Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
vazco

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

Recommended Posts

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 by Time Before Absolution
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite funny... GB is bigger and more powerful than Prussia... by how much? Three times? Four? Even more?

And as Members of the stronger Nation discover the smaller one is able to withstand them quite annoyingly, they publicly complain about their tactics and set bountys on their Ports so they don't have to cap them by themselfes*.

Quite ironic, huh?

I, as an indisputable observer, would expect the larger Nation to deal with some "unorthodox tactics" applied by the smaller...🧐 Hey, you are free to set a PB timer to a time when most Prussian Players are unable to capture Ports. You are free to stay out of PB and wait what's coming. You are free to send just one 6th-rate-driving new Player in there, do PvP somewhere else and hope for the best.

Nobody forced you to capture those two uneconomic Ports in the middle of a small, but smart Nation, nobody forces you to defend them with the best Players you have, nobody forces you to give up gaming time for that. So why you complain? Du you expect everybody to just let you capture his Ports and be fine with that?

*(I understand: capturing might be annoying if somebody does not want to get captured... leave that to the casual noobs...)

 

EDIT: If somebody wants to increase Hostility cooldown to 3-4 days, i would not complain.

Edited by RedPanther
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Palatinose said:

@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.

I understand this argument. Maybe let's think how to fix it... One solution that comes to my mind:

If you don't get at least 50% br into a PB, and if your nation doesn't participate in any non-ai battle for 50% PB br in close proximity to a port, after PB is finished, your closest port's timer is open for next 2 hours. 

 

Would this work? If not, how can it be made to work? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedPanther said:

they publicly complain about their tactics and set bountys on their Ports

I think you messed up threads. Please put your propaganda post in a link below, and discuss only game mechanics in this thread

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, traitorous mctraitoro said:

An entire topic, just because Prussia like to wing it :)

We got a far bigger and longer (with damn dangerous ideas for the gameplay) because Banished lost 5/10 minutes in a fake battle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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...