In Testing: When only one freq has a shark, reduce mine alive time

[Diakka]

That seems to be the consensus, that generally it isn't a big deal once the game gets going a bit. Let's try out 5v5 as the threshold. How is 35s feeling as the time? (You'd need to be a solo shark to test it out.) I found I was still able to do a little bit of blocking and the mines didn't disappear so quickly that it was nearly as noticeable. Almost feels normal.

Sounds good, you can always adjust the minealive time for those small games too.

I also don't think sharks should be fined $1,500 for one of their mines TKing someone.

That is all

[qan]

That seems to be the consensus, that generally it isn't a big deal once the game gets going a bit. Let's try out 5v5 as the threshold. How is 35s feeling as the time? (You'd need to be a solo shark to test it out.) I found I was still able to do a little bit of blocking and the mines didn't disappear so quickly that it was nearly as noticeable. Almost feels normal.

[skyforger]

diakka said it all

[Diakka]

I have talked to BIET and other pubbers and players when this was released. In my opinion this is really only a problem in pub when it is like less than 10 people playing, so a 5v5, 4v5 or 4v4 match...something small but happens often in pub. One of the team gets a shark and then the other team complains because they are all WBs and can't get through entrance without ramming. If anything you could lower the minealive time in these scenarios...but any other scenario should stick with default. If someone hops in a shark to help their team/they like playing shark then that is their prerogative. If the other team is serious about getting flag/winning then they will eventually get a shark. The problem is if this becomes the norm then no one will shark.

[skyforger]

just saw a 12v12 pub game ruined by player "skyforger" in shark 1v0 the enemy team didn't want to shark so they all quit and it became a 5v0

i wonder what goes though this guys mind to play base with a ship efficient for the purpose...

also don't nerf sharks rather have bot switch beam to shark, problem solved

[qan]

Nope, not with the server we use, though it's a good idea.

[2pac]

Easy way to fix this qan, possible for mine to disappear and reappear in phases?

[qan]

just saw a 12v12 pub game ruined by player "skyforger" in shark 1v0 the enemy team didn't want to shark so they all quit and it became a 5v0

Unfortunately that's just the nature of pub. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I think few people would be in favor of lowering the mine time regardless of arena size. At a certain point there's just an expectation that someone on a large team will make the sacrifice. If not, they didn't really want the win that badly to begin with.

[Lupin]

Ideally you'd have statistics of pub populations before and after and could compare. We don't, though. I do a lot of manual monitoring, flawed though that may be.

Maybe the bot can help you monitor? Perhaps note the playing pub population per hour and write it into a file. You guys can check the weekly pop avg before/after a big change like this one - just one indication of success/failure.

Disclaimer: I dunno the amt. of technical legwork required for this stuff.

[beam]

just saw a 12v12 pub game ruined by player "skyforger" in shark 1v0 the enemy team didn't want to shark so they all quit and it became a 5v0

[qan]

Currently we're running modified settings from the OP: 35s mines and threshold is 6v6. This was updated 5/23, so there's been a fair bit of time to play with it and see how it feels.

I've played a fair bit on these settings and 35s does not feel too brutal. It has roughly the same feel as standard alive time in that you can trust your mines for a bit, but you do still need to replace them frequently. It's possible that 40s may be closer to the sweet spot. Also, I've found that usually around 6v6, people do get serious and will generally change to shark to combat a laming shark, so 5v6 or 5v5 might be an acceptable threshold.

[qan]

Yeah a lot of this boils down to ppl who enjoy sharking vs those who don't. I agree there, I don't really enjoy sharking in pub.

qan BIET since this is in testing, how are u guys gonna determine if it's a success or not?

I actually quite enjoy sharking in pub, including when there are no other sharks. But I think mineblocking is pretty poor sportsmanship and gives the ship a bad name.

As far as testing goes, it's not a simple thing to determine success or failure. Ideally you'd have statistics of pub populations before and after and could compare. We don't, though. I do a lot of manual monitoring, flawed though that may be.

[Mootland Farmer]

In a nutshell, no. I may write a more lengthy reply later...

[Lupin]

Yeah a lot of this boils down to ppl who enjoy sharking vs those who don't. I agree there, I don't really enjoy sharking in pub.

qan BIET since this is in testing, how are u guys gonna determine if it's a success or not?

[alanon]

The attached drawing is the shark formation called the Alanon 'S' (the "S" is due to the path ships must travel to reach flag). Please look at it. It does not block ships, it only hinders them. It is the greatest mining formation ever designed and the only contribution I ever want to be remembered for in this game. It is the most effective way to save flag when single-sharking against a team that doesn't have a shark-- even more effective than mine-blocking. When you mine-block, the other team (if they want to win) will ultimately switch to shark and take away your advantage. However, if you provide SOME path to flag that a non-shark can reach, the other team doesn't usually switch to shark, and it gives you the advantage of then only having two areas two defend that the other team has to squeeze through.

This strategy took a while to develop and lots of testing (the team dynamics also have to be just right for it to be effective). I'm only sharing it with you here because this is the sort of thing that players have developed under the current rules that you're now eliminating due to a couple negative complaints about other (not-so-effective I might add) shark techniques.

By removing long-shark mines, you're killing an entire realm of strategy in the game. That's why it's so frustrating. We don't all play just to jav and warbird and kill... there's actually thought in this game on the best way to win. Fine-tuning strategy like this and others is the reason I keep playing. It's also probably why I have the most consistent highest rating in each scoreset (proof: http://www.trenchwars.org/index.php?...&player=alanon).

Don't get rid of the Alanon 'S', don't toss all those years of vet strategy away just to appeal to players who don't put equal thought and time into the game. All you're doing is promoting shitty-playing when you punish that.