy logic and do it, the warring team can submit a ticket and wait.

2) If teams decide to plsit up to do this, they make even more problems for themselves besides with number one.

3) The rule, as I remember it, only says that there are 5 extra slots for a second team. The bvb is a different rule which says that you may build in a warred teams galaxy if you have satisfied a number of conditions (bordered, 250 score, owning the gal for 24h, 1 hour after declaring war, etc). If they unown it, theres still 5 extra slots for a second team, and ocne again, in rare occasions when teams decide to use this for an exploit, tickets can be made. Its fairly obvious to see when it happens.

The only change I can think of that would be needed, is making it so you cannot unwar a team as long as you have bases in their galaxy.

I was lazy and did not read anything past the first 3 posts, but suggestion 2 seemed pretty dang awesome. If someone wants to be lazy and make solid t9s that is fine, but someone else can make the same amount of t20 so it does not penalize effort like the current system does.

Suggestion 1 is also a fantastic idea. It will be annoying to have to use t9 boosters or just straight CA kits but the fixes it offers more then outweigh the need to make a new CA char or some such.

Jeff large teams breaking down into smaller teams and having war declared on teams is illogical, it would cost tons and the small sub-teams will also be missing attacks in there team chats. There are downsides to that, I dont think sub teams is something u really need to worry much about.

i have like 6 t0's in my gal cuz they use less slots for CA boosters and extraction bases.

Tech 0 CA boosters is arguably an exploit. It's certainly on the stupid side of things.

Any fix that involves non-coded rules that players have to follow or get banned will not work. If they worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion since there is already such a rule about low level base spam.

Personally, I'd rather see bases nerfed to the point where they can be killed by ships, and bvb made pretty much impossible. (Jeff, if you have time please take a look at my posts in Aurora's thread in suggestions for the details). Bases should be strategic assets, not tactical ones.

However, if you want to keep bvb in the game, here's a really simple suggestion:

Make a new line of "assault station kits" available in every tech from 9 up. Make them ignore the code for the number of station slots in a galaxy. Limit each team to deployment of 3 or 4 or some other balanced number of them, just like we're limited to one HQ or Outpost.

Yes, a team could deploy their assault kits in their own gal to boost their number of stations there, but it would be limited by the cap on assault kits they can deploy, and if they put them in their own gals, they wouldn't be available for bvb.

I suggest BPs that convert an already built station kit into an assault kit, easily available at a W0 AI base. You'll need separate BPs for all of the upgraded kits too (laconia, adamantium, etc.). To keep it simple, just give the assault kits the same stats as the kit they're made from.


One last detail: You'll need an item, similar to a demo kit, that removes the "assault" tag from the base. Of course, it won't work if there aren't enough galaxy slots available for a normal base. This will allow attackers to leave their bvb kits in place after the gal is subdued, and then have slots to deploy asault kits in the next gal.

I would also like to propose a 5 minute per-player cooldown on deploying bases.

This is just pure annoyance. What purpose does this solve?

You can't see a bvb attack incoming and go "omg" and place 6 tech 6 bases in 2 seconds. If there's 1 slot free in the system, you can't just Spam the base kits constantly while attackers kill them.

Solves the problem of me making any from of a defense at uni start...
Thats a great idea Jeff, another way to make Resets a pain.

At reset lots of teams deploy low tech bases to mark their territory. I know some see this as bullying, but I see it as a courtesy. It helps prevent small or mid-level teams from getting wiped out when they accidentally deploy in the middle of a big team's area. Being on a largish team, I've also avoided areas marked out by small teams I didn't want to crush just because I'm a nice guy. A five minute cooldown or removal of small, low-tech base kits would make this impossible.

What did you think of the "assault kit" idea? I thought it would be much easier for you to implement than most of the other ideas.