MikedaBike Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Folk seem to be forgetting that we are very early in OW world and asking for this and that now, we must have this, we must have that, is not taking into account the longer term plans of the developers. I am sure once political alliances are introduced battles will be changing to more open nation fights. What people seem to want open world to be is "sea trials" again, this game is bigger than bash bash death matches, skirmish mode will i am sure be offering more of what people seem to be after in this thread. We already have that option in game as yet to be activated. Positive ideas are great it is why we are here, but please remember this is just the wee top of the ice berg so far. Balanced game play has to come at a much later date than this in my opinion. Until we have more content within the game we cannot really be saying this is needed or that, we can point out problems and report game play / bug issues but trying to change the game play mode with a fraction of the content is a no win situation, if it is changed every 5 seconds it loses its direction, and then gets pulled all over the place without progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegfried Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Some ideas for allow third party battles and avoid prize steal. I suggest make a option in Hail window that you can ask make and alliance with a foreigner player for enter in a battle joining forces. When battle had begun the newcomers of other nations can choose enter with a faction to alliance. If in the battle there is a player of your own nation, you are bound to honour his alliance or not enter. If you enter in that battle and shoot at your faction mate or this ally, you turn pirate. In the future could be a system that makes balance between the times you've been with or against other factions and prevent you to make alliance with factions that you have shoot many times or join to battles that that faction is joining forces with your faction mates. Captured ships are for who capture it. The prize is free when the owner is sunk or he set it free with menu option. If a allied player steal a prize without permission, he turns pirate. For avoid mistakes, the prize fly the new owner colors over the white flag. No white flag better, put the former owner (in a smaller size meybe) with the new above. This way steal a prize is like attack a allied ship. When a player lose or set it free his prize, the ship is shown without flag. When a battle is happening, reinforcements begin far away and with wind disadvantage for the now outnumbered ship can scape. Or he is able to exit the instance. When a player exit because he is scaping, he lose his prize, like in real life. But if he is near of prize without enemy ships near and the new enemy ships are far, then he maintain the prize. The distance of action when new ships appear is proportional at the time the battle had begun. More time, more distance. Edited May 30, 2015 by Siegfried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas aagaard Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 This should not be a problem. Add the 'Black Flag' option. When 'Black Flag' is enabled any nations can enter battle and fight with other nations.(Optional Hardcore mode). Such mode would reward players with greater skill xp and gold compared to normal mode pvp. Why it is not realistic and not historical and not good gamedesign in anyway. Some other games have 3 ways, and they are chaotic and award the side that hang back and wait for the others to kill each other. Allow dev controled alliances so so it is a 2 side battle, but with more then one nation on a side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest raat Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Think it is a rather bad idea... the result will be way to many 3 or even 4 way battles... please show me some historical evidence that this actually happened.... The solution is diplomacy. So the different nations can be allies. (you can join and use their ports) neutral you can't join except agaisnt pirates. (can sue ports) At war. the current situation. First version the devs should control who fights who, to help balance the factions. Plenty of battles both land and sea had multiple nations as belligerents fighting on the same side as allies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Toulon That is just one example. The option to have allies and fight in the same battle with them should be in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas aagaard Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Exactly my point. But what is asked for is a 3 way battle.... so 3 sides... and I don't know of any 3 way naval battles of this period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konali89 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 i dont really know if its in the correct ''time'' but it did occur in history. '' Slag bij Grevelingen (1588)'' A seabattle between the Spanish Armada and an English fleet with Dutch fleet support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vander_Mitch Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I will be the advocate for the player who don't want to pvp (not my case). the server for them in the moment is hell because of the large player fleet hunting them if a 3 way battle is implemented i think they will simply loose the will to play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest raat Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I will be the advocate for the player who don't want to pvp (not my case). the server for them in the moment is hell because of the large player fleet hunting them if a 3 way battle is implemented i think they will simply loose the will to play Respectfully, 1., you can't speak for others. No one can understand anyone else's voice, but their own (and I understand you're just playing devil's advocate). But more importantly, 2. if you think it's too difficult now, how about when this game has 5000 players online roaming the seas...can we please stop trying to "consider" the carebears. The crux of this game is PvP. Without it, it's rather boring. Don't get me wrong, it's an amazing Age of Sail experience. But that exciting will last about a month. I have a feeling the devs are hoping people play this game for more than a month. Once you've explored the map, once you've done some successful trading missions and have generated wealth, as a PvE'er, why keep playing? Other than traditional MMOs that generate constant specific PvE content (and that's debatable right there, because how long did you play a traditional MMO once you hit max level and had completed all the raids?), the excitement of almost every PvE game out there lasts only a month. Unless it's Skyrim or something that has a ton of content (which this game won't really have) and has a ton of Mods that keep the game going (which this game will likely not have either); or a game with incredible high replay value like Civ 5 or XCOM or something because it has a lot of variation and difficulty settings (which, again, this game won't really have either) and again, those both have a lot of Mods. PvP is a sport in a sense. If a person's heart is too weak for it, if the thrill of competition doesn't drive them to keep playing and get better whether in victory or defeat, perhaps it's not the sport for them and they should find more peaceful games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikedaBike Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Respectfully, 1., you can't speak for others. No one can understand anyone else's voice, but their own (and I understand you're just playing devil's advocate). But more importantly, 2. if you think it's too difficult now, how about when this game has 5000 players online roaming the seas...can we please stop trying to "consider" the carebears. The crux of this game is PvP. Without it, it's rather boring. Don't get me wrong, it's an amazing Age of Sail experience. But that exciting will last about a month. I have a feeling the devs are hoping people play this game for more than a month. Once you've explored the map, once you've done some successful trading missions and have generated wealth, as a PvE'er, why keep playing? Other than traditional MMOs that generate constant specific PvE content (and that's debatable right there, because how long did you play a traditional MMO once you hit max level and had completed all the raids?), the excitement of almost every PvE game out there lasts only a month. Unless it's Skyrim or something that has a ton of content (which this game won't really have) and has a ton of Mods that keep the game going (which this game will likely not have either); or a game with incredible high replay value like Civ 5 or XCOM or something because it has a lot of variation and difficulty settings (which, again, this game won't really have either) and again, those both have a lot of Mods. PvP is a sport in a sense. If a person's heart is too weak for it, if the thrill of competition doesn't drive them to keep playing and get better whether in victory or defeat, perhaps it's not the sport for them and they should find more peaceful games? Completely agree, please stop any more development on anything within this game that is not pvp, roll it all back to sea trials as anything more than that is carebear and boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest raat Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) Completely agree, please stop any more development on anything within this game that is not pvp, roll it all back to sea trials as anything more than that is carebear and boring. Woah, touche, you showed me...*slow clap* Obviously, my point is that it is an OW PvP game with AI for targets when players aren't available. If you play that type of game, don't freaking whine when someone attacks you...And certainly don't complain that the game is too difficult to enjoy because there are other people around that want to actually play a PvP game and challenge themselves by fighting players instead of bots. Not to mention, we're talking about improving the game, yes? I would also assume you want this game to be profitable so the devs can continue to improve it, and that you can enjoy it for years to come? Let's take a look at the most popular (and profitable) games right now in the market. Just as a sample from Twitch viewership, what are the top 5 games with regularity? League of Legends, Dota 2, Hearthstone, CS:GO, and Starcraft II. Do you know what ALL those games have in common? They are PvP games. In my eyes, that suggests that if this game wants to have a lengthy run and be profitable, then the easiest way to do that would be to keep the focus on creating solid PvP gameplay (and I'm not talking about ST1). The current state of OW is solid and tons of fun. But still needs tweaking. This thread is a testament to the commitment of the player-base to help improve the immersion and mechanics of PvP in this game. And those mechanics are worth discussing at this stage before the system becomes too rigid to change. Please don't assume people just want ST1. I don't think anyone is asking for that here. Edited May 31, 2015 by Raatha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas aagaard Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 i dont really know if its in the correct ''time'' but it did occur in history. '' Slag bij Grevelingen (1588)'' A seabattle between the Spanish Armada and an English fleet with Dutch fleet support. That is not a 3 way battle!!! That is a two way, with the English and dutch on the same side against the Spanish. History is filled with that. But Iam stil waiting for someone to show that a 3 way naval battle happened during this periode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoopy Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 It would be nice if allies could sail on the same side in battles. No Trafalgar otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegfried Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) All battles are 3 parts. The third are the scavengers that benefit when battle are ended. P.S. Someone had read the post number 27 where I had wrote some ideas??? Edited May 31, 2015 by Siegfried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Locking and unlocking instances is an enormous can of worms. A perfect compromise... Leave the instances as they are in open world but, make it so that with every passing second the ships joining the instance are further away from the centre of the instance. As in, each second after the instance was started is multiplied by X (this number being decided upon in testing) and X is how far from the centre of the instance new ship joining would spawn. So lets say an instance is started and a ship is 1 minute away by 'open world travel times' then they would be able to sail for one minute and join the instance but would be 10 minutes 'in instance sailing time' away from the centre of the instance. This would give us the best possible likeness to what actually would happen. With good testing a fair middle ground could be reached between 'gankiing' and supporting your allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 That is not a 3 way battle!!! That is a two way, with the English and dutch on the same side against the Spanish. History is filled with that. But Iam stil waiting for someone to show that a 3 way naval battle happened during this periode. Because who in the right mind would willingly fight a battle on 2 fronts when they could join a side and then fight it out between each other once one foe is taken care of.. You're effectively choosing to fight two even foes over a fight well in you favour then an even fight with your ally, it makes no sense. What I gather the OP is asking for if the ability to chose allies in a fight and there are countless examples of this happening at sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas aagaard Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 What I gather the OP is asking for if the ability to chose allies in a fight and there are countless examples of this happening at sea. No there is not. The Kings decided on who was at war and who was allied. Not the naval commanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromey Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Spain and France fought England during Nap wars. England and France fought Dutch during war for the channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas aagaard Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Yep all of it a two way war. A is allied with B and is at war with C B is allied with A and is at war with C C is at war with A and B A 3 way, is when there are 3 sides that are hostile to each other. A is at war with B and C B is at war with A and C C is at war with A and B The first would be fine and historical The second is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 No there is not. The Kings decided on who was at war and who was allied. Not the naval commanders. In the game if there we an alliance between two sides let's say France and Spain, who were both at war with, say the British. Word gets out of a large British fleet heading for the French coast and the Spanish and French set course to intercept them. Their commanders Fred Gravina and Charley Villeneuve spot the fleet and close in for battle. At present Charley would have to sit in open water waiting for his ally Fred and the British to finish having a battle before they could get stuck in. Why is this desirable? Surely they should all be in the instance fighting at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernWolves Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 stealing the prizes. interfering with the battle you almost won using all repairs and many other concerns will be created if several enemy nations are allowed to enter one battle. So it's technically doable, it's just a matter of whether you want to correct? I had misunderstood (rather someone told me wrong) that it wasn't possible to implement. I think the nation entering the battle should be able to choose which side he is fighting with, so there will still be one green and one red side. Stealing of a prize should net the thief very little XP, little gold and little return for the sold ship making it a venture not worth their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Connor Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Probably national alliances would be the way to do this. At the moment with every nation being enemies you get a feeling more of the OS being a free-for-all than a war. National alliances could be static, dynamic or scripted. So which nations are on which side might be fixed or could be changed up to keep the numbers of players reasonably balanced (every so often there would be a shake-up of which nations are on which side). Alternatively, might run through a semi-historical script with sides changing at intervals. That way, although every battle would still be 2-sided you'd be able to enter into the majority of them to reinforce your side within that battle, and this would greatly increase the idea that you were fighting a war alongside allies rather than mainly encountering different enemies and only rarely a friendly ship. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeeF Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 It has to be players driven. I was assuming it would be. Votes for war, votes for leaders, highest xp player made king, i don't care how it's done. 3 sided battles should not happen because it doesn't make sense to engage in it, not because it is forced off by the game mechanics. The on the spot politics that could happen in these battles, if wars are player driven, is what will make them interesting. But my issue here is stopping people from avoiding pvp by tagging AIs. Spawning players further away from the center the more time spent seems to have some support in other threads as well. I would like to point out battles are rarely fought at the center of the instance. If this ends up being implemented, the center should move along as the battle progress. Average of every ships positions, possibly weighted by their battle rating. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Connor Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 That's another way to do it. Something like every month a nation gets to vote for a period of time which side they want to be on. Have to be some kind of lock on switching to an grossly overpopulated side to prevent stacking too many nations on one side, also votes restricted to characters over a certain level and one vote per account to avoid voting being alt-spammed, but otherwise yeah, players in a nation would get to choose their side. I don't think there should be any form of picking sides during battles (at least not for anyone else but pirates), it will just lead to endless backstabbing between people who aren't supposed to be backstabbing each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepo Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) In my opinion if escape is possible for multiple hours by just attacking a fleet of different nationality the game will be unplayable from a PvP standpoint. Just have the option of players joining if the opposing side of their targets is fully AI. After all it doesn't really mater if the AI-s are Spanish or french they are AI. Maybe have the AI fleet disengage at that point and have players battle it out. It would slow down farming as players would need to be more carefull not to use their repairs but it would add strategy to the game and incentive for players to patrol areas so that they are not jumped while lvling. Edited June 2, 2015 by scepo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Federico de Gravina y N Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Three or more factions in battle, but only two sides; is my opinion, a good idea. Edited June 2, 2015 by RAE_Cmdt.Cavero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now