jodgi

No, I can't be bothered when we "want more pvp" while ignoring the root issue why ppl don't fight. Go ahead and make OW like a shitty matchmaker, it's not like I'm OW's greatest fan so when you collectively want to ruin OW I might as well step aside because this will serve me more than any of you. Let's do round two or three of pleasing the "I want to help my friends" crowd.

I can help you, what part of this is the problem? Also, bless your pure Legends heart, brother!

You're welcome!

How DARE you slam the virgin with a top-hat on a stick with the retarded testicle lion!!?!!?!?!?

Oh, beautiful Cecilia! You've never been mine, I only got to hold you in my arms for a brief moment... Now you will be mine at last.

Nah, eco and loss is more important.

Thank you! It sure is a beautiful dream!

Watching ATLAS videos actually does me good. I get bullied so much here for being a pvp-on-demand lightweight but ATLAS reminds me I have hello kittying standards.

Don't forget that many people complained about all the false flags and campaigned against flags.

Yes, we caught up on that. Quite a few wanted to join RAKERS but most silently dissappeared when they were expected to submit to the rather harsh training. They don't, that is exactly why I attack eco and the gear grind. Yes! And I've said so very publicly for years. While keeping eco(loss)?... No idea.

YT vid is up @z4ys Don't put it on repeat to inflate the analytics! I'm honestly curious if people in need actually search and find it.

Yet that is what they intend to do. I've noticed the campaign to do what you suggest, but admin has been quite clear about keeping both.

Visual diff mostly. Classic sits higher in the water making her a very comfortable gun platform but also slightly bigger target. Four front chasers. I'm also curious about how to get classic...

Unlikely.

Drawn by hand on paper and scanned. I wanted to impress you, senpai.

That would be a qualitative study, I'm hoping OW mechanics are to be based on quantitative findings. Yup, I'm pretty sure. But here admin could come swooping in and smacking me around with statistics proving me wrong... or the opposite. Like I said earlier; Admin wants big battles, he held on to long timers for a long time. Two years after our multi-national and multi-clan campaign to get wysiwyg timers we're back at 2 min timers. (We asked for 90 sec. timers that gives a bello with the weather gauge true wysiwyg) Heh, I still cry myself to sleep over losing Legends. Yes, I'm an airhead that really likes PvP-on-demand. But if we are to have an OW then that world must matter as far as time and space is concerned, that is my opinion, taste or feeling on the matter. I'm semi-ok with PZ's as it seems to provide a focus point for people who want a fight, I wouldn't object if you were to describe PZ's as a sloppy bandaid, as things have been I prefer the bandaid over nothing. It's ok to have a LOL area if everyone knows where the LOL is, I'm not ok with making the entire OW into a LOL area. Opinion. I stay away from capital areas, actually. It's been a very long time since I did an arranged duel, it's such a hassle and time consuming. I will set aside max time for the upcoming duel PZ and I'll cry every time that falls on a day I'm unable to play. I don't have access to the statistics but I suppose there is an increase in lopsidedness (bigger but one side tend to snowball more than the other) and decrease in battle frequency. OW is what I have and I don't want to shit on OW (time/space) to get a fight. To me that would be one step forward and two steps back. I want to be involved in making my own pvp and not teleport or hyperspace into other people's fights. I refuse to join you guys with playing it loose and fast with OW. Thank you! @rediii is my inspiration: Point to where this "happy medium" is! The only thing I wish I could ignore is the eco bit. #OWmustmatter

I hold the opposite opinion, but does it matter? Battle count, frequency and even BR sum and diff inside the instances divided by online players is probably tracked. It's interesting that we went from 20 to 10(?) to 2 to 5 to 3 and then a long stretch of time and we're back to 2 min join timers almost ninja'd in. What if "the numbers show..." whatever you or I might feel about it? Define fair and in relation to what goal, principle or emotion? Opinions are ok. (I'm reminding myself now, because I do more than my fair share of dick swinging around here) I guess I'm always in mild shock when people would bend the closest approximation of wysiwyg and make all battles small patrol zones. Nevermind good planning and daring dashes, it should all be about who has the most players sitting shooting the breeze in outposts and freeports ready to scramble. "Play smart?"... Nah, just put the bait out, talk shit and pounce people stupid enough to bite with 5+ min timers. By all means, if you post EA guys need to see the shit for yourself before you believe it's true we could do it all again. We should do a yearly week of 10 min timers so we wouldn't have to repeat this discussion over and over.

Could be used as a balancing parameter for the most powerful ships. The other two points are all good.

I told you there wasn't any whining about timers, but that cycle has started now too. ... Wait a minute! I recognize you! You're one of those RAKERS who are shaping this game to fit you at the expense of everyone else... ... How DARE you!?

I think people would hate those timers with a passion, but I could be wrong.

We've tested 20 min, 10, min, 5 min, 3 and 2 min. No happy medium was found. Admin had express intentions to promote big battles with longer timers, just like you have. It never worked out according to best intentions. What we do know is that the longer timers we have the more timid and reactive OW play gets. Just look at PZ and how people don't want to start a fight but rather join a fight. You want to disregard time and space and have people teleport into instances using "happy medium" timers. That is objectionable to me in principle, on top of that it doesn't lead to more battles and bigger battles anyway. Admin is sitting on the numbers and he can compare the number of fights divided on online players under all join timer regimes. What works and doesn't work despite our wishes and intentions is known. I can't comment on all the possibilities and challenges with growing joing circles and distances. As far as I know admin only commented on the (simple) the later you join the further out you'll be placed idea and that it isn't doable since land was included into instances, nobody wanted open sea instances back. The idea of a visible growing join circle or band has never been commented by admin. Maybe there are some technical (server resource) challenges to be considered? If we want the circle to grow to directly compensate for the difference in time compression the circle would probably grow so fast it would cause problems with joining and following frustration. I also suppose it would cause frustration when people realize how long it actually takes to cover distances they're used to zooming across in OW, It would be the same "I can't help my friends!" complaints. If we look a someone who joins an average fight after 4-5 minutes with a growing join circle, he won't be able to reach the fight before the instance time is up. All that work with RoE and we're almost back to where we started. If you suggest some form of teleportation or acceleration we're back to the fact that long timers make players timid and unwilling to commit... maybe unless it's a clear gank or counter-gank in their favour. Sometimes things are deceptively easy on paper.

You weren't here when we had universal 20 min timers, were you?

True, but I haven't played anything but multiplayer games for many years and the NA solo experience is the harshest I've seen. It looks like it balances the potential over-proliferation of line-ships, but it amplifies and polarizes power levels between individual players and groups. I question that design. If you derive "fun" from that are you among the lucky few or do you represent a majority?

I'm entirely with you on this, I understand and agree completely. You can see from the responses in this topic the love for the eco system is deep set among players who are still here. There is a proverb with unclear origin that dates back to the 17th century that you might have noticed in The Shining: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy". Some writer added a second part to it in the 19th century: It serves to highlight the tension we experience in the NA community. I'm firmly on the "dull boy" side but many state that without eco (grind, grind, grind) it's all pointless and unappealing. I don't understand why they bring yin-yang philosophy into their gaming experience, but that they do. I'm fine with "all play and no work" because that's what I want when firing up a game. What if the unfriendly solo experience and eco work are the biggest threats to player recruitment and retention in order to achieve "full fledged multiplayer wars"?

This is natural and alright. Most people are ok with someone beating them with skill and experience. I dunno. I asked to join RAKERS when I was still in Privateer back in Sea Trials. My first duel with Doran was in Privateers. I died fast and bad but I learned a ton. If people are truly open to learning the skill gap is a forte and not a problem. (Doran did put us all through manual sails and maneuvers training, not unlike tutorial, then it was duels, duels , duels often with debriefs after.) I know, I just doubt it works as a game experience. I believe it's the combination of full loss loot and asymmetrical warfare that makes us struggle with keeping players. It's hardcore, cool, correct and logical but I believe too many players struggle with motivation to play when they have to grind cash and things (PvE) after losing stuff in a (frustrating) lopsided fight. I believe almost all players want nice fights, if you make it exceedingly hard for that too happen you have created a problem.