To PvP or Not to PvP...

[Taranis]

1. Some argue that PvP should be limited to players in the same ship, one on one or in teams of players (again in the same ship).
2. Others argue that PvP should have constraints as presently attempted in the game (BR limitations)
3. Others yet argue that PvP should not have limitations, but that the game should afford safe zones and the ability for players that want to be exempt from pvp to have that option at character generation.
4. Then, there are those that argue that no holds should be bared: full pvp - no limits.

 

Which do you prefer?  Do you have a better solution to PvP?

[Jack Frost]

I argue that we need to test the current patch a little more before we start posting polls all over the forums. People need to make an informed decision. Right now most people are reacting out of emotion or whatever they think might happen. Lets experience this system first a little while.

[Xander Tyrann]

I'm for timers but not BR limitations, I guess that puts it under 2 but I feel like it then misses the current issue as both pre and post patch are option 2.

[Marcomies]

I'm not completely against anti-ganking mechanics but I think the current limit system will be exploited in various ways. The br limit should only limit the attacker side, not the defender and the post battle/invisibility system should be adjusted for this instead of having system like this adjusted for them. In general, if player is sailing in area where getting ganked is very likely (near an enemy capital for example) he should get ganked. Not taking the bait in front of enemy harbor is something players should just learn, it's common sense.

 

Making PVE characters on PVP server should not be possible, that's what the PVE server is for. PVE characters on PVP server would undermine the whole player driven economy and PVP strategy. Safe zone should be limited to immediate vicinity of nation capitals and their main purpose should be to offer new players a bit safer and beginner friendly environment to do their first missions in and to prevent capitals from being blockaded.

[maturin]

These polls are not remotely useful at this point, except for cluttering the forum with no-content threads that are always bumped to the first page.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with your thread in particular, but the point stands.

[Dekillos]

Only timers to join fights and timers for undock\login for preventing login and undock traps. No BR limits.

Incoming players should come far from battle.

Edited April 13, 2016 by DekTo (Dekillos)

[Vllad]

These polls are not remotely useful at this point, except for cluttering the forum with no-content threads that are always bumped to the first page.

 

 

You were singing a different tune when the poll was about reducing free for all PVP. The admin certainly got their information from somewhere about 80% of the people not wanting ganking. How did they arrive at such a number? Maybe it was a poll?

[Vllad]

I think pvp should be completely open.

 

If you want to play arena style PVP games then I am all for equal sides. For RvR games or games with RvR components you can't restrict who can participate. Otherwise it negates the very reason for team vs team play.

 

RvR is about the tactical and strategic control of the game. Those pieces don't exist unless the entire team can participate in those functions. Area of control, raiding or "insert your mechanic here" all rely on massive team on team play. I get that their are system limitations but the best RvR games ever made had free for all PVP. It is the core component to successful RvR.

 

If it isn't free for all then the RvR will die. You can't have one without the other as many other failed projects have proven.

[Slamz]

I would make time limits and BR limits separate poll items. They are completely different concepts.

 

Time limits make sense. If we are fighting outside the west coat of Cuba you should not be able to join us if you were near Haiti when the fight started.

 

BR limits are pure artificial manipulation.

 

I voted "no limits" but really I'm not opposed to time (distance) limits.

 

I think I would actually like to make the time limit something like 30 seconds but then greatly increase the join distance (triple?). This would allow people outside the circle (but nearby) to quickly join in regardless of wind but would absolutely prevent invulnerable port jumpers from getting in.

 

 

 

("Captain's Log, day 2 at sea. Found an ally being killed by pirates. Decided not to help because my ship was too big and it would have been unfair to the pirates." -- ideal gameplay according to some NA forum members.)

[Taranis]

Fair point about the BR limitation issue being distinct from the timer based one.  I have argued in favor of tiered BR limitations for PB myself as a means of balancing both sides and addressing the concern of the crushing Zergs with 25 1st rates bulldozing the map.  PB are IMHO very different from OW PvP - which is what i was hopping the get feedback on.

 

If anything, contrary to some previously stated arguments, we all seem to agree that PvP should not be restricted to just players in exactly the same ships - so the desire for balance seems to only go so far. 

 

Also worth noting that there are at least as many players that want less restriction on PvP than those presently attempted by the devs in game...  I know, i know: 45 votes is not a very statistically significant sample size - yet we are somewhat far and away from the "80% of players want this" impression that may have otherwise been gathered by just listening to "the squeaky wheels".

[Marcomies]

If anything, contrary to some previously stated arguments, we all seem to agree that PvP should not be restricted to just players in exactly the same ships - so the desire for balance seems to only go so far. 

 

Also worth noting that there are at least as many players that want less restriction on PvP than those presently attempted by the devs in game...  I know, i know: 45 votes is not a very statistically significant sample size - yet we are somewhat far and away from the "80% of players want this" impression that may have otherwise been gathered by just listening to "the squeaky wheels".

The game is open world MMO where ships and equipment can be lost for good and resources are limited. It's not an arena style game so PVP with only matching ships/BR is out of question. I think many of the players originally asking for completely even fights were hoping the final game to have a structure more similar to WoWS or the sea trials for example.

 

While I enjoy an occasional 1 vs 1 encounter (and I have been ganked more times than I have taken part to ganking), even fight is rarely worth offering from a tactical or strategic point of view. I'm personally not completely against limiting the most tasteless ganking possibilities (e.g. 10 constis vs 1 cutter) to some extent but the implemented BR limit is adding more problems and unfairness than it fixes, with the main causes of the most serious unfair ganking problems (post-battle screen and invisibility) remaining unfixed and unaddressed.

 

I think the main reason "no limits" is getting so many votes is that you bundled the BR difference and battle-timer into the same option, the timer being a tool to compensate for the different time and distance scale of the open world and battle mode rather than a pure anti-gangking measure. Opinion polls that go beyond yes/no/maybe or red/blue/green are rarely of much use.

[Lisa-Azra]

I have gone to enemy waters for some PvP fun and had battles with me in a Surprise facing an entire navy with 3rds and Conis. Puts me off from doing it again. Being gangbanged is not fun and what does it say for the nation that does that? 

[victor]

I have gone to enemy waters for some PvP fun and had battles with me in a Surprise facing an entire navy with 3rds and Conis. Puts me off from doing it again. Being gangbanged is not fun and what does it say for the nation that does that? 

 

For incursions in enemy waters, you shall use a fir, speed fitted, Renommee: in each fight (unless you meet other renos or some good trinco captains) if you know how to countertag and position after you are tagged you can amost always choose if you want to stay and fight or just leaving the combat.

Edited April 15, 2016 by victor

[Ser_Slack]

Open pvp with no BR restrictions. I'm also in favor of a longer timer. Maybe not 5 minutes but longer than 2 minutes.

[Bach]

Been testing this patch for a few days now. I cast my vote informed.

I think the biggest problem that leads to offset battles isn't numbers so much as invisible boats. If playe see 10 sails on the horizon they can take steps to avoid being overwhelmed. But invisible ships coming from hidden battles and ports don't give realistic warning time. I think it would be better if all battles remained visible on the OS (swords and ship count) and the port exit invul timer should be lengthened > the battle join timer. This would get rid of invisible groups of ships appearing right on top of you.

Another nice feature would be if the battles appeared on the game map as just crossed swords in the relative position. This would let players know where battles were taking place and speed up finding actions. It would also tell players when the home waters were under assault and needed their help. Give the players a better chance to patrol their own home waters.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Bach

[Precious Roy]

1. Avoiding pvp when you don't want it can be fun and rewarding in itself. Awareness and strategy keep sailing fresh.

2. Rather than intrusive restrictions keep a reasonable chance of escape based on tactics. Make a surrender that has pros and cons for both sides, doesn't work if she ship is irreversibly sinking or burning.

[Rabbi-Marshall Sanderberg]

2-week old player with around 6 active (maybe 9 total) dudes I've gotten into this game with me. So all of our perspectives are that of nearly brand-new players. Likely around for the "long haul", unless something miraculous shows up on the horizon.

 

I'm very confident that every one of my dudes would be in favor of unrestricted PvP or PvP with minimal restrictions like smallish safezones around national capitals.

[Porpoise]

If there is a BR limitation introduced (for example you cannot attack a snow in a frigate) then there is no reason for having anything but ships of the line in the game. The 90% of naval warfare in the age of sail was about disrupting the trade routes and capturing small, mostly unarmed vessels with frigate size ships. These ships are designed to do that, with superior speed which helps them to run away when being chased.

The nations and older players are responsible for guarding their space and repelling the intruders. Small ships have enough speed in most cases to run away from frigates. If players do not pay attention to intel, or the intel is not provided, then it is players fault, do not blame game mechanics for that.

Any limitation in a sandbox game is bad. I know there must be some mechanics and rules, but do not try to make the game equal vs. equal. It would take out the fun from the hunt away from the game.

 

I play for 3 months now, was killed once in PVP by 2 ships of similar size. When I was tagged by larger ships, I always managed to escape and I have solid number of solo/small gang victories on my account. The way how to do it is simple. Do not use big, slow ships in the OW alone. My favorite ships are Renommee, Surprise and Trincomalee, they can manage nearly every situation if you are not surprised in the OW. But with all those players who just grind with their 3rd rates it is really a golden age for small frigate gangs moving quickly trough the hostile territory.

[Sturer Guenther]

I like it how it actually is