Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Slamz

Battles open forever: can it be made to work?

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Slamz said:

It also makes it more reasonable to hunt solo -- you're far more likely to find a PvP fight that you can get in on, even if the battle has sailed away from the start point and it takes you a while to catch up.

And thus your suggestion will be used against you:

On 7/25/2017 at 11:28 AM, Peter Goldman said:

Players considered closing battles instantly as positive effect, removing the stupid 3 minutes timer - good for solo hunters.

On 6/10/2017 at 3:06 AM, randommexi said:

as a solo hunter it makes it very hard to tag anyone without fear of 20 guys dogpiling me 4.5 minutes into the fight.

On 6/30/2017 at 0:30 PM, Liquicity said:

"Over the horizon" and not "docked up in a port across the map and being called for to wait on the exact battle location in a 5th dimension"

Ergo infinite open battles will not cater to solo, but is simply a false feature in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Skully said:

Ergo infinite open battles will not cater to solo, but is simply a false feature in that regard.

This is why the important part of this suggestion was the rules for how people join.

Things you don't want:

  • "Poof" a new joiner is right beside you because you were fighting in the join circle.
  • "Poof" a new joiner is directly ahead of you as you are trying to run away because his late join location was 1000 meters away.....incidentally in the direction you needed to run.

This is what makes late joining such a problem.

 

Incidentally, "instant close" would work better now that we have circle-on-the-target.

I think the main reason we have battles stay open for any amount of time is to give split groups a chance to get back together. Circle-on-target makes it impossible to split any but the clumsiest of groups.

Edited by Slamz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Slamz said:

I think the main reason we have battles stay open for any amount of time is to give split groups a chance to get back together.

It's to coddle lazy, sloppy gank groups.  They cry like crazy when they can't use fast ships to pin solo players in instances, then pile in their heavy ships lagging far behind.

Bigger circle, instant-close, signal perk option was the only no/low exploitability, gank-balancing system we ever tested.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Slamz said:

Circle-on-target makes it impossible to split any but the clumsiest of groups.

Ah, but the attacker group can be just as clumsy.

I wrote a whole set of rules which would make it possible to insta-close. 

But as you can see it is quite complex. So admin made:

I didn't quite figure out what was wrong with that approach. Maybe someone can point it out?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know koltes had written up a hardcore rule set around 3-6 months ago which we were hoping they'd implement on pvp2. Admin had showed some interest since I think it was closer to what he had envisioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skully said:

@Ser_Slack or @koltes do either of you have a link at the ready?

The OP was Yar Matey and koltes posted in it but I thought he had his own thread with more details.

 

*Edit*  Read alittle farther with another link

http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/18908-poll-reformation-of-servers-hardcore-pvp-test-server/

Edited by Ser_Slack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ser_Slack said:

The OP was Yar Matey and koltes posted in it but I thought he had his own thread with more details.

Ah I think I have found the other one as well: 

But what style does koltes really desire?

On 7/3/2017 at 1:14 PM, koltes said:

1. PB entry - x25 PB Fleet that is granted 1 hour prior the battle to the clan that grinded most hostility. Ships that are part of PB Fleet can't attack or be attacked. Can only enter PB.

2. Increase by x5 times PVP rewards through Conquest Marks and Money.

3. Fix group tagging. People in the group should be tagged based on group BR as long as they are in tag distance to each other (not the tagger).

Free entry to PB? The whole mid section of the tagging game abolished?

Or complete freedom?

To me it all sounds like situational unbalanced proposals.

Edited by Skully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 1:32 PM, Teutonic said:

then honestly, maybe that is the solution that must happen.

If land is removed, I know many of us will quit Naval Action.  That is an absolute step backwards.

 

On 8/15/2017 at 5:00 AM, springby said:

It is not very realistic that a battle happening on the open sea is inaccessible for only some ships while certain ships can enter. Imagine a pub brawl where only certain people could enter and punch, lol I wish

It's not very realistic that you arrived in the first place.  You still should be a long ways away according to the battle instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/8/2017 at 7:53 PM, Prater said:

It's not very realistic that you arrived in the first place.  You still should be a long ways away according to the battle instance.

It is RvR game after all and this RvR game attempts to balance realism with gameplay, I totally understand point of both sides, it is just a paradox, of two evils... This option just get my vote. Attacker(s) must consider every encounter and not just go like: "Hey, look! Theres a red ship! CHARGE!"

Of course, it needs optimizing

I reckon that the spawning-in-next-to-enemy and similar situation is something that will be 'corrected' when optimized.

[Brain-storm was initialized and following results popped up: What if the battle icon was dynamic in some way, moved with the battle or something like that? Or if battle icons were removed and instead a text would appear whenever you were close to a battle: "You have sighted a battle in the horizon, the battle look fierce and your advisor recommends avoiding" fixed spawn-in positions in relation to the outermost player]

Edited by springby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 11:50 PM, Wraith said:

Why?

7 hours ago, springby said:

fixed spawn-in positions in relation to the outermost player

Any form of relative spawn positions suffer from the problem admin outlined. Not to even mention the cries of folks asking why they spawned at the "wrong" spot.

Edited by Skully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skully said:

Any form of relative spawn positions suffer from the problem admin outlined. Not to even mention the cries of folks asking why they spawned at the "wrong" spot.

Which is honestly just b.s. reasoning and is lazy on the part of the dev's. This only matters if you're using the garbage two circle join mechanic. I and others have offered up handfuls of alternatives over the last year all of which were ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Koltes' suggestions have practically been implemented anyway:

* 25-man battle group. He wanted it to be untaggable but the current system at least makes them unsplittable.
* Group tagging is fixed in general. All based on radius to target rather than from attacker.
* PvP does generate quite a lot of marks now.

But these are mostly "nice to haves" that doesn't address fundamental problems with the game (RvR in particular).

RvR is really just more hassle than it's worth. I think it will always be crashing in popularity so long as it's a game about 25 expensive slowboats playing sumo in an arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Slamz said:

Looks like Koltes' suggestions have practically been implemented anyway:

* 25-man battle group. He wanted it to be untaggable but the current system at least makes them unsplittable.
* Group tagging is fixed in general. All based on radius to target rather than from attacker.
* PvP does generate quite a lot of marks now.

But these are mostly "nice to haves" that doesn't address fundamental problems with the game (RvR in particular).

RvR is really just more hassle than it's worth. I think it will always be crashing in popularity so long as it's a game about 25 expensive slowboats playing sumo in an arena.

This.

a group of 25 1st rates requires 20 1st rates of your own to tag. Which kinda defeats the purpose of screening.

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Skully said:

Any form of relative spawn positions suffer from the problem admin outlined. Not to even mention the cries of folks asking why they spawned at the "wrong" spot.

"wrong"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 2:05 PM, Slamz said:

Something @admin has talked about before is his wish to keep PvP battles open forever (rather than close after 3 minutes). My complaint with this was that the placement of new arrivals is too problematic. Nobody wants to have a ship go "poof" and appear on top of them (or in front of them). If not for that, though, I think it's a good idea. Hunting around for battles to join would be a real possibility.

So I wonder if it could be made to work.

I posted a new suggestion today which I believe would allow battles to stay open longer but still compensate for the warp speed and time compression in OW vs "realistic" speeds and distances in battle.

http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22350-another-new-idea-for-battle-times-and-tag-circles/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you start putting in mechanics that weren't around in those times you open up cheesy gameplay exploits. Timers were a bad idea from the beginning. Though quite frankly at this point changing them won't make a bit of difference.

This games problem is the same problem most games with loss encounter. They hear cry and begin trying to coddle the people who threaten to quit if they aren't given their way. If the devs had actually listened to hardcore sailing enthusiasts the population wouldn't be in the dumps because other hardcore sailing enthusiasts would have eventually joined the rest here. Instead it tried to "protect" players and now it's DOA.

Don't want the threat of adds in your fight? Engage in a better area. That was the solution, not having nationals unable to get reinforcements outside of their capital because a goofy timer prevents them from doing so.

Fair fights? Its a simulator of the those times. A fair fight is one lead by the incompetent.

Same with multiple durability. The whole draw of the game is risk. Without it, it's tedium.

I'm surprised you took this long to realize it Slamz. On the old PotBS boards you were very aligned to my viewpoint. Hardcore.

Edited by Sea Nettle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea Nettle said:

Once you start putting in mechanics that weren't around in those times you open up cheesy gameplay exploits. Timers were a bad idea from the beginning. 

So sailing at warp 75 on the Open World and impulse in battle was, uh, around then, and not cheesy?  So ships sailing 600-900km to join a 60 minute battle is entirely realistic.  Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sea Nettle said:

Once you start putting in mechanics that weren't around in those times you open up cheesy gameplay exploits.

So you're saying using 1) Chat / TeamSpeak and 2) 75x compressed World compared to battle instances is legit? :) There is no way of removing either of those two luxuries, so there need to be made workarounds.

Btw. It doesn't matter where you attack, as long as it's still SOMEWHAT in enemy territory, as this is the only place you can expect to meet anything to fight. No reason to be out in the nowhere for anyone.
I once attacked a swede out of sight of any island (he was heading south from Fort Baai, but not in sight of any island). As we still have Coords from F11 ingame, he was able to pass them through to his mates, which were NOT in sight / range, most likely sitting in port somewhere. The 3 minute join timer simulates that only those in range can join, as we have the 75x compressed OW.
After the initial battle, I was kinda surprised when I saw them waiting outside, because I was not in sight of an island.
Main areas are already risky to engage at, 3 minutes lets you cover a LOT in the OW, even lets you undock and join an ongoing battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

So you're saying using 1) Chat / TeamSpeak and 2) 75x compressed World compared to battle instances is legit? :) There is no way of removing either of those two luxuries, so there need to be made workarounds.

You have these luxuries too. :)

30 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

As we still have Coords from F11 ingame

That can and should be removed. #hardcore :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Endless open battles are no option. They are boring and too time consuming. Don't remove land from battles. It adds a great deal of variety in strategy, mostly by having those great towers on your side ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikawa said:

Endless open battles are no option. They are boring and too time consuming. Don't remove land from battles. It adds a great deal of variety in strategy, mostly by having those great towers on your side ;)

 

From what I recall from previous threads and discussions, it was the part of being too much of a time investment that seemed to be the biggest drawback for everyone.  If you have an hour, you can't confidently sail into a battle, not knowing if you're going to be there for 3 hours, or have to just get sunk to leave.  So instead you just choose not to play at all.

Edited by Jean Ribault

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/08/2017 at 3:23 PM, Prater said:

If land is removed, I know many of us will quit Naval Action.  That is an absolute step backwards.

Naval Action with no land?  That is very worst of very bad ideas.

Just wait and play Legends.  Perhaps there may be an option for open ocean arena battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 3:50 PM, Prater said:

So sailing at warp 75 on the Open World and impulse in battle was, uh, around then, and not cheesy?  So ships sailing 600-900km to join a 60 minute battle is entirely realistic.  Got it.

Idiotic logic. Got it. One is a matter of convenience . We don't have to pack provisions and plan a voyage months ahead of time. The other is something glaringly exploitable.

 

Edited by Sea Nettle

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

×