TP to free towns

[Guest]

As the title suggest.

[AngryPanCake]

This seems to have been debated quite a bit as far as PvP is concerned due to its "potential for abuse", however, I believe it should be implemented on the PvE server since it does not affect non existent PvP fighting.

[BallsOfSteel]

TP from not to.

[Skully]

3 hours ago, BallsOfSteel said:

TP from not to.

Let me play Devils Advocate (as if I ever do any differently ), haven't the Global French proven that an occupied Free Port is a dangerous Free Port, regardless of being able to TP?

[Custard]

All TP = bad

Just saying

[Skully]

1 hour ago, Custard said:

All TP = bad

Just saying

Without avatar TP players can not get to the action. Without players near the action ... voila.

[Custard]

16 minutes ago, Skully said:

Without avatar TP players can not get to the action. Without players near the action ... voila.

They can get anywhere by sailing if an area is contended create an outpost nearby

This argument is nearly as old as me

[Skully]

1 minute ago, Custard said:

They can get anywhere by sailing if an area is contended create an outpost nearby

For a casual player with just 2 hours of play time per session, nearby must be at most 30 minutes sail.

Especially on Global this condition can not be met. Even more so because a front line can hardly be moved by current means.

[Custard]

1 minute ago, Skully said:

For a casual player with just 2 hours of play time per session, nearby must be at most 30 minutes sail.

Especially on Global this condition can not be met. Even more so because a front line can hardly be moved by current means.

If front lines are not moving doesn't setting up an outpost near a contended area easier?

 

 

[Skully]

3 minutes ago, Custard said:

If front lines are not moving doesn't setting up an outpost near a contended area easier?

http://www.navalactioncraft.com/map please observe Global.

We are already stationed at Barahona.

We know our mortal enemy (ARMED) is station at Bluefields. (Or at least a 10-12 crew that can fight us. )

We are unable to grind forward through Les Cayes.

So for us to get action we would have to sail 2+ hours, effectively nullifying our sessions.

 

[Custard]

2 minutes ago, Skully said:

http://www.navalactioncraft.com/map please observe Global.

We are already stationed at Barahona.

We know our mortal enemy (ARMED) is station at Bluefields. (Or at least a 10-12 crew that can fight us. )

We are unable to grind forward through Les Cayes.

So for us to get action we would have to sail 2+ hours, effectively nullifying our sessions.

 

I think we have a different idea of a front line 

Whilst you are not a horrible distance from the British your mortal enemy doesn't want to play PvP and is down there for missioning, resource gathering and crafting

The problem you are describing is IMO lack of numbers on the server and that is because IMO RvR is broken, again this is nothing to do with TP

[Arsilon]

So what if you have the contention logic applied to Freeports?

If there is contention you can teleport.

If there isn't you can't.

 

I'd have to think through what it would mean based on different nation contention and what levels might matter and whether the logic would apply to teleport to vs. teleport from.

Perhaps if you have a Freeport bordering a US owned county.

As long as the US keeps the contention at 0 no other country can teleport to that Freeport.  However, if GB puts GB contention on the port, GB can but no other nation can.  If the Pirates want to activate the teleport, they would have to go and unlock it by sailing out there and putting contention on it.   As long as the US doesn't grind it back down, they are open to having enemies teleport in.

I equate this to other games where you have capture points tied to spawn locations.  One side can lock down the spawn to disable it if they want but otherwise it allows for more rapid movement of players into a zone.

You'd have to be able to track all nations' contention separately and have the contention tied somehow to ability to teleport.   *shrug*

 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Arsilon

[Skully]

1 hour ago, Custard said:

I think we have a different idea of a front line 

Whilst you are not a horrible distance from the British your mortal enemy doesn't want to play PvP and is down there for missioning, resource gathering and crafting

The problem you are describing is IMO lack of numbers on the server and that is because IMO RvR is broken, again this is nothing to do with TP

Nope, we have the same idea. For whatever reason we are blocked to advance the front line. It could be mechanics, it could be a large block by players or it could simply be time zones. (Note that blocked by mechanics is bad, blocked by players is valid.)

As did Global France, we could go full out to Great Corn and go privateering there. A perfectly viable historical tactic as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_of_the_sea#Asymmetric_countermeasures.

But as opposed to them we would still like to provide content as well on the east side of the map.

Alas we can not provide content wherever we have assets, because we simply can not avatar TP between our assets. And thus we see another scenario in which PvP simply can not happen.

PS. I did say to @Jeheil to go French. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Skully

[Arsilon]

6 minutes ago, Mear O'Breannen said:

Can u Explain it why teleport from or to free town is Bad?

Unlimited teleport eliminates whatever little reason there is left for RVR.   If they fix RVR to have more of a point, then perhaps TP can be brought back.

As with many other things, the root issue isn't that TP is or is not available.  People just ask for it to band aid some other bigger problem in the game.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Arsilon

[Skully]

9 minutes ago, Arsilon said:

Unlimited teleport eliminates whatever little reason there is left for RVR. 

RvR needs an end to have true meaning.

Avatar TP is only about the ability to provide content "anywhere".

[Farrago]

What about TP to just ONE Freeport? Would that lessen some of your pain without having us bouncing all over the map all the time? A player would could build one travel office (at an expense) in a  Freeport in which he owns an outpost. He could TP to it plus his outposts in national ports. 

[Skully]

1 hour ago, Mrgoldstein said:

tough this would just be a quality of life thing

Exactly.

1 hour ago, Mrgoldstein said:

Or this yeah,to prevent abuse

There is no abuse, there is just a sense of false security when actual population in a Free Town is low. Your side would have equal capabilities.

The Global French proved this by blockading Christeansted. They even proved that not having a TP is adverse to RvR. No longer did they have the means to show up at Port Battles in their own Nation.

You may not like the fact that a Free Town poses a (potential) hazard, but that is a different issue. If you seek safety then I advise http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22258-a-vision-for-new-players/

[Skully]

1 minute ago, Mrgoldstein said:

ehm there is abuse, groups are gonna tp to a freetown,gank traders, when resistance arrives they will run towards the freeport and tp to another and continue ganking there..oh another defense fleet caught us lets escape and use the 60knot super power back into the freetown and go somewhere else...

Apart from the 60 kts, which is a different topic (/problem), I would say good work, job well done on clearing the waters.

And then the hunting fleet is in trouble, because sailing back to that Free Port would be considered hazardous.

[Skully]

Let me state something completely differently and then see whether we have spotted the true problem.

Free Ports should be conquerable and Pirates should be able to create Free Ports (potentially Nationals as well).

 Isn't the real problem that you have no way to deal with a hazardous element behind your lines?

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

No. Pretty much the Devs have rolled back on almost everything the patch 10 brought and it obviously will not help the servers. It did not before and it will not now.

[Hethwill]

What is the true purpose in game of a free port ? What was the historical "value" of a port being free ?

We use them as naval bases. They weren't. They were primarily free of tax ports, where everything could be sold and bought, no questions asked.

They weren't a royal estate naval base and harbor masters were cartel, do with your business, provision up and get out  

 

 

[Skully]

@The Red Duke well, reading through http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/19878-partial-removal-of-fast-travel/ makes me conclude that the goals were not achieved.

Instead, there is no market in Free Ports, people dove into (economic) alts and folks could not avatar TP to the action.