Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) Having read the most posts about the topic, I might try a new thread, either to clarify the situation and/or to come up with a new approach. Also, because I was touched by a negative NA-review on Steam... The review on STEAM (he played 22h) was in German and translates as: "I bought the game, as it was reviewed so greatly here on Steam. 22h later there is nothing new and challenging. The game is about sailing and sailing for hours and searching for missions and new loot. Seafights take a lot of time and the game is confusing. I loved playing Sid Meier "Pirates" and I was hoping for something similar here, but it should not be... There are those spacehip games, where you spend hours and hours in the space and research and craft things or look for some easy "victims" to loot...this game is very much like it..." The ADMIN would state, if you are bored, go PVP ! What is this call for "going PvP" all about ? Is it only hunting for victims ? Also, I want to give a follow-up discussion on the thread...to PvP or not to PVP, which has the majority voting for No limits, free for all PvP (43 votes [54.43%])... Before you reply to this post, give me some time, I want to split it in 1-2 new posts...getting some coffee.... P.S.: As being wished, I summarize the suggestions of the following post, that you can decide before if you want to read it: i) new approach: extensive battle timer for defenders = 30 minutes necessarily linked to a BR limit. ii) UPGRADES are either available through loot (as before), but the ability to craft them, is linked to your PvP experience. So, upgrade crafting XP is no more linked to the ship crafting, but now to your PVP activity. Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thp Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 I loved Sid Meier Pirate, I played the first version too long time before when with my old pc 286, but it s a pve game and you mainly have quests to tell you what to do. This is a sandbox game that means you set up yourself the quests you want to do ( exemple for me and some of my friends : Building up the Republic of Pirate and destroy the British Empire ).But some of us just want to hunt down traders, some other people want to sail all around the maps and discover as many ports as possible,.... For PvP Is it only hunting for victims : you dont need to hunt for victims , you can also hunt the hunters. Use your imagination and try to set up your own quests in game and you ll enjoy the sandbox game things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) Before you reply to this post, give me some time, I want to split it in 1-2 new posts...getting some coffee.... Maybe, here you only need to say "A" and someone shows up saying; "Hey, you can also say B, it is fun !" Sorry, mate...reading helps... Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) To clarify the situation, a good approach is to work with "if or case scenarios", looking at 2 topics always: i) incentives ii) playability I skip c) (realism). Realistic would be to have an open world, where you could at any time enter any battle, by getting informed either by news, sight or the sound of cannon balls. It is not playable, as I will state later... Case 1: 7 British ships (5 3rd rate, 1 Renno, 1 Pavel) appear at Mortimer, late at night. What are they doing there? Obviously, they look for some PvP, some "fighting". Instantly you get the message: "7 Brits south of MT". Current game: every pirate hiding, uncoordinated action. 1 or 2 unaware pirates get "tagged" by the Reno, Battle timer 2 minutes apply. 7 Brits beat 2 Pirates (3rd rate, Trinc) easily. Reinforcements won´t arrive due to the battle timer. Before players can react or they don´t have interest (not my business). The situation is surely different at 20.00 CET, with heavy traffic at MT, but knowing this, the Brits knew why they came late. outcome: the Brits are happy (are they?), the 2 beaten Pirates not, especially as they have calling for "help" and nobody helped. i) incentinves: the Brits would do it again at 4am, defenders must react quickly ii) playability: playable, favours attackers Case 2: 7 British ships (5 3rd rate, 1 Renno, 1 Pavel) appear at St. Nicholas during day time. What are they doing there? Obviously, they look for some PvP, or they are a "screen fleet". Instantly you get the message: "7 Brits near St. Nicholas". Current game: 1 or 2 unaware pirates get "tagged" by the Reno, Battle timer 2 minutes apply. Many players would like to join and help defenders, they cannot. 7 Brits beat 2 Pirates easily. Reinforcements won´t arrive due to distance / battle timer. outcome: the Brits are happy (are they?), the 2 beaten Pirates not, especially as they have calling for "help" and nobody helped. i) incentives: the Brits would do it again, defenders want to help, unlikely they can ii) playability: playable, favours attackers new approach: extensive battle timer for defenders = 30 minutes necessarily linked to a BR limit. Assume, the battle timer is 30 minutes, in both cases 1+2, the attacker will get swarmed by defenders and lose badly. i) incentives: the Brits would NEVER do it again, it kills any PvP, defenders loved it ii) playability: non-playable Assume, the battle timer is 30 minutes, adding a BR limit of 1 for the defender. In case 1 and 2 the battle is open for 30 minutes and the 2 tagged defender might call for help. The attackers pick on the 1-2 defenders, expecting reinforcements might arrive. i) incentives: Brits would do it, more tension added, expecting reinforcements. defenders have an icentive calling friends in, the attackers are "protected" by the BR limit. The defenders can never be bigger in BR than the attacker. It leaves the advantage to the attacker, as they are organized, also they can close the battle by killing the defender quickly, anyhow, giving them the initiative and advantage in battle. Why would any Defender join a lost cause? First of all, there is a chance of winning, secondly I´d always try to help a friend being tagged, I don´t need to bring my best ship. Both sides get bigger fights... ii) playability: playable Entering the game, as a new player, you are quickly "lost". You would like to help somewhere, but you can never help any player defending, the only thing you can do is actively doing "victim hunting" yourself or wait for a Port Battle. In any case, you need to be part of a clan or bigger group. As a new player, you can make "new friends" by helping out someone. Helping any outnumbered ship is a social act ("socialising"). Would this approach "harm" PvP as we know it? Well, a single PvP-hunter will not be effected, as he expects to be hunted, thereby picking escape-ships (Reno, Privateer...). If he picks on a bigger ship, new defenders cannot enter...you could combine the existing system with the new one, so that the attacker can get beaten. Case 3: 1 Trinc (BR 180) is on the chase. He taggs a Surprise. Applying the new battle timer, only a Cerberus (or lower) might enter. A friend of the Surprise, though, a Belle Poule (BR 150) is nearby and wants to help. He cannot. i) incentives: Trinc is safe of getting beaten. Defenders won´t win easily. ii) playability: playable Case 4: Same as 3. Battle timer 2 min applies. After the 2min battle timer, the 30min battle timer applies. The BellePoule, being called by his friend on TS might join quickly. If he cannot make it in time, he is "out". i) incentives: Trinc needs to be more careful. Can get ganked. Never safe of getting beaten early on. Defenders/friend have an incentive to stay in touch. Still the TRINC needs to play "good" in order to be ready for any incoming new defender (Cerberus or lower). ii) playability: playable By adjusting the battle timer and linking it to a suitable BR, you can create new incentives to the game. The attacker should not be "beaten" by a broader battle timer, but could also gain more fun by attracting more defense. The defender gets a chance to call in help and players get a better feeling about getting help. further addition: New incentive added. If I like "defending", I might fill my outposts with Frigates and Trincs to be ready whenever needed. Give me 2 Teleports. If I get an instant "call for arms", I teleport back to Mortimer, I teleport to the outpost. Go on the Frigate, getting a rough description where to go and help. I have 30 minutes. I make it to the battle, I get beaten on my basic Frigate, but have a lot of fun. Or I might "rescue" the outnumbered player, therby having a new friend ingame. ---------- ---------- Why should I make the trip to St. Nicholas, if I get the emergency call on the pirate chat ? Well, right now, it is frustrating. You cannot do anything. Even if you could, many won´t care, wouldn´t they? How are the incentives set for PvP? Double XP. Right. Assuming that most players hit max. XP lvl quickly and considering the possible loss of a ship, joining a defensive fight is still not so attractive. Still, I´d go there as PvP is more fun than any other PvE mission. Also, I know for sure I get a fight (unlike waiting infront of a free town). I´d go, others won´t. Promoting PvP: I´d skip the double XP for PvP, and add another feature to it. UPGRADES are either available through loot (as before), but the ability to craft them, are linked to your PvP experience. So, upgrade crafting XP is no more linked to the ship crafting, but now to your PVP activity. The more active you are as a captain (including Port Battles, but I´d favour more open PvP), the greater is your growth in UPGRADE crafting XP. You only get access to GOLD upgrades, if you are a great PvP-player. One might think of Realm-points or some fancy titles, but I´d certainly favour some real incentive, unlocking something important features... i) incentives: boost to PvP. Does not apply to PvE server. PvE-only players are somehow limited (they should). They still can get good upgrades through loot. You can adjust the loot drop. This makes drops also more "valuable", as you might not craft them. ii) playability: playable Final words: I hate "ganking" myself. Being a pirate, it happened I was bored, went out on my Santissima tagging a 3rd rate pirate. I won easily, it made me feel bad. Certainly, this guy had no chance calling anyone in for helping him.... I was thinking of this "boy" who posted on Steam and thought: "Am I being a dick now, looking for easy victims"? I learned my lesson, looking for "victims" is nothing for me, I want good fights with the possibility of loosing badly if I play badly...if this game cannot produce good fights in a reasonable playing time, so be it... Case 1 happened to myself. I saw the 7 Brits, tried to group up with others, got a group of three 3rd rates + me on the St. Pavel. I approached the group. Resulting in: attacker: 1 Pavel, 5 3rd rate, 1 Reno defender: 1 Pavel, 2 3rd rate, 1 Trinc One 3rd rate needed repairs in Mt, he did not make it into the battle, one 3rd rate + one Trinc quickly escaped, I was left with one 3rd rate. Easy situation and outcome clear. No one from MT entering on a 2min timer. 7 vs. 2 was boring. Even thinking of a 7 vs. 7, the attacking group is in favour to win it, as they are on TS and coordinated. I´d fancied a 7 vs. 5 at least, but 7 vs. 2 is just "slaugthering" the defensive side. After being demasted and putting up a hell of a fight, they wanted to board me. right, you can get my ship on a 7 vs. 5 at least, but not on a 7 vs. 2 After the first boarding attempt, I play the "dick game" myself, I surrender and here we go. I´d certainly let them have the ship, if there is any chance of winning, even if it is only a 5% chance. But not this way. Would I enter them again? No way, I´d hide in Mortimer Town, leaving them alone, not getting them any fight. So, is this a game only played by "victim hunter" and do I nessesarily need to turn into one? Any meaningful comments and discussions welcome now. (try to create "cases" and if-scenarios to make yourself understandable, like, assume I am on a privateer and so on...why this would not work or what might happen then...) P.S.: Oh, and yes... No limits, free for all PvP (43 votes [54.43%])... Simply does not make any sense, and´d kill any attacking PvP... Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thp Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Maybe, here you only need to say "A" and someone shows up saying; "Hey, you can also say B, it is fun !" Sorry, mate...reading helps... Sorry you missunderstand me, I wasnt trying to argue against you, I didnt mean to say " You are wrong, I m right !" I thought you want to say this is boring and you dont know what to do, that s why I was trying to help and show you what you can do in a sandbox game. The second part of your post has nothing to do with the first part actually, I think you can also edit your first post and add in the same one too or maybe it s wrong idea, it will be too long. You took 1 page or maybe more to say may I resume as it " we need a longer timer for defenders, to allow reinforcement for people that have been ganked " you go to lose a lot of people by writting a so long post to say something that s very easy with 1 sentence. I understand your idea and what you want to do, but favour defender too much wont help people against gankers, actually ganker always find a way to gank as players always find a way to take the advantage of the game mechanics. If you played this game before the wipe you would know it, (when there were very strong reinforcement from AI ), the british navy come to Mortimer in big fleet, hide their main ships behind the horizon, let 1 small ship come closer and wait for some newbie pirates attacked, then all their big fleet behind just join in and gank everyone. If favour the defender too much, people just dont attack anymore but wait for other to attack first. By some of my experiences in pvp game from the past, no matters how we try there s no game mechanics that can really avoid that unless changing all the game into PVE. In my opinion, the best way against ganker = gank them, the best way against PKers, PK them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) i) You took 1 page or maybe more to say may I resume as it " we need a longer timer for defenders, to allow reinforcement for people that have been ganked " you go to lose a lot of people by writting a so long post to say something that s very easy with 1 sentence. ii) If you played this game before the wipe you would know it, (when there were very strong reinforcement from AI ), the british navy come to Mortimer in big fleet, hide their main ships behind the horizon, let 1 small ship come closer and wait for some newbie pirates attacked, then all their big fleet behind just join in and gank everyone. If favour the defender too much, people just dont attack anymore but wait for other to attack first. --------- --------- to i) I said more than that. Loosing people? Hopefully, the ones not taking there time and commenting in a proper manner, have no interest in the game mechanics, I don´t need them to read it. Hopefully, it puts them off. Mainly, the ADMIN needs to read it and counter-argument me...hopefully... to ii) Of course, I knew it. It was kind of "exploiting" the reinforcement mechanics. Actually, my approach simulates the AI-reinforcements mechanics. Moreover, having spoken to some "attacking gankers", they like it. They´d still be favourites to win, being organised and on TS. Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 So as soon as the attacking party leaves the battle, if they get attacked themselves they need to defend against 30 minutes of reinforcements? It's a very in-elegant solution that would lead to a lot of frustration. Current 1.5BR / 2 min system at least has the ease of use going for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) So as soon as the attacking party leaves the battle, if they get attacked themselves they need to defend against 30 minutes of reinforcements? It's a very in-elegant solution that would lead to a lot of frustration. Current 1.5BR / 2 min system at least has the ease of use going for it. He? Why is that? "The attacking party leaves the battle? They get attacked?" Yes, and? They are defenders then...2min battle timer applies + 30 min battle timer on their defense... Cite please...I don´t get it... As I stated, best ist, to come up with a case XY, that I see the flaws in the approach and how it does not work...like 6 ships attack 2 ships, then this happens and so on.... Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 So wait, there's a 30 minute timer and 2 minute timer? It would be easier if you were to just write the idea down without all the sidetracking ^^' I really couldn't care less what "dick games" you play... You propose a 2 minute timer without a locked BR, and a 30 minute reinforcement timer for defending side locked to never go above 1:1 BR, is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) So wait, there's a 30 minute timer and 2 minute timer? It would be easier if you were to just write the idea down without all the sidetracking ^^' I really couldn't care less what "dick games" you play... You propose a 2 minute timer without a locked BR, and a 30 minute reinforcement timer for defending side locked to never go above 1:1 BR, is that right? Basically. I did not care about the anti-ganking system (1.5 and 2 min or without), if it works now. It seems okay, having seen the reviews. So, go with the system that is currently installed. Just extending or applying a 30 min (any suitable, I think 30 min is just the time you need to get from any capital somewehre or teleport to an outpost and make the trip...can be less or higher...) battle timer for the defense. Yes. BR cannot exceed 1:1, as attackers cannot be discouraged. Second suggestion was: UPGRADES are either available through loot (as before), but the ability to craft them, are linked to your PvP experience. So, upgrade crafting XP is no more linked to the ship crafting, but now to your PVP activity. P.S.: I knew I could count on you Galileus, being the first one posting.... Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) >> I really couldn't care less what "dick games" you play... You should care. I am thinking of school boys wanting to play an Age of Sails game or Pirate game, without getting insulted, humiliated or threatened via chat or getting "ganked" or trolled by other players because they don´t like how they play pirates...or any other nation... Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 >> I really couldn't care less what "dick games" you play... You should care. I am thinking of school boys wanting to play an Age of Sails game or Pirate game, without getting insulted, humiliated or threatened via chat or getting "ganked" or trolled by other players because they don´t like how they play pirates...or any other nation... Wai... what? Why are you doing this? What? I like the idea of having 10-15 minutes reinforcement (1:1 BR limit) timer inside port protection circle, it would for sure make it easier to find PvP. I don't like this topic, I am scared of all the side-tracking, I don't know what is going on and in general I will probably avoid going further into any of it... ^^' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 I am only talking of "how can you promote this game, make it more user friendly, more casual friendly, less toxic". In a sense, that you could pass it over to your sun or daughter with a clear conscience. (I am not talking of whaling or colouring ships...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bach Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Before you can encourage "pvp" or discourage "victim hunting". You have to define what those are and if broaden our view beyond the infamous offered "gank scenario" it's a bit more problematic. You also have to decide if you want to simulate a war or a sporting match. One requires the trategy tactics and grit of a lord NELSON, Stephen dcateur or Napoleon. The other requires no more that the tactics of a Mike Tyson, Ronda roused or David beckham. Wars, after all, aren't fair and making them fair goes against most every battle strategy ever taught. Sporting events, on the other hand, are all about being fair. Also you have some that think fair fights are the height of challenge. Which is historically untrue. 1v1 is the lowest level of challenge. It is where challenge begins. 1v2 is a higher challenge. 1v3 higher still. 6v20 is ace level. Napoleon made a name for himself fighting the Italians against 3-1 odds. If the Italians had been forced to fight Napoleon 1v1 then Napoleon wouldn't have been anything special. Thermopylae is a historical legend of a battle. But if the Persian were forced to use 300v300 we wouldn't ever remember it. War and Great Battles arent about fair. Now sporting events are the other side of the coin. Everyone has heard if Foreman v Ali as an epic ring match. Some World Cup matches go down in history too. But these are sporting events and they have to be fair. Mike Tyson can dominate the ring 1v1. Put three boxers in with him and perhaps not so much. Put him in a ring with a special forces soldier and remove the rules protecting Tyson and ge probably dies there. Sporting matches need forced rules to make them fair. So do you want to simulate a war or a sporting match? Scenarios all change from points of view. Gank scenario from lone victim point of view. These 6 guys that probably kick puppies when they aren't playing the game grabbed my ship because they are too afraid to fight anyone fairly. This unrealistic lunacy tends to prevail in forums with the negative natured of the readers. Gank scenario but from the soldiers point of view. Six men role playing a British patrol squadron come across a lone guy sailing off Jamaica hunting British mission runners. To protect the homeland and the British mission runners they engage the enemy as they are supposed too. 6v1 they sink him and continue their patrol in the war zone. Gank scenario but from the pirate hunter point of view. Off Jamaica a lone Pirate frigate has jumped a British training frigate with a new crew. They have little to no chance in the 1v1 against the veteran pirate. So the pirate hunters does what he is supposed to do but now the battle isn't fair by numbers even if it is by skill. You simply can't assume every offset contest in a war zone is a bad thing. But you can at a sporting event. The more rules you throw in to force fairness the closer you get to a sporting event and the further you get from a war zone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) Asking friends to show up in a defensive fight will not make it 1 vs. 1. I´d love to join every fight to make it 4 vs. 8, instead of 1 playing 1 vs. 8. And honestly, we are talking of game desgin, open water. Your "war" tactics don´t apply. You think different? I want to do a 5 Surprise vs. 1 Surprise with you 100 times....then we can see how much Napoleon ace stuff is inside you.... Do it like GALILEUS. Ask what the suggeston is about and tell me if u like it or not ? Or why it might FAIL !? Do you like extended battle timers for the sake of defense and grouping? Do you like PvP being linked with unlocking "upgrades" and being able to craft them only after lots of PvP? Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migui Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Well you know, it was usual back then to look at the enemy ships and downsize your fleet because it would not be "fair" to fight them with bigger numbers. /s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) ...and it was usual back then, to "tag" 1 ship infront of a capital and shoot it to pieces without any reincforcments coming from that port? No sarcasm needed....sorry. Please, stick to the proposal and the arguments... Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bach Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Asking friends to show up in a defensive fight will not make it 1 vs. 1. I´d love to join every fight to make it 4 vs. 8, instead of 1 playing 1 vs. 8. And honestly, we are talking of game desgin, open water. Your "war" tactics don´t apply. You think different? I want to do a 5 Surprise vs. 1 Surprise with you 100 times....then we can see how much Napoleon ace stuff is inside you.... Do it like GALILEUS. Ask what the suggeston is about and tell me if u like it or not ? Or why it might FAIL !? Do you like extended battle timers for the sake of defense and grouping? Do you like PvP being liked with unlocking "upgrades" anf being able to craft them only after lots of PvP? The 6v20 are fights I have already fought in this game and they were memorable. Its not impossible. Maybe we might not be Napoleon in a 1v3 in Surprises but the one battle won will be more memorable than a 100 1v1 battles in Surprises. My worry is that you would dumb down the war zone into a sporting match. I'm not an arena player I find limited variable 1v1 fights boring over time. Eventually the moves used versus different battle platforms all become repetitive. But fighting in a live battlefield where anything can happen and anything goes is about as exciting as it gets to me. I think the suggestion will fail in the aspects of it that remove variables from a warzone. Sure it will attract some players but its going to remove others as it is to favored to one particular play style. I'm not sure I like extended battle timers. I don't totally dislike it either. I would have to play with it a bit. In generally anything that allows a group of players that joined the game together to stay together 100% of the time is a good thing for gaming. I do like pvp unlocks for upgrades. That's just me personally. I can see where some econ centric players might not feel the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) Extended timer? I personally don´t think it would change so much. Defenders stay "victims" (used this descreption only as an eye-catcher), being outnumbered. Very unlikly, defenders will match the 1:1 BR in time. Certainly, it would help to create "a player"-driven capital port defense zone. No artificial AI-reinf. needed. Yes, it is about "testing". If not know, when??? Like 1-5 BR anti-ganking. TEST IT.... Edited April 17, 2016 by Wilson09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bach Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) Like 1-5 BR anti-ganking. TEST IT.... Been testing this all week. In the typical hypothetical gank scenario it works just fine. The problems we have found are in its ability to be exploited to create atypical gank scenarios. It has the ability to give the smarter gank teams the ability to control the server computer to have it protect them from counter ganks, rescues or otherwise player driven responses. In these instances the ganking or raiding force get unrealistic advantages in protection once they learn how to abuse the new rules. In short this rule does more to stop rescues than it does to stop ganks. It also promotes lighter fail fit faster ships over heavier tankier ships. Edited April 17, 2016 by Bach 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 17, 2016 Author Share Posted April 17, 2016 Hope, someone can catch up on the second thought....not that I like all of my ideas, but this one ? ii) UPGRADES are either available through loot (as before), but the ability to craft them, is linked to your PvP experience. So, upgrade crafting XP is no more linked to the ship crafting, but now to your PVP activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porpoise Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 The more artificial and complicated system we get, the less entertaining the game will be. Coordinated groups have always advantage and it should be kept that way. This is only another attempt to help people who got cought. It might not be completely bad idea, but 30minutes timer is little bit much extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vllad Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Do you like extended battle timers for the sake of defense and grouping? Do you like PvP being linked with unlocking "upgrades" and being able to craft them only after lots of PvP? No I don't like it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamz Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 "How to find PvP" is definitely a weakness of this game. Frontlines shift too fast. Reliable PvP can be hard to pin down. You make a PvP base today and it's invalid next week (or tomorrow). Ends up being that the only real reliable place to PvP is outside the home port of one of the major teams. A new player won't figure that out easily, and he's going to be pissed about the 4 hour sail to get there and then he's going to be trying to do it in a Basic Cutter with no good access to other ships, and it's going to take him 200 hours of gameplay to get into something decent to PvP with, etc, etc, etc. And THAT is why I keep pushing for some kind of "front line" mechanic -- something to focus PvP action in definite areas (which could then be highlighted on the map). Slow it down, give shipmakers the ability to populate the local market with ships. There's a lot to think about in terms of making this happen but the bottom line I see is: * We need game mechanics that help concentrate PvP * We need game mechanics that support getting to that PvP and staying there (to the extent you can afford to) * You should only need to back away from it because you need more money (ships) * New players should be able to easily figure out where fights are happening Patrolling the backwaters should always be an option, of course, but fights should be easier to find. To much of this game's PvE content and drive-to-level causes PvP to be hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson09 Posted April 18, 2016 Author Share Posted April 18, 2016 Patrolling the backwaters should always be an option, of course, but fights should be easier to find. This has been mentioned several times. Who is going to patrol around ? (=work) Even if I got paid, you will never see me doing this... I´d do the dishes nearby missing any enemy... 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