Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Combat feedback

poll questions  

216 members have voted

  1. 1. Combat length feedback

    • Too long
      34
    • Just right
      166
    • Too short
      17
  2. 3. Cost of mistakes

    • No effect - mistakes has no effect on combat
      33
    • Just right
      164
    • Too costly - impossible to recover
      20
  3. 4. Damage of a perfect broadside

    • Too low
      52
    • Just right
      155
    • Too high
      10
  4. 5. Crew loss during battle from cannonball fire

    • Too low
      44
    • Just right
      128
    • Too high
      45
  5. 6. Sail damage

    • Too low
      26
    • Just right
      149
    • Too high
      42
  6. 7. Mast damage

    • too low
      85
    • just right
      115
    • Too high
      17
  7. 8. Raking (cannon loss + crew loss)

    • Underpowered
      88
    • Just right
      94
    • Too strong
      35


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, rediii said:

admin confirmed already that pen was way higher historically. You had to be close because then you hit them better. Not because of the pen.

Why big cannons then?

Energy and penetration had a reason or is the game simulating damage in a correct way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a scenario that I hope makes the point visible to @admin why his multireps is bad.

 

When we had 1+1 reps.

Fight between A and B started.

A is winning and B is running.

C joins the combat, on the same side with B.

Now it is A vs B&C.

C says to be that lets sink A together. B has used his rig reps and staying in the fight may mean that he will lose his ship.

A will have less change to survive if B stays.

If B leaves and A has some skills, maybe he sinks or fights of C as well.

 

With multireps it is trivial for B to stay, no risk at all, there will be only ill ganked reward of PvP marks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your scenario is nice but only works with older Rules of Engagement, 2 minutes entry -or- big circle immediate close.

Else we have, as now 3 minutes entry or 10 minutes entry or always enter, Port Sitting / Zone Itching -  jump battle when damage is done and victory is assured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a scenario to make it very clear why multireps are supporting gankers and bigger fleets.

The scenario is possible at the moment but the scenario itself is not the point here.  It is there only to make a point.

The same multirep issues are in direct 1vs2 ganks.  The same rules apply to 5vs10 battle.  Gankers and bigger fleets benefit from the multireps.  It simply seems to be so god damn difficult for people to understand this, why the scenario.

In unbalanced OW, which is already naturally gank oriented and battles are mostly if not always unbalanced -> Multireps is bad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

It depends on what the game rule design objective is.

And objective for multi reps is - to fight more and more, and run less. Alas we favor run more and fight less unless victory is certain or we get ganked ourselves. 

Right now it is helping to gank and run more ?

It is helping to fight with 10 vs 5 ?

I would say that objective failed. Like I said, it seems to be god damn difficult for people to understand this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We understand :) 

Merit of discussion is - how to change minds and hearts by game rule design.

We can say that limited repairs will ensure more fighting and less running. Sure. Makes sure ships are crippled fast and can't run.

How it relates to the gank-counter-gank tactical method is secondary. If a 2v1 doesn't work, next time will be a 4v1, just for good measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

We can say that limited repairs will ensure more fighting and less running. Sure. Makes sure ships are crippled fast and can't run.

How it relates to the gank-counter-gank tactical method is secondary. If a 2v1 doesn't work, next time will be a 4v1, just for good measure.

You were playing when we had 1+1 reps? Was the game gank free? Was not, right?

When you gank and fail -> You either run or risk it all.

With your math, you have a small fleet of 4 and if 4vs8 does not work, then it will be 4vs16?  So a fleet of 6 good players can be difficult target for 24 enemy players?

Example is probably a bit extreme but how is that not reducing ganking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game has NEVER been “gank” free.  It has always favored and encouraged group sailing play.  Some would say it’s part of the design.  

Why is it so god damn hard for people to see that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

This game has NEVER been “gank” free.  It has always favored and encouraged group sailing play.  Some would say it’s part of the design.  

Why is it so god damn hard for people to see that? 

I think you misunderstood me. This game has and probably will always be gank heavy.

The question is why every part of the game has to be made to support ganking?

Even if the ships were equal and there were no gear difference this game would have ganks.

Why it is so god damn hard for Vernon to understand this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

You were playing when we had 1+1 reps? Was the game gank free? Was not, right?

When you gank and fail -> You either run or risk it all.

With your math, you have a small fleet of 4 and if 4vs8 does not work, then it will be 4vs16?  So a fleet of 6 good players can be difficult target for 24 enemy players?

Example is probably a bit extreme but how is that not reducing ganking?

Same happens today. Plenty of extremely good players consistently beat 3 times their number.

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just trying to find the merit of limited repairs versus weight based repairs. ( where weight affects ships performance )

Maybe repair weights/mass should be increased ten fold ? Can be a mid way between both system and still have the player retain the choice of how many cycles to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

Same happens today. Plenty of extremely good players consistently beat 3 times their number.

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just trying to find the merit of limited repairs versus weight based repairs. ( where weight affects ships performance )

Maybe repair weights/mass should be increased ten fold ? Can be a mid way between both system and still have the player retain the choice of how many cycles to take.

If the gear advantage is this huge it is hard to say who is extremely good and who is extremely geared.

I don't know if it is even important really if repair kits have a weight, previous system was already really good. With for example 1+1+1 rule, repair kits with the same weight as now, would mean that we would be able to sail longer journeys.  Economy could take a hit if people are not using repair kits that often but I don't think this should be something to stop making better combat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 1:09 PM, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:

Plenty of extremely good players consistently beat 3 times their number.

That was the intended purpose of the new rep system. I've always disagreed strongly with that. I identify as one of those who should be able to profit from the current system at the expense of others.

I'm extremely sceptical of the grind up-gear up-team up-gank or GTFO state of play.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct Jodgi.

Baseline mechanics are aimed at the mean average.

A top dog will use those same mechanics three times fold better, either by better understanding of the combat simulation or by sheer math output and what works best so make a team which is strong...as a team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×