Political Situation (PvP 1 EU)

[Llewellyn Jones RN]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! 

@Intrepido please look at the nations involved last night BRITS Attacked at San Augustine the Americans Attacked Savannah at the same time this gave us a chance of a fair fight against Spain or the Danes the U.S. drew the short straw last night and got the Danes but they knew what they were getting into, We decided to do the war supplies bombs to show the devs how broken war supplies are and to give is the best chance to have a Live Oak port again.

tbh I am surprised Spain hasn't done a war supply bomb yet but I am sure it's coming even more so now.

 

as for logging off outside the British Attack fleet sailed from St Mary's we timed our run to enter the port Attack window at the correct time with a small refreshment/bio break before closing with the town.

the USN fleet sailed from Little River I think but made such good time to Savannah they elected to log off outside the port logging back in when the battle was open. This is not the same as Danes sailing up the night before and logging off outside the port though I would suggest that travel distances should be considered here the location of the log off is the questionable bit not the logging off.

 

[Alvar Fañez de Minaya]

1 hour ago, Llewellyn Jones RN said:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! 

@Intrepido please look at the nations involved last night BRITS Attacked at San Augustine the Americans Attacked Savannah at the same time this gave us a chance of a fair fight against Spain or the Danes the U.S. drew the short straw last night and got the Danes but they knew what they were getting into, We decided to do the war supplies bombs to show the devs how broken war supplies are and to give is the best chance to have a Live Oak port again.

tbh I am surprised Spain hasn't done a war supply bomb yet but I am sure it's coming even more so now.

 

as for logging off outside the British Attack fleet sailed from St Mary's we timed our run to enter the port Attack window at the correct time with a small refreshment/bio break before closing with the town.

the USN fleet sailed from Little River I think but made such good time to Savannah they elected to log off outside the port logging back in when the battle was open. This is not the same as Danes sailing up the night before and logging off outside the port though I would suggest that travel distances should be considered here the location of the log off is the questionable bit not the logging off.

 

I'm totally agree with you........ war supplies system is broken..... There's no possible to warm two places in one day, I think devs changed pve system to avoid exactly that..

About these two pb at the same time......... this is a very good strategic movement between allies....... isolate danes and spanish to avoid we work together...... Well done........ this is how we must work strategically......... 

About timer choice....... well...... The best for americans.......... but.......... well........... I don't wanna talk about timers.......

Spanish preparing a bomb........ I'm not agree to use this............ The spirit of the law is not to warm territories in one day or hours........ I hope dev must change this.......... but until this come and after this night..... The choice is ok to use one, two, three or four at the same time.... (of course, two by nation).

[Llewellyn Jones RN]

Last night see something that many thought would not happen again until the Devs patched war supplies out of the the game or at least reduced it 100% bomb quality.

last night while hunting French out side a port swap between France and Sweden we thought it would be fun to hit the French invasion force but instead we just watched them login into game and jump into the port battle hey presto no swedes stopping the port swap.

So we thought let's have some fun and raise the hostility in the Orinoco region, we sailed round the point 24 British Captains and 5 Dutch Captains used the RVR mechanics to raise the hostility and raise it,  1hr 20 mins later and the port battle was set the Swedes tried to slow us down a little too late for them.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Llewellyn Jones RN
Wording

[Archaos]

On 11/21/2016 at 0:59 PM, Llewellyn Jones RN said:

Last night see something that many thought would not happen again until the Devs patched war supplies out of the the game or at least reduced it 100% bomb quality.

last night while hunting French out side a port swap between France and Sweden we thought it would be fun to hit the French invasion force but instead we just watched them login into game and jump into the port battle hey presto no swedes stopping the port swap.

So we thought let's have some fun and raise the hostility in the Orinoco region, we sailed round the point 24 British Captains and 5 Dutch Captains used the RVR mechanics to raise the hostility and raise it,  1hr 20 mins later and the port battle was set the Swedes tried to slow us down a little too late for them.

This shows that it is possible to raise hostility the way the Devs intended it, but people are too lazy to do it and would rather take the shortcut of war supplies. 

I do realise that this method is currently easier to counter if the defender is determined, and it involves a lot of PvE, but with some tweaking to make PvP hostility more important I think it would make the game better. I suggested before in another thread that if PvP generated hostility did not decay or could only be countered by PvP then PvP would become more relevant in pushing a region to hostility.

[Archaos]

Just now, rediii said:

people are not too lazy, they just dont enjoy playing PvE.

if PvP will be the key in hostility areas people will be too scared to pvp there and just run away

But this is why I suggest that PvP hostility should not decay and can only be countered by PvP. This way slowly over time even if people tried their best to avoid PvP in an area any PvP that did occur would remain as hostility till a point where the defending nation had to do some PvP to reduce it.

Imagine for example that due to PvP a region had over a couple of weeks had PvP hostility creep up to 80%, this make it easier for the region to be flipped to 100% hostility by only a few PvE battles. As defender you have to do something about it and the only way is to engage in PvP in that region.

[Archaos]

Just now, rediii said:

yes and at this point the attacker would just avoid the pvp in fear of loosing a battle

first the defender has to avoid pvp to not let hostility get higher and later the attacker has to avoid it to not let it go lower

Then in that case there will never be any port battles. If people want the port battles then they will have to be operating in the region which leaves them open to PvP. 

Hot zones for traders will always have some PvP from traders being ganked and that will slowly push a region towards hostility which would eventually need to be countered.

It may not be a perfect system that I propose but a tweak to the current system to give PvP more importance rather than the Devs completely reworking the system to another that may still not be perfect once the players have tested it and found ways to exploit it to their advantage. 

[Archaos]

6 minutes ago, rediii said:

i would suggest a flagmechanic like the old one where you can get into a portbattle by pulling a flag (1 or 2 each nation at the same time so it dont gets abused)

the flag generates a serverwide warning that a assault flag is pulled against port X

portbattle will happen in the port, if defender doesnt show up hostility is at 100% and portbattle will happen in 46h

 

but then you have the problem with nightflips again.

 

so many problems with the different timezones that the servers should be timezone based.

The problem with timezone based servers is that if separates the community. The problem with the game is that it is set in a historical time frame with actual nations and naturally people tend to be drawn to firstly their native nation and after that towards a nation they have some affiliation to. So in a EU timezone most of the EU nations will be well represented but the USA would have few players and on a US server the USA, British (as English speaking) and Spanish (Spanish speakering nations) would have good representation but other nations would probably struggle and thus lead to an imbalance in the game and ultimate failure.

Rather than push for timezone servers you should try harder to recruit persons from different timezones to cover the possibilities. You have to remember that you do not personally have to attend every port battle for your nation. The game has already moved too much towards an elite port battle group turning up to every port battle, which is not good for the game.

[Archaos]

8 minutes ago, rediii said:

maybe another way to encourage pvp would be:

- smaller pve misionareas

- some way to generate hostility which is broadcasted on the server (flagmechanic) and the enemy has to react with pvp

- no idea anymore  i think the old flagmechanic was good and encouraged ppl to play together in the evening. the current doesnt.

like i said. in my opinion a stable pvp hostility would first let the defender avoid pvp and later let the attacker avoid pvp.

or even alt-accounts would be killed in order to get pvp hostility higher and abuse the system

I can agree with smaller mission areas and a broadcast flag mechanic, but lets not go down the road of false flags and wasting peoples time like it was previously.

I was not suggesting stable PvP hostility as the only way of generating PvP but as a way of making PvP more relevant after it had happened. It is frustrating to raise hostility by PvP only to have it wiped out by easy PvE or decay over time.

The alts will always be an issue but that is done at risk of getting a ban.

[Woody051]

[Johny Reb]

On 11/22/2016 at 8:47 AM, Archaos said:

But this is why I suggest that PvP hostility should not decay and can only be countered by PvP. This way slowly over time even if people tried their best to avoid PvP in an area any PvP that did occur would remain as hostility till a point where the defending nation had to do some PvP to reduce it.

Imagine for example that due to PvP a region had over a couple of weeks had PvP hostility creep up to 80%, this make it easier for the region to be flipped to 100% hostility by only a few PvE battles. As defender you have to do something about it and the only way is to engage in PvP in that region.

I don't think this is a good idea. On the surface it sounds great but the unintended consequences troubles me.

The main problem is the freeports and how enemies use them to avoid risk to themselves, something I consider a panzy way of playing the game. Most pvp happens close to a nations home port. The ports around the Capital should be some of the easiest to defend not the ones in constant contention, imo.

The port humpers have an advantage in generating your proposed permanent pvp hostility. They sit at dock and wait for easy prey to get close and then pounce. If anyone comes at them they jump back into port. This gives them a distinct advantage in generating hostility. Fix the ability to port hump and I would be more open to this idea.

Second, I don't believe there should ever be permanent hostility points but I could accept a much reduced decay. Even down to say, 5 %. The devs were going after a national effort to flip ports making ports harder to flip and more rare making them special events. They wanted to get away from multiple flips in an hour but failed to do so as the Danes and their allies have shown recently with 5 flips at the same time. Permanent generation of hostility through pvp would allow one player over a long period of time to flip a port without any national participation.

[Archaos]

2 minutes ago, Johny Reb said:

I don't think this is a good idea. On the surface it sounds great but the unintended consequences troubles me.

The main problem is the freeports and how enemies use them to avoid risk to themselves, something I consider a panzy way of playing the game. Most pvp happens close to a nations home port. The ports around the Capital should be some of the easiest to defend not the ones in constant contention, imo.

The port humpers have an advantage in generating your proposed permanent pvp hostility. They sit at dock and wait for easy prey to get close and then pounce. If anyone comes at them they jump back into port. This gives them a distinct advantage in generating hostility. Fix the ability to port hump and I would be more open to this idea.

Second, I don't believe there should ever be permanent hostility points but I could accept a much reduced decay. Even down to say, 5 %. The devs were going after a national effort to flip ports making ports harder to flip and more rare making them special events. They wanted to get away from multiple flips in an hour but failed to do so as the Danes and their allies have shown recently with 5 flips at the same time. Permanent generation of hostility through pvp would allow one player over a long period of time to flip a port without any national participation.

Freeports are not in regions and as such battles in them do not generate hostility for any region, so the issue of port humpers would not happen.

The proposal would be exactly the same as it is now but just give more importance to PvP in hostility generation. Yes, a single person could generate enough hostility to cause a port battle, but that would be the beauty of the system, if the defenders did not carry out PvP in the region then they would have to defend the port battle.

The idea would need tweaking but I think it would encourage more PvP.

[Alado]

8 hours ago, sruPL said:

Hello Danes )) Happy waiting for next 21 hours in Battlescreen, I hope you enjoy battlescreen, very interesting game mode.

the record have brits, with 48 hours waiting to salamanca battle.

i feel your fear.

[Snoggy]

Whatever happened to the lord vicious hate?

[The Spud]

59 minutes ago, sruPL said:

That's still a rage quit.

Rage-Quit: Angrily abandon an activity or pursuit that has become frustrating, especially the playing of a video game.

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/rage-quit

It doesn't specify time of abandoning, so I would agree its a rage quit.

[Jacob Elston]

The dictionary has spoken!

[jpjchris]

On 11/30/2016 at 8:31 AM, Srupl said:

Lord Vicious rage quited the game,

 

And nothing of value was lost.