two additions for new patch
I have two issues that I think need some looking into for the next patch. I hope you guys at FC can check this out. I know a bunch of other people experiencing these same problems. Thanks!
"wait for your previous attack to complete"
http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...p?threadid=913
"Manual reload sometimes works, sometimes doesn't..."
http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...?threadid=1270
My understanding of the 15 sec. rule.
From what i'm reading alot of people don't like this rule because they think that you can zone quickly, attack while still being invul.
Here is exactly what they said they are going to do:
Added 15 seconds of invulnerability when someone zones into a new playfield or district. This has been done to eliminate zone camping. Unless you attack someone first, you will be invulnerable to attack for the 15 second period.
The part I want to address is where it says, "Unless you attack someone first, you will be invulnerable to attack for the 15 second period."
Now to me this says when you zone you are invul for 15 seconds. But if you initiate an attack then you are no longer invulnerable. Meaning, one cannot in fact zone and try to kill things while invul. Am I assuming all this correctly?
The fate of PvP hangs in the balance...
Look, the problem with grid camping can be resolved by simply moving the 25% zones away from the grids. It has been suggested that there should be a more meaningful reason for PvP, other than just getting whatever benefits Clan and Omni get for killing each other. I wouldn't know, I'm neutral, and everyone tries to kill me for no good reason, all of the time.
I sam some ones post in this thread suggesting something that I've been suggesting for a while. If this game is supposed to be about a war between two factions, then why aren't there any defendable territories in the game. And, no, 2H0 doesn't qualify, because the grid is right in PvP central. There is no way to strategically take over that area, it is strictly numbers.
Funcom should rethink the design of the areas like 2H0 and MM, making them more like forts than simple battlefields.
The 25% zone should only be in and maybe about 200 meters around the actual "Fort" area. This should give teams the ability to mount up forces out side and develop a strategy for taking it over. If the possesing faction was ill prepared to handle the onslought, then they would be pulverized, but if they had things planned well, they could effectively defend their position, or even call out for reinforcements which would be required to make it through the opposition to get to the "base".
This presents a much more realistic and interesting view of PvP. I don't think it was ever intended to primarily consist of dueling between two individuals who want to see how they fare against one another. Heck it's 2001, we don't even duel now, do we actually believe that people will in 28,000 years? Probably not. Warfare will be based on groups of people as it is now, and when a group is involved in PvP, it's anyone's guess who'll win. Not like a soldier vs. a lone MP, or an agent v.s an enforcer. Gee, I wonder who'll win. Guess it depends on how over-equipped each of the players is.
It may also be helpful if there were some real resource in these "forts" which the occupying team could access, that the opposition could not, giving even more of an inccentive to try to take the fort. Maybe shops or a special mission that gives special items in the heart of the fort which is maintained in a 100 meter radius of 100% gas. Then opposing factions would have a real reason to try to maintain the fort. It may evn open up new levels of PvP combat and organizational strategies, like orchestrated watches by members of the occupying force!
So, 15 seconds, fine...Who cares, sure there'll be a few morrons who'll try to take advantage of this by gridding in and runnign around within the first fifteen seconds looking for someone to kill, but, if it floats their boat... I doubt it'll be half as bad as gridding in and getting zapped, cause someone tabbed you and was allowed to open fire.
Just do something to make PvP more interesting, like what I and atleast one other person is suggesting. Then, maybe, just maybe, more people will get involved in PvP, but as it stands, it is absolutely meaningless, which is why I think that a lot of people don't participate. People have to have a reason to risk PvP, and right now, the only reason is unrelated to PvP, missions. Heck, you could even have several "fort" locations to decentralize the conflict, and give groups choices for where they want to stage their attacks.
PvP is currently, too much like gang warfare, as apposed to millitary conflict. One gang hangs out where they know everyone will be passing by, and tries to kill everyone they can, until another gang "grids" in and slaughters them, giving rise to the exploits of a different gang. No strategy, just pure luck, and muscle. Turf wars!
I believe that Funcom has been extremely lazy in this area, and they should provide better PvP content for us lamers who continue to chuck out 13+ dollars a month for what seems to be a less and less enjoyable game.
:)
Just my 2 cr