I have to say, that part of DOO I appreciate but many in your guild totally disregard it. I did a little hack having no idea about the org. Got slaughtered & though oh well, then got some lip smack on my com & re-slaughtered 5 more times it continues to happen over a week later... thanks to DOO I've been disabled something like 20 times in 2 day's & more over the week... now I'll do my best to report the guild to get them kicked... at the same time those who posted legion alert and did one hit I have no problem with.. but DOO as a whole via 5-7 operators have take it WAAAAY to far & in my opinion either should be shut down or have the excessive hazers booted.

Hey all,

I thought up of a very simple solution to the overkill / bullying in PvP that doesn't require any major changes to existing game mechanics. Here goes...

Solution 1: X amount of attacking players.

What this means is that when the defender get attacked, hacked, or raided, it sets off a counter. The counter limits how many players can do any action aganist the defender.

Example: Player A attacks Player B, setting off a counter. The counter says that only 5 different players can attack, hack, or raid Player B for the next 6 hour. Players C, D, E, and F then attack Player B. Then the counter is full, meaning no more players can intitate any aggressive action aganist Player B for the next 6 hours.

Vary the counter for X amount of levels.

What this means is low rank players have low counters, whereas high ranked payers have higher counters. So lowbies have reasonable protection while the high levels can still enjoy interstellar melees.

The counter should increase by 1 for every 25 levels (or a Rank Star in the Rank bar). Rank 1 players have a counter of 2. Then a rank 100 player will have a counter of 6. And so on.

Solution 2: Limit aggressive actions per player per target.

What this means is that an attacking player can only hack / raid the same defender a set amount of times before they get automatic critical failures on hacking and raiding. For actual attacks, perhaps limit it to one disabling per 6 hours or something (mechanics open to discussion)

This limit is raised by rank, similiar to the Counter idea. For every 25 ranks, a player's action limit is raised by 2. Meaning the limit cap is raised by 2 more hacks / raids per 25 ranks.

Example: Player A is Rank 1. He can hack / raid the same victim 4 times within 6 hours. Player B is Rank 100. He can hack / raid 12 times on the same defender.

This should encourage players to seek out and battle more diverse targets rather than picking on the same one repeatedly.

===================

Thoughts? Discuss?

I don't think it should be based on rank, but more like an 'eye for an eye' situation. In that way, more aggressive players can face more retaliation, while passive ones can avoid being bombarded too heavily.

There can thus be an overall action limit set to 3 + (number of offensive actions this player has done) spread out over 24 hours. These would be separate for hack, raid, and disable.

Note: The disable limit would be exempt when targeting an enemy ship guarding a planet that is close to being invaded.

The game would, of course, need to show the number of 'actions available' in this case so players would know how many remain.

i have seen worse than this. ships literally hacked dry of RP and forced to literally stop playing for 2 days straight or be disabled repetedly. longer b4 the shortening of the log, and the alert limits.

Here's what I think, Dan.

Newbies should have a bit more leeway in the limitations, meaning more protection because they're learning the ropes. The higher ranks should have already done some PvP or have some understanding on how PvP works, so their "protection" should be weaker than the newbies- hence my ranks idea. Level 200 players should be rather familiar with PvP than a level 1 or 20 player.

Perhaps a combination of rank and aggressive action?

3 offensive actions (hack or raid) for ranks 1 - 20, regardless of aggression, and perhaps one disabling per player (up to 3 players on the defender) on the rank 1 - 20 target in a 24 hour period.

Then from ranks 21 - 100, newbies should be getting somewhat more familiar with combat, so drop protection further. Drop the hack and raid limitations, and set them to full retal as per your idea, Dan. Eye-for-eye and all that. However disabling limitation should stay in place to avoid massive organizatin ganking of lowbies who don't have a chance in terms of defense, weapons, legion, etc. I'm thinking maybe still only 1 disabling per player on the target in a 24 hour period- and 5 or 6 players may disable the target within the same 24 hour period.

Ranks 101 - 200 should have no protection limitations. Full eye-for-eye, plus up the disabling limitation to 3 disablings per player on the target within 24 hours. 10 - 12 players can disable the target within a 24 hour period.

Ranks 201+ should have no disabling limitations- as many players can disable the target as many times as they need. By then, ships should have insane hull, shields, and defense meaning they're tough nuts to crack, RPG "boss-like" in their stats. Or do you think we should keep the disabling system like 5 disablings per player, and 30+ players can attack the target within a 24 hour period?

I agree that when a player is defending a planet- his own planet, or legion defending his legion-mate's planet, if he is disabled, that doesn't count aganist the disabling "cap".

This way, we can avoid 100 players attacking, hacking, or raiding a player that only attacks, hacks, or raids once. The PvP remains intact, players are encouraged to try fighting a wider range of players rather than one or two specific players, and players don't have to be afraid of being smashed repeatedly by organizations if the player is only looking to raise hack / kill scores to unlock missions.

As for the information on how many times a ship has been disabled, there could be "Disabled (X / Y) times" above or below the ATTACK button where players can't miss it. X being the amount of players the ship has been disabled by, and Y is the cap on how many players can attack the target. Also the text should be green to indicate that the player who's viewing the ship screen can attack the player (disable per player cap isn't reached yet), and red if the player has hit the maximum times they can disable the ship for the 24 hour period.

Examples:

Disabled 5 / 5

Player can't attack because the target has been hit by 5 different players already. Attack button is greyed out.

Disabled 1 / 3

Player can't attack because he has hit the maximum times he himself can disable the target. 2 other players can come in and disable the target sometime in the next 24 hours (they'll see green text, not this current attacker). Attack button is greyed out.

Disabled 1 / 5

Player can attack and disable the target as there's room for him, and he hasn't disabled the target yet. Attack button is red and can be clicked.

Disabled 10 / 10

Player is already 1 of the 10 players who has attacked the target, but he hasn't hit the disable player cap. He can disable the player at least once before the text turns red and target becomes unattackable for 24 hours. Attack button is red and can be clicked.

I know some of this may sound like rambling, its hard to express my ideas in words sometimes.

I am FOR limiting the MESSAGES in one form or another! (which happily Dan seems to agree with in some way above) See here for my suggestion in original form() Or read this synopsis:

** Player legion alerts change to cost energy per number of players ("slots") allowed to respond.
** Legion members who respond take up a 'slot' of the OP's request, but must either attack more than twice OR Deal a single 'Winning' attack.
** The ratio of the level of the attacker to that of the defender consumes slots
---- This means a level 50 stacking a level 100 takes up 1/2 a slot
---- This also means a level 100 attacking a level 50 takes up two slots
---- So a level 50 attacking a level 50 takes up 1 slot

That seems a bit complicated... Although, I DO like the idea of alerts costing energy. Leaving a message costs energy, why not alerting a whole legion? The energy it cost could even be based on legion size.

I think spoonyjank's idea of putting the timer on the defender instead of the attacker/hacker seems like a straightforward, super-easy fix. Plus, it would make being a hacker or raider a little more enticing.

For energy cost of alerts, how about 1 energy= 1 player notified? then, you can set the number of notified legion members before the report is sent. If the number sent is higher then your legion count, it will tell you the error and allow you to retry. If it is lower, it will notify legion members starting with those closest to the level of the target ship. for example:

target ship: lv 50
player's legion members: 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 70, 100
if energy spent: 4
then members notified: 50, 45, 40, 35
if energy spent: 5
then members notified: 50, 45, 40, 35, 70

I think the alert/energy option makes sense, but it would still be separate from the other changes mentioned above (regarding action limits)

That's a bit extraggrating.. It's actually 3 days so far not weeks like you claimed. We first saw your alert 3 days ago.. The main reason why we kept at you is your way of communication and your silly action. That's it. We hardly kept at same players longer than 24 hours (most encounters ended in matter of minutes) if they are being civil for their little aggression. Just wanted to let you know. Also, since I did enough hacking on you in last 1 day due to your early taunts, I have decided to give you peace and just be mindful of your words. That's all we are asking. Enjoy the game.

I never forget our DOO longest-ever fight during alert-bouncing era was against Conway and his 24-alt accounts clan and he really was funny who kept swear all the time and said, "BRING IT ON!" etc. He was full of angriness and kept attacking us all the time. It lasted two months and he had almost same rank while we all were much higher cuz we kept his RP dry all the time and he literally poured almost all energy into comm on several of us and fights too. That encounter was most memoriable that DOO had in long time. He sometimes made us wondered if he's mental challenged or something cuz of ways he talked and actions too. He had all research structures on very sparse research but artifact rich planet? The way he structured his planets were rather odd. Heh. Our encounter against Conways ended when alert bouncing got removed.. That was good fix and we are glad for it.

It's been well over, you were the last of the legion to begin the attack... thus you got much of my frustraition... Truely the first day which listed many 1 person single attacks by people saying "legion alert" was fine and actually fun. Then several members started multi attacking over and over chaining the attacks over several day's ending in your multi day attack that apparently is over.

I'm all for your guild members who get attacked sending an alert and having the entire guild pound someone once. makes sense to me. But several members decided not to do it once like YOU ... at that point its not fun and does NOT send the message you think of "don't mess with DOO"... first of all I don't even know how to see if someone is in DOO secondly the multi attack by several people each attacking ~2 day's each from ships 100 levels above me is no fun.

If the Dev's could do it I'd say don't limit actions on the ship limit actions of the legion... EG: have the guild hammers someone with 1-5 attacks each & then block it.

As I said it was somewhat fun the first day to see "oops" somehow I attacked the wrong guy (like I said IDK how to tell I did but maybe I've just not noticed it) and now I am getting hammered.... However one of the first people to multi attack me said it was because quote: "your guild has been attacking us too long" ... yet my guild is me & one other and we've not "gone to war" with anyone... combined we have a total of less then 50 TOTAL attacks so that was unfounded... did I tell him he was wrong? Yes... he then mouthed off to me & set the tone for me to know what DOO was all about...

really bad idea... this is like punishing people for playing a social networking game. the only way this would work is if it allowed you to select who you want to alert to. that would be totally awesome if i can alert to just 2-3 at a time. most legion mates i wouldn't want the alert going to at all.

I actually found the game from a FB advertisement, so I'm guessing that plays a role. If Dan wanted to expand he would probably make it necesary to notify all your friends 5 times a day to get ahead. Like those ridiculously annoying zynga games. It's weird that most FB games don't give any benefit for sending an invitation when it gets rejected. That would seem like the legitimate way to draw NEW players.

why not make it where a legion alert is sent out it lasts until the target is disabled and then it is unable to be viewed except by the person who alerted it. would solve the problem with al the multi crap. also something like this wouldnt be needed if they actually looked before they attacked ie if a person has a legion of 100+ more than likely he/she is in stormkyn or doo. common sense.

anyways just puttin in my 2 cents.

Oh, and its totally perfectly fine for a level 80 player being unable to kill, raid, or hack a level 60 player, then calls in a level 200+ legion mate to do the job?

I don't see any punishment in limiting legion alerts to legion mates + / - 20 levels or so of the target player. Level 200's don't need to reach down to kill or hack stuff from level 50's that gives practically no benefit.

This would be like a 5 year old kid refusing to share a cookie, then the 6 year old brother goes and gets a 7 foot tall wrestler on steroids to steal away the cookie from the 5 year old.

It was not deleted, it was merged.

There is a large release coming tonight rolling out several balance changes - you can hold your comments until then.

you rock dan =P

i LOVE the new action limits and action indicator #'s in action tab. like expected, the action #'s seem to be reducing the attacks more than the limits themselves. i have seen ships with 12+ actions left, but the actions show clearly exactly what happened to that player. you can now estimate how many actions the player did and what exactly was done to them. the base is currently 3:5:5 so when the limit is 5:7:7 it shows that the ship acted 2x and has not been retaliated on. 4:7:3 means they had 2 actions, hacked 4x, disabled once. it could be off by 1 or so but it still is pretty accurate.

i have tested this on the 1st day when someone had negative #'s. it does stop attacks. i am still watching the limits closely, but mostly from the offensive side. what do the others think about the limits. im looking at it from both perspectives (offensive/defensive).

it is a pretty good measurement until reading becomes worthwhile. I still can't figure out how/if the rollover works. If there is one, I think it should subtract actions instead of resetting them to 3,5,5. Is there a daily rollover or does it log and subtract every action after 24 hours? I'm also not sure how failed raids/hacks are counted.