mvnForum Homepage

Print at May 31, 2020 6:21:02 PM

Posted by Kyura94 at Oct 23, 2018 2:17:09 PM
Re: GH Policy Regarding Blockade Closures

Attacker wins rd1 at Island A
Attacker focuses on Island B and loses rd2 at Island A
Attacker should be allowed all of rd3 to contest before the OM acts on any petition to end the blockade due to it being uncontested

I think the main issue with this example would be:
Even if Round3 gets closed due to NoShow, the defender of Island A had to fork out 2 rounds' worth of jobber pay, whereas the attacker only afforded 1 round. Granted, the amount wouldn't be a full 2 rounds' worth since there's no sinks and all, but the initial ships of jobber pay probably won't be trivial either.

While the intention (illustrated in this example) is to support the attacker who's involved in concurrent blockades, it seems like you're just shifting the burden to the defender. Or did I misunderstand something.
Ryuken on Emerald (active) and Obsidian (not really)
I made an in-depth Distilling guide here, and a guns one somewhere.
I gave Obsidian their Owls c:

Puzzle Pirates™ © 2001-2016 Grey Havens, LLC All Rights Reserved.   Terms · Privacy · Affiliates