Hotfixes for Feb-March

[Nixolai]

18 minutes ago, admin said:

1. Hostility
2. Port battle - Contested state
3. Day after - to set the timer (still invulnerable)

You have to set the timer next day after port battle.

Take a look on Cojoro today, it is currently contested, after maintenance there will be no timer on the port. The cooldown timer runs out when the server time hits 22:45, after that i can be attacked until next maintenance because there is no timer. First after at least 34-36 hours the port will have a timer again, therefore im commenting, that the cooldown needs to be at least 48 hours as before removal of cooldowns.

[admin]

4 minutes ago, Nixolai said:

Take a look on Cojoro today, it is currently contested, after maintenance there will be no timer on the port. The cooldown timer runs out when the server time hits 22:45, after that i can be attacked until next maintenance because there is no timer. First after at least 34-36 hours the port will have a timer again, therefore im commenting, that the cooldown needs to be at least 48 hours as before removal of cooldowns.

You can set the timer during 1 day after contested state drops. It will become active the next day. Only the next day the hostility missions can be taken.

[shunt]

26 minutes ago, admin said:

Lesson is simple

• PvP communities try but cannot self regulate because if you could - we would see no port battles as the votes show. Someone breaks down all break down.
  • If this is true how can we cannot really rely on votes - if the action show that you want to ruse, flank, create distractions (fake port battles), exhaust the enemy? 
• PVP communities should embrace the developer as a partner and should stop distancing to another side of the battlefield.
  • You cannot have a pleasant combat experience without us.
  • And you should start asking instead of voting.
    • Ask what you want - instead of telling us what to do. We wont do what you tell us to do. but might give you what you want instead by other means.

 

On the port battles the fix is in the works. But everyone must prepare for the forthcoming storm. There will be more PVP and more RVR. 

 

Lesson is simple

 

• Developers should embrace their CUSTOMERS  as a partner and should stop distancing to another side of the battlefield.
  • You cannot have a pleasant income  without us.

 

[Montagnes]

7 minutes ago, admin said:

You can set the timer during 1 day after contested state drops. It will become active the next day. Only the next day the hostility missions can be taken.

Hostility missions can be taken the next maintenance after the port battle itself.

Check governors harbour case.

[Isaac J Smith]

16 minutes ago, admin said:

You can set the timer during 1 day after contested state drops. It will become active the next day. Only the next day the hostility missions can be taken.

That's what we want. But that is not how it has been working.

 

For the purpose of the example below, each Day is determined as a period between maintenance.

Right now it has been:

a) You win Port battle at 1700 Server Time (Day 1)

b) Hostility cooldown is until 1700 Server Time the next day (Day 2)

c) Port is contested until maintenance between Day 1 and Day 2

d) You can set timer on port on Day 2, becomes effective after next maintenance (on Day 3)

e) Enemy can attack port any time after 1700 ST on Day 2 (cooldown ends) until Maintenance between Day 2 and Day 3 (eg: Enemy nation can declare port battle for 0400ST the next day - Day 3) due to not having a timer.

f) Timer is applied during Maintenance between Day 2 and Day 3

g) Port battle on Day 3 is at whatever time the enemy attacked on Day 2. For nations like DK-NG, we cannot field a PB at 0400 ST so we would automatically lose the port.

 

And the cycle repeats.

 

All we would like is to increase the timer so that step e cannot happen before step f comes into effect, which requires the cooldown to be 48 hours (unless you can manage to make it just until 2 maintenance cycles). This will at least give us a chance to defend the ports we want to take.

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Isaac J Smith

[admin]

17 minutes ago, Isaac J Smith said:

 

e) Enemy can attack port any time after 1700 ST on Day 2 (cooldown ends) until Maintenance between Day 2 and Day 3 (eg: Enemy nation can declare port battle for 0400ST the next day - Day 3) due to not having a timer.

 

 

They cant since Saturday. We allowed no timers to let nations get their business done with against those who used fake timers just for 1-2 days. You have 24 hours after port loses contested state to set the timer safely.

[Frosty]

4 minutes ago, rediii said:

The reason why a lot of portbattles are set are easy and the same why exploits are used:

- if you don't use the mechanics that are in the game your enemy will use them

That's RvR. Russians probably don't enjoy stacking of hostilitymissions. Attackers don't enjoy fielding screening. Defenders often don't enjoy screening by their own nation because it might result in a empty portbattle. Even danes probably don't enjoy setting empty portbattles.

Yet everyone does it because if he doesn't the enemy will do it.

 

You should change PvP community to RvR community. I think there is a big difference in RvR and PvP. Me and some others often don't mastsnipe simply because the fight is not fun then because it often is too strong for example. RvR communities do everything that's possible. Some play more dirty than others. (spying, DDOS of teamspeak servers, backstabbing etc.)

RvR in a nutshell.

[Liq]

Disable all timers for a week. Will there be hundreds of PBs? Yes. Will it be Good for the Game? Most likely not as people get exhausted.

[Isaac J Smith]

30 minutes ago, admin said:

They cant since Saturday. We allowed no timers to let nations get their business done with against those who used fake timers just for 1-2 days. You have 24 hours after port loses contested state to set the timer safely.

When you re-added the cooldown though, it is only for 24 hours which is again not long enough to set a timer. For example, this port was captured yesterday (Day 1) and was contested. Today (Day 2) the dutch can set a timer on it, but again it doesn't come into effect until after next maintenance. HOWEVER, it can be flipped currently at any time TODAY (Day 2) after the cooldown ends. So from 2245 TODAY until maintenance, this port can be flipped and the defenders have NO CHANCE to set a defence timer appropriate for them. The new timer will only come into effect TOMORROW (Day 3) and therefore would not impact any port battle time as a result of flipping TODAY (Day 2).

 

Again, adding 24 hrs more to the timer, will result in successful port captures at least standing a chance, as Day 1 will be Port Battle and Contested, Day 2 they can set the timer, and Day 3 both the timer comes in and the port can be flipped (but having a timer now, they can appropriately defend).

Edited March 23, 2020 by Isaac J Smith

[admin]

3 minutes ago, Isaac J Smith said:

 HOWEVER, it can be flipped currently at any time TODAY (Day 2) after the cooldown ends.

Cooldown should stop only during maintenance. Not in 24 hours. Will check again though

[Frosty]

14 minutes ago, admin said:

Cooldown should stop only during maintenance. Not in 24 hours. Will check again though

Yesterday it was not the case. For instance, Governor's Harbour (which I pick merely as an example) ended its cooldown yesterday evening, after it got taken by the spaniards on the 21th (so 24 Hrs cooldown!), and got flipped immediately after. 

But... if you fix it, that's a good way of having cooldowns so it's still 2 days cooldown, and not 3 (if you move timers in order to avoid the flip).

[erelkivtuadrater]

31 minutes ago, admin said:

Cooldown should stop only during maintenance. Not in 24 hours. Will check again though

its always been like this, hence why i thought it was the reason you added 2 days safety times for ports so people could actually set correct timers before someone flipped the port

[SnovaZdorowa]

Я не владею рвр темой столько глубоко, как уважаемые доны, но вижу так:

1. Сложно защищаться

Решение в тонких линиях:

- чтобы взять хостилку (просто взять квест) надо иметь соответствующий уровню порта BR игроков онлайн. Выдается она лидеру баттл группы. Стоит денег и имеет таймер.

- группа распущена == хостилка слетела

в шахматах это называется взялся - ходи

- владелец порта получает информацию немедленно после того, как взята хостилка, может предпринять защитные действия

- миссия открывается не сразу, надо давать защитникам немного времени на сборы

2. Мультифлип. 

-подобрать оценочную функцию силы нации (онлайн, статистика киллов и пр.), от этого зависит, сколько хостилок против нее можно брать

Это все экстремально грубо, не для критики, типа предложение **но, а тезисы на подумать. Сейчас ну слишком много ПБ, по мне так чтобы набить порт это надо постараться, приложить усилия, а не приехать по тихому, бдыщ-бдыщ, готово, но мы не придем 😛

[Conte D. Catellani]

2 hours ago, admin said:

They cant since Saturday. We allowed no timers to let nations get their business done with against those who used fake timers just for 1-2 days. You have 24 hours after port loses contested state to set the timer safely.

Was just a bug that Saturday all the Privateer fleets were on strike? Or was planned to let nations to get their revenge? 

[Capitalism]

4 hours ago, admin said:

They cant since Saturday. We allowed no timers to let nations get their business done with against those who used fake timers just for 1-2 days. You have 24 hours after port loses contested state to set the timer safely.

So since you've given carte blanche to players to solve our own problems, is it reasonable to assume that hiring foreign adversaries to flip ports and set empty battles to protect them is now endorsed as a valid protective measure?

5 hours ago, admin said:

PVP communities should embrace the developer as a partner and should stop distancing to another side of the battlefield.

• You cannot have a pleasant combat experience without us.
• And you should start asking instead of voting.
  • Ask what you want - instead of telling us what to do. We wont do what you tell us to do. but might give you what you want instead by other means.

🙄

[admin]

4 hours ago, erelkivtuadrater said:

its always been like this, hence why i thought it was the reason you added 2 days safety times for ports so people could actually set correct timers before someone flipped the port

We will return the 2 day timer back tomorrow.

[Botq]

On 2/10/2020 at 4:49 AM, admin said:

 

• Craftable 3rd rates and some second rates stats will be rebalanced

 

 

Please dont forget about Victory which need some buff. Buffing some stats or lowering br would help. Make this ship useful please  

[Frosty]

54 minutes ago, Botq said:

Please dont forget about Victory which need some buff. Buffing some stats or lowering br would help. Make this ship useful please  

Many ships are in the current state of the game useless, unfortunately..  
Hope the devs fix this at some point this year. 

[Galvez88]

The English are already crying and asking for more. you are the nation listened to and attended to in the game so do not ask for more. you have more ships than anyone

Edited March 23, 2020 by Galvez88

[GrubbyZebra]

On 3/20/2020 at 9:12 AM, Jan Bellaq said:

Seems they want fight fire with explosives. It was reported that cooldown timers were abused by alt clans to secure ports. But removing cooldowns on live server in released game (not beta)? Its atomic bomb to current war situation...

not abused, and not by alt clans.

[GrubbyZebra]

On 3/20/2020 at 10:41 AM, Hr FrosT said:

Remedios, Pirate and spanish involved.

BS, learn to read. The pirate clan that gained the hostility on Remedios was not able to attend the PB due to another PB at the same time. The allied Pirate clans did not want to take Remedios and therefore decided it was more advantageous strategically to skip the PB than to fight it. 
 

But please, keep telling us (Pirates) what we (Pirates) thought and did.

Edited March 24, 2020 by GrubbyZebra

[BoatyMcBoatFace]

19 minutes ago, GrubbyZebra said:

BS, learn to read. The pirate clan that gained the hostility on Remedios was not able to attend the PB due to another PB at the same time (a defensive PB, btw). The allied Pirate clans did not want to take Remedios and therefore decided it was more advantageous strategically to skip the PB than to fight it. 
 

But please, keep telling us (Pirates) what we (Pirates) thought and did.

false. its already made public it was a fake pb set to prevent a real one

[GrubbyZebra]

2 hours ago, BoatyMcBoatFace said:

false. its already made public it was a fake pb set to prevent a real one

From MERCY:

Quote

Things are easier. We are don't have that count of players as RI have, so we are just can't be at 2 PBs at a same time.

Mercy has about 100 members total, and 20 or less online at any one time on average.

Quote

There are no statements from me or my clanmates. We were busy at PdP PB(19:34 server time). I thought we would be in time at Remidos(19:53 server time) but expectedly easy PdP battle was becoming hard and it took full 1.5h.

From me, and completely taken out of context by Anolytic:

Quote

We weren't "used" by Spain. We made a strategic decision to assist Spain in keeping Russia from taking Remedios in order to protect our Northwestern border from Russian incursions (like what happened last time Russia took Remedios), seeing as how we have a major crafting and trade hub not far from that port.

So, as I already stated, as one having first-hand knowledge of this entire event: the attacking clan ended up not being able to attend the PB, and the allied clans decided it was more advantageous not to attend it in their stead, as it is a Spanish crafting port that if taken, would need to be returned.

Edited March 24, 2020 by GrubbyZebra
fixed formatting for clarity

[BoatyMcBoatFace]

forum posts are not what im talking about.  it was already discussed and validated it was to lock hostilities. long before tribunal itself came up

 

 

[GrubbyZebra]

25 minutes ago, BoatyMcBoatFace said:

forum posts are not what im talking about.  it was already discussed and validated it was to lock hostilities. long before tribunal itself came up

If you say so. Not like I was there or anything, oh wait.....