Barrack Hack (Bug or Feature)

[manowar]

For a while myself and others when playing nomad have been referring to an issue as the 'barrack hack' but I am interested to know if it is a bug or intended. It occurs when two nomad players place CCs relatively close together. If player one then places a barrack building up against the opponents CC then the CC begins to lose health - presumably due to the territorial influence of the barracks. Personally I feel that the influence of the CC should win out in this case so I was looking for opinions from devs about what the intended behavior is. 
I have attached some screenshots to demonstrate this from a game yesterday. Further to the normal influence gain over the CC @gianlucalp  also had his storehouse decay to Gaia and to his opponent (uff). This understandably made several players think there was a cheat in action so I think this deserves attention. 

Attachments:

• 102: Notice uff's barracks against the opponent (gian) CC - we have been calling this the barrack hack. The CC is losing health because of the barracks.
• 104: gian built a storehouse which immediately loses health to Gaia ? and to the opponent
• 108: Notice the house also losing health to Gaia and opponent despite arguably being closer to gian's CC 

[manowar]

I have been toying around with potential fixes for this issue. I had tried to counter TerritoryDecay to trigger only when the relevant territory was owned by an actual enemy, preventing neutral or one-sided allied barrack influence from draining capture points during a ceasefire.

That had mixed success so I then attempted to block CC placement within 200 meters of another placed CC and I think I might prefer that method as it would also reduce arguments in-game when people place too closely together. 

I'd appreciate feedback / thoughts from players. 

[dinuruian]

I do encounter 4 5 times the situation, my believe is that what we call barrck exploit should not occur, simply cause the recipient is not the emitent of the inflicted concept [ ownership]. so, adressing it as exploit/bug/hack it fair act by me, on contrary, deployed values as equal oportunities became a nonfucntional fair game rule [ is non understable why CC does not recover ownership, or why then, in case of CC captured, the recipients -containers of ownership does not recover adiacents - its simply a garbage bug, a shiet exploit]

. 

good point adressing the issue, hope you will adress other garbage things too.

Edited 1 hour ago by dinuruian

[ffm2]

IMO nomad games are even earlier broken by too near set CCs. The barracks are just one hack.

Too often 2 ccs foundations are set too near without intention. The barrack hack is then often executed with the help of team mates that sponsor the early barrack.

A minimum radius between cc foundations would be a cleaner solution. Even without barrack hack too close CCs ruin games early on.

Another interesting thing is this capture doesn't respect the ceasefire but captures even during it.

Noteworthy other mention: CC denial through units on the foundation. If one is lucky, one can put their cavalry on the enemy foundation during ceasefire and the enemy can't start their foundation because the cavalry won't move.

Edited 12 minutes ago by ffm2