Anti-gank rewards nerf!

[Kloothommel]

Contrary to the tags on this thread (clickbait ftw) I have a nice solution (and easy to do!) for the ganking issues  that plague PVp at the moment.

here it comes...

Make PVP rewards scale to BR difference.

mind blown yet? Please follow my thinking:

Target BR : attacker BR x100%= % of rewards.

And I do not mean rewards per player, but total potential rewards across all players for the attacking group.

Group of players x attacks player y. The BR difference is X: 500, Y: 100. So the maximum rewards for the players in group x can be AT MAXIMUM 20% of what it would have been in an equal br situation.

Same goes the other way around. Guy in small ship (e.g. @The Red Duke/Hethwill in a privateer) br 40, attacks an LGV br 110. This gives Hethwill a potential (110:40)x100= 275% for possible pvp rewards!

 

Relatively simple solution to a relativly complex problem. PVP rewards will force down large groups of attackers leading to less ganking.

Because face it: Outnumbering an enemy BR wise is NOT a show of skill. This way it would be high risk, high gain, no risk, no gain.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Cornelis Tromp

[Corona Lisa]

5 minutes ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

Same goes the other way around. Guy in small ship (e.g. @The Red Duke/Hethwill in a privateer) br 40, attacks an LGV br 110. This gives Hethwill a potential (110:40)x100= 275% for possible pvp rewards!

This should be limited to maximum 150%, so its still appealing for the underdog but at the same time it cant go too high to dont encourage abuse (aka PvP mark farming) more.

[Kloothommel]

Just now, Jon Snow lets go said:

This should be limited to maximum 150%, so its still appealing for the underdog but at the same time it cant go too high to dont encourage abuse (aka PvP mark farming) more.

Fair enough! But there should be no bottom when it comes to less % rewards.

[Slim McSauce]

Ok, but this won't stop ganking. Ganking has always been a part of the game even before PVP exclusive rewards. People are still gonna kill you if you're an easy target.

The real solution IMO is for people to stop making themselves easy targets. Stop sailing your traders alone through hostile waters, stop afk sailing and communicate with your nation/clan so people can help you if you run into trouble. And most importantly the defenders need to actual act like they care about losing ships and get their own group and attack the gankers. If they get away that's on you, you should be well prepared to defend your own waters.

Not to throw dirt on your suggestion, which I agree 100% should be implemented.

[Liq]

I agree.

 

[Hethwill]

1 minute ago, Wraith said:

there aren't enough people playing with different play

you tell them, someone wants to kill my privateer corsair snow brig in some other thread just by looking at it  

[Fargo]

25 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Ok, but this won't stop ganking. Ganking has always been a part of the game even before PVP exclusive rewards. People are still gonna kill you if you're an easy target.

Ganking has nothing to do with unfair fights. The OW is not supposed and not able to work as a matchmaking system, no matter if we like fairness or not.

The problem is not that players pick weaker targets, the problem is that these dont stand together and fight back. That people are allowed to avoid battles and only pick weak targets is the major cause of the problem. Thats not an opinion, but simple logic.

[Slim McSauce]

2 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Ganking has nothing to do with unfair fights. The OW is not supposed and not able to work as a matchmaking system, no matter if we like fairness or not.

The problem is not that players pick weaker targets, the problem is that these dont stand together and fight back. That people are allowed to avoid battles and only pick weak targets is the major cause of the problem. Thats not an opinion, but simple logic.

There's not much choice to be had on the matter. With current global pop you're lucky to get any sort of PVP battle, let alone a fair one (in the terms of NA)

I think if there were actual funnels to PVP. Like real dynamic OW objectives that pit 2 nation together in a certain area for massive rewards daily we'd see most if not all of PVPers flock there for the fights. Yes there will always be the few gankers, but most people just want to fight against anything that isn't AI, and we're kind of forced to gank to get those.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Kloothommel]

55 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

...

Not to throw dirt on your suggestion, which I agree 100% should be implemented.

You get it. Discourage =/= stop or counter. 

It's all about reducing the urge.

27 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Is this even a problem in need of solving?

Yes.

Scaling rewards based on BR difference is just reinforcing the same broken methods for "encouraging" PvP that have been tried in the past and have led to nothing but alt farming and abuse. It comes down to one fundamental thing: People either want PvP or they don't. If you make rewards for PvP "special" in some way then those that don't want PvP will figure out a way to get them without having to PvP. In order to create a diversity of engagement types you need to support different play styles, one that creates opportunities for both consensual and non-consensual PvP through diverse types of OW interactions.

Let them whine. And scale down their encounters.

Furthermore, while I don't have a huge problem with the balance of the current repair mechanic, it greatly supports group play over solo or small sided play. The fact that with a large fleet you can sail away, repair, and reengage many times throughout a battle makes disabling and putting down opponents in unbalanced fights very, very difficult. Changing rewards won't help that.

Different discussion.

 

4 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Ganking has nothing to do with unfair fights. The OW is not supposed and not able to work as a matchmaking system, no matter if we like fairness or not.

The problem is not that players pick weaker targets, the problem is that these dont stand together and fight back. That people are allowed to avoid battles and only pick weak targets is the major cause of the problem. Thats not an opinion, but simple logic.

It's about at least reducing the rewards. That way you don't encourage completely loptsided ganks for the sake of pvp rewards.

[Kloothommel]

2 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

There's not much choice to be had on the matter. With current global pop you're lucky to get any sort of PVP battle, let alone a fair one (in the terms of NA)

I think if there were actual funnels to PVP. Like real dynamic OW objectives that pit 2 nation together in a certain area for massive rewards daily we'd see most if not all of PVPers flock there for the fights. Yes there will always be the few gankers, but most people just want to fight against anything that isn't AI, and we're kind of forced to gank to get those.

I'm talking about a solution taht works with bigger pops as well. Not a barren server like Global.

[Slim McSauce]

3 minutes ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

I'm talking about a solution taht works with bigger pops as well. Not a barren server like Global.

Your solution works don't get me wrong. But let me just say as an USman since wipe, PVP revolved (for us atleast) 80%+ around cton and mort, where it was most convenient for PVPers to find PVP, around capitals.

Now with reinforcements, you can't do that anymore. PVP is even more scattered with the only focal point being freeports which simply don't cut it.

All I'm saying is if devs made PVP focal points like capitals use to be so navies could send their PVP fleets there, then maybe we wouldn't see gank fleets roam around for traders lynx like packs of starving wild african dogs.

[Archaos]

1 hour ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

Same goes the other way around. Guy in small ship (e.g. @The Red Duke/Hethwill in a privateer) br 40, attacks an LGV br 110. This gives Hethwill a potential (110:40)x100= 275% for possible pvp rewards!

The issue I have with this example is that if the LGV is a pure trader and has no guns equipped then it is not much of a contest, so you would need some other way to scale rewards against traders.

[victor]

4 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Your solution works don't get me wrong. But let me just say as an USman since wipe, PVP revolved (for us atleast) 80%+ around cton and mort, where it was most convenient for PVPers to find PVP, around capitals.

Now with reinforcements, you can't do that anymore. PVP is even more scattered with the only focal point being freeports which simply don't cut it.

All I'm saying is if devs made PVP focal points like capitals use to be so navies could send their PVP fleets there, then maybe we wouldn't see gank fleets roam around for traders lynx like packs of starving wild african dogs.

In PVP EU, as far as I remember, before the reinforcements era capitals just were focal points for non consensual PVP (AKA carebear farming), nowdays there are some Free towns - Tumbado i.e. - which have become the focal points for people looking for actual OS PVP fights. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by victor

[Slim McSauce]

6 minutes ago, victor said:

In PVP EU, as far as I remember, before the reinforcements era capitals just were focal points for non consensual PVP (AKA carebear farming), nowdays there are some Free towns - Tumbado i.e. - which have become the focal points for people looking for actual OS PVP fights. 

On global, although the ganking was awful, it actually pushed nations to develop home defense fleets and groups were constantly being called on to defend/attack capitals. There was always PVP happening and almost every night there was a large fleet engagement. For a month or so it felt like there was a very real, very brutal war was going on between the pirates and US.

The freeport thing just doesn't cut it because it doesn't capture that. There's no accomplishment outside of killing the other player, as apposed to before you were fighting for the defense of your capital and the fate of dozens of carebears. When you won it meant literally saving the day for your nation, you lost then your capital was blockaded and noobs plundered and pillaged.

There's a definite WANT for quality PVP. The devs have yet to harness that want and give PVP an meaningful outlet where action have real nation-wide consequences. We can have good OW PVP without it bleeding into new player experience, but you have to give us an objective that feels as important as locking down a capital, with equivalant rewards on a RVR level, not just marks and XP.

 

[Fargo]

1 minute ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

It's about at least reducing the rewards. That way you don't encourage completely loptsided ganks for the sake of pvp rewards.

Why not just fix the cause of the problem instead?! Unfair battles are no problem at all. Its a viable tactic to outnumber an enemy and wouldnt effect youre rewards, its not plausible that youre nation pomotes maximum risk.

When PvP marks are a problem this should be addressed. When people surrender/give you their ship to deny PvP marks, something seems to be seriously broken. For a proper reputation system it might actually make sense to reward heroism, but not for current marks that directly can be converted into gold.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Fargo said:

Why not just fix the cause of the problem instead?! Unfair battles are no problem at all. Its a viable tactic to outnumber an enemy and wouldnt effect youre rewards, its not plausible that youre nation pomotes maximum risk.

When PvP marks are a problem this should be addressed. When people surrender/give you their ship to deny PvP marks, something seems to be seriously broken. For a proper reputation system it might actually make sense to reward heroism, but not for current marks that directly can be converted into gold.

PVP rewards could be easily replaced by just costing tons of combat marks.

Every new currency we add messes up the one before it. gold>combatmarks>pvpmarks.

Now we're gonna have thousands of combat marks that we can't spend fast enough on top of the millions of gold stockpiling in our banks.

[Simon Cadete]

I think this is a great suggestion and should be implemented as soon as possible. It will make it a lot better although some players don’t know how to pvp and won’t survive outside of ganking fleets. 

Some people are happy just being sail shooters. I see them crying in their nation chat when I attack them in a smaller or equal ship. To those people, nothing will ever change their play style.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Simon Cadete said:

I think this is a great suggestion and should be implemented as soon as possible. It will make it a lot better although some players don’t know how to pvp and won’t survive outside of ganking fleets. 

Some people are happy just being sail shooters. I see them crying in their nation chat when I attack them in a smaller or equal ship. To those people, nothing will ever change their play style.

Shooting sails is very effective right now. Should it be? no. But the wasa shouldn't be 12.3 base speed either. Don't hate the player hate the game.

[victor]

1 hour ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

On global, although the ganking was awful, it actually pushed nations to develop home defense fleets and groups were constantly being called on to defend/attack capitals. There was always PVP happening and almost every night there was a large fleet engagement. For a month or so it felt like there was a very real, very brutal war was going on between the pirates and US.

The freeport thing just doesn't cut it because it doesn't capture that. There's no accomplishment outside of killing the other player, as apposed to before you were fighting for the defense of your capital and the fate of dozens of carebears. When you won it meant literally saving the day for your nation, you lost then your capital was blockaded and noobs plundered and pillaged.

There's a definite WANT for quality PVP. The devs have yet to harness that want and give PVP an meaningful outlet where action have real nation-wide consequences. We can have good OW PVP without it bleeding into new player experience, but you have to give us an objective that feels as important as locking down a capital, with equivalant rewards on a RVR level, not just marks and XP.

 

If there is such a WANT for "quality PVP" can you please explain to me why so many PVPers are asking on the forum to take out safe zones (and things like that) but become very shy when someone proposes a mechanic that should oblige PVPers to engage in more equilibrated fights among them? 

C'mon mate, I've been playing enough this game to know that so many Sea warriors just want a game that lets them farm free PVP marks outside capitals killing carebears and noobs in failfitted, speed upgraded fir/fir ships (wasa anyone?) that let them flee at 15,5 knots downwind as soon as some revenge fleet appears on the horizon. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by victor

[Kloothommel]

1 hour ago, Fargo said:

Why not just fix the cause of the problem instead?! Unfair battles are no problem at all. Its a viable tactic to outnumber an enemy and wouldnt effect youre rewards, its not plausible that youre nation pomotes maximum risk.

When PvP marks are a problem this should be addressed. When people surrender/give you their ship to deny PvP marks, something seems to be seriously broken. For a proper reputation system it might actually make sense to reward heroism, but not for current marks that directly can be converted into gold.

One step at a time.

[Capn Rocko]

This has been suggested before and I think it is a no-brainer. However, I would suggest that smaller BR wins do not award more than 100% of the possible PvP marks. By giving smaller ships more possible marks, it will only encourage more ganking in 6th rates. For example, if 3 Snows attack a Wasa (150 BR vs 250) they would still yeild more than 100% of the possible marks (according to your suggestion).

[Slim McSauce]

17 hours ago, victor said:

If there is such a WANT for "quality PVP" can you please explain to me why so many PVPers are asking on the forum to take out safe zones (and things like that) but become very shy when someone proposes a mechanic that should oblige PVPers to engage in more equilibrated fights among them? 

C'mon mate, I've been playing enough this game to know that so many Sea warriors just want a game that lets them farm free PVP marks outside capitals killing carebears and noobs in failfitted, speed upgraded fir/fir ships (wasa anyone?) that let them flee at 15,5 knots downwind as soon as some revenge fleet appears on the horizon. 

You're mistaken mate. PVPers want the constant 7v7s and 12v12s we had prior to reinforcement zones which thanks to capital ganking, was pretty much a guarantee to find any night. Yes there were tons of downsides to it like the noob ganking, but that period of the game was undoubtedly the most active for PVP and for good reason.

If that was all over the simple objective of defending/attacking capitals imagine what the kind of nation-wide mission devs could add for OW PVP. It doesn't have to be at the cost of new player experience either.

Literally just give us something to fight over in OW like we use to have and see PVP reemerge. Fighting over nothing for the sole sake of doing PVP around freeports is, for lack of better words, extremely homoerotic (and not in the good way)

[victor]

56 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

.... which thanks to capital ganking, was pretty much a guarantee to find any night ....

So basically you are telling that some dozens of players shall sacrifice their gameplay and get serially ganked just to allow less than 30 players have their funny battles every night?

Strange logic, or - better - a logic that the Devs of a massive online game hardly could share

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by victor

[Slim McSauce]

1 hour ago, victor said:

So basically you are telling that some dozens of players shall sacrifice their gameplay and get serially ganked just to allow less than 30 players have their funny battles every night?

Strange logic, or - better - a logic that the Devs of a massive online game hardly could share

also read...

2 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

If that was all over the simple objective of defending/attacking capitals imagine what the kind of nation-wide mission devs could add for OW PVP. It doesn't have to be at the cost of new player experience either.

If the devs wanted to they could add PVP missions to the Admiralty. Say every day each main nation is put up against 1 other in a capital area type battle that stays open throughout the day, people join in and leave freely when the die just like a capital battle. Put this Admiralty battle dead smack between the 2 countries nearest ports, and give a marker on the map that point exactly to it to avoid all confusion.

It'd be like a fun slide for PVPers. You die you can come back in another ship and the battle will still be raging on 25v25 (or whatever you have ) No more having to hunt capitals and gank traders which, as a PVPer warms my heart to shed some carebear tears, is not my favorite thing to do 

Incentive...Idk if there really needs to be incentive. PVP marks should go, we've tried them before and every new currency we add clutters the economy. Those exclusive books will never go on sail. No one has the time to PVP that much to sell 50+ battles worth of marks for some ludicrous amount of already abundant currency. No one but the top .01% of PVPers will ever get access to those upgrades, and the top .01% don't need those insanely good books, they're already the top.

But yeah, the framework is already there for some OW development. PBs seem to be holding up well with the new diverse BR rating, now OW could use some love.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[victor]

5 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

now OW could use some love.

 

 

Also trade and craft are ok as they are now.  So I basically agree with you (but the solution must not imply the cancellation of homeland safezones).

After looking after OS PVP maybe they could add also some variations in missions.

Edited November 18, 2017 by victor