• Play
  • About
  • News
  • Forums
  • Yppedia
  • Help
Welcome Guest   | Login
  Index  | Recent Threads  | Register  | Search  | Help  | RSS feeds  | View Unanswered Threads  
  Search  


Quick Go »
Thread Status: Normal
Total posts in this thread: 256
Posts: 256   Pages: 9   [ First Page | Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Add To My Favorites] [Watch this Thread] [Post new Thread]
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 26418 times and has 255 replies Next Thread
Amatoria

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: 219
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
The issue with third parties has nothing to do with talent or politics.


I find this statement astounding. Possibly you politic to have affilates who will lend or outright give you ships or other resources for blockades, but mostly not imo. The way I have experienced the game is: 99% of politicking is purely about jobber numbers!
So if a third party gives you a jobber swing, how can that not be political?

Also: an UNAFFILIATED third party can NEVER be counted as attrition towards island owners since any points they make on the board default the island back to the defender. So you could let THEM flag sit for you in fact... and of course they didn't drop, they didn't make you blockade.
If they ARE affiliated, well that's clearly a VERY political third party indeed then since it's a third party flag (alt or otherwise) that you obviously missed while doing YOUR round of politicking. Or they'd be allied to you now / navving for you now / not showing up if that's what you prefer.

Either way, you're saying it yourself right here:
 
...flags dedicated to third partying. They mostly consisted of uber rich players teaming up with top navs to further their political agenda.


I do understand why you call it resources though. Simply because on green oceans jobbers are much more easily swayed by pay than on Midnight, especially the inter ocean unaffiliates. But if you look at it that way - ALL politics become about resources. Just pay war. And that's very much within the game rules. Also: pay warring means you're looking at a LOT of jobbers, not flag sits --> no attrition here.

Additionally, I never said third parties had to be new players. All I was saying is, if they ADD to your blockade challenge, they can not be used as an argument that the blockade in question is one for the simple purpose of attrition (by the definition of the people who started this thread). So removing third parties would be detrimental to their goal (less attrition, unless I'm ALSO misunderstanding that part), not conductive. And that makes me think it's a mute point to discuss here.

As to the idea of making blockades shorter: I definately see this being helpful with eliminating a lame part of the game (the flag sitting) and thus with attrition.
I would probably prefer a button where the other flag can CONCEDE the blockade with it being taken down so that the flag sit is eliminated. Possibly with the return option that the defender could call for them to cede the blockade at the end of each round, and if they do not reply with a CONTEST! it WILL be ceded. If they click contest, then they would have to keep fielding ships etc. just as if it was the first round. Same judgement as is in place now. A bit like re-declaring each round probably.

Just a thought.
[Feb 11, 2010 4:46:22 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
OdorOfFrodo

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Posts: 4426
Status: Offline
Re: Facepalm Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
I have a question,

Do you ever contribute anything besides snide remarks and idiocy?

Methinks you're thinking of me. Dylan's a cool guy. Eh shoots cannons and doesn't afraid of anything.
----------------------------------------
Ecavatar by Ecastasy!
Talisker wrote: 
Obviously this calls for dressing up as Karl Marx.

[Feb 11, 2010 4:47:19 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Malted



Joined: Mar 12, 2006
Posts: 1485
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
...flags dedicated to third partying. They mostly consisted of uber rich players teaming up with top navs to further their political personal agenda.


You're missing the point, even though I edited my post for you. Regardless, the vast majority of third party flags were anonymous alts or unaffiliated.

 
If they ARE affiliated, well that's clearly a VERY political third party indeed then since it's a third party flag (alt or otherwise) that you obviously missed while doing YOUR round of politicking. Or they'd be allied to you now / navving for you now / not showing up if that's what you prefer.


There wouldn't be much point in blockading if you got 100% of people on your side before it started, would there? ;)

It only takes one or two people to start a third party ship. The issue is with the way they get their jobbers, which is by outpaying the contending flags. This tends to attract neutral (apolitical?) jobbers. That's what I was trying to say.

BTW, you keep mentioning pay warring as a solution. Third parties are the most effective in pay wars because they logically attract more neutral jobbers. At a fraction of your total blockade costs you can gain a serious advantage by using a third party in a pay war.

My main problem with third parties is that they're essentially exploiting your own jobbers. It's unfair to everybody not on the increased pay ship. There's no reason to pay your allies and friends less in order to gain an edge in the blockade. I think most people realize this which is why we don't see them as much anymore. Unfortunately the other side may be of lower moral standing. If they do it you may have no choice but to follow suit.

What are your thoughts on third partying BK blockades?
----------------------------------------
Novo, Sage
Teabagbill wrote: 
I was born and raised in Glasgow. Trust me, some 15 year old kid isn't going to win a fight against me.

[Feb 11, 2010 5:24:28 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Amatoria

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: 219
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
BTW, you keep mentioning pay warring as a solution.


I'm not mentioning it as a solution to anything. I am merely pointing out that this thread was called as a discussion about attrition towards an island owning flag and that I find paywars to be very indicative of a fully contested blockade that is indeed fielding staffed ships to contest flags as required by OOO to be within the SotG and therefore indicative of NO ATTRITION happening as by Cleavers quote.

That was the point of this thread to my understanding.
__________________________________________________

 
The issue is with the way they [third party flags]get their jobbers, which is by outpaying the contending flags. This tends to attract neutral (apolitical?) jobbers.

Yes. How is this a problem? The way I understand what you wrote is: the jobbers of the contending flags aren't getting payed as much and this gives you as one of the contestants a moral conflict, because you want your jobbers to have the same pay.
The way I see it: this is exactly where the political game kicks in. I fully expect the flag and allies to show loyalty towards you even if it means a few hundred poe less per segment.
You might also try to draw on your political savviness by trying to either win over the third side, to bribe them, to scare them - whatever you can think of. It's pure politics I think.

I think we have a fundamental difference in the way we use the word unaffiliated.

When I use it, I mean TRUELY unaffiliated: someone who doesn't have any political agenda whatsoever and isn't tied to anyone by alliances in any shape or form and is purely there to drive a ship into a blockade. No more no less. It might be to get an injury or to try make or break your name in the blockade world or maybe simply to sink your fleet so you don't feel so bad about moving to another ocean like a friend of mine tried recently.
When YOU say unaffilated or anonymous, I now think you are assuming these flags STILL have a political agenda, or I can't explain this:
 
There's no reason to pay your allies and friends less in order to gain an edge in the blockade.

If SOMEONE ELSE pays their jobbers more, SOMEONE ELSE is gaining an advantage, not you yourself. So you shouldn't have any moral conflicts at all.
So the only way that statement can possibly be true is, if you use your own alts or friends of yours for the discribed purpose.
That is not an unaffiliated flag. That's a SEEMINGLY unaffiliated flag with a hidden political agenda (your very own) --> therefore counting as affiliated.

Maybe I'm just kinda weird by that definition, not sure.

BK blockades? If you're an unaffiliated flag wanting to drive around - go for it. If you are an affiliated flag of the opposing side clearly shooting one-sidedly at the defender, you're a right barrelstopper. Pretty weak to go freeloading on a game opponent. Griefing? I wouldn't think so - an active defender along with their bunch of other island owning mates usually takes care to sink the flottillas. So you kinda drop on yourself (especially when you scuttle). Don't see how that produces griefing or attrition - to come back to where we all started from.
[Feb 11, 2010 6:50:48 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
pomfret

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 8, 2006
Posts: 2672
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

I am not convinced making people choose a side is necessarily a bad thing.

Uber Bored Bnaver: I am bored. Will you give me a temporary alliance so that I can come in and have some boomy fun?
Stoopid Royalty: No. We would rather you don't take our jobbers. Can't you just job?
Uber Bored Bnaver: Fine. I will join the other guy then.
----------------------------------------
Pomfret of Midnight Cerulean and Most Oceans
Except when I am Scroogie or somebody else

Stupid merger made me change my signature...
[Feb 11, 2010 8:30:04 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Sweetiepiepi wrote: 
If the pie could be sliced thinly

/me gets out a knife... hold still Pie, this won't hurt a bit =P

Okay, now for serious things:

 
Thought experiment for Culiford: Do you think you would experience a political backlash if you checked the "No Third Party" box for a defense of Cnossos? If someone checked the "No Third Party" box if you were attacking, would you be able to stir up enough opposing backlash to make it not worth it to check that box?

It depends on if someone wanted to take in a third party ship. We don't have them at every blockade. However, I guarantee that if someone wanted to take in a ship and the box was checked, there would be plenty of tarting. On Midnight many of the island holding flags love blockades and love to see new people get into the blockade game, so third party navs aren't discouraged. (This may be because they tend to shoot at both sides, however.)

 
Perhaps a more tolerable solution is if both the attackers and the defenders had to agree to keep third parties off the notice board.

This is interesting, and certainly better than the proposed ban on third party ships no matter what.

 
dropping a war chest is more difficult than it might seem.

True. However, requiring a war chest prohibits #1 and #2, which is bad. I'd rather keep those two around even at the expense of having to deal with #3 and #4. I don't approve of removing fun things. A better way should be found to deal with problems other than removing good as well. And it seems that #3 can be fixed already, so you're removing 2 goods to take out 1 bad.

 
It only takes one or two people to start a third party ship. The issue is with the way they get their jobbers, which is by outpaying the contending flags. This tends to attract neutral (apolitical?) jobbers. That's what I was trying to say.

Okay, and this is a problem how? These jobbers are having more fun on third party ships than they would on your ship, so I only see an increase in fun there.

 
My main problem with third partiesalt flags is that they're essentially exploiting your own jobbers. It's unfair to everybody not on the increased pay ship. There's no reason to pay your allies and friends less in order to gain an edge in the blockade.

Okay, please in the future for the sake of not confusing people, say "alt flag" when you mean an affiliated non-contending flag. Third parties are third parties, or another faction, not part of an existing one but under a different flag name.

Anyways, your allies/friends are there to help you out because you're their friends and because they know you'll help them out in the future. I personally give my jobber pay back to my allies for exactly that reason. Last week an allied flag actually tried to pay me for navigating for them. I promptly sent the money back and asked if they were crazy.

 
What are your thoughts on third partying BK blockades?

Bring it on. BK blockades are a chance to sink the bots and make poe from bounties/hauling. The first round or two (on Midnight anyways) is spent just sinking ships anyways, so it's not like third party ships are going to cause a problem if they just sink the bots.

 
At a fraction of your total blockade costs you can gain a serious advantage by using a third party in a pay war.

This is situation #3, and has been neutralized by the other side being ready to do the same thing.
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
[Feb 12, 2010 12:51:45 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
vnork



Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 1004
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
A better way should be found to deal with problems other than removing good as well. And it seems that #3 can be fixed already, so you're removing 2 goods to take out 1 bad.

On Sage, #3 and #4 greatly overshadow #1 and #2. Instead of counting the pros and cons arithmetically, it's better to look at the relative weight of each. I would imagine that #3 and #4 are fairly rare on Midnight, but Sage experienced #3 and #4 almost continually for 3 years.
 
Okay, please in the future for the sake of not confusing people sub-oceaners, say "alt flag" when you mean an affiliated non-contending flag. Third parties are third parties, or another faction, not part of an existing one but under a different flag name.

This was #1 on my list of misunderstandings earlier. On green oceans, the term "third party" includes affiliated third parties. It's a little arrogant to ask us to change our terminology that's been in place for over 3 years and the subject of countless parley tartfests week after week. "Alt flag" doesn't make sense, because it never started out as alt flags that third partied. Alt flags were developed later, merely as an option of using your own staff instead of outsourcing to counter an opponent who paid/convinced an unaffiliated mercenary flag to form an alliance.

 
Bring it on. BK blockades are a chance to sink the bots and make poe from bounties/hauling. The first round or two (on Midnight anyways) is spent just sinking ships anyways, so it's not like third party ships are going to cause a problem if they just sink the bots.

I'm pretty sure Novo is referring to third parties that shoot at the human defender, which has been done more and is probably more socially acceptable on Sage than any other ocean.

 
This is situation #3, and has been neutralized by the other side being ready to do the same thing.

The problem is that many flags are morally uncomfortable with using a third party (alt flag). The only way the strategy is neutralized is if enough flags determine that it's something they're willing to do, so that it becomes pointless. For 2 years, "third party"-using flags had a huge advantage while blockading. At first, flags using third parties beat flags without them, but it also evolved into flags using 2 third parties beating flags who only used one at a time, culminating in blockades where combined third parties had much more jobbers than contending flags. My flag lost a major blockade in 5 rounds over refusing to use a third party despite a significant political advantage, and we simply didn't blockade for another year until they were no longer common. So it's not just a paper-beats-rock style neutralization, at least not as I saw the strategy evolve.
[Feb 12, 2010 7:51:27 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Daryainoor



Joined: Jan 20, 2010
Posts: 2
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
On green oceans, the term "third party" includes affiliated third parties. It's a little arrogant to ask us to change our terminology that's been in place for over 3 years and the subject of countless parley tartfests week after week. "Alt flag" doesn't make sense, because it never started out as alt flags that third partied. Alt flags were developed later...


For one - this is a GLOBAL parley. So neither blue nor green ocean terms are better or worse here. Secondly, your time reference is ludicrous since the blue ocean Midnight by default has the longer standing, so your three years are merely cute.
Third: the term alt flag has been in use at the very least since 2005 (that's the oldest reference I can find on the forums). I'm tempted to say it has been around much longer than that, but of course my brain is addled and I can hardly get out of my rocking chair so I can't be trusted to have a valid opinion.

Edit: Sorry for the alt account post. Feel free to tart, it wasn't intentional. An old midnighter here, but I guess you could tell from the post ;)
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Daryainoor at Feb 12, 2010 8:55:42 AM]
[Feb 12, 2010 8:47:38 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Kotetsu534



Joined: Sep 7, 2007
Posts: 1406
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

In that 08 thread that was linked I remember arguing that it should be permissable for someone to load and navigate a ship on a blockade board without dropping a chest. The principle reason for arguing as I did, if I recall correctly, was that it should not be a requirement to acquire the confidence of established players who regularly run blockades (or to make your own flag...) to participate in multi-ship PVP. At the time I had not blockade navigated more than once or twice. I've since taken in a few ships and enjoyed the experience greatly - indeed, I'd go so far as to say those nights are some of my fondest in my time playing the game - and so feel vindicated in what I argued.

Therefore I conclude the big problems with the blockade game are not to do with access to the board. I submit they are instead to do with a) its design - that it is possible to influence the entire board too easily, b) the dominance of the WF (and the WB, to a lesser extent) which stifles variety in strategy and c) the lack of reward for victory which puts off those without huge funds from entering.

----------------------------------------
Nomura, SO of Innocent, Member of Crimson Tide, Midnight.
[Feb 12, 2010 9:06:08 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
"Alt flag" doesn't make sense, because it never started out as alt flags that third partied. Alt flags were developed later,

From what has been said in this thread, it seems that alt flags are what are used now. In any case, alt flag is more applicable than just "third party", because third party includes unaffiliated flags. If you really just have to say third party though, say "affiliated third party" so that it's clear what you're saying. Also, as stated, this is Global Parley.

 
I'm pretty sure Novo is referring to third parties that shoot at the human defender, which has been done more and is probably more socially acceptable on Sage than any other ocean.

I don't really think people should shoot a human defender. If you don't want a flag to have an island, go take it yourself, don't force 100% taxes on the shopkeepers. However, shooting at a human attacker is perfectly acceptable, and happened for 3 weeks in a row at Delta on Midnight.

 
multiple alt flag stuff

Okay, I didn't think someone would use multiple alt flags. That's a mistake on my part. However, this still indicates to me that politics are not functioning as they should. If someone has a clear political advantage, they should have a jobber advantage as well. The social puzzle (I think) is supposed to be a bigger lever in blockades than it is (at least on green oceans, politics seem to be working as intended on blue oceans).

Nomura wrote: 
In that 08 thread that was linked I remember arguing that it should be permissable for someone to load and navigate a ship on a blockade board without dropping a chest. The principle reason for arguing as I did, if I recall correctly, was that it should not be a requirement to acquire the confidence of established players who regularly run blockades (or to make your own flag...) to participate in multi-ship PVP. At the time I had not blockade navigated more than once or twice. I've since taken in a few ships and enjoyed the experience greatly - indeed, I'd go so far as to say those nights are some of my fondest in my time playing the game - and so feel vindicated in what I argued.

And this is exactly why I don't want third party jobbing offers to be restricted.

 
Therefore I conclude the big problems with the blockade game are not to do with access to the board. I submit they are instead to do with a) its design - that it is possible to influence the entire board too easily, b) the dominance of the WF (and the WB, to a lesser extent) which stifles variety in strategy and c) the lack of reward for victory which puts off those without huge funds from entering.

This. Blockades have turned into this: throw as many frigates as possible onto the board and then stick everyone else on brigs, and maybe have a dhow. There's on-board strategy, but the more frigates you have, the less strategy it is and more of who is better at sinking the opponent. Also, what do islands give to the victors? Besides a trophy, I mean.

And on green oceans, blockades seem to have become all about the jobber pay instead of "this flag is full of cool people, let's job with them" or "this flag is a bunch of barrelstoppers, let's job against them". Sometimes I wonder what blockades would be like if people (RD) hadn't started paying jobbers, and blockade strength relied on having lots of friends and playing politics. I think it would certainly be a lot more fun than having a pay war/alt flag abuse. Of course, we can't go back to that now that everyone is used to getting lots of money for blockades.
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
[Feb 12, 2010 9:42:15 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
vnork



Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 1004
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
For one - this is a GLOBAL parley. So neither blue nor green ocean terms are better or worse here. Secondly, your time reference is ludicrous since the blue ocean Midnight by default has the longer standing, so your three years are merely cute.
Third: the term alt flag has been in use at the very least since 2005 (that's the oldest reference I can find on the forums). I'm tempted to say it has been around much longer than that, but of course my brain is addled and I can hardly get out of my rocking chair so I can't be trusted to have a valid opinion.

Edit: Sorry for the alt account post. Feel free to tart, it wasn't intentional. An old midnighter here, but I guess you could tell from the post ;)

I don't think blue or green ocean terms are better, but I'm not the one trying to get the other to use their terms. I guess my "dialect" uses the term "third party" to encompass both unaffiliated and affiliated third parties, and I think it works well. We do use the term "alt flag", but only when it's really a flag made up of alts. Alt flags aren't necessarily affiliated third parties, and affiliated third parties aren't necessarily alt flags. Plenty of affiliated third parties used on Sage are nothing close to an alt flag, which would make it really difficult for me to actually use that terminology suggestion.

And our mere three years may be cute, but Sage has had 50% more blockades than Midnight's entire history even with your head start, so an argument could be made that Sage is older in blockade terms. So I suppose I find your mere ~370 blockades cute in comparison to our 550+ blockades.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by vnork at Feb 12, 2010 9:45:40 AM]
[Feb 12, 2010 9:43:37 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
vnork



Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 1004
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 

From what has been said in this thread, it seems that alt flags are what are used now. In any case, alt flag is more applicable than just "third party", because third party includes unaffiliated flags. If you really just have to say third party though, say "affiliated third party" so that it's clear what you're saying. Also, as stated, this is Global Parley.

Plenty of alt flags don't ally with a contender. The term alt flag also includes unaffiliated flags. How does that help solve any confusion?
 
At the time I had not blockade navigated more than once or twice. I've since taken in a few ships and enjoyed the experience greatly - indeed, I'd go so far as to say those nights are some of my fondest in my time playing the game - and so feel vindicated in what I argued.

You seem to feel vindicated in what you argued exclusively because of your own experiences, which doesn't really mean that much. The 5 blockades where I've felt the absolute worst have all been because of third-party interference, with none of them involving my own flag. I don't consider that to be vindication for my position. My contribution in that thread was to suggest limiting third parties to WBs or below, which allows someone to have fun but not unduly influence the blockade.

I don't think that the big problems with the blockade game are due to access to the board either, but a small fix is much more likely than a wide-reaching fix. It really makes me tempted to find a source of funds on Midnight, because I just don't think you comprehend how much third parties can potentially ruin a blockade. I don't know much about Midnight, but if I can fill a frig or something that would be able to hold it's ground on the board by paying 150% of what the contenders are offering, I'm certain I could demonstrate exactly what I'm describing.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by vnork at Feb 12, 2010 10:10:17 AM]
[Feb 12, 2010 9:51:05 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

To me, an "affiliated third party" is a flag that is specifically helping one side in the blockade, no matter what their flag page says about their allies. If you're working for one of the contenders, you are "affiliated". It doesn't matter if you are using the alliance game mechanic or not.

"Affiliated third party" is the most clear term out of the ones that we're using. Leaving off the affiliated makes it unclear if you mean someone just there to have fun or someone there to aid one side against the other. (You are right about alt flag not being clear either, but it does make more sense than third party.)

I did actually think of a social fix for #3. You get the most powerful flags on the ocean to come together and make it clear that anyone using underhanded tactics like third party abuse will be jobbed against and lose political support from the ocean. If an island is taken using third party abuse, the powerful flags will help the defenders (or a totally different flag) take the island from the abusers (mainly through jobbers/staff, but they're free to donate other things too). If most flags hate third party abuse (and according to you this is true, and I can't think of why people wouldn't hate it), then the abusers will get crushed by the combined might of the ocean.
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
[Feb 12, 2010 10:10:33 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
pomfret

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 8, 2006
Posts: 2672
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

I suggest you guys use the terms "affiliated third parties" and "unaffiliated third parties" instead of confusing everybody else with sloppy terminology.
----------------------------------------
Pomfret of Midnight Cerulean and Most Oceans
Except when I am Scroogie or somebody else

Stupid merger made me change my signature...
[Feb 12, 2010 10:54:31 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
vnork



Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 1004
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
To me, an "affiliated third party" is a flag that is specifically helping one side in the blockade, no matter what their flag page says about their allies. If you're working for one of the contenders, you are "affiliated". It doesn't matter if you are using the alliance game mechanic or not.

"Affiliated third party" is the most clear term out of the ones that we're using. Leaving off the affiliated makes it unclear if you mean someone just there to have fun or someone there to aid one side against the other.

Under scenario #4, a third party can help one side but not be affiliated with them. I've done this a couple times before, when I used to third party, where I would help one side without their knowledge or consent, just because I thought it would be amusing for me.
 
I did actually think of a social fix for #3. You get the most powerful flags on the ocean to come together and make it clear that anyone using underhanded tactics like third party abuse will be jobbed against and lose political support from the ocean. If an island is taken using third party abuse, the powerful flags will help the defenders (or a totally different flag) take the island from the abusers (mainly through jobbers/staff, but they're free to donate other things too). If most flags hate third party abuse (and according to you this is true, and I can't think of why people wouldn't hate it), then the abusers will get crushed by the combined might of the ocean.

How can you tell the difference between intentional third party abuse, and a flag that uses politics to convince an otherwise mercenary flag to ally with them?

You have to understand that a flag on Sage didn't just decide one day to abuse third parties to pay neutral jobbers more and others less. It started from a formerly retired pirate who decided to unaffiliated third party, but would be willing to ally in return for favors such as a significant chunk of PoE. This is fair game after all, it's using politics to gain an advantage in blockades. Flags didn't enjoy bidding for his services and don't enjoy being coerced though, so flags soon began arranging in advance for prominent independent navvers to allied third party for them, in return for political favors and/or resources. Nobody considered this abuse, it was just using politics to gain an advantage.

It wasn't until the end of 2007 that shafting politically-committed jobbers became the political talking point for those opposed to the use of allied third parties. It's much more clear to see when allied third parties are run 100% in-house, using alt flags, which was the counter to flags who used political ties to get independent third parties on their side. But if you trace the logic backwards, simply convincing a mercenary to ally is still the same concept, because you're still paying neutral jobbers more and committed jobbers less. Why should your jobber not try to job for the mercenary's higher pay once you've allied to them?

Overall, it's not obvious that higher paying allied third parties are bad. It's hard to draw a clear line between what is fair political skill in convincing others to help, and what would be intentional gaming of the third party system. Flags didn't start off hating third party abuse, that viewpoint only become dominant once it was really obvious that a tiered pay system was being intentionally used by almost every successful flag.
[Feb 12, 2010 10:56:06 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Amatoria

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: 219
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

What a long nit-picking about third partying. I certainly misunderstood the way the term was used by some and used it differently myself in the way that I explained.

It's all a nice detour into third party activities here, but why exactly are we discussing it? I maintain that if someone else (even if they ruin your pay ideas and are secretly allied to the attacker and the whole technique is possibly shady) drives a boat into a blockade... that's boats being fielded and the blockade being contested and therefore - (drumroll) no attrition.

Is this going anywhere to solve the initial question?
I think I had too much red wine tonight.. I shall come back and read it again when I'm less boozed. *blinks and hickups* Move along now, nothing to see here.
[Feb 12, 2010 1:09:00 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Malted



Joined: Mar 12, 2006
Posts: 1485
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Okay, I didn't think someone would use multiple alt flags. That's a mistake on my part. However, this still indicates to me that politics are not functioning as they should. If someone has a clear political advantage, they should have a jobber advantage as well. The social puzzle (I think) is supposed to be a bigger lever in blockades than it is (at least on green oceans, politics seem to be working as intended on blue oceans).


 
And on green oceans, blockades seem to have become all about the jobber pay instead of "this flag is full of cool people, let's job with them" or "this flag is a bunch of barrelstoppers, let's job against them". Sometimes I wonder what blockades would be like if people (RD) hadn't started paying jobbers, and blockade strength relied on having lots of friends and playing politics. I think it would certainly be a lot more fun than having a pay war/alt flag abuse. Of course, we can't go back to that now that everyone is used to getting lots of money for blockades.


This happens on green oceans because of the possibility to transfer funds between oceans. Blockade jobbing is one of the best ways to make money for most people. It's no surprise that out of ocean jobbers looking to earn some cash don't care about the political scene too much. When we tracked jobbers for our blockades the majority (around 2/3 maybe?) were flagless on both sides. I'd imagine this number to be much lower on a blue ocean.
----------------------------------------
Novo, Sage
Teabagbill wrote: 
I was born and raised in Glasgow. Trust me, some 15 year old kid isn't going to win a fight against me.

[Feb 12, 2010 1:58:04 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

It's definitely a factor, but it's hard to separate out the segment of flagless pirates that are inter-ocean who might have deliberately picked a side and the segment that are in-ocean multiclienting. Midnight doesn't have the multiclienting problem to the same extent either.

I expect PoE also matters more because you need more in-game income to 'survive' when you're funding doubloons as well PoE costs in-game.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
[Feb 12, 2010 2:08:35 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Amatoria wrote: 
attrition

I think we stopped talking about attrition a few pages ago. We're on Third Party Abuse now.

vnork wrote: 
Under scenario #4, a third party can help one side but not be affiliated with them. I've done this a couple times before, when I used to third party, where I would help one side without their knowledge or consent, just because I thought it would be amusing for me.

Wait, so you are complaining about scenario #4, but admit that it brought you entertainment in the past? I looked back at Sweetiepiepi's post in that linked thread, and I don't see how #2 and #4 are any different in terms of effect on the blockade. Both are going in to cause mayhem and maybe help or hurt someone based on what their mood is at the time. I don't see how you can call #4 bad but be okay with #2. I've changed my mind, and both are fine. I think the reason why you don't like #4 now is that you're now on the side that it affects, and don't want anyone messing with your game. However, what about the people who want to do #4 as you did in the past? Will you deny them the same fun that you had because suddenly you're on the other side? Do you think it was wrong that you did #4 in the past?

vnork wrote: 
How can you tell the difference between intentional third party abuse, and a flag that uses politics to convince an otherwise mercenary flag to ally with them?

A mercenary flag that is raising pay above what the contenders are paying is third party abuse. If they pay the same, then mercenaries are okay. If they're paying more, then they fall into #3. There's no difference in effect on the blockade/jobbers between #3 and high-paying mercenary flags. And both can be solved by the social/political puzzle.

Novo wrote: 
This happens on green oceans because of the possibility to transfer funds between oceans. Blockade jobbing is one of the best ways to make money for most people. It's no surprise that out of ocean jobbers looking to earn some cash don't care about the political scene too much. When we tracked jobbers for our blockades the majority (around 2/3 maybe?) were flagless on both sides. I'd imagine this number to be much lower on a blue ocean.

I understand why the green ocean jobbing pool does what it does, I just don't agree with it. And just because you can't get the jobbers to pay attention to politics doesn't mean that you can't get blockading flags to stop abusing third-party ships. Force the blockaders to play the game right, and the jobbers have to follow along (or job with #1 and #2 ships, which is acceptable).

vnork wrote: 
It really makes me tempted to find a source of funds on Midnight, because I just don't think you comprehend how much third parties can potentially ruin a blockade. I don't know much about Midnight, but if I can fill a frig or something that would be able to hold it's ground on the board by paying 150% of what the contenders are offering, I'm certain I could demonstrate exactly what I'm describing.

Feel free. Most of our jobbers are either friends/allies of a contender or have friends of people who are friends of the contenders. You could probably fill up a frigate, though. However, I don't think you'd influence the blockade quite as much as you're expecting. But hey, you're certainly allowed to try to prove me wrong.
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
[Feb 12, 2010 2:48:07 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Vnork wrote: 
It really makes me tempted to find a source of funds on Midnight, because I just don't think you comprehend how much third parties can potentially ruin a blockade. I don't know much about Midnight, but if I can fill a frig or something that would be able to hold it's ground on the board by paying 150% of what the contenders are offering, I'm certain I could demonstrate exactly what I'm describing.

Third parties loading and gunboat diplomacy have been around Midnight since at least 2005, it's nothing new. People make special political efforts in advance to try to control its effects, or enter into on-the-board gunboat diplomacy and alliances.

Edit to clarify who I was responding to.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by sweetnessc at Feb 12, 2010 3:05:54 PM]
[Feb 12, 2010 2:54:07 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Dylan

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 10005
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

There is a Fandango in my pants!
[Feb 12, 2010 3:33:43 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
vnork



Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 1004
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
I think the reason why you don't like #4 now is that you're now on the side that it affects, and don't want anyone messing with your game. However, what about the people who want to do #4 as you did in the past? Will you deny them the same fun that you had because suddenly you're on the other side? Do you think it was wrong that you did #4 in the past?

You're wrong about my motivations, that's for sure. There's no reason to be so quick to attach motives to my arguments when you know almost nothing about me or my experiences playing this game.

I don't think it was wrong that I did #4 in the past. I think it's unbalanced that it was so easy for me to do so, and that I was able to do so essentially anonymously. To me, it's like the equivalent of being able to pay 5 bucks to drive a bulldozer through a china shop. I don't blame those who do what's available and fun for them to do, but I do fault the game design for facilitating it so easily.

 
And just because you can't get the jobbers to pay attention to politics doesn't mean that you can't get blockading flags to stop abusing third-party ships. Force the blockaders to play the game right, and the jobbers have to follow along (or job with #1 and #2 ships, which is acceptable).

You make it sound so easy. It's hard to force people to play your way. Not everyone sees third party abuse as abusive, and there are a lot of things that motivate people to support some flags over others, apart from allied third party usage.

 
Third parties loading and gunboat diplomacy have been around Midnight since at least 2005, it's nothing new. People make special political efforts in advance to try to control its effects, or enter into on-the-board gunboat diplomacy and alliances.

Has anyone done so solely to frustrate the two sides in the blockade?
[Feb 12, 2010 3:48:45 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
 
Third parties loading and gunboat diplomacy have been around Midnight since at least 2005, it's nothing new. People make special political efforts in advance to try to control its effects, or enter into on-the-board gunboat diplomacy and alliances.

Has anyone done so solely to frustrate the two sides in the blockade?


I'm having some difficulty imagining a scenario where you simultaneously frustrate both sides of the blockade, since there's inevitably a winner and a loser, but leaving that aside, it's been done to have fun playing, to cause a loss on one side, to force a loss of additional resources by a side, to increase the pay on both sides (this one is somewhat speculative, that's what it looked like to me, but it could've been more innocuous), to punish someone for selection of blockade timing, to prevent a win by the attackers, to make a blockade name, to play blockade when a flag's not willing to drop a chest, to extract poe, to piss people off. Is that what you meant?
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
[Feb 12, 2010 4:08:07 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
vnork



Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 1004
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
I'm having some difficulty imagining a scenario where you simultaneously frustrate both sides of the blockade, since there's inevitably a winner and a loser

It's quite possible to win a blockade but not have much fun in doing so.

Example: An unaffiliated third party contests such that the round is nearly tied with 2 minutes to go. This is easy if you understand how inclines work and the blockade is fairly evenly-matched. For the first 45 minutes of the round, it doesn't matter if the contenders' EJR is +20% or -20%, because a swing frig can easily negate that, so individual nav performances and land efficiency have no meaning. The winner is determined in the last 2 minutes by whether the third party gives the incline to the attacker by contesting one cluster or to the defender by contesting the other. Would you like to win a blockade this way?
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by vnork at Feb 12, 2010 4:29:52 PM]
[Feb 12, 2010 4:29:08 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Yes, actually, I would love it. That sounds a fair bit like Jorvik XII.

Edit: I don't think I should be a guide, though, I doubt there's much of anything you could do to me on the board to make me not enjoy throwing a blockade. I'm more concerned with the people who make what is for them a gargantuan effort, only to have it stomped on, and possibly discouraging them from playing again.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by sweetnessc at Feb 12, 2010 4:53:37 PM]
[Feb 12, 2010 4:38:16 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
vnork



Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 1004
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Eh, I supposed I shouldn't have addressed the hypothetical directly to someone as crazy as you =P

You seemed to suggest that the winning side of a blockade couldn't be frustrated by a third party. I was trying to point out that, win or lose, a typical flag anticipating a competitive blockade would be quite frustrated by having the blockade decided in a non-competitive manner by an external coin flip.

As an isolated instance, it might not be a big deal, but there was a mini-craze of this style of third-partying in the past on Sage.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by vnork at Feb 12, 2010 5:12:19 PM]
[Feb 12, 2010 5:10:48 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Dylan

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 10005
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Fortunate that Sweetie hasn't blockaded all that much on Sage then. Coughpurityofessence.
[Feb 12, 2010 5:15:05 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Heh I hardly blockaded with PoE at all, it was more GWTF/LOL.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
[Feb 12, 2010 5:25:51 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Dylan

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 10005
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

My point was that nobody did much ;) Even I managed more with Inanna.
[Feb 12, 2010 5:27:03 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
You're wrong about my motivations, that's for sure. There's no reason to be so quick to attach motives to my arguments when you know almost nothing about me or my experiences playing this game.

I don't think it was wrong that I did #4 in the past. I think it's unbalanced that it was so easy for me to do so, and that I was able to do so essentially anonymously. To me, it's like the equivalent of being able to pay 5 bucks to drive a bulldozer through a china shop. I don't blame those who do what's available and fun for them to do, but I do fault the game design for facilitating it so easily.


See, the thing is, I have no problem with more people causing mayhem on the blockade board, as long as they aren't abusing the game mechanics. To me, the more people on the blockade board, the better.

 
You make it sound so easy. It's hard to force people to play your way. Not everyone sees third party abuse as abusive, and there are a lot of things that motivate people to support some flags over others, apart from allied third party usage.

Well, if the people who see it as abusive are strong enough, they *should* be able to leverage others into playing nice. If you make someone lose a few blockades and tell them why you're making them lose, they'll switch. And I certainly hope there's motivation to support flags other than abuse, if there wasn't then that would mean that politics are dead.
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
[Feb 12, 2010 7:36:47 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Posts: 256   Pages: 9   [ First Page | Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Show Printable Version of Thread] [Post new Thread]

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