is it a good idea to suggest half bummed ideas though?
Yes, this is another thread which at its core is just complaining about serverhoppers in relation to the FotD. It's not new, though at least re-adding the cannon towers to the Fort (though they were removed and replaced with the fog and extra kegs because it added a skill element to the defence of it) is a better idea than locking a server with its activation. However, duplicating topics isn't going to stop any time soon, I feel.
I've seen a few viable solutions in here, and I feel a combination of them could be ideal?
When a large scale or time consuming event is started, the server is locked to prevent new crews from joining with some restrictions.
The event would have a cooldown period of 30-60 minutes to prevent farming. Perhaps in the case of the FotD, the dark energy must be replenished for the ritual to be initiated. Perhaps on Greymorrows defeat a pulse is sent out to all ships in a specific range that extinguishes their flames forcing them to gather them again?
I see your point and agree that server hopping shouldn't be the 'go to' for people to get a FoTD. Especially now that it's fairly easy to get the flames.
I feel that locking the server of new people as soon as the FoTD is active could be abused by people. Activate it, and then go on your way, if you wait long enough you'll eventually have a server to yourself. Might take hours, but it'd happen.
The reason it's searched for is because people who are looking for a fight, know that people are there since the fort is activated. An alternative solution could be to make it so that the skull in the sky appears for 'x' amount of time and then disappears?
For the pulse, if that is a way to go, then it could be once the door is opened instead? The ship opening the vault has the choice between finishing off their streak of completions (or pointlessly regathering the flames) or risking sailing their ship away undercrewed to save the lights and do it again, which would leave the undercrewed ship open for attack or the spawnpoint-less players on the island instead open for attack, especially given the amount of kegs within the vault.
@oakenkhan90088
I think this is a bad solution for this.
It isn't mentioned yet, but I think the reason why people don't like server hoppers while doing the FotD is, that it is done by people who are mostly better than average at the fighting. Because, let's face it, why would you spend time server hopping if you don't feel confident enough you can take on the ship or alliance at the Fort ? Thus if you just take into account the average set of crews on the server, server hoppers would increase PvP considerably if they take the place of a duo that just finished a Tall Tale.
While I don't have an issue with people changing servers occasionally (a server is too hostile for their taste, they already have beaten several crews and want a new challenge, they are getting spawn camped or whatever), crews who are looking for a specific server instance - be it to create an alliance with multiple boats of the same group of players or to find an active FotD, don't have my sympathy.
I don't think they are playing "as intended", otherwise Rare would have implemented "join friend's server" or "look for this type of server" kind of options.
Any solution for server hoppers, should IMHO be found at dealing with the server hopper, restriction of number of times you can change server within a period or some such, not at the hands of "possible victims" that will create other issues or exploits.
Server hopping was around in the game for a long time. It was something that has been there but since the introduction to the way regular forts spawn, has really taken a back seat.
Do I condone server hopping? No.
Do I condemn server hopping? No.
I don't care either way. I look at it as a way for players to have to actually THINK what they are doing. You want to start a FoTD, then start one, however you are going to have to fight for it.
That is the trade off.
A ton of loot and an Athena chest = You are going to have to fight.
FotD and server hopping have brought back PvP in the game. Now there are fleet battles of ships. 3 to 5 ships all fighting for the same fort. This is how it should be.
You are starting an event that gives a BIG reward and you are trying to find a way to mitigate your risk??
Sorry broski, I completely disagree and think the idea is dumb. Server hopping is just server hopping. It doesn't change anything that you'll have to fight for your fort. If you don't want to fight for it, then don't start it.
Before you think I server hop. I don't. What I do is I start FoTD's and sit and wait for players to come to me and just sink them all day. I don't even try to completely the fort. I just use it as bait.
Learn to fight for the loot or just go do regular voyages.
@ultmateragnarok said in FOTD improvement.:
For the pulse, if that is a way to go, then it could be once the door is opened instead? The ship opening the vault has the choice between finishing off their streak of completions (or pointlessly regathering the flames) or risking sailing their ship away undercrewed to save the lights and do it again, which would leave the undercrewed ship open for attack or the spawnpoint-less players on the island instead open for attack, especially given the amount of kegs within the vault.
It could happen either way I suppose :)
I think it would be cool to see a massive shockwave causing all the ships to tilt and blow out all of the lanterns :)
Where as i completely agree with your statement, server hoppers need to be dealt with, but not for the fact that to stop them taking a fort, but more so of the fact it's making the servers so quiet! Servers are becoming like they used to be when regular forts were dropping far and few. You won't see ships for hours, maybe to ease this up if is you hop a server 3 times in the space of 30 minutes you'll be on a cool down. Then the server migrations won't happen so often like they are currently doing. The downside to what you are saying is, what's stopping people just jumping on a server, activating the fotd and locking down the server so they can go off and do whatever they please undisturbed.
Dude. I know sever hopping goes way back, I was taking forts and holding off endless waves of scuttle abusing greenhorn hoppers before they more or less fixed the hopping by making forts spawn faster. So you can condescend to someone else.
My suggestion is not about not having to fight for forts, I've got no problem with doing that. It's about how people moan about how "dead the servers are" only to turn around and defend server hop players basically opting out of matchmaking, and the fort mechanics, not being a part of any of the "Dead Servers" thus contributing to the problem. Not to mention that old three hour forts started themselves without player effort, hoppers frankly don't deserve to be leeches and pick and choose only servers where someone else did the work. If they want a fort then they can start one or be on a server and participating in match making and wait for someone else to do it. At least that's putting in time on the server which makes it more deserving than hopping.
(not that anyones arguing for sever hopping, or does it, heavens no, just rejecting the notion of anything being done about it...)
So yea, you said a lot of words, talked down to me without any reason to do so, and you spent the whole post railing against not wanting to fight for loot which I never once said, nor would be created by my suggestion.
Bravo. I'm slow clapping.
It's like I told everyone else who's "not condoning" server hopping. Removing hopping doesn't make for uncontested servers, it just means players have to participate to get a shot at contesting, instead of opting out of participation on all servers without forts.
As for the dread runaway private server concern, it's easily handled by putting the FoTD on and active timer when started after which the fort and the lockout end. And a cool down so that they can't be farmed without the chance for others to contest the next time it's started.
Your amazing pirate combat trap sounds boring as hell. (And like something that never happened) I've killed so many and sank so many that I've kinda outgrown doing it for nothing, but hey man whatever blows your hair back I guess.
So, you don't like my idea, and you prefer that players continue to opt out of participation and matchmaking and avoiding the intended game mechanics. Gotcha. Noted and filed in the circular file.
@oakenkhan90088 said in FOTD improvement.:
Nope, you've got it all wrong. I love pvp in the game. In no way does my suggestion make it not a contested event. If you think thats where its coming from then you clearly dont understand.
I did not stae you dont want contested events, but of this is changed it will be less contested... isn't that your entire point? Lock it down, so no new players can come and contest?
Sorry if you do not like me pointing out the facts.
Obviously reducing server hopping is something rare has already done, when they corrected forts from 3 hours between them.
Yes and if it goes to far they will again take actions to reduce it. I have even stated an alternative to your lock down. Where you stated you didn't have all the answers.
You dont like the idea. You prefer people skip the intended mechanics and take no part in matchmaking unless they are guaranteed an active fort where someone else has already done the work. Noted. Have a nice day.
Read my posts on how a cooldown should be on their end. The fact of the matter that I object to is the locking of a server from being filled with players by the matchmaking system should never be a result of an activity done by the players. We should not be given that amount of power.
Though please tell me more mister without all the answers, by your own words. How I am all wrong yet your is right... again the devil is in the details yet when I query about those you state you dont know.
If I am that wrong and only want people to skip content... because hoppers dont need to combat you or anything... they just swoop in and get everything for free, nobody can stop them. Therefore let's give the matchmaking system control to the players on the server, make them the gate keepers.
Explain to me that people wanting to control the ability of people to not enter the world would not be given that option... if I am that wrong or realize that your system to address server hopping has some major flaws.
You keep trying to make this conversation about how I think people should play... while you are the one wanting a change to literally remove 1 of the reasons to hop, while not addressing others. Escaping PvP, looking for better crew mates in the open system, looking for your buddies that are also hopping.
What happens when the next event is added, also lock down? Let's just make it when someone starts a tale, fort, monster hunting... now they lock the server... it isn't a sustainable plan on addressing hopping in the long run and provide larger issues.
I disagree with your solution. Though next time you want to tell me I have no clue... try making it about the idea instead of my thought process and ideas regarding player playstyles. You do not know me and clearly have no idea of what I think.
In the end cloud event, contested... maybe it is extra contested by it being new, people hopping... but in the end they still have to beat the crew there. If you want to reduce the player frequency there, addressing hopping is an option. However it should not happen in the way you suggest.
Whatever guy, I just don't have any other way to say what I've told everyone who thinks I need their approval to submit this idea. It's not about reducing fighting at the forts at all, it's about making the process to contest them honest and fair. It's about balancing risk and reward. It's about making players engage in matchmaking and populating servers equally.
I never suggested it be for every event, no need to discuss that red herring any further.
Let me put it this way. I understand your opinion and objection. I don't care, because it doesn't need your or anyone's approval. I might care a little more if you managed to understand that I'm not out to avoid PvP at all, but as I told someone else, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink I guess.
Thanks for your input no further input of yours is required.
@naamar1 said in FOTD improvement.:
The same dude, thread after thread, trying to figure out ways to get less PvP, advocating for PvE and private servers, while simultaneously maintaining that HE doesn't need or want them because HE is a good player and everyone who doesn't want PvE servers is a bad player.
Twirls mustache oof, ya got me. It's all some dastardly deception. /S
Lol, in no way did I say anyone else is a bad player. What I did say was that it's striking to me how everyone who's afraid of pve servers existing for whatever reason seems to think that everyone will switch to using them. Except themselves? I guess?
Myself, I'd continue playing the way I've enjoyed for about 2 years, I'm not threatened by letting other people play how they want. I don't believe it will lead to an empty adventure mode unless everyone who's so vehemently opposed to them actually gets on them themselves. But none of theamazing salt dogs, legends of the forum, git good or die pirate scourges would do that, right?
My position isn't false and it's not that hard to figure out. I like the PvEvP nature of the game, and would continue to play it that way. I'm ok with letting other players play differently because I'm all about as many people playing as possible so the game is as supported as possible. More players could even lower emporium costs.
I don't fear the pve players having a place to play, I don't need them on my servers, I would expect my games to still be populated by all the Savage and bold and super hardcore Pirate legends of the forum, because none of them would want to play PVE only right?
Obviously you think I'm being dishonest, but that's ok. I don't need you to believe, but it's the truth.
I yam what I yam. And now I'd ask you to please stop derailing my thread with personal attacks. We're taking about the FotD here, not PVE servers or private servers.
@oakenkhan90088 said in FOTD improvement.:
Dude. I know sever hopping goes way back, I was taking forts and holding off endless waves of scuttle abusing greenhorn hoppers before they more or less fixed the hopping by making forts spawn faster. So you can condescend to someone else.
You really don't like people disagreeing with you do you? No one like the forts being turned into a McDonalds drive thru where anyone can just line up and get their order.
Because they made forts so frequent it lost its appeal. No one does them and if someone gets attacked they just run and wait for the next one. It wasn't a fix, they messed up.
I more believe they did that because of the Mega-keg if anything. I seriously doubt it had anything to do with server hopping. I think they introduced something they wanted players to have fun with but 3 to 4 hours for just 1 mega-keg probably wasn't going to work so they just made forts respawn constantly.
In no dev video did they mention server hopping as an issue or a problem.
My suggestion is not about not having to fight for forts, I've got no problem with doing that. It's about how people moan about how "dead the servers are" only to turn around and defend server hop players basically opting out of matchmaking, and the fort mechanics, not being a part of any of the "Dead Servers" thus contributing to the problem. Not to mention that old three hour forts started themselves without player effort, hoppers frankly don't deserve to be leeches and pick and choose only servers where someone else did the work. If they want a fort then they can start one or be on a server and participating in match making and wait for someone else to do it. At least that's putting in time on the server which makes it more deserving than hopping.
?? You do know that players have been complaining about dead servers even before the FoTD right? The FoTD hasn't really changed much of anything except given people a event to contest.
They could make the FoTD respawn on a timer like the old forts used to have, 3 - 4 hours and I would still wouldn't complain about server hopping.
You are talking about players having skin in the game or doing the work or whatever. The FoTD doesn't belong to players in that server. The fort doesn't belong to players who activated it either. The Fort belongs to no one. Don't want to deal with server hoppers then don't activate the fort.
(not that anyones arguing for sever hopping, or does it, heavens no, just rejecting the notion of anything being done about it...)
So yea, you said a lot of words, talked down to me without any reason to do so, and you spent the whole post railing against not wanting to fight for loot which I never once said, nor would be created by my suggestion.
Again, you just dislike anyone disagreeing with you as clearly showed by this whole entire thread. You look at server hopping as something that needs to be fixed while others are telling you that they don't care about it. Other players have realized that its something that is part of the game and that doesn't really need to be fixed for 2 reasons.
You have no idea who server hopped and who didn't.
People who attack the fort almost always have 0 loot. So arguing about server hoppers is stupid. You for some reason believe that players who were in the server for (x) amount of time have skin to lose in the game? Are you daft? There is plunder outpost RIGHT NEXT TO THE FORT. Any number of outposts they can stop by on the way to the fort.
The fort isn't something that can be completed in 30 mins. You have loot? Turn it all in and then go to the fort. Hell you can even load the loot on to a row boat and just have them turn it in while you travel to the fort.
You seem to believe that players who activated the fort have some kind of special privilege because they activated it when they don't. You activated a contested event. Deal with it.
Bravo. I'm slow clapping.
You really don't like people disagreeing with you and it shows.
It's like I told everyone else who's "not condoning" server hopping. Removing hopping doesn't make for uncontested servers, it just means players have to participate to get a shot at contesting, instead of opting out of participation on all servers without forts.
Again you have no idea who is server hopping and who isn't. You want to lock out the server. Why lock it out? What if someone just got home, joined a game and theres a fort? You have no idea who is and who isn't a server hopper.
You are trying to punish a group of players by punishing another group of players who have done absolutely nothing.
"Oh well we can put a timer on players who go from one server to another!!!" - Broksi, server hopping isn't only for players trying to find forts. There are players trying to escape being attacked by aggressive PvP players.
You look at one thing that bothers you and thats all you think about. You don't look at how it will effect other players who have nothing to do with your temper tantrum of being attacked at a FoTD and losing.
As for the dread runaway private server concern, it's easily handled by putting the FoTD on and active timer when started after which the fort and the lockout end. And a cool down so that they can't be farmed without the chance for others to contest the next time it's started.
This is the part that made me laugh. I saw you in another post in this thread state something along the lines of
"No one is going to activate a fort just to lock out a server. Who would want to waste all that time just to lock it out" - There are players that do exactly that. You do know that there are PvE servers that players have basically locked down? Since Rare doesn't reset there servers, there are PvE servers that go one for days or even weeks with crews recycling over and over. All because someone spent hours trying to get everyone to alliance.
You say you are a veteran but you know nothing about the players in the game.
Your amazing pirate combat trap sounds boring as hell. (And like something that never happened) I've killed so many and sank so many that I've kinda outgrown doing it for nothing, but hey man whatever blows your hair back I guess.
My amazing Pirate trap is amazingly fun. Because I don't need loot anymore or anything. All I want is to fight some peeps and this makes it easy. Sorry my way to play the game isn't too your liking, but this whole thread is about you hating on how other players play their game so I'm not surprised.
So, you don't like my idea, and you prefer that players continue to opt out of participation and matchmaking and avoiding the intended game mechanics. Gotcha. Noted and filed in the circular file.
No I dont like your idea and I prefer players to play how they want and if server hopping is one of them then let them. Its the players responsibility when they start the fort to defend it.
There is no "matchmaking" in this game. The game fills up servers as needed or creates them as needed. They aren't avoiding intended game mechanics because server hopping isn't only for players server hopping for FoTD, so maybe stop looking at your issue of being attacked and throwing your temper tantrum with blinders.
@xultanis-dragon again so many words and insults, and you say I dislike being disagreed with lol.
Listen. Your assertion for why the forts changed isn't any less speculation than mine.
You also say that nobody liked the new forts, which is plainly false, at least outside the tiny little bubble of this forum. It's not like they're new anymore and still around without any real swell of support for taking them backwards like they've inadvertently done by creating a fort that won't start itself. Your perspective is just skewed because of your time on this forum. Where the status quo is cherished and people pretend this is a hardcore pvp game.
Of course the game has matchmaking, it's an online game. Server hopping isn't a play style. It's circumventing game mechanics by browsing the servers via trial and error matchmaking. It's opting out of doing the requirements to start a fort, or even waiting for someone to do so. Why should that be allowed? Of course they're avoiding game mechanics. The mechanics are required for the fort to be active, if everyone avoided doing so by hopping then there would be no active FoTD... Someone's gotta do it, I'm just saying that abusing match making to avoid any of the time spent filling the requirements or waiting for someone else to isn't actually great for the game.
You and the others definitely "not condoning" server hopping love to say that it's the responsibility of those that start the fort to hold it.(which would not change with my suggestion). What responsibility are the hoppers taking on?
Likewise with your take on server take overs. I wasn't unaware of them, I just don't care about them.
Certainly not enough to prevent changes that would improve the game for fear of them, especially because they already happen anyway. If it didn't cross my mind it's because I have a better understanding of what actually affects me and what doesn't.
It's ok that you don't like my idea. It doesn't require your approval. Your incorrect judgment as to why I made it is equally inconsequential, just like it was for the Crossplay opt out.
And now due to your nasty tone, refusal to answer any of the questions I've asked you, and your inability to argue the point without trying to strawman it into about being attacked, I think I'll ignore you. Please resume playing the "woe is us poor PC players" victim card.
@oakenkhan90088 said in FOTD improvement.:
@xultanis-dragon again so many words and insults, and you say I dislike being disagreed with lol.
Listen. Your assertion for why the forts changed isn't any less speculation than mine.
You also say that nobody liked the new forts, which is plainly false, at least outside the tiny little bubble of this forum. It's not like they're new anymore and still around without any real swell of support for taking them backwards like they've inadvertently done by creating a fort that won't start itself. Your perspective is just skewed because of your time on this forum. Where the status quo is cherished and people pretend this is a hardcore pvp game.
Of course the game has matchmaking, it's an online game. Server hopping isn't a play style. It's circumventing game mechanics by browsing the servers via trial and error matchmaking. It's opting out of doing the requirements to start a fort, or even waiting for someone to do so. Why should that be allowed? Of course they're avoiding game mechanics. The mechanics are required for the fort to be active, if everyone avoided doing so by hopping then there would be no active FoTD... Someone's gotta do it, I'm just saying that abusing match making to avoid any of the time spent filling the requirements or waiting for someone else to isn't actually great for the game.
You and the others definitely "not condoning" server hopping love to say that it's the responsibility of those that start the fort to hold it.(which would not change with my suggestion). What responsibility are the hoppers taking on?
Likewise with your take on server take overs. I wasn't unaware of them, I just don't care about them.
Certainly not enough to prevent changes that would improve the game for fear of them, especially because they already happen anyway. If it didn't cross my mind it's because I have a better understanding of what actually affects me and what doesn't.It's ok that you don't like my idea. It doesn't require your approval. Your incorrect judgment as to why I made it is equally inconsequential, just like it was for the Crossplay opt out.
And now due to your nasty tone I think I'll ignore you. Please resume playing the "woe is us poor PC players" victim card.
Why, you ignore alliance servers because they don't effect you but you get onto server hopping because someone attacked you?
Thats really selfish dont you think?
I don't condone server hopping or condemn it. Like you I don't care. I like how you keep trying to use it in some snarky way, while you still ignore everything everyone is telling you.
Yes you do not like people disagreeing with you because if you look at your past post, you become very disrespectful and snippy towards players telling you what is going on and asking you valid questions about how you feel about that system being abused.
Then you sit there saying that you don't care if it gets abused because no one would spend the time to do that in the first place.
Again all of this because you got attacked when you for a fact have NO IDEA if the players who attacked you were server hoppers or not.
Get off it man, stop complaining about every little thing. You obviously don't care about the game or other players as you have so openly stated - "I don't care about things that don't affect me"
Thank you for the bit of information. At least everyone knows now to ignore you since you only care about yourself.
@oakenkhan90088 said in FOTD improvement.:
I'm not threatened by letting other people play how they want
Obviously you think I'm being dishonest, but that's ok. I don't need you to believe, but it's the truth.
Still going strong with the "everyone else is afraid".
In your 25 days here you've taken part in multiple threads about
And I wouldn't say that's any better.
It's like you've constructed in your mind this imaginary version of me who says all these things that I've never once said.
I've never bragged about how great I am.
I've never once said "less PvP".
The only reason I care about crossplay is that I like my PvP to be on a more level playing field and open Crossplay ain't that.
If you were paying attention and responding to the things I actually said instead of the garbage that you're making up in your own mind you'd have seen me say what a good time I had during the double XP Arena event and how refreshing it was to for the game to run well and for people I damage to die, like the good old days of SoT before Shrouded Spoils. I like PVP. I win some, I lose some, it's not about that.
I asked you before to stop attempting to derail this thread with personal attacks. Consider this the last response you'll get here if you can't get on topic.
Just because you submitted the idea, does not mean I have to think it is a good idea. You are placing it on a public forum for it to be talked about. Nor should I care if you believe I should have more to say, in the same manner as you can speak yours.
You look at this in isolation, which is a bad way to approach game design. You cannot suggest ideas for a game where it breaks other aspects of the game and ignore them. Giving players any power over the server is a dangerous thing.
I also, did not deny your request to reduce hopping since I offered an alternative manner to achieve this to some degree. When I point out issues in your idea, you claim not to have the answers and start making it about a playstyle.
If your goal is to reduce server hopping, you cannot forget the rest of the game and how it could be used. Therefore your initial idea might not be the best one to tackle it. If you get a better situation, does it really matter that it wasn't your solution?
As original post was edited with an assumption, I thought I would reply.
I am not a server hopper for forts. I have switched servers to find an open crew doing something though. I just like to help. It is the way that I like to play.
I support server hoppers as I like the idea if I want PVP, all I have to do is send out a beacon or head towards the beacon. Great signal that does its job nicely. Let them come from any server. Let it be contested. That is what make the Fort of the Damned so intriguing.
That is what creates a great story to tell to others. " I took another skull fort" is not a tale to tell. Once it was, but now... just one of the many things we do easily.
Please keep server hoppers. They make the game more interesting.
The simplest and most innocuous fix for server hopping would be to simply not show the skull cloud to players that are in a server unless they have been there for 10-15 minutes. The skull only reveals itself to those who have been there for a bit, and the same goes for the specific reaper chests in the fort.
@d-jaguar said in FOTD improvement.:
"I like the idea if I want PVP, all I have to do is send out a beacon or head towards the beacon."
Cool, me too. You could do this with my suggestion in effect too. In fact, it'd be much more likely that a FoTD would be started on whatever server you're on because starting them would make sense for a lot more players, and because hopping for them won't be a thing those who want to do a FoTD will be encouraged to start their own. Or you could start your own and kill whoever comes, same as before.
Or you could start your own and kill whoever comes, same as before.
With your suggestion, there would be a maximum of 5 ships that can come to attack. This is assuming that the server is full at the time of starting the Fort, which it may not be. Then, some of the ships might not want to attack the Fort. And if those who do wish to attack it quit or switch servers after fighting for a while, their slots will not be filled. After that, it'd just be a time of waiting for a while for the FotD to despawn, and then not being able to lure in more ships.
If you want to deter serverhopping, just make it place ships into the same server after 2 or 3 hops within, say, 15 minutes. Personally, I think it makes the servers feel more alive when doing that sort of event (though I've done the FotD and had no ships attack throughout the entire duration of it, including while killing Greymarrow with guns and cutlasses), although it does really mess with the matchmaking and makes the rest of the sea even more peaceful, but sometimes servers fill with ships doing their own thing and no serverhoppers join anyways.
