Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

PvP Window Duration Bug

Bob
When a settlement changes its settlement level, which changes both the training levels available and the PvP window duration, all of that is supposed to go into effect when the servers come back up after downtime Monday morning. That means that the PvP window durations for every hex controlled by a settlement should be identical and should match the duration shown in the company window. That's certainly how things were intended to work, and what most players expect to happen.

Unfortunately, some of the map servers are coming up more quickly than anticipated, and are effectively setting their PvP window duration before the settlement has had a chance to switch to the new duration, so those maps wind up using the previous week's duration. After downtime on Tuesday, all the map servers will get the correct values and everything will be consistent from that point on (at least until the settlement level is changed again).

The end result is that you can't depend on how many of your hexes will switch to your new PvP window duration on Monday when settlement levels are changed (could be all, some or none), but you can depend on all of them switching by Tuesday.

Up until now, everyone's been expecting all those hexes to change on Monday morning, and I've filed a bug report to get that fixed. In previous instances of this happening, many attacking companies have been graciously honoring the company's expected duration, rather than the one reported by the hex, and that feels like a pretty appropriate response for an unexpected occurrence that clearly doesn't match the design intention.

I could turn that into a policy that players are expected to follow in future cases, but it could be tricky to enforce or to rebalance things when it's not followed. The simpler option would be to say that until this is fixed, this is just the expected behavior. That has the advantage of not being so much a "policy" as just a recognition of how things work, so there's no need for enforcement beyond what the mechanics already do, even though they're not what's ultimately intended.

I'd prefer the second option, but I'd be interested to hear arguments from anyone who feels strongly that the first option is preferable.
Fiery
Is this problem specific to changing settlement levels, or does it happen when changing feud windows as well?
Bringslite
No personal eggs in that pan at the moment, but the second option seems a bit open to corner cases of last minute(what should be last few minutes) "We are sooo close! Just keep at it!" results. Not to mention heat of battle arguments. I do believe that most everyone would try and abide accurately and fairly to expected norms.
Edit: I would also like to point out that because a PVP window ends does not mean that a feud is over. It is still legit to fight. Only structure capture is supposed to be ended at window close.

If the possible corner cases of "Sooo close!" and/or arguments about "hey it's 30 seconds past time!" are not troublesome, then I withdraw my concerns.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
PFO Weary
So it's a bug, but fixing it is hard, and expecting players to realize it's a bug is hard, so let's just pretend it's not a bug until we fix it?
Bob
Fiery
Is this problem specific to changing settlement levels, or does it happen when changing feud windows as well?

To my knowledge, this is specific to changing settlement levels.
Bob
Bringslite
No personal eggs in that pan at the moment, but the second option seems a bit open to corner cases of last minute(what should be last few minutes) "We are sooo close! Just keep at it!" results. Not to mention heat of battle arguments. I do believe that most everyone would try and abide accurately and fairly to expected norms.
Edit: I would also like to point out that because a PVP window ends does not mean that a feud is over. It is still legit to fight. Only structure capture is supposed to be ended at window close.

If the possible corner cases of "Sooo close!" and/or arguments about "hey it's 30 seconds past time!" are not troublesome, then I withdraw my concerns.

If we go the "policy" route, this is a definite concern. Duration would be getting enforced by "player agreement" or "let's look at the tape," and would be subject to arguments and disagreements. If we go the "until the bug is fixed, be prepare to defend your holdings for the old duration on the first day of the settlement level change," then the servers do all the enforcing for us and there's no debate about whether or not the battle ended on time.
Fiery
I know I personally misunderstood what you meant by player agreement. If my understanding is now correct, you propose that we establish a player agreement to the effect of: "The in-hex window is considered correct, rather than the one shown in company window, until the fix can go through." Is that correct?
Bob
PFO Weary
So it's a bug, but fixing it is hard, and expecting players to realize it's a bug is hard, so let's just pretend it's not a bug until we fix it?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Is it hard to fix? It's probably not trivial, but we have some thoughts on fairly straight-forward fixes. However, I can't guarantee we'll have a fix ready to roll out before this issue comes up again, so the best we can do for now is make a statement about how to deal with the issue if it arises again before a fix is deployed.

Is it hard for players to realize it's a bug? Not if you're aware of it and understand the details, but there's nothing in-game making it clear there's a bug. For example, if you look at the company window, the start time reported may differ from the hex's start time for today, but that's not a bug since changes to the start time are supposed to roll out the the hexes until the next downtime. Only the differing duration is a bug. Confusing enough that it could lead to confusion and arguments.

And yes, the proposal is essentially to ignore the bug until it gets fixed, and just play the way the mechanics are running for now, even though they're not working as intended. We only make policies asking people to play contrary to the way the game is running when the advantages of having the policy outweigh the disadvantages of trying to enforce the policy. I'm not convinced that's the case here.
Bob
Fiery
I know I personally misunderstood what you meant by player agreement. If my understanding is now correct, you propose that we establish a player agreement to the effect of: "The in-hex window is considered correct, rather than the one shown in company window, until the fix can go through." Is that correct?

Correct. It's only wrong for one day, and it seems easier to just be prepared defend for the extra time for one day on the (ideally) rare occasions that a settlement lowers its settlement level, than to try to manually enforce the intended timer and to correct any resulting losses.

Also, to clarify, I'm talking about future instances, not what happened yesterday. Yesterday was unexpected, since we didn't know about the bug at that time, so I think it's fairest for everyone to honor the intended duration as best they can, and to accept that everyone was acting in good faith.
Fiery
Seems reasonable to me for your stated reasons.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post