I'm curious to know why you continue to assume that the thoughts of others could only ever fall within the parameters you have set for them, which comes across as trying to frame the issue for everyone else whether that's your intention or not, but as I neither support nor hate Aegis and trust doesn't come into it
I have not denied the existence of those who don't particularly care one way or another, I just didn't think it relevant to the question of if Aegis has supporters. Certainly I would think they are the majority. And our definition of supporters may also be slightly different - there are many who will support any CG if it is the only option they see, but does that really tell you much? Every one-sided CG succeeds. When I am talking about support for Aegis, I am focusing on support for Aegis specifically, not just whoever happens to be running the only CG this week. People who show up
because it is Aegis, and they support Aegis. Maybe "dedicated supporters" would be a better way to put it.
I have supported them without being dedicated to them as have many other players, it's not a requirement.
You seem determined to paint every player as a supporter or a hater as if no state existed between and with all due respect that's nonsense. Since it doesn't apply to me or probably most people I say you are simply wrong about that. The most I have heard anyone say is Aegis are useless, which fdev made happen and not the players, as I explained before. Dedicated actions against them? A tangible, checkable example would help. Assertions don't count.
I will be biased towards my own actions here and cite Socho. Take
this GalNet for example.
That was me. A couple of other GalNets also cited it, then Dantec was
UA bombed by players. For the second time, actually - while I was working in Socho, I bumped into another guy randomly in Open who was in the process of UA bombing Aegis then as well. I assume that was a bit too much stuff to fit in all at the time, however, so Frontier just waited for
another guy to show up and do it again.
As a result of all this,
Aegis relocated to the Sol system. I later learnt that this had resulted in an actual change of home system in BGS terms, allowing me to fully retreat them from Socho. If there are any dedicated Aegis supporters hiding out there, I'm afraid you've missed your chance (of a few years) to help protect them.
I think it is simply that players have seen that no matter what they do for Aegis, when they are given the chance to do anything at all, Aegis still fail regardless of their efforts. If the story won't let them succeed and stacks the deck against them no matter what, what can players do but cut their losses? I can be sad about that without being an Aegis fanboy. If someone else can't that's for them to deal with.
On the contrary, Aegis has had many successes. They successfully built many stations in the Pleiades and lead the superpowers to invade Witch-Head. They commissioned engineers to build AX weapons. These are actions that Aegis set out to do, and succeeded at. Through one-sided CGs mind you, but I've already gone over that.
AX has been consistent with no noticeable drops in AX activity for the whole time, so from the AX point of view I imagine it's not a case of taking sides either, but simply who might be able to get them better weapons. You can't just ascribe the same, simple motives to an entire playerbase and I believe it is a fundamental mistake to do so.
Oh yeah, I agree with you there. Everyone has their own reasons. I actually already had the AX playerbase generally filed under "probably doesn't care either way so long as they can do AX" because yknow, that's their thing. Obviously that does not apply to everyone, but I'd say they lean that way if I have to. Anecdotally I remember seeing a number of AX players suggesting that they not defend one of the less recent attacks, so that stations could burn and they'd get their AX CZs.
I think what is actually happening and the reason why people are doing the Salvation stuff is because it has become obvious that Aegis are not achieving anything and after 3 years of the Thargoid War going nowhere people are simply trying move the story on a bit.
But like I say, they have. We have prior experience of what Aegis is about, and it seems that the general consensus in these recent CGs is that people prefer Salvation. Again there are a whole range of reasons here - there will be newer players who are approaching this conflict with only knowledge of recent events, there will be those who don't particularly care and just want to support the newer guy.
But if like you say, it has become obvious that Aegis are not achieving "anything"...that's part of the story. Their actions are misguided. It is not some bias if people have started to notice that the AX organisation is actually pretty bad at doing their jobs. It's part of the story. And perhaps it is just that their stated goals differ from their actual ones, or the goals of their masters. Why would they want to actually end the war when it is their job to keep it going?
Unless there's a twist coming where Aegis succeed despite the odds it seems it has been pre decided, not by players but by the story itself, that Aegis won't be the way forward.
Players decided not to support Aegis against Salvation. Players decided not to support Tanner against Taurus. There seems little proof to say that Aegis's failure is pre-determined when the score is currently 0-2 in the choices we have been offered. It seems to correlate pretty well with the CG outcomes.
TL;DR: The weight of Aegis's past actions is not a bias.
