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

1 hour ago, Slamz said:

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.

I appreciate the explanation, but all of these issues are part of the game because dev's have implicitly endorsed using alts. That's fine, all nations have alts and we all rely on them for maintaining the economic machine. But the reality is that forming RoE around alts is just self-defeating and it almost always hampers players without alts more than it hampers players with them.

It's relevant because many of the arguments leveled against the idea essentially sum up to, "Oh a nation will game the system (using alts, allies, etc.)!" But the reality is that any game mechanic will be gamed, and I'd argue that the current mechanics of being able to multi flip and no-show is just as exploitative against the defending nation as using alts to flip a port and possibly gain a battle point would be.

Philosophically speaking, this is just inane because the number of these incidents would likely be very small because they are so easy to expose. If alt abuse was in fact dealt with via permabans, which the dev's have been unwilling to do so far, then this behavior would not occur at all, making this mechanic do exactly what I suggest it would do in my OP.

Share this post


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

But the reality is that any game mechanic will be gamed, and I'd argue that the current mechanics of being able to multi flip and no-show is just as exploitative against the defending nation as using alts to flip a port and possibly gain a battle point would be.

Philosophically speaking, this is just inane because the number of these incidents would likely be very small because they are so easy to expose. If alt abuse was in fact dealt with via permabans, which the dev's have been unwilling to do so far, then this behavior would not occur at all, making this mechanic do exactly what I suggest it would do in my OP.

Any power gamer will go for the mechanic that brings forth his best strength. Pirates hiding fleets to ensure 25x25 vs Brits tossing in as many puppies as possible (regardless of loss).

It's when one mechanic can be used to eliminate counter options, for example Flag timeslot, then balance is off. It becomes just worse when the counter requires an alt.

Granted any tactic to brings forth your strength is unfair, but that is war (gaming).

Last, I don't think devs are unwilling to ban, but I know they are legally not allowed to ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small nations would never attack larger nations.  You want to sink ships, you want larger nations who've over extended to defend, and you want smaller nations to have a decent chance.  By forcing -2 on a loss, they'd be better served to defend forever and never expand.

As it stands any nation with large starting position but lacks players (like Spain on global) would have a huge negative score in a month.  I'm not sure there should be any points on attacks and losses.  I'd rather have points scored for OW pvp by nation.

Edited by Dharus

Share this post


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

Small nations would never attack larger nations.  

What do small nations have to lose? They're not going to get Victory Marks anyway unless they attack?

Share this post


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

What do small nations have to lose? They're not going to get Victory Marks anyway unless they attack?

But in your example, a successful defense scores points.

The chances of losing a PB attack against a larger population because of amount of players available to screen and attend is much greater.  A failed attack is -2 points which means a smaller nation needs to win to break even.  They'd be better served defending to get points because the odds of defense is greater (forts, teleports to capital to get into PB, screeners, ect).  Nothing to lose except ships, time, and points when defense could be so much easier.

A smaller nation cannot dot flip the map because it just cannot protect it due to player population.  In your argument, if a defense scores points, they'd be better served sitting on a few territories and defend scoring points.

However, I say drop the win/loss.  I know it's to prevent port trading but it's really unneeded because now there are no rewards for the actual combat.  Instead, rewards OW pvp by nation.  Basically if an entire region owned by a faction is losing 5x the ships, wouldn't they have lost naval superiority anyway.  Really why do we even need PBs?  So we can have an arena fight?  That's gonna be legends anyway.  Why not just base port ownership on pvp and/or zone player presence?  Patrol a region, score points, 3 days later nation with highest points wins (with obvious capping of points per ship on patrols).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dharus said:

A smaller nation cannot dot flip the map because it just cannot protect it due to player population.

But my proposal is to protect smaller nations against the larger nations that can afford to flip as many ports as they want and attend those they want while letting empty battles go by. The smaller nation would at least be getting points for showing up to defend those empty port battles, whereas now they just get ground down by long sails, planning and logistics trying to protect ports that the enemy might not even show up to. Then, they don't get any reward for it.

But on the whole, I'd much prefer the system you're proposing, based on presence and persistence in a region compounded by PVP outcomes. It seems to me this would make much more sense.

Edited by Wraith

Share this post


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

But my proposal is to protect smaller nations against the larger nations that can afford to flip as many ports as they want and attend those they want while letting empty battles go by.

If we are talking giving smaller nations better options, then I'm in favor of smuggling and privateering, which coincidentally is historically accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_of_the_sea#Asymmetric_countermeasures

Bring up small AI resource production and contracts everywhere, then a large Nation needs to actively maintain regions.

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

×