This is what you wrote in your original post. I find the attitude quite puzzling, because people half the time will read the original post and comment on that. If your subsequent thoughts are so profound, update the original post. I for example, just read the first page.
read the word "small" it is there and it is blazingly obvious.
IMHO the nerf to siege frigates was a knee jerk reaction to the massive amounts of people who just bought the game and didn't know how to counter them
I still agree, they tried to correct it but did it in a completely useless way, sieging a planet (albeit not one with a zillion ships at it) is still possible, even if you go "blast the torpedos" and ignore defenses.
the fix should have been something that is utilitable by the defense. this isnt.
what was the old system, and how should it have been tweaked?
in the old system it was based on planetary upgrades, more upgrades meant more ships. as a result games were scaled to systems meaning that games in huge maps were actually possible (unlike now).
the strategy *never* created the issue of a rolling stone game, even if someone did spend the resources to grab a planet the amount of money it costs to fortify it against counter attack *and* to buy the planetary upgrade
massively exceeds the military investment that the assaulted player could use to refortify his army.
if they wanted to tweak it they should have *supplemented* the system with a research based alternative like they have, in which you can sacrifice a portion of your economy to gain a relatively huge boost to your military power. sure the other player could do it as well, but as long as it takes away from his eco he really shouldnt want to.
that sort of fix would have worked far better than the current one which utterly annihilates larger games. its something I'm still fairly pissed off about.
to say the system does not need tweaks, though, is naive.
