Price of the Night Timers

[OjK]

The timers should be re-checked.

There is way to many fake timers on the map currently, and noone smart would ever believe, that they are actually the "top hours" for European Clans.

So what I suggest is the price increase if it's far from the clan's peak hours.
The game is slowly tracking the online players already (with some issues still, but it is) so let's do like this:

Every Sunday, the game calculates average of peak player time of each clan.
For all next week, the cost of a timer depends on comparison of selected timer with actual top peak time.

Example:

In Week A, on average, the most players online in clan X were at 17:00-18:00

Therefore, a timer between 16-19 will cost as normal, as this is a true peak time for the clan.

Timer on either 13-16, or 19-22 will cost x3 of current price
Timer on 4-7 would cost x10 of current price as its exactly opposite of clans peak hours.

Anything in between,  some linear values.

 

No more faking, no discrimination of US zones players either.

Perfect solution, isn't it?

 

[Christendom]

What about the EU timers set to 11-14?  Clearly they are to avoid fights.  What about multi time zone clans?  7up was one, I know Aloha (wink wink) has a few spread across the globe. VCO used to be 50/50 US and EU.  

Poland just attacked a US based pirate clan during the daytime today, but we can’t respond because of their timers.  Who can I complain too?  How do I know they are all EU based?  How do you determine what a clans peak hours are? Is Admin gonna code that?

Too many variables for a sliding scale of cost.  Timers should cost more and should all be the same regardless of when.  A smarter solution would be to pay for a smaller window. 3 hour window costs more than say a 5 hour.  5 hour being the default timer window.  

Edited January 12, 2019 by Christendom

[OjK]

18 minutes ago, Christendom said:

How do you determine what a clans peak hours are? Is Admin gonna code that?

It's already tracking the online count. Make a small adjustments and find real peak hour for each clan.

 

All the others aspect - that's the bad side of global server.
And there is already too many of them, to also add avoidance timers. 

If You really want such for a day or two - sure, but pay for that respectively.

Edited January 12, 2019 by OjK

[Hethwill]

Tell me where is always night and where is always day...

[Batman]

2 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

There is always night on the dark side of the moon, it never sees the sunlight and it's always the same surface.

The dark side of the moon sees sunlight for ~14 days straight. Moon rotates around it's own axis, but is also tidally locked to earth's rotation.

[Traditional Baby Abuse]

3 hours ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Tell me where is always night and where is always day...

You are clearly not educated

Edited January 12, 2019 by Time Before Absolution

[Celtiberofrog]

The most reasonable solution would be to split the map in 2 zones. Logically West & East zone.

Each zone has a single mandatory timer window for PB's.

This will sadly split players activity regarding PB's  but it won't be worse than now.

At least we would get rid of these nasty timers.

RvR would become affordable again, players in both zones may return and grow global server population.

It's a temporary compromize that will bother players that are not in USA & Europe chosen single timer window.

In future NA could be extended with another server with Indian Ocean theater map split in 2 zones as well.

[Hethwill]

Interesting idea, but what if a clan is worldwide ? Can remember a couple with EU/US/OCE members with shared responsabilities ( within the clan ) in the ports they controlled. But yeah, guess they can make 3 clans, one per zone.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Tell me where is always night and where is always day...

Tell me... Did the global server attract more players or is it lagging behind the EU/"Global" two server numbers? (and just for clarification I put the global in qoutation marks to denotate that I was sarcastic - global was never really global).

[King of Crowns]

if you think a clan is hiding behind a timer then why don't you stop being stupid and go find a clan that is active in that time zone. then reach into those deep pockets you got and pay them to take the port and then give it to you.  if enemy clan is truly hiding behind the timer then they will not be able to defend the port. 

problem solved. 

#stopsucking

p.s   or you can keep asking the devs to give you another bottle to get your milk from. they will prolly cave in sooner or later. 

Edited January 13, 2019 by King of Crowns

[Hethwill]

8 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Tell me... Did the global server attract more players or is it lagging behind the EU/"Global" two server numbers? (and just for clarification I put the global in qoutation marks to denotate that I was sarcastic - global was never really global).

Having played both at the same time, I'd say the population in one or the other was more due to old allegiances than timer situation, so there were clans that moved from pvp3 to pvp2 and then stayed when it went Global.

Global had EU/US/OCE players. EU server was more EU CET oriented, which for a GMT guy doesn't cut it - and that is only 1 hour difference ! That's how far EU server went.

Not against the tests, but personally for me is a no go. This is not a game like IL-2 where ppl can host their own servers with their own rules to fit themselves.

[Guest]

the port timers were implemented to prevent nightflipping,  now with such a low player count it is to prevent multi flipping   funny how everything comes down to population on the server yet again  

Edited January 13, 2019 by Guest
multiflipping is more correct

[OjK]

20 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

1. I can use alts for afk bumping online at any given time I wish

You have alts in the same nation and in the same clan?

 

20 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

2. What do you consider peak? If on 15-18 ALOHA has 7 online and on 5-7 we have 6 online, are we gonna pay a lot punishment for timers in 5-7 zone because of 1 player difference??? Our clan is mostly global, we have Americans, 3 Chinese, Aussies.

Ok, my first idea was actually some linear proportion, which would solve that problem. I thought that proposed version will be easier, but You made the point.

So if for example, You have peak of 8,7 players at 17:00Z, and 5,6 players at 04Z, for a timer at 04Z You would have to pay 55% more for timer, as it's the difference between average amount of players at that specific time.

8,7 : 5,6 = 1,55 

Simple math

 

20 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

3. If 1 guy logins into clan during the day at 11-14 and logs out, no one else in the clan logins, is the peak? Kinda bs statistic I call it

If no one else gonna log in whole week, I guess it's a dead clan anyway so it's pointless to talk about.

I'm talking about WEEKLY averages. And I wrote it from the start

 

Points 4,5 and 6 are pretty much off-topic. Diplomacy is absolutely different part of story.
And of course anyone can log on anywhere if there is a need (f.e. another "ALL SERVER MEET UP CARTAGENAAA DURR!!!").

But we are talking about general timers, on general conditions.

Therefore I also find talking about "theoretical" pointless - I'm not gonna believe, that if ALOHA get flipped in their current timers 3 days in a row, You will log in to command those battles every day, cause no human beeing can survive that long without a sleep.

[Capn Rocko]

If you are paying for the timer with your own money,  then you should be able to decide when the timer is. Period. 

[Palatinose]

I feel you @OjK it is quite annoying to see some european clans setting timers to obviously hide (or not get mutliflipped). 

Though, your proposal has too many negative side effects as I could agree with it. Like others said multi time zone clans would suffer and also clans from one time zone with high numbers in eg. morning (CET) created by mainly pve players with families and a lower peak of pvp players in the evenings. Just as an example. 

As I think @Wyy pointed out, it's generell speaking just a matter of player numbers!

 

[Guest]

I think there should be a cheaper timer for having a larger vulnerability window such as half price for a 6 hour vulnerability.

In fact 3 hours is not quite enough minimum time.

[Wilhelm von Seydlitz]

6 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

.... most of the Prussians would switch nation or quit the game.

no, never change the nation then just quit the game 😉

 

I hope after the release there will be another EU server and one for the rest of the world....

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 minute ago, Banished Privateer said:

Just to remind everyone how 1st generation of Prussians got wiped out by GB attacking their ports (and some other nations too). Prussians lost all their core ports and almost all of them quit. Same happened to Russia losing Kidds/Bermuda ports and Poland using their core bases at Barahona and Les Cayes (even if Vazco tries to disagree with that). 

@Intrepido if rediii and HAVOC want "content" and "fun", they should attack some useless ports and just solo-flip. Instead they go for multiflips with Sweden and Denmark and attack core Prussian ports. I don't call that content nor fun, I call it attempt to annihilate Prussia and win the war by all means. 

I could agree that being steamrolled (by numbers, quality, or even both) is unpleasant. And I was on the receiving end spending quite some time as USA and during Spain collapse.

Still I dont sincerely understand the mindset of a bunch of players (and a few clanmates) about (double standard) fairness.

This is (naval) warfare.

No fairness in war. If I have numbers I would use numbers, if I have quality I will try to exploit it.

As if I have faster/nimbler/sturdier/more armed/better boarder/better whatsever ship than my enemy I will (try to) exploit my strenghts on enemy's weaknesses.

And it is not only fair.

It's commander's duty (and measure of his wisdom).

[Georg Fromm]

40 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

.....Prussia gets simply eliminated from RvR. This is the scenario what happens if we switch to EU timers, our nation would get annihilated, most of the Prussians would switch nation or quit the game......

A Prussian who leaves the nation because he loses ports does not deserve to sail under this proud flag.

[vazco]

Locking certain parts of map to certain timers would solve the issue and concentrate RvR better. It was suggested before, it's a pity it wasn't introduced. 

Some key ports with monopolies could be excluded (eg Cartagena, Pitts Town etc.) 

[Georg Fromm]

57 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

I don't want to be mean, but you speaking about being brave and proud while you twice moved out from Hispaniola because of "Swedish and HAVOC invasions", moving out all your outposts and ships. Why you don't stay and defend the Vaterland to the last port? Let's dig all the motivational speeches and move to real actions that matter. 

Yes, that should make you think that I knew long before you, what is currently happening. In addition, I still decide myself on whose side I fight for the fatherland. I do not need any instructions from people who make contracts with pirates. /RP off

[Christendom]

20 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

You personally helped WO to conquer secret island from the russians, "right into the heart" and it seems now you care. Same could be said with Fort Baai when you helped BF. 

Since you mentioned it..

BF took those ports off WO in US prime time.  Reverse and the crew stayed up and made a special effort to take those ports way into the early hours of their morning.  They didn't whine or complain about them on the forums.  They just did it.  Back when I was US, GB had monopoly on ports in the Bahamas set to 11-14 to dodge attacks.  We got up 2 mornings and flipped 8 of them and SNOW fell apart.  GB has plenty of players on in the evenings to go flip Prussian ports, go ask them.  You were in Russia with us.  If North and Anolytic weren't able to get at a port during their times, they had the US players in their nation do it.  

This is a game.  In particular, it's a war game.....and shit is never going to be fair.  I wish more folks had the gumption that Reverse seems to have and if he wants a port, he puts forth the effort to go and take it.  80% + of the ports on the map are set to EU times.  Even Prussia's ports were all set to EU times back when we were night flipping them (wink wink).  People are upset because they can't attack a few of them?  Go attack elsewhere on the map.  Why not go after Carta or Santa Domingo?  Real money making ports never seem to get challenged, but folks give a shit about a couple useless ports with US timers on them.        

[vazco]

4 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

Prussians lost all their core ports and almost all of them quit. Same happened to Russia losing Kidds/Bermuda ports and Poland using their core bases at Barahona and Les Cayes (even if Vazco tries to disagree with that). 

Dude, you're so full of shyt It was Commonwealth which finally killed Prussia - after three battles Prussian decided to not to fight any more and lost Panama. Russia had to negotiate for Prussia to leave them last 3 ports. This was after Barahona was lost. Not everyone complains when they loose a port. 

People didn't leave Commonwealth when Barahona was lost, they started being inactive during campaign against Britain, when VM's were needed to buy 1st rates. 

If we wanted to annihilate you, we wouldn't attack Sweden during screening. You're not that important. We attack you when it's fun. Attacking a forum troll is fun. 

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by vazco

[Licinio Chiavari]

3 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

Attack Cartagena or Santo Domingo? Hell, what about Sant Iago right outside Jamaica or Jeremie, the nest of Sweden. But GB is in the same bed with Sweden 😏 Also, it would be too challenging for them.

And Prussia is in the same bed with Russia... And a bunch of pirates often enjoys the very same bed.

[Licinio Chiavari]

9 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

The difference is that we were at war with both pirates and Russia. Last war between Sweden and GB was like 1,5 year ago?

In general we can say Sweden didnt go at war for a long time. Mainly busy, if ever, defending, just in case.

That said: let me understand the logic.
If 2 Nations fight the same enemy(-ies) and they never fought a war between them, it's being "in the same bed".
If 2 Nations fight the same enemy(-ies) but they fought each other in a closer past (still not recently), it's not being "in the same bed".

Is it right? Because I feel a bit of lack of logic.