fox2run
-
Posts
988 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by fox2run
-
-
I like many duras. They make me take chances. Now I don't use my many SOLs. Hmmm. Why not? They have only one dura.
Many duras makes PvP more likely.
-
Majority left the game becourse it was boring with no battles to join.
A majority likes to fight other than the usual "5 versus 1 with nothing to do closed battles."
I know that you, Hethwill and a few others will have a bigger challenge under open battles as you won't be able to isolate victims that easily.
But hey... Maybe the game would be popular again... ;-)
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:
Alrighty then.
Not to take away from the above ...
BUT the question I have is ... Could the South have won the conflict if Thomas Johnathan Jackson had lived?
No military genious have usually won anything on his own. Wars normally comes down to manpower, resources, morale and politics.
The third Reich had a lot of very competent commanders but that didn't really affect anything as they where led by a party of maniacs.
Napoleon was master of war but just couldn't grasp the political aspect and lost everything on the floor.
Alexander the Great stands out but actually his success relied on his fathers work and preparation. He died under dubious circumstances btw and may not have paid attention to the political side of things.
The Confederation had some good commanders but lacked the other ingredients for a victory. As the war dragged out it was a matter of time before defeat. They simply wouldn't be able to win in the long term. And if so not on the battlefields alone.
So no. It wouldn't have mattered much if Jackson would have lived. He was a pawn on a tactical level and had very little outcome on the industrial might of the north.
-
3
-
-
Many duras and open battles would provide much more pvp.
It is that simple.
-
If battles stay open then I'm ok by removing the AI fleets. Then it's up to the player base to aid eachother out.
More fun that way.
-
Why not just do it by classes? A fifh rate can only attack a fourth rate and a third rate, etc. This would also reflect the reality of the time. Code of conduct didn't allow SOLs to open fire on small vessels. In order to screen some first rates you need a second rate at least.
How about that?
-
Hmmm. Another restriction. Why don't you just make a lobby based game? It seems like the OW has been put down to be just that. Except from that in a lobby game action comes right away.
With this rule there's no need to wait for the battle in ow. You can't be intercepted. And you can't have unequal BR fights. So what's the point in OW?
-
1
-
-
Maybe Beauregard wanted a war?
-
USA was founded by illegal terrorists obsessed by avoiding taxes for the relatively cheap British military.
Ironic development so to speak.
-
1
-
-
We need more pvp and also some kind of way to get into large battles. I have tried to say that prolonged joining timers was one way to achieve this. The game was more living back then. Also less alliances and maybe som rethinking of Port Battles. Maybe we should drop PBs and the idea of conquest altogether and make fights count in other ways. Many players like to go into huge fights but the PBs seems rather heavy. And map conquest seems to cause some stress and frustration among clanleaders and players.
-
4 hours ago, DeRuyter said:
Doesn't really answer my question though. I think everyone on this forum knows what you want.
Battle open for 10 mins. No BR restrictions for late joiners. You spawn in based on OW direction and at a distance relative to the time delay on the OW as @koltes proposed. Would you support that type of ROE?
If it brings more battles on the table. I dont know about the BR-limits on pulling, though. Im not a favorite of limits. I like the thought of free sandbox more. But joining relative to distance is a good idea. It could be adjustet down the road. Good gameplay that provide fun and action is to prefer for most players.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, TommyShelby said:
Got any arguments?
I'd be very interested in reading them!
I got a ton of counter arguments but ya know, i already posted those like 20 times in response to your other posts.As you wish.
1) More action aviable. If, say, the battle timer is 10 min. (example) instead of zero we would have longer openings for PvP combat. A simple question of math. More swords open: more possible PvP. You sail out in OW, see a sword, rush to combat. Easy, simple, fun. No space rocket science in that.
2) No big hiding fleets anymore. After the time out of the after battle screen (5 min) you cannot hide a space-warping megafleet out of sight, that certainly drops in. Not possible. This was the top-argument against longer battle timers. This option has been nullified, but we havent tried this in combination with longer timers. Lets try it out.
3) Possible Anti-gank. Longer joining timers is THE ONLY option for a ganked guy to have some hope of relief. Otherwise its just gg. Once you have been caught outside your capital or in home waters theres is only surrender left. Even if this happens in front of your friends. The ecitement of reinforcing a battle that can go either way makes the game very good. I remember battles going back and forth in last minute. Super fun! But of course not for the single pirate-type that certainly is checked by a naval fleet.
4) Living nations. At the times we had battles in OW open for longer durations, we had a living national chat when players got intercepted and cried for help. This made the nations organise defence and anti-gank-attack groups. Casual players without TS had much better options for feeling themselves a member of a PvP-community. It was very great and you felt you where a part of a nation where you could help the traders against them pirate scums! Again: fun and exciting.
5) Natural national boundaries and home waters. Imagine an invicible line 10 min out to sea. If you pass this line in a 10 min OW joning time-world, you where out at open sea WITH NO POSSIBLE HELP. If you where intercepted here. It was just too bad. This makes the sailing experience varied and exciting. I remember the adrenaline you had when you where alone on open sea away from your nation. Anything could happen to you. Hethwill could be on your tail and nothing you could do! No optinal reinforcements. Now you dont have this difference. I could sail out from my capital and get cought right in front of the harbour almost and no one can help me out. This is frustrating and I dont feel the excitement going out on open sea alone! Pirates are ok but they need to be in remote places and not in front of capitals. This is historic btw.
6) Large battles for everyone. If you like large battles they are very hard to get. You need access to TS, a clan and need to have some hours for sailing before the Port Battle happens. Its not everyone that has this option. With longer joining timers it is possible to have large battles developing over time. A small skirmish could end up in a 25 vs 25 Trafalgar! (And if the single guy hates this - he can lure himself out at the backdoor and escape the battle. No problem for the quick pirate in a reno.
7) Longer timers and no BR limits makes the game true sandbox. Longer timers makes the game much more open. All kind of situations can happen at sea. Its not just organised players that run in fast 4 man groups that can have their prey but other kind of battles can develop. This makes the game varied and therefore much, much better. You can have 4 vs 4, 10 vs 1, 25 vs 25, 7 vs 3 - whatever. You can also end up in battles with many different types of ships. A cutter tries to help a victory admiral versus some pirate surprises! Variation will be big and thus makes the game more fun.
8) A couple of gamey features could be changed or dropped and thus make the game a better experience. A lot of weird stuff has been put into the game as compensation for the missing PvP: Special PvP events, AI-fleets, PVE-based stuff (on PvPserver!), maginotline-forts, PVE-hostility mechanics etc. We didnt need all this stuff when the timers where longers. We simply didnt have to make "artificial" pvp (pve) as the PvP was plentyfull. PvP will be MUCH MORE COMMON.
Those where my immidiate thoughts on the subject. I will come back with more, if it comes to my mind. I would also like feedback from others than the usual five sceptical players that counterpost my ideas everytime I put them on air. So gents: please join in!
Kind regards
-
The only option is to prolong the length of battle timers. In this way reinforcements are optional and few pirates would dare to hunt in front of enemy capitals.
It gives players so much more to do. Instant battle timers only help gankers.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Wraith said:
Scenes from the teleport genre.... NA?
-
I need easy access to battles. I dont want to see "Battle is closed" or Battle rating limit reached" as a player. Its like seing someone having fun but not you. In any and all wargame i know of - players are not stopped from enjoying the core mechanics of the game - this is the only place.
We need to have battles to be open. As long as possible. Sandbox is not a lot of limits. This game is NOT playable now. Tonight I have been sailing around and saw a lot of closed battles. Zero action.
Change this. ASAP. And screw all kind of gank-talk or unfair fights.
-
1
-
-
Im enjoying Rome Totalwar2. It's still playable. Maybe we should make OW turnbased? To save time... It works pretty cool in TW.
Or maybe make it a realtime minimap instead.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Jonathan Arlington said:
With the towing-system you are close enough to "teleport to portbattle" any step further would be too much. And if I want to play a game with ships teleporting in front of me while I am on the wides of the ocean hunting someone I would play some Star Trek-games to let Scotty do his job with the beamer ... But I am not playing Star Trek. I play a game of naval warfare und naval warfare, gentlemen, is not fair, not same vs. same it's about hunting and being hunt, it's about the thrill of having more speed than my opponent. It's about the heartstroke-moment when you realize that you are right away sticking in the shallows. It's about an open world full of hostiles. If you can't handle this avoid playing Open World and use the Mission -> Small Battle, Large Battle, PvE-Mission buttons.
Really I do not understand why so much people are thinking a warfare-game has to be "fair" and why so much people seams to search for mechanics which will kill any strategical skill in this game...
"Lord Nelson! The hostile admiral is giving some flag signals! Translation: It's 24 vs. 20. So unfair. Please wait with fighting until the rest of our fleet has arrived."
No. It don't have to be fair as long as it isnt boring. Now it's unfair AND boring.
-
12 hours ago, Angus McGregor said:
I see why both of these are being suggested, but they're one step closer to making the OW a farce.
In response to ppl asking for various activities to be made easier... I suggest a quick glance at: Understanding failure, the PoTBS story
Edit:
Also one of the 'related' links ... Pirates of the Instanced Sea... Mini Game Madness, is a very good read. Not entirely applicable, but interesting.
OW is a farce. Its empty.
-
12 hours ago, DeRuyter said:
This type of ROE has been proposed before, while it would be great to spawn in at a relative distance I believe the devs have already said it can't be done because of land in battles. Too bad really because it would solve a lot of issues. Keep in mind that someone joining at 10 mins would be so far away the battle would be over the horizon and sailing to the sound of the guns or muzzle flashes probably wouldn't get you there before time expired.
10 min could be far away in a strict realism sence of things. But not in a gameplay view. Exciting multiplayer battles are to prefer
over a dull OW. How can we enhance this? By dropping a lot of rules and restrictions, that makes it hard to meet other players in battle. That's no Einstein in my book.
-
A good idea. 20 seconds minimum, though for outer ring. 5 sec is way too short.
The main thing is to get some battles going in OW that is not too complicated to find and join.
It can be done in different ways. 3 circles and open timers are a good way.
After the battles screen closes automatically, no big ganking fleets can hide anymore. Hence we can open up for the action again.
-
1
-
-
ROE is to blaim for this. If there is a battle that is about to envelop - it takes time to find it and the other players. Instant closing ROE simply killing this. Hence I have been advocating for longer ROE timers or a different ROE.
-
ROE is closing too fast, No point of taken on a fight you will loose anyway. With longer ROE then reinforcements can make it. You will fight to the end or to the help arrives! Change ROE!
-
1
-
-
Well Merril.
Imagine that we had 2000 online playing the game. It was actually so when battles where open so players could find easy action in OW. The problem is that this option has been killed totally with instant battle timers. Its like the game wants players to play in some special ways. But players dont. They just quit the game. Now this game is not for players that like combat. Its more like a game for solo-hunters or very well organized groups. The mainstream gamers has been abondoned by the devs. Which again reflects on players online. Its just not as fun as it could be right now.
-
Do you work on a new ROE model that allows reinforcements and larger battles in OW?
-
3
-
Dura done right for proper PVP game
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted · Edited by fox2run
I craft all these SOLs. But somehow I never use them. They takes too long to craft to just sail out to sea. It's too risky. And the mechanisms to ensure I can use them in a big battle are absent. So... No...
If my frigates where more expensive, I would probably avoid risky OW actions and raids. No... I would not play at all. Now I play occasionally. But am bored as too few battles and too much waiting.