Port Battle cooldown timer

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, The Rear End of Sauron said:

you conveniently left out that sweden gave the GB crafting port (when GB were allied with russia and still had other crafting ports) to Spain and didn't keep for themselves after russia hello kittyed the spanish over 

you did also "coincidentally" forget about russia's failed attempt on maracaibo 

funniest of all in this stupid example of russo-danish propaganda is that in you failed attempt to make sweden look bad, you claim that we took 2 crafting ports from you 

now correct me if i am wrong here but you do know the difference between 1 and 2 right?
 

you complain that we took denmark's only  crating port San Juan and that oither ports such as Ponce or Spanish Town to not count as grafting ports

now you are saying that we took two? which is it - you guys are flip flopping muppets who alter facts to suit your agenda

also you are being 2 ported because you are being douches and miltiflipping ports with the russians and then not showing up, especially when you have NO other port battle on 90 minutes of either side of some the ones you are flipping

oh and if russia are the nice guys and you are allied with them, ask them for just one of their FIVE 55point crafting ports

because we have one, capped truxillo and gave it to the spanish so they could have one also

You do know the difference between San Juan and Road Town right? - Get your facts together. And what we've been arguing is that RT, ST, Ponce - none of them matters since they're not even half decent crafting ports, RT was a crafting port nonetheless so in total, Sweden took 2 from DK/NG.

Sweden did start the no shows. We were told it's a valid RvR tactic by a swede. If you remember I was quite fuming and pointed to the fact that BOCAR has never before flipped a port and not shown up, without giving a heads up to our enemies. We respect our fellow players, but if that respect isn't replied in kind, if my enemy hides behind dodge timers, feels he can no show against us, feel he can exploit mechanics against us. Well. Who am I to stay on the moral high ground. Be prepared for more no shows.

We don't need to ask Russia for something that isn't ours. We'll take San Juan at some point.

Spain basically were gifted a chain, forever linked to Sweden. Grats on the vassalage.

Russia/Sweden, it doesn't matter what we're discussing is the mechanics. I don't think me or Staunberg has claimed that Russia is WAY better than Sweden, all we've claimed is that Sweden has made her own enemies, and can you really argue against that? That Sweden just so happen to have picked worse enemies than Russia, well this is a wargame, so enemies will be picked regardless.

Now stfu or stick to the mechanics, the "DK/NG touched me in inappropriate places after I raped him - *points at the dolls crutch*" doesn't belong in this thread, this is suggestions - please remember that.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Liq said:

Omg ffs staun take this to national news

Could you be a bit unbiased and take a look at where this discussion took a wrong turn? Here's a hint - it's actually not Staunbergs fault..

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, admin said:

there will be no - noshows in the new system. 

How will you ensure that? If I set a port battle and fx. is screened out - how can u ensure that there will be no "no shows"?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, The Rear End of Sauron said:

if i REPLIED to your comment - how could i be the one that started it - timelines, timelines my friend

Because you replied to a comment, where Staunberg is commenting on a previous comment from an angry swede. Timelines.

[AeRoTR]

As an example of hostility mission; which includes pvp and effort, I would say; 

1. Hostility mission is created when a mission is taken with some dubloon/vm/cm  payment.

2. Hostility is next day in PB timer window. Both attackers and defenders know hostility mission and time.

3. Hostility mission is sinking a treasure fleet or armed transport fleet. Consists of few 1st rate (or suitable ships according Port BR) and some indiaman npcs. When a certain point is achieved by attackers, PB is set for the next day.

4. Attackers and defenders can join Hostility mission from any point as soon as swords are visible.

5.  Both spawn with neutral wind with NPC fleet closer to defenders. Both attackers and defender join at fixed position without importance of how far they joined.

6. Attackers should collect enough points in 1 hour window, defenders can protect the npc fleet or sink attackers to steal their points.

7. Battle ends when NPC fleet  arrive at destination / enough npc sunk by attackers, PB is generated / enough attackers sunk by defenders, No PB.

8. Fleets leaving the hostility have much longer invisibility timer.

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by AeRoTR

[Liq]

5 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

How will you ensure that? If I set a port battle and fx. is screened out - how can u ensure that there will be no "no shows"?

He was talking about an "auction" system somewhere yesterday... So maybe if a nation wanted to set a PB, they'd have to buy the PB "permit", if there is a nation bidding more theyd get ir

I really hope im wrong though. This would just be as exploitable. Especially bad vs small nations

[The Rear End of Sauron]

also wouldn't "there will be NO noshows" indicative of a system that bypasses the current strategy of screenning out fleets to prevent them from joining a pb?

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Liq said:

He was talking about an "auction" system somewhere yesterday... So maybe if a nation wanted to set a PB, they'd have to buy the PB "permit", if there is a nation bidding more theyd get ir

I really hope im wrong though. This would just be as exploitable. Especially bad vs small nations

That's one thing. The other is that with frontlines there won't be any1 "bidding" against it. Other than alts trying to keep their real ports on CD ofc. Great thing I have a swedish alt clan then.... I guess.

[The Rear End of Sauron]

8 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

That's one thing. The other is that with frontlines there won't be any1 "bidding" against it. Other than alts trying to keep their real ports on CD ofc. Great thing I have a swedish alt clan then.... I guess.

perhaps the way around that would be that only officers of a clan friended to the clan which owns the port from which the port battle can be set are the only ones allowed to trigger the mechanic?

the officer and clan setting the PB would be public info

ie. if a rogue alt clan set the PB with intent of gaming the system, they could simply be removed from the friends list

Edited March 20, 2020 by The Rear End of Sauron

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, The Rear End of Sauron said:

perhaps the way around that would be that only officers of a clan friended to the clan which owns the port from which the port battle can be set are the only ones allowed to trigger the mechanic?

the officer and clan setting the PB would be public info

ie. if a rogue alt clan set the PB with intent of gaming the system, they could simply be removed from the friends list

So no new clans in RvR?

And who decides who is rogue and who is not?

[Mouth of Sauron]

so yea guys      can we keep the DK - SWE drama out of at least 1 thread?  It's consumed all the others.  There is a fair bit if info here that should not be washed out with yet another thread full of finger pointing.  

@admin so how about a week or 2 off of RVR until we figure out a new system.....rather than opening the floodgates.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Spikes said:

Trux is not a 55 point port.

As for Spain...what did you expect Russia to do when Spain was flipping 3-4 Russian ports a day to coincide with other multi flips?

The best thing that could happen are multi-flips being removed, and a nation only allowed to have 1-2 offensive PBs per day. Issue being you now invite troll alts to flip ports. I dunno. Just need to turn off PBs.

The price of being large is a bitch. There's atm no counter for the zerg, so don't tell me the zerg can't fill PBs..

[Montagnes]

@admin . The RvR truce during christmas showed that turning off RvR during several days can be done without any bad consequences.

Not having cooldowns will potentially have multiple bad consequences for the rvr players.

Choose wisely.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, admin said:

there will be no - noshows in the new system. 

Will there be any system to counter dodge timers?

[Conte D. Catellani]

11 minutes ago, Montagnes said:

@admin . The RvR truce during christmas showed that turning off RvR during several days can be done without any bad consequences.

Not having cooldowns will potentially have multiple bad consequences for the rvr players.

Choose wisely.

well maybe you have more time to craft as many ships as possible and then, when the  the truce is over, strike harder for many weeks

[The Rear End of Sauron]

1 hour ago, Lars Kjaer said:

So no new clans in RvR?

And who decides who is rogue and who is not?

not sure why there would be no new clans in RvR 

they would need to get added to the friendly clan list just as before -

the thing is if they show themselves to be an alt clan working against the nation the alts are in, they can be removed

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, The Rear End of Sauron said:

not sure why there would be no new clans in RvR 

they would need to get added to the friendly clan list just as before -

the thing is if they show themselves to be an alt clan working against the nation the alts are in, they can be removed

So one set of players can basically decide who gets to play RvR and who doesn't?

You do know that even the new players pay 35€ for the game right?

And I have an alt clan in Sweden, but if it were my main and I disagreed with say HAVOCs exploits and lack of diplo skills, could I then claim HAVOC to be rogue? OR would I be the rogue? Who decides? And more poignantly: What gives one set of player the right to deny certain aspects of the game for another set of players?

[The Rear End of Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Staunberg🇩🇰 said:

They do not need to be an alt clan, they can just have another agenda. Take in dk. Bocar wanted to fight Sweden. We got a new clan that that wanted to fight Russia. They where not an alt clan, but they might be limited to do as they please because they are locked out of the friendlist.

that is left down to national politics 

most nations know who they can trust to do in terms of national interests

if a clan wants to do its own agenda it can cap the port needed to pursue it, or accept the majority of their nation is against it

Larski brought up the possibility of using an alt clan to screw with a suggested mechanic, i'm offering up a potential solution

[The Rear End of Sauron]

6 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

So one set of players can basically decide who gets to play RvR and who doesn't?
only if they own the port in question 

You do know that even the new players pay 35€ for the game right?
stupid question

And I have an alt clan in Sweden, but if it were my main and I disagreed with say HAVOCs exploits and lack of diplo skills, could I then claim HAVOC to be rogue? OR would I be the rogue? Who decides? And more poignantly: What gives one set of player the right to deny certain aspects of the game for another set of players?
you would have to own the port in order to do that - though i do see an issue for an example of an ally that is enemy to the nation in question, allowing an alt clan of the enemy nation to flip the port - so this suggestion can be tossed on the scrap heap

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by The Rear End of Sauron

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Rear End of Sauron said:

that is left down to national politics 

most nations know who they can trust to do in terms of national interests

if a clan wants to do its own agenda it can cap the port needed to pursue it, or accept the majority of their nation is against it

Larski brought up the possibility of using an alt clan to screw with a suggested mechanic, i'm offering up a potential solution

Except it's not national politics. The game is wreaked basically by the emphasis on clans as well as nations. Either keep nations or remove them. What we have now is a bastard hybrid that doens't really suit anyone.

Regional servers would solve the timer dodging.

By your system no clan could go against whatever clan that owns the frontline wants. Despite everyone to my knowledge has paid the same for the game, unless it's been on sale ofc.

Your solution would function in a clanbased game, not in a nation/clan based game.

[The Rear End of Sauron]

yup - see my post just above yours saying the idea should be relegated to the scrap heap

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, The Rear End of Sauron said:

yup - see my post just above yours saying the idea should be relegated to the scrap heap

 

yeah u ninja'ed me

 

[Frosty]

15 minutes ago, rediii said:

Denmarks craftingports are taken due to ongoing hostility from denmark.

I didn't know San Juan was taken for this very reason.

[Liam790]

29 minutes ago, rediii said:

The removal of such a mechanic without a proper alternative in place is a bit weird tbh especially how fast that came now after the cooldown was used once by a nation for another nation that didn't want them to do it.

I could use more drastical words but I guess I dont.

 

My suggestion: revert the changes, get a cooldown into the game again and think about/implement a proper alternative. The game is released as far as I know and should not be a testingground anymore.

@admin @Ink Can you please remove Basse-Terre Cool down. everything else in insta flippable yet this port we are having to wait?

Having said this, please look at the map, the number of non filled port battles over the last and next 24 hours, the number of ports whos hostility was partially raised and stopped. This is not healthy for your game. If this continues, i see a total withdrawal from RvR ahead. This is just not fun. There are no winners any more, just a constant schedule of uncertainty. 

Further to this, no one can set timers the day after they cap the port, so everyone just gets instaflipped the night they take something as they cannot change the timer pre maintenance as they do not technically "own it yet". This certainly needs addressing please. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Liam790

[Teutonic]

I am not surprised the devs went with a nuclear option after a knee-jerk reaction of anger/frustration....to put it bluntly.

 

I dislike that a change is made that the majority dislike (at least voting on the forums) and yet are told a solution is being made right now....any other development would inform us a change is being made and NOT change what we currently have until the new and improvement mechanic is ready.

It just starts feeling like development wants to have some righteous indignation in order to satisfy some hurt feelings? I am surprised that we literally warned this could, would, and will happen for ages and it only "just now" became such a problem as to need a drastic "fix."

Edited March 21, 2020 by Teutonic