mvnForum Homepage


Print at Oct 1, 2020 8:45:38 AM

Posted by majestrate at Oct 24, 2018 11:05:40 AM
Re: GH Policy Regarding Blockade Closures
Kyura94 wrote: 
maj wrote: 
Example:

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.

Not looking to have the defender pay for no one showing up, but I believe there should be a policy that accounts for multi-island drops and allows the attacker to focus on competitive rounds instead of having to peel off 3 or 4 people to go sit on a mostly empty blockade board just to keep a blockade open.

Maybe Filthyjake's idea was right, but only when dealing with multiple drops. Like for each island that a flag drops on, there is a multiplier to the war chest? Leave the initial costs as-is, but attacking a second island in the same 5-hour window means the cost of the warchest goes up 10x, third island it goes up 20x, fourth island 30x, etc...
----------------------------------------
#TeamEvil
Marto wrote: 
We can't rely on majestrate he yells at people


Avatar by the gracious and wonderful Phaerie <3

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