Invisibility poll

[Teutonic]

one example of a get-away, it MUST mean we don't need invisibility guys! /s

[Skully]

2 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

one example of a get-away, it MUST mean we don't need invisibility guys! /s

On 9/10/2016 at 4:41 PM, Fuzzyhead12 said:

thats not much  considering that i alredy sunk or captured, ships and cargo worht 6 million coins around jamaika the last 3 days...

On 9/11/2016 at 9:36 AM, Skully said:

So Fuzzy was nicely ganking away at Jamaica, building up "hostilities" (hur hur).

 

[Liq]

7 minutes ago, Skully said:

No invisibility, no speed boost. Just me, my ship and the wind in my sails.

Well then, incompetent enemy forces. I made experiences pre invis. Times where I was surrounded into literally every direction, surrounded by ships which should have never been able to reach me / us cause they were not in the 3 min range.

[Rebrall]

11 minutes ago, Skully said:

No invisibility, no speed boost. Just me, my ship and the wind in my sails.

Ok now look at it in a different light imagine being a fresher player and try having a crack at OWPvP,

not only that but you have to remember we have a very limited player base at the moment so getaways are easier.

 

if we hade a larger player base you would need that invisibility 

[Skully]

4 minutes ago, Rebrall said:

Ok now look at it in a different light imagine being a fresher player and try having a crack at OWPvP,

not only that but you have to remember we have a very limited player base at the moment so getaways are easier.

 

if we hade a larger player base you would need that invisibility 

If we had a larger player base, there would be more people tied up in battles themselves.

Having a crack at OW PvP or tossing yourself alone into enemy waters are two opposites. The first is relatively easy, go patrolling friendly waters or escorting PB fleets. Build your way up to engaging enemy ships as part of a fleet. And then go alone dodging enemy patrols in their waters.

Why should going alone in enemy waters not be risky? Why does everyone pick the hardest career out of the box and expects to survive?

[Liq]

19 minutes ago, Skully said:

Why should going alone in enemy waters not be risky? Why does everyone pick the hardest career out of the box and expects to survive?

It already IS risky going to enemy waters, the possibility to get caught is still there if you mess up.

What are the alternatives? Sit in greenzone and wait for someone stupid enough looking for pvp, in enemy waters cause thats the only place to find it?

[Rebrall]

2 hours ago, Skully said:

If we had a larger player base, there would be more people tied up in battles themselves.

Having a crack at OW PvP or tossing yourself alone into enemy waters are two opposites. The first is relatively easy, go patrolling friendly waters or escorting PB fleets. Build your way up to engaging enemy ships as part of a fleet. And then go alone dodging enemy patrols in their waters.

Why should going alone in enemy waters not be risky? Why does everyone pick the hardest career out of the box and expects to survive?

 

2 hours ago, Liquicity said:

It already IS risky going to enemy waters, the possibility to get caught is still there if you mess up.

What are the alternatives? Sit in greenzone and wait for someone stupid enough looking for pvp, in enemy waters cause thats the only place to find it?

I don't disrepute either argument,

 

should someone/small groups sail in my nations waters kill one of my nations players and be able to sail away with no repercussions? Hell no 

 

but should someone/small groups go out looking for OW PvP and find little until they are in enemy waters then get absolutely smashed by huge groups of players or get a good fight out of Somone then get smashed by 5+ players? Again definitely not 

 

there is a lot of grey areas also in between my personal opinion would be my option is fair (see above a few posts) then you add Liquicity's idea of a BR limit or ship limit then you have a real good idea 

 

a little off topic but maybe there should be serious thoughts into weekly PvP tournaments & pvp events

that way there would be less ganking of newbies around capitals not saying it will stop but will decrease it some what 

also really want to push the idea of speed after pve missions not invisibility and not being able to enter that mission unless you are in the group that started the mission 

[Skully]

3 hours ago, Rebrall said:

there is a lot of grey areas also in between my personal opinion would be my option is fair (see above a few posts) then you add Liquicity's idea of a BR limit or ship limit then you have a real good idea 

 

a little off topic but maybe there should be serious thoughts into weekly PvP tournaments & pvp events

Only Legends seek a fair fight. (See what I did there... hur hur)

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Skully said:

Legends is all about pure combat skill, 25x25 (and similar formats). In Legends the premise is that you start battle on equal terms.

In Open World you need to seek out battles to fight on favorable terms. Or putting it differently, in OW you seek the unfair advantage.

[Koltes]

@admin I could not vote unfortunately.
The Invisibility mechanic does not come here alone. It comes with the speed buff which is also a part of the same issue. Why is the speed buff not on the same poll? We can't fix one mechanic without addressing the other. 
Its like fixing one basement log of the house and ignoring others with the same issue.

 

On 9/7/2017 at 2:42 AM, Demsity said:

If reduced or removed, a system needs to be implemented to prevent forever tagging. Forever tagging is when a group of player tag you over and over again after escpaing battles, leading to chases taking hours upon hours.

^ This
We can all talk about how revenge fleet should not be there due to the time compression, but why there is no proper mention of the fact that when running ships will defense tag and use speed and invisibility to run away from battles. This can continue for hours. Yes we removed revenge fleet time sink, but instead added chain tagging time sink. The whole reason of removing the time sink is failed because we still waste each other's time, just for different reasons.

At the end of the day and this is the key here that sorts EVERYTHING - faster ships should be able to run. Better captains (or lucky) should also be able to slip away. End of story. This is a disgrace for a game of this scale and depth to allow slow ships such as Wappen to run from fast ships such as Surps, just because of defensive tag and following invisibility and speed buff.
I have addressed this issue earlier IMHO finding the right balance between the hunters and the hunted.


In short:
1. To counter defense tagging, the Invisibility and speed can only be granted to those who where TAGGED, not to the tagger. What does this mean? Yes you will have to face the revenge fleet. But the issue was never that there was a revenge fleet because people still must have an ability to defend their home waters, but the time sink when revenge could go on for hours. If there are revenge fleet than you will have to face it. Once. Allow them to tag you which will allow you to earn invisibility so on exit you will run. Some will say, but what if I'm in a slower ship? Well, then they will catch you wont they? Isn't it just logical and inline with laws of physics... errr common sense? You could still defense tag them, but you wont get invisibility and its more than fair.

2. In order to get invisibility and speed buff player must earn it INSIDE the battle. If he is faster and is able to increase distance outside tagging range (1,250 meter) or he is stronger and kills all enemies inside, then he gets his invisibility and speed buff, providing that he was tagged. Else if he tagged someone and sunk them why should he get invisibility and get out of jail card? Nope, they have to face home defenses and make a run for it. If they then get tagged and earn their invisibility so be it, but its not free. If he was faster in the battle that represents the fact that he would be faster in the OW too and slip away.

3. Also, to fix battle camping and ambushes, getting out off ANY battle MUST have No Join, No Attack 3 min timer, so all battle instance that started prior will be closed (or whatever battle join timer there will be in future - its 3 minutes now)
 

 

On 9/7/2017 at 3:29 AM, Liquicity said:

So tell me mr skully, where do you expect players to meet for pvp if not in national waters.

Ganking is part of pretty much any ow mmo. But most of them dont know the revenge squad phenomena cause thex dont have 2 dimensions. Instanced battles and therefore 2 travelling speeds bring the need to make a workaround .

Hopefully devs will find solution to this, else this game will not celebrate Christmas unfortunately.
Capital waters will be high security zone where you cant really hunt anybody. It will be fine as long as they implement mechanics that will make larger clans looking to extend and go out of noob zone.

Edited September 8, 2017 by koltes

[Fuzzyhead12]

 

On 7.9.2017 at 11:26 PM, Skully said:

So Fuzzy was nicely ganking away at Jamaica, building up "hostilities" (hur hur).

i still dont understnad how tradehunting in a niagarra solo is considered ganking

[Beridian]

On 6/9/2017 at 3:12 PM, rediii said:

Changes you decide there not only affect hunting players. It affects also portbattles.

A lost portbattle as attacker can easily mean that you lose a big part of the fleet if you have nothing.

Even with invisibility and speedboost, because attackerships are faced towards the port and defenderships are faced to the attackers it means that defenders can force attackers to a second battle most of the time tho.

Port battles and pvp open sea must be different mechanics at this topic

i totally agree with u in that case, in port battles u need this boost to have an opportunity to be safe.

i think at safe opoen sea areas u must remove this boost but in normal pvp areas u must keep it