The mechanic in question was part of the proposed bvb update that occurred during the PC vs Progress war, and was only patched in after the war had concluded. It was a compromise of the tactics at the time to bring them more in line with what the devs wanted.

It was a beautiful kit too. Mandys gal was unowned, defeat was asked for... A victory for DM i'd honestly be saying we shouldn't have won. About unowning bases with outpost... I don't think anyone can fault you for using a mechanism that's been in place for this long. I don't blame hooch at all.

Thing is, do you agree with the mechanism personally? Keeping what happened aside, what do you wish would happen in the future?

My view is capping was a flawed system, that specific system, maybe not capping in particular but things as we had it. The unowning after dropping an outpost seems like the opposite extreme. Its the difference between what used to be losing one to no geared bases to all bases. I'm just for some medium in between. (I'm 100% for there must be incentive for bvb or pvb etc).

But yeh, no hard feelings, at least here, hooch.

I do agree with the mechanic as it is now.

I have been here since the time of bases just dieing and then blowing up. No shell remaining, just debris floating in space.

This is a much better system as it is now. As you still have a chance to fight off the attacker, and reclaiming gear. You had no chance prior.

This current system gives both the aggressor and the defender plenty of time and opportunity.

I have been on both sides. Defender and Attacker, if you plan accordingly, build strongly, and act smartly you can win from both sides.

I wouldn't agree with this mechanic if it wasn't stupidly hard to cap bases in this game. There will never be enough rad dps to cap an entire galaxy, what with defenders being able to dock in spirits/pods to reclaim bases (unless that was fixed). Not to mention the ample time defenders have to pull stuff off of their bases with massively hulled ships.

There just isn't any incentive to cap kits; PvP is supposed to be a heavy part of this game, but without incentive for any kind of conflict, what's the point? There is nothing to gain for an attacking team, except the high probability of losing base gear throwing your kits into a hostile galaxy.

What i'd like to see (suggested on the SBP irc while discussing the issue) would be a better incentive for conflict, or base rad weapons.

The 2 attack kit limit killed the ability to cap an entire galaxy with the bases alone.

Base rad weapons would resolve that limitation, with that limitation gone, I would support removing the current unowning mechanic.

Would it be possible to add in a very short range 4d Rad laser that has a modifier to do more damage to bases or less damage to players?

The issue that I have with it is the system is too harsh on those without many resources, it takes a while to build up to the point where you can afford to lose some stuff and not feel the sting so bad... if this happens repetitively, then like we have all seen before people just get demotivated and start quitting. On the other hand after you cross this threshold it becomes ridiculously easy, thus much more boring.

In order to fix these problems there would need to be a structured environment (with a goal, variety of clear incentive, with more freedoms) that doesn't punish those who cant afford it as hard but gives end game players a fun method of (friendly and unfriendly? its a fine line atm) testing their might and reap the benefit of coming out on top.

The Anatolia/Emporer idea could be expanded, making it more intricate with much more conflict and explosions, but further incentive would be needed. Just dont make them commods, money, gear, or ships.

Easy mode is for Offline play, Communists and Progressives.

You want the fun without the potential for loss. That does not exists in any game worth playing let alone real life.

There is no realistic way to have an even playing field from a noob to a veteran, everyone paying would quit paying if there was no difference.

Competition is what drives successfully mmo's. That means the potential for loss. If you don't like that don't play mmo's.

Winners and losers. If you want everyone to be the same and no one wins and no ones loses. I will be the first to leave.

There is nothing unfair with the current system. There are choices. You choose how your team will succeed or fail based of your actions. This is a great system. It is open for anyone to learn to adapt and to overcome. And as such each team and each person on that team is responsible for that.

The biggest mistake DM made was waging war while their team space was unowned. This tactic wouldn't have been as viable otherwise.

its too harsh to go from no loss ship combat to losing everything bvb...

those that support it have never lost a whole galaxy to it

Stop using the name DM to describe what happened. We did not support a teamies actions but we defended the galaxy to the best of our ability accordingly.

Omg yes. Base rad weps would make this so much more controllable. Issue being the process of claiming the base by owner like you said.

Guess we'd be asking 'Could we not just implement radded everything can only be capped by the same person who radded?'. That would make it so ownership would be clear after radding. Also!! You want to make sure defending team can't rad back cause that will likely be easy to do. After radded, base is unownable and cant be re radded I'd think would be ideal. ( would that in itself make it abusable?)

We have to do something like that before base rad weps I'd think... (base rad weps! just sounds so awesome I want to put a gps ankle bomb on jey so he can't leave his computer til he makes it happen)

If you're making Base Rad Weps, it can't be a laser. That would be broken due to it's crit effect, we are looking for BvB weapons, not PvB. I would stipulate that a magcannon wouldn't be given enough dps to make it usable for this, but a pulse would be far too challenging to be used by all but the best BvB squads.

You have no clue how much I have lost during my play of this game.

I always get back up, rebuild, stronger that before.

Multiple wipes of my galaxy's while on Toxic due to wars, same while on Aidelon, had all of my funds erased while I was on Vanu Sovereignty, the original Death Mental attacked multiple times while on Progress. What it really boils down to is are you a quitter or a winner. That is each persons personal decision.


Goett no way should it be implemented like that. That part needs more thought. I am fine with the current procedure of radding out of bases. You should not be radding a base unless the players are dead, and they cant cap a base as a spirit.

Best solution would be to keep the base undockable once radded, until the conflict is resolved. Once the galaxy has been reowned, it could be caped. That keeps the base "out of play" from the point of being radded. Radded bases should not prevent galaxy ownership.

Short term ownership of a system not connected to team space should be allowed, no more than say 2 hours. The attacking team could then own the galaxy they have radded out, dock at the bases, but they could not BvB from that location, unless the rest of the team space is unowned.

Think we agreed 100% there hooch. All my posts are smartphone and might not have clarified, but we said the same thing essentially.

I was saying only the person who rads can own but said cap instead. Say that for 24 hours implemented?

That or undockBle at all for about 24 hours (by anyone). After 24 hours the fight is over. Only issue I see there is the original team could renown (under bvb rules they could own up to 2 bases with 1 connector and more bases with more connectors etc)

Btw it would IMO have to be a ethereal rad laser to be effective. To avoid crit could just make it high recoil so less overall chance to crit. Two weps at least I say, one a rad pulse for the last bases when assault kit is close range.