2 minute battle join timer is a bit cra*

[Fastidius]

scenario - sitting in port......guy says i have been tagged i the bay about 15 seconds out....

 

jump in boat hit sail    in water within 1 minute , 15 seconds to get there.  45 invis/invuln  battle closed...

 

result cant defend ships at home port....

 

can we please make it 3 minutes....i understand 5 mins is too long but 2 minutes is 30 seconds too short if your leaving a port to dened someone just outside the port.

 

[maturin]

If you want to defend people and patrol the waters, you can't sit in port. Getting out of a harbor is usually the slowest part of any voyage.

 

Troops in barracks can't defend the front line.

Tanks sitting in warehouses don't get to fight.

Planes sitting on the ground at their airbases don't provide CAS.

[Fastidius]

If you want to defend people and patrol the waters, you can't sit in port. Getting out of a harbor is usually the slowest part of any voyage.

 

Troops in barracks can't defend the front line.

Tanks sitting in warehouses don't get to fight.

Planes sitting on the ground at their airbases don't provide CAS.

 

 

ports have towers and should defend at close range....your argument is false

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

ports have towers and should defend at close range....your argument is false

 

They are planned. Hang tight.

[jodgi]

I agree it is a bit crap. 2 min timers allow for things outside of vis range and with good wind to join a battle. 1 - 1.5 is truly WYSIWYG.

[fox2run]

The whole idea about WYSIWYG in sea-battles are nuts. Imagine Waterloo without the prussians... Eeeehhh, not! 

 

5 min timers were more fun than 2 min timers. Now battles are rare. You cant aid a friendly distress call. 

 

Longer timers=more battles, larger battles

Shorter timers= fewer battles, smaller battles

 

I know what I prefer...

Edited May 4, 2016 by fox2run

[Slamz]

Realize that what you are asking for is referred to as the "port sitter gank".

1. Your friend sits outside port and waits for someone to attack him.
2. An enemy comes along and thinks he's getting a nice 1v1.
3. You jump out of port and enter the battle and lololololol 2v1 gank (or worse) commences.
4. Profit.

The tag rule changes were made specifically in the hope of cutting down on this sort of thing because it was too prevalent. If you really want to help your friend, you should be sailing beside him not sitting hidden inside a port.

[fox2run]

Realize that what you are asking for is referred to as the "port sitter gank".

1. Your friend sits outside port and waits for someone to attack him.
2. An enemy comes along and thinks he's getting a nice 1v1.
3. You jump out of port and enter the battle and lololololol 2v1 gank (or worse) commences.
4. Profit.

The tag rule changes were made specifically in the hope of cutting down on this sort of thing because it was too prevalent. If you really want to help your friend, you should be sailing beside him not sitting hidden inside a port.

 

Its hard for enemies to be sitting ind a friendly port, isnt it? If Im doing missions at a capital no enemy ship can lure me from that harbour. The only place such a thing could take place is at enemy or neutral harbours. Solution: stay away from these ports if you like this game to be a safe haven experience. 

[Blackjack Morgan]

scenario - sitting in port......guy says i have been tagged i the bay about 15 seconds out....

 

jump in boat hit sail    in water within 1 minute , 15 seconds to get there.  45 invis/invuln  battle closed...

 

result cant defend ships at home port....

 

can we please make it 3 minutes....i understand 5 mins is too long but 2 minutes is 30 seconds too short if your leaving a port to dened someone just outside the port.

 

Probably should make the time it takes before you can engage anyone after leaving a port even longer....not shorter. It takes quite sometime for a naval vessel to even leave the dock and sail out of the harbor etc....these are not F-22's on strip alert ready to take off at a moments notice.

[Slamz]

Its hard for enemies to be sitting ind a friendly port, isnt it? If Im doing missions at a capital no enemy ship can lure me from that harbour. The only place such a thing could take place is at enemy or neutral harbours. Solution: stay away from these ports if you like this game to be a safe haven experience. 

 

"Avoid going within 2 minutes sail of any port if you want PvP" is a pretty harsh restriction, don't you think?

 

There is really no reason that someone in port, basically standing in a store in town, should be able to get to their ship, ready it and sail the equivalent of 100 miles to help a friend in need who was caught by pirates (and apparently communicated this over FM radio).

 

Really if you aren't with someone with they are attacked, you shouldn't be part of the fight, at least if we want to maintain any illusion of distance in this game.

[CaptVonGunn]

ports have towers and should defend at close range....your argument is false

 

That is what the Green ZOne is... no attacks.. Just change it so ships not of teh Green Zones nation can be attacked:)

[Dala]

i lost a santi the other day becuse i left a battle who was right next to another battle. becuse of the invaunrability i didnt have time to join, or well the button was there but it didnt let me in. so i ended up alone in the middle of pirate territory.

2 minutes is just not long enough, maybe it was before, when u could enter battles while invisible. but now... its kind of retarded. u have less than a 1 minute window to join. and that minute might be spend sailing to the edge of this new ring they made.

 

what i dont get is why the devs change so many variables at the same time. how can they ever get a correct reeding on anything like this.

 

and for the ppl that feel they cant attack near ports.... aww i feel so sorry for u. if u want a good 1v1 ask for it, dont just jump someone.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Dala

[fox2run]

In battles you would have good times and bad times. You outnumber or get outnumbered. 

 

But the bottom line is a mathematical certainty:

 

 

Longer joining times provides larger battles with reinforcing possibilities.

 

Shorter joining times provides smaller battles without reinforcing possibilities.

 

It's a matter of a gameplay decision. So far the devs listened to the guys which glass is half empty. Ask yourself what provides the most fun gameplay:

 

Small skirmishes or large battles....

[Quineloe]

If you react fast enough, you can undock and help right now.

 

You're really just asking for the "we are unorganized!" margin of error to be extended.

If someone already calls for assistance while the tag is going and people undock right away, they have more than a minute to enter the battle after their invul timer drops.

[mouse of war]

If some people think 2 minutes is too long and some think it too short then I guess it is a good compromise

[Dala]

If some people think 2 minutes is too long and some think it too short then I guess it is a good compromise

 

gankers Think its to long, everyone else wants more time. atleast 3 minutes.

why on Earth shouldnt u get punished for ganking near ports. becuse as it is now. if someone gets attacked outside a capital, there isnt enough time to react Before the time runs out.

 

would be sucha big shame if gankers couldnt gank without getting ganked.

 

Dunno why i bother. i already know the gankers will get what they want, they are by far the loudest on the forums. the ganked just quit the game instead of coming here.

[fox2run]

"Avoid going within 2 minutes sail of any port if you want PvP" is a pretty harsh restriction, don't you think?

 

There is really no reason that someone in port, basically standing in a store in town, should be able to get to their ship, ready it and sail the equivalent of 100 miles to help a friend in need who was caught by pirates (and apparently communicated this over FM radio).

 

Really if you aren't with someone with they are attacked, you shouldn't be part of the fight, at least if we want to maintain any illusion of distance in this game.

 

Computergames need good gameplay in order to succeed. I really don't care about real world distances. My time is not for sailing around on patrol for lets say months without an engagement like it happened in the real world. 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Computergames need good gameplay in order to succeed. I really don't care about real world distances. My time is not for sailing around on patrol for lets say months without an engagement like it happened in the real world. 

 

Small battles then. They are fun for the little time to spare.

 

The open world, the battles with land, the chases and the interdiction, many of us like it a lot. Our standards are not similar to yours and in this case the Developers give all of us options to better use our time.

[Slamz]

gankers Think its to long, everyone else wants more time. atleast 3 minutes.

 

I would say "organized players think it's too long". When you are already organized and sailing with your 10 mates, longer timers do nothing for you. Organized players would more likely appreciate very short timers.

 

Disorganized pugs (who still want to be gankers) need the timer to be longer. There may be 20 of them in the area and they all want to pile in and gank people but 2 minutes isn't long enough for them to notice the fight, get turned around and pile in. They'd like the timer to be as long as possible.

 

 

So it's not really gankers versus non. Seems to me almost everyone will gank if they can (in all of my battles I can think of exactly 1 case where a player backed off and let me 1v1 someone.... in every single other instance it was as big of a dogpile as they could manage). The debate is between organized players and pugs, as I see it.

[fox2run]

Keep the discussion on track please. Most of us are organized in clans in fact. That doesn't say that we agree with you. In fact longer timers are the best anti-gank measure that you can find. That is in friendly waters of course. Now 5-6 players can go to hostile waters without risks at all. And it's almost always small gank battles outthere. There must be smarter ways to enhance the OW gameplay.

Edited May 5, 2016 by fox2run

[Quineloe]

Small battles then. They are fun for the little time to spare.

 

The open world, the battles with land, the chases and the interdiction, many of us like it a lot. Our standards are not similar to yours and in this case the Developers give all of us options to better use our time.

Every time I click small battles the server has to spawn an AI opponent for me because I am the only guy in there.

[AKPyrate]

In battles you would have good times and bad times. You outnumber or get outnumbered. 

 

But the bottom line is a mathematical certainty:

 

 

Longer joining times provides larger battles with reinforcing possibilities.

 

Shorter joining times provides smaller battles without reinforcing possibilities.

 

It's a matter of a gameplay decision. So far the devs listened to the guys which glass is half empty. Ask yourself what provides the most fun gameplay:

 

Small skirmishes or large battles....

 

Personally, I love a good frigate (or other pair of comparable vessels) duel, 1v1.  They historically happened much more than large fleet actions and tend to rely much more on ship qualities and captain's tactics than fleet actions, which are primarily a matter of broadside weight.  If you've got 25 Santis together, you're pretty much invulnerable unless the enemy also has 25 Santis.  So, I'd prefer multiple small engagements (which also can take much less time, a plus in my book due to life outside the internet) than one or two large fleet actions in an evening of playing.  Sure, if I have the time I might join up with a battle group, but then we're heading out together to take or defend a port.  Otherwise, I'm often sailing solo or with one/two other friends to do missions or try and patrol an enemy coastline.  I'd rather be able to survey a scenario and flee from much larger opponents instead of being stuck in a battle when an entire fleet of ships of the line appear to windward of my solo frigate.  Now, if I attack in lower visibility, such as fog or heavy rain, then I am happy to run that risk.  In clear visibility, the reality is that you should know everyone else out on the ocean around you before making the decision to attack, unless they happen to be hidden by land.

 

As for getting weighing anchor from port, have you ever actually done that?  In a small ship, the anchor itself is probably a couple of thousand pounds.  Of course in a small ship there is also likely not a capstan, so the slower windlass would have to be used (no chance to build up momentum).  Then, once the anchor is at the water's edge, the fore yard has to be used to haul it up and onto the rail (thus no fore-course or fore tops'l set) and then properly secure it.  Often ships would anchor with two anchors in a busy harbor so as not to swing as wide, so the process would have to be done again.  This process could take hours, especially if there are any complications such as a fouled anchor, or additional lines such as spring lines set to the anchors.  And this is if your ship is otherwise ready for sea, the whole crew is aboard, etc.  It could easily take a captain an hour just to get back to his ship 'from a shop' as was mentioned earlier.  Then there's the whole problem of sailing to the battle before it's over.  It's not realistic.

[Slamz]

Keep the discussion on track please. Most of us are organized in clans in fact. That doesn't say that we agree with you. In fact longer timers are the best anti-gank measure that you can find. That is in friendly waters of course. Now 5-6 players can go to hostile waters without risks at all. And it's almost always small gank battles outthere. There must be smarter ways to enhance the OW gameplay.

 

I think we must be using different definitions of the term "gank". My definition is "any fight that is very one-sided" (some might also add that it's very one-sided by surprise).

 

5 enemies sail into your water and jump you. That's a gank.

Your 10 allies jump out of port and join the battle. Now you're the ganker (some call it a "counter-gank", but it's still a type of gank).

 

Longer timers are not "anti-gank". They are pro-gank, especially in favor of gankers who hide in ports or invisible battles.

 

 

What I think a lot of people aren't getting is that this is the very nature of open world gaming -- it is always gank or be ganked. Making sure you get into fights you want and can flee from fights you don't want is part of the game. What's broken right now is that longer timers make it impossible to know what sort of battle you're getting into. You won't know if it's a gank or not until the battle locks (after all the invisible people you had no way to know were there get into the fight).

 

Short timers are the best way to prevent ganks.

 

At least then, if there is a gank, you can see it coming and have time to maneuver or run on the open sea.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Slamz

[Dala]

I think we must be using different definitions of the term "gank". My definition is "any fight that is very one-sided" (some might also add that it's very one-sided by surprise).

 

5 enemies sail into your water and jump you. That's a gank.

Your 10 allies jump out of port and join the battle. Now you're the ganker (some call it a "counter-gank", but it's still a type of gank).

 

Longer timers are not "anti-gank". They are pro-gank, especially in favor of gankers who hide in ports or invisible battles.

 

 

What I think a lot of people aren't getting is that this is the very nature of open world gaming -- it is always gank or be ganked. Making sure you get into fights you want and can flee from fights you don't want is part of the game. What's broken right now is that longer timers make it impossible to know what sort of battle you're getting into. You won't know if it's a gank or not until the battle locks (after all the invisible people you had no way to know were there get into the fight).

 

Short timers are the best way to prevent ganks.

 

At least then, if there is a gank, you can see it coming and have time to maneuver or run on the open sea.

 

why shouldnt gankers be ganked back if they gank in a stupid manner?

[Slamz]

why shouldnt gankers be ganked back if they gank in a stupid manner?

 

So you're.....for ganking, just so long as it is gankers getting ganked?

 

I'm not sure how you intend to limit its use to just that one case.