Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

I don't know where to post that. It's ot tribunal because it's not really an exploit and i don't see where to post it.

At the moment:

Winning a port battle : Winning 2 points
Losing a port Battle: Loosing 1 point
Abandonning a port: Loose 0 points

So we got:

Nation A capture a port to Nation B.  .
Nation  A: +2
Nation B: -1
Nation C: 0

Nation A leave the port making it neutral port
Nation A: +0
Nation B: -1
Nation C: +0

Nation C, allie with Nation A capture neutral port.

Nation A: +2
Nation B: -1
Nation C:  +2

But it could be worst

Nation C leave the the port making it neutral port

Nation A: +2
Nation B: -1
Nation C:  +2

Nation A, allie with Nation C capture neutral port.

Nation A: +4
Nation B: -1
Nation C:  +2

to be continue. Tbh, nation B is useless. We can farm the victory point with just 1 port changing hand

If i'm wrong ty to give me information about how to work points

 

Solutions

- Abandonning a port should do painful to not allow nations to feed other nation with them. Loosing a port while defending it should be less painfull. I would recommand to loose 2 port to abandon and 1 to defeat
- Capturing neutral port shouldnot give points.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually when you abandon a port you loose the 1-3 points the port is worth for owning it.  This is what you loose or gain along with the capture/lost points too.  So in reality you actually loose 3 points on a lost port battle and gain 2 points for each capture ports.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you did not get capture points for the actual capture of a neutral port but they are counted for your weekly total... That's how it should be.

Otherwise, I could capture the neutral port on Monday +2. Let it go neutral. Recapture on Wednesday +2. Let it go neutral. Recapture on Saturday +2. Hold through Sunday +1-3.

But admitedly, playing Dutch, port capture/ownership math is not a subject I need to study. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plerrick has a point, punishment should be more severe for nations that abandon (left without any defense from attack) a port than defending a port that has been lost because of a valiant effort defense.

Kinda like "biting off more than you can chew", if you cannot defend the ports you have conquered/captured than why capture them in the first place. For quick points? Take away them points and then some.

Throw the yellow penalty flag!... "illegal formation"!;) (american football analogy for the euros)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Farrago said:

I thought you did not get capture points for the actual capture of a neutral port but they are counted for your weekly total... That's how it should be.

Otherwise, I could capture the neutral port on Monday +2. Let it go neutral. Recapture on Wednesday +2. Let it go neutral. Recapture on Saturday +2. Hold through Sunday +1-3.

But admitedly, playing Dutch, port capture/ownership math is not a subject I need to study. 

Remember GLOBAL before the merge?  The only reason GB was in the lead is cause it could suck up all the neutral ports faster than we could captured actual ports off them.  They shouldn't get points for neutral ports true, it should be only ports that have been fought over from other players.  The largest nation can out cap another nation as long as there is neutral ports.  Something more limted on the new server though cause there are a lot more players.  Hell GB is trying to do it right now grabbing up the old Prussian ports.  It just means that the more they have the more spread out they are and the more weaker they become.  Fought this war many a times in the past lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:

Plerrick has a point, punishment should be more severe for nations that abandon (left without any defense from attack) a port than defending a port that has been lost because of a valiant effort defense.

Kinda like "biting off more than you can chew", if you cannot defend the ports you have conquered/captured than why capture them in the first place. For quick points? Take away them points and then some.

Throw the yellow penalty flag!... "illegal formation"!;) (american football analogy for the euros)

I think abandon ports should cost you the same as loosing it to any other nation.  That way you will be sure to watch after clans that are getting low on funds or about to jump ship.  Than again I also think that you should be able to give ports to other clans in your own nations.  Say my clan can't support a port, but your can and we are both in the same nation. I can gift the port to your clan and let you take it over.  Though that can also open up a lot more abuse of ports too by certain larger clans/nations.

Edited by Sir Texas Sir
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Remember GLOBAL before the merge?  The only reason GB was in the lead is cause it could suck up all the neutral ports faster than we could captured actual ports off them.  They shouldn't get points for neutral ports true, it should be only ports that have been fought over from other players.  The largest nation can out cap another nation as long as there is neutral ports.  Something more limted on the new server though cause there are a lot more players.  Hell GB is trying to do it right now grabbing up the old Prussian ports.  It just means that the more they have the more spread out they are and the more weaker they become.  Fought this war many a times in the past lol

...and only get the points for those captured "neutral" ports AFTER a successful defend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I think abandon ports should cost you the same as loosing it to any other nation.  That way you will be sure to watch after clans that are getting low on funds or about to jump ship.  Than again I also think that you should be able to give ports to other clans in your own nations.  Say my clan can't support a port, but your can and we are both in the same nation. I can gift the port to your clan and let you take it over.  Though that can also open up a lot more abuse of ports too by certain larger clans/nations.

I'd say gifting the ports would be okay but perhaps some sort of hefty payment should be required to the admiralty. 

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

Actually when you abandon a port you loose the 1-3 points the port is worth for owning it.  This is what you loose or gain along with the capture/lost points too.  So in reality you actually loose 3 points on a lost port battle and gain 2 points for each capture ports.  

i think owning a port give you 1 point, capturing it 2 points loosing it 1 point

So if you capture a port, you get 2 for capture +1 for owning the port=3. You abandon it, you still keep your 2 points, you just lost the 1 for owning. If you would have lost it in battle you would have lost -1 for defeat and -1 for owning.

Actually i'm pretty sure you can farm the victory mark. Someone got a good point. Take a port, make it neutral capture it again etc etc

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

Throw the yellow penalty flag!... "illegal formation"!;) (american football analogy for the euros)

Ahh, You must mean American Handball, a sport that features the ball being passed by the use of hands much more then by the foot, hence it should be called American handball. Or American Rugby but that is a insult to Rugby players tbh...

 

But while we are on the subject of ports management...  You capture it for your Clan and a clan has ownership and decide to keep it or leave it undefended, but you cannot set a port to be used by clan members only... Or give Clan members special features like lower tax etc...

Why is that?

We wish to promote RvR and thus enabling clans to have a larger impact over the ports they have captured is surely something that is worth looking upon.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, admin said:

good point. 

needs to be addressed after holidays 

I already mentioned this point when you introduced VM's. Once you'll be fixing it, please make sure to prevent one more exploit/issue:

1st week

Nation A takes 10 ports from nation B, nation A wins map

2nd week

Nation B takes 10 ports from nation A, nation B wins map

Allied nations can stay on top of the leaderboard.

 

A good solution would be to have a negative "karma" for  bad actions, lasting longer than just 1 week. It's not only abandoning ports, but eg. not showing up in PB's. You can find an example of such a system in this post:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/31/2017 at 6:58 AM, vazco said:

I already mentioned this point when you introduced VM's. Once you'll be fixing it, please make sure to prevent one more exploit/issue:

1st week

Nation A takes 10 ports from nation B, nation A wins map

2nd week

Nation B takes 10 ports from nation A, nation B wins map

Allied nations can stay on top of the leaderboard.

 

A good solution would be to have a negative "karma" for  bad actions, lasting longer than just 1 week. It's not only abandoning ports, but eg. not showing up in PB's. You can find an example of such a system in this post:

 

 

Hi all. We are back from the holidays  - happy new year!!!

A Port trading  within the round

  • Nation that abandons the port loses 2 points + loses control points
  • Nation that wins the port wins 1 point + wins control points

So if a nation captures 10 ports and then abandons them to their friendly nation who in turn will get them back (to farm battle points) they actually end up with less points than they started with. 

Nation A captures +10 points/ Nation B abandons -20 points = net - 10 points
Nation B captures + 10 points/ Nation A abandons - 20 points = net - 10 points

Verdict: Trading Inside the round  - impossible

 

B Port trading across several rounds

Across several rounds port trading is possible, and is historical. Trading region a for region b was done historically and is allowed. 

This makes port trading across several rounds possible BUT
Its only possible with the complete inaction of other nations. Enemy abandons 10 ports - do not sit on your ass or on the forum. Do something.  If they abandon them for the enemy- take them for yourself, set the timers, ask the americans to help etc etc etc.

Also if all other nations are inactive - you don't need to trade - first 3 spots get the rewards now.

Verdict

Not an issue. Region trading is a historically possible and plausible feature and if your enemy abandons 10 ports your should take them in game - not on forums.

 

discuss. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me there's nothing left to discuss. As I suspected, VM's had negative effect on the Commonwealth. This and other factors made me decide to stop animating RvR there.There are now two options for the Commonwealth:

  1. find someone (or someones) more effective than me to animate the RvR activity and organize people into a coherent fleet
  2. degrade to PvE community, stop recruitment, be farmed to death, and pass into oblivion when focused by a nation with more experienced players

Time will tell what will happen.

Edited by vazco
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, admin said:

Verdict

Not an issue. Region trading is a historically possible and plausible feature and if your enemy abandons 10 ports your should take them in game - not on forums.

So I was right after all. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9.1.2018 at 4:09 PM, admin said:

This makes port trading across several rounds possible BUT
Its only possible with the complete inaction of other nations. Enemy abandons 10 ports - do not sit on your ass or on the forum. Do something.  If they abandon them for the enemy- take them for yourself, set the timers, ask the americans to help etc etc etc.

If i read this right, the port must be abandoned = set to neutral, so everyone sees it from maintenance on and all nations have the same chance if they use it.

Then the port isnt neutral before captured again it is a clear advantage for the nation which trades the port with the defender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Abram Svensson said:

If i read this right, the port must be abandoned = set to neutral, so everyone sees it from maintenance on and all nations have the same chance if they use it.

Then the port isnt neutral before captured again it is a clear advantage for the nation which trades the port with the defender.

what about when the swedes let the danish take a port from them just so they could take it back later, was that against the rules as well ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rune said:

what about when the swedes let the danish take a port from them just so they could take it back later, was that against the rules as well ?

That was one port we needed to take from an inactive clan away and didnt contribute to the mapwin. That was a 1 time action and wont be traded again.

We are talking about constantly ports trading like the 3 ports spain took from russia for example. That was traded to them and brought them the mapwin without any real conquest or portbattle. Russia will take these ports back this week and gets 6 points for nothing again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...