Chain boarding

[NethrosDefectus]

@admin What is so hello kittying difficult about giving someone who has escaped from boarding 60 seconds to move away. Chain boarding is hello kittying stupid. It is unreasonable to allow two or more ships to just keep chain boarding a single ship without any sort of cooldown?

The cooldown should move to the "target" not the attackers. It's a simple fix that has been suggested many times yet you refuse to implement it. Why?

[p i t]

As I and @Aster have stated before- Determined Defender should deal with chain boarding.

[HachiRoku]

I dont get the issue with chainboarding. Makes no sense to me. If youre being chainboarded you got yourself into a situation you should never have gotten into imo. 

[OneEyedSnake]

in real life youd get boarded by multiple ships at once. to fix chain boarding we should allow multiple ships to participate in one boarding instance. itd be great. they wouldnt have to board you again. youd be dead

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, NethrosDefectus said:

@admin What is so hello kittying difficult about giving someone who has escaped from boarding 60 seconds to move away. Chain boarding is hello kittying stupid. It is unreasonable to allow two or more ships to just keep chain boarding a single ship without any sort of cooldown?

The cooldown should move to the "target" not the attackers. It's a simple fix that has been suggested many times yet you refuse to implement it. Why?

Why would anyone deserve more time from getting boarded by someone else? - Where's the realism in that? "Oh no you can't! even if you have a fresh crew, a perfect position and all prepped up - YOU CAN'T BOARD ME THE NEXT 60 SECs.. why you ask?? - Well because it's unfair" 

Newsflash mate - nothing's fair in the open world.

[NethrosDefectus]

8 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Why would anyone deserve more time from getting boarded by someone else? - Where's the realism in that? "Oh no you can't! even if you have a fresh crew, a perfect position and all prepped up - YOU CAN'T BOARD ME THE NEXT 60 SECs.. why you ask?? - Well because it's unfair" 

Newsflash mate - nothing's fair in the open world.

Show me where I said anything about "fair". I am talking about from a game-play point of view. @admin keeps talking about how he wants to "encourage" people to fight against the odds not run away from them and his bright idea? To say just keep throwing ships at them and we'll give you a few PvP marks if you lose enough ships to them. 

How about he tries to encourage people to take the fight by giving player to tools to stand up in a uneven fight and not give the side that already has the advantage an even bigger advantage by giving them cheap tactics that favour the gank. Is it because he is worried that if he takes away theses things and makes them actually work for the kills that they will just up and leave the game?

Edited March 8, 2018 by NethrosDefectus

[Trino]

Imho the 60sec timer should be raised ... Think 2 min would be good ... 60sec are almost ever not enough to get away from a ship stuck in the wind, so disengage is almost useless. Nothing against chainboarding, because it's realistic in my view ...

[Percival Merewether]

12 hours ago, NethrosDefectus said:

@admin What is so hello kittying difficult about giving someone who has escaped from boarding 60 seconds to move away. Chain boarding is hello kittying stupid. It is unreasonable to allow two or more ships to just keep chain boarding a single ship without any sort of cooldown?

The cooldown should move to the "target" not the attackers. It's a simple fix that has been suggested many times yet you refuse to implement it. Why?

I was in the battle with Nethros when he got chainboarded - I was busy with another frigate while two ships were lying side-by-side with him taking turns to board him. I cannot remember how may times Neth disengaged but it was 3-4 times.

The problem in this paticular instance is not that he was chainboarded, but that the ships boarding him were sinking. Both enemy ships were lost and one of them took over @NethrosDefectus's ship. Had the timer been 2 minutes both ships would have sunk before they got the last boarding attempt in.

It's ridiculous how boarding can magically keep your ship afloat - that has to be fixed.!

[Capt Jubal Early]

Boarding just needs a overhaul. It will happen eventually as the clicky game isn't perfect by any means.  

[HachiRoku]

17 minutes ago, Percival Merewether said:

I was in the battle with Nethros when he got chainboarded - I was busy with another frigate while two ships were lying side-by-side with him taking turns to board him. I cannot remember how may times Neth disengaged but it was 3-4 times.

The problem in this paticular instance is not that he was chainboarded, but that the ships boarding him were sinking. Both enemy ships were lost and one of them took over @NethrosDefectus's ship. Had the timer been 2 minutes both ships would have sunk before they got the last boarding attempt in.

It's ridiculous how boarding can magically keep your ship afloat - that has to be fixed.!

Then ships not sinking during boarding is the issue. 

[Percival Merewether]

1 minute ago, TrashiRoku said:

Then ships not sinking during boarding is the issue. 

I'd say it's a good mix, give the player 60 seconds to escape chainboarding and enable sinking during boarding - that'd solve it.

OR: Make boarding realistic including EVERYTHING from damaged/entangled rigging, prize crew to handling of prisoners. That will make a ship more or less useless for at least 5 minutes (due to time-compression) following a boarding action if you win. But nobody wants that, right?

We have to find a good compromise between gameplay and realism.

[Landsman]

12 hours ago, NethrosDefectus said:

It is unreasonable to allow two or more ships to just keep chain boarding a single ship without any sort of cooldown?

And why is that? You think if this battle happened irl, the 2 ships would even have taken turns with boarding? As I said before, they would most likely have boarded at the same time 2 vs 1... I don't see any gameplay issues either.

If anything is broken then it is the 1990 2D boarding minigame... pretty big disappointment with the epic combat in NA...

[HachiRoku]

1 hour ago, Percival Merewether said:

I'd say it's a good mix, give the player 60 seconds to escape chainboarding and enable sinking during boarding - that'd solve it.

OR: Make boarding realistic including EVERYTHING from damaged/entangled rigging, prize crew to handling of prisoners. That will make a ship more or less useless for at least 5 minutes (due to time-compression) following a boarding action if you win. But nobody wants that, right?

We have to find a good compromise between gameplay and realism.

Why should 1 ship be able to escape multiple ships? In 90% of the cases you're dead anyway and giving people a 60 sec timer is a waste of time if you ask me. Leave it as it is. 

[Liq]

If you get stuck upwind versus several enemies you are doomed, as it should be IMO. 

Sucks when it happens for the one getting chainboarded but still more realistic

Imagine in a football match a player jumping onto one of the enemy team; the other one manages to get up again, but surely by then lots of others are ready or have already blocked him again. He doesnt get a special shield that suddenly makes him unstoppable

[Percival Merewether]

6 minutes ago, Trashicity said:

If you get stuck upwind versus several enemies you are doomed, as it should be IMO. 

Sucks when it happens for the one getting chainboarded but still more realistic

Imagine in a football match a player jumping onto one of the enemy team; the other one manages to get up again, but surely by then lots of others are ready or have already blocked him again. He doesnt get a special shield that suddenly makes him unstoppable

 

28 minutes ago, TrashiRoku said:

Why should 1 ship be able to escape multiple ships? In 90% of the cases you're dead anyway and giving people a 60 sec timer is a waste of time if you ask me. Leave it as it is. 

It seems we'll never agree on the disengage timer, but can we atleast agree that when a ship is sinking then auto-disengage when dead rather than keeping it alive? it's bullshit that you can save your ship that way.

[Capt Jubal Early]

48 minutes ago, TrashiRoku said:

Why should 1 ship be able to escape multiple ships? In 90% of the cases you're dead anyway and giving people a 60 sec timer is a waste of time if you ask me. Leave it as it is. 

Exactly. Boardings already gamey as hello kitty don't "balance" it anymore with stupid timers.

[IndianaGeoff]

In "reality" you should have multiple ships able to board at the same time.

[Lovec1990]

16 hours ago, IndianaGeoff said:

In "reality" you should have multiple ships able to board at the same time.

i agree but in current boarding mechanics it would not work becouse its designed for 1v1. 

othervise i have no issues with chain boarding

 

[Gunnur]

Isn't the real issue here that boarding requires ramming the other ship and turning them into the wind? 

A. That is historically unrealistic 

B. That allows the unrealistic aspects of chain boarding  (where a whole line of ships can be waiting to board you since you got rammed and turned into the wind). Since after disengaging you are  still stuck against the wind. 

If boarding was a matter of pulling alongside and enemy and matching speed for x period of time and maintaining  x gap, and ships kept sailing during boarding, then it would require everyone who wanted to board you to catch up to you,  not just queue up behind you after you get stuck in the wind. It would also mean that people trying to rake you couldn't just drop sails behind you during the boarding.