(08-09-2019, 01:14 AM)diamond1 Wrote: I've had an issue only with PVP because of the delay in my net's speed in response time and so it usually ends up with myself dying almost every time. It wasn't fun.
Yeah if fighter/bomber turn rates dropped about 25-30% we'd see a lot more people able to compete here pvp wise. Seems like it would put a lot less stess on the average computer and internet connection.
(08-09-2019, 01:06 AM)JonasHudson Wrote: PVP is reality on the server. RP ties it all together.
This is why I suggested some long term base sieges. Not to have something static to shoot, but to have a more immediate goal to work around. Essentially, longer, more dragged out king of the hill style situations. Just having the situation unfold with a real target creates an event. They can also be rigged to require multiple roles be fulfilled to get the best out of the situation.
The bases would just have to be strong enough to take a few days to deal with. During that time, people divide up. The offending side needs players to fly caps for siege, and defense of those caps. It would be even more intersting if repair ships could repair the bases a bit, so the defending side could have people try to repair during a lull. The offenders could still try going after those ships, and any defending them.
Combine this with a new activity of essentially 'combat mining' which is fighting for npc pilots that would be worth something in game, either put towards faction rewards or in game features, but that also could add another activity of value. Players log for missions but rarely does anyone log to go after ships doing missions. But if players were out hunting NPC's always getting something of value from it (long term value towards rewards) people would get on more over having people in their territory, to stop them if they can, or get involved somehow. This would also let players generate something more of value for their RP and faction cause just by being online doing a normal thing of patrolling any given area. It would at least give players more of a reason to care about who else is on, not always assuming its not worth it to check out someone loitering in their area for a while. That might also make people interact inrp more, like sending someone a message asking them if you can hunt pilots in their area, etc.
Basically these things could be done without needing to make very much actual physical changes to the game. We just need to change how we value the activity we are already doing. I find when we have larger goals to work towards, the pvp becomes more about working on that, than simply forming up to march at each other across an open field. Plenty of time for that. In between the big battles though, we need stuff to keep the smaller battle rolling. So in such siege situations, when you can't have a fleet go in for a big attempt on a base, you can still gather small groups, or as an individual, use special weapons, to do some damage in between.
To me its not about the pvp itself, the situation is what its about, and it makes the pvp better in the long run. And it makes the RP the best it can be. Having these things to do between the big battle events would give people more things to do, and hopefully get them online working together on a goal.
Consumption is the key. We need reasons to consume. These battles could be just that if we let them be. Working on these battles would make and entice factions to consume for progress. We need to keep players consuming and give them reasons to keep at it. Achieving goals in battles and wars have always worked for that. Like I've said before, in future wars on the server, we could definitely stand to see a higher overturn of battleships. Let players knock them down for something to do, and just keep replacing them (depending on exact situations). I'd rather see a server where factions are taking down their enemy's battleship every month and make them replace it (inrp at least) but go a month short a base. At least people get more realness to their RP stories and the pvp feels more purposeful.
After my base was seiged late last month and noticing the activity for it, we are planning on building random POB around the place to encourage more of those "King of the hill" style interactions you mentioned.
~The eyes that only see prey. An instinct to act on~
~The bloodlust and it’s just, Not enough... Not enough.~
~But that’s the chain of command, And now we know we must not hide~
(08-09-2019, 01:06 AM)JonasHudson Wrote: PVP is reality on the server. RP ties it all together.
This is why I suggested some long term base sieges. Not to have something static to shoot, but to have a more immediate goal to work around. Essentially, longer, more dragged out king of the hill style situations. Just having the situation unfold with a real target creates an event. They can also be rigged to require multiple roles be fulfilled to get the best out of the situation.
The bases would just have to be strong enough to take a few days to deal with. During that time, people divide up. The offending side needs players to fly caps for siege, and defense of those caps. It would be even more intersting if repair ships could repair the bases a bit, so the defending side could have people try to repair during a lull. The offenders could still try going after those ships, and any defending them.
Combine this with a new activity of essentially 'combat mining' which is fighting for npc pilots that would be worth something in game, either put towards faction rewards or in game features, but that also could add another activity of value. Players log for missions but rarely does anyone log to go after ships doing missions. But if players were out hunting NPC's always getting something of value from it (long term value towards rewards) people would get on more over having people in their territory, to stop them if they can, or get involved somehow. This would also let players generate something more of value for their RP and faction cause just by being online doing a normal thing of patrolling any given area. It would at least give players more of a reason to care about who else is on, not always assuming its not worth it to check out someone loitering in their area for a while. That might also make people interact inrp more, like sending someone a message asking them if you can hunt pilots in their area, etc.
Basically these things could be done without needing to make very much actual physical changes to the game. We just need to change how we value the activity we are already doing. I find when we have larger goals to work towards, the pvp becomes more about working on that, than simply forming up to march at each other across an open field. Plenty of time for that. In between the big battles though, we need stuff to keep the smaller battle rolling. So in such siege situations, when you can't have a fleet go in for a big attempt on a base, you can still gather small groups, or as an individual, use special weapons, to do some damage in between.
To me its not about the pvp itself, the situation is what its about, and it makes the pvp better in the long run. And it makes the RP the best it can be. Having these things to do between the big battle events would give people more things to do, and hopefully get them online working together on a goal.
Consumption is the key. We need reasons to consume. These battles could be just that if we let them be. Working on these battles would make and entice factions to consume for progress. We need to keep players consuming and give them reasons to keep at it. Achieving goals in battles and wars have always worked for that. Like I've said before, in future wars on the server, we could definitely stand to see a higher overturn of battleships. Let players knock them down for something to do, and just keep replacing them (depending on exact situations). I'd rather see a server where factions are taking down their enemy's battleship every month and make them replace it (inrp at least) but go a month short a base. At least people get more realness to their RP stories and the pvp feels more purposeful.
After my base was seiged late last month and noticing the activity for it, we are planning on building random POB around the place to encourage more of those "King of the hill" style interactions you mentioned.
Anyone interested in doing these?
I have not heard that people enjoy shooting POB for hours. And fights that come with it? Can happen more often if people just logged instead of feeling the duty to be AFK Sieging illegal POB.
Posts: 2,077
Threads: 112
Joined: Nov 2018
Staff roles: Server Administrator
(08-09-2019, 12:29 AM)Durandal Wrote: There's a real easy solution to this and that's that the aces stop flocking together so much and branch out and fly with some of these more RP oriented people. That's why I was with the BAF during the '31 event when nearly the entirety of the aces on the server were stacked against us.
People who enjoy FL's PvP are quick to accuse more casual players of avoiding encounters, yet aces very rarely end up on the ends of each other's guns.
Yes I agree with you there @Durandal aces do tend to stick together, and for those more casual RPing players once they know who they PvPers are they do tend to hide and run, i have seen it myself when i first met someone we RPed a bit and it turned into a fight, Iwon and now when on that ship when he sees me they run. So i can see why casual players avoid encounters with certain other players.
It would be interesting to see how PvP's turn out with them against each other an how they turn out.
I for one do not mind going up against ace's or players that are better than me, it's just another chance for me to learn something new and more practice. The more i lose the more better at PvP I get.
Also, big sad that my post was ignored. Really guys, it's a valid point.
Here's your (you):
POBs are hot garbage in their current state, and they only cause grief and frustration. For both parties. Until that's fixed, I wouldn't suggest them for anything.
Now on the topic at hand. Some people.. especially those leading official factions, have been lead to believe that if they avoid losing too many fights - that might have some leverage in their obsessive struggle for power. Here's the thing: losing or winning a pvp fight shouldn't mean jack. It's just a game and it doesn't affect your character development, if that's the concern. Your character is immortal and so is your faction. Lying in message dumps won't win you systems or other game assets. In fact, nothing should, this should be all dev driven (of course, assuming that storyline devs are unbiased and all).
What the staff needs to do is stop tying pvp events to story line progression. I.e "outcome changed based on score". That's a degenerate idea which only causes conflict between players. Rewards are fine as long as they're individual, but even with those they've gone overboard. People have been cheesing events because the rewards were insane, e.g sci-data. Not to mention they wouldn't need to trade for the rest of their lives because they won 1 billion credits in 20 minutes. This alone causes a great divide between players.
Signature violates 1.7, please resize:
1.7 - Pictures that exceed 700px width or signatures that exceed 700*250px*3 MB are not allowed on the forum.
Mephistoles
![[Image: pYAPPbQ.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/pYAPPbQ.jpg)
![[Image: jVk71cR.png]](https://imgur.com/jVk71cR.png)
![[Image: CNwiaZq.png]](https://i.imgur.com/CNwiaZq.png)
![[Image: PFjFVMW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/PFjFVMW.png)
![[Image: rTrJole.png]](https://i.imgur.com/rTrJole.png)
![[Image: LJ88XSk.png]](https://i.imgur.com/LJ88XSk.png)
![[Image: ka0AQa5.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ka0AQa5.png)
![[Image: QwWqCS8.png]](https://i.imgur.com/QwWqCS8.png)
![[Image: 6xJ4Q4P.png]](https://i.imgur.com/6xJ4Q4P.png)
