Lobby / Queueing System

[Cmdr RideZ]

ROE was a big topic in 2016.

When devs told that there will be NA and NAL the conversation around ROE ended, as there was no more use for it.  NA was meant to be unfair in every possible way and NAL for fair fights.  Many disagreed with this idea.  Signaling Perk is a product of those ROE conversations.  Players were asking a feature like Signaling Perk for all (SPA), but for some reason it came out as a perk.  SPA provides only good things if asked from me.  I do not know who invented it first but definitely something worth testing.

We don't even need this big green zones if we have SPA.  Easier to sail out from the GZ as players know they can always ask help from nation/clan.  Players who do ugly ganks or look for better PvP know that they are near enemy "Player Reinforcement Zone", so they know that X amount of players may come to help.

SPA makes it possible to have more good fights.  There can still be ganks, there can still be zergs, nothing is directly removed.  It can make it harder to make ugly ganks and zergs still, as people may actually join to help and want to have these about fair battles.

I cannot understand why devs don't want to test this.  Idea has been there probably 2 years already.

[GrubbyZebra]

17 hours ago, Liq said:

I dont understand why it would drag players away from OW.

Players interested in quick accessible battles already dont sail the OW - when we had the daily small battle challenge you saw a lot of names just logging in for that one battle and then log out again. They had no interest in ganking / getting ganked and most importantly wasting time in OW.

I don't think it will directly drag players away from OW necessarily (although there is some risk of that as players that are currently sailing to high-PvP areas of the map will might be reduced if they are in favor of the instant-action game), I think splitting the game resources will result in more failing to deliver on expectations of either group thus reducing the number of active players in both groups.

17 hours ago, Liq said:

Another thing I dont understand is the "meaningful PvP" all the sandbox lovers keep talking about. Meaningful in what way? Safezones with battles open 24/7 made it impossible to harass nations in their backyards. The only way of pvp that comes to my mind is freeports and pvp events, where players from all nations bring ships they are willing to risk, to have fun. Now if they lose that ship, sht happens, no big deal as it was disposable actively brought to that place.

Meaningful PvP is PvP that contributes to the RvR and economy/trade mechanics without any additional effort on the part of the involved players.

 

[AeRoTR]

 Not a lobby but picking missions, you have sail etc.

[SKurj]

I dunno what this signalling thing was....   it came and went while I was away from the game.

Crazy idea...   what if....

Get rid of AI support in safe zone, BUT...   if a player who has been attacked within the safezone, clicks F8, a mission appears in port, and any friendly player can join the battle as if it were directly from the lobby..  From within port, they click join and spawn within the battle.  and they get a bonus reward for joining, multiplier if they win or force the retreat of the attacker.

 

perhaps add br limitations ...

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by SKurj

[Cmdr RideZ]

Signaling left battle open for weaker side until BR balance had been reached.

[jodgi]

1 hour ago, SKurj said:

a mission appears in port, and any friendly player can join the battle as if it were directly from the lobby.

Something like this has been entertained as an idea. 

[jodgi]

On 25.3.2018 at 11:35 PM, Liq said:

Another thing I dont understand is the "meaningful PvP" all the sandbox lovers keep talking about.

Do. Not. Mention. The. War.

 

23 hours ago, Potemkin said:

 the old small battle challenges were quite fun and despite the autistic screaming of some people,

*snort*

I just try to get with the program of keeping whatever ideas I have in the OW. The rooms were taken out deliberately. Maybe things have changed since? I dunno. I loved the duel room and I spent all my time there.

[Slim McSauce]

ROE needs a change, the OW fights we have are almost all ganks, Once the battle closes no one can get in which is just boring and uninspired.

Some kind of in battle objective, or a meta that revolves around promoting consensual PVP, and doesn't lock in front of your face.

[Potemkin]

4 hours ago, jodgi said:

 

 

*snort*

I just try to get with the program of keeping whatever ideas I have in the OW. The rooms were taken out deliberately. Maybe things have changed since? I dunno. I loved the duel room and I spent all my time there.

I hear ya man. I guess my overall goal (when i started writing that) was to emphasize giving players in this game options on different ways to enjoy the game. Almost all aspects of this game require time, a commodity much of the player base does not have enough of to get the most out of what this game has to offer. I know the devs removed the small/large battles for several reasons. One i suspect was to try to get a playerbase started for NAL and i thought it was stated somewhere by admin that they were not being used enough. I get that, and either way ill deal with whatever finality comes about, but i think more options for players only benefits the game. Imho if the player(s) that only log onto NA for lobby events decides to go pvp with buddies or venture out to the patrol zones even once a month, its better than having that player pack his shit up and move on entirely from the game.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Potemkin