RoE: Entry Veto for Battle on Both Sides

[Karvala]

Abuse of the RoE is rife on both servers and seems to be getting worse.  From gank fleets unrelated to either attacker or defender crashing battles 15 minutes in, to loot stealers standing by downwind to grab the loot from someone else's kill, to false flag entry on the wrong side to flout the BR limitation, to "accidental" green on green damage which is not at all accidental.  Most of these things are against the RoE but without video evidence, which most players don't have, there is no enforcement and so they have become a daily reality.

The goals of the RoE should be:-

1.  Ensure a fair fight.

2.  Allow reinforcements on either side where this leads to a fair fight.

3.  Prevent loot stealing, false flags and green on green damage through game mechanics, not just the Tribunal after it's too late.

This can be achieved by one simple modification:  allow the primary player on both sides to screen potential entrants to the battle on their side and veto them (preventing entry) if unwanted.  This means your friends, allies, trusted neutral parties can still join the battle (and because you can only veto your own side, you can't stop reinforcements for the other side joining), but it also means random gank fleets, griefers, cheats and thieves can be kept out.

It's such an easy modification, it doesn't really have any negative consequences for anyone not intending to violate the existing RoE and it will largely solve these growing problems at a stroke.

[Angus MacDuff]

Completely disagree with 1 & 2.  Solo PVP zone is where you go for fair fights.  The rest is the chaos of war.  Any military planner worth his salt does his best to ensure that his side wins in the most UNFAIR fight possible.  The idea might be interesting on PVP to stop "friends" from inflating the BR and certainly should be mandatory on the Peace server.

We need a "swear" jar for people who use the word "fair".

[Macjimm]

2 hours ago, Karvala said:

The goals of the RoE should be:-

1.  Ensure a fair fight.

I disagree with this. In an OW style of game there must be unbalanced battles, or the game would be too restrictive to  allow the larger scale strategy.  Allowing only fair fights would be arena style battle simulator.

[Karvala]

11 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Why? When in real life is a fair fight a smart thing to do when there are real world costs (time in this instance, if not pride) in losing it in a 50/50 battle?

If you have numbers and skill in planning/organizing on your side, then asymmetric warfare should always be part of the RoE. Period.  If you're treating the OW only as a shitty matchmaking engine you're playing the wrong game.

1 minute ago, Macjimm said:

I disagree with this. In an OW style of game there must be unbalanced battles, or the game would be too restrictive to  allow the larger scale strategy.  Allowing only fair fights would be arena style battle simulator.

Because asymmetric warfare requires a weak side to nevertheless come out to fight.  As you say yourself, why do so if there are real world costs?  In a PvP situation, not everyone can be on the strongest side by definition.  The weaker side aren't going to turn up to a fight they can't win.  You only have to look at the recent PB fiasco to see that.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Karvala

[Raf Van Boom]

You, as a player, ensure a fair fight (and sometimes you cannot and get ganked). I mean that's part of OW appeal, the fact that it's unpredictable?

[Karvala]

7 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Completely disagree with 1 & 2.  Solo PVP zone is where you go for fair fights.  The rest is the chaos of war.  Any military planner worth his salt does his best to ensure that his side wins in the most UNFAIR fight possible.  The idea might be interesting on PVP to stop "friends" from inflating the BR and certainly should be mandatory on the Peace server.

We need a "swear" jar for people who use the word "fair".

The peace server is certainly more what I had in mind, though I think it would work on either.

To be clear to all three of you, though; notwithstanding my comment about a fair fight, nothing in the proposal requires BR limitations, the same number or type of ships etc..  You can still have a massively unbalanced fight by letting your friends in on your side if you want.  You just can't now cheat by sending them in under false flags on the other side.

[Karvala]

5 minutes ago, Raf Van Boom said:

You, as a player, ensure a fair fight (and sometimes you cannot and get ganked). I mean that's part of OW appeal, the fact that it's unpredictable?

And again: I haven't proposed any rate or BR limits.  Only a mechanism to enforce the current RoE.

[Angus MacDuff]

8 minutes ago, Karvala said:

The peace server is certainly more what I had in mind, though I think it would work on either.

To be clear to all three of you, though; notwithstanding my comment about a fair fight, nothing in the proposal requires BR limitations, the same number or type of ships etc..  You can still have a massively unbalanced fight by letting your friends in on your side if you want.  You just can't now cheat by sending them in under false flags on the other side.

I see that and I don't disagree with your proposal to limit friends from joining.  There has been numerous occasions where I don't want a friendly to come in.