PB's - efficient counter for denying a fight and griefing

[Licinio Chiavari]

17 minutes ago, staun said:

Ask @Gregory Rainsborough if a single clan can be multiflipped hard. 

Your idea now change how it is now. As I know it to be you can have 3 ports to be flipped by a nation and all nations can do it at the same day.

But your idea will not be so much different. How many clans has port in different nations. Try calculate it and see how many ports that can be flipped. what have Gb 10 clans. So it would give what 20 pb if I get you right?

 

I never said to cancel the limit of 3 ports potentially attacked per nation.

And the proposal is in place granted other proposals to avoid timer hiding.

Never consider one part of a multi-point reply.

[staun]

I understand the idea by it and aslo why it is an annoiance that ppl flip an port and don't show up. Just think it will be hard to do anything about it. Unless it is desided by an actually tribunal. 

I will never support an idea that punish ppl for trying and failing.

[staun]

1 minute ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

I never said to cancel the limit of 3 ports potentially attacked per nation.

And the proposal is in place granted other proposals to avoid timer hiding.

Never consider one part of a multi-point reply.

Actually got lost there. 

How is it you see your idea can avoid alt abuse in clans to avoid more and more expensive timers, when we still have the same limit in nations attacks. 

[Licinio Chiavari]

Just now, staun said:

I understand the idea by it and aslo why it is an annoiance that ppl flip an port and don't show up. Just think it will be hard to do anything about it. Unless it is desided by an actually tribunal. 

I will never support an idea that punish ppl for trying and failing.

Time "to tribunal" prussians for trollfleet a PB?

Let's wait the next PB.

 

I would agree that punishing for being screened out is not nice. And not supporting it, indeed.

I see simply already deadly time sinks in NA (potential infinite tags, long trips, long chases and chasing battles) that seeing also fake PB make me quite angry: it's simply too much.

Especially this kind of griefing (because it is) against 20+ people at the same time (not on the skin of one/few players).

[staun]

1 minute ago, rediii said:

why is it bad for the game?

Today Monte Christi

22 players

30 minutes until pb was over

= 11 hours wasted

These 22 players didnt enjoy their time. For some its the last PB they ahow up at the port

Thats nice for prussia but is this good for the healthy gamepop?

You think it is good for the game to punish ppl for trying and failing´? Because thats what his idea is.

Did they try?????? His idea will make no distinction between have acted in good faith and not. 

[Licinio Chiavari]

3 minutes ago, staun said:

Actually got lost there. 

How is it you see your idea can avoid alt abuse in clans to avoid more and more expensive timers, when we still have the same limit in nations attacks. 

Case 1.

I have a big clan with 10 ports.

Within my clantimer I can attack or being attacked. I can attack 1 port of a single enemy nation clan. At same time I can be attacked at worst in 2 ports by two different nations.

Case 2.

I have a big clan with 1 port and 9 alt clans each with a port and I set my clantimer to attack other EU but hide other 9 ports at night.

I can be attacked in EU prime in my port, and attacked in all other 9 at the same time by night by 9 clans belonging to 3 different nations.

It's not the most elegant solution, still this way hiding ports with different timers with alt clans could lead to my possessions being cancelled in a single day. In the first case, on the other hand I would fight (and lose) 2 ports per day.

[staun]

10 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Clan timers was proposed several days ago by me.

I will repeat my solution.

When creating a clan there must be a layer in which you set your zone: EU, AUS and US.

That means the clan can choose the future port timers in a wide window of 8 hours, which will be enough to satisfy the different times of their members.

But still limited to only 3 hours for hostillity, right?

[Christendom]

20 minutes ago, staun said:

The idea is not about longer cooldown on a port that have been defended . If Your clan attack a port in EU time and your clan have more than 3 ports, all your ports will for 7 days have a EU timer. That how I read attack in a given time and timers set to a given time. Have I gotten that wrong?

I mean this idea is ok. I like the idea of locking timers for x amount of time.  But the cool down on ports isn’t really a combined issue.  

IRL if a fleet lost a fight or campaign it would be months of not years before they would recover and attack.  In NA it’s 24 hours.  I’d say bumping that to 3 or 5 days isn’t too crazy.  

I like the idea of putting a cool down on timer changes and opening ports.  Change a timer and it can’t be changed for x amount of days.  Same with opening and closing.  

[staun]

4 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Case 1.

I have a big clan with 10 ports.

Within my clantimer I can attack or being attacked. I can attack 1 port of a single enemy nation clan. At same time I can be attacked at worst in 2 ports by two different nations.

lets say you are in Gb, They have 60 ports, devided among 11 clans. How many pb's can they have a day.

Case 2.

I have a big clan with 1 port and 9 alt clans each with a port and I set my clantimer to attack other EU but hide other 9 ports at night.

I can be attacked in EU prime in my port, and attacked in all other 9 at the same time by night by 9 clans belonging to 3 different nations.

It's not the most elegant solution, still this way hiding ports with different timers with alt clans could lead to my possessions being cancelled in a single day. In the first case, on the other hand I would fight (and lose) 2 ports per day.

Yep your clan can be wiped out, but can a clan also not now loose all is as it is now. If the risk is the same, why not gamble to save money and get timers where the chance of getting attacked is smaller?

And think your idea is good if we was a clan based game. But even if clans own ports it is based on nations. How many nations has only 1 clan in there Pb's.

[Busterbloodvessel]

I like the idea of a large doubloon/reals deposit for an attack RvR only flag 24 hours before a PB (avoids RvE). The port specific RvR attack flag is carried by a PB fleet member which makes the fleet members  immune from PvP attack (or attacking others). The fleet position could be shown on the global map in real time so defenders know when the fleet is on the move. For the attack RvR deposit to be returned the attackers must:

1. substantially fill the PB (80%+BR?) and

2. they hold at least one circle at some stage.

3. no-one may leave the PB for 30 mins once entered

Failure to meet the above means that the attack flag deposit is paid into the port holding clans account.

The attack fleet carries the flag home unmolestable (no PvP). The flag dies upon redemption of the deposit or server rest. 

This would mean all nations could perform RvR and avoid PvP screening and revenge ganking. No empty attack PB's.

 Buster 

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Busterbloodvessel

[staun]

1 hour ago, vazco said:

 

• if you want to attack a port in a given timer, you need to set your own port to a given timer (if you have 0-3 ports, you don't have to). Make time switches have 7 days of cooldown

 

1 hour ago, Christendom said:

regardless of the prussian / GB drama, port cooldowns need to be increased.  I remember 1 week was too long and admin changed them to 1 day "temporarily" to see what happens.  We'll it's been a while and being attacked every other day is a pain in the ass.

I feel like 3-5 day compromise would be fine.

Trying and failing already has the punishment of precious doubloons down the drain.  go attack another port in the meantime.

Is it me that got it wrong. I understand it as lets see. Your ports are at 00,00-03.00 server time(I think).  You want to attack a port at 17.OO server time. To do that you have to put your own ports to 17.00 server time and it has a cooldown of seven days, before it can be changed back. And you are fine with that?

Edited January 20, 2019 by staun

[Christendom]

7 minutes ago, staun said:

 

Is it me that got it wrong. I understand it as lets see. Your ports are at 00,00-03.00 server time(I think).  You want to attack a port at 17.OO server time. To do that you have to put your own ports to 17.00 server time and it has a cooldown of seven days, before it can be changed back. And you are fine with that?

I like this idea kinda.  But I think each clan needs like 1 port timer that is locked and will never change.  Aka home base.

clan x flips a port at a 1700.  Loses. One of their ports randomly gets changed to a 1700 timer for a CD period.  Except their home port.  

This will put a stop to troll flips and multi flips without recourse.  

[staun]

Just now, Christendom said:

I like this idea kinda.  But I think each clan needs like 1 port timer that is locked and will never change.  Aka home base.

clan x flips a port at a 1700.  Loses. One of their ports randomly gets changed to a 1700 timer for a CD period.  Except their home port.  

This will put a stop to troll flips and multi flips without recourse.  

Why would it do that. When I was in Dk-Ng, all our timers was on eu time. We attacked no ports outside Eu time. So no different for us. But it might change the will for ppl to flip outside the hours then normally play. I would never flip a port at night, if I knew for the next 7 days another of my ports would be at night time, where I would not be able to defend it. But for multizone nations it would be ok I think.

[Christendom]

13 minutes ago, staun said:

Why would it do that. When I was in Dk-Ng, all our timers was on eu time. We attacked no ports outside Eu time. So no different for us. But it might change the will for ppl to flip outside the hours then normally play. I would never flip a port at night, if I knew for the next 7 days another of my ports would be at night time, where I would not be able to defend it. But for multizone nations it would be ok I think.

To help protect against what Prussia is doing.  Hiding behind US timers but still attacking during EU times.  

[Gregory Rainsborough]

2 hours ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

But at the same time: you can grind hostility ONLY if in both YOUR clantimer and ENEMY ones.

Now that is an excellent idea.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

2 hours ago, staun said:

Ask @Gregory Rainsborough if a single clan can be multiflipped hard.

They can be but what people seem to have forgotten is that the Americans were often doing what the Prussians are doing now; multiflipping, flipping ports and not turning up, troll fleets showing up, hiding behind timers (remember US used to be mainly Europeans) to stop EU players flipping ports (which led to KoC taking East coast ports). It is not a new problem.

It went on for months and I can sympathise with HAVOC's situation. It is incredibly irritating and incredibly draining having to organise shit, because you never know if the next attack was going to be an actual fight or not. That was the original reason for the clan vote on the matter. There were so many people who just said that it was becoming stressful and not in a good way so they put the game down. We don't want that surely?! We want fun! This problem has been alleviated now as it is possible to counter hostility generation and raising hostility is a lot more difficult than it used to be which is why I'm glad the devs have kept the current system.

People use timers to dodge for many reasons, some of them I sympathise with, others I don't. Using a timer to deny a fight because you're afraid of losing is one I do not sympathise with. SNOW has never done it and never will. Even when the Spanish constantly flipped us every other day we didn't. I can understand though that others do not enjoy having a port battle every third day which is why the cooldown should be increased, as Christendom has mentioned above already.

Perhaps a cooldown timer on the clan itself generating hostility might be useful, sure, they could clanswap and what not but at least it'd be incredibly irritating, hopefully enough to stop it if there was a 24 hour cooldown on rejoining the previous clan.

tl;dr: Clan cooldown timers and clan hostility cooldown would solve this problem. The only people who it will hurt are those trying to abuse the system and clan hoes, and no-one cares about them.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Gregory Rainsborough

[Traditional Baby Abuse]

16 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

I would like to point out that Brits still can try to stop our hostility or kill our fleet during hostility  But according to @admin , hostility mechanic has fixed "fake flag" issue.

I would like to point out your stupidity  . We where kinda busy with the 3 pbs that spain had set so we could not defend the hositlity. We did however defend the hostility the day before. We showed up, the prussian went away, EZ. We left agian and the prussian got to PVE  , but too little time to finish the flip . It also shows how pathetic the prussians are, willing to flip a port two days in a row without having any intention of going to the PB. But thats Prussia under Banished i guess

Edited January 21, 2019 by Time Before Absolution

[Traditional Baby Abuse]

2 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

you point out my "stupidity", but you're the one that can't sense sarcasm, figure out  

FYI I sailed to Monte Cristi on Pavel for PvP looking for Brits crying in global. I even streamed and told them to wait for me, but by the time I reached the port, they were all gone, hidden in port. Brits also did PvE to lower hostility by 25%  

19 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

I would like to point out that Brits still can try to stop our hostility or kill our fleet during hostility  

I think you don't understand sarcasm, it's not a get out of jail card when someone calls you on your bullshit. 

[Traditional Baby Abuse]

30 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Sarcasm here was about fake flags and fake PBs. Admin claims that hostility mechanic fixed that and we see how it is anyway. But I will leave you with your understanding of nothing, but complaining about bad Prussia. 

The only thing I said about the fake PB was how pathetic it was. I agree that its an issue thats need fixing. I did not say that you where stupid for saying the hostilty raising was fixed. I said you where you stupid thinking we had a chance to stop the hostility. I will also leave it her as trying to talk with you is a pain.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Time Before Absolution

[vazco]

1 hour ago, Banished Privateer said:

according to @admin , hostility mechanic has fixed "fake flag" issue

Yes, it has - you can't have fake-hostility generation. Now mostly timers are an issue. If a nation flips another and doesn't show up the next day, it's only timers which prevent a strike back.

Once we require for attacking nation to make their port vulnerable in a time when clearly they're active, problem will be solved. You want to troll-flip a port? Sure, but then enemy can flip yours in the same time. Content prevention will be fought by content creation.

[staun]

5 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

They can be but what people seem to have forgotten is that the Americans were often doing what the Prussians are doing now; multiflipping, flipping ports and not turning up, troll fleets showing up, hiding behind timers (remember US used to be mainly Europeans) to stop EU players flipping ports (which led to KoC taking East coast ports). It is not a new problem.

It went on for months and I can sympathise with HAVOC's situation. It is incredibly irritating and incredibly draining having to organise shit, because you never know if the next attack was going to be an actual fight or not. That was the original reason for the clan vote on the matter. There were so many people who just said that it was becoming stressful and not in a good way so they put the game down. We don't want that surely?! We want fun! This problem has been alleviated now as it is possible to counter hostility generation and raising hostility is a lot more difficult than it used to be which is why I'm glad the devs have kept the current system.

People use timers to dodge for many reasons, some of them I sympathise with, others I don't. Using a timer to deny a fight because you're afraid of losing is one I do not sympathise with. SNOW has never done it and never will. Even when the Spanish constantly flipped us every other day we didn't. I can understand though that others do not enjoy having a port battle every third day which is why the cooldown should be increased, as Christendom has mentioned above already.

Perhaps a cooldown timer on the clan itself generating hostility might be useful, sure, they could clanswap and what not but at least it'd be incredibly irritating, hopefully enough to stop it if there was a 24 hour cooldown on rejoining the previous clan.

tl;dr: Clan cooldown timers and clan hostility cooldown would solve this problem. The only people who it will hurt are those trying to abuse the system and clan hoes, and no-one cares about them.

It is not that I disagree with idea behind the starting post. His idea had just something I didn’t like. Do understand the frustration. 

- Punishing ppl for falling.

- All ports forced outside your normal play time, if you actually do an effort to take a port, switch to a dodge timer. So we punish ppl for actually trying to do something abouth dodgers.

- We want to punish ppl for waisting time/ content. At the same time we want this to be a war game(atleast I think we do). In term of war, what they are doing is actually a valid tactic.

- Sometimes I think we should not always try to fix things with a mechanic, but let it be up to the players. If there is one thing I learned in the 1,5 year I played, thats ppl is amazing to find ways to abuse a mechanic. Ppl can easy fix it them self if they think somebody has crossed the Line. I remember a clan that had 8 pb, because ppl thought they had dodger timers. Before my time, but I heard stories about nation ganking up on stronger nations, when they think the strong went to far.

In short I am against punishing ppl for trying. I actually belive more in ppl to fix a situation than a mechanic.

[vazco]

3 hours ago, staun said:

I actually belive more in ppl to fix a situation than a mechanic.

If you - or anyone else - covince Prussia to change their timers, I'll believe you

[staun]

7 minutes ago, vazco said:

If you - or anyone else - covince Prussia to change their timers, I'll believe you

They don’t have to change timer. Did greg change timers. Nope but he got multiflipped because ppl thought he dodge  fight with timers. Maybe players think the same abouth Prussia.

But in the end it is not about Prussia, But a change of mechanic. As said I will not support a system that punish ppl for trying.

[Palatinose]

@vazco you recognize putting in a certain amount of dubs dir being allowed to only flip a port and being screened out penalizes the attacker twice. Most likely they will lose the entire pb fleet in the screening fight and additionally donate 30k dubs to the defender. In that case Hey would anyone aim to go for the pb if you can simply screen and get kills and extra dubs on top? Why would anyone attack "zerg nations"? 

I principially like the idea, it's the players who would kill it though.

[Njord]

This is good and all and it makes sense but where are the mechanics to nerf zerging on the other hand? I remember not so long ago someone talking about no limitations in a sandbox game etc. when I suggested higher rewards for underdog nations... 

If you want small nations to actually fight zergs, then you better give them a good reason to do so. This is a game after all and I don't think people are willing to play RvR only to feed and entertain zerglings. We saw it with swedes before... the only thing that could stop their tryhard crusade rolling over all other nations was to simply not give them fights so they could moan about empty PBs, blaming people for not feeding them and losing interest.