PVP MARKS and PLAYER RETENTION

[Bluetooth]

So last night I engaged an Dutch Player in an Endymion near Gibraltar.

Same rank (Rear Admiral).

Good fight ensued and damaged was inflicted by both.

I got the upper hand and was closing for the obligatory kill when the other player politely asked if we could call it a draw, as he was nearly bankrupt.....

I had sailed for 1 hour to reach this spot and fought for 40 mins but because this player had used no salt, I happily agreed because this guy needed a break.

We chatted some more and I went on my way to run back out of the basin into open sea.

 

But I thought about the situation.

1. I felt like a good guy. 😁

2. I got about 900 xp. 😲

3. Neither of us got any rewards for a tough 40 min battle.🤕

4. The incentives in game seemed a bit off.😟

 

So I would like to propose a slight rework of the PVP award system.

For a ship sinking, keep it as it is for the victors, BUT award at least 1/3 to 1/2 pvp marks for the defeated player.

 

But when a ship does not sink:

I would suggest all combatants who inflict damage in a battle are rewarded with PVP marks.

(amount not that important) its about rewarding the players for taking part in pvp.

 

Pros :

More PVP because players will feel that even if they lose a battle, they will get something for their time/effort/cost etc.

Less annoyance at daring escapes after 30 min battle.

Less feeling that your time was wasted, you know, when you fight for an hour until both ships limp away shattered and leaking and get zip.

More chance for sportsman like behavior which will improve player relations and stop players rage leaving the game.

More chance for vets in Uber ships to take a new player to sink limit, and teach him a thing or two without finishing him off, good for everyone.

Reputations would grow, hatted no mercy monster or gentleman of the seas!

Less salt in general.

Cons:

Possible abuse with alts. (however the game is infested with alts and a good idea should not be stopped because of alt abuse. Plus the time and effort vs rewards of such abuse would be minimal and traceable).

 

I believe that this simple idea could improve player relations and player retention and remove the 'need' to sink everything at all costs.

 

 

 

[Lovec1990]

Best idea ever @admin read  it please

[Fenris]

6 minutes ago, Crow said:

I would suggest all combatants who inflict damage in a battle are rewarded with PVP marks.

No.

[King of Crowns]

you fell for the oldest trick in the book...……. the "this is my last ship" trick..... ships are dirt cheap and money grows in ports. for example. 2.8mil for a first rate. 2.8mil = 4missions  or one trade run. but I would wager that yall were fighting in 4th/5th rates which are worth less than 1 mil. never show mercy to a rear admiral. if they have been playing the game long enough to reach max rank and still haven't figured out the economy is broken as crap then your doing them a favor by sinking their last ship. you will force them to rethink how they are playing the game...which needs to happen. because they are doing it wrong.

Edited August 22, 2018 by King of Crowns

[Fenris]

6 minutes ago, Crow said:

More PVP because players will feel that even if they lose a battle, they will get something for their time/effort/cost etc.

We have enough PVP in game even with 500 online.

[Fenris]

1 minute ago, King of Crowns said:

you fell for the oldest trick in the book...……. the "this is my last ship" trick..... ships are dirt cheap and money grows in ports. for example. 2.8mil for a first rate. 2.8mil = 4missions  or one trade run. but I would wager that yall were fighting in 4th/5th rates which are worth less than 1 mil. never show mercy to a rear admiral. if they have been playing the game long enough to reach max rank and still haven't figured out the economy is broken as crap then your doing them a favor by sinking their last ship. you will force them to rethink how they are playing the game...

Unforgiven but fair

 

[King of Crowns]

Just now, Fenris said:

We have enough PVP in game even with 500 online.

😂  500... game hasn't reached 500 players in 2 months and even then it was for about 1 hour out of the day. 

[Bluetooth]

13 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

you fell for the oldest trick in the book...……. the "this is my last ship" trick..... ships are dirt cheap and money grows in ports. for example. 2.8mil for a first rate. 2.8mil = 4missions  or one trade run. but I would wager that yall were fighting in 4th/5th rates which are worth less than 1 mil. never show mercy to a rear admiral. if they have been playing the game long enough to reach max rank and still haven't figured out the economy is broken as crap then your doing them a favor by sinking their last ship. you will force them to rethink how they are playing the game...which needs to happen. because they are doing it wrong.

Thanks for that KOC.

I did not fall for anything. I made a choice.

But the main point was about newer players being rewarded for pvp and all participants feeling that PVP was worth it and thus engaging in it.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Crow

[Bluetooth]

12 minutes ago, Fenris said:

No.

Sigh. 🙄

[Thonys]

28 minutes ago, Crow said:

So last night I engaged an Dutch Player in an Endymion near Gibraltar.

Same rank (Rear Admiral).

Good fight ensued and damaged was inflicted by both.

I got the upper hand and was closing for the obligatory kill when the other player politely asked if we could call it a draw, as he was nearly bankrupt.....

I had sailed for 1 hour to reach this spot and fought for 40 mins but because this player had used no salt, I happily agreed because this guy needed a break.

We chatted some more and I went on my way to run back out of the basin into open sea.

 

But I thought about the situation.

1. I felt like a good guy. 😁

2. I got about 900 xp. 😲

3. Neither of us got any rewards for a tough 40 min battle.🤕

4. The incentives in game seemed a bit off.😟

 

So I would like to propose a slight rework of the PVP award system.

For a ship sinking, keep it as it is for the victors, BUT award at least 1/3 to 1/2 pvp marks for the defeated player.

 

But when a ship does not sink:

I would suggest all combatants who inflict damage in a battle are rewarded with PVP marks.

(amount not that important) its about rewarding the players for taking part in pvp.

 

Pros :

More PVP because players will feel that even if they lose a battle, they will get something for their time/effort/cost etc.

Less annoyance at daring escapes after 30 min battle.

Less feeling that your time was wasted, you know, when you fight for an hour until both ships limp away shattered and leaking and get zip.

More chance for sportsman like behavior which will improve player relations and stop players rage leaving the game.

More chance for vets in Uber ships to take a new player to sink limit, and teach him a thing or two without finishing him off, good for everyone.

Reputations would grow, hatted no mercy monster or gentleman of the seas!

Less salt in general.

Cons:

Possible abuse with alts. (however the game is infested with alts and a good idea should not be stopped because of alt abuse. Plus the time and effort vs rewards of such abuse would be minimal and traceable).

 

I believe that this simple idea could improve player relations and player retention and remove the 'need' to sink everything at all costs.

 

 

 

I just like the way you act.

at some point, you can take and claim  your victory by a draw..(it happened many times in the age of sail)

its called a tactical victory (but hard to implement i guess)

5 stars

Edited August 22, 2018 by Thonys

[Thonys]

3 minutes ago, Crow said:

Sigh. 🙄

well no sayers should be banned

sigh

FOR 5 DAYS. 

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

What about a new scoring category which would measure chivalry and honor in general?

So when you decide not to sink a defeated adversary, you would not get the PvP marks but marks for your gallantry in said category.

Also can be used with other game content incidents, especially of civilian (almost wrote 'civilized') character. That is, for traders and shipwrights or anyone doing something good to his port. What that would be in detail, can get evaluated in new suggestions...

Overall, more depth in game and a promotion of honorable conduct. Typical for that period and we are in need of that.

[sveno]

OP is correct with his assement.
Don't listen to those nay sayers, they are not knowing what we know about good fights.

Proposal will desalt play, be less unvorgiving to learning players and at least there is a sence to be ganked outside combat zone.
A good change, OW PvP will get more enjoyable for all players.
 

[Nelsons Barrel]

Basically that was the way to print money a while ago, get money for damage and keep all ships afloat. 

[Angus MacDuff]

I'm with KoC.  A Rear Admiral in an Endy who is almost bankrupt...Sounds like he was out in a treasured Purple or Gold ship and didn't want to lose it.  Shoulda killed him...

[Sir Loorkon]

A good suggestion but it is to easy to abuse this with altaccounts. 

[z4ys]

@Crow dont feel bad for sinking people it was their choice to go on pvp server. No mercy given none ask.

[Tiedemann]

I strongly agree with OP, but the constant focus to prevent exploiting has had and will continue to have a negative effect on the game experience for honest players. 
The old damage reward system was reworked to promote PvP - giving 10x more reward for damage done in PvP compared to damage done in PvE. It was awesome, but it had to be reworked to counter alt farming..!

For now I understand that preventing serious exploiting for release of the game is more important than giving more rewards for doing PvP successfully or not. But IMO for the long term survival of the game players need better rewards for doing PvP, just like the OP suggestion. Because getting nothing for an undecisive battle result and nothing when you just lose in a PvP is just not an incentive to try PvP. I also think ganking became a larger issue because of the current reward system. If you do not succeed you get nothing in sinking the enemy you get NOTHING. Therefor it makes much more sense to go in larger group to help increase the chance for decisive battle result for most players new to PvP.

I believe/hope that if we have enough transparency in who earns PvP marks, we as players can report suspicious PvP activity. So in global combat news we should be able to see who sank who, nation and player names for both. We should also all have access to the battle report, time it took, damage etc.
The main issue here is that those reports demand that someone review them and investigate.. So I'm not sure how realistic this is as a long term solution 🙁
 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Tiedemann
Accidental use of an WW2 expression..

[vazco]

The idea is good, however there's one problem - we already tested this and it didn't work. Once it's so easy to abuse the system, incentives stop to work completely. It's not about alt farming, but about all nations agreeing to fake battles without ships sinking, or with minimal amount of ships sinking.

 

Your idea could be implemented provided that it would be secured by anti-abuse mechanisms. They're hard to implement though and probably won't work.

 

Another option would be to introduce better incentives for players. Many fight just to appear on leaderboard. If players had PvP ranks to work for, which depended on PvP rank of other players you sink, and had eg. daily and weekly lists of PvP rank standings, it could replace PvP marks as an incentive. Then PvP marks could be probably made less important and more common with your idea, making game more interesting and less painful for everyone.

 

As it stands now, we need some incentives to PvP and prizes for winning, and giving marks for damage would break those incentives due to abuses.

Edited August 22, 2018 by vazco

[SeamanStaines]

The way the game is at present is great for a small number of  the "best" players (PVP allocation ). But not so good for  the  more causal and average player who serve as fodder for the  elite. The current reward does not encourage PVP. Quite the opposite. If your PVP win average is less than 50/50 why would you make a fight of it. Better to avoid or run. For those not in the top tier of skills, not running multiple alts and struggling to get PVP marks for elite mods,  the game in its current incarnation is not very rewarding. Some allocation of PVP marks for losing would at least give some consolation.              

[Licinio Chiavari]

I completely agree with OT: game has a big reward system issue. I was thinking the same a few days ago and so already thinking to post a couple ideas. I'll do here.

Honestly why in the hell I shouldnt kill on sight any soft target? and like some whiners say, "dont sealclubbing!" (setting aside what's it - killing a R.Adm on a Trinco being on a Requin is, or not; killing a Commodore on a Bellona using 5 Bellonas is or not?); I can take into consideration to not sealclub when and if I have 100mil, 500marks aside, 20 shiny geared ships... so I can hunt down only "WORTH" targets. Until then or I farm 1000 hr PVE to get there... or I enjoy a bit more farming doing PVP farming.

 

- Multiply by 10 all PVP mark prize and reward prices. Go get far more room for corrections, like the below noted.

- Rework Ship PVP reward. Let's make pretty clear we have 2 problems: too limited difference between big and small ships and ridicoulous high prize on traders: I'd like to remember that a Trader Brig is worth like a Requin (!?) and an LGV more than an Hercules (!?!?)

Some possible indications:

T.Brig and Requin now = 5 marks. x10 = 50, Reworked: Requin 60 (?) / T.Brig. 20. This to make more profitable to capture and bring back a loaded trader.

- Set a malus to marks gained against not high rank players.

At the moment a Trinco is worth 10 marks. With the x10 it will be 100. The ship will worth 100 when sailed by top 8-10th ranks ranks, only 80 6-7th,... down to 50 for lowest ranks.

This could offer an incentive to do not waste time chasing new players.

- Having higher numbers on PVP marks reward will allow further detailing.

Example: Those getting into Leaderboard will worth more depending on position (like x1.1 for 10th place up to x2 for 1st place) So a "natural" daily bounty on most successful killers.

Example: some reward available also in case of group kills.

- Allow (due to chance of exploit) a daily agreed "fair draw" ("honourable stalemate"?). UI wise one: player press a button "Call Draw". The other has choise (1 time) to Accept/Refuse. First player lost in any case his daily use. The second player lost his only accepting (to avoid purposely having an enemy giving up his).

System will recalc HALVED (above modified) PVP reward of both ship and giving the % of damage done to the enemy. To further keep an eye to abuses (that will be probably limited) CombatNews will inform "Player X accepted a fair draw against Player Y".

[Lovec1990]

5 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

I completely agree with OT: game has a big reward system issue. I was thinking the same a few days ago and so already thinking to post a couple ideas. I'll do here.

Honestly why in the hell I shouldnt kill on sight any soft target? and like some whiners say, "dont sealclubbing!" (setting aside what's it - killing a R.Adm on a Trinco being on a Requin is, or not; killing a Commodore on a Bellona using 5 Bellonas is or not?); I can take into consideration to not sealclub when and if I have 100mil, 500marks aside, 20 shiny geared ships... so I can hunt down only "WORTH" targets. Until then or I farm 1000 hr PVE to get there... or I enjoy a bit more farming doing PVP farming.

 

- Multiply by 10 all PVP mark prize and reward prices. Go get far more room for corrections, like the below noted.

- Rework Ship PVP reward. Let's make pretty clear we have 2 problems: too limited difference between big and small ships and ridicoulous high prize on traders: I'd like to remember that a Trader Brig is worth like a Requin (!?) and an LGV more than an Hercules (!?!?)

Some possible indications:

T.Brig and Requin now = 5 marks. x10 = 50, Reworked: Requin 60 (?) / T.Brig. 20. This to make more profitable to capture and bring back a loaded trader.

- Set a malus to marks gained against not high rank players.

At the moment a Trinco is worth 10 marks. With the x10 it will be 100. The ship will worth 100 when sailed by top 8-10th ranks ranks, only 80 6-7th,... down to 50 for lowest ranks.

This could offer an incentive to do not waste time chasing new players.

- Having higher numbers on PVP marks reward will allow further detailing.

Example: Those getting into Leaderboard will worth more depending on position (like x1.1 for 10th place up to x2 for 1st place) So a "natural" daily bounty on most successful killers.

Example: some reward available also in case of group kills.

- Allow (due to chance of exploit) a daily agreed "fair draw" ("honourable stalemate"?). UI wise one: player press a button "Call Draw". The other has choise (1 time) to Accept/Refuse. First player lost in any case his daily use. The second player lost his only accepting (to avoid purposely having an enemy giving up his).

System will recalc HALVED (above modified) PVP reward of both ship and giving the % of damage done to the enemy. To further keep an eye to abuses (that will be probably limited) CombatNews will inform "Player X accepted a fair draw against Player Y".

I like the idea just then PvP needed for PvP only rewards should be increased as well, anyway this will crash PvP mark value on market

[Hethwill]

5 minutes ago, Lovec1990 said:

this will crash PvP mark value on market

hope it plummets to dust

[Lovec1990]

Just now, Hethwill the Harmless said:

hope it plummets to dust

it will currently PvP mark is worth 100k-150k if that is implemented PvP mark will be in theory worth 10k-15k

[Hethwill]

Just now, Lovec1990 said:

it will currently PvP mark is worth 100k-150k if that is implemented PvP mark will be in theory worth 10k-15k

perfect. anything that makes the pro-zone-farmers nonsense stop... by other means. o7