Tagging enemy war supplies

[Jeheil]

No complaint AT ALL as to the French hostility bomb or their Danish allies screening for them....but...from a GAME DESIGN MECHANIC perspective a question.

Nation A forms a fleet of War Supplies. Who HAVE to have the smuggler flag on to complete their mission.

Nation B Screens for them.

The very good looking and charming Nation C tries to attack those pesky gits from Nation A before they assplode a hostility bomb.

Nation B tags the attackers BUT the smuggling Nation A ARE IN THE CIRCLE....but they ARE NOT drawn into battle.

Thus screening war supplies seems not as it should be.

Discuss.

(all names in the above scenario have been changed to protect the innocent...so please stick to the scenario and no French kicking...thats my job).

 

[The Spud]

Sounds to me like that is not how it is supposed to work. Hostility bombs are also something to be looked at as a whole in my opinion. The whole hostility mechanic needs some serious tweaking. But I think the devs figured that out by the many posts about it.

[lokii]

Smuggler flag should allow Nation A attacking Nation A. Normal mechanics should apply for all other nations.

Can RoE also be changed to pull all enemys into battle, why cant multiple nations who may all be enemies be drawn into battle at once?

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by lokii
clarity

[Salzi]

Quite an exploit from a mechanics standpoint, stopping the warsupplies getting into a battle due to the current tagging mechanics.

Personally I have been one for always having the idea of an open world battle have anyone dragged into it and they are their nation, I always disliked the two side mechanic, even I know this mechanic would be abused however. ^^'

[The Spud]

15 minutes ago, Salzi said:

Quite an exploit from a mechanics standpoint, stopping the warsupplies getting into a battle due to the current tagging mechanics.

Personally I have been one for always having the idea of an open world battle have anyone dragged into it and they are their nation, I always disliked the two side mechanic, even I know this mechanic would be abused however. ^^'

I agree that it should drag in everybody, like you should "copy" the OW situation into the battle instance. But the problem will always be, if you have three nations drawn in that are not allied to eachother (basicaly every time a pirate is involved), where do you auto put the 3rd nation? If you give the option to choose sides, one nation will have "teammates" that are shooting sails or will do other griefing.

Seen as nobody will atack one of his teammates or allies with a smuggler flag (unless its an alt), why not always treat smuggler flags like they belong to the nation they are under, instead of treating them seperatly.

 

[Salzi]

10 minutes ago, The Spud said:

I agree that it should drag in everybody, like you should "copy" the OW situation into the battle instance. But the problem will always be, if you have three nations drawn in that are not allied to eachother (basicaly every time a pirate is involved), where do you auto put the 3rd nation? If you give the option to choose sides, one nation will have "teammates" that are shooting sails or will do other griefing.

Seen as nobody will atack one of his teammates or allies with a smuggler flag (unless its an alt), why not always treat smuggler flags like they belong to the nation they are under, instead of treating them seperatly.

 

This is why I think that there should be no sides taken to the battles other than the flag you fly and allies, some battles could also be 1v1v1 for example but as I said it makes a lot of problems than fixing them ^^

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

95% of mechanics and code and time spent doing it to cover 5% of exploiters and airbenders... *yawn*

[lokii]

19 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

95% of mechanics and code and time spent doing it to cover 5% of exploiters and airbenders... *yawn*

Jehil is not implying it is an exploit, or was abused, more a discussion around RoE with smuggler flags. As you are a 'Pirate' at heart, I thought you would like to be able to attack anything that moves?

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

As a tester I try to play everything until release.

A pyrate can engage any nation and can also be engaged by any nation and they are not sided nor can they side with any nation.

The truth is we find too many bends and force a big chunk of suggestions to be channeled trough plugging those gaps.

Not pointing fingers, just stating the sad fact that shouldn't exist. We need to play with the rules we have and quickly escalate WARGAME CONQUEST instead of sitting and waiting for something to happen.

This situation as described here is a side effect of our willingness to see politics in game and safe kept from "alts exploits". There's no way around it.

And even then there's alt exploits. Will point especially a situation that happened during the weekend with a dutch alt being used to draw dutch ships into gank fleets.

With the politics driving the possibility of tagging at the very least the ALTs issue is plugged on one front.

[Sir Max Magic]

2 hours ago, Jeheil said:

No complaint AT ALL as to the French hostility bomb or their Danish allies screening for them....but...from a GAME DESIGN MECHANIC perspective a question.

Nation A forms a fleet of War Supplies. Who HAVE to have the smuggler flag on to complete their mission.

Nation B Screens for them.

The very good looking and charming Nation C tries to attack those pesky gits from Nation A before they assplode a hostility bomb.

Nation B tags the attackers BUT the smuggling Nation A ARE IN THE CIRCLE....but they ARE NOT drawn into battle.

Thus screening war supplies seems not as it should be.

Discuss.

(all names in the above scenario have been changed to protect the innocent...so please stick to the scenario and no French kicking...thats my job).

 

 

Honestly Jeheil, i cant understand why you stay so civil at this topic ???

 

This is clearly a BROKEN game mechanic and i think, its quite a scandal that the Devs seems to not care about it...given the few answers 

 

...only because the last time we could repel the attack, doesnt mean the topic is over: EVERY port is in danger now because of this mechanic and its NOTHING a defender can do against

If this had the Devs in mind when creating this new game logic, i applaud them, because its "working as intended"

But everyone else get left headshaking about a game design that defies so much its purpose...

 

Okay, we get Port battles...so what, but for which price ??

No OW PvP anymore needed...and lets be honest, the PB are fought most times between roughly the same 25 people...but what about those other THOUSANDS of players ???

Is their only purpose in RvR to get those war Supplys crafted ???

 

 Or in other words, the attacker can literally BUY himself a port battle !!!

 

 

 

Lets make some math how to defend ports against incoming War Supply Bomb Fleets:

- to actively defend a Port against a Trader Fleet carrying the War Supply Bomb, you would need at minimum 10 Players with 4th rates or better on permanent patrol !!

- even if you would do this, the attacker would counter this by giving a screening fleet to the War Supply Bomb fleet

- because the attacker always knows when and where to attack, he can always assemble MORE people than the defender (think about WW2 Bombing Campaign would have worked with a 2 min alert time until the bombs got dropped...impossible to intercept)

- okay, lets say, you assemble those 10 Players (even if it wouldnt be enough)...those has to stay 24/7 doing NOTHING at their designated port !! When one player would be on patrol for even 4 hours, we would need 60 (!!!) Players to cover ONE port 

- now, to my knowledge, it doesnt matter to which port the War Supply Bomb is delivered, so for the Bermudas this means we have 3 Ports to cover which means 180 Players doing NOTHING else in their 4h playtime than patrolling in front of their port !! Every day, every week... thats INSANE !!!

- and couple this with more than only one interesting regions EVERY nation has to cover and we soon run out of players...before the other ones leave the game

 

 

This whole mechanic is so out of heck, that it leaves me speechless that the Devs dont care about it !!!

[Archaos]

I would like to thank the Danes and their allies for again proving how broken the war supplies mechanic is.

Last time they claimed that the war supply fleet could easily have been stopped and that people had been too lazy to do anything to stop it, yet now when there are people to intercept it, they use another broken mechanic to get through.

Good job in testing lads, hopefully the Devs will take notice of your hard work in testing flaws in the game and make appropriate changes to give us a better game.

[Jeheil]

I stay calm, coz being Salty as I was last week only took my fun away.

So now I state the problem...no hate on baddies...all ports will be won back one day (or reset so I am more chil).

And we is testing...so lets point out the flaws without the 'ooo Frenchies you so bad' coz as soon as we do that...they will just point to some BS some Brit/Cloggie/Merican have done in the name of winning...and it all descends into monkeys throwing poop at each other.

[The Spud]

I think if someone is tagged or tags himself, he should know for a 100% sure who is going to end up in the battle and who not. Now I find to often you're surprised cause there are more/less ships in the battle then you anticipated.

Tagging and the timers that come with it are like 90% of all this games issues, and I would suggest instead of making the whole mechanic even more complex with more rules, maybe just make battles open for the complete duration of the battle. If there are three unrelated factions in a battle, then its 1vs1vs1. Just ditch as many of the complex rules to avoid ganking. Caus at the moment it just feels like you fix one problem and it creates 2 other problems. Might just be better to suck it up, and just deal with whatever comes your way. Make one rule, can't join battles that started before you logged in or before you TP'd.

Maybe keep the 1 minute pull circle, and then add back that feature where you would spawn in depending on the point you joined the battle in OW as "reinforcements" (Like we used to have some months ago, think june or somehting, but we ditched it).

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by The Spud

[Guest]

While it sucks, I don't see how players are supposed to avoid it until the devs fix it. Shoot themselves in the foot by telling all their allies that they shouldn't help out at all?

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

There should be no "enemy". Only Ally or War status.

That way there's no one left outside.

[The Spud]

22 minutes ago, Hodo said:

From a neutral point of view it should work like this.

If Nation A is allied with Nation B, then both A and B should be drawn into the engagement on the same side vs Nation C. 

 

If Nation A is abusing a mechanic for Nation B by not being allied with them then this is a different discussion. 

 

 

I think the main factor is the smuggle flag that prevents A from being being pulled into a battle together with B. Not sure but I think even if Nation A would screen, for their guys also from nation A running a smuggler flag it would have had the same outcome?

[Wesreidau]

9 hours ago, Hethwill said:

95% of mechanics and code and time spent doing it to cover 5% of exploiters and airbenders... *yawn*

 

5% of exploiters? Hethwill, this bug ruined play for forty or fifty people. Its our job to find problems, not yawn at them because they happen to help our friends out. Do your job as a tester instead of being a shitposter.

Hostility bomb intercepting is fundamentally broke. Britain sent three waves of ships to intercept a hostility bomb fleet, and lo and behold, ships that are flagged as smuggler (as they must be to hostility bomb) aren't pulled into combat with unflagged members of their nation or alliance block. So even though the British interceptors got in among the fleet in the open world, when they got tagged into battle, they either brought a single smuggler-flagged ship into combat, or were only fighting the escorts.

This is a tremendous oversight that needs to be corrected in a hotfix.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

I was being generic and not specific on this case   which I don't really see as a exploit but maybe a feature under testing, that okay is not really working but due more to a force of nature called human organization ( defeats the machine ) rather than bending the rules.

There are too many limitations already. That is my entire point on the 5% analogy.

[North]

On 14.11.2016 at 10:23 AM, Jeheil said:

No complaint AT ALL as to the French hostility bomb or their Danish allies screening for them....but...from a GAME DESIGN MECHANIC perspective a question.

Nation A forms a fleet of War Supplies. Who HAVE to have the smuggler flag on to complete their mission.

Nation B Screens for them.

The very good looking and charming Nation C tries to attack those pesky gits from Nation A before they assplode a hostility bomb.

Nation B tags the attackers BUT the smuggling Nation A ARE IN THE CIRCLE....but they ARE NOT drawn into battle.

Thus screening war supplies seems not as it should be.

Discuss.

(all names in the above scenario have been changed to protect the innocent...so please stick to the scenario and no French kicking...thats my job).

 

Nothing getting exploited here or wrong with the game mechanics!!!!

The Traders are smugglers and by that a pirate that means when you tag the screener(nation player) you will drag him and his allies in and as nobody can ally with pirate they won't be draged in...

So nothing wrong just that you didn't think your attack through and thought undocking alot of ships would stop it, but you got screened sucessfully

[Ink]

The roe smuggler issue hopefully will be addressed during next week

[North]

4 minutes ago, Ink said:

The roe smuggler issue hopefully will be addressed during next week

This is just stupid, then you are allowing the zerg tactic to work witch is that as long as you have enough people and undock in waves nothing can get to the harbour...

it's working fine, just need to be smart to get a tag now instead is getting dumb down so it will be a no skill to tag someone with just undocking in waves and your port will be safe

[Nikodemus]

12 minutes ago, North said:

This is just stupid, then you are allowing the zerg tactic to work witch is that as long as you have enough people and undock in waves nothing can get to the harbour...

it's working fine, just need to be smart to get a tag now instead is getting dumb down so it will be a no skill to tag someone with just undocking in waves and your port will be safe

No what is stupid s the fact that the ship right next to you is just gone when the battle starts. as for the zerg tactic screening is a fun part of the game that gets people of all levels involved in the Port attack/defence. The other day you guys had several layers of defenders and we where still able to get into the port for the fight. The idea that people should not be able to have some role in the port battle is stupid and bad for the game.

 

[North]

Just now, Nikodemus said:

No what is stupid s the fact that the ship right next to you is just gone when the battle starts. as for the zerg tactic screening is a fun part of the game that gets people of all levels involved in the Port attack/defence. The other day you guys had several layers of defenders and we where still able to get into the port for the fight. The idea that people should not be able to have some role in the port battle is stupid and bad for the game.

 

it's fun when your nation has the largest player base and you can do that kind of tactic but not fair for the other nations..

btw we didn't screen our PB(savannah) as we could beat the guys that showed up if it was brits/dutch/us and we don't have that many ppl to screen anyway..

Should be that the nation with the most noobs to throw to the grinder wins just because they are outnumbering everyone, if that was the case with your undocking tactics no one would get close to your port and there would never be a port battle fought...

[North]

5 minutes ago, Nikodemus said:

No what is stupid s the fact that the ship right next to you is just gone when the battle starts.

So when you attack a smuggler his considered lawless and a pirate so that mean ifyou want it your way, then it would be only fair to let the pirates be dragged in aswell for the smuggler side..

[Nikodemus]

2 minutes ago, North said:

it's fun when your nation has the largest player base and you can do that kind of tactic but not fair for the other nations..

btw we didn't screen our PB(savannah) as we could beat the guys that showed up if it was brits/dutch/us and we don't have that many ppl to screen anyway..

Should be that the nation with the most noobs to throw to the grinder wins just because they are outnumbering everyone, if that was the case with your undocking tactics no one would get close to your port and there would never be a port battle fought...

I was talking about the Spanish port Carta something or other. you had screens in layers there we where able to pull into 3 different battles to get the PB fleet in. 

 

Right now your alliance has more people on during EU prime time the ours. But i do see the problem if one side has way more people then the other side. Not sure how to fix it though. I think screens are an important and fun part of the PRE port battle, it gets more then just the same 50 players involved. Just look at most of the port battles we have had. Been the Danes v Brits show for the most part with the same 20 or so players for both sides. Ill have to think about it.