Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Wraith

Successfully Defended Ports Should Count as a Win, Loss for Attackers

Successfully Defended Ports Should Count as a Win, Loss for Attackers  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Should ports that are successfully defended count as a win for the defenders (+1 battle point) and a loss for the aggressor (-2 battle points)?

    • Yes
      18
    • No (please explain)
      20


Recommended Posts

As the title suggests I feel like a port battle that is initiated should result in a win/loss condition no matter whether you are the attacker or the defender. By doing so you would deter frivolous port flipping and or multi-flipping by a zerging nation. And at least for a week flipping a port via double/triple/multi flipping but no-showing one or more of them would result in a net loss of battle points.

Edited by Wraith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That or -1 battle points for attacker.  -2 losing a pb + port for defender loss vs -1 for attacker only losing a pb and not a port.

Edited by Prater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would lead to less attacks, and less PBs. Because people wouldn't want to take the risk, and PBs are already high risk low reward and little chance of victory due to defender advantages.

Also this would lead to fake attacks to give other nations points and thereby map-win. Some nation could pay another nation or clan to flip every region they had, and thereby almost double their points that week without having a single actual PB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anolytic said:

This would lead to less attacks, and less PBs. Because people wouldn't want to take the risk, and PBs are already high risk low reward and little chance of victory due to defender advantages.

Defender advantages have largely been nullified and I would argue fewer but more invested port battles isn't a bad thing at all.  Why should the entire focus of the game be daily port battles?  I'd argue that port battles should be a rare occurrence with far more importance placed on large, mixed fleet open sea warfare.

1 hour ago, Anolytic said:

Also this would lead to fake attacks to give other nations points and thereby map-win. Some nation could pay another nation or clan to flip every region they had, and thereby almost double their points that week without having a single actual PB.

How is this any different than paying another nation to go flip multiple ports they have no intention of fighting and just using them as a distraction? I think that making port battles matter, and making the choice to raise hostility in a region to the point of a high-stakes port flipping battle, should be a decision not be made lightly.

1 hour ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

Alts FTW

How does this have anything to do with it?  Are you seriously arguing tat a nation would go to the trouble of raising hostility on their own ports with alts to trigger a port battle that the alt nation wouldn't show up to just to get 1 battle point?  LOL you French must truly be hard up for victory marks to think up something so contrived. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wraith said:

How does this have anything to do with it?  Are you seriously arguing tat a nation would go to the trouble of raising hostility on their own ports with alts to trigger a port battle that the alt nation wouldn't show up to just to get 1 battle point?  LOL you French must truly be hard up for victory marks to think up something so contrived. 

3 ships can do it in a couple hours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

3 ships can do it in a couple hours

I'm not arguing the mechanics with you I'm arguing the intent.  Please, take a few of your GB alts and raise hostility at Castries and see if we don't show up or you get a Tribunal over it. No nation would take that risk or expose their alts for a single battle point or to cost the other nation battle points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

3AM Ninja Flippers!  :ph34r:

Why wouldn't you just take an enemy port if you had a night crew capable of flipping ports? I mean seriously, the level of alt hysteria and paranoia is at an incredible level these days. :) 

Edited by Wraith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wraith said:

I'm not arguing the mechanics with you I'm arguing the intent.  Please, take a few of your GB alts and raise hostility at Castries and see if we don't show up or you get a Tribunal over it. No nation would take that risk or expose their alts for a single battle point or to cost the other nation battle points.

And basically all inclination to make use of alts is being reduced if the devs simply states that flipping a port through alts will result in a perma-ban. - some will do it ofc, at the price of 30€..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I thought about it I would say yes the defender should get 1 point for a win/defense but the other day when some one defended the GB port that France didn't go into I thought.  That is a cheesy  way to get 1 point by getting a friendly nation flipping your ports and just not showing to port battle. I think the devs did it for that exact reason where folks would attack each other ports but not show up to flip points. 

Though I do think Port Battles should have some type of reward now that it's not Conquest marks. We should go back to getting the paint chest or something for wins of a port battle no matter if it's an attack or defense win.  Right now the RvR guys do all the hard work and if they win the map than the rest of the nation that sat on there butts gets rewarded for that hard work.  That are maybe the top RvR guys get an extra Victory points or something for that nation that fought and won battles.  With the conversions of CM to VM they really don't mean much to win the map for the week cause I can make 175 CM in a night of grinding AI fleets or some good PvP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bearwall said:

And basically all inclination to make use of alts is being reduced if the devs simply states that flipping a port through alts will result in a perma-ban.

False, alts have rights too. ^_^

And again I'm not opposed, but any mechanic needs to be balanced taking this into account. So providing the proper trade-off to the Rear Admiral club that invokes a tactical decision (which character should I back today?).

Any simple "top Nation gets marks" will not put an alter off balance. Just stick a character in that/any Nation. (Although Dave the Imposter has gone completely against all odds. :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted no .... why should defending get you points ...you havent gained anything .. the reward is you keep your region .... too many exploits available if points given for a  defence ...

also a penalty for a failed attack will get rid of rvr in the game ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Before I thought about it I would say yes the defender should get 1 point for a win/defense but the other day when some one defended the GB port that France didn't go into I thought.  That is a cheesy  way to get 1 point by getting a friendly nation flipping your ports and just not showing to port battle. I think the devs did it for that exact reason where folks would attack each other ports but not show up to flip points. 

Though I do think Port Battles should have some type of reward now that it's not Conquest marks. We should go back to getting the paint chest or something for wins of a port battle no matter if it's an attack or defense win.  Right now the RvR guys do all the hard work and if they win the map than the rest of the nation that sat on there butts gets rewarded for that hard work.  That are maybe the top RvR guys get an extra Victory points or something for that nation that fought and won battles.  With the conversions of CM to VM they really don't mean much to win the map for the week cause I can make 175 CM in a night of grinding AI fleets or some good PvP.

RVR is currently imo in its best  state since the flag system dissapeared ..... those that like RVR can do so .. those that dont like RVR ..dont have to . as you point out you dont have to RVR to get conquest or victory marks .....if a nation wins everyone get a reward ...

if you consider RVR hard work ... dont do it .. extra points ..special rewards ,,,just create problems  arguments over who gets in the battle who doesnt  ... leave  special rewards out of RVR

this system may bring what we want of more diverse port battles .. 25 people with first rates  may not want to take part in port battles without special rewards ... so players with smaller ships can get in

Edited by Grundgemunkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Anolytic said:

This would lead to less attacks, and less PBs. Because people wouldn't want to take the risk, and PBs are already high risk low reward and little chance of victory due to defender advantages.

Also this would lead to fake attacks to give other nations points and thereby map-win. Some nation could pay another nation or clan to flip every region they had, and thereby almost double their points that week without having a single actual PB.

Yes, but on the other side it will lead to more serious attacks. No fakes, this will force attackers to show up. Right now they can just grind hostility everywhere and not show up (Cartagena, Dutch didn't come)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Yes, but on the other side it will lead to more serious attacks. No fakes, this will force attackers to show up. Right now they can just grind hostility everywhere and not show up (Cartagena, Dutch didn't come)

To be fair, that's nothing compared to how much of a problem fake attacks used to be. The effort and manpower required for the hostility grinding - especially if contested - is reason enough to dissuade fake attacks already. Is Cartagena the first unattended attack thus far? I can't recall hearing of any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Wraith said:

Please explain

It will prevent nations from trying to attack the leading nation and act as a limiter to PvP and PBs. It should be possible to challenge the the map leader at all times, this should be the price of being "Top dog". The risk of losing the nations PB fleet is enough risk when attacing. If we also risk securing the enemy's position at top even more then we would only dear to attack/flipp a region when we where sure we would win. Because that is not possible it will make nations hesitate even more and in the end preventing PvP/Pbs.

The OP is a seriously ****** suggestion and if this gets traction it will make the Victory mark system even worse than it already is.   

Edited by Tiedemann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tiedemann said:

Because that is not possible it will make nations hesitate even more and in the end preventing PvP/Pbs.

But the problem right now is that PBs are preventing open world PvP because it takes so long to grind or countergrind hostility, and as it has been for almost a year now, hostility grinding is by far a more PvE- than PvP-generating activity.

If PBs were considered a truly momentous occasion, ones that you undertook only when you seriously had the resources put in place to make it count then it would free us up to do more open world raiding, hunting, etc. Right now it's just too easy to trigger a port battle with a few hours of grinding, making the opposing nation have to organize a fleet, and then you show up to an empty port battle and sail around for 30 minutes.

Believe me, the US used this guerrilla tactic to great effect on PVP1 pre-wipe, and it's not that multi-flips and no-shows would be impossible, it may just delay you getting the rewards for taking down the top-dog until the next week because you got a net loss in battle points but took a port.  And making such a change actually benefits small nations more than large, since it's the zerg that can most easily trigger multiple port battles, no-show one and the smaller nation has no hope of defending both. The deterrence of no-showing a port battle as an attacker may stop the zerg from attempting to steamroll a nation like that since it may cost them victory points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wraith said:

But the problem right now is that PBs are preventing open world PvP because it takes so long to grind or countergrind hostility, and as it has been for almost a year now, hostility grinding is by far a more PvE- than PvP-generating activity.

This is not my experience. Grinding hostility has lead to more PVP for me personally. I see the contention growing so I go there and PVP. People see me driving contention up and come to kill me. Now that Revenge fleets have dissipated this is my primary source of PVP.

Just sailing around looking for people is not a good source of PVP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Wraith said:

Are you seriously arguing tat a nation would go to the trouble of raising hostility on their own ports with alts to trigger a port battle that the alt nation wouldn't show up to just to get 1 battle point?

Denmark in PvP-Global literally did exactly this.

Actually we had raised contention pretty high before the counter-grind outpaced us and we quit for the night. The next morning one of the French busted the Danish guild in there with never-before-seen French players raising the contention to 100% (via these apparent French alts killing cheap Danish ships) at a time when we could not possibly attend the battle.

Under the rule proposed here, this would have gotten them points.

They did it back then and there was literally nothing in it for them except an easy way to spoil our attack.
 

tl;dr: cheaters gonna cheat

Edited by Slamz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Slamz said:

They did it back then and there was literally nothing in it for them except an easy way to spoil our attack.

tl;dr: cheaters gonna cheat

Did you Tribunal them over it or why not just show up and take it in a port battle?  What's a little sleep?  I mean, there are far too many decisions made in this game because of an irrational fear of Alts. Why make what a few people do with them dictate all of the RoE? Why not just do the hostility again two days later? Oh right, because the grind involved in RvR in this game is no fun at all. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Did you Tribunal them over it or why not just show up and take it in a port battle?  What's a little sleep?  I mean, there are far too many decisions made in this game because of an irrational fear of Alts. Why make what a few people do with them dictate all of the RoE? Why not just do the hostility again two days later? Oh right, because the grind involved in RvR in this game is no fun at all. :rolleyes:

We did a Tribunal. Ink said he was investigating and locked the thread and we never did hear what happened. But really it was pure happenstance that we caught them doing it. Had one early morning Frenchman not wandered through the area and jumped into the battle to have a look, we would have never known how the flip happened.

I wouldn't say "irrational fear of alts" in this game. I would be willing to bet that no-joke 20% of this game's sales have been for alts. I have been sorely tempted to get my own cargo hauling alt. Only thing stopping me is the laziness of having to level him up so he could run and crew 4 Indiaman. I know plenty of people who have 1 alt and I would not be surprised at all to learn some people have 5+ alts. There was a POTBS guy who famously had, I think it was, 17 alts. He was his own ship making empire.

We didn't show up to the port battle because they made it for 9am on a weekday.

We actually did hostility grind it again 2 days later. That was what finally made them give up and sign the peace deal we'd been pushing at them for 3 weeks.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the thread but I felt it was important to answer all your questions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 0:22 AM, Anolytic said:

This would lead to less attacks, and less PBs. Because people wouldn't want to take the risk, and PBs are already high risk low reward and little chance of victory due to defender advantages.

Also this would lead to fake attacks to give other nations points and thereby map-win. Some nation could pay another nation or clan to flip every region they had, and thereby almost double their points that week without having a single actual PB.

but points don't matter if you lose the week anyways. And if you're #1, you're not going to attack, no matter what.

Assuming we have equal points, nation 1 attacks nation 2 five times and loses four out of five PBs, but wins the last, should it really win the week with a 1-4 score?

but hey; I feel like some people vote the way they do because they formed a 5-nation-map-win-rotation-alliance and such a change would diminish their chances of just zerging down the remaining nations.

Edited by Quineloe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×