Match Play - the first stage

[Johny Reb]

I thought I'd start this topic because surprisingly it hasn't been brought up before in a single thread and it just happens to be fact that the first release of this game will be no-loss match play. So we should spend as much time delivering ideas about a good match play system as we do about the open world of the distant future. I thought I'd include as a subject of discussion, how to integrate a match play system into the open world but I then thought, why? We arn't at that stage yet. So I would ask that the discussion over the integration of the open world and closed world play be started up in a different thread unless the mechanic directly affects how the match play world system would have to be defined.

 

My initial ideas:

 

I would like to see the ability to choose the size of fight. Unlike tanks their should be option such as 1v1, 6v6, 10v10, 24v24. Whatever.

 

Unlike Potbs the UI needs to be designed so that you can see more than 30% of the game.

 

I'd like to see battles with different goals then just sink the other teams ships. Such as a port defense vs Attackers, smuggling runs to name two.

 

Societies(or whatever you want to call them)exist in both closed and open world as the same entity and that in match play you are not limited to how many you can be grouped up with. At least more than the three in tanks.

[Chustler]

I'll gladly second this thread.

 

I would be very interested in 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and the others you mentioned.  I like small engagments like that.

 

I like the ideas for scenarios.  It might be fun to have a simple race setup for the sailing enthusiasts where no shooting is allowed.  You could also have racing where shooting is allowed LOL

 

There could be some kind of cat and mouse type scenarios as well.  2 big ships try to chase down/corner and capture a smaller more nimble ship. or the other way around...

 

Of course like you mentioned, bigger battles that would resemble port battles would be fun as well.

[Brigand]

Good topic.

 

I don't think matches should be based on 1v1, 2v2, 8v8 or 24v24. Instead, the matches should be based on some other parameter that indicates the relative 'weight' of a ship.

 

As a result, you would get 2v5 battles etc. and still have fairly balanced sides. My first thought was that the 'weight' factor could be broadside weight, but I guess that would not work because too many small ships should always be able to overpower a single large one, just by the sheer number of options in manoeuvrability.

 

Then, +1 for the racing scenario! it gives a welcome change from what most of us have come to expect as the default and it would put a strong emphasis on the players sailing skill.

 

~Brigand

[Oneironz]

Thanks for bringing up a thread regarding the current match system, afterall, the game only packs match plays anyways. Not an open world or how to connect both systems.

I would absolutely love customizable fleets and the size of battle. Like Brigand said, not predefined numbers, such as 2v2 or 20v20, but something of the sort of Empire Total Wars. You can compose any fleet you wish, be it a line of 1st rates or schooners, or a mix. As long as the weight of broadsides or something else, is fair, like Brigand suggested.

It would be hell of a fun race if there was a raging storm, trying to render us obsolete, but we would try to push forward as hard as possible, using the manual skipper to extract the best from the ship!

Or a ship of the line battle during a storm, that does the trick aswell! Basically, anything that packs storms

Please, don't make it boring like Potbs skirmish system.

[Onewayz]

relative 'weight' of a ship.

 

This!

 

but, still, fights where not always ''even'' so there should be some kind of gank system? I kind of liked the feeling of winning a 1v3

[Marion van Ghent]

I actually brought up the topic here, but it deserves its own thread, so thanks Johnny Reb 

 

I vaguely recall Game Labs saying they had no plans for this, at least initially, but the ideal would be a scenario editor through which players could create and store scenarios which could be shared with and used by the community. Being able to set up battles, races, or other missions in which we specify all the initial conditions (wind, sea state, ships, starting positions, etc.) would add tremendous value to the game -- all for the cost of developing the tools and some server space on which to store scenarios.

 

I imagine one concern would be "cheating" by giving certain ships too heavy guns, speed parameters, or whatnot. This could be obviated by having a ship database of pre-constructed vessels which scenario creators could then place in their scenarios. I'm not sure it's necessary, though. One, communities such as this tend not to be "gankers;" if anything we tend to be TOO fair  And two, anyone joining a scenario should be able to see the stats for any ship therein and decide for themselves whether or not it looks "fair" or simply presents an interesting challenge.

 

In fact I would advocate against having all "evenly matched" battles. In history there were no guarantees, and if everything were always "fair" we'd have no Cochranes or Nelsons to write stories about! And unmatched scenarios can be quite enjoyable and interesting challenges in and of themselves.

 

Another thing I would advocate against is having open battles in which players are limited to a ship class based on their "rank" or some other in-game metric -- at least as an exclusive form of play. While this would have its place, it would discourage a lot of players from participating if all they could sail were a gunboat or sloop and others are jumping into heavy frigates and third-rates.

 

As for in-game features of match play, there are several things which should be considered in addition to "who fights whom in what." Things like:

 

1) Messaging -- should it be limited to within a side? Should open comms be available? Should the host be able to turn them off?

 

2) Signaling -- should there be some substitute for messaging such as hoisting signal flags? How would players know what means what, if so, and how would the sides be prevented from knowing immediately what the other's signaling?

 

3) Timers -- should there be any, as an option?

 

4) Sides -- should there only be two per action? Should the number be open, up to and including each ship be its own side?

 

5) Victory conditions -- who decides them? Are there goals (cut out X ship, prevent ships from crossing a strait, etc.)/finish lines to be reached? Is it based on who's sunk or surrendered?

 

6) How should dropped connexions be handled? Does the ship just surrender? Does it get taken over by AI unless and until the player reconnects?

 

7) Boarding combat -- should it be included in match play? How are the ships involved treated when locked in mêlée combat -- as dead in the water? As actively sailing and fighting whilst simultaneously engaged hand-to-hand? Immune to incoming fire? Do the combatants jump to a separate "instance" (as in PotBS) or can this be done seamlessly?

 

Lots of things to sort out when you get right down to it 

 

For my part I'd love to see a variety of play options, from racing gunboats or frigates or even SoLs to line battles of up to 20 or more ships per side. I'd like to see host-assigned signaling flags available and the ability to turn off comms to add to the historic feel of actions. I don't care about timers or boarding combat, and would prefer the latter be abstracted -- as captain I'd be given the ability to assign crew from other areas as I see fit and let the server sort out the details. And I fully acknowledge I may hold a minority opinion on some of these things 

[tater]

^^^ Great post.

 

IMO, the point of any "world at large" is just to provide ship encounters that are NOT matched up evenly. Select match, it throws you in with some people with sails on the horizon. You know nothing about them. To start (when the game lacks other options), there might be the presumption of hostility. Some are merchants, some escorts, you might be a Brig that comes across a 2d Rate with some Frigates windward. RUN!

 

1. Messaging? None. Sadly there are ways to avoid any restrictions, but communication with anyone other than signal flags (or being alongside at hailing distance) makes things grossly unrealistic. Dunno how you deal with fog of war, it should be a critical factor.

 

2. Signaling. Yeah, the ability to send simple messages makes sense. It can be abstracted with a pull-down system, and only friendly ships can see it. Ideally, some way to have confusion, and even false colors would be ideal to figure out so that you never really know who you are facing. Maybe this can be abstracted.

 

7. Boarding is critical, frankly, even if entirely abstracted. The idea that a requirement is "sinking" ships is counter to all incentives in the age of sail, frankly. Prizes.

[Johny Reb]

 It might be fun to have a simple race setup for the sailing enthusiasts where no shooting is allowed.  You could also have racing where shooting is allowed LOL

 

I like this idea as well, especially with weather.

 

I don't think matches should be based on 1v1, 2v2, 8v8 or 24v24. Instead, the matches should be based on some other parameter that indicates the relative 'weight' of a ship.

 

As a result, you would get 2v5 battles etc. and still have fairly balanced sides.

The admin said there would be a battle balancer of some kind. I still like the idea of being able to choose what battle you are looking for, i.e. 2v2 or 8v8 etc where the balancer take two similarly sized frigates and matches them up with two other similarly sized frigates. People are gonna want even battle. But.. I also like what your saying about having a choice to have a randomly sized battle but still matched up in some other metric but I think that might be difficult to do.

 

 

 

but, still, fights where not always ''even'' so there should be some kind of gank system? I kind of liked the feeling of winning a 1v3

I think though in match play most are gonna want the fights to be even, especially those that are coming over from WoT and Warthunder so I think even battles need to be the norm with the options built in for the other setups.

 

It was mentioned in a thread some time ago about scenarios in match play. I think this is the best way to handle gank fights. If you choose to play an uneven match than you are given a storyline at which the battle scenario is built around. To make it easier to fill the matches, you don't get to choose which side your on. You may be ganking or you may be ganked.  The scenario would have a story line to it such as:    A fog lifts in early morning and you find yourself within a mile of two 74s and two frigates, Escape!   or You are a smuggler off the coast of France with a cargo of escaped British sailors, On your way in you had spotted two French frigates patrolling the area but you had managed to evade. They are probably still looking for you. You must get these sailor to safety.  I could think of many more.

 

I would like to see fleet actions that also need other smaller boats to be effective such as frigates for scouting and bomb ketches for bombarding forts.

 

But I would also like to see fleet battles with nothing but ships of the line.

 

I want it all!!!

[Repteel]

If it is a totally randomized/quick match battle maybe the matching system could look at players kill/death ratio and automatically assign players to get the teams as close to as possible.  Also maybe some multiplier for the different types of ships to help make it "fair".

 

I.E.  Team 1 - 2 players, 1.5k/d,  in frigates, will says has a level of 2,  so  1.5(2) + 2(2) = 7

        Team 2 - 4 players, 0.75k/d, in sloops, say level of 1,   4(0.75) + 4(1) = 7 

 

 

If something kinda like this system was used you might be able to have some fair fight while making it interesting. 

[tater]

To start "death match" is the easiest to code. I think Marion van Ghent's post is what would be the most fun. Not slugfests, but some sort of context. One side might be dispatching important orders or intelligence of enemy movements---they want one of their number to get away at all costs. There are loads of possible missions that given ships might have. In old board/miniatures games, the thing to do as the game designer was to weight them. So the weaker side still has achievable victory conditions. It makes for much more engaging "quick" play.

[BrutishVulgarian]

I'm not sure what match play is, the more options the better, but I would like to see what players can do 1 v 1, 2 v 2, etc.  with evenly matched ships and equal starting positions. 

[Johny Reb]

What we are talking about in "match play" is the initial release of NA on the public. The admins have suggested that first release will be a game similar to World of Tanks where their is no-loss play, similar to Potbs skirmishes.

 

Our discussions so far have primarily dealt with the open world which is in the distant future. We havn't given many opinions on this initial release. The admins asked for help on scenarios and maps for the initial game but only a few have been suggested.

 

This thread is just to give ideas about how you would like this initial release to look and what capabilities for it to have.

[tater]

Yeah, I'm fine with "duel" scenarios---though I don't understand why they'd be "no loss" I guess, without a world at large, how would it matter if your skipper died since every engagement would be in zero context anyway---unless there is some silly system where people that play more "rank up" which only makes sense (to me) in the context of a given character "running a streak." Once killed, you start over (note that even entry level characters are of a rank/skill that the navy or a merchant company will give them a ship, so no one ever starts are zero.

 

I just think that "quick" encounters are more engaging if they have varied victory conditions. Not full-blown "scenario" play, just duels where you might not know what the other guy's goals are. Makes a huge difference than always knowing his goal is to beat you in direct combat.

[Johny Reb]

They are no-loss because thats what the devs want. Have you played WoT tater? NA will start out as a different type game then the final open world game play where the mechanics will be cruel and harsh to those who don't succeed. The attempt is to attract both crowds and have a crossover between the two game styles. The crowd that wants the quick fix and the crowd that wants immersion.

[tater]

No, I got my tank fix in WW2OL.

 

My point is that in what I think "WoT is like, there is nothing to lose anyway without a campaign/career/whatever mode. In a flight sim with people just fighting each other, or even ww2ol to me, the only "statistic" that mattered about a player was their streaks. Anyone can fly 1000 sorties and ket hundreds of kills. Doing so without getting killed yourself at all… there's a good pilot.

 

Regardless, in an early version that is 100% combat, I'd like to see both XvY duels, as well as mission oriented combat, combat with land areas, etc. Missions like coming inshore to count enemy units in harbor, and their state of readiness (yards crossed, etc), then escape to signaling range. Enemy units have the goal to destroy you. You can win marginally by completing the mission, but you distinguish yourself if you bat an enemy, and would likely be promoted on the spot if you took a larger unit prize.

[admin]

Captains losing the ship during war times were given a new one by Admiralty as far as we know. Unless you die in combat, you were guaranteed a constant supply of ships.

 

In faction warfare combat (organised by nations) you will have your ship replaced or repaired by the Admiralty. 

On the open map: if you lose your ship - you have to buy or find a new one. 

This is our current view - it may change in the future.

[Johny Reb]

 

My point is that in what I think "WoT is like, there is nothing to lose anyway without a campaign/career/whatever mode. In a flight sim with people just fighting each other, or even ww2ol to me, the only "statistic" that mattered about a player was their streaks. Anyone can fly 1000 sorties and ket hundreds of kills. Doing so without getting killed yourself at all… there's a good pilot.

 

Regardless, in an early version that is 100% combat, I'd like to see both XvY duels, as well as mission oriented combat, combat with land areas, etc. Missions like coming inshore to count enemy units in harbor, and their state of readiness (yards crossed, etc), then escape to signaling range. Enemy units have the goal to destroy you. You can win marginally by completing the mission, but you distinguish yourself if you bat an enemy, and would likely be promoted on the spot if you took a larger unit prize.

I agree with your "streaks" comment. The other problem with those games is the very simple strategies that are used. No overall commander, no formations, working together. In air combat sims designed like WoT, I almost never see squadrons or flights, everyone is independent.

 

The difference I hope will be the interest in the game coming over from Potbs. A TS server already exists with 100 slots that has plans on switching to NA or at least including it when its launched. These players will hopefully raise the bar on whats expected out of a fleet.

[Thomas Blackwell]

I agree with your "streaks" comment. The other problem with those games is the very simple strategies that are used. No overall commander, no formations, working together. In air combat sims designed like WoT, I almost never see squadrons or flights, everyone is independent.

The difference I hope will be the interest in the game coming over from Potbs. A TS server already exists with 100 slots that has plans on switching to NA or at least including it when its launched. These players will hopefully raise the bar on whats expected out of a fleet.

Societies, or groups of people dedicated to PVP will definitaly play a major part in the evolution of Naval Action, as fleet PVP is going to be such a large part of the game.

[BrutishVulgarian]

I'll gladly second this thread.

 

I would be very interested in 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and the others you mentioned.  I like small engagments like that.

 

I like the ideas for scenarios.  It might be fun to have a simple race setup for the sailing enthusiasts where no shooting is allowed.  You could also have racing where shooting is allowed LOL

 

There could be some kind of cat and mouse type scenarios as well.  2 big ships try to chase down/corner and capture a smaller more nimble ship. or the other way around...

 

Of course like you mentioned, bigger battles that would resemble port battles would be fun as well.

Racing is a good benchmark for this game.   If racing is not as interesting or more interesting than a shooting fight then that is an indication the sailing dynamics need to be improved.

[Mirones]

and please dont over do statiks or achievment like it is today the norm. you know a player is good/bad if you heared his name some where befor or see him being mensioned in the forums alot. being one of these ,,famous,,persons would feel more rewarding then being used for a reference about some random K/D needed to join a clan/soc or similar  stuff.

we didnt needed it back then in the day on BF1942 and other classic's so why keep throwing them at the players today?

 

of course i like som compartion amoung players:

 

,,Blackwell achieved ,,Trafalgared´´ - damage the enemy line by doing multiply damage on Stern and/or bow armor on enemy ships 5 times in a row``

 

such stuff i would like for example.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mirones

[Brigand]

An idea that could spice up match-play.

 

I'm assuming most of us are acquainted with Risk. In Risk (at least in the European standard edition), each player is given a secret mission. The secret mission is nothing more than a differentiated win condition: each player wins by satisfying so specific conditions only know to them (for example: capture 18 territories and occupy each with two troops). Off course, the other win condition is to just wipe out all other players and conquer the whole world.

 

If you translate this to Naval Action, you would introduce a certain uncertainty as to what the other players are up to. If, for example, 50% of the times a player's assigned task would be 'conquer the enemy fleet' but 10% of the time the goal could be 'escape with all ships in good condition', it would introduce some interesting twists to how you would approach the enemies ships (based on your own mission).

 

Thoughts?

 

~Brigand

[tater]

^^^exactly the kind of easy mechanic that makes things interesting.

 

Missions like "beat windward to position X,Y to signal the fleet" after which you further distinguish yourself by fighting, etc. Easy, and adds a lot.

[Johny Reb]

^^^exactly the kind of easy mechanic that makes things interesting.

 

Missions like "beat windward to position X,Y to signal the fleet" after which you further distinguish yourself by fighting, etc. Easy, and adds a lot.

could be fun scenario. The two main fleets spawn in a open map in random places out of sight range of the enemy fleet. Scouts spawn close to and in sight of enemy fleet. Scouts must escape and warn their fleet about the location and strength of the opposing fleet, direction of sail and battle order.

[tater]

That's a good point, in a multiplayer PvP, even different units on the same side might have different goals.

[Johny Reb]

With the testing of 25v25 fights, it comes to my attention again the importance of having the ability to group with other players for the fight. WoT and Warthunder both limit player groups to around 3 players but this would be unacceptable to me in a large naval engagement. The joy of large fights is not a brawl but the coordination, sailing discipline, protection and focus fire of a fleet of war. Having a group that is always pugged out with strangers from all over the world will ensure that the battle will never meet its full potential. At a minimum I think a group of 6 must be allowed although I would feel better with a minimum of 10.