the 10 min rule

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Sorry, I don't think advice from non-players is useful.  

Why not hop on TeamSpeak and discuss it with everyone?

oh, yeah, sorry....

Ouch  So much for trying to 'organize' and being 'social'.

---

Personally I hated the timers because most of the OW PvP turned into stupid port-hugging contests with lots of staredowns and zero maneuvering, especially when it was 4 mins or more because there'd be a single tag and then an unknown number of players would sail out of the port and join. The 'what you see is what you get' of the current ROE is quite nice, defensive tagging is dealt with in a good way, and mobility is power (as opposed to magically dropping SOLs in the middle of an ongoing fight negating their slow speed).

The 'mathematic' argument is just flat out dumb.

[fox2run]

1 hour ago, Angus McGregor said:

You well doing so well. Had me nodding in at least partial agreement right up until that last sentence.

No idea why you felt it necessary to switch from logical debate to impuning everyone's... courage? 

I don't blame you for being frustrated, I am too. But this is not the way to get people to listen to your ideas.

point taken

[fox2run]

1 hour ago, Aegir said:

Ouch  So much for trying to 'organize' and being 'social'.

---

Personally I hated the timers because most of the OW PvP turned into stupid port-hugging contests with lots of staredowns and zero maneuvering, especially when it was 4 mins or more because there'd be a single tag and then an unknown number of players would sail out of the port and join. The 'what you see is what you get' of the current ROE is quite nice, defensive tagging is dealt with in a good way, and mobility is power (as opposed to magically dropping SOLs in the middle of an ongoing fight negating their slow speed).

The 'mathematic' argument is just flat out dumb.

No its not dumb. Its a core mechanic. Players have one thing in common in a war-game: the battle. Its crucial. Without it, players simply leave. If you cant find any way to easy access a battle, players leave. It cannot be stated enough. What you see is what you get is not working as intended. The game is dying. Players are leaving. Clans are stopping. It can not get any worse. 

Rethink ROE. Make it social. Indfinite. Forget the idea of anti-gank measures. Unequal fights will always occur. When you sail and see some swords - join the fight. Ask for help. Get your friends into combat. It is indeed simple to make a good game. 

 

[Cecil Selous]

On 12/10/2016 at 2:33 PM, fox2run said:

Its only when you lost you felt exploited. It went two ways.

Now I don't play the game anymore. Like 3/4th of the player base, I left becorse I didn't have the 2-3 hours to find a fight where players fled.

 

It's a true bore now.

 

ROE should be infinite and the players should spawn from distance related to time. A lot if interesting fights would appear.

What you see is what you get right now: an empty world.

So let me get this straight. You want the battle to be open for infinite time. I and I think many many other players would hate it. Lets say you start a battle, let it be a 1 vs 1 or a 5 vs 6, doesn't matter. Lets imagine your side is winning and only one enemy is left. He is going down also but you and your friends are down to about 35% hull and 75% sails each. Now 6 enemies join and as reinforcement and easily finish you off. This would make me furious.

Or the reinforcements will just join 7 mins into the battle. a 5v6 suddenly turns into a 5 vs 12. Again, I would hate it. Nothing fun.

Now you will say: No, they will join far away according to the time passed from the start of the battle. Ok, and that exactly means, that my team can escape, while they will sail for 2 mins and achieve nothing --> ergo, waste their time. They will be furious. 

 

You are too convinced and downright possesed of the thought, that solely the shorter join timers made 3/4th of the playerbase leave. You don't make a connection between huge playerbase EA start. You draw the connection between longer join timers and playerbase. Like others said, we had more battles when we had fewer ships.

You can't imagine, that players leave due to other reasons (plenty topics in this forum about other issues) and that the simple fact, that there a fewer players on the servers lead to fewer and less frequent encounters/battles.

 

[fox2run]

It seems you just want to win - not fight naval battles...

The present ROE makes 1 vs 1 fights or similar small battles - I hate this as I like larger battles with a lot of ships in them. I dont see that the problem of getting outnumbered IN the battle should be worse than being ganked in the OW. 

Actually you could try to hope for reinforcements to help you out. You would never be certain as you fight. It is more exciting that way. 

 

 

[akd]

Ah, I see.  You don't want to fight a fair 1v1 or XvX.  You don't want to go into battle at a disadvantage and wait for reinforcements.  You want to join battles that have already been created, but only if the side you are joining already has the advantage.  Thanks for clarifying.

Edited December 11, 2016 by akd

[Cecil Selous]

 

39 minutes ago, fox2run said:

It seems you just want to win - not fight naval battles...

The present ROE makes 1 vs 1 fights or similar small battles - I hate this as I like larger battles with a lot of ships in them. I dont see that the problem of getting outnumbered IN the battle should be worse than being ganked in the OW. 

Actually you could try to hope for reinforcements to help you out. You would never be certain as you fight. It is more exciting that way. 

 

 

Yeah right, I fucking hate naval battles, I just want to win win win. Wow you just ....

At least you finally admit that you hate smaller engagements. 

If you get ganked on OW you have a chance to avoid it and flee. If you get ganked after 10 min, you mostly don't have that chance. Sure longer join timers can help the ganked to be reinforced but we have a small little perk for that right now. And it only costs you 1 little point.

And I want to be certain what I fight.

[Liq]

join a clan and help in port battles, 25v25s, problem solved

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

join a clan and help in port battles, 25v25s, problem solved

Apparently they have to be big battles taking place all the time served on a silver platter for people to join within 10 minutes of logging in and without ship restrictions, organization or TS. 

[fox2run]

Its ok. You like status quo. I don't play anymore.

Everyone is happy.

[Neverdead Ned]

On 12/5/2016 at 8:59 AM, fox2run said:

Once in a while I log on. If Im not into a large battle within 10 min of gameplay I log off. Its the pain limit of waiting for me.

A classic example of the need for instant gratification.  Thanks for sharing.  This game, like real life, requires that you actually have to go out and work for things...even PvP.  Stop blaming the game for your lack of motivation.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 1:33 PM, fox2run said:

Its only when you lost you felt exploited. It went two ways.

Now I don't play the game anymore. Like 3/4th of the player base, I left becorse I didn't have the 2-3 hours to find a fight where players fled.

 

It's a true bore now.

 

ROE should be infinite and the players should spawn from distance related to time. A lot if interesting fights would appear.

What you see is what you get right now: an empty world.

You have absolutely no idea what I said and why I said it.

In two phrases you mix four different things but at least you finally get it - spawning in battle from distance related to time. You join a battle ongoing for 10 minutes. You spawn at 1/75th timescale from the OW. I'm fine with that, now make your math.

[fox2run]

1 hour ago, Hethwill said:

You have absolutely no idea what I said and why I said it.

In two phrases you mix four different things but at least you finally get it - spawning in battle from distance related to time. You join a battle ongoing for 10 minutes. You spawn at 1/75th timescale from the OW. I'm fine with that, now make your math.

Timescale is NOT important in a pc game. Playability is. Fun is. Imagine a Civilization game in real time.... Or a shooter with only one try. 

The theoretical stance behind this OW contra timescale in battle is wrong from a pedagogical point of view:

"You sail in a world, see a fight - you like to join it! Oh - no - didnt you know that time is compressed by 75 times - sry dude - go sail again. Hum. Oh but I like to fight with my friends - they need a hand in the battle next to my ship! Oh - no - didnt you know that we dislike this option. Its fun but not realistic. Sry dude. Go sail some more!"

Hethwill - have fun with this game. You are now half the numbers online since summer anf 1/4 th the number online snce they cut joining timers.

Bye, bye

 

[Pagan Pete]

Here is an example of a typical battle now...

Player 1 tags Player 2.

Player one faces player 2 & 15 AI ships.

Player one leaves.

Sound familiar?

[Grundal]

PP is right.  They need to reduce the AI.  And forts.  I am not saying anything new here.  

I am all for reducing the AI fleets by say 35%  and increase AI traders.   

I would be all for the lord protector idea floated around the forums in the summer. That way the lord would have to build up the defenses.  Something like that.  

 

[Cecil Selous]

Pagan Pete is right. I am all for it to not pull in AI in the outer circle or even not pull in at all (At least make those fleets smaller if they still get pulled in the future or just single patrolling frigates which are spread out more). I think forts and towers are enough protection for traders near a coastline, although I also think that there too many towers in some places. Like four martellos between two ports, where one would be enough.  And additionally the signalling perk gives everbody a chance for reinforcements if they get ganked near friendlies.

In fox2run's dream though, those 15 AI would be players, who can join the battle anytime.