The Shape of PvP to Come

[beltpouch]

Originally Posted by Snap No, that's not the case. You have to be within range to join just like you have to be in range to attack anyone on the open sea. If you're not in range, you have to move within range, but that takes time. That's all.

So people in Bridgetown can join a battle in New Orleans. That's just wrong, just my opinion.

[elessaria]

Originally Posted by Snap I'm not up on the numbers, but I recall one of our designers pointing out that while it's possible to cover 1000y pretty quickly in a fast ship, it takes a lot longer to close 1000y when your opponent is on the run. And, as always, let's remember that speed-fitted ships sacrifice strength; once they get in range, they've still got a fight to win, against a ship that packs more of a wallop than their own.

If the ship packs more of a whallop, why is it running?

If it takes so long to close 1000y, the exit timer will come up anyway.

[Jess Scarlet]

Great so you mean with current population imbalance where there is one french 6man group and 4 british 6 man group they'll just keep zerging ppl into the battle when they die... I read enough

/sigh

[TheRooster]

Originally Posted by elessaria I came up with a dozen potentially game-breaking exploits in the first 15 minutes actually. Much like when LSBs launched, MoT turn-in for LSBs launched and the insurance system launched.

So post them instead of just saying the game will fail. Posting possible game-breaking exploits would be constructive!

[beltpouch]

I think this is the end of 1v1. But even if it isn't there is nothing in these changes to interest my play style. Until you guys start opening up the map to more PvP and allowing econimic warfare to really happen then what's the point. I guess in the end this just isn't the game for merchant hunter roleplayer's anymore.

I miss closed beta :-(

[mikkelsr]

I do think it's rather telling (and I've read through the entire thread) that the only people who are coming out in support of this idea are the Brits, the people who have the numbers to support this kind of gameplay.

[GB.]

How does the new open PVP system prevent kill stealing?
you may be one shot away from sinking your apponent & a re-inforcement turns up & steals the kill.

Does the battle instance cater for grouping beyond 6 to a max of 10?

So all PvP battles are OPEN to both sides & only the defender will be able to have up to 10 in out-numbered battles whereas the attacker can only re-enforce up to 6.

Can a battle status be changed to outnumbered after the initial battle timer or does it only check once at that point?
Don't see the point in the initial battle timer as every group will just have one split off to start the battle & the rest of the group will join after the initial battle timer so preventing the defender from having outnumbered battle status & calling up to 10 re-enforcements.

To preserve fair fights & prevent ganking it may be better if the defender has the initial right to open up the battle by using a flare.

[elessaria]

Originally Posted by TheRooster So post them instead of just saying the game will fail. Posting possible game-breaking exploits would be constructive!

I agree, but we're at 20 pages and counting and tomorrow it'll be 50 and wasted effort. I'd rather check out Testbed a little and post there where the one blessing of a dead test environment is the ease of attracting attention.

[Joseph Fletcher]

I think it would work if the amount of re-enforcements were capped rather than time.

So if 6 attacked 2 then the total re-enforcements that could enter the battle before it was locked for good was 6 for a total of 6 vs 8. Once those 6 had joined the defenders that would be it. That would give the 6 players a chance of winning, but would punish them for ganking the 2

it would also allow 1vs1, 2vs2, XvsX as the equal sides would mean no re-enforcements for either side (group members within 5miles would still get the chance to join)

[Snap]

Originally Posted by beltpouch How does boarding combat effect the timer? Was never really an issue before but now could be.

I don't recall offhand; it hasn't changed AFAIK.