Limited Battle Timer is Anti-PvP

[Hethwill]

7 hours ago, Prater said:

This is a revenge fleet.

The battle took place at speed x1.  You sailed several dozen nautical miles at speed x75 to get there.  If you wanted it to be like real life, you should have to travel that distance in battle at speed x1.  There you go.  Travel at speed x1 and you can rightly get your fleet into battle.

Actually wasn't. Both the Agamemnon and Indefatigable, if the Farrago story is the same situation, were simply anchored somewhere west towards Cumana. Was way after the Victory situation Teutonic presents.

We were moving west out of the straits with no idea they were there and we caught them pants down, anchored... after their main fleet was going North.

The superior seamanship was simply separation and running fight ( that aggy was fast man, well done ). We called it off because bigger fish to fry.

They were not revenged after they exited. They couldn't be helped by their own main fleet which was actually also in battle more to the north.

The entire debacle brought up by Farrago actually shows what various squadrons can do. A group either sticks together or will get destroyed in detail.

Longer join timers ? No please.

[Tomms123]

6 hours ago, Cimbi said:

No offense but its not true.That time was huge battels because peoples joined from both sides(teleport).If someone joined in 14 minutes later after the battle started he was so far you was abel to leave the battle very easy.So yes i prefer that system if i went with my freinds and attack someone near to enemy capital we know we will be in disadvantage but we dealt with it.

Both system The short join timer plus battle screen and the short join timer without screen is the perfect setup for gankers.

I see that Prater already responded and he's correct, it was NEVER that way.

[Guruthos]

2 hours ago, The Red Duke said:

Actually wasn't. Both the Agamemnon and Indefatigable, if the Farrago story is the same situation, were simply anchored somewhere west towards Cumana. Was way after the Victory situation Teutonic presents.

We were moving west out of the straits with no idea they were there and we caught them pants down, anchored... after their main fleet was going North.

The superior seamanship was simply separation and running fight ( that aggy was fast man, well done ). We called it off because bigger fish to fry.

They were not revenged after they exited. They couldn't be helped by their own main fleet which was actually also in battle more to the north.

The entire debacle brought up by Farrago actually shows what various squadrons can do. A group either sticks together or will get destroyed in detail.

Longer join timers ? No please.

With the current taging sytem you can pick single ships out of a fleet if several do that at the same time you can split the fleet wich was nearly sailing into each other in ow into several single battles ... it's riddiculus ... open world distance not even a ship lengh but 2 seperated battles ... aswell i think longer join timers for battles are not the solution ... the can't join battle timers aswell have a reason ... so the only thing left is changing the system how to open a battle

[Farrago]

4 hours ago, The Red Duke said:

Actually wasn't. Both the Agamemnon and Indefatigable, if the Farrago story is the same situation, were simply anchored somewhere west towards Cumana. Was way after the Victory situation Teutonic presents.

We were moving west out of the straits with no idea they were there and we caught them pants down, anchored... after their main fleet was going North.

The superior seamanship was simply separation and running fight ( that aggy was fast man, well done ). We called it off because bigger fish to fry.

They were not revenged after they exited. They couldn't be helped by their own main fleet which was actually also in battle more to the north.

The entire debacle brought up by Farrago actually shows what various squadrons can do. A group either sticks together or will get destroyed in detail.

Longer join timers ? No please.

Yes, you and I, Red Duke, are talking about the same instance. I was just joking, btw, about escaping because of my superior seamanship. I was just plain lucky, perhaps by doing something unexpected in my slow Indefat. Anyway, we all spawned right in the middle of the returning Dutch main body. I think that is what Tenet is talking about.

i know increased, or rather NO timers is not a perfect solution but it seems like we've all come to a point where we're playing the timers, not the players. You guys and we have been dancing around for days with nice sized fleets and very little decisive is happening because timers restrict the combat.

Fair winds.

[Cimbi]

4 hours ago, Tomms123 said:

I see that Prater already responded and he's correct, it was NEVER that way.

Which part wasnt that way?

 

[Vllad]

 

I like your suggestion Tenet however I am also in favor of dumping all timers with exception of the exit timer. I would let anyone join who can join. The more the merrier. However I would show the join circles in the instance so people know where people could possibly come from. They can chose to run away from those or stay close by in the hopes others may arrive.

[Tomms123]

7 hours ago, Cimbi said:

Which part wasnt that way?

 

Well if you read what you wrote you would probably understand what I mean.

[Tomms123]

13 hours ago, Sir Lancelot Holland said:

Your sight range in the open world is 30-40 miles.  In real life it takes a bit of time for a ship to travel this distance.

In  a Surprise @ 12knts you are looking at a bit over 3 hours sailing, even if the wind was with you and at best point of sail you would be just about half way to the battle before it times out in game, In reality the battle may still be going on at 3 hours, many battles ran considerably longer.

We would all agree that 3,6, or 12 hour battles are simply not practical, if we were to say that a ship inside a 10 mile circle could, dependent on wind,  make it to the battle site in time to be effective would that be more reasonable?

What is saying that the battle will remain at the exact same position?

[Sir Lancelot Holland]

No sir, If we said that the two engaged ships were broadside to each other under battle sails and manoeuvring they would be moving away from the original site of the battle. it is unlikely that under battle sails they would be making more than @ 8 knts in 3 hours they will have travelled @24 nautical miles probably a little less as they will have making turns to attempt to gain or keep the wind gauge.

The ship entering the battle would be carrying as much sail as she can to get into the battle, if she is astern of the fight then she has a 4 knot overtake speed and at 12 knots would travel 36 nautical miles, so if she was 10 miles behind and the battle has moved 24 miles in a little under 3 hours the ship will have caught up with the battle and be @ 24 miles from where the battle began.   

If damage to sails and rigging are taken into consideration, or one or both ships have been dismasted then the over taking vessel will take less time to catch up and the distance from the start of the battle will be shorter.

Think of it as travelling on a road, you are 10 kph faster than the car ahead, eventually you will catch up, when you catch up to him  neither car will be at the same position that they started from, but further down the road.