26 replies to this topic

[ST0RM3R]

Dear PGI. please, make two attack cycles, 11 hours each, for european and north american prime-times. And 2x1-hour ceasfire between them. It is really first "MUSTHAVE" feature that wants all european (include russian) community.
Cause we all can't change anything on the map and all progression makes by North American prime-time players. We CAN't help them, cause we aready sleep at this time or goes to work etc. And this is the reason, why european community plays CW a less than north american.
It is not so hard to make this feature, but believe me, we all will be appreciate for this!
Sorry for my bad English and thanks!

[Reitmeier]

Russ allready said something about this.

Quote

any ETA for Ceasefire changes so EU Units can join the CW?

Quote

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock


no but definitely in the new year

https://twitter.com/...677105241935872

Doesn't look like high priority for PGI atm

[ST0RM3R]

Just make them suffer about this mistake

[Von Falkenstein]

Frustration among european players (who spent a load of money on this game) runs really high at the moment...

Please fix this asap!

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

PGI has mentioned making the attack window slightly off from a 24-hour cycle, to encourage a slow rotation across time zones.

If instead they do an 11-hour window with the current half-hour Ceasefire then the windows will slowly rotate across the time zones. This should give every region a chance to inform the decisive last few hours, while also accelerating the rate of map changing (more attack windows lead to more planets changing hands which leads to a more dynamic map).

[100mile]

I like the idea of the ceasefire window being slightly more than 24 hours..like say 25 hours so that every 24 days each time zone in the world will have had an opportunity to be the deciding factor of a days battles. I think this will generate a lot more interest world wide. It will also change the play dynamic as each House/Faction will have to constantly change their strategy to accommodate the time changes. Yes this will make it harder in some ways but we don't want easy do we?

I do not want to see the 11 and 11 plan as i feel that it would cause planets to change hands too quickly and not leave enough room for long term House strategies..It might also make it so one faction could run over all the others..I prefer the slow grind so all factions big and small have an opportunity to get their stuff together and compete.

I know this is a break from my usual rhetoric espoused in other more RP based threads..but i feel this issue is more RL game effecting and should be approached seriously. The determination that PGI makes on this issue in the future could have long reaching effects on the health and status of this game.

Positive effective feed back on this thread would be very useful to PGI, if they are watching it, in determining a direction to go. Please don't flame/troll this thread. The OP has a valid point and while i think a different solution is available and would be more effective, something needs to be done before too long.

Edited by 100mile, 20 December 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[Asatur]

Big part of community need in more attack phases. Or floating time of ceasefire will be another variant of decision (but more than +1 hour every day, better about +6...12 hours).

[Catalinasgrace]

I agree with this totally. It is pointless to even play unless you just want something to do right now. I mean throughout the entire 24 hour period only the last hour or two matter. You can control a planet for 22 or 23 hours only have it taken back with ease while you sleep or whatever the case may be.

I personally think they EVERY battle should be counted if we are going to be on a 24 hour cycle. At the end the numbers are all counted up and those you have the highest number win/defends takes the planet. Example: say there are 200 battles fought over a planet within the 24 hours, the side with 101 should win.

[Burktross]

#savetheeuropeansphere
Definitely have my support. The fact this isn't considered is ludicrous

Edited by Burktross, 20 December 2014 - 07:18 PM.

[Bagor Aga]

Men, please support idea of 2 phases at least. We need a try, because nobody knows how things turn when such change will affect whole community (both IS and Clans).

[CGB Behemoth]

Catalinasgrace, on 20 December 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

I personally think they EVERY battle should be counted if we are going to be on a 24 hour cycle. At the end the numbers are all counted up and those you have the highest number win/defends takes the planet. Example: say there are 200 battles fought over a planet within the 24 hours, the side with 101 should win.

Absolutely agree. It is basic & best idea for win/loss counting.

[Firewuff]

Except this leaves the australian and asian contingent out in the cold. 3 is too many a day. Pgi is considering a shorter or longer cycle so the end time will cycle around all regions

[ST0RM3R]

Behemothk, on 21 December 2014 - 12:33 AM, said:

Absolutely agree. It is basic & best idea for win/loss counting.

But again Faction with numbers and numbers may take planet with more ghostwins.

[Reitmeier]

Allready many EU Units dont play CW anymore because of this.
We need a fast fix to prevent PST CW,

Edited by Reitmeier, 21 December 2014 - 05:47 PM.

[Russ Bullock]

It's not that it wasn't considered - more like we bit off as much as we possibly could to ship the feature before the new year. We can explore this but its not a small amount of work so as high of a priority as it is, it will simply have to wait until we get programmers back from the break before we can start the work.

[cSand]

No you chain them to their desks and make them work through the holidays Russ!!!!
Crack the whip!!!!

[Tarogato]

A 26-hour rotation would be great. Rotates every 12 days and keeps the progress on the map nice and slow. If planets change hands too fast, we'll run out of things to do with the map before long.

[RazarG]

Us in the oceanic would want the same thing. Im happy to wait as i understand it is only in beta, and there are alot of other things to fix up as well. Great that PGI will look into this tho.

[Tennex]

Russ Bullock, on 21 December 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

It's not that it wasn't considered - more like we bit off as much as we possibly could to ship the feature before the new year. We can explore this but its not a small amount of work so as high of a priority as it is, it will simply have to wait until we get programmers back from the break before we can start the work.

2 cycles a day would be the best way.. a >24 hour cycle means a month or so of regional dominance. So whats the other regions going to do for that month?

(whats your largest population going to do for that month?)

Edited by Tennex, 22 December 2014 - 07:14 AM.

[PhoenixNMGLB]

I don't think this is necessarily the answer.

Rather than having two attack cycles I would prefer that every match, regardless of when it takes place in an attack cycle, counts towards the overall result.

You could achieve this by using a cumulative victory percentage of attacker vs defender wins. For example;

Game 1 attacker wins 100% attacker victories
Game 2 defender wins - 50% attacker victories
Game 3 attacker wins - 66% attacker victories
Game 4 attacker wins - 75% attacker victories
Game 5 defender wins - 60% attacker victories
And so on.

That way regardless of when you play within the window it matters if you win or lose.

Otherwise quite frankly unless it is in the last two hours or so before a cease fire, what's the point of playing?

Edited by PhoenixNMGLB, 22 December 2014 - 09:31 AM.