Trying to solve revenge fleet problem

[elite92]

Just now, Liquicity said:

I think if you limit it to pvp battles only, that should be good.

fine with this. deal? admin?

[surfimp]

9 minutes ago, Darayavahus said:

I would quit instantly.... there's already enough sailing time to get anywhere in this game.

It's OK, I understand. Naval Action Legends is coming soon, you won't have to deal with the OW at all.

But the OW doesn't work when ships and captains can be teleported around the map. Every teleport that takes a player ship out of the OW make the OW that much less interesting and hence sailing through it that much more boring.

So, to @elite92 sorry but I think your suggestion of a TP to port will lead to exploits and be worse for the game than the current mechanics. To the extent that time and speed compression between OW and battle instance is the problem - trying to solve it with even more time and speed compression (via teleports) is just going to make the OW worse overall, because it will be exploited with severe negative consequences to PVP, the economy, and RVR.

[surfimp]

1 minute ago, Rickard said:

fallout constitutions ??

[Cecil Selous]

4 minutes ago, Aegir said:

Could still use some feedback as to what's wrong with the following.

Interesting proposal if it is possible.

using the 3 - 4 closest mission locations to choose or random. Players don't spawn on battle location but also not to far away so that a real home defense fleet has to sail all over the place and back and forth if they want to engage or chase them away.

One of the problems is the same as for the spawn zones idea. It can be possible that you spawn right on an unlucky player who can't do anything against you now. So maybe it is still good if the spawned players aren't able to attack for a longer time or if the invisibility works in both ways. You can't be seen and you also can't see.

[Liq]

1 minute ago, Rickard said:

fallout constitutions ??

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Fallout+Constitution

Ships camping on battle position using ow speed boost (rocket powered ships). "realistic". Basically the whole revenge fleet topic.

[elite92]

2 minutes ago, Sansón Carrasco said:

So, to @elite92 sorry but I think your suggestion of a TP to port will lead to exploits and be worse for the game than the current mechanics. To the extent that time and speed compression between OW and battle instance is the problem - trying to solve it with even more time and speed compression (via teleports) is just going to make the OW worse overall, because it will be exploited with severe negative consequences to PVP, the economy, and RVR.

TP to Port already exist atm and i see almost no exploit in it (except from some 10-15 minutes of less sailing back from bahamas) .

if we limit my suggestion to only PvP battle were attacker and attacked are player this should be good enough, dont u think?

[akd]

How about this:

2 min invulnerability after exiting battle, but only if you don't move.  When you log back in, you can be attacked, but cannot attack for 5 min. Could reduce after battle time to 5 min. Effects:

-this would allow you to log-off at sea in the face of revenge fleet, but 1.) you must commit to logging off almost immediately on exit and 2.) cannot try and run first.

-if you log-off, opposition has successfully removed you as a threat (home defense success) and knows exactly where you will be if you log in.  Home will be defended as long as home defense fleet remains a fleet in being.

-opposition knows whether you are logging off or running.  No fog-of-war about people hiding in finished battles or teleporting away.

-long no attack timer on logging back in makes log-off after battle less useful for ambushes.

-you don't get to retag traders near their own ports over and over if they legitimately escape, because they can also use 2min to TP to nearest port.  Almost useless for players sailing in enemy waters, so abuse potential is low.

-under this system "vengeance" following a fair battle or griefing may temporarily block a player from play, but it is not going to make them lose all their shit and almost inevitably quit.  Getting blocked from play sucks, but is a reasonable consequence to getting outnumbered.  Being held hostage to game and forced to play for an unlimited amount of time or lose all your shit is a fatal design flaw.

-if necessary, all protections could be removed exiting a severe "gank"

Edited June 17, 2017 by akd

[surfimp]

9 minutes ago, elite92 said:

TP to Port already exist atm and i see almost no exploit in it (except from some 10-15 minutes of less sailing back from bahamas)

But... that's a HUGE exploit. It's quite a bit harder to intercept a ship on the open sea, across all the many potential bearings it may be taking into a given port, than intercepting it when it's just a few minutes outside of port.

So, that 10-15 minutes is already leading to many players taking advantage of a risk-free return to port. Heck, you can even use it to TP into an enemy national capital with your smuggler flag enabled, if you position yourself properly.

It's not "saving sailing time" that I'm against - that is an consequence of the huge OW we have available to us, and part of the vision for this game. It's the "removing ships from the OW" that is the problem. One of the biggest gold sinks in this MMO is supposed to be the capture and destruction of ships. Right now, replacing those ships feels too hard to most players - but that can be adjusted easily by making items less expensive (in terms of gold cost) to produce and acquire.

What cannot be fixed by cost adjustments, and what has severe negative impacts for the overall health of the game's intended OW / sandbox economy, PVP and RVR mechanics, is if player ships can move through the OW instantly and invisibly. The more I play this game, the more I am absolutely convinced that all teleports have to be removed. Costs for replacing ships (especially low level ships) should be adjust so loss is less painful, but... loss MUST happen for this game's overall ecosystem to function.

With that said... long OW sailing is not for everyone. I do believe that the arena game will be the risk-free, fun PVP that many people are looking for (including me!!). So I am hopeful that, once Naval Action Legends is launched, this OW product can be refocused onto realizing its true promise. Which requires the lack of instant teleporting, in my view, for the larger health of the game.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Sansón Carrasco

[Neptune]

Exit To Friendly Port BR screen is way less exploitable. Read this to get an idea.  

Quote

Revenge Fleet Cons

1. Unrealistic
2. Teleport from the otherside of the map
3. Sail to your battle location without being seen
4. Camp your battle location without being seen
5. Surround your whole location without being seen
6. Can keep you tied up for hours without having any real way to log off the game
7. Abuse speed by retagging so heavy ships are faster than light ones
8. Makes you escape more than 1 time, could be 5+ times
9. Punish players for PvP

Revenge Fleet Pros

1. Gives defender easy revenge
2. Do not need to worry about finding the enemy
3. Open world speed time compression gives you an advantage
4. Open world being a seperate instance gives you an advantage of invisibility so you can surround enemy without being seen and coordinate an attack
5. You can make your ships faster by retagging so slower ones can catch up to enemy speed ships

Now Pros and Cons of teleport to freindly port. Not suggesting to bring this back, just comparing. You decide which has less ways to abuse and is better for the game.

Exit To Freindy Port Pros

1. No more unrealistic escaping more than once, when you escape you escape
2. Repeat tagging is removed, you do not need to worry about having 5 hours to go out and look for 1 good PvP
3. Revenge fleet can no longer sit on your battle location by teleporting from the other side of the map
4. Revenge fleet can't surround you on open world anymore
5. Revenge fleet can no longer abuse speeds by tagging multiple times to make slower ships faster
6. Gives players a necessity of life mechanic to play this game so they can log off after a long fight
7. Players who try to create PvP and stir up enemy to make them come attack them in their waters will not be punished by having no way to escape
8. Teleport from free port and teleport to capital on OW removed, If you want to sail back to your own waters you will need to get out of the free port near enemy capital

Exit To Freindly Port Cons

1. Teleporting to exit freindly port is unrealistic but if you escape you escape, this simulates it. We also have teleport to national outposts so that is unrealistic too if you are making that argument.
2. Players can gank and teleport away but they would of escaped anyway by the time revenge fleets got there. Any revenge fleet would of found out about such a battle days later. Now if you attack enemy in their waters you know they will be coming to your doorstep to cause havoc for attacking them, possibly making them angry enough to take a region. This is how it should be.
3. Revenge ganks removed

I think we should of tested exit to freindly port with more people online and removing teleporting when tagging AI. You can't teleport to free port anymore and capital teleports were also removed. This changes a lot, but I know that ship has sailed, But this is just a comparison per say.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Neptune

[elite92]

2 minutes ago, Sansón Carrasco said:

But... that's a HUGE exploit. It's quite a bit harder to intercept a ship on the open sea, across all the many potential bearings it may be taking into a given port, than intercepting it when it's just a few minutes outside of port.

So, that 10-15 minutes is already leading to many players taking advantage of a risk-free return to port. Heck, you can even use it to TP into an enemy national capital with your smuggler flag enabled, if you position yourself properly.

It's not "saving sailing time" that I'm against - that is an consequence of the huge OW we have available to us, and part of the vision for this game. It's the "removing ships from the OW" that is the problem. One of the biggest gold sinks in this MMO is supposed to be the capture and destruction of ships. Right now, replacing those ships feels too hard to most players - but that can be adjusted easily by making items less expensive (in terms of gold cost) to produce and acquire.

What cannot be fixed, and what has severe negative impacts for the overall health of the game's intended OW / sandbox economy, PVP and RVR mechanics, is if player ships can move through the OW instantly and invisibly. The more I play this game, the more I am absolutely convinced that all teleports have to be removed. Costs for replacing ships (especially low level ships) should be adjust so loss is less painful, but... loss MUST happen for this game's overall ecosystem to function.

With that said... long OW sailing is not for everyone. I do believe that the arena game will be the risk-free, fun PVP that many people are looking for (including me!!). So I am hopeful that, once Naval Action Legends is launched, this OW product can be refocused onto realizing its true promise. Which requires the lack of instant teleporting, in my view, for the larger health of the game.

do u even read what i write or blind reply? ONLY PvP battles should have the tow to port feature!!! how u can exploit this without Alts?

are u delivering stuff to an enemy capital? do u get ganked and succesfully exit? why u should not be able to dock in and do what u want? (u have to return from it anyway). i hate invisibility as any1 here and im trying to solve the "After Battle Problem" with my suggestion and i know for sure that Admin or Devs wont even take care of suggestion that need too much effort in coding .

SO lets make this simple and easy. u escaped once? well u have the possibility to start from a port, either enemy or ally. and if the "revenge fleet is angry enough it can still kill u there but at least u have 1 CHANCE.

but maybe im stupid ...

[elite92]

5 minutes ago, Neptune said:

Exit To Friendly Port BR screen is way less exploitable. Read this to get an idea.  

 

lol ... no way i can get any feedback on my suggestion from developers if u continue to post UR SUGGESTIONS....

and btw i dont think they will never revert the game at pre wipe state, in regards of battlescreens and such

[Farrago]

My opinion:

The only thing that will be fair to both sides and give any sort of nod to realism is if post battle you spawn at your final battle location, not the crossed sword location. Less good, would be you spawn at a random location some km away from the crossed swords.

I know both of these solutions provide coding challenges -- such as avoiding spawning on land -- to the Devs but surely not insurmountable ones.

Regarding the OP idea of giving option to TP to nearest deep water port... no. If you're raiding in someone's home waters or even somewhere else, there shouldn't ever be a magic auto escape button.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Farrago

[Neptune]

Just now, elite92 said:

lol ... no way i can get any feedback on my suggestion from developers if u continue to post UR SUGGESTIONS....

and btw i dont think they will never revert the game at pre wipe state, in regards of battlescreens and such

Just pointing out that this system is way worse than the exit to BR screen. And no they won't because they are set on satisfying the PVE crowd.  

[Hawkwood]

2 hours ago, elite92 said:

hey guys i quote myself from another topic to make this read by every1:

 

 

Absolutely unnecessary thread.

If you like to hunt in enemy waters, expect to be "counterganked".

That is the risk you need to calculate in.

[surfimp]

Right off the bat, Pirat

11 minutes ago, elite92 said:

do u even read what i write or blind reply? ONLY PvP battles should have the tow to port feature!!! how u can exploit this without Alts?

are u delivering stuff to an enemy capital? do u get ganked and succesfully exit? why u should not be able to dock in and do what u want? (u have to return from it anyway). i hate invisibility as any1 here and im trying to solve the "After Battle Problem" with my suggestion and i know for sure that Admin or Devs wont even take care of suggestion that need too much effort in coding .

SO lets make this simple and easy. u escaped once? well u have the possibility to start from a port, either enemy or ally. and if the "revenge fleet is angry enough it can still kill u there but at least u have 1 CHANCE.

but maybe im stupid ...

I read what you wrote, I simply don't share your opinion that what you proposed would be a good solution to this revenge fleet problem. I think I've explained my thinking on the subject, too.

Regarding making this tow-to-port teleport available only after PVP battles... this would mean that only Pirates would be able to easily exploit it (without the use of alts) via the Outlaw Battles mechanic. And when that happens - when the Pirates, due to their unique faction rules, get access to something that Nationals do not - then the forums will be full of complaints about Pirates exploiting mechanics. Which, as testers, it is their job to do - to demonstrate the gaps in the mechanics.

For my part, I don't agree that a single escape means you get a free pass. I've many times been tagged more than once and had to escape more than once. But, because I sail in enemy waters using ships designed to be good at escaping (i.e. Privateer, Rattlesnake, etc.), I am eventually able to get away. Usually

In my opinion, if someone has run up against real life commitments while in the middle of a battle, then they should surrender and deal with real life. You have been outplayed, or your time for playing is up, either way now you need to go. In any type of real life game (cards, boardgame, etc.) you would concede and that would be that.

If my suggestion around adjusting costs (especially for lower level raiding ships) were implemented, then one of these losses wouldn't be that big of a deal. And if my other suggestion, around removing captain teleports between national outposts, was implemented, then it would be harder to assemble "magic revenge fleets" out of thin air. I think those two things would fix 80%+ of this issue.

That is my opinion, and I recognize it is different than yours, but I did listen to you and provide feedback on your idea, as you requested.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Sansón Carrasco

[Liq]

1 minute ago, Cortez said:

Absolutely unnecessary thread.

If you like to hunt in enemy waters, expect to be "counterganked".

That is the risk you need to calculate in.

Absolutely unnecessary comment.

If you have nothing valuable to add to the discussion, remain silent.

(I bet you are one of those waiting in the capital for someone to call out a target so you can easymode jump him in a 10v1 being served on a silverplate.)

Players will get bored by this type of pvp quite quickly.

[elite92]

we can also force this tow to port after battle to share the cooldown(maybe lower to 3h as before) with the classic Tow To port from OW... help me guys understand why this suggestion is worst than the currect system

[jodgi]

1 hour ago, Sansón Carrasco said:

whatever these edge case revenge fleets are doing.

I lol'ed.

You asked the question in the other topic and I answered with an example similar to what many others have provided.

Maybe you don't trust me (and a bunch of others)? Maybe revengeganks aren't a problem on global? Maybe the observed truth that instance camping is the modus operandi of the relative high pop areas of EU ruins your narrative? You did state that it sounded like we had exciting and engaging gameplay with the tagging, def-tagging and consequent instance camping on repeat.

You might like revengeganks for any reason that is your own. But if you base your opinion on instance camping being "edge cases" you're actively opting for inductive instead of deductive thinking.

Alternative facts are all the rage these days. I admit to being sightly annoyed by it, though.

[Anolytic]

Reactive gameplay: "They came to our waters and ganked someone. Let's gather on their battle spot and wait around 1 hour for them to come out so we can countergank!"

Active gameplay: "They came to our waters and ganked someone. Let's make  a group and go to their waters and gank some of their ships in return."

I prefer the latter kind. It means I spend my time either organising, sailing or fighting, and don't sit around for an hour in OW twiddling my thumbs while waiting for someone else's battle to end.

We want to encourage PvP? Why not encourage PvP to foster "revenge" PvP, instead of the way we currently encourage PvP to foster "revenge ganks"? 

People are now doing PvE while they wait for the call to come sit on a location and wait for the opportunity to revenge gank someone.

One thing though: If you capture someone's ship, be it a warship or a trader, then you should have to sail it out again from the spot that the battle happened, running the risk of a fleet trying to recapture that ship and the cargo.

[surfimp]

11 minutes ago, jodgi said:

I lol'ed.

You asked the question in the other topic and I answered with an example similar to what many others have provided.

Maybe you don't trust me (and a bunch of others)? Maybe revengeganks aren't a problem on global? Maybe the observed truth that instance camping is the modus operandi of the relative high pop areas of EU ruins your narrative? You did state that it sounded like we had exciting and engaging gameplay with the tagging, def-tagging and consequent instance camping on repeat.

You might like revengeganks for any reason that is your own. But if you base your opinion on instance camping being "edge cases" you're actively opting for inductive instead of deductive thinking.

Alternative facts are all the rage these days. I admit to being sightly annoyed by it, though.

Fair points. On the flipside, forums are repositories of complaints and issues that may, in fact, be edge cases are often blown into huge proportion by a vocal minority.

I'm not saying that this is the case here. Your anecdotes and those of others are duly noted. Only the devs can say for sure how big a situation this is, assuming it can be defined sufficiently that it can be identified in the logs (I assume it can).

I'm not saying it is an edge case, I'm saying it could be, when considered against all the servers and all the players and all the timezones. Meaning what happens in your server, in your timezone, in your part of the map, may be unique to that particular situation, and may not be occurring with anywhere near the frequency you experience it in other parts of the map, in other timezones, on the other server.

That's not spin, is it? I'm just saying none of us truly has access to the data, we have access to Global, national and clan chat, and we have access to these forums, and Discord and elsewhere. Squeaky wheels demanding grease may or may not mean there's a problem in the drivetrain, and the solutions proposed need to be carefully balanced to ensure they don't create knock-on impacts elsewhere. Eg. by introducing more teleports there WILL be additional impacts, perhaps some positive for the few captains - amongst all captains on all PVP servers in all timezones - who get revenged ganked and get stuck in this re-tag loop, but also many negatives, of which I've tried to outline a few that come to mind

So, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion here, and I get that you feel by not falling in step with your request, I'm opposing you. But I'm just not convinced that the solutions proposed are good ones, based on the evidence and arguments proposed. I've explained why. You can accept or not, and we can agree to disagree. No need to bring alternative facts and their implications into the discussion.

[jodgi]

We're good. Sorry about the alt-fact Molotov.

I don't know the best solution, the ideas in this topic sound good, though.

[admin]

2 hours ago, Liquicity said:

 

Also.. Are you going to ignore my first post in which I mentionned you?

 

2 hours ago, elite92 said:

well i ve made my suggestion in another separate topic from all other suggestion to have a feed back from Admin that is ignoring me since days... and u guys(i love you) come here and make all ur nice suggestions

 

2 hours ago, TommyShelby said:

Yeah i understand man. 
As to Admin ignoring you, don't worry. He is ignoring a bunch of longtime testers because we are negative about certain changes to the game. 
He forgets that we are also loyal testers who have praised Game-Labs work and the things they have accomplished on several occasions. He forget that we spend many many many hours testing his game, coming up with constructive feedback etc. 

guys  What is this - Sex in the City?

We don't have time to see everything, and have work to do. 
The problems described here are known and there is no point to go around them over and over and over and over again. 
If you mention me @Liquicity it gives you nothing as we don't see notifications, we just have thousands per week.
That's why we insist that players only stay on topic, provide constructive feedback in structured form and bash the shitposters as they just help your great ideas and messages to get lost in the noise.

 

[TommyShelby]

13 minutes ago, admin said:

 

 

guys  What is this - Sex in the City?

We don't have time to see everything, and have work to do. 
The problems described here are known and there is no point to go around them over and over and over and over again. 
If you mention me @Liquicity it gives you nothing as we don't see notifications, we just have thousands per week.
That's why we insist that players only stay on topic, provide constructive feedback in structured form and bash the shitposters as they just help your great ideas and messages to get lost in the noise.

 

That is ofcourse fair. 

However when you time and time again "ignore" certain topics and comments while answering other posters in those very same topics we get the impression that you are "ignoring" what we find to be a big issue. 
I know you don't agree with our position on this matter but we spend many hours testing and coming with feedback, it would be nice if that feedback would be acknowledged at the very least. Perhaps if you took part in our discussion, looked at the proposals etc we could find a good compromise where we could get rid of the continuous tagging and keep everyone (RvR, OW PvP'ers, Traders and Crafters) happy.

 

[PG Monkey]

4 hours ago, admin said:

but don't they eventually get a nice and large revenge fleet vs revenge fleet battle?

I've played 3294 hours and never seen one

[elite92]

50 minutes ago, admin said:

 

 

guys  What is this - Sex in the City?

We don't have time to see everything, and have work to do. 
The problems described here are known and there is no point to go around them over and over and over and over again. 
If you mention me @Liquicity it gives you nothing as we don't see notifications, we just have thousands per week.
That's why we insist that players only stay on topic, provide constructive feedback in structured form and bash the shitposters as they just help your great ideas and messages to get lost in the noise.

 

LOL , look at you mate, u reply to topic with an OFF-topic post, instead can u pls give me ur feedback about my proposal:

Add a button in the ESC menù at battle over called: Tow To Port , that work just as its counterpart in OW and share his cool down as well.