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

Ravenlute
Duffy Swiftshadow
Except when it's suddenly changed mid attack to negate the attacker's ability to capture targets all together, which defeats a lot of the intent of setting up a specific preferred PvP window ahead of time for every single day in the first place. The intent was to cut down on timezone advantages, not make moving them around a defensive strategy.

This is an especially ideal tactic if the defender knows their probably going to lose, then the optimal strategy is to hop your window around to aggravate the attacker and minimize their ability to ever fight or capture their targets. In the meantime the defender can completely ignore or avoid the attacks.

Hopefully that sort of thing becomes less of a problem as the game grows and folks for different time zones can fill in, but it shouldn't be ignored either. The intent of the pvp windows was to let both sides fight under ideal conditions aka their prime time, not to avoid the fight in the first place.

Honestly, I don't see an issue with changing a PvP window so long as 24 hours notice is given.

It would look like this.
Company A decides to feud Company B. This will go into effect in 24 hours.
Company B receives notice. "Company A has declared a feud against you. Your current PvP window is set for 6pm. Would you like to change your PvP window?"
The PvP window for Company B changes based on what they chose, or stays at 6pm if they don't respond within that 24 hour period.
Once the 24 hours is up, the feud starts.
At any point during the feud Company B can change their PvP window but it will take 24 hours to go into effect and Company A receives notice that says, "Company A has changed their PvP window to (new time)."

The 24 hour window allows a Company to change their PvP window regardless of how many feuds they have going at once or how long the feuds last while not being such a sudden change that the Companies they are feuding against don't have time to adjust.

I think part of the current problem is that a lot of things have to wait until server down time to change which allows easy manipulation of pvp windows.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Yall are making this way too complicated. Its simple…

Being able to move shit around willy nilly either by constantly changing pvp windows every day mid feud or constsntly jumping settlements mid pvp window is some dishonorable bullshit. Like I said, I dont care if it is "legal", its still pussing out.

To fix it? So if people think that having a static one week waiting period to take effect will work then sure go for it.

HOWEVER!

Going back the the permafeuding issue and balancing, I still say the defending group should be allowed to change after rach feud against them ends. So I propose having it default to taking effect one week latrr OR after the first feud against them ends, whichever comes first. Otherwise the attackers just game the thing to keep the other side feuded knowing they got at least a week. If you add this caveat in it makes the attacker have to plan. How long should the feud be? Do we wanna risk ending the feud early? Will we able to get shit done in the time we set? How much ibfluence will it cost?

I think that this will be a lot more strategic for both sides, and if companies want a week long feud or longer, they gotta pony up the influence cost. Also hell give the defense a little bit of wiggle room. Lets not punish ALL defenders for the sins of a few here.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Paddy Fitzpatrick
As for fixing settlement hopping bs, ultimately make hokding warfare at the settlement level and problem solved.

Meanwhile, a quick fix could be a 48 hour lag time where a company keeps its orevious settlements PvP wibdow. Two days should be good enough for the enemy to cap holdings if the new settlements pvp wibdow only tskes effect after that. Defenders get what they want but cant wimp out and game the system mid battle, they gotta tough it out and actuslly defend things.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Duffy Swiftshadow
A capture currently requires 2 days of attacks in consecutive windows to succeed, interrupting that attack is the primary concern to changing windows. So today it would need to at least be 48 hours for a change to take effect without impacting an action. This time-frame may change based on possible future capture/conflict options.

That all said the point of PvP windows was not to try and avoid conflict, it was supposed to reflect your prime-time to improve the chance of fairness. In the long run hopefully it won't matter as much or as often, but it's still an important aspect of the larger PvP conflict systems.
MidniteArrow
It's less about interrupting the action and more about players having no chance to react. When one can click a button and negate a feud for anyone not on in the next few hours, that's a pay-to-win mechanic.
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
MidniteArrow
Settlement-level feuding won't fix it, you can just switch settlements. It needs to be nation level.

Ultimately the real fix is penalties or delays for shifting allegiances.
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Duffy Swiftshadow
It's still a big deal in EvE I'm sure it will be a big deal here, scale doesn't really change the problem it just takes some of the edge off if you happen to be able to field comparable sizes.
Do those large Eve groups have any need to change their active windows on anything like a regular basis, or are they relatively static, based, at least in part, on people who wan to play at that time joining groups that will get them activity at that time?

My intuition is that when you are talking about those large groups, the decisions don't need to be made on a weekly basis, or more than a few times a year. Once you have a few thousand people involved, you should already have a pretty solid grasp on when the largest number will be available. With thousands of players, you're unlikely to be left in a mess because 33% of your potential team have supper plans tomorrow night or 50% of them are at Gencon.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Bringslite
Instead of going off on tangents here, identify the problem or problems.

One problem that caused PAGES of dialogue long ago was that a large group(relative to this game) could basically perma feud another group if it wished. The thinking then was that this be slowed, limited or stopped by exacting a cost for not completing a holding capture during a particular feud. We whined about influence gain ratios and now that cost or rather the work to recoup that cost is negligible.

Further issues were/are company hopping to swell sizes to affect feuds. Either avoid them or bolster numbers. This hopping being membership OR hopping the company to an entirely different settlement. The second usually affects the feud target's PVP window.

The current issue is this moving PVP windows while a feud is active. Since PVP window size is now based on training rank maximum, you can only change your window one time per week.

Since you can be blocked from making ANY changes if restrictions are not thought out well enough and that is NOT a design intent, I like a combination of the solutions presented so far in this thread.
1. A one week lead time to change PVP windows, with the information very clear by looking up the settlement or the company. The PVP window then changes on the SET day regardless of feud status.
2. Feuds need a maximum length and costs associated and scaled to it.
3. Feud stacking should be possible in a limited way, probably no longer than a one week maximum stackup.
4. There should be a mandatory cool down of the same total length of time as the company was feuded, once they end.
5. Forget company member hopping and movement. If a feud looks like it may be some days in length, allow either side to get reinforcements, etc… if they are able. <–unless size comes back into feud cost.
6. A company should be locked to the settlement that it is in until it is in a non Feuded State.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
I would go further as I am not comfortable about feud stacking. I suggest a flat cost to start a feud. Simultaneous feuds have their own same cost. If you want to stack however, or add days consecutively with other companies, well each extra day to feud a certain company costs double the previous day for whoever wants to do so.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
MidniteArrow
Settlement-level feuding won't fix it, you can just switch settlements. It needs to be nation level.

Ultimately the real fix is penalties or delays for shifting allegiances.

It will if the assets you're attacking belong to the settlement not the players/companies. If someone bails to let you capture something or to avoid you randomly ganking them so be it, they are basically conceding you the victory. Hopping is only a problem if it can be used to hide or move the targeted assets around.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post