Reinforcment Zones - Yay or Nay?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Its called *Playing a Game*

If you want to have no Control on what happens to you I recommend visiting a Domina lol

No control? Still keeping up with the silly absolutes I see. You have lots of control, you're just too lazy or bad to use it and thus want a 100% idiot-proof option instead.

Scanning the horizon for enemies before entering a mission is control. Sailing away for 3 minutes so that you're in a good position to escape if the mission gets jumped is control. Mission running in hard-to-access or low-activity areas is control. Having players protect your waters is control. Communicating where enemies are at is control.

Rugby is a more interesting game than having your hand held all the time because playing peekaboo is suddenly too scary.

[Sunleader]

31 minutes ago, Liq said:

No offense but this is opportunistic statement doesnt make sense. By your logic there would be no pvp because in order for there to be pvp, you need to be in enemy waters (since there is no reason to be in the middle of nowhere in no nations waters whatsoever), and by being in enemy waters, one side will always be "NOT looking for pvp". IMO as soon as you set sail and leave the port, you're agreeing to the fact that you're playing on a pvp server and a target to anyone. You actually got a 3 minute battle timer so if you get tagged right outside capital, you can still call out for help and get players joining which got the call when still inside port

 

lol are you kidding ?

There is more than enough Reason.

After all how do you get from One Port to the Next if you dont Cross the Waters between the Ports ?

I know you guys dislike it cause it means a Trader can actually get past you when you try to Gank him as he can use an Off Route and is not that easy for you to Intercept as you cant Simply sit in sight of the Port. But thats your Problem I guess.

I dont consider Ganking as PvP in the First Place.

 

And lol nope.

When I Bought this Game and Joined this Server.

EVERY Port had a Safezone.

I never Agreed to Play a Pure PvP Server.

Neither did 1000 out of 1500 Player we had online during Prime Times.

Thats why like me they left back then.

 

 

 

But Guys seriously.

The Poll Speaks for itself.

And I am done arguing with Brick Walls.

You guys wont Accept Reality even if it Bites you. So just keep yapping and Ignore the Fact that this Game nearly Died thanks to going Unrestricted PvP.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Aegir said:

No control? Still keeping up with the silly absolutes I see. You have lots of control, you're just too lazy or bad to use it and thus want a 100% idiot-proof option instead.

Scanning the horizon for enemies before entering a mission is control. Sailing away for 3 minutes so that you're in a good position to escape if the mission gets jumped is control. Mission running in hard-to-access or low-activity areas is control. Having players protect your waters is control. Communicating where enemies are at is control.

Rugby is a more interesting game than having your hand held all the time because playing peekaboo is suddenly too scary.

 

Thats not Control thats Paranoia.

A Paranoia I know very well from other Games that have long Died.

Because its the common Mindset of People in Unrestricted PvP Games.

Problem is these People are like Locust Swarms killing one Game after the other searching for more Victims to kill

Even after Killing a Game they keep saying to not ever restrict PvP cause then they would lose even the last few Targets they can still pester.

 

 

Gladly the Devs realized it and stepped in before you could deliver the Death Sentence to this Game.

And have Created Safe Zones so People can Play the Game without constantly looking over their Shoulders all day.

[Liq]

2 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

I know you guys dislike it cause it means a Trader can actually get past you when you try to Gank him as he can use an Off Route and is not that easy for you to Intercept as you cant Simply sit in sight of the Port. But thats your Problem I guess.

I dont consider Ganking as PvP in the First Place.

Neither do I, mate

https://imgur.com/a/WoLhF

3 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

After all how do you get from One Port to the Next if you dont Cross the Waters between the Ports ?

 

Why would you go, say, from CS to Santo Domingo if you can get everything at zero risk inside the safezone? Maybe you should play the game again and spend a few hours sailing past coasts outside of safezones and report us your findindings (of meeting players that are "willing to pvp" with you)

 

[Robert]

22 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

lol are you kidding ?

There is more than enough Reason.

After all how do you get from One Port to the Next if you dont Cross the Waters between the Ports ?

I know you guys dislike it cause it means a Trader can actually get past you when you try to Gank him as he can use an Off Route and is not that easy for you to Intercept as you cant Simply sit in sight of the Port. But thats your Problem I guess.

I dont consider Ganking as PvP in the First Place.

 

And lol nope.

When I Bought this Game and Joined this Server.

EVERY Port had a Safezone.

I never Agreed to Play a Pure PvP Server.

Neither did 1000 out of 1500 Player we had online during Prime Times.

Thats why like me they left back then.

 

 

 

But Guys seriously.

The Poll Speaks for itself.

And I am done arguing with Brick Walls.

You guys wont Accept Reality even if it Bites you. So just keep yapping and Ignore the Fact that this Game nearly Died thanks to going Unrestricted PvP.

 

 

 

Thats not Control thats Paranoia.

A Paranoia I know very well from other Games that have long Died.

Because its the common Mindset of People in Unrestricted PvP Games.

Problem is these People are like Locust Swarms killing one Game after the other searching for more Victims to kill

Even after Killing a Game they keep saying to not ever restrict PvP cause then they would lose even the last few Targets they can still pester.

 

 

Gladly the Devs realized it and stepped in before you could deliver the Death Sentence to this Game.

And have Created Safe Zones so People can Play the Game without constantly looking over their Shoulders all day.

I agree, as far I have seen as well while blaming everything/everyone else there is a loud small group ,supporting each other, that really hold this game down when/if they get their way.

Just follow the likes.

Thank you and very well said in all your posts. We need more players like you to speak up for the majority. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sunleader said:

Thats not Control thats Paranoia.

A Paranoia I know very well from other Games that have long Died.

Because its the common Mindset of People in Unrestricted PvP Games.

Problem is these People are like Locust Swarms killing one Game after the other searching for more Victims to kill

Even after Killing a Game they keep saying to not ever restrict PvP cause then they would lose even the last few Targets they can still pester.

Still continuing with the absolutes and hyperboles...

You already have restrictions to PvP. That's why you have forts, friendly AI fleets, enemies being limited to using free ports, missions having rank restrictions, BR caps. Now couple that with all the measures mentioned above to avoid unwanted PvP and voila. If you can't avoid it then, it's not paranoia or stress, it's laziness or ineptitude, probably both.

The difference is that there's mitigation and - as I'm sure that you love - absolutes. In its current format, the reinforcement fleets are so strong that you'd might as well just make the entire zones a PvE-zone where it's not even possible to tag anyone. At least then it doesn't pretend to be anything else.

So if unwanted PvP is such a horrible thing, why stop there? Let's make the entire world a PvE zone and just do PvP in opt-in instances. Oh yeah! I didn't sign up for PvP when I sailed outside of the safezone! I didn't sign up for PvP when I wanted to do missions in enemy regions! I didn't sign up for PvP when I was moving my 1st rate to a faraway port to use in RvR later!

I wonder how many signed up for a PvP game only to find that 95% of the players are in the 10% of the map where there is no PvP whatsoever. Why even bother with an open world then.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Guest

[Sunleader]

1 hour ago, Liq said:

Neither do I, mate

https://imgur.com/a/WoLhF

Why would you go, say, from CS to Santo Domingo if you can get everything at zero risk inside the safezone? Maybe you should play the game again and spend a few hours sailing past coasts outside of safezones and report us your findindings (of meeting players that are "willing to pvp" with you)

 

 

As far as I know you cant lol.

No Offense. But each Port has Different Production and different Buildings.

Even for Basic Production of Cannons you need at the very least 2 Ports.

For Repair Kits you need 3 already. And hell Repair Kits should be one of the most Basic Items in the Game.

 

 

And Mate no Offense.

But last time I even attempted to just leave the Safezone I was immediately Ganked.

Thats right. My First Attempt to leave the Safezone ended with me being Ganked.

 

And well right now you wont find anyone.

Why would they bother ????

See Mate thats the Problem.

Back then ALL Ports had Safezones. So PvP happened between the Ports.

NOW Only the Capital Ports have Safezones. So PvPers especially Gankers just sit in sight of the Port and wait for the First Poor Soul trying to get there.

Why would any PvPer right now go for the Routes between the Ports where they might be circumvented if they can just sit at the Port and be Guaranteed to Tag anyone trying to get there ?

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Aegir said:

Still continuing with the absolutes and hyperboles...

You already have restrictions to PvP. That's why you have forts, friendly AI fleets, enemies being limited to using free ports, missions having rank restrictions, BR caps. Now couple that with all the measures mentioned above to avoid unwanted PvP and voila. If you can't avoid it then, it's not paranoia or stress, it's laziness or ineptitude, probably both.

The difference is that there's mitigation and - as I'm sure that you love - absolutes. In its current format, the reinforcement fleets are so strong that you'd might as well just make the entire zones a PvE-zone where it's not even possible to tag anyone. At least then it doesn't pretend to be anything else.

So if unwanted PvP is such a horrible thing, why stop there? Let's make the entire world a PvE zone and just do PvP in opt-in instances. Oh yeah! I didn't sign up for PvP when I sailed outside of the safezone! I didn't sign up for PvP when I wanted to do missions in enemy regions! I didn't sign up for PvP when I was moving my 1st rate to a faraway port to use in RvR later!

I wonder how many signed up for a PvP game only to find that 95% of the players are in the 10% of the map where there is no PvP whatsoever. Why even bother with an open world then.

 

Are we Playing the same Game ???

Aside from AI Fleets being so incredible Rare that I sometimes need 10 minutes to find a Single one for Killing.

90% of the ones even at my Nations Ports are HOSTILE

 

And well Mate.

YOU are the one trying to make this Absolute by putting this as an PvP Server and trying to Claim that due to being PvP Server it should enforce PvP everywhere at all times lol

 

 

AND LOOOL.

Well just saying.

But that would be a Pretty Good Idea.

And guess what a many Games are doing just that. And are much much more Succesful for PvP than Naval Action.

Because not only does this sort of thing give PvPers and accurate idea where to go for PvP.

It also warns every new Player what they are getting into and thus makes em unlikely to rage and quit if they go into and get killed.

If nothing else. Games like WoW or Silkroad etc etc which all instead of having Limited Safezones. Just have Limited PvP Zones. Are Filled with Life and Players and have Tonnage of PvP going on. And all that entirely without Forcing people to PvP.

 

 

 

But well as I said. Going to stop here.

Already posted more than I wanted to.

 

The Devs did understand. And the Poll is very Clear as well.

I bet if they had added the Option to Reintroduce every Port having Reinforcement Zones that Option would have gotten lots of Votes as well.

So even if you Deny Reality you wont change it.

[Robert]

57 minutes ago, Aegir said:

Still continuing with the absolutes and hyperboles...

You already have restrictions to PvP. That's why you have forts, friendly AI fleets, enemies being limited to using free ports, missions having rank restrictions, BR caps. Now couple that with all the measures mentioned above to avoid unwanted PvP and voila. If you can't avoid it then, it's not paranoia or stress, it's laziness or ineptitude, probably both.

The difference is that there's mitigation and - as I'm sure that you love - absolutes. In its current format, the reinforcement fleets are so strong that you'd might as well just make the entire zones a PvE-zone where it's not even possible to tag anyone. At least then it doesn't pretend to be anything else.

So if unwanted PvP is such a horrible thing, why stop there? Let's make the entire world a PvE zone and just do PvP in opt-in instances. Oh yeah! I didn't sign up for PvP when I sailed outside of the safezone! I didn't sign up for PvP when I wanted to do missions in enemy regions! I didn't sign up for PvP when I was moving my 1st rate to a faraway port to use in RvR later!

I wonder how many signed up for a PvP game only to find that 95% of the players are in the 10% of the map where there is no PvP whatsoever. Why even bother with an open world then.

Let me get this, so you not happy with 90% of the map to do as you please and just want to bother 95% of the players in their 10% of the map? Your numbers not mine.

Basically you cannot stand to see 95% of the players doing whatever they want or find enjoyable in their 10% of the map. I guess if we don't have your way so you get that last 10% as well there is no open world. Actually there is PvP in that 10%, not ganking/griefing but PvP.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Robert

[Guest]

Very well, then I will leave you folks to your "PvE server with PvP instances only" ideas. Best of luck, the more you screw up NA, the more folks will switch to Legends instead when they get bored of sinking the same AI again and again and again.

Don't forget to push for notes to craft all ships too so we don't have to waste time on such useless things as resources, crafting or conquest too. Keep it simple for the simpletons.

[Robert]

4 minutes ago, Aegir said:

Very well, then I will leave you folks to your "PvE server with PvP instances only" ideas. Best of luck, the more you screw up NA, the more folks will switch to Legends instead when they get bored of sinking the same AI again and again and again.

Don't forget to push for notes to craft all ships too so we don't have to waste time on such useless things as resources, crafting or conquest too. Keep it simple for the simpletons.

Thank you for proving my points, yeah you do that, I think we as in majority and NA in general we're better off. 

[AglyBeard]

All hardcore PVPers saying they want to PVP because it is challenging and they do not want to sink mindless and unskilled NPC BOTs. 

So if you want to engage in PVP with equally skilled and prepared opponents just put  "Want to PVP" indicator right on UI 

Why not just create PVP switch like we already have smuggler switch?

You can only switch it on/off in your home port and if it is on you are "Want and ready for PVP" if off you can not be attacked.  This way you can remove all safe zones and merge PVE server with PVP server.

[AglyBeard]

Yet again you said you want challenge, where is the challenge in killing defenseless trader (no trader has a chance to defend against 2 or 3 warships)? Or you only want to PVP when you have full advantage  and no risk?

  

[Robert]

Just now, rediii said:

You have no idea about this game, sorry

 

You should go to the pve server 

 

 

This would kill every sense of rvr ingame. All traders would be safe. Pvp would die.

 

I would like to suggest the "pvp only if you feel like it etc." guys to go to the pve server. You definatly joined the wrong server

Nope. It seem that you think you in charge around here, telling everyone what they should do.  You should go to Legends!

Can you get this? Majority have spoken!

[AglyBeard]

2 minutes ago, rediii said:

First, I didnt say that. Im a rvr player mostly and if I have the chance to kill or capture 5 infiamans which are transporting material to build firstrates which are used in a war against my nation hell i have fun to do it.

This game is about rvr 

If that is the case lets just ask devs to look into possibility of changing mechanics of the game: 

You put blockade on said port, no PVE oriented fleets can pass your blockade as long as you are there maintaining it, others can brake your blockade by engaging in PVP with you.

This way you illuminate unwilling PVP and make people fight you or loose trade rout.

[Liq]

12 minutes ago, AglyBeard said:

Yet again you said you want challenge, where is the challenge in killing defenseless trader (no trader has a chance to defend against 2 or 3 warships)? Or you only want to PVP when you have full advantage  and no risk?

  

Thats my issue with reinforcments, when I first heard about them coming back I thought they were supposed to balance ganks, e.g. 5v1 or similar. But no, I tagged an essex in my Surprise, and got 2 1st rate spawned in. A little bit overkill dont you think?

[Robert]

17 minutes ago, rediii said:

 

1. Majority also voted for trump or brexit

2. Quite often the majority is actually stupid and doesnt know what they even decide and which consequences these decicions have.

I say safezones are good but they are too big for sweden and denmark because they overlap with conquerable ports. That actually doesnt make sense but you dont get it because you are tunnelvisioned by your hate against gankers

1. And?

2. That self entitled elitist mentality drive the majority of players away. Let me make it simple for you, without players there is no game or PvP.  

3. I never liked bullies, griefers, gankers or anyone that take enjoyment from making others miserable. You are right about that and that's not PvP.

Speaking about tunnel vision just look yourself in the mirror, look again at the poll, and if there is any hope you tell yourself that Denial: It's Not Just a River in Egypt.

Finally, thank you for your honesty in sharing with us how you really think.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Robert

[Demsity]

21 minutes ago, Robert said:

Nope. It seem that you think you in charge around here, telling everyone what they should do.  You should go to Legends!

Can you get this? Majority have spoken!

40 players voted that the zones should remain as they are.
49 players voted that they need to be changed somehow.

Just saying...

[Eyesore]

On 9/21/2017 at 8:11 PM, Robert said:

Are you saying that neutral/capturable ports are in the reinforcement zones?

Road Town/Spanish Town/The Settlement

Oranjestad/Fort Baal/Marigot/ Philipsburg

You don't even know how the zones work, yet you have a lot to say about them ... Play the game first perhaps? Or go to the pve-server as suggested already.

[Robert]

Just now, Demsity said:

40 players voted that the zones should remain as they are.
49 players voted that they need to be changed somehow.

Just saying...

That's funny, I wonder if that's how polls/votes work...

[Demsity]

2 minutes ago, Robert said:

That's funny, I wonder if that's how polls/votes work...

Dude what..

There is one option to leave the zones as they are.

There are 4 options to change them.

Majority of players want to change them...

Edited September 29, 2017 by Demsity

[Robert]

2 minutes ago, Eyesore said:

You don't even know how the zones work, yet you have a lot to say about them ... Play the game first perhaps? Or go to the pve-server as suggested already.

Come back when you actually have something to say.

[Robert]

21 minutes ago, Demsity said:

Dude what..

There is one option to leave the zones as they are.

There are 3 options to change them.

Majority of players want to change them...

Example, do you think that remove the reinforcement zones is the same as reducing the reinforcement zones? Same goes for the others, how would you suppose the developer could implement all of those options while they are mutually exclusive.

There are 6 different options, they all count on their own, you can't sum them up as you want. The winner is the option with most votes. That's how it works in any polls.

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Robert

[Demsity]

6 minutes ago, Robert said:

Example, do you think that remove the reinforcement zones is the same as reducing the reinforcement zones? Same goes for the others, how would you suppose the developer could implement all of that while they are mutually exclusive.

There are 6 different options, they all count on their own, you can't sum them up as you want. The winner is the option with most votes. That's how it works in any polls.

 

Its like talking to a slightly brain damaged brick wall...

The QUESTION asked for the poll is "reinforcement zones - yay or nay". A yes or no question.

MAJORITY of the players voted that they are displeased with the current reinforcement zones.

The MINORITY of players voted that they are pleased with the current reinforcement zones.

This is the facts, and your opinion does not change the facts.

Now I´m ending this "discussion" because it is OFF TOPIC.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Demsity

[Liq]

7 minutes ago, Robert said:

Example, do you think that remove the reinforcement zones is the same as reducing the reinforcement zones? Same goes for the others, how would you suppose the developer could implement all of those options while they are mutually exclusive.

There are 6 different options, they all count on their own, you can't sum them up as you want. The winner is the option with most votes. That's how it works in any polls.

 

First of, this Poll I made is not anything official, as stated in the first post. Maybe I should have asked "Do you think Reinforcments need change" , yes or no. So no extremas as in completely removing them. Poll would look different then, I'm sure. The fewest would probably think removing them completely would be a smart idea, because it makes sense to allow recovery. But the size and the way it works can be discussed.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Liq

[Slim McSauce]

There's a PVE server for a reason. If you aren't ready for unrestricted PVP go there

Edited September 29, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Robert]

1 hour ago, AglyBeard said:

All hardcore PVPers saying they want to PVP because it is challenging and they do not want to sink mindless and unskilled NPC BOTs. 

So if you want to engage in PVP with equally skilled and prepared opponents just put  "Want to PVP" indicator right on UI 

Why not just create PVP switch like we already have smuggler switch?

You can only switch it on/off in your home port and if it is on you are "Want and ready for PVP" if off you can not be attacked.  This way you can remove all safe zones and merge PVE server with PVP server.

You might have something there, I would suggest you start a poll on that.