Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit

[akd]

Yes, the positional mechanic will allow them to surround you. It's not a very good mechanic.

In any contest of RVR opponents are not necessarily equal in skills, numbers, technology or economy. 1v1 by far favors technology and skill while minimizing economic and numerical advantages. So it's only realistic simulation of war in 2 out of 4. Ganking or otherwise using strategy that pits superior numbers to inferior numbers neutralizes skill and tech advantages and favors numeric and economic. Throughout history, real life history, the balance of these four factors if war has shaped the world. The more numerous little guys only chance to combat the high tech skilled giant has always been to swarm the opponent. It's as important strategically to be able to do this as to exert superior skills. Forced 1v1s is just favoritism to skill and tech.

If WW2 had been fought with 1.5BR rules enforced we would all be speaking German right now. The Germans had the higher tech and skills. The Soviet state excelled in numbers. The USA in economy. The British skills at espionage and recon had the rest beat. The Japanese probably the most determination. We can't just shut an entire groups war advantage off and think we're still simulating a war.

Fun fact: some battles in the Age of Sail were fought with "BR restrictions" (i.e. combatants made active efforts to equalize odds in an engagement even when more force was available).

Also, your understanding of WWII is drawn mostly from silly stereotypes. The US had enormous tech advantages over Germany, and superior "skills" (although this a pretty silly concept to apply to national comparisons) in key areas.

[Anne Wildcat]

I also cannot see navies, historically, sending 7 ships to take down 1. Waste of resources. Maybe they would send 1 or 2. But I may be wrong as history is not my forte.

[Sven Silberbart]

Maybe he, like me, likes the thrill of sailing in enemy waters ,,

 

There is no thrill anymore, if the game is full of restrictions that gives protection to players like the BR System did before. Thats one point why i didn't wanted that.

[Sven Silberbart]

I also cannot see navies, historically, sending 7 ships to take down 1. Waste of resources. Maybe they would send 1 or 2. But I may be wrong as history is not my forte.

 

In WW2 somone called "Sink the Bismark"! The Royal Navy send all available ships to sink the Battleship and the Prinz Eugen. Much british Ship vs. 2 german ships.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Sven Silberbart

[Neptune]

There is no thrill anymore, if the game is full of restrictions that gives protection to players like the BR System did before. Thats one point why i didn't wanted that.

 

What? You could still be ganked, and outnumberd.

 

I'll tell you this, ganking someone 20v4 isn't thrilling, but having a neck and neck PvP where it's so even you don't know who is going to win for the most part of the PvP until the final broadside finally takes down a mast or sends an enemy to the bottom of the sea. That's thrilling fun PvP, not ganks. When you already know your fate before the battle starts. Lame PvP, no skill, no challenge for boring people. No offence.

 

I'm going to play a soccer game later, my team has 85 people and the other team has 12. Should be fun.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Acadian44

[Blackjack Morgan]

You completely avoided answering both our questions.

What is wrong with the large and small battles mechanic that you are not using it to get fair battles?

What would make them better for you?

Why do you feel your battles have to be forced fair ones in the open world war zone?

 

I did not discuss small or large battles because they have ZERO to due with my argument or any of the points I have discussed. It is a completely different game mode that has nothing to due with OW and one that shouldn't even be part of these discussions. What we ARE debating is a game mechanic that effects the very core of NA since it takes place on the OW where a good 90% of your play time is spent. If you want to have some random discussion about arena by all means do so but have it in another thread because it is irrelevant in this one.

 

Furthermore, I would suggest going back and reading my comments and others again...carefully....and slowly perhaps so as to not misunderstand. I said REPEATEDLY that fights do not, and should not, always be guaranteed to be "fair". In the 1.5 BR system you could still have a Connie versus a Brig....or 2 Trincs vs 1....or 6 vs 1.....or a whole variety of other fights that would not necessarily be considered "fair". However, larger numerical forces needed to put in effort and a bit of sailing skill  to ensure they all were within the engagement circle....which is quite large mind you and represent many many miles in the game world.

 

The system that we have now is completely flawed and unrealistic....might as well introduce magic and dragons in the next patch. Group A can have a fast tackler chase down an opponent on the OW and initiate combat while his slower companions eventually catch up to the battle marker and then magically spawn in front of the guy who they pursued. You end up with ships that were slower and never would have been able to catch the opponent warping into the battle in front of everyone which is laughable. Not too mention they still have two minutes of real time to join the battle....except OW time compression and battle time are completely different making this even more fantastical. 

[Kiefer Cain]

A system mechanic that dictates 'fair' doesn't belong in an open world (open sea) setting.  There are too many situations that can not be measured by BR or total players in a battle.  It is best not to tinker with something that has so many variables involved.

 

On the other hand...

 

Invisible players in battle and/or battle screen, as well as port-camping reinforcements do not belong in an open world setting.

[Bach]

We want UNFAIR FIGHTS, not seal clubbing zerg ganks. 

 

Also I wouldn't say sailing solo doing Econ is sailing "solo". You aren't looking for fights are you? Sailing solo is not someone that sails solo in a trader, that would be sailing in a warship looking for fights. So in other words you only sail solo in traders to do econ but the only time you fight is with a group to protect your back?  

If I want a fair 1v1 fight I don't just go sail off to the enemy coast and expect to get one. I arrange one. So anytime in out in the open world sailing solo then it's most likely going to be doing Econ. Thinking you can just sail over to the enemy capital and get a fair fight is where thus whole far fetched notion of open world fairness an non-war zone rules are coming from.

Maybe he, like me, likes the thrill of sailing in enemy waters looking for an unexpecting player instead of a 'here you go, battle'.

Nothing wrong with that as long as you aren't demanding the enemy give you a fair fight. You came to their home looking for trouble. They don't owe you a fair fight and anyone thinking in terms of war isn't going to give you one.

[Bach]

Fun fact: some battles in the Age of Sail were fought with "BR restrictions" (i.e. combatants made active efforts to equalize odds in an engagement even when more force was available).

Also, your understanding of WWII is drawn mostly from silly stereotypes. The US had enormous tech advantages over Germany, and superior "skills" (although this a pretty silly concept to apply to national comparisons) in key areas.

When you start your air campaign with Brewster Buffalos and Curtis Hawks you don't have a tech advantage over Bf-109s and the rest of the German Air Force. When half the German Air Force did its training in the Spanish civil war learning why the allied "V" formation sucked as a tactic you don't have a skill advantage. When Albert ball the top US ace has less than half the air to air kills of the top three German aces you don't have a skill advantage.

Should we get into Sherman tanks vs. Tiger Tanks?

US subs that would accidentally sink themselves vs the German North Atlantic wolf packs?

USA rifle companies vs. German mp-40 armed storm troopers?

About the only area the USA started WW2 with any kind if tech or skill advantage was in aircraft carriers since the Germans never felt they needed them. The USA may have learned fast but they started out rather pathetic. The huge production sleeping giant that they were could produce enough second rate tanks and equipment to offset the German tech and early skill advantages.

[Bach]

I also cannot see navies, historically, sending 7 ships to take down 1. Waste of resources. Maybe they would send 1 or 2. But I may be wrong as history is not my forte.

Your not wrong. History is my thing. Economics are a major factor of real war we don't usually see modeled in game. If an Admiral knew ahead of time there was only one enemy ship in a area he certainly wouldn't waste the over kill costs. However, if he didn't know the enemy strength but needed an important zone patrolled he would send hat he could spare.

In a war zone a patrol rarely knows the enemy strength. So in NA ten players go out on patrol. They run into one lone enemy with this hair brained idea that he should be able to sail into their waters and sink lone training ships, traders and the like off their coast. Just happens to already be 10 men on the patrol so they all sink him. They sail back thinking the patrol was a success and some lone team mates were probably saved. Meanwhile that lone enemy is screaming up and down what cowardly gankers those guys are. This is more the case than not. It's not like the game is actually filled with evil low skilled people that only ever fight if they have huge advantages. But if you listen to these loner players complain you would think there were.

[Bach]

I did not discuss small or large battles because they have ZERO to due with my argument or any of the points I have discussed. It is a completely different game mode that has nothing to due with OW and one that shouldn't even be part of these discussions. What we ARE debating is a game mechanic that effects the very core of NA since it takes place on the OW where a good 90% of your play time is spent. If you want to have some random discussion about arena by all means do so but have it in another thread because it is irrelevant in this one.

Furthermore, I would suggest going back and reading my comments and others again...carefully....and slowly perhaps so as to not misunderstand. I said REPEATEDLY that fights do not, and should not, always be guaranteed to be "fair". In the 1.5 BR system you could still have a Connie versus a Brig....or 2 Trincs vs 1....or 6 vs 1.....or a whole variety of other fights that would not necessarily be considered "fair". However, larger numerical forces needed to put in effort and a bit of sailing skill to ensure they all were within the engagement circle....which is quite large mind you and represent many many miles in the game world.

The system that we have now is completely flawed and unrealistic....might as well introduce magic and dragons in the next patch. Group A can have a fast tackler chase down an opponent on the OW and initiate combat while his slower companions eventually catch up to the battle marker and then magically spawn in front of the guy who they pursued. You end up with ships that were slower and never would have been able to catch the opponent warping into the battle in front of everyone which is laughable. Not too mention they still have two minutes of real time to join the battle....except OW time compression and battle time are completely different making this even more fantastical.

No, we are discussing if the open world should be a lawless war zone or a rule burdened arena. Since the large and small battles are already arena set ups it begs the question why they are not used vs. forcing rules on the war zone. If the large and small battles can be made into something you find more fun I would support that 100% over destroying the war zone atmosphere and dynamics of the OW. Edited April 23, 2016 by Bach

[Niels Terkildsen]

Clearly the developers have made us choose between two inherently bad scenarios: either we have positional reinforcement, land in battles, and 1.5 BR restriction - or we have positional reinforcement, land in battles, and no BR restriction.

 

In my opinion, neither of those work. Firstly, positional reinforcement is completely wrong when the positions are not dependent on the relative positions upon the battle start. Land in battles is a great feature, but it also made the positional reinforcement a necessity (which would have been good if it was done realistically and logically). The 1.5 BR restriction is, in my opinion, an already tested (and failed) feature; it simply has no place in a game like Naval Action if you ask me. Now we had the BR restriction removed, but unfortunately the positional reinforcement mechanic was not changed, and this has lead to an absurd state of things.

 

My conclusion is that the real issue now is the way reinforcements work; and perhaps we should have an entirely new way of tagging and reinforcing. I've sketched out a suggestion in this thread, and so has others. We should discuss these rather than squabble over broken mechanics that won't work in the current state - neither with nor without the restrictions. 

 

 

 

PS. Perhaps you should stop double-triple-quadruple-posting, Bach? Common forum sense. 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Niels Terkildsen

[Magnum]

When you start your air campaign with Brewster Buffalos and Curtis Hawks you don't have a tech advantage over Bf-109s and the rest of the German Air Force. When half the German Air Force did its training in the Spanish civil war learning why the allied "V" formation sucked as a tactic you don't have a skill advantage. When Albert ball the top US ace has less than half the air to air kills of the top three German aces you don't have a skill advantage.

Should we get into Sherman tanks vs. Tiger Tanks?

US subs that would accidentally sink themselves vs the German North Atlantic wolf packs?

USA rifle companies vs. German mp-40 armed storm troopers?

About the only area the USA started WW2 with any kind if tech or skill advantage was in aircraft carriers since the Germans never felt they needed them. The USA may have learned fast but they started out rather pathetic. The huge production sleeping giant that they were could produce enough second rate tanks and equipment to offset the German tech and early skill advantages.

 

Glad we are clear on exactly who won WWII and who surrendered.

 

Please don't spam the thread with several posts in a row - just use edit to add additional thoughts you have.

[Kiefer Cain]

Smaller posts seem to be more suited to the audience .

[Bach]

Glad we are clear on exactly who won WWII and who surrendered.

Please don't spam the thread with several posts in a row - just use edit to add additional thoughts you have.

That's where it pertains to the topic.

If not for allied forces being allowed to "gank" the Germans in a war zone they may likely have never lost WW2. It is a good example of how such "forced fair battles" rules skew the results of the combatants in a war scenario. It creates favoritism for the elite teams over the more numerous less skilled teams.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Bach

[Otsego]

Guys can we please stop to reinforce statements by comparing this game with real wars or realism in general. It is a game and it should be still enjoyable for the majority of the players. Its like those guys that argued with realism in PotBS, a game with Zombies, Ghosts and Voodoo.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Otsego

[Neptune]

I think sometimes people forget this is a game, they roll play as if it were real life and a real war that they were really fighting in real life. As always it's quite usually a two way street, if something isn't realistic with the ganking they go ape, but if it's anything else that is unrealistic they are OK with it. The problem with that is, it's not fun. Most PvP consisting of ganks is boring and a rotten experience on the open world. You cannot avoid them if your enemy has a superior force and tags you, the new postional reinforcements will have you done in within a few minutes.

 

Unfair fights are great, but gank squads are just for people who want to troll players, they get enjoyment out of making the people they gank have a miserable, boring time on the game. That is their goal. Ganking isn't fun, no matter what way you put it. And this is a game, and it is played for enjoyment. If the open world is consisting of mostly ganks, then something is seriously wrong.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Acadian44

[Bach]

I think sometimes people forget this is a game, they roll play as if it were real life and a real war that they were really fighting in real life. As always it's quite usually a two way street, if something isn't realistic with the ganking they go ape, but if it's anything else that is unrealistic they are OK with it. The problem with that is, it's not fun. Most PvP consisting of ganks is boring and a rotten experience on the open world. You cannot avoid them if your enemy has a superior force and tags you, the new postional reinforcements will have you done in within a few minutes.

Unfair fights are great, but gank squads are just for people who want to troll players, they get enjoyment out of making the people they gank have a miserable, boring time on the game. That is their goal. Ganking isn't fun, no matter what way you put it. And this is a game, and it is played for enjoyment. If the open world is consisting of mostly ganks, then something is seriously wrong.

And now your arguement has come full circle.

In the other thread you started with the "but it's just a game" tack. It may be a game but it's a game where the most of the population are gaming a war simulation. When you come out with too many forced non-warlike rules it dumbs down the war and they don't want to play it anymore. That's why the population nose dived for the week you got what you wanted with the BR rule. It doesn't work. No matter how many times you offer the same argument over again it's still not going to work. The populace wants a war game. Not an arena game.

Chess is a game. Some like the high strategy, slower pace, the variety of the pieces and long term planning.

Checkers is a game. The strategy is lower, the pace faster, the pieces all fair and equal at the start.

Invite a bunch of players to play chess. Then dumb down the rules on them till it becomes checkers. Don't expect them to keep playing. Just because it's a game doesn't mean it needs to be simple.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Bach

[Neptune]

Invite a bunch of players to play chess. Then dumb down the rules on them till it becomes checkers. Don't expect them to keep playing. Just because it's a game doesn't mean it needs to be simple.

 

 

I think if anything is dumbed down it's the current PvP with positional reinforcements. People  who like it don't have an ounce of skill and enjoy ganking and surrounding enemy all while having so much fun doing it because any other kind of PvP they would fail at. They don't like real challenging PvP. The same kind of people who would want to play a soccer game with 30 people on their team and 3 on the other, so fun and competitive! Lmao!! I would love to play a game with these people for a few hours, they must be real fun to play with.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Acadian44

[Blackjack Morgan]

No, we are discussing if the open world should be a lawless war zone or a rule burdened arena. Since the large and small battles are already arena set ups it begs the question why they are not used vs. forcing rules on the war zone. If the large and small battles can be made into something you find more fun I would support that 100% over destroying the war zone atmosphere and dynamics of the OW.

 

Nobody is wanting to destroy the "warzone" atmosphere....what we are saying is that it is incredibly lazy play to not expect groups to stay in relative close proximity in order to get into certain fights. Nobody is preventing your desired 10v1's from happening...they just need to be in a rather large circle to all be included in that fight. Why is that an unrealistic expectation? You are the one who is wanting the game world to be completely out of touch with things like time and space...where a much slower ship that could never catch up with a pursued target is now able to magically appear in front of him. Or where 1 ship can engage a target and then 10 more come piling out of a port to enter the battle literally surrounding an opponent. If THAT is what NA is going to become then so be it....but it will go down in a burning pile of garbage.

[Kiefer Cain]

You are the one who is wanting the game world to be completely out of touch with things like time and space...where a much slower ship that could never catch up with a pursued target is now able to magically appear in front of him. Or where 1 ship can engage a target and then 10 more come piling out of a port to enter the battle literally surrounding an opponent. If THAT is what NA is going to become then so be it....but it will go down in a burning pile of garbage.

 

Please read the entire thread.  I have been following the discussions across several threads and have yet seen Bach or others admit to liking the positional reinforcement (in its current form), or the port-camping reinforcements.  Having sailed with Bach in this game and PotBS (Pirates of the Burning Sea), we enjoy the role of rescuing/escorting 'ganked' members of our nation and all of the different scenarios that happen when you allow the extremes to exist.  There is more skill involved in trying to figure what to do with an Apple Dumpling Gang battle situation than by always knowing what the variables are (or always will be) because the game mechanic ensures a preset battle condition everytime. 

 

Invisible battles, port camping reinforcements, and positional reinforcements are all common concerns shared by almost every person that has commented.  Those are the issues we should be trying to engage in discussion on. 

Edited April 24, 2016 by Kiefer Cain

[admin]

1.5 limit allows you to at least have a chance against the gank because they cannot exploit the positional reinforcement joining the battle ahead of your course.

It was the only goal of the limit.

 

The feature that will bring reinforcements closer to previous design will only appear around mid may. Thus smaller groups WILL suffer until then because people will spawn right on top of them in battles.

[fox2run]

The word "limit" is very bad in a pvp. 

 

Also I think that the discussion lack a dimension of macro-approach. What kind of game do you want? 

 

Do you like big battles at open sea?

 

Small battles at open sea?

 

Open pvp play?

 

Steered pvp play?

 

Do you like to give players an opportunity to help friends in need?

 

Do you like to have a controlled feel good pve-world?

 

After such considerations a system can be made. Right now it's completely random and as a consumer, I like to know what's the idea of the game. 

 

Personally I like to sail in OW and engage in large battles. I dont mind loosing ships as pvp suits me. Therefor I'm in favour of long or no limits for joining battles. Gameplay will be better and more fun for me that way. For sure.

Edited April 26, 2016 by fox2run

[fox2run]

I had so much fun in the days with 5min timer. Epic battles on large scale evolved. I really miss that

 The game ain't that fun anymore...

[Manta Scorpion]

We had more good fights in the 1.5 time the ever before. The large scale battles you get anyways, called pb and in front of pb. The open sea is very nice with a 1.5 BR in small scale without beeing surrounded.

Surrounded is fine, outgunned is mehh but both together is to much.