Fleet Immunity

Orion's Belt Blog

November 11, 2010

Fleet Immunity

Filed under: Fleets,Universe — Nuno Silva @ 12:53 pm

Well, the previous post started and interesting old debate. MikeVealreminded me that this kind of features are dangerous and should be announced with time and Reborned gave me a link to an old post about this subject.

Well, after reading that old post i noticed that was some benefits and problems about the Immunity. The immunity of a fleet cannot be awarded in every battle or the attacker could have benefit in the fight. A nice example some gave was a raid. If you raid a planet and won the battle, you could never recover your resources because the attacker fleet would have immunity.

So after a long discussion with the team we decided to do one of the following things:

We simply remove the give up button (as suggested in the past). This way the players would have to take the battle to the end and the winner would decide what to do.
We only apply immunity in battles where one of the fleets gives up. This way the problem with the planets raid and the strategy of blocking the fleets would be both resolved.

Also we are thinking about reducing the immunity from 100 turn to 50 turns. 100 turns maybe is too much and a player would be able to travel freely around the universe.

What do you think? do you have a third opinion?

Your objective here is to improve the game in order to give you the best experience possible. For my experience, an easy win doesn’t give you any glory. It’s best when it’s an hard win. Also this feature is not to make things better for alliance A or B, it’s to make the game better to you all.

Comments (28)

28 Comments »

OK, I’d like to start by making my opinion clear. In the other blog, I said I would support the change. That doesn’t mean I agree with it.

Unfortunately the battle system is flawed. If you are outnumbered and players both players are competant enough not to make stupid mistakes, it is very very hard for the weaker player to damage the stronger player. The stronger player can easily establish a posture where the weaker player is pinned. Any mover by the weaker player leads to that players units being destroyed before the weaker player can even dent the stronger players fleet.

This is what I think will happen if you go ahead with fleet immunity:

1. Stronger players will not hold back on fleet size. Massive fleets will be deployed. There is not need to be conservative with fleet size as with immunity they can not be re-attacked. (Currently a strong fleet will be pinned down and attacked again and again and again until it is depleted).

2. Weaker players will not be able to chip away at stronger fleets. Firstly the weaker player will be so vastly outnumbered that he/she will not be able to move on the board. Secondly, there is no chance for the weaker player to fight a long multi part battle. For example: battle 1 lose badly, give up & re attack. Next battle(s) wipe out your opponents light units, give up & re-attack. Final battle, firing squad.
If you deny the weaker players this chance, they have no way of fighting back against the stronger players.

3. Weaker players can not defend themselves. They can not grow.

3. Weaker players will leave the game.

It is absolutely true that Foundation uses greater numbers to pin down our enemies. We know that we outnumber them and if we are active enough we can stop them counter attacking.

Is this a valid tactic? I think so. It actually requires a lot of time management. The battles need to be judged so that a replacement fleet arrives at just the right moment.
We don’t have enough fleets to attack, defend our relics, block enemy players AND move blocker fleets around as required without some serious attention to detail. Please do not underestimate the effort and organisation that goes into this approach.

I see this tactic as a perfectly valid use of the games rules. It requires strategic plannning and organisation.

If fleet immunity is introduced or the give up button is removed then the use of team tactics will be removed from the game and I feel the game will be much poorer for it.

Our enemies have already found an answer to this tactic too. They have formed confederations with alliances such as ASP and Bluestar. DS & RL are taking on new members – they obviously understand this is critical to countering our tactic.

In the previous discussion on Fleet immunity and give up, almost all players from both sides are in favour of not changing the current setup.

In short, Whilst I will back any changes that are made, I do not feel that the game is in any way broken today and so it does not need to be fixed. I think the recent changes in the story of the relic wars prove that the game is fine as it is. A large group of mostly medium level players ( with a handful of stronger players) are taking relics from DS.

The game is designed to encourage fighting between players. That is what is happening now. I think this change will serve to discourage fighting. From the comments in the provious discussion, lots of other players agree with this view.

Finally – I want to publically thank Nuno for putting this change on hold. If the game must change, then we need to reconsider how we are playing and how we have deployed our fleets.

Comment by Mikeveal — November 11, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
My two cents are easy, keep the server as it is, make a new one with option A, no give ups. For me a change like this after all that has passed doesn’t seem that good. And I’m betting a lot of ppl will join the s2 server eheh and s1 will have no updates S2 would give a fresh start to everyone and things would be interesting, as I’m betting most ppl would play both servers…

Comment by reborned — November 11, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
We are planing a 2nd server yes, but many things have to been done until then, especially in the resource management.

I want to read more opinions before taking a decision

Comment by Nuno Silva — November 11, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
At least you guys (the devs) listen to your customers (us lowly players! You have no idea how refreshing that is in todays world.

Comment by Mikeveal — November 11, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
We always did ask the old players

Comment by Nuno Silva — November 11, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Yes its true the developers have been 5 stars, they hear us and try there best. I have to add, the board game is fantastic. I wish more players would be playing it, I do try to spread the word. I’m still waiting for does bots in the universe.

This said, I agree with Mikeveal (i think you misunderstood something i said in the other blog, please read it).

I think the two solutions above will still favor the “strongest players”, oh maybe like me LOL. Now with immunity, i can send out all that i have, be always in battle so devastations don’t hit me. And i’ll be the king of the game. LOL No thanks, this will break the game.

This rule is to late in my opinion, it should of been done in the past if it was agreed upon. But it wasn’t and the game kept on going, theres wars, theres enemies, theres strategies.

Why now change the game? What are the developers not happy about?

Maybe if we understood your reasons, we can come up with new ideas.

About a second server, i have mix feelings. Yes I would play the new server but i would miss all my units. But eventually I would have to leave it behide. I think it may make the game become to splited. We don’t have that many active players to be in two servers. If not everyone does the jump, some players again will benefit being the first. Maybe have two at the beginning and if the the old server starts to slow down, just turn it off.

Comment by Danceman — November 11, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
“We always did ask the old players”
I can confirm that. It’s good that you’re active again though

About the subject: I don’t know about the immunity issue, but I think that first option should be revised.

As I see it, you shouldn’t forbid the player to give up. I think it’s legit if for personal reasons: free a fleet slot, fair play, not being bothered by that battle you know you can’t win, etc.

In the previous post Danceman proposed (among other possibilities) that the give up could be negotiated. I agree with it, and think it’s a better proposal than no give up option at all. I disagree with the negotiation “proposals” though. It should be a matter of asking permition to the other player:
a) I click “give up”
b) My opponent is notified that I intend to do so. Either:
b.1) He acknowledges it, and the battle ends.
b.2) He fails to acknowledge it during 144 turns, and the battle ends

Given that the winning player is the one that has control over the real end of the battle, the losing side would have no advantages except for being freed of the battle.

To avoid the whole immunity issue in this case, the fleet of the losing player could even be totally wiped out [as it would be if the battle continued anyway].

It may be of limited use, there’s always the 3 timeouts, but I still think it’s useful and should be an option. If both players “agree” on ending the battle faster, why not?

Comment by Firiten — November 11, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
I too find give-ups a problem even if it has been a very useful tactic for Foundation and the weaker players (whether in an alliance or not). But I think the ‘immunity’ solution is the wrong focus.

If you are absolutely set on changing the behavior then perhaps you could change it to “surrender”. In this case, an offer to surrender is extended to the other player. He/She (since we’re now politically correct xD) can accept it or not. If he accepts, then the give-up is enacted, with the current normal rules of fleet culling, ie, the player surrendering may escape with part of his fleet intact or you could simply give the surrendered units to the other player and add them to his fleet. If he denies, the battle continues.

The offer for surrender follows the normal 24 hour period. In other words, if the player who is being offered the surrender doesn’t accept (or deny) within the 24 hour period, then the surrender is enacted. Tough luck for the timeout as usual.

This may even be a way to get out of a battle for a player who sets all his vacation and leaves the game (vranasm). I had two small scout fleets attacking him and even on opponents deploy, I had to wait 10 days or whatever it was for him to spend his vacation time plus his timeouts. I would’ve just gave-up at opponents deploy if I was able to get 2 of my eight fleets.

One other way to limit this benefiting stronger players is to set a ship limit within the fleet say 2000 ships or whatever. Have to be way more careful in your fleet selection.

Comment by kelleybest — November 12, 2010 @ 4:54 am
I too find give-ups a problem even if it has been a very useful tactic for Foundation and the weaker players (whether in an alliance or not). But I think the ‘immunity’ solution is the wrong focus.

If you are absolutely set on changing the behavior then perhaps you could change it to “surrender”. In this case, an offer to surrender is extended to the other player. He/She (since we’re now politically correct xD) can accept it or not. If he accepts, then the give-up is enacted, with the current normal rules of fleet culling, ie, the player surrendering may escape with part of his fleet intact or you could simply give the surrendered units to the other player and add them to his fleet. If he denies, the battle continues.

The offer for surrender follows the normal 24 hour period. In other words, if the player who is being offered the surrender doesn’t accept (or deny) within the 24 hour period, then the surrender is enacted. Tough luck for the timeout as usual.

This may even be a way to get out of a battle for a player who sets all his vacation and leaves the game (vranasm). I had two small scout fleets attacking him and even on opponents deploy, I had to wait 10 days or whatever it was for him to spend his vacation time plus his timeouts. I would’ve just gave-up at opponents deploy if I was able to get 2 of my eight fleets.

One other way to limit this benefiting stronger players is to set a ship limit within the fleet say 2000 ships or whatever. Have to be way more careful in your fleet selection.

@reborned, if this has all been covered before in the forum/blog, I’m sure you’ll let us know ~. I don’t have the time to search through it (and I was going to say all the spam but it looks like most of it’s been cleaned up).

Comment by kelleybest — November 12, 2010 @ 5:00 am
I too find give-ups a problem even if it has been a very useful tactic for Foundation and the weaker players (whether in an alliance or not). But I think the ‘immunity’ solution is the wrong focus.

If you are absolutely set on changing the behavior then perhaps you could change it to “surrender”. In this case, an offer to surrender is extended to the other player. He/She (since we’re now politically correct xD) can accept it or not. If he accepts, then the give-up is enacted, with the current normal rules of fleet culling, ie, the player surrendering may escape with part of his fleet intact or you could simply give the surrendered units to the other player and add them to his fleet. If he denies, the battle continues.

The offer for surrender follows the normal 24 hour period. In other words, if the player who is being offered the surrender doesn’t accept (or deny) within the 24 hour period, then the surrender is enacted. Tough luck for the timeout as usual. This is similar to Danceman’s request that both players be online to giveup. But DM, you and I are rarely online at the same time…unless I’m up late on a Friday drinking So, if we both had to be online, you would rarely be able to surrender to me

This may even be a way to get out of a battle for a player who sets all his vacation and leaves the game (vranasm). I had two small scout fleets attacking him and even on opponents deploy, I had to wait 10 days or whatever it was for him to spend his vacation time plus his timeouts. I would’ve just gave-up at opponents deploy if I was able to get 2 of my eight fleets.

One other way to limit this benefiting stronger players is to set a ship limit within the fleet say 2000 ships or whatever. Have to be way more careful in your fleet selection.

@reborned, if this has all been covered before in the forum/blog, I’m sure you’ll let us know ~. I don’t have the time to search through it (and I was going to say all the spam but it looks like most of it’s been cleaned up).

Comment by kelleybest — November 12, 2010 @ 5:06 am
sorry if I posted multiple times, but it kept coming back as not sent. I made some edits anyway!

Comment by kelleybest — November 12, 2010 @ 5:12 am
Just something on the no give up option. If you can trap all fleets of a particular player in battle, then I guess you can raid at will. Keep your battles dragging out and farm. I don’t think this is such a good option.

Comment by Orionone — November 12, 2010 @ 7:44 am
@kellybest

Yes the vacation part was by me, I also defended that vacation battles should be able to have a give up option. I was had all my fleets form one player blocked and I had to wait 3 months. Because of me whining, they changed the buying of vacation days. Thats why you waited 10 days. Its still not good but its better. They said that they never put giveup in a vacation battle because theres was a situation that it could be explored for a cheat.

I like the idea of surrender, in old posts i would call it retreat. I suggest the give up button in the universe be changed, to surrender or retreat. Sounds better.

Your idea sounds interesting. Its like a negotiation like firiten said.

@firiten Happy to hear from you again.

Comment by Danceman — November 12, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
@kellybest

Oh I forgot, I’m sorry for what vranasm did, we were also caught by surprise. He just sent me a message that “he had enough” and never came back. Since he put vacation, We were hoped he would come back but he was never seen again. He just got mad about all the devastations (5 per day, each player) we were getting hit.

Comment by Danceman — November 12, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
@kellybest

LOL sorry

About the 2000 limit, I can’t agree, the levyr race, 2000 seekers is a very normal fleet. If there was a limit, it would have to be adjusted per race.

Comment by Danceman — November 12, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Oh and the queen is based on the quantity of units (But I most say that the new algorithm has effected that Queen fleets are not very useful in other races now, but thats another topic), so a limit of units will cripple the levyr, which at the moment is at a very fragile balance but is much more balanced now. The seekers have become one of his best assets, the seeker missile attacks.

Comment by Danceman — November 12, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
any chance the immunity for lower players could be zone related, i.e level 3 players in a level 7 zone would be regarded as level 7 at the moment its quite easy to abuse the system by keeping one home planet at a low level while upgrading the rest. Or the level of the bases could give points i.e. 2 for level 1 10 for level 2 50 for level 3 etc…
with player levels given for points in a similar fashion i.e 10 for level 1 50 for level 2 etc.

Comment by Farinata — November 12, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
Well, that giveup/fleet immunity subject is a complex issue.
Here is a list of the use we are having of the give-up. I will give my opinion on each one, is it abuse or acceptable.

1) You have many battles, you need a free fleet, so you have to give-up one of your battles : more than acceptable
2) You are been raided, you send a fleet next to your planet, giveup the battle and attack back the raiding fleet : more than acceptable
3) You intercept a huge enemy fleet, you prepare a devastation, give-up and fire it : more than acceptable
4) After devastation you attack back : not abuse, but maybe not so acceptable
5) You intercept a huge fleet, and you keep sending it (give-up / attack) small block fleets to keep it in position, and to destroy his lights : Abuse

In fact we can see that the give-up feature in itself is not a problem, only its repetition is an abuse.

@ Devs : Could it be possible for you to implement a limit on the number of give-up a fleet undergo at one position?
Clearly this would be the perfect solution.
For example if player R has a battle against D; then D gives-up and attack back; after that he can’t give-up anymore but he will win; so R gives-up and attack back, and then no-one can give up any more.
Maybe it’s impossible for you to put such a rule ingame, but it is worth asking!

Btw because of situations 1 to 3, even a negociated give-up is not interesting imo (it would mean no more devastation).

Comment by Vixard — November 12, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
I agree with mikeveal for the most part (as usual ). The “give up” is helping weaker players grow and be able to defend themselves. In a battle situation, it is as Danceman said, it’s a retreat.
There are some who say that the winning player should decide what happens in the battle? Why? Throughout history there have been situations where the weaker opponent beat the stronger one by nibbling away or by tactical retreat and attack. It’s a tactical retreat. It’s strategic thinking. If you deny players to retreat you are creating an artificial situation that favours the stronger/winning player. War is not just about numbers, this is what the devs were trying to avoid when they build the battles based on chess. So, why ruin that? For this reason I disagree with the negotiation of a retreat as well. Since when do I have to ask my opponent for a tactical retreat?? I will loose 80% of my fleet and points but it should be my choice. How would wars end if we the rivals had to agree on a retreat?
I simply don’t get why someone is so against the “give-up” button. A retreat strategy. It only helps us balance against stronger fleets.

Then there is fleet immunity. What’s the point of it? There is already an issue with lower level players attacking higher level players who are not able to reclaim the resources stolen because they can’t attack the perpetrator (but I do agree with that immunity because it helps weaker players at first).
But then I saw kelleybest’s post calling giving up “surrender” and I started thinking what surrendering would actually offer. Danceman is saying that the give up button is misused because it allows someone to essentially hold a big fleet for ages with a handful of lights. True. Gentlemen, we’ve ALL done it. So, how can we give the big fleet a choice? Here is a thought.
Without loosing the “give-up” button (which I think should be changed to “retreat”), there is a “surrender” button.
A fleet is able to surrender after the 2nd turn (like you can’t shoot if you are the first one to play) without negotiation to the other but will loose, 40% of its units. These units will be passed to the opposing (weaker) player thus more or less balancing the fleets and making it a battle of skill rather one of numbers (40% will still leave the big fleet with an advantage which I think is fair). The “give-up” button is now locked. Neither can use it. The players redeploy and play.
If the originally big fleet wins, the ALL the “surrendered” units are returned.
If the original small fleet wins, any SURVIVING “surrendered” units remain with that one.
So, if you are trapped by a small fleet you have a choice. You can either wait for ages with your fleet locked and beat them, also risking a tactical retreat (“give-up”) OR you can beat them with more or less equal numbers BUT not risk your opponent giving up and re-attacking. Not an easy choice.
On the other hand if you have trapped a big fleet, you should send reinforcements ASAP and not drag it on for ages OR develop your skills so that you can risk “surrender” and maybe gain a few units in the process.

Now both parties have a strategic choice to make.

Now if you want to limit giant fleets, that’s another conversation and I’d be happy to share my views on that as well, but let’s not confuse the two issues.

Comment by Eldwin — November 13, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
Actually, that is an excellent idea, limiting the fleets!
We would have much more skill oriented battles instead of amassing fleets and sending them to overwhelm! set the limit at 2000-3000 or higher if it will balance the levyr

Btw, to the man that dances, the levyr are hardly balanced, I saw a fleet of 4500 seekers along with other units, that would overwhelm everything I have! if that is supposed to be balanced considering the ridiculous cost of seekers, then the other two races are underpowered.

ON POINT ABOUT THE GIVE-UPS:
I suggest you give immunity to the fleet after a give up, but during that immunity the fleet cannot attack any other fleets, an optional trigger would be that should the fleet wish to attack, they can set a course to attack, but the fleet won’t engage in battle until its immunity fades away. The enemy can re-engage that fleet during immunity but only when it is set to engage another and waiting for the immunity to expire.

You can also slow down the fleet with immunity, halving its speed or reducing it to 25 percent of normal speed.

Comment by TheTerranEmperor — November 13, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Guys I’m sorry for the multiple posts. Too many things going wrong all at once. I hope there won’t be any more!

Comment by Eldwin — November 14, 2010 @ 12:16 am
@TerranEmperor

LOL heres the man that dances

please check this blog about why levyr were weaker and still have there problems:
http://gazette.orionsbelt.eu/2010/03/the-levyr-are-heavily-handicapped/

Also noticed that the top scoring levyr is at 9th, the rest are renegade or utopian:
http://s1.orionsbelt.eu/Tops/Score.aspx

Some math:
2000 seekers can be destroyed with 63 raptors or better yet 534 samurais which have catapult.
And theres 2000 seekers only destroy 133 raptors or 118 samurais.
So in a equal fight a levyr fleet should have 2000 seekers and a utopian fleet 133 raptors but if you split does 133 raptors in to stacks you would have double the chance to win against does 2000 seekers.

So see the races are very hard to balance, all of them have there weakness and advantages. You can never do a battle with two races with equal units, it will just not be fair. Blinkers don’t need quantity of units but queens do (or the maggots stack will be so small that it would do nothing but wast time/speed)

If there was a limit it would have to be adjusted per race, and now comes the hard part, how do you limit each race????

if there to many rules, you limit the imagination of new ideas. I don’t see the size of the fleets a problem, when a renegade has devastations, the bigger the fleets the more you lose. The limit is controlled by the fear of a devastation.

Every experiment i’ve done with other friends with races, one thing we have concluded, Utopians have the best units, renegade have the best unit (vector) and toxics (against levyr), but are slower than utopians. Renegade are the slowest race to level up and are the hardest for beginners, because of there first medium unit is the drillers (which normally need a minimal of double the krills or worms of other races, to win without loses or get hit one time)

Levyr have no catapult, no rebound, but are cheaper to build and level up much faster than other races (ashis was the first player to get to level 10, levyr). They also have a bigger storage. So they are a merchant race, you buy what you don’t have. The fleets can be very cheap because they don’t need to use rare resources (interceptors, seekers, worms, heavy seekers), so loses are easier to recover.

Theres much more, you can read it here:
http://forum.orionsbelt.eu/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4889&p=37088#p37087

Comment by Danceman — November 14, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
I think vixard has a point, its the repetition of the feature.

Yes i agree Eldwin, negotiation is a bit strange in this situation, but negotiation could be used for other mains, when two allies attack each other by accident. Believe me it happens often, i’ve helped resolve many, some successfully and other not And the negotiation would help. Maybe a simple if both agree on a retreat (give-up), both don’t lose units.

About Eldwin, sounds could in a competitive type of battle but this is actually helping the weaker players, he wants to delay you, the more units you give him, the more he delays. Sorry I can’t agree. But it would stop the annoy mini battles but would be helping the blocker fleets.

Maybe when there is a big number difference, the stronger fleet gets a option, to be able to “leave with out loses” (that 80% lose). This way blocker fleets would have to send bigger numbers, which would make more interesting battles. And the stronger fleet would be able to give up because that option to “Leave without loses” isn’t enabled. Scout fleets would still work because stronger fleet can now just leave and not lose units. This could apply to Vacation battles to, the winning fleets go leave and not lose units.

By the way battling and win units from you opponent maybe would help cheaters but how about winning units from the Bot fleets??? I like this, oh where are does bots anyway?

Comment by Danceman — November 14, 2010 @ 5:01 pm
Sorry for the double post, correct some english mistakes

———-

I think vixard has a point, its the repetition of the feature.

Yes i agree Eldwin, negotiation is a bit strange in this situation, but negotiation could be used for other mains, when two allies attack each other by accident. Believe me it happens often, i’ve helped resolve many, some successfully and other not And the negotiation would help. Maybe a simple if both agree on a retreat (give-up), both don’t lose units.

About Eldwin suggestion, sounds good for a competitive type of battle but this is actually helping the weaker players, they want to delay you, the more units you give him, the more he delays. Sorry I can’t agree. But it would stop the annoy mini battles but would be helping the blocker fleets.

Maybe when there is a big number difference, the stronger fleet gets a option, to be able to “leave with out loses” (that 80% lose). This way blocker fleets would have to send bigger numbers, which would make more interesting battles. And this way the stronger fleet wouldn’t be able to give up because that option to “Leave without loses” isn’t enabled. Scout fleets would still work because stronger fleets can now just leave and not lose units. This could apply to Vacation battles to, the winning fleets could leave and not lose units.

By the way, battling and win units from you opponents maybe would help cheaters but how about winning units from the Bot fleets??? I like this, oh where are does bots anyway?

Comment by Danceman — November 14, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
I like vixard’s idea, limit the times you can give up the same battle

And if a fleet has a difference of 95% (attack and defense), than the higher percentage player can “leave without loses” or “ignore battle”

Scouts can still work, have the battle, see what they have, and stronger player can just “give up” without loses.

of course this gives power to the stronger but only if attacking fleet is to weak (scouts). I think this way, fleets will be more balanced (the 95% difference can be tweaked to a better value). Fleets won’t be that big because of fear of a devastation or if they hit a interesting fleet, they can be held as before.

But the players can give up, maybe with one time limit or two the most. Of course this will have to be per player, but of course others players can attack and the give up count down will start again. But this could encourage more team play. Giving more importance to organized alliances.

What do you guys think? More tweaks? more ideas?

Or its no good?

Comment by Danceman — November 14, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
I could argue the merits of small blocking fleets until I am blue in the face. Those on the receiving end will never like this perfectly valid tactic. This IS a tactical MMO remember.

Lets agree to differ on this one. If the rules must change (I don’t like it and I don’t conceed that there should be a change) how about a compromise.

Make it more expensive for the blocking player each time he (or she) sends a blocking fleet. Here is my idea.

If a player A hits give up, then he gives his opponents (player B) fleet a very limited immunity. The immunity works like this:

Immunity is only granted if a player uses give up.

Player B’s fleet only gets limited immunity from player A’s account.
Account A can attack player B again, but he must send twice the number of units as last time.
So, if player A blocks Player B with 16 light and 10 medium in battle 1, then hits give up at the end of the battle… then Player B’s fleet is immune to attack from any Player A of less than 32 light and 20 medium.

Player B’s immunity is cancelled when Player B:
attacks anything.
travels through a wormhole.
unloads cargo.
changes units in the fleet.
24 hours pass since give up.

Players C, D, E and F and free to attack player B with anything they like. B only has immunity from Account A.

So like the vacation system blocking is perfectly valid, but each time you do it, the fleet size you send must double. Twice as many light, twice as many medium and twice as many heavy.
Eventually the blocker is forced to destroy the opponents fleet or to let it go.

There is still the option to swap blocker fleets between accounts, but that takes a lot of coordination and we all know it doesn’t often go smoothly. I think it’s too much effort for blocking, so I doubt that it will be done frequently.

You’ll notcie that I said the immunity is from account and not player. This is important, it would stop Danceman giving up against a superior Foundation fleet and immediately attacking with a tiny fleet from Danceman3, for example.

Comment by Mikeveal — November 17, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
So, what exactly is the final verdict here, Nuno? The first of December has come and gone…

Comment by Redwulfe — December 2, 2010 @ 12:41 am
[...] been talking with several players after the previous [...]

Pingback by Fleet Immunity: Conclusion — December 2, 2010 @ 7:51 am