Is creating multiple clans to drop multiple flags on the same port abuse?

[JDMonster]

Title.  A couple of flags were dropped on a port today (I know it's testing, but I think it's an important discussion to have) and the clans that dropped it were obviously alts of each other (same name, just numbers and letters were swapped out, like using an 3 instead of an E).  I tagged an individual and he said that he didn't think it was abusing game mechanics.  I don't want to take this to the tribunal since the new system is still being worked on, but in the future should this be considered abusing mechanics?

[Lt Sekiro]

4 minutes ago, JDMonster said:

Title.  A couple of flags were dropped on a port today (I know it's testing, but I think it's an important discussion to have) and the clans that dropped it were obviously alts of each other (same name, just numbers and letters were swapped out, like using an 3 instead of an E).  I tagged an individual and he said that he didn't think it was abusing game mechanics.  I don't want to take this to the tribunal since the new system is still being worked on, but in the future should this be considered abusing mechanics?

This happened cause everyone got flag for test.

In the futur flag will be hard to get , so its not a game abusing , they testing work like dev ask

[Archaos]

But it does raise a valid point, is it possible to have multiple flags against the same port at the same time? 

There are a couple of issues with this. Firstly if there are not multiple flags allowed then what is to stop an alt in another nation using up the window for hostility. Secondly, if there are multiple flags allowed for the same port, then what is to stop multiple attempts against the same port for a nation with small numbers. With theoretically 25 allowed in to each hostility instance, the defender needs 25 players for each flag, while the attacker only needs 25 for the hostility they are going to contest plus a player for each additional flag.

We do not yet know what the actual drop rate is on flags, so we do not know if many people will have them. 

[Lt Sekiro]

37 minutes ago, Archaos said:

But it does raise a valid point, is it possible to have multiple flags against the same port at the same time? 

There are a couple of issues with this. Firstly if there are not multiple flags allowed then what is to stop an alt in another nation using up the window for hostility. Secondly, if there are multiple flags allowed for the same port, then what is to stop multiple attempts against the same port for a nation with small numbers. With theoretically 25 allowed in to each hostility instance, the defender needs 25 players for each flag, while the attacker only needs 25 for the hostility they are going to contest plus a player for each additional flag.

We do not yet know what the actual drop rate is on flags, so we do not know if many people will have them. 

Multy flip at same port happened cause no pb was set after the flag was plent , check patch note.

They just test systeme about flag plenting and battle

[Thonys]

So a 2 nation attack is possible at the same time ?

just asking ........

 

[TheDread]

If two clans can pull flags against the same port at the same time and the first  to finish gets the pb...  it creates opportunity for abuse.  

So, imagine a member of BF wants to attack SDC.   They pull the mission from PE and SLRN immediately gets the notification.  Now imagine a member of SLRN has a friend  in a bullshit Russsian clan, let's call them...  BS...  who's willing to spend  20 minutes doing SLRN a favor, and doesn't intend to show up for a port battle if it gets set.    

Now... a BF tlynx with an escort is headed for SDC to set the pb.   and 5 few minutes behind it is a BS tylnx, no escort, no cannons, no nothing.   SLRN jumps into the BF hostility battle...   with a tlynx and no guns.   Now...   instead of taking 15 minutes to set the PB...  that battle will take 45 minutes, even if the defenders never get close to the flag carrier.  during that 45 minutes... the guy from BS clan rolls in and since the defenders don't join the battle... sets a port battle 25 minutes before BF can, just because a defender joined the other battle. 

In reality...  alts will render RVR completely dead if they can exploit this mechanic.  I mean, you could always use an alt clan running hostilities to block legit port battles... but when it took 10 people sailing out in first rates to do it in a timely  fashion, it didn't happen all that often.  Now that it just takes two midshipmen in pickles to foil any attack...  I think it will be much more common.

 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

7 hours ago, Thonys said:

So a 2 nation attack is possible at the same time ?

just asking ........

 

all clans from all enemy nations can do it at the same time.

There will be a flag planting instance for each.

Some ports had at least 3 battles going on, that i could see. I am sure others had more, way more.

But only the clans related to the port ( owner and friends ) and attacker clan ( and friends ) can participate in that battle.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

6 hours ago, TheDread said:

If two clans can pull flags against the same port at the same time and the first  to finish gets the pb...  it creates opportunity for abuse.  

So, imagine a member of BF wants to attack SDC.   They pull the mission from PE and SLRN immediately gets the notification.  Now imagine a member of SLRN has a friend  in a bullshit Russsian clan, let's call them...  BS...  who's willing to spend  20 minutes doing SLRN a favor, and doesn't intend to show up for a port battle if it gets set.    

Now... a BF tlynx with an escort is headed for SDC to set the pb.   and 5 few minutes behind it is a BS tylnx, no escort, no cannons, no nothing.   SLRN jumps into the BF hostility battle...   with a tlynx and no guns.   Now...   instead of taking 15 minutes to set the PB...  that battle will take 45 minutes, even if the defenders never get close to the flag carrier.  during that 45 minutes... the guy from BS clan rolls in and since the defenders don't join the battle... sets a port battle 25 minutes before BF can, just because a defender joined the other battle. 

In reality...  alts will render RVR completely dead if they can exploit this mechanic.  I mean, you could always use an alt clan running hostilities to block legit port battles... but when it took 10 people sailing out in first rates to do it in a timely  fashion, it didn't happen all that often.  Now that it just takes two midshipmen in pickles to foil any attack...  I think it will be much more common.

 

Valid concern.

Remember though that instance will be circle of death and spawn will be positional. Where you join the battle is where you will spawn. They can't run forever and as soon as a defender joins the timer rises from 15 to 45 minutes.

 

 

[Band]

16 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

They can't run forever and as soon as a defender joins the timer rises from 15 to 45 minutes.

This is the part most open to abuse. As @TheDread says, you could have 1 clan actually trying to take the port and having their timer increased to 45 minutes due to defenders joining whereas an alt is sitting in a battle that is gonna take 15 minutes because everyone from the defending nation has been told not to join that battle.

 

 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

1 minute ago, Band said:

This is the part most open to abuse. As @TheDread says, you could have 1 clan actually trying to take the port and having their timer increased to 45 minutes due to defenders joining whereas an alt is sitting in a battle that is gonna take 15 minutes because everyone from the defending nation has been told not to join that battle.

 

 

I know, exactly why I said first, valid concern.

This also implies that ALL clans involved with the port - owner and friends - are involved in the scheme.

[Band]

3 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

I know, exactly why I said first, valid concern.

This also implies that ALL clans involved with the port - owner and friends - are involved in the scheme.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

Is there any chance we could ever move to a point where abuse like this with alts is a harshly punishable offense? Alts caused loads of problems with the previous RvR mechanics and now we have mechanics that in my opinion are more open to abuse.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

You understand how the Flags will be acquired, correct ?

While that's not a deterrent is a somewhat inconvenience.

Let's wait and see and hope the designers come up with a good solution and, I agree, hit alt abuse with appropriate measures to the damage they do in the long run.

[Admiral Howe of Gibraltar]

1 hour ago, Hethwill said:

You understand how the Flags will be acquired, correct ?

While that's not a deterrent is a somewhat inconvenience.

Let's wait and see and hope the designers come up with a good solution and, I agree, hit alt abuse with appropriate measures to the damage they do in the long run.

There are plenty of alts in every nation who could abuse Flags!

If flags keep its weight players in alts will use a dam privateer to avoid interception at the high seas, ruining a legit operation. 

Flags must involve a fleet of several players to plant it and have some kind of speed penalty. 

We were laughing yesterday at our discord when we could plant flags in basic cutters, pickles, lynxes, gunboats and privateers bought from the store!

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

A Niagara could run down a Prince carrying a flag, upwind, in the open world  

You will be slow when flagship.

I totally agree with the loophole problem. Always been a firm anti alt activist. Anything that can make alt usage very very discomfortable, especially cross nations, is a big plus for me.

P.S.- yesterday no one cared much. when it gets real i bet clans will scramble to intercept.

[z4ys]

To abuse a flag an alt needs to get hands on a flag and therefore its actual the same like "hostility missions" The alt needs to kill HDFs

flags are soulbound cant be traded

Edited June 19, 2020 by z4ys

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

1 minute ago, z4ys said:

flags are soulbound cant be traded

We have no details.

Do they spawn from a chest opening or will auto drop into player hold that loots ?

If second option, then it is more interesting than being a item inside a chest, because the chest can be traded.

[Genevieve Malfleurs]

2 hours ago, Hethwill said:

I know, exactly why I said first, valid concern.

This also implies that ALL clans involved with the port - owner and friends - are involved in the scheme.

to be fair, it should be nation-wide. else we´ll have like in the past, clans that "clean" their friends-lists and swap ports to enemy nations.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

10 minutes ago, Genevieve Malfleurs said:

to be fair, it should be nation-wide. else we´ll have like in the past, clans that "clean" their friends-lists and swap ports to enemy nations.

Would be the same, with battle slots being blocked.

On another note I think Flags should have a lifetime @admin

Like 7 days or something like that - maybe wipe all flags once Conquest round is over and score is computed - to promote intent of action and no hoarding, especially from alts as the captains in this thread put it.

If you "ask the admiralty permission to put a squadron on the line" to go get a flag from the HDF you surely are meant to use it "as expected by the admiralty" and as soon as possible.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Hethwill

[Band]

26 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Would be the same, with battle slots being blocked.

On another note I think Flags should have a lifetime @admin

Like 7 days or something like that - maybe wipe all flags once Conquest round is over and score is computed - to promote intent of action and no hoarding, especially from alts as the captains in this thread put it.

If you "ask the admiralty permission to put a squadron on the line" to go get a flag from the HDF you surely are meant to use it "as expected by the admiralty" and as soon as possible.

They definitely should have a life time, there should also be 2 different flags. You should have shallow water flags with a weight around 300-400 this allows smaller ships to carry the flag but crucially it stops ships like privateers or cutters carrying them, even with cargo optimization. The second flag should be a deep water flag, this should have a weight around 1000, this weight would stop ships like Endymion carrying it but still allow 4th rates with cargo optimization to have it.

Ships should have to carry this flag to the mission, not just activate it in port then sail to the mission. With weights added to the flags you exclude some ships from RvR that used to abuse the old system when we had flags in 2016 and because the weights are so high you ensure that the ship will be slow due to its hold being full.

 

I think something along these lines is the best way to combat the old issue of cutters running upwind and not being able to catch them @admin

[Archaos]

2 hours ago, Hethwill said:

On another note I think Flags should have a lifetime @admin

Like 7 days or something like that - maybe wipe all flags once Conquest round is over and score is computed - to promote intent of action and no hoarding, especially from alts as the captains in this thread put it.

I agree to a flag having a limited time, but wiping flags after a conquest round would not be a good solution. It would lead to a quiet period after they are wiped while people farm new flags and there would be no point in farming flags close to end of conquest round.

Every flag having a set timer that starts after dropping would be better. (7 days may be a bit on short side)

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

A timer per Flag item is horrendous for any database.

A global timer for all items of one type is more gentle.

That was my reasoning. Simple machine solutions for complex humans.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Hethwill

[z4ys]

Or just 2 kind of conquest flags. A red one that drops the first half of the week and gets reseted like conquest round and a red one with black cross that is obtainable after midweek and gets reseted mid week of the next conquest round. This way they overlap leading to no possible downtimes in conquest and saving timers for the database. And forcing players to not just stockpile that after a week they have enough for their NA lifetime.

That would reduce even the influence of alt clans and alts because they would need to repead their dirty business every week in order to plant fake flags and not just like I said before a one time effort farming and keep on planting.

Or just limit the amount of flags a player can have

Edited June 19, 2020 by z4ys

[Archaos]

5 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

A timer per Flag item is horrendous for any database.

A global timer for all items of one type is more gentle.

That was my reasoning. Simple machine solutions for complex humans.

I do not know about the technical aspects of it, but from a practical point a global timer for the flag would lead to a set routine. Conquest round completes - 1 to 2 days farming flags - see how many flags you have gathered and plan your attacks - place flags - fight port battles - by this time may not be enough time to farm new flags before end of round. 

Also by your logic it would be better to have no timers on flags as that is the simplest machine solution.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Is also one that carries some problems, biggest being hoarding and in a month a big clan can have flags to last for 2 years