Anti AR triggering

[Dimitar]

my suggestion is best.

 

[Iamsmart]

Unless he's changing it so he doesn't want people to be able to do it Antisback - That would be his choice, not yours.

 

[alwaysnumb]

[16:23] <antisback> azzer can we make it so if you go through and land having triggered you don't have your counter increase

[16:20] <@antisback> I see someone attacking a solo i want to attack so follow him, make sure it triggers then i go in and land

The way i see it thats a perfectly legitimate tactic, and though its fagotttry, its no more faggoty than waving or land trains.

its way more gay. your stopping the guy in front landing where the others your not.

 

[Dimitar]

I just relized this thread is named " Anti Anti Rape ... "

 

[alwaysnumb]

yeah that is a bit mad

 

[Cheese]

I haven't seen anyone else really do it other than those two this round.

lol.

 

[Dimitar]

I haven't seen anyone else really do it other than those two this round.

lol.

Best argument

 

[Alcibiades]

I'd agree that there should be some sort of punishment for allied players. Government land farmers instead of the loss of AR? Not really sure, but there should be something to deter allied players from doing this as well.

I like this suggestion the best. I find the mechanics seems fair to me, but i'm sure there will prove to be some unpredictable side effects in the long term. At the moment i'm satisfied, other than the fact that the Allied player negatives seem a little light which is where lafin's suggestion comes in. I'd like to throw some RMs into the mix just because it's funny

Or alternatively, give them instant bounties of massive proportions so they become "Public Enemy Number One" as it were.

[16:23] <antisback> azzer can we make it so if you go through and land having triggered you don't have your counter increase

[16:20] <@antisback> I see someone attacking a solo i want to attack so follow him, make sure it triggers then i go in and land

The way i see it thats a perfectly legitimate tactic, and though its fagotttry, its no more faggoty than waving or land trains.

but there's no excuse for deliberately triggering on someone in my opinion. It may well be valid, but i'd hardly call it necessary or a tactic. I can't think of anything i find lowering in this game than deliberately triggering on someone.

/rant

As long as you have spies, you should be able to avoid deliberately triggering on someone, whether maliciously or not, and thus anyone who does trigger on someone is deemed "evil". Which I think is perfectly suitable. Your behaviour (imo) is comparably despicable as those players who deliberately trigger for/on each other for deliberately malicious reasons. Thus I happen to feel like that deserves the same punishment.

 

[Elevnos]

So with this new system does that mean that a group of players could continuously trigger on a solo player and eventually, when the solo player is no longer getting government defence, the group of players can just take their land?

 

[pinpower]

So with this new system does that mean that a group of players could continuously trigger on a solo player and eventually, when the solo player is no longer getting government defence, the group of players can just take their land?

No, its the player that is triggering that looses AR.

But if you are frequently causing AR to trigger, the government will start to get angry that you have been the cause of so much wasted government time and troops. At first you will start to receive some small honour drops, and a drop in your current AR modifier (not below 0) - and you'll get a news item telling you of this. If you continue to trigger AR, the honour drops will increase, and [n]your[/b] AR mod will continue to drop. News items again will keep warning you of what is happening. Reach enough AR triggers though, and government troops will decide you are a time-waster, and will refuse to send troops to help you if you yourself come under attack, for a period of time (your own anti-rape is temporarily disabled) - plus the honour drops will become huge.

 

[Azzer]

So with this new system does that mean that a group of players could continuously trigger on a solo player and eventually, when the solo player is no longer getting government defence, the group of players can just take their land?

The people that are doing the triggering get the punishment. Not the solo player that just sat there and had people send at him and received government defence. So no, it wouldn't be possible for a group of attackers to abuse it to "disable" anti-rape on a target before attacking said target, it would be the group of attackers that received the "trigger counts"

 

[Elevnos]

Yeah I understand now, asked on IRC. The bit:

"But if you are frequently causing AR to trigger, the government will start to get angry that you have been the cause of so much wasted government time and troops."

'You' sounds like the defender to me, maybe change it to "But if the attacker..."

 

[Souls]

The guy who's getting attacked can't possibly trigger AR on his own.

 

[Iamsmart]

Say a guy sends eta7 full troops.

Another guy the next tick sends ETA 5 full troops.

When ETA 7 gets to A3 AR is triggered

Who gets punished?

 

[Dimitar]

should be the one who sent later, not the one who arrived later

" "Responsibility" is given to any mob sent later than the first mob that has caused the AR to be sent. "

 

[Iamsmart]

That's the way it should be, but:

"This only applies if there is more than 1 attacker, and never applies to the very first attacker to arrive."

 

[Azzer]

It's ordered by the actual time of launch, but you must be ETA 1 for it to apply, so in your example above neither will actually receive a trigger count (since while the ETA 5 person was the later one to launch, he's not ETA 1/heading for attacking for 3 at trigger point, so he won't get a trigger count either).

 

[Turnip2k]

The allied players need more of a punishment - an ally player purposely triggering is just as bad / annoying as a solo player doing it, so why should the solo player get punished more?

 

[Dimitar]

Because it's the solos who are doing it atm, there was really no need for such a rule until it began to occur A LOT more often than it used to

 

[Turnip2k]

So if / when ally players start doing it, the rule will have to be changed again? Ally players ARE doing this, I'm pretty sure, its just not as prevelant. However, they should be treated no differently to the solos doing it?

Why not just make the thing completely functional for ally and solo players now (i.e. equally punishing to both) and save the bother of probably having to fix it again later?