Battle reinforcement timer

[MikedaBike]

Many famous engagements were over in 15 minutes or so. 

 

No timers was a gank fest when 100 people were on.  Heck, there was ganking when 18 people were on in the first batch of OW combat testing.  When it was switched to 10 minute timers, it happened along with an population increase, and the game was primarily a gank fest.  You want to see coordination?  TDA's ability to accurately know where all our members were at all times and respond with 10 minute timers.  Now knowing where all your members are exactly at any given time isn't as easy as it was, but it is still doable with work (before it wasn't any work).  The outcry at Plymouth was huge.  Half the Leeward Islands could be reached in 10 minutes.

 

People asking for no timers, or 10 minute timers, or 5 minute timers, typically haven't played OW that much.

As Prater says, OW was in testing long before early accesss and this no timer/longer timer situation was well tested and found to be a far worse idea than the present 2 minutes. Newer players will obviously have no idea of how much testing went on before they joined the continued testing of EA. Going over and over old ground will not help the game develope at a faster rate, what may seem to be a good idea in ones head may have already been disproved on the field! New ideas and questioning well tested situation is of course everyones right but getting stuck on old old ground ain't going to make the game better.

[Neptune]

Ganks are awesome though, they are the best part of the game. They are always exciting & challenging, they add so much to the game. I hope nothing is done to limit them, they make this game great. PvP has never been better, even in Sea Trials. 

 

Ganking has been one of the biggest issues since open world was released, the BR system was about the only thing that limited it besides the 2 minute timers. This issue will keep popping up until its fixed.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Acadian44

[Sir Robert Calder]

I still feel timers should be reflective of the type of Battle Rating a conflict is in-game and adjust in real time if that is possible to do.

 

If a battle houses low Battle Rating on both sides such as 1000 v 1000 or less, keep it at 2:00 (or even 1:00). If one side decides to stack up say 19000 v 1000 BR, I believe the Battle Timer should adjust accordingly upwards to a maximum of 4-5 minutes, given how much BR that particular fight has attracted. It increases the risk for people who like to gank in an incredibly uneven fashion (especially around hotspots like Capitals), while also encouraging more fair fights to those who prefer the more beneficial battle timer against player reinforcements.  I'd even go so far as to say that invis/invuln should be increased based on the BR rating of a battle as well, but that's for a different thread.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Sir Robert Calder

[Migui]

Carebears should not be protected like a kindergarten because they happen to want to sail a SOL for missions being alone. Go do that to a PVE server. In an open world, use your two eyes before getting into a mission, or don't do it alone and then cry because you are ganked.

[Quineloe]

I do not understand.

 

At the moment any sail on the horizon or close IS within the 2 minute timer. This is a gigantic clue for any captain to know how safe it is to engage and if there's friendlies around that SHOULD help if the need arises.

 

No, it really is not.

 

Undocking still means only 60 seconds of invulnerability preventing from joining. If you are on voice comms, it's very easy to just say "everyone undock" as you tag your target, and they will make it into the battle even before the 1 minute countdown is over  and therefore spawn with you.

The same applies to hiding in battles.

Also even "sails on horizon" doesn't apply. I have a video right here of me making it into a battle in a Bellona, and I couldn't even see the ships when the tag was initiated. I just sailed downwind for a minute and basically made it in 10 seconds before the battle closed. I only made it because I knew exactly where that battle was due to voice comms. Since I didn't see them, they didn't see me. Yet I made it in.

 

All this massively favors the attackers and the short reinforcement timer makes it impossible to react.

 

On the other hand, requesting help after you've been tagged is completely futile now. The odds of someone undocking in time to reinforce are remarkably low.

 

IMO, if you don't join a battle within 10 seconds, you should spawn another mile out as a reinforcement. The fact that you can undock from a port and still  make it into a battle as part of the initial spawn is terrible.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Quineloe

[Marten van de Voerde]

Well, if you wish to fix the undocking from port to battle problem totaly, make timer one minute   Right now what you see is what you get in battle, unless you are really unlucky (as in your post Quineloe - you have both best wind and exact location of battle, bad luck for the enemy. Usually informations are way less precise). We have a rat problem in our territory now, but the response is proper I think - ppl organise and hunt pirates. Short timers mean they actually have to be on the OW to pirate instead of sitting in port and standing one cutter as a bait/tagger. Only "exploit" that is used often by them is good old hiding in post battle screen - i would like timer on that (not something to short, bout 5-10 min, so one can get up and drink sth after battle). This would made them voulnerable to oposition but in a correct way - hunting squad still needs to spread a bit to cover theyre potential escape routes and does not know exact time of their reapearance, so with luck they might even capture part of it in another battle before rest will approach, or simply spread out and run for life.

[Galileus]

Well, if you wish to fix the undocking from port to battle problem totaly, make timer one minute

 

If you want to fix the undocking, fix the undocking instead of messing with battle timers that govern much more than just "undocking joining".

 

There should be 3 timers - invisibility, invulnerability and tag-lock. Tag lock should always be exactly as long as battle open timer - so that you can only join the battles that started when you're in OW. You should never be able to join battles that started when you're in battle.

 

Battle timers govern much more than just the undock-and-attack problem. Current timers are more-or-less representative to OW distance you can join from with good wind, which is great. "Fix" them according to one fringe scenario (undock-and-join) and you loose that.

[Hethwill]

Fixes must meet the majority of cases while also taking care of some specific situations.

The battle hopping was fixed, same as with the invisibility ambush.

 

There are some cases now and then when I finish a battle and suddenly I see someone starts one right next to me while I was still loading back the OW, but this is far from being the norm and it doesn't happen that often.

 

What ganky corsairs did, which they cannot do anymore, with the 2 minute timer plus the no-attack on invisibility/invulnerability was to just camp sites and ambush through bait. Now it is much more difficult and they are forced to adapt.

 

Move in a group, 30 seconds apart. It is still possible to jump unwary victims.

 

The same for defense groups. Spread in 30 seconds ranges, intercept undesirables.

 

The more corsairs operating from free ports deep inside a nation the better for a pvp server. Get those sheep herders what they're due.

[Fizzer]

Many famous engagements were over in 15 minutes or so. 

 

No timers was a gank fest when 100 people were on.  Heck, there was ganking when 18 people were on in the first batch of OW combat testing.  When it was switched to 10 minute timers, it happened along with an population increase, and the game was primarily a gank fest.  You want to see coordination?  TDA's ability to accurately know where all our members were at all times and respond with 10 minute timers.  Now knowing where all your members are exactly at any given time isn't as easy as it was, but it is still doable with work (before it wasn't any work).  The outcry at Plymouth was huge.  Half the Leeward Islands could be reached in 10 minutes.

 

People asking for no timers, or 10 minute timers, or 5 minute timers, typically haven't played OW that much.

 

And many famous engagements lasted days - whats your point?

 

Please read my second post on the prior page - there are other ways to balance battles and create a proper sense of teams.  No timers != free for all.

[Slamz]

The assumption that you play one of the dying low pop servers is because you believe that the "low population" nations couldn't even field a reinforcements. Witch isnt even true for the Dutch and Swedish in pvp one, and no offense but im more interested in the balance of a server that actually has people in it

 

I play Spain on PVP1 and the problem with your idea is simple math.

 

400 Brits online.

150 Spanish online.

Of those Spanish, 50 are diligently waiting somewhere to join requested reinforcements.

 

10 Brits jump a lone Spaniard. 10 Spanish join in! Now 40 are waiting.

5 Brits jump 2 Spanish. 3 Spanish join in! Now 37 are waiting.

[...]

10 Brits jump 4 Spanish. All available Spanish are in other fights. There are simply more British than Spanish so some Spanish are left-over at the end with nobody to join in. The 4 Spanish get ganked.

 

 

Meanwhile, when the tables get turned, there are always more Brits to join fights than Spanish players can start.

 

Your solution only works for the overpopulated teams.

[Ledinis]

I play Spain on PVP1 and the problem with your idea is simple math.

 

400 Brits online.

150 Spanish online.

Of those Spanish, 50 are diligently waiting somewhere to join requested reinforcements.

 

10 Brits jump a lone Spaniard. 10 Spanish join in! Now 40 are waiting.

5 Brits jump 2 Spanish. 3 Spanish join in! Now 37 are waiting.

[...]

10 Brits jump 4 Spanish. All available Spanish are in other fights. There are simply more British than Spanish so some Spanish are left-over at the end with nobody to join in. The 4 Spanish get ganked.

 

 

Meanwhile, when the tables get turned, there are always more Brits to join fights than Spanish players can start.

 

Your solution only works for the overpopulated teams.

And have you even actually seen these 100+ ship ganking armadas near any port ? 

[Neptune]

What PvP has looked like since EA

-Fair fight, you tag enemy and they run leaving one behind for sacrafice. Becomes a boring PvP.

-Fair fight, enemy defensive tags and runs.

-Fair fight, enemy just simply runs once again.

-You tag enemy even though they out BR you and they run.

-You are in enemy waters, you find a straggler that was left behind, it's a gank for your group, boring PvP.

-You are in enemy waters, you need to defensive tag to avoid a gank. Less time fighting more time running, back to looking for a good fight.

-You are in your home waters, oh look a nice target this should be a decent PvP. Well no, half of your nat piles in and it becomes a gank all over again.

-You are in your home waters, zerg is rollin up, you are defensive tagging again. Once again more time running less time having a good battle.

-You defensive tag to avoid a gank, and end up coming out of the battle surrounded by enemy. Even though you have invulnerability, theirs no avoiding getting ganked.

-You find a good fun fight, enemy runs just to later engage you with numbers / "gank".

-You have a 1v1 Arranged on the Open World, both sides tell their nat's don't join, It's a 1v1. They still join and gank the piss out of one side, even though you tell them it's a 1v1.

-And lastly, good fights. Where they are challenging, epic & skill based are quite rare. Where people are willing to fight it out based on skill not numbers.
 I've had few of these lately, but too much of the above. We need less of the above, less boring PvP and more epic PvP.

 

In a game that was known for it's awesome PvP, shame that this is what PvP has come to.

 

Defensive tags are complete cheese, enemy now use them to avoid PvPing even in a fair fight.

The PvP we get is picking off stragglers, well how is that fun? No challenge or fun there, ganking a straggler or stragglers that lost their group of buddies.

 

Like can we have some fun PvP and less of this bullshit? Seriously, this is ruining the game. You can't fix running, but you can fix the ganking. Being the ganker is worse then being ganked. Boring...

Edited April 8, 2016 by Acadian44

[KrakkenSmacken]

If you want to fix the undocking, fix the undocking instead of messing with battle timers that govern much more than just "undocking joining".

 

There should be 3 timers - invisibility, invulnerability and tag-lock. Tag lock should always be exactly as long as battle open timer - so that you can only join the battles that started when you're in OW. You should never be able to join battles that started when you're in battle.

 

Battle timers govern much more than just the undock-and-attack problem. Current timers are more-or-less representative to OW distance you can join from with good wind, which is great. "Fix" them according to one fringe scenario (undock-and-join) and you loose that.

 

How is "Tag Lock" mechanically different from invulnerability?

 

I would go with "Invulnerability" is always at least as long as the battle open timer.  

[DeRuyter]

...

 

It could allow OW battles to grow organically depending on local player activity while still avoiding the "surprise, here's 20 of my friends" situations and doing away with the very artificial feeling timers.

 

Just an idea to consider.  I see a lot of people getting frustrated when they try to help out some friends and constantly get in range of the instance 30 seconds after the battle closes.  It doesn't promote a natural-feeling or fair open-world PvP experience at all.

 

 

And many famous engagements lasted days - whats your point?

 

Please read my second post on the prior page - there are other ways to balance battles and create a proper sense of teams.  No timers != free for all.

 

I believe he is saying that many engagements would be over by the time reinforcements arrived when you account for the passage of time in the battle instance. Most engagements I have read about, especially frigate engagements were over in several hours.

 

I'll admit though I am trying to think of all the multi-day naval engagements in the Napoleonic wars, and I can only think of one or two. The Glorious 1st of June  or maybe the Nile because that was overnight. Perhaps several port battles occurred over the course of several days. Maybe you can tell me which famous engagements you have in mind?

 

The point is that the battle timer is there is solve the time distortion problem. Others have suggested no timers and spawn at a distance equivalent to the time it took to get there in battle instance time. This has been addressed already. Here is a thread about the 5 minute join timer:

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7652-battles-now-remain-open-for-only-5-minutes/?hl=battle timers

 

You are correct that there are other ways to balance battles, such as BR, if that is your goal. However I think there are a lot of people who equate "balanced" battles with one of the arena games vs. an open world sandbox game.

 

 

As to the timers and ganking, I'll just leave this here:

 

 

 

....

short timers reduce gank for me. If the fleet cannot organize themselves the stragglers will be sank.

This actually happened multiple times during napoleonic wars. Short timers teach players to sail as a fleet, not as a disorganized mob.

Losing a station position was a punishable offense. Exactly for the above mentioned reasons (losing station = possible loss of a ship or death) 

[Marcomies]

Here's a part of my suggestions from another thread http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12762-suggestions-about-the-combat-initiation-deployment-and-post-battle-mechanics/ . It would fix issues with timers and defensive tagging.

 

 

World map physics and combat entry: Remove the effect of world map positions between the attacking and defending ship(s) on the starting distance of the ships in combat. It would be reasonable and realistic to presume that the combat "starts" at or near the maximum firing distance of the weapons with longest range. Everything that happens inside the weapons range should be resolved in the battle mode. Positions on world map would only affect the direction and alignments of the ships.

 

This would remove the need for the unrealistic and unnecessary mini-game of trying to get into the best possible positions on world map at the end on the 20 second attack timer, leaving all the finer maneuvering to the battle mode itself. The 20 second timer could be removed entirely and the pseudo-realistic physics of the world map (slow turning ship with high inertia, moving at double speed in compressed world) could be simplified so that it would better fit the scale of the world map (less inertia and faster turning) as the initiation phase would no longer have so direct effect on the combat encounter itself.

 

Player would make the decision of attacking an enemy player by clicking attack button, which would be possible even before the target is in the actual attack range and the combat would start as soon as the target enters the attack range (which would represent the cannon range of long cannons on battle map, less than the current attack ring on the world map). Every player who is inside the attack range or enters the attack range during battle start countdown would be pulled into the combat and placed into the vicinity of the combat starter/target.

 

Any reinforcements that arrive to the battle during the 2 minutes timer(after the battle start timer) would enter the battle map from beyond the gun range of closest player (maybe the distance could increase as the battle timer goes on to model the difference in the time scale of world map and combat mode) from the direction which the combat was started from. This would make the starting of combat feel more natural and realistic as there would be no overshooting a target or other oddities that do not make sense on the world map scale in age of sail combat. This suggested system would basically mean that if a ship comes into shooting range of another ship on the world map, it would be able to try to take that shot in the battle mode.

 

 

Leave battle (escape) mechanism: Currently leaving a battle is way too easy, chasing a ship in the combat mode is all about keeping a ship tagged in using whatever guns are available. It is almost impossible to keep even a slow ship in combat if the battle starts at anything more than a medium range (and that is with long bow chasers). This really makes no sense and is very gamey mechanic that lets a slow ship escape combat just by starting it itself and makes escaping from a middle of a battle possible.

 

I'd suggest a system where the combats starts with the closest ships always being at little over the maximum range on long cannons. After the battle start countdown the ships should preferably start at full sail and speed, instead of starting dead still with sails down. The only way a ship could escape combat is if can stay outside a range, that is a bit more than the starting distance, of every enemy vessel. So (for example and with arbitrary numbers) lets say a long cannon has the maximum range of 1400 meters, combat would start with the shortest distance between two opposing ships being 1500 meters and a vessel that spends a certain time, like 15 seconds, further than 2000 meters away from any enemy ship would be able to leave the combat.

 

This way a slower ship could never run from a faster ship without using a more beneficial point of sail or some serious maneuvering or crippling the enemy (using your stern chasers would actually be useful for escaping rather than a reset for escape timer). Leaving the battle from in middle of the combat or without warning would also not be possible. For situations where a ship is chasing a ship of equal speed the current leave-battle-timer style timer could be used but with 20-30 minute wait time so the combat could be ended early if no meaningful amount of shots are hitting targets and the encounter is clearly indecisive (or the attacker is just stalling for time).

Edited April 7, 2016 by Marcomies

[Galileus]

How is "Tag Lock" mechanically different from invulnerability?

 

I would go with "Invulnerability" is always at least as long as the battle open timer.  

 

Invisibility is obvious.

Invulnerability means enemy cannot tag you.

Tag lock means you cannot tag enemies (or join battles).

 

Easier to balance everything like that.

[Slamz]

And have you even actually seen these 100+ ship ganking armadas near any port ? 

 

The biggest ganking fleet I saw was probably on PVP2 when somewhere around 150 pirates showed up to defend Aves. They filled up all the battles and there were still at least a couple dozen pirates left over, sailing around with no more battles to join.

 

Which, again, is the problem with your idea. Had those pirates found any leftover enemies to attack, it would have still been a gank.

 

MAYBE your idea could work if "reinforcements" could come from any nation. Like if a Brit groups attacks a Spanish player, then a pirate or a French or a Dane could jump into the battle to reinforce the Spanish player (from anywhere on the map). I think that would raise a lot more problems with "green on green" or reinforcements that join in but then refuse to help because they actually don't like your team, etc.

 

 

Basically I don't think imbalanced open world PvP fights is a problem we should be trying to solve. And again, the tools to avoid being ganked with are already in the game.

 

I only get ganked when I'm being careless.

 

Especially with the 2-minute timers, it's pretty easy to avoid being ganked as long as you follow basic precautions.

 

 

(Last night on PVP1 was a great example. We saw a few U.S. players outside a port and jumped them. A ton of U.S. players were waiting for this and jumped out of the port and into the battle, so it turned into a 4v12. We were in slow, 1 durability ships with no speed fittings and random (captured) attributes. Half of us still got away. And we could have avoided it entirely by just not attacking them right outside a port. Ganking really is not a big problem in this game.)

Edited April 7, 2016 by Slamz

[Galileus]

This would remove the need for the unrealistic and unnecessary mini-game of trying to get into the best possible positions on world map at the end on the 20 second attack timer

 

I love this part. Smart guy gets to make a nice, close shaved tag.

 

 

 

The 20 second timer could be removed entirely and the pseudo-realistic physics of the world map

 

Welcome griefing, instant loadscreens, no ability to respond to enemy attack, no ability to position, being locked in combat and a lot of other stuff.

Boom, you broke the game.

Congrats.

[Marcomies]

I love this part. Smart guy gets to make a nice, close shaved tag.

 

 

Welcome griefing, instant loadscreens, no ability to respond to enemy attack, no ability to position, being locked in combat and a lot of other stuff.

Boom, you broke the game.

Congrats.

 

Close shaved tag makes no sense as it presumes the defender would not do anything while the attacker approaches to that distance. It also makes defensive tag the only (and overpowered) way to not get instantly raked at the start of battle while the ships are sitting dead in the water with sails down for some unfathomable reason.

 

I really don't see how this suggested system would make the pvp encounters more broken than what they are at the moment.

 

"Griefing" - I don't know what you mean with that exactly. The full suggestion includes changes to post battle, invisibility and invulnerability system which would reduce to possibilities of exploit and griefing.

 

"Instant loadscreen" - Only after the enemy has come into attack range (which i suggest would be reduced) on world map.

 

"no ability to respond to attack or position" - Unlike current close tag system the defender would actually start at the maximum gun range in the battle mode and would therefore have plenty of time to react. On the world map you can see the enemy far away and react and position as long as he doesn't get into close range of you.

 

"being locked in combat" - Yes, a player would be locked into combat if he could not run from the attacker. In the end this would result into encounters being solved in a single battle instance with clear results rather than having dozen encounters with defensive tags and silly escapes paced by the waiting and blockading caused by post battle screen system. This is all covered in the original thread in more detail. It also includes part that would make tagging people into combat just to slow them down on world map a lot more ineffective tactic, further discouraging the pointless, indecisive combat instances.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Marcomies

[KrakkenSmacken]

Invisibility is obvious.

Invulnerability means enemy cannot tag you.

Tag lock means you cannot tag enemies (or join battles).

 

Easier to balance everything like that.

 

Ahh, so remove the current "can not tag" mechanic from invulnerability, and make it it's own thing, because currently Invulnerability does both things your describing.

 

 

So that leads to a few questions.

 

When, if ever, would a person be invulnerable, but able to tag?

When, if ever, would a person be able to tag, but not invulnerable?

 

Is the only additional case that a person is able to be the target of a tag, but not able to tag/join?

 

If so, what is the advantage of that? What game play does it add?

 

I'm just trying to understand the game benefit of separating the two mechanics over the current implementation with longer timers.

Edited April 7, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Galileus]

I'm just trying to understand the game benefit of separating the two mechanics over the current implementation with longer timers.

 

There is only one reason - well, separation. As it is now, to stop player from joining battles for longer, you need to make him invulnerable for longer. With tag-lock separate from invulnerability, you can increase battle timer and still keep player tag-locked.

 

Another scenario would be a forcefull ejection from battle-over screen. You could start invulnerability timer while still in (post)battle-over, but start tag-lock only after spawning in OW.

[Marcomies]

There is only one reason - well, separation. As it is now, to stop player from joining battles for longer, you need to make him invulnerable for longer. With tag-lock separate from invulnerability, you can increase battle timer and still keep player tag-locked.

 

Another scenario would be a forcefull ejection from battle-over screen. You could start invulnerability timer while still in (post)battle-over, but start tag-lock only after spawning in OW.

 

Here's the another part from my suggestion in the other thread which covers this area:

 

Post-Battle and return to world map: Staying in and leaving from the post-battle screen and the invisibility following the return to the world map are some of the most exploitable and exploited aspects of the entire game.

 

All players should be automatically removed from the battle mode within a few seconds of the battle ending and moved directly to the world map. The post battles screen should be replaced with post battle window in the world map mode where the loot and captured ships could be sorted out. In order to not force players into rushing with inventory management in middle of world map chase situation, the loot window should be usable even after the player has spawned to the world map and moved away. The requirement for moving loot into port would be first moving the loot from the post battle window, into the current ship's hold and if player fights another battle, the loot from previous battle would no longer be available.

 

Invisibility should be shortened to 5-10 seconds and it should only be a way to balance the different loading times of players, not a time during which the player can try to sneak away from the possible people waiting outside. With the simplified and more scale appropriate physics of the world map sailing, the inertia and turning of the ships on the world map should not play as large role on moving out of the battle and with the following suggested changes to invulnerability, the players leaving the battle would still have a good chance of escaping

 

Invulnerability timer should be largely dependent on how the player entered the battle (attacking or defending side) and how he left the battle (sinking the enemy, running from the battle or the enemy running from you). The timers would have the following logic:

 

attacking side + sink the enemy -> short invulnerability

attacking side + run from the enemy -> short invulnerability

attacking side + enemy runs from you -> medium invulnerability

defending side + sink the enemy -> medium invulnerability

defending side + run from the enemy -> medium invulnerability

defending side + enemy runs from you -> long invulnerability

 

This would mean that for example that if a running player is attacked and the runner manages to escape the battle he would then have a medium invulnerability timer, which could be something like 2-3 minutes. This would model the fact that a combat encounter would most likely last only under an hour while reinforcements arriving to the scene from beyond the 2 minutes battle timer range would probably have to sail hours or even days real time to reach the site. Even a small speed boost like +20% on top of the normal speed could be added to the first half of invulnerability to give the runner a head start. This way it would be harder to blockade a combat site and attack a player leaving combat.

 

The overall situation on the world map when the the invulnerability timer ends would be more authentic with the escaping player sailing in front of the blockading ships that arrived to the scene later. This would also reduce the effectiveness of the unrealistic and immersion breaking tactic of pulling a fleeing enemy ship into combat by attacker just to give the reinforcements time to arrive at the scene. The long invulnerability timer of defender in a situation where the attackers leaves the combat would discourage the practice even further and encourage only initiating combat when the attacker has intention of really fighting.

[KrakkenSmacken]

There is only one reason - well, separation. As it is now, to stop player from joining battles for longer, you need to make him invulnerable for longer. With tag-lock separate from invulnerability, you can increase battle timer and still keep player tag-locked.

 

Another scenario would be a forcefull ejection from battle-over screen. You could start invulnerability timer while still in (post)battle-over, but start tag-lock only after spawning in OW.

 

Acknowledged.

 

Not sure if the first one would be a good thing (longer battle timers), but the second one makes sense, provided the base was extended long enough to allow you time to do the things you need to do on the battle over screen (Divide and store loot, deal with captured ships, etc).

 

I honestly think that dynamic and not fixed battle timers should be tried to see how it plays.  

 

For example, if you are outnumbered (losing side BR), then the instance is open for people to join your side for longer than the other side, but if you have an advantage, the instance is closed to your side sooner. If the other team gets reinforcements over and above your BR, then the instance re-opens for you to get help.

 

Or if a player calls for help from nation mates (changed reinforcements), then the instance stays open for them for longer, provided that they are on the disadvantaged side of the BR equation.

[KrakkenSmacken]

 

 

Invisibility should be shortened to 5-10 seconds and it should only be a way to balance the different loading times of players, not a time during which the player can try to sneak away from the possible people waiting outside. 

 

Sorry no, 

 

People waiting outside should not have a free run at leaving players.  They missed the battle, they should not be able to use that to their advantage by being able to jump anyone leaving before their sails have even fully powered up to attempt escape.

[Marcomies]

Sorry no, 

 

People waiting outside should not have a free run at leaving players.  They missed the battle, they should not be able to use that to their advantage by being able to jump anyone leaving before their sails have even fully powered up to attempt escape.

Did you read the entire suggestion? The invulnerability timer would be lengthened significantly and a speed boost would be added to it. The length of invulnerability would depend strongly on how the battle was started and a running defender would have significant advantage.

 

Edit. Also the complete suggestions includes reducing inertia and having faster turning in the world map mode because those don't currently make much sense on the scale of the world.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Marcomies