Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Peter Goldman

Matchmaking in Legends

Recommended Posts

Knite    3
On 8/25/2017 at 7:56 AM, Peter Goldman said:

I also find the BR system broken for now as BR of many ships do not really represent the power of them:

  1. Essex has more BR than Pirate Frigate (225 vs 170) but Pirate Frigate is superior to Essex in all ways, besides carronade setup.
  2. Wapen von Hamburg has more BR than any 4th rate
  3. Agamemnon / Ingermanland / Constitution have the same BR (because of old Port Battle BR system, it was promised to be just a place holder for testing, was promised to be changed and tweaked in future but Devs forgot about it? @admin).
  4. Santissima / L'Ocean / Victory have the same BR (same issue as above)
  5. Gunboat for some reason has 50 BR which I find crazy (I know it can carry big guns aka 18pd long and 68pd carronade, but considering the firepower of the ship? It's just one gun per bow and stern lol
  6. Following point 3 & 4 I believe that all 3rd rates and 2nd rates have also the same BR compared to each other
  7. Indefatigable has the same BR as Agamemnon/Ingermanland/Constitution

There are lots of other flaws in BR rating of many ships in this game and they need to be tuned and tweaked for proper matchmaking in Legends.

On 8/25/2017 at 8:02 AM, Fellvred said:

Interested to see if people prefer the WoT style tier system (SoL vs SoL and frigates vs frigates) or a mixed fleet style. Personally I think it'd be nice to test it out with mixed fleets but the frigate only small battles we used to do were some of the most fun and competitive I've been in.

If the matches are just like Sea Trials, where everything is there, then BR only exists for balancing teams rather than matching specific ranges of ships.

If the matches are like WoWs/WoT/WT, then a mix of BR/tier might work best.

 

On 8/25/2017 at 5:01 PM, Pada said:

Of course you can't apply the rewards from Naval Actions open world to a arena game with actual matchmaking. I'm sure we will find a way that gives everyone rewards for the actions he has done. We already had a system that gave us xp from the damage done to hull sails and crew. We could also give more xp if you damage higher rated ships and less xp for lower tier. You would get tons of rewards for killing crew of a SoL when you are in a lower tier ship. And if a frigate is so stupid to sit right next to a lineship then yes he would sink fast. But that's his own fault if he gets himself in such a situation.

This is how WoT and WoWs handle rewarding XP; if a low-tier ship does 20k damage to a high-tier ship, it gets more XP than if the high-tier ship did 20k damage to the low-tier ship; works well enough.

 

On 8/25/2017 at 5:31 PM, jodgi said:

Winning the match is already ingrained in most arena players as the most important measure of a player's skill. So I expect global win ratio to become the most important stat in legends as well with damage padding and (useless) K/D ratios (et al) as supporting stats.

If we can enable 5th rates and below to use their speed and sailing profiles to win a match that would help everyone to feel useful; upwind capture circles and other goals. I really hope we can keep the importance of mobility in legends, as it is a natural counter to the big ships' protection and firepower.

Duels and larger training scenarios is a given, but shouldn't we be careful with splitting up the rest of the matchmaker queue? We need to see what kind of numbers are normal or average before we start splitting up the queue and risking spreading everyone too thin.

Do you think manual sails would remain in Legends? I understand the appeal of it, and the tactical advantage that proper sailing would give (WE HAVE THE WEATHER GAGE!) but honestly, learning how to not get myself stuck in irons took longer than I expected, and this would be a turn-off for a more casual crowd. This is probably one of the more important questions, and the answer depends on what kind of "arena" we're looking at.

 

2 hours ago, Archaos said:

I see lots of people making comparisons to WoT and WoWS, I have never played WoT and only briefly played WoWS, and I hope Naval Action Legends is not like that with the team setup where you are randomly grouped with other players in the queue. The big difference that I can see in NAL as opposed to WoWS is going to be the time taken per battle. In WoWS the battles tended to be over relatively quickly while in NAL for the larger battles you could easily battle it out for a couple of hours. Keeping casual players invested for that length of time may be an issue.

I also think that NA requires more coordination and working together as a team to be successful and throwing people together randomly does not foster that teamwork required. By all means have that sort of mode for people who like that, but please also allow battles to be setup between teams who want better organisation. Age of Sail II had a lobby system where battles could be set up and that worked quite well apart from the fact that the game was very buggy and tended to crash a lot.

If Legends is as sim-like as NA's combat instances, these battles could take forever.

If Legends is made more arcade-like, these battles could be limited to 20-30 minutes; in WoWs, they're limited to 20 minutes, but they can be over faster than that.

In my opinion, Legends will have greater success if it's more arcadey; you couldn't get stuck in irons in Black Flag, for example, but the sailing component in that game was well received by people who normally aren't into these kinds of games. 

Edited by Knite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archaos    417
7 hours ago, Knite said:

If the matches are just like Sea Trials, where everything is there, then BR only exists for balancing teams rather than matching specific ranges of ships.

If the matches are like WoWs/WoT/WT, then a mix of BR/tier might work best.

 

This is how WoT and WoWs handle rewarding XP; if a low-tier ship does 20k damage to a high-tier ship, it gets more XP than if the high-tier ship did 20k damage to the low-tier ship; works well enough.

 

Do you think manual sails would remain in Legends? I understand the appeal of it, and the tactical advantage that proper sailing would give (WE HAVE THE WEATHER GAGE!) but honestly, learning how to not get myself stuck in irons took longer than I expected, and this would be a turn-off for a more casual crowd. This is probably one of the more important questions, and the answer depends on what kind of "arena" we're looking at.

 

If Legends is as sim-like as NA's combat instances, these battles could take forever.

If Legends is made more arcade-like, these battles could be limited to 20-30 minutes; in WoWs, they're limited to 20 minutes, but they can be over faster than that.

In my opinion, Legends will have greater success if it's more arcadey; you couldn't get stuck in irons in Black Flag, for example, but the sailing component in that game was well received by people who normally aren't into these kinds of games. 

I think that if it is made too arcadey then it will drive away a lot of people who are interested in the genre. The whole thing about sailing ships as opposed to the steel giants you get in WoWS is that fighting in age of sail was up close and it takes time to bring the fleets close together and form battle lines before you even start opening fire. If the battles were limited to 20 minutes the sides would probably only be starting to engage. The whole age of sail is always going to be at a slower pace if you want to achieve any form of historical simulation.

Personally if it ends up too arcade like I would not be interested. Part of the beauty of Naval Action is the way different ships are modeled with different sailing characteristics so ships that could turn through the wind without any consideration of ships sailing profile and speed etc. would really put me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liq    3,254

I think the current battle mechanics from sandbox (max 90 min battle length and the need to be careful with the wind) will work fine for Arena

But I dont know how repairs will work, might also want to limit chain shot - endless chainig chases are probably the most unspectacular and boring thing that can happen

Edited by Liq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aegir    1,671

Still think that taking a page from the good things of Warthunder (which I can't stand since even its simulator mode is pathetic compared to DCS ^^) would be - to adress some concerns in this very thread - to have their arcade/realistic/simulator battles split with simple (minimal development and balancing effort) differences.

Arcade (simplistic) : No manual sails, no irons, 20-30min battles, start very close to eachother, repair cooldown ~5 minutes, maybe vertical auto-aim compensation (since we dont have manual sails to deal with heeling for example, better for console gamers since vertical aim to deal with sudden wave hits or long-range shots might be tough). Maybe even respawn/s.

Realistic (main) : Same as current game, 60 min battles, start at a distance, repair cooldown ~10-20 minutes.

Simulator (enthusiast/hardcore) : Speed and performance at historical levels, 90+ min battles, deck camera only, no mini-map or tactical map, severely reduced UI information to for example only identify friend from foe in the fog via flags. (I'd play the hell out of this one).

Historical battles : Separate entity from everything else where you're put into a ship (rather than your own) to reenact a battle.

Edited by Aegir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aegir    1,671
On 9/9/2017 at 11:36 PM, jodgi said:

I have fired up DCS but I don't have time in my life for study sims of that caliber. I'm serious about the flight dynamics and currently I'm not partaking in the all-the-buttons-on-every-little-thing-in-the-cockpit type gameplay. DCS is great, tho. I played the old Flanker 1.5 a lot! (I was around for the Papadoc's pink flamingo 1v1 duel "multi"player thing) ;)

The DCS "Flaming Cliffs 3" aircraft selection might be a good choice for ya. Non-clickable cockpits and things are streamlined for that sake so that they're quite easy to manage, a large number of those aircraft have had their flight models upgraded (probably close to the study sim standards) so that's probably top-notch, and they tend to be very cheap in the $10 range per aircraft or less as a package (instead of $40-60 for the study sim versions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justme    362
4 hours ago, Aegir said:

Still think that taking a page from the good things of Warthunder (which I can't stand since even its simulator mode is pathetic compared to DCS ^^) would be - to adress some concerns in this very thread - to have their arcade/realistic/simulator battles split with simple (minimal development and balancing effort) differences.

Arcade (simplistic) : No manual sails, no irons, 20-30min battles, start very close to eachother, repair cooldown ~5 minutes, maybe vertical auto-aim compensation (since we dont have manual sails to deal with heeling for example, better for console gamers since vertical aim to deal with sudden wave hits or long-range shots might be tough). Maybe even respawn/s.

Realistic (main) : Same as current game, 60 min battles, start at a distance, repair cooldown ~10-20 minutes.

Simulator (enthusiast/hardcore) : Speed and performance at historical levels, 90+ min battles, deck camera only, no mini-map or tactical map, severely reduced UI information to for example only identify friend from foe in the fog via flags. (I'd play the hell out of this one).

Historical battles : Separate entity from everything else where you're put into a ship (rather than your own) to reenact a battle.

Sorry respawns are just a bad idea.

WOT does well enough without respawns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aegir    1,671
29 minutes ago, Justme said:

Sorry respawns are just a bad idea.

WOT does well enough without respawns.

Sure, I hate respawns as well, just put it there as an option depending on how far down the "arcade" rabbit hole they would intend to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jodgi    2,312
14 minutes ago, Aegir said:

how far down the "arcade" rabbit hole they would intend to go.

Why even worry about that? Devs have been quite consistent for years that they lean towards realistic and hard more than lol arcade. Why would they change?

Arena ≠ arcade

The idea to make Legends was not spurred by a desire for simplified gameplay, but rather a craving for better access to PvP. PvP-on-demand and the optional equal fights were what we (some) players missed from the OW experience.

(I still love the idea of OW and in that first and foremost: OW hunting. I could, I kid you not, do OW hunting for years if that was what the game was geared towards.)

Naval Action fighting is almost perfect as is, expect minor changes to strike out "almost" and we're off. They have the winning formula canned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aegir    1,671
1 hour ago, jodgi said:

Why even worry about that? Devs have been quite consistent for years that they lean towards realistic and hard more than lol arcade. Why would they change?

Arena ≠ arcade

The idea to make Legends was not spurred by a desire for simplified gameplay, but rather a craving for better access to PvP. PvP-on-demand and the optional equal fights were what we (some) players missed from the OW experience.

(I still love the idea of OW and in that first and foremost: OW hunting. I could, I kid you not, do OW hunting for years if that was what the game was geared towards.)

Naval Action fighting is almost perfect as is, expect minor changes to strike out "almost" and we're off. They have the winning formula canned!

Because providing the option via different game modes is a good safe-guard to make sure that the one and only mode doesn't turn into a tug-o-war of opinions that might have it being made more arcade-like. Guess I just don't trust the devs not to embrace more arcade elements when it comes to making a f2p title.

And as for consistency, well, when Legends was announced it was in the same breath that they were talking about how NA would differentiate itself from it by being a hardcore experience. And how much of that has been rolled back already? 80%? It's almost like playing the 2016 build all over again, and some of the remaining 20% that stuck isn't even the good changes.

Edited by Aegir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jodgi    2,312
10 minutes ago, Aegir said:

Guess I just don't trust the devs not to embrace more arcade elements when it comes to making a f2p title.

"O ye of little faith!"

13 minutes ago, Aegir said:

And how much of that has been rolled back already? 80%? It's almost like playing the 2016 build all over again, and some of the remaining 20% that stuck isn't even the good changes.

Most of that is about eco <yawn>. The combat changes have been tied to eco as well; Everlasting repairs (that will be adressed) that was designed as some sort of noob protection for loss aversive players (read: All but everyone in OW). Repairs will change in legends. The only unbalanced things about the combat mechanics are a tad too strong masts coupled with hulls that are basically just sacks of HP that you can point and click at. Some of those lowest-common-denominator-noob-protection mechanics might stay, I'm afraid, but we might get lucky and balance things more towards skill based mechanics à la "Wacky Patch".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeRuyter    724
10 hours ago, Aegir said:

Still think that taking a page from the good things of Warthunder (which I can't stand since even its simulator mode is pathetic compared to DCS ^^) would be - to adress some concerns in this very thread - to have their arcade/realistic/simulator battles split with simple (minimal development and balancing effort) differences.

Arcade (simplistic) : No manual sails, no irons, 20-30min battles, start very close to eachother, repair cooldown ~5 minutes, maybe vertical auto-aim compensation (since we dont have manual sails to deal with heeling for example, better for console gamers since vertical aim to deal with sudden wave hits or long-range shots might be tough). Maybe even respawn/s.

Realistic (main) : Same as current game, 60 min battles, start at a distance, repair cooldown ~10-20 minutes.

Simulator (enthusiast/hardcore) : Speed and performance at historical levels, 90+ min battles, deck camera only, no mini-map or tactical map, severely reduced UI information to for example only identify friend from foe in the fog via flags. (I'd play the hell out of this one).

Historical battles : Separate entity from everything else where you're put into a ship (rather than your own) to reenact a battle.

I am hoping we can have a sim model in NAL. Using WT as the example it would be like using Full real controls in sim mode. Hardcore maneuvering can be added quite simply by changing the performance data in the API - ie; correcting profiles so that square rigged ships can't effectively sail closer than 60 degrees to the wind. That really will effect fleet maneuvers in a large battle. In my mind sim would also include ship drafts and variable depths in port battle type battle modes.

The repair issue is easily solved in a sim mode - the only repairs are those that could historically be made in battle, plugging shot holes, manually steering when rudder shot away, minor rigging repairs (splicing sail control lines), etc.  Even in a Realistic mode repairs should be limited, like in ST with one repair for hull and one for sails.

Still even in sim some time compression may be necessary as some fleet battles did take hours to fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archaos    417
12 hours ago, jodgi said:

Why even worry about that? Devs have been quite consistent for years that they lean towards realistic and hard more than lol arcade. Why would they change?

Arena ≠ arcade

The idea to make Legends was not spurred by a desire for simplified gameplay, but rather a craving for better access to PvP. PvP-on-demand and the optional equal fights were what we (some) players missed from the OW experience.

(I still love the idea of OW and in that first and foremost: OW hunting. I could, I kid you not, do OW hunting for years if that was what the game was geared towards.)

Naval Action fighting is almost perfect as is, expect minor changes to strike out "almost" and we're off. They have the winning formula canned!

I hope you are correct but the devs have been known to listen to a vocal minority so it is worthwhile letting them know not to make it too arcadey especially as they are trying to cater for the console set.

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

×