I missed this one due to some schedule issues so I only have second hand experiences to rely upon, but from afar this looks like another "betrayal" by the devs.
Yes, I understand it's hard to account for player interest, especially in an open format like this, but some form of balance can always be made before the events' start.
(05-28-2023, 03:37 PM)Haste Wrote: The alternative as I see it would be to truly rig the in-game side of the event: restrict Zoner slots to 8, encourage Liberty to log in 40+ ships. So then you've got a more accurate depiction of what this conflict might look like. But would that be any fun for anyone involved? I don't personally think so.
There's a lot we could have done - and will try to do - better, but there will always be concessions we have to make to actually make the event fun to play.
Maybe it wouldn't have been fun, but it would have been honest, at least. I am always in favour of games offering asymmetric balance. Fun is subjective, otherwise nobody would consider videogames like Dark Souls fun.
You could offer asymmetric balance in other ways too, e.g. only allowing opposing sides to dock on bases that are differently spaced from the area of combat operations. That way you can essentially control the "trickle" of reinforcements during a respawn combat event. Or allowing Navy to field multiple Battleships while the Zoners only get Cruisers and smaller crafts.
Besides, couldn't the Alma have been retconned as heavily damaged instead of destroyed and then the solar just moved to Norfolk?
Robbing people of what they considered a hard-earned victory against the might of the Liberty Navy is not good for the morale and future attendance of such Story Events.
