Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Not turning up to Port Battles


This has probably been done before but I couldnt find the thread.

I was in a PB the other night, there was a full PB fleet and Screening fleets, probably involved 60 or 70 people.
60 or 70 people who could have been doing something else and in my case probably would not have been playing NA at all.
But I changed my plans (and those of other people too) cos it was an important PB.

The clan that raised hostility didn't turn up. 

That just lacks class and respect for your fellow players and I'm not happy about having my time wasted by a bunch of scrubs and for me that constitutes griefing and some action should be taken against players who deliberately waste people's time.

Most clans have some sense of decency, rivalry but with respect to other clans and nations, fellow players. 

What makes it worse is that the useless scum-sucking clan in question, ran the hostility while we were in a Port Battle, as they would never have dared show themselves otherwise, (they are cowards as well as time wasters).

I can understand that the mechanics of this game allow for diversionary tactics and fighting on many fronts, but if this just results in 60 or 70 players sitting around doing nothing getting bored of the game, then thats a problem. The clan in question were logged into the game and decided to run fleet practice missions instead. That was by far the most de-motivating experience I have had in NA, and made me question whether I want to be involved in RvR anymore.

As it is your opponent that sets the time for the battle, it effectively means that someone has been allowed to actively go out of there way to waste my time and that of 60 or 70 other people, and that can't be good for the game.

There should be some kind of penalty for raising hostility and then not making a reasonable effort to take the port.
eg. clan banned from entering hostility missions for 1 month. Or at least the 'port can't gain hostility' period should be extended so attacking an enemy port and losing the PB at least has a big benefit to the defender.

The Port Battle should be automatically won if no attacking players have entered within x minutes of the start, instead of having to sit there waiting for the points to accumalate. 

It's really Boring. Change it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

8 minutes ago, Otto Kohl said:

So why you involve 70 people to defend, you need 15-20 at max jus to hop into PB.

Screening, we didn't know they were not going to turn up (at least I didn't). There was possibility of multiple nations turning up.

 

6 minutes ago, rediii said:

When you guys attack you hide in a battle. This lacks respect to thr enemy screeningforce either.

Well, that's a discussion for another thread, at least with that you still get a fight at the end and are not spending 2 hours doing nothing. I'm talking about raising hostility when you have no intention of taking part in a Port Battle or any PVP or RvR activity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're refering to Cartagena de Indias I can only laugh at your pathetic attempt for what exactly? - The clan in question raised hostility BEFORE both the Santa Marta and Barranquila PBs.. And they found time for screening for the swedes before the PBs as well.. In fact it wasn't even an effort to flip the port but just get some nice PvP.. You guys just didn't have the balls to come out and prevent the hostility grind.

2 minutes ago, Hullabaloo said:

Well, that's a discussion for another thread, at least with that you still get a fight at the end and are not spending 2 hours doing nothing. I'm talking about raising hostility when you have no intention of taking part in a Port Battle or any PVP or RvR activity. 

And no it's rather relevant. You talk about respect - there's no rule that states that after grinding hostility you HAVE to show up for the PB the next day. In this case it wasn't planned and as far as I know we couldn't summon enough players for the battle. Hiding in battle instance to avoid enemy screeners is however not the intented function of battleinstance - devs I believe removed the outlaw battles for that exact reason. Why have you so little regard to the rules of the game and the rest of the player base that you let your own cowardice dictate the actions in the game? - it's only ships afterall and we can all replace them quite readily..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Otto Kohl said:

Typical fake attack to keep you busy. Valiable tactic.

Next time kill them when they grind hostility.

As I said, the hostility was done while we were in a Port Battle.  It IS a viable tactic atm, I am questioning whether that is a good idea as it can potentially result in many  player being utterly bored whilst playing the game, and that can't be good. If there was a penalty then clans would think twice about doing it and that might make for a better gaming experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hullabaloo said:

As I said, the hostility was done while we were in a Port Battle.  It IS a viable tactic atm, I am questioning whether that is a good idea as it can potentially result in many  player being utterly bored whilst playing the game, and that can't be good. If there was a penalty then clans would think twice about doing it and that might make for a better gaming experience.

As @Bearwall stated: Hostility was done prior to the two port battles. Please quit using fake news!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Hullabaloo said:

Not turning up to Port Battles


This has probably been done before but I couldnt find the thread.

I was in a PB the other night, there was a full PB fleet and Screening fleets, probably involved 60 or 70 people.
60 or 70 people who could have been doing something else and in my case probably would not have been playing NA at all.
But I changed my plans (and those of other people too) cos it was an important PB.

....

If you have 60-70 people for a defense portbattle, you obviously fear, that you can't win the battle (in max there can be 25 players in a battle). Obviously you need to outnumber the attacers. 

So you should be lucky that noone joins the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes for 3 days, which is why i said 'The period should be extended' in my original post.

I don't need advice about when i choose to play thanks,  but when I DO play it would be nice if I wasn't sitting around doing nothing.

3 minutes ago, HamBlower said:

If you have 60-70 people for a defense portbattle, you obviously fear, that you can't win the battle (in max there can be 25 players in a battle). Obviously you need to outnumber the attacers. 

So you should be lucky that noone joins the show.

Its called screening mate, there are often 100+ players in and around important Port Battles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hullabaloo said:

yes for 3 days, which is why i said 'The period should be extended' in my original post.

I don't need advice about when i choose to play thanks,  but when I DO play it would be nice if I wasn't sitting around doing nothing.

Its called screening mate, there are often 100+ players in and around important Port Battles. 

The PB prob didn't happen because we couldn't find the screeners.. they were probably hiding in battle instance....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sucks for you and its boring, but BF didnt had enough people online thats why they couldnt come.

 

But on the other side, maybe your nation is most famous for abusing every shitty tactic so I dont understand why you make a topic about just another shitty tactic.

 

1 hour ago, Hullabaloo said:

What makes it worse is that the useless scum-sucking clan in question, ran the hostility while we were in a Port Battle, as they would never have dared show themselves otherwise, (they are cowards as well as time wasters).

Thats not true, at the point they were doing hostility all you did was flipping North Inlet and even after that PB was set you had time to stop hostility but you only watched with basic cutters and probably thought: "Who cares, we just screen them out as usual" instead of going for a fight there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hullabaloo said:

Its called screening mate, there are often 100+ players in and around important Port Battles. 

Is it still called screening when you jump from another dimension to attack the PB fleet? Is that the nice gameplay which you offer and at the same time demand fair play from the enemy?

xD

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, ok.  You acknowledge that its boring. So what I'm saying is that there should be something built in so that there is a heavy penalty for this, that way clans won't set up Port Battles unless they are sure they can attend. You could even have an attacker's option to cancel the PB (eg. if you don't have enough people online) and so avoid the waste of time and the penalty. This way it doesn't suck for anyone so much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hullabaloo said:

Yes it is a 'feint', a feint mechanic that leaves loads of people sitting around doing nothing should be removed. Yes the Eve system works well, not sure how it could be applied to NA though

So, in essence you believe punishment should happen to those who fail to show up at a battle ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a punishment, but there should perhaps be a penalty for setting a Port Battle and not showing up, and perhaps you can avoid the penalty by cancelling the PB in advance if something happens and you just cant make it. Just something to dissuade players form setting up PB's they have no intention of attending and basically anything to avoid the ridiculous situation where dozens of players are sitting around for over an hour doing sod all and in some cases where this is being done deliberately.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hullabaloo said:

Not a punishment, but there should perhaps be a penalty for setting a Port Battle and not showing up, and perhaps you can avoid the penalty by cancelling the PB in advance if something happens and you just cant make it. Just something to dissuade players form setting up PB's they have no intention of attending and basically anything to avoid the ridiculous situation where dozens of players are sitting around for over an hour doing sod all and in some cases where this is being done deliberately.

TBH screener are not necessary whats the problem to fight the actually port battle? Or do you want to start to complain that 25 guys sitting in battle  doing nothing is more fun? what was different to the current event?

So wasting 70-25 = 55 peoples life is your own fault.

You are asking for fun when its actually all about winning for you.

Edited by z4ys
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, z4ys said:

TBH screener are not necessary whats the problem to fight the actually port battle? Or do you want to start to complain that 25 guys sitting in battle  doing nothing in t is more fun? what was different to now then?

So wasting 70-25 = 55 peoples life is your own fault.

Kind of. Whole screening thing favor high populated nation so small ones have low chances even close to PB - means half of people lost interest in any RvR at all. Even old PotBS lobby PB system works more fun than this. Current promote zerg, hiding in battles and all kind of unwanted actions - in result we losing more and more players. Half of PFK went to other game since we can`t do anything against zergs with 15 people. Sad to say but huge part of population in NA just picked "easy win" mode by joining top populated nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few suggested options for discouraging uncontested port battles: 

Option 1. Following an uncontested PB (one where at least 50% [negotiable] of the BR is a no-show) the clan raising pb is barred from raising subsequent hostility on any port for an extended period, say 3 days [negotiable]. If two pb's are uncontested this is extended to a 5 day barring [negotiable] and so on with increasing pb time barring for consecutive infringements.

Option 2. The offending clan loose a port to neutral (nearest) at server reset with a loss of conquest points.

Option 3. All timers for ports of the offending clan are set to open for 7 days [time negotiable]. 

Option 4. The offending clan have a penalty port battle set against their nearest port for the same time as the no-show pb the following day, with the clan attacker/defender roles reversed. There is no-penalty for a no-show for a penalty pb.

Option 5. A sliding scale of penalty using the options above for the level of no-show calculated using BR e.g. 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%. The BR of an attacking captain will be counted even if he does not manage to enter the pb, provided he clicks on pb entry when the pb is active, (in this way he will know that his presence is noted even if he is screened out)

Option 6. None of the above options apply if an Officer of the attacking clan cancels a port battle (which his clan has decided not to attack, mechanic will be needed for this) at least 4 hours [negotiable but I would suggest no less than 2 hours] before the PB is due to start. This option has a cool down timer of 48 hours [negotiable]. i.e. if two PB are set then the attacking clan can only cancel one PB. A cancelled port battle is totally reset.

Buster (puts down quill)

 

Edited by Busterbloodvessel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bart Smith said:

Kind of. Whole screening thing favor high populated nation so small ones have low chances even close to PB - means half of people lost interest in any RvR at all. Even old PotBS lobby PB system works more fun than this. Current promote zerg, hiding in battles and all kind of unwanted actions - in result we losing more and more players. Half of PFK went to other game since we can`t do anything against zergs with 15 people.

you could argue that this is where diplomacy needs to come in, small nations have always asked for help IRL and I don't see much difference ingame. This will however cause a lot of whingeing as to why the larger nations get attacked by the others banding together

Link to comment
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

×
×
  • Create New...