Community - Forum - View old data

Categories :  

General Discussion

  Index

  • HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 02:15

Elliot2lazy
Since a lot of people are talking about HA related Banning things I was thinking of a
scenario that could of easily happened on either server. Here it goes...

Say Fleet A takes a harbor that is undefended from when Harbor Assaults started back
up.Fleet A has about 40-50 members when they attack.

Then next week's declaration Fleet B attacks Fleet A. Fleet B has 20 members when they
declared and still has less than 30 when they do the Harbor Assault.

Fleet A has now about 60ish members when this Harbor Assault goes on, but they only have
16 accounts that are BB5/CV5+ and of those they only have 7 that are either CV6 or BB6.
Most players in the fleet are Blitz players or just starting to get out of blitz.

Fleet B has 16 accounts that are BB5/CV5+ and 7 of those accounts have a CV6 or BB6, and
Fleet B has multiple BB6's and/or BB6,CV6 combination on one account. Where Fleet A
doesn't have any multiples at all. Also on average Fleet B has higher level accounts than
Fleet A. Therefore Fleet B has more 120 crews and ships, but they are still under 30 people.

Now Discuss would this be a bannable offense for wasting time, or would this be a
reasonable HA since, it is about fair number of players (accounts) with high level crews?
  Index

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 19. 2011 08:47

leaderwolf
do you critics now what is did rehor, but he has balls and other not among them that you.,
hypocrisy can not be hidden and a blind man sees.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 19. 2011 08:44

clemo85
@jhempsrt4

Read splids post, then say that. Your saying it would be ok if he used Network with over
30 accounts in Network, not 30 players. I bet he would still be banned.

As I have already said, the rule is being used in an overly flexible way, so it should be
used for the scenario of turning up with less than 30 players. The rule states the
attacking fleet has to show up with 30+ members not just to have 30+ members within the
fleet that has declared.

:EDIT:

Your example is almost correct, but it is more like enforcing a 55kph speed limit on a
racing track.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 19. 2011 08:38

jhempsrt4
But the purpose of the rule != the rule.

As for your hypothetical situation, it is vastly different from the current situation. If
FAWK fielded 27 guys, then that is about 20+ more than Network had.

I am sure the enforcement of the rules is similar to speed limits on public streets.
Will you get pulled over for driving 57 mph in a 55 mph zone? No, you wont. Cops
will let you go all day, because they know that 2 mph is nitpicking. It is still illegal to
go over the limit, even if it is just 2 mph, but they will only rarely enforce it. However,
if you are driving 75 mph in a 55 mph zone, you will get pulled over all day long.
There is not a single cop that wouldn't pull you over at that speed.

Your FAWK situation is like an old lady driving 57 in a 55. Rehor was doing 120 while
flipping the cops off.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 19. 2011 08:29

Splid
The point is that the NUMBER of players is not what is important. It is the QUALITY of
the attack.

As there is no defending fleet, there is NO reason for the quality of the attack to be
questioned, and even so, the harbour was taken.

The person who put a limit of a 30 member attack just showed they don't understand the
problem and by the way, Jedi called for the rules, asked for input (with this stupid
arbritrary number one of our major problems) and were told it was not our business to be
involved in making the rules.

If you want to be literal then go ahead and keep him banned, but then you must go and ban
nearly every player of this game for having a second account which is illegal under the
EULA, then you must go and remove players with names such as LordMichael or Admiralkoth as
this is also illegal under the EULA.

If SDE and TNF want to be taken seriously, they should stop cherry picking which rules
they want to apply and which they don't. Answer me this Vick, how can you honestly ban a
player for this when large portions of the EULA go unpunished and they are made a LOT more
clear that these supposed rules Rehor has broken?

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 19. 2011 08:19

leaderwolf
Is some unbroken rules in NF ?that is shows NF incompetence ,pls hit the smart or diferent
person,it is everything that's known ,first ever good step of rehoR maybe is grow?Break
the finger will look yours incompetent,...pathetic.

''personal feelings ''
The old tnf is never forgot(is not have a Christianity judge)after xmass.
We know a lots that crap's, is keep personal feeling,is want the change mind of punished
person,but their is still live in hate forever.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 19. 2011 08:17

clemo85
@jhempsrt4

I've explained the purpose of the rule and even JEDI have comfirmed this by explaining why
it came to be. Vick11 or someone from TNF has also said that 30 members is an example
number, not a number set in stone.

If your going to be anal about the number, answer me this: FAWK have 37 members in their
fleet, but what if they can only bring 25 members to BOTH HA's they are doing, does this
mean the fleet leader should be banned as rehor has been?

The rule states: "You must have at least 30 members to declare harbor assault, having less
than this means you will have no chance of winning and will most likely lead to wasting
the defending fleets time."

But if FAWK cannot get 30+ members on for the HA shouldn't he be banned? Shouldn't that
occur for ALL fleets that only show up with below 30 members? Just because there is 30
accounts in a fleet does not mean there will be 30 members online for the HA. I can 100%
guarantee that would have occurred if the Network fleet comtained over 30 dummy accounts.

The rule is being used in an extremely flexible way in the current situation, so why not
use it for the opposite end of the spectrum?

:EDIT:

Kaiser players, who took the harbours the first week of HA?

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 19. 2011 07:56

jhempsrt4
That is the purpose of the rule, not the rule itself. The rule is "30 members to
declare" and he broke it.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 19. 2011 04:25

clemo85
*He did broke the rulles.


1. Basic Fleet requirements :

You must have at least 30 members to declare harbor assault, "Doesen't"

having less than " he Does"

this means you will have no chance of winning and will most likely lead to wasting
the defending fleets time. "There is no fleet defending but he already broke the 30
members rule."

Closed discussion sadly i'm not a mod:( *

Your obviously ignoring the rule to justify what has transpired. The rule protects the
fleet that HOLDS a harbour from a pointless attack by a small fleet. There was NO fleet
that held the harbour during the HAs last week when rehor took the harbour. ergo you and
the decision was incorrect.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 19. 2011 01:41

vick11
Actually we have only done a HA on a very few occasions. Why not this time though? There
are no edit tools for HA, we cannot set a fleet into harbour ownership and to take out a
fleet involves resetting HA - all of it. It was considered for the post-merge piece, but
it would have needed TeamNF to wait for declarations to open, get in first on the
declarations (risk we wouldnt make that ahead of others), take the harbours the first week
in order to set up to defend the following week - which would be another delay for fleets
to get to start up HA again. That was considered untenable.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 21:30

mfischer
Every time that the harbours have been reset by SDE and then re-opened TNF has
defended the Harbours.

This time TNF didn't.

I would suspect that SDE didn't set it or TNF didn't show up to defend.

Why....no one knows..or is bothered to answer.

If they had have defended then time would have been wasted.

Instead every attacking fleet just butt rushed to declare on the empty HBRS.

Why...SDE/TNF were the Harbours NOT defended?

Sloppy housekeeping....

o.O
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Last