STRIKES DURING GARRISON ENGAGEMENTS

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but i have seen no recent discussions on strikes during an engagements. As of now it is almost impossible to destroy a defended xviii+ garrison when the defending team is using strikes. With the current strike mechanics, it only takes 6-8 strikes to kill an entire garrison bust team on a xix garrison from running out of metals. This will happen no matter what type of team is brought. I feel this needs some adjusting. My suggestion would be to limit the number of strikes that can be used on an engaged garrison. I understand high level garrisons are not supposed to be easy. However, with the use of strikes and novas. A garrison doesn't even need to be defended with a defense group and i feel that is broken. You could say that the offensive team needs to waste the enemies strikes, but with the amount given that would require an entire garrison busting team to die 4+ times before taking an effective shot at dropping a xix garrison. I feel some balancing with at least the strike mechanics with garrison busts would benefit the entire server. We have seen little to no attempts to roll either HitSquad's or BAMF's clusters and this is directly due, in my opinion, to the current mechanics strike have during engagements. I would like to hear anyone else's suggestions to possibly balancing this issue. Please don't take my post out of context. I am merely trying to find a solution to this issue that can benefit all. I, as well as many, enjoy busting and enjoy the challenge of taking an enemy cluster. Lets find a way to make this work.

another suggestion would be to allow resist stats like evasion or critical resist give some diminishing effect on the damage taken by strikes.

A month ago people were outraged that it was impossible to defend a Garrison, and said the game was permanently broken forever.
No garrison or strike mechanics changed since then.
I'm not convinced anything is "impossible" and worry that extreme hyperbole in community feedback will damage game balance.
If players want to give reasonable feedback that doesn't involve CAPLOCKS or EVERYTHING IS BAD, I'd love to read it.

Ozymandias
A month ago people were outraged that it was impossible to defend a Garrison, and said the game was permanently broken forever.
No garrison or strike mechanics changed since then.
I'm not convinced anything is "impossible" and worry that extreme hyperbole in community feedback will damage game balance.
If players want to give reasonable feedback that doesn't involve CAPLOCKS or EVERYTHING IS BAD, I'd love to read it.


Im not saying it is impossible. But it is nearly impossible. Full cluster rolls have been done since the strikes were implemented. But at first they were used to assist in defence. Now with garrison levels rising further the number of strikes available are also rising. Strikes now are being as used as defence instead of to assist with it. I believe some sort of limitation needs to be added.
Maybe instead of strikes replenishing every day it could be every 2 days. Or even the other suggestions i made in previous posts. But I feel something needs to be done.
Of course I would also love to hear what everyone else thinks.

I also feel that some balance is needed somehow. I agree a high level garrison should be a challenge and should cost some blood sweat and tears (as well as BD and a ton of mets). As is, however, one or two players can defend a garrison using strikes without ever even jumping a ship to the cluster. A couple leads or supers could do it without even hoping out of a rifty. From the same standpoint 10 novas could do it without strikes (though at least requires more work and planning). I don't think anybody is asking for it to be easy- just balanced with strategic and tactical nuances required to accomplish both defense and attack.

There have been changes to engagements since strikes were introduced. That change is additional platforms. Once these were added, the ability to use strikes on engaged sectors (or their effects) should have been revisited, but they haven't. Since the additional platforms are there, id say no strikes in engaged sectors is more balanced.

I'd rather see nova defense limited than strikes. Strikes are finite. Novas are unlimited. I have a couple ideas.
Max of 4 novas per engagement.
Every defender nova explosion lowers the number of defenders available for the rest of that garrison engagement by 1.
Nova damage nerf on garrisons similar to strike damage nerf.
Strikes are tough, but they run out. I think strategic options exist for beating a strike only defense. That's not true of a nova defense.
Thumbs down if you agree.

Mithraeus
I'd rather see nova defense limited than strikes. Strikes are finite. Novas are unlimited. I have a couple ideas.
Max of 4 novas per engagement.
Every defender nova explosion lowers the number of defenders available for the rest of that garrison engagement by 1.
Nova damage nerf on garrisons similar to strike damage nerf.
Strikes are tough, but they run out. I think strategic or toons exist for beating a strike only defense. That's not true of a nova defense.
Thumbs down if you agree.


Novas take a lot more preparation than strikes do. They are also limited by dura loss and the rp used to create them. I personally believe nova are indeed detrimental but not nearly as bad as strikes.
Though strikes may be limited, chaining them together is much easier than chaining a nova. Strikes also dont remove one defender from the field. Novas do. ( When defense is actually being used that is). Bd heals can be used to prevent deaths from Novas. The same can not be said of strikes. You bd heal from one, you get hit with another within seconds. And as ive seen most strikes are saved for defence purposes. This is true of all alliances. They are used in fleet but not nearly like they are for defense.
Getting past the strikes would involve getting the other team to use theres, which is not very viable with the way they are currently used. Unless you send a suicide team in for gb to die and repeat that death several times.
I don't think any changes to nova even if removed would fix what im seeing in garrison engagements. But that's my opinion.

I see the one argument. in order to defend against tanked carriers you need really min maxed kismet xxx gun builds.
other then that defending against anything else isn't as much of a challenge.
I've recently done a bunch of testing with high evasion during busts. when going up against a smaller alliance without min maxed defence setups ( with limited strikes and novas on defence) it is quite successful. however the highest garrison level they have is 19.
I haven't been able to test it against an alliance that does have min maxed setups as they tend to choose to not even attempt defence until they have run the bust team out of metals using strikes and novas.
the problem never was that defence was too hard (even before carrier tanks)
the problem was that defence was too easy. which facilitated the need for lvl 250+ tanked carriers in order to bust.
now with nova defence any bust team with a deflector can be stopped with a string of 1 to 10 hull naked nova ships. throw strikes on top for insanely easy defense.
if you try to run high evasion no deflectors you run into the problem of stun, specifically splash stun. I haven't found a viable combo that gives you viable evasion/attack/splash resist to survive and still do enough damage to drop an xx garrison. not without being around lvl 350 anyway.
if you want to see what I mean. reset strikes and attack bamf or hitsquad with Mythras lvl 700 ships and some other high lvl ships.

Oober

Mithraeus
I'd rather see nova defense limited than strikes. Strikes are finite. Novas are unlimited. I have a couple ideas.
Max of 4 novas per engagement.
Every defender nova explosion lowers the number of defenders available for the rest of that garrison engagement by 1.
Nova damage nerf on garrisons similar to strike damage nerf.
Strikes are tough, but they run out. I think strategic or toons exist for beating a strike only defense. That's not true of a nova defense.
Thumbs down if you agree.


Novas take a lot more preparation than strikes do. They are also limited by dura loss and the rp used to create them. I personally believe nova are indeed detrimental but not nearly as bad as strikes.
Though strikes may be limited, chaining them together is much easier than chaining a nova. Strikes also dont remove one defender from the field. Novas do. ( When defense is actually being used that is). Bd heals can be used to prevent deaths from Novas. The same can not be said of strikes. You bd heal from one, you get hit with another within seconds. And as ive seen most strikes are saved for defence purposes. This is true of all alliances. They are used in fleet but not nearly like they are for defense.
Getting past the strikes would involve getting the other team to use theres, which is not very viable with the way they are currently used. Unless you send a suicide team in for gb to die and repeat that death several times.
I don't think any changes to nova even if removed would fix what im seeing in garrison engagements. But that's my opinion.


Novas are limited by prep, but that's not really significant when you look at the number of low level novas are owned by multiboxers. 2-3 multiboxers can keep a steady stream of novas moving into garri sectors. Other than the dura loss, which is negligible if you own uc or r novas because repairs are cheap, there is no real downside to throwing novas at bust teams.
Strikes are finite. The bust team will suffer some deaths, but they will run out. It's more a question of will than mechanics with strikes.