(03-13-2019, 05:51 AM)Markam Wrote: Not everyone is happy, but all in all the changes made in this update were player driven. However for obvious reasons, stated by Wesker in particular, in-game player activity/pvp victories cannot dictate the outcome.
The situation with Omega 3, the outcome is likely the takeover of Aland, why? Because the story dictates Bretonia needs a Shipyard, and weighing all the options, Aland was the best solution. BAF was guided by devs, but BAF made the call. Updates will reflect what is the most logical outcome, regardless of player activity which of course can have illogical situations like IMG attacking New London/Cambridge, when they realistically stand no chance against Norfolk, especially now the Kessel was routed.
If they can't, we shouldn't bother with these situations. People don't really crave the need as much as you think for changing tides of wars if its all artificial. Just let everything stay the same in that case. It seems to me like over time, its that attitude that landed us in this situation. The fact that everything is organized behind closed doors leaves you wondering what really matters. If we have a system of measurement, any simple system, we can all publicly tell what factions are really capable of what impact by what they generate, and that takes people. Instead of seeing the liklihood factions would die in this situation while others dominate, see it as, once people know you have to push for a faction to get its gains, players make their choices and get to work. Things will even out.
The problem is half of us are in immersion mode and the other half are in a mode where we're just playing both sides of a chess game, and it doesn't matter. People never know if things happening are actually freely happening or just a dev guided performance.
Is this situation with Aland dev directed? Is it really going to save Bretonia from losing the war or is it just going to save post-war Bretonia from being a totally failed state?
Base sieges are about the only battle form that is always free flowing. As events, you get a clear answer of who wins and loses. But a lot happens without anything and it makes me wonder if its really necessary? Why not just focus on one area at a time to have an organized stand off, with a free flowing battle in the form of either a base siege (of the npc base in question) or kill counter event (which in the case of these wars should only count GB's and up, with due respect to fighter aces, its too easy for them to rack up fighter to fighter kills, when that doesn't really take care of an enemy fleet's capital ships, which are the real targets. Fighters should be for defending smaller ships, not racking up easy kills while ignoring the big ships).