POLL: Which Nightflips Solution Would You Prefer

[Anne Wildcat]

Sorry to drag this up again but to me there seems to be three solutions and I was wondering which is the most popular.  If you can think of a fourth let me know and I'll add it. 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Anne Wildcat

[Anne Wildcat]

Updated poll, please edit vote accordingly by selecting show vote options.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Anne Wildcat said:

Sorry to drag this up again but to me there seems to be three solutions and I was wondering which is the most populated.  If you can think of a fourth let me know and I'll add it. 

The poll will never be indicative of the "best" solution - not on the longterm anyway. And the current mechanic is broken - this is not decided by the poll but by the fact that one faction simply isn't bothered by showing up for the PBs.. And the problem is a known one already - it was known before the new hostility/PB system and the only thing left to wonder is the level of incompetence that went into removing PB timers - What did the devs imagine would happen?

[z4ys]

Missing more option for Question 1. So far  I wouldn't vote for anything that is mentioned there.

[Batman]

This whole "nightflip" thing gets more and more ridiculous

[Potemkin]

Honestly nations being able to set their own timers was a better option imho than effectively having the enemy choose the time of attack. Both systems are obviously open to abuse but at least the old lord protector system gave the defender the option to set a defense at a time when its player base was prepared to meet the challenge. Maybe change it so once once nation a attacks nation b, no other nation can attack nation b for 2-3 hours (giving them time to finish the first battle without having to worry about false, or multiple attacks). This might also help to concentrate players in that one area leading to more pvp both in screening fleet skirmishes and the pb itself. Combine that with the current heat up system with its 3 day (or possibly much less) warning time to prep for the battle and position ships accordingly. The old system was adeptly used by GB (correct me if im wrong) to cordon off region defense for ppl in different timezones so one group didnt have to defend around the clock. I realize this idea will probably get ripped to pieces here but honestly what we have now is clearly not working. On the flipside we dont know how this system would fare with a large game pop, but whether or not we get back to full servers remains to be seen.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Potemkin

[Kloothommel]

it's easy for a player to say no, rvr is fine, say he plays for teh DSFS alliance while he plays for the BUD alliance, thereby polluting the poll. So I gues it won't say a thing.

[Fellvred]

The only ways to 'fix' it would be either to have enough people online all the time for each nation (unlikely) or spread the PB into a series of engagements over a 24-48 hours period. Each battle/engagement would gain points for each side, the side with the most points at the end wins the port. 

This would give a steady stream of pvp available all the time which could be balanced around the ships and experience of the captains available.

[Sir Texas Sir]

How about fix port timers so more US players can support and defend from these so called night flips?   That and needs an option for we play on PvP2 suckers....than again we hate the stupid US/GB/DUTCH super alliance of carebears and three largest nations.   But since I didn't check "NO" I didn't need to vote that part.   Though I think the port timers restriction does need to be changed for both servers.

[Anne Wildcat]

Thanks Hethwill! He updated the poll so that question 2 you could select vote was other than none. My bad. ?

[Angus McGregor]

2 hours ago, Anne Wildcat said:

Sorry to drag this up again but to me there seems to be three solutions and I was wondering which is the most popular.  If you can think of a fourth let me know and I'll add it. 

The only other idea I've seen is to turn the PB into a 'best of' series of battles distributed evenly around the clock.

edit - oops, Fellvred already mentioned this one.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Angus McGregor

[Corona Lisa]

You forgot one solution:

Split the whole map into  3 timezone regions (American, Asian, European). Ports in these regions can only be attacked during the primetime of the respective timezone. 

Its like lord protector, but without abuse.

[Teutonic]

I believe if the servers were to merge, the combined hostility and lord protector/time window would be the best outcome. (assuming any mechanic added will be "abused")

It may have been cancer for some folks with midnight time windows or out of your prime time, but I'd rather have someone tell me how my lord protector put the defense timer at a bad time for them for "anti-PvP" then to be told my whole prime time should be evicted from the server because "how dare you take ports when we sleep."

[Chimera]

still so much drama...

[Stilgar]

I miss the option of time zones on the same server. Just introduce 4-5 PB time zones (with US prime time zone from the far West side of the map). This would mean  that players on US prime time would dominate Golf of Mexico and perhaps adjacent time zone, but that could be a reasonable compromise. Perhaps, in time other nations will get some players on different time zones to have their little wars with US.

[TrackTerror]

Spread your nations recruitment to include players from all time zones.

problem solved.

[Anne Wildcat]

Added the two other options players posted. 

[Farrago]

Restrictions, splitting servers, combining servers, player choice, Dev choice: all of these "solutions" will make it fair for someone at the expense of someone else. My idea to have it be a randomly generated time 36-48 hours after generation seems to get no love. If it was random, sometimes the time would work for both sides and sometimes would be better for one side or the other. However it would become less and less an issue as the server (hopefully) increases population. 

[Hethwill]

Voted.

I support full no limits. Full running unified server 24/7.

Have AI present when no players are, both in the OW and on the PBs. Hell, even have them act aggressive when a Region is contested.

Other war MMO games do it. NA is not a private hunting clubhouse and must provide to all, veterans, newcomers, and all those that will join after release.

Evolution.

[Guest]

1 EU regional server + 1 Global server.

Most likely to succeed even at current population numbers while being the most accommodating for both choices.

If running a global server even then is deemed a pain then 3x region-specific servers can be considered depending on playercount. PvP1 US players might think nightflips are not an issue, but PvP2 players have voiced their own concerns about it, so it might just be a case of subjecting versus being subjected to and needs a contingency if that holds true.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Guest

[Angus McGregor]

Help me out here... the PB start window that the Lord Protector set. How big of a window did that used to be? 2 hr, 4 hr,  6 hr?

[Guest]

Just now, Angus McGregor said:

Help me out here... the PB start window that the Lord Protector set. How big of a window did that used to be? 2 hr, 4 hr,  6 hr?

2 hours (though with the common practice of buying flags at the very last minute it felt closer to 3 ).

[Alvar Fañez de Minaya]

This is the solution? .......... I find no difference between this system and the current ........ Right now, a country can warm a region at the time that suits you, and Therefore, choose the time of the battle ......... Americans choose at night, Europeans at day ..... (Or the Americans at day, and the Europeans at night, Depends on who looks at it).

In the solution most voted (third), the Lord Protector chooses the hour of the battle .. ..... Americans choose at night, Europeans at day ..... (Or the Americans at day, and the Europeans at night, depends on who looks at it) .....

Where is the difference?

I already said, that the process used to reach the port battle does not matter .......... All these processes end in a port battle, in which will NEVER face Europeans and Americans ... ....

The only thing you do is change the name to what we already have .... It does not solve anything ......

The only solution is the first option ..... The rest of the options does not solve anything .......... Well, some spoil it, like the idea of filling the port battles with AI ... .

Edit: Just to clarify.... If you ask me, what did you prefer?........ Of course, I would like to be all in the same server no doubt......... more people, more fun...........

But....... If you ask me what you like for your birthday I will respond "Peace in the world".........Our desires and the damned reality are very different ..........

 

Edited February 7, 2017 by Alvar Fanez de Minaya

[Guest]

On 2/5/2017 at 4:22 PM, Kloothommel said:

it's easy for a player to say no, rvr is fine, say he plays for teh DSFS alliance while he plays for the BUD alliance, thereby polluting the poll. So I gues it won't say a thing.

Looks like you were right, 12 votes for 'No, it's fine as it is' and 30 for 'I voted no and am in X alliance'.  

 Or most telling at all, where have the 50% who said 'it's not a problem' in the other poll suddenly gone?