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

Bringslite
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.

Edit much cause type so slow….
The whole problem is most likely moot now.

So, lets start another. Is it possible and design intent to be able to adjust your PVP window if a feud starts before Monday server down and is set to last a few days?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Initially I favored the agreement route, but after mulling it over I think just treating it as the mechanic for the time being is easier all around with less wiggle room for possibly subjective complaints.
Fiery
Duffy Swiftshadow
Initially I favored the agreement route, but after mulling it over I think just treating it as the mechanic for the time being is easier all around with less wiggle room for possibly subjective complaints.

I believe you meant you initially favored the policy route, as my understanding is what you have described is the agreement route.
Bringslite
Fiery
Duffy Swiftshadow
Initially I favored the agreement route, but after mulling it over I think just treating it as the mechanic for the time being is easier all around with less wiggle room for possibly subjective complaints.

I believe you meant you initially favored the policy route, as my understanding is what you have described is the agreement route.
The Agreement Route is where there would have been a great deal of bitching. Policy can be settled swiftly, as Bob said, by going to the cameras.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
I favor the one where we treat it as if it's the mechanic and no honor system is required.
Nihimon
Duffy Swiftshadow
I favor the one where we treat it as if it's the mechanic and no honor system is required.

+1
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Fiery
+1
Bob
Bringslite
So, lets start another. Is it possible and design intent to be able to adjust your PVP window if a feud starts before Monday server down and is set to last a few days?

We had several discussions about how to handle all kinds of potential company changes that could be made mid-feud, from shifting PvP windows to switching settlements to membership changes. We did generally feel that some combination of restrictions, consequences and incentives would be needed to keep things fun and fair, but didn't get the chance to finalize our plans or implement much of what we discussed.

On the one hand, we want attackers to be have a good idea in advance of who, where and when they'll need to fight when deciding whether or not to start a feud. That tempted us to really minimize the changes allowed during a feud, or at least to maximize the consequences for any such changes.

On the other hand, we worried that feuding a company could essentially become a weapon, a way to block the company and its members from changing settings that might be important to them for reasons that have nothing to do with a current feud. In particular, we worried that a company could find itself perma-feuded by a revolving set of companies, preventing them from ever making needed changes.

My thoughts at the moment are that we'll likely need to put some kind of delay into the system for changing things like PvP window durations or start times, with the UI showing when those changes will kick in, so that attackers at least know what the windows are for the next several days. Switching settlements is a tougher question, since having a settlement suddenly switch sides in the middle of a war sounds, well, awesome. However, there probably need to be consequences to such a switch, and perhaps we'd block the PvP windows from changing for the switching company for a while. Switching company membership has similar issues, since we really don't want to restrict players from moving around at will, but we don't want such movement to completely invalidate the feud system. That will probably be the trickiest part to get right.

Ultimately, we want things like settlement level, settlement membership, PvP window start times, and the like to be long-term decisions that don't get changed just in response to a feud. Getting all the mechanics in place will take some time, and meanwhile I'm open to setting up some policies, though I also have no doubts that any such policies will need adjustments over time.

As a start, I'd propose that if you're a company leader thinking of changing your PvP start time or switching settlements, check to see if you're being feuded. If so, announce on the forums that you'll be changing your start time in 3 days, then wait to make the change until that time.

Changing settlement levels is a little trickier, since it can be a pain for a settlement leader to check to see if any member companies are being feuded. Here it might be better to just say that settlements shouldn't be changing their settlement levels for purely feud-related reasons, whether incoming or outgoing.
Bringslite
It is pretty clear that the checks and balances here are among the most difficult systems that you guys have set out to build. I wonder if stepping back and trying to simplify it a bit wouldn't be a better way. <— Yah, I know all the Brainiacs out there will probably boo that. They love their complicated stuff…
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Fiery
Do you have a proposal?
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post