Ryzom

Just out of curiosity, if an outpost changes hands how long before the drill is productive again?

Yudachi

oldmess wrote:It addresses it in 2 (somewhat imperfect) ways:

1. The cost increase. Since you can't cancel, you gotta pay this cost. Hopefully the increase will be enough that it'll bankrupt anyone that tries this too much.

I thought one paid upfront at the declaration? Obviously a mute point now though.

oldmess wrote:2. Since it can't be cancelled, people other than the declaring guild can show up during the scheduled attack time and actually cause the holding guild to lose their OP. So, a false declaration actually has some risk to it.

I see two problems here. If the attack succeeds then the faux alt guild or the ally of the original owner gets the outpost. Second, the faux attackers could simply boot any real attackers from their team, ensuring a defeat.

riveit wrote:It says that now that declarations cannot be revoked. Therefore real attacking guilds will get an opportunity to lodge a real declaration at the end (or beginning?) of the scheduled battle. This situation could lead to a crowd of homins at the banner trying to click first. While not ideal, at least it would appear that now real attackers have a chance. Or is my reasoning flawed?

Seems if you are the last to attack, there should be a period of time after your 'war' is complete before you can declare again. This would give others a chance to attack the OP too. It would also add a day or so of delay if one guild just had it out for you and kept declaring war on you and not winning.

I imagine at some point someone declaring and setting misearble times and not showing would be considered harrassment and it would be harrassment of 20+people at once.

Noin.

@gavin/yudachi

you have to build a new drill so you have to wait for the defense phase, after that you can buy the drill, which takes one hour to build

i dont think there is a cooloff time after the defense phase but i could be wrong

riveit wrote:I see two problems here. If the attack succeeds then the faux alt guild or the ally of the original owner gets the outpost. Second, the faux attackers could simply boot any real attackers from their team, ensuring a defeat.

As I said, it's imperfect. It helps the situation, but not a perfect solution.

I suspect this might have been a time issue for the devs. To get a quick fix to us, they had to something they could safely be done in a short time. After they see how this plays out, they may look into a better solution. But if we'd demanded a perfect solution fast, we wouldn't have gotten either.

swe999 wrote:@gavin/yudachi

you have to build a new drill so you have to wait for the defense phase, after that you can buy the drill, which takes one hour to build

i dont think there is a cooloff time after the defense phase but i could be wrong

Thanks Sycrest.
Everyone see where i'm going with this? Go ahead camp the outpost with a bogus guild, if everyone teams up and forces it to change hands we just knocked the OP production off line for a day +. Not to mention the cost of building a new drill.

Yudachi

- Mektoubs won't be exchangeable anymore for the time being;

Lol...that's not a change.

oldmess wrote:It addresses it in 2 (somewhat imperfect) ways:

1. The cost increase. Since you can't cancel, you gotta pay this cost. Hopefully the increase will be enough that it'll bankrupt anyone that tries this too much.

2. Since it can't be cancelled, people other than the declaring guild can show up during the scheduled attack time and actually cause the holding guild to lose their OP. So, a false declaration actually has some risk to it.

I was thinking the same thing... now in theory folks could show up and kill the folks that have been doing it during the pre-battle phase. Keep them away and follow thru with the attack and/or camp the OP during the attack phase and then select attack themselves.

Bah, I think I rambled there... hope I made sense.

Yea, made good sense. Turn a false attack into a real attack by force. And at no cost to the people who took that opportunity.

-Kash-

oldmess wrote:I suspect this might have been a time issue for the devs. To get a quick fix to us, they had to something they could safely be done in a short time. After they see how this plays out, they may look into a better solution. But if we'd demanded a perfect solution fast, we wouldn't have gotten either.

And anyone who works in the software industry knows that quick fixes (i.e. bodges) are BAD. Better to take longer and fix it PROPERLY.