IDEAS FOR RYZOM

Yes, my fault. I got used to the fact that with simultaneous attacks there is always someone attacking here or there.This is another example of system abuse, when OP declarations used not for getting PvP content or taking outposts, but for harassing. I find it hard to believe that was a mistake, not two times in a row in one week. It's that some people consider declaring on a low-level OP as a cheap way to annoy someone.
 
Which is wrong, because nobody attacks with 2 or 3 toons, knowing there will be decent defending forces present. And there will be defending forces, as right now all low-level outposts, except one, belong not to independent guilds, but factions. That renders "let small guild of three guys to take an OP" opportunity useless. That probably never happened, except for possible GvG matches, and unlikely to happen anytime in the future. Such an opportunity maybe looked well on the paper, but since OP warfare has been designed as a faction playfield, there is no room for small independent guilds of three guys. However, this system is vulnerable to abuse, as illustrated by examples in my previous posts. 

OK, let's pretend none of the events I described before have been started for harassment purpose. There is no guarantee, that q50-100 declarations will not be used for harassment later. There is no guarantee, that attack at q50 OP starting at 8 a.m. on Sunday morning will not be a troll, but merely "a mistake". In this case, I can't tell a real attack from fake, as all it takes is one character showing up at the OP for a minute.
 
Let's see. They weren't after the OP, because they knew it would be defended by the faction and they didn't bring enough numbers to overcome defenders and barely tried to kill NPC. They weren't after PvP, because they didn't engage in PvP. They weren't going for a grab from inactive guild expecting nobody attending the defense, because the owners of the OP are active. You see, I'm trying to think logically.
Why should I care? The attack itself is a sign of hostile intentions. Had they wanted PvP, they would came and PvP. Had they wanted the OP, they would actually tried to take it. Had they wanted GvG, they would announced it prior to the battle. Nothing of this happened. Had they have a quarrel with the guild holding the OP, they would have made a statement, explaining as why they do it and what exactly has pissed them off. Needless to say, there was no statement. So if some guild repeatedly use harassment tactics, I'm the last one to care about reputation of this guild, and I call harassment, if I feel harassed.

I must agree with Daomei. Plus, this is becoming a Wulfpack's hunt. Don't aim for a specific group, aim for a behavior. This happened; all right, how do we fix it?

Well the only possible fix I see is to chat with them when you see think they've gone, and leave the battlefield for more pleasant things you can do if they say they don't come back. Screen the conversation if you feel the need to. Keep a loose eye on the rounds while you do anything you like; come back if someone decides to kill NPCs. Ok, it's not an ideal situation, but it's better than standing there and/or forcing attacker to forfeit any attempt at surprise.

I still stand by my proposal to shorten the length of wars, as per my first post in this thread, simply because said activity is plainly boring. This would solve Kimmerin's grief (time wasted defending) while at the same time would encourage more activity on lower level OPs in general.

A note here: actually Daomei, redeploying a faction in a level 250 area takes about five minutes at most. Multiple battlefields have proven the only real obstacle was the discipline of the faction in movement.

@Mjollren: Shortening the length of an OP war would make attacking a high level OP from a faction stronger than yours even more unthinkable, because the 2 hours are actually essential to get things done unless your numbers are greater than those of the enemy.



Hey, Mjoll, you're from the biggest faction; we don't mind if you guys come a few people short because of boredom, you know? It may even out the odds a little bit!:D



Now I don't know yet how that last statement I said made you feel, but I assume it to be quite similar to what your recommendation made me feel (except for the part where you're explicitely named/targetted). Shorter battles means the sheer bulk of the troops is even more important to the outcome than it is at the moment. Last battle on Ginti, offence needed less than an hour to get their 10 rounds, while defending party took nearly an hour and a half. Numbers during phase 1 are a bit blurry in my head, although I'm pretty sure it looked like something like 45vs30, while on phase II the numbers looked like 20vs30. In both cases, people killing NPCs were more in numbers, however NPCs will be way easier to manage if you have a bigger bulk of troops. NPCs that are harder to manage means it takes longer to reach the same stage in the battle.

I've been leading battles for groups usually (not always, but usually) roughly 2 thirds of the size of their opponents; please don't make a wipe even more costly for a smaller faction!