Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

New ROE discussion

Recommended Posts

Bungee, i agree that this is a testing phase. 

However, many testers (clearly, given the ammount of feedback on the topic ), see this change as a rather significant one, probably in fear of a fundamental shift.

I am not opposed to testing this. But in a way, one could argue that theres more being tested than just game mechanics ? Maybe this whole thread might give the devs an idea of the "lay of the land" regarding player immersion? 

 

And i disagree with your statement about solo playing. It is not impossible to be a solo player. Having "grown up " in Dorans Rakers backyard,  there were several players from many nations who had to deal with pretty large threats on a regular basis. We formed rag-tag fleets using chat, we relied on players calling out enemy movements, and we tried our best to dish out damage where we could, and flee when the odds were against us.

 

Shure... There are some shipwrecks at st. kitts that used to be mine, but still... That was fun :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know where you get the impression of an arena game.

Get rid of that thinking.

 

You go out on the Open sea in numbers and see a lone player.

currently: gank the shit out of him. easy XP and money. (ganked person is annoyed by you and calls you names eventually)

 

proposal: ganksquad cannot plain gank him. Instead the defender will be given one enemy only to fight. (or if the BR is extreme you may have a 2v1)

The defender in this case get either an easier time running or he will have a chance and stand the fight.

 

Arena is this:

you sit in a global lobby and wait for battle to being somewhere. It begins and oyu get magically ported to a battle scenery. Balancing is done by a gamemechanic and depends on the ships in the queque. Like in the Sea Trials.

WoT, WoWs, WarThunder etc all are exelent examples for arena style gameplay ;)

 

_____

I proposed some ideas in the first few pages.

After the ammount of flame and hate brought here I did not post any new suggestions.

Some players behave wrong in this thread. And I dont support this behavior.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put it this way, i would rather a SAFE zone around certain areas, with better rewards being placed in the hostile waters. Put a safe zone for players to farm in peace and leave a good chunk of the map as the wold west

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now last time.. 

  • Honor point might work but no one has offered any detailed proposal, all we heard was "some honor points, go implement them instead"... Honor points have the "I win" button problem, if you implement the I win button, some players will use it despite any punishment unless the punishment is immediate ban. In this case it is just better to avoid the temptation and eliminate the button whatsoever. 
  • Player numbers will not solve the problem because small groups are lost and not retained...Increasing players will just increase the losses because of ganking. Ganking must be fixed before losses
  • Most of other ideas were always presented under a cover of non-constructive flame

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/6218-ganking-petition/

 

this post are been presented under a cover of non-constructive flame?

Edited by RAE_Cmdt.Cavero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balancing 2 teams in a instanced battle is arena gameplay...by definition. Lol the open world stage doesnt change that, it just replaced the lobby function games like WoT has

Edited by Flavalicious
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest raat

We have to have a complete working honor system already finished and game ready for it to be a suggested fix?  We're not game devs.  We're here to offer advice, suggestions, and criticism.

 

Angry mob is angry because we're offering advice, suggestions, and criticism, and we're getting nothing, but "Thanks, but no thanks." in return.

 

If our 17 pages of advice, suggestions, and criticism aren't welcome with regards to this discussion, why exactly are we still discussing this?

 

You sound set on doing it so just do create whatever you have in mind.  And lock the thread.  Discussion is apparently over.

 

Let's test it.  Hopefully, the discussion upon testing the new system it will be more of a discussion...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my proposal,  before that i might say i will test whatever there is to test and give feedback, The two minute battle timer seems like a good middle ground and the battle marker disappearing after that timer. As for the ganking. In a game like elite dangerous you can be a bounty hunter or a "ganker" or a jerk in a sector that is friendly or enemy. this effects your reputation in the area and a bounty is put up. If you were to transplant this idea into NA say your in your Constitution and you like to attack brigs from another nation. Around your home waters no issue but if you go out into enemy waters and attack smaller ships a bounty will be placed on you which all nations can view either in neutral or national ports. If said player is sunk if PVP the payout is split between the players involved. This could lead to some epic hunts and multinational fleet action. What do you guys think of that?  

 

 

 

 

i Might just add one thing to this thought in elite dangerous when you are hunting these player bounties you get clues from NPC's as to their location 

Edited by Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll start myself:

I think a good base and start for such a system is a reputation system that massively penalizes ganking with big reputation hits and even negative XP/gold, but without forbidding it. Said system would work in preventing ganks but leaves a huge door open for this scenario:

I'm a troll. I like griefing. So I open an alt character with X nation alongside a couple of scumbag friends who are as much assholes as I can be. I proceed to follow a random dude and each time he tags an enemy player, we all jump in, turning what was a legit fight into a gank. So the innocent dude gets hugely hit in his prestige and reputation for being part of a gank when he didn't want to be, while me and my scumbag friends laugh a lot and think we're cool because we've f*cked up someone else's fun yet again.

 

How do prevent that?. Solution needs to be simple and close the loophole without opening other loopholes on it's own.

Game on.

Maybe as the innitial attacker you can accept/deny reinforcements that want to join your side?

 

EDIT: admin, im willing to spend a whole day with some guys on TS to work out a proper and decent honor system that isnt a hard fix for ganking but a soft fix, as it would after 1 or 2 ganks start to really hurt a player.

Edited by SteelSandwich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a system where when a player gets jumped the system sends out dispatches to nearby freindly players, offering them extremly nice rewards for intervening on behalf of the interests of the empire. Similar to how the ship report letters work but maybe something on your hud to direct you to them. I dont know, loads of ways to go about this, and im good with testing them all but a fixed ratio between 2 teams would seem to go against the entire system of loss currently implimented.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we attack timer ends a screen pops up for all ships pulled into instance, screen lasts for 1 min.

In that screen we see our 3 ships on the left side, 8 enemy ships on right side: all sorted according to BR from lowest to highest.

 

Our group           Enemy Group

Mercury              Frigate

Renommee         Frigate

Frigate                Constitution

                           Bellona

                           Bellona

                           Bellona

                           Victory

                           Victory

 

System automatically cuts off ships that are above our combined BR + 50%. And starts a battle with the following ships.

 

Mercury           Frigate

Renommee      Frigate

Frigate             Constitution

 

Other vessels are not pulled into the instance and are left on the Open world. They are also not afraid of gank because if they are attacked they also will be taken care of by the balancer so to speak.

 

More battles will happen. Hardcore players like me won't have to run any more.

 

More clarification please on your above proposal, along with my SoL redundant question earlier: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/6211-new-roe-discussion/page-17

 

Does that mean a lone Victory or Santi player will be open to attack from 5+ Frigates without any hope of reinforcements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BungeeLemming, on 14 Jul 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

The point is this:

 

Currently you cannot play casual. You only survive in a group or in the fastes ship available. Great variation in ships btw.

Everyone agrees that ganking is a problem and ssould be regulated somehow.

Devs see this problem just as obvious as we do.

 

So how to reduce ganking?

I know there are lots of other proposals around even in this thread.

But devs want feedback directly related to their own idea.

You should point out flaws and suggest tweaks. Not a whole new system.

 

Yes ganking is a problem, not for ppl sailing in groups, but for the casual gamer with an hour of game time available.

It's a good thing Dev's want to solve that and want to create a game that is interesting for those as well.

 

But, the proposed ROE seem to eliminate the fun of fleet/ group sailing, because there is going to be a real chance ppl are going to be left out of a battle because of battle rating.

This is a flaw, it will cause whole new threads on forums, about battle rating of ships, or the fact that ppl are laying next to a battle markers for a whole gaming session.

 

 

admin, on 14 Jul 2015 - 02:17 AM, said:

It is our - developer - responsibility to make sure that players enjoy the game. It seems that you don't want to think about small group experience or about solo players. We have to think about them and be their voice. I represent them here even if they are silent. 

 

Ganking kills more immersion than any rule (even magic rule) for me. Because i am making this game for myself. I will make sure players like me see no gankers in the game. But we can provide options of course if you wish so. 

If there is a choice in the lobby

Join Gankfest server: no rules, engage anyone, in any numbers even 25 to 1. Ganking is encouraged because immersion.
Join Honor server: anti gank is strictly enforced. Gankers are banned, because honor.

 

I can predict with 90% probability where the majority of players will play.

 

Maybe in future this is the solution, although I would propose less disdaining names for the servers:

Fleet Server, where ppl are joining fleets/ guilds and participate in nation building and the current ROE”s are implemented.

Captain Server: where ppl are protected against excessive ganking by ROE as proposed by Admin.

 

As a personal note:

Still, I hope it doesn’t have to get this far.

No matter what kind of rules the Dev’s implement, ppl will find ways to get around and exploit them.

Gankers can be traced down in the game-data, just by the BR of each game their side initiates.

Of course ppl can delete their character and start the whole ganking again, but I don’t think a lot of players will do that, as it gets old pretty quick.

Besides, all those will be able to be traced back to one steam account, so in the end these buggers can be traced down and dealt with.

 

This is not some free to play Wargaming game where trolling is easy and free.

PPL will actually buy this game, so some commitment is there from the beginning, so lets solve problems as adults instead of limiting possibilities by ROE-rules.

 

Why not have a tribunal of nations/players&Devs to judge the gankers and punish them by demoting etc?

I strongly believe this is possible, it would create a much more fairer open world, without limiting the players possibilities.

 

Grtzz Bubbles

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol *shrug

I think the kind of people who 10v1 will simply find a new way to grief once the system is changed and i mean thats really what this thread is about right, griefers? Its the horde of US players at EH, its the spanish and french being allies and teaming up to gank pirates, we are in essence looking at changing the system due to griefers. Okay thats fine, once thats resolved how are we going to stop players from running from fair fights? Lol. Whats the plan when the Goonsquad finds out about this game? :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Coordinated groups have an opportunity to be the example. Nothing forces coordinated groups to send the whole fleet to attack 1 enemy. Right now they are the source of ganking.

 

 

 

This will help players choose the right side. 

 

Players who always supported developers before know that if the feature is bad, or not working properly it will be cut the next day or next patch. You seem to forget fleets, bot entry, and many other things that were cut from the game. Such players usually are in direct contact with us and sometimes can ask for changes that go into patches for their testing

Players who side with angry mob get a huge discount to their opinions losing the opportunity to influence the development completely. 

 

Now last time.. 

  • Honor point might work but no one has offered any detailed proposal, all we heard was "some honor points, go implement them instead"... Honor points have the "I win" button problem, if you implement the I win button, some players will use it despite any punishment unless the punishment is immediate ban. In this case it is just better to avoid the temptation and eliminate the button whatsoever. 
  • Player numbers will not solve the problem because small groups are lost and not retained...Increasing players will just increase the losses because of ganking. Ganking must be fixed before losses
  • Most of other ideas were always presented under a cover of non-constructive flame

 

 

Certainly the later posts (right after the "Wow this thread is going great!" post) when things got heated and angry, but early on in this thread there are some actually decent proposals. I'm worried they're being tossed out with the non-constructive ones as well. It would be good, too, if there were constructive feedback on those other proposals instead of "No that won't work!" There's been some, but many others have just been tossed aside with barely a mention.

 

I'm fairly casual, and I often sail by myself (I'm only a M&C in a frigate, and most of SLRN near me are in LOSes, so we're going after different targets). I don't PVP much, I certainly don't seal club, but I have been ganked myself. I'm sure this new system will fix the problem, my big concern is it will reduce many of the other things that we're all very hopeful for in this game. Let's try the new system, that's our responsibility as testers, but I would urge the devs to stay as open-minded as they're asking us to be; if this ends up being detrimental then we should try other (maybe also drastic) changes.

 

So far I've had nothing but fun in the game, and I plan to continue to have fun in the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to people complaining this will make it an arena game.... Guess what, you already in one.... There`s no economy, no crafting, no politics, no exploration..... It`s already, at this point, an arena game without matchmaking. It;s not sandbox open world if all i have to do is battle someone, be it bots or players.

 

BTW didn't POTBS had a simillar systems, i cant recalled only played the first few years....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to people complaining this will make it an arena game.... Guess what, you already in one.... There`s no economy, no crafting, no politics, no exploration..... It`s already, at this point, an arena game without matchmaking. It;s not sandbox open world if all i have to do is battle someone, be it bots or players.

 

BTW didn't POTBS had a simillar systems, i cant recalled only played the first few years....

 

Yes it is at the moment but with the promise of becoming an OW game with much much more.

 

I would like to see Charles post answered, I cannot see how this will help the game, in the short term yes, but in 2 years of release, who is going to be playing it, the solo lone goers who switch up games quick and easy, or the dedicated guilds and clans who, atm seem like the majority of contributing testers on the forums?

 

And this change will make it into an arena type of game, Open World means you and your friends can go and do as you please, without limits within the game, I know some people might find that hard to believe, but other games have done so extremely well and still progress today with that feature being key in their mechanics.

 

I have a few questions.

 

I would like to know why people cannot avoid fights? running away will no longer be a thing, just stand and fight, dw the game has your back and will level it off as much as possible.

 

If this feature is put in it will stop big fleets holding an area affectivley, if you get one good guy come up in a Conn, he could rock up, 1v1 all your frigates, then run from the SoL's, whats stopping that?

 

If I join in a conn an am the only conn in my fleet, how will you hide who I am in the instance?

 

How can you stop people from picking the slowest ship to make a break for the horizon?

 

Will this stop people joining after the engagement has started?

 

I would also be interested to see, is this a temp work around or a permanent thing?

 

I hope you can answer some of these as well as charles, but I can see my questions, like before getting buried in the posts and ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did winning a battle become the ultimate goal of a open world sand box game. I thought the whole point of sand box games was that the objective of playing is different for every individual be it conquering the world (hyperbole), being the richest, or just helping your clan/nation. And yes you can be a solo player looking for fight but guess what sailing around looking for fights without any other objective other then fighting is in itself ganking.

 

Battles should not be the goal of a sand box game they should be an organic byproduct of accomplishing your objectives.

Edited by scepo
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to getting more interesting / balanced pvp again, like in the Sea Trials build.

 

I am all for realism, but if I had to decide between realism and fun, I'd always go for fun. Playing video games isn't my life, just a hobby to have fun and relax. So I'd like to try out these new ROE as soon as it is possible to implement them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to getting more interesting / balanced pvp again, like in the Sea Trials build.

 

I am all for realism, but if I had to decide between realism and fun, I'd always go for fun. Playing video games isn't my life, just a hobby to have fun and relax. So I'd like to try out these new ROE as soon as it is possible to implement them. :)

 

That's a false dichotomy. You can have realism -and- fun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings to all.

 

Regarding your idea to change the dynamics of fighting game I will just say that it would kill the best thing about this game, freedom of choice. The open world should not have more limits than you want to give the players themselves, that is an area that will be regulating itself without external elements involved. You complained that in two weeks was not matched battles, and why? This game is not intended to emulate the naval world of the eighteenth century? It was not so easy at the time such shares either. The limits and types of fighting the marked characteristics of the ships and by the way, never was an even fight against pirates. I think a big mistake cutting freedoms can enter or not in the battle that I or another player to choose, if I want and I attacked one of 10 large ships, and I will look how to shun the fight and if I can not, seek the how to punish those who did later, I have never seen this as a bug, if you like something that makes it attractive and keeps you tension. The Caribbean is a great for the number of players we are currently sea, you can go to areas where quiet navigate, or you can go to areas with intense activity of fighting, it's your choice.


I also tell you otherwise, do not expect good behavior rules and if you play a pirate, they had no rules or nation. I do not want to extend or steal anyone's time but appreciate the uniqueness of this game is maintained and not become a linear and boring game.

 

  Another thing, I think it would be advisable to regulate and monitor abusive comments and insults from players who get in the way of facing battles.

 

  Greetings to all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know i kinda like that way it is now. i guess i would be more interested to see what happens with more people in game with the current settings before we change it. can't a msg be sent to all beta testers asking them to all be available to sign in and soak test the server one weekend. perhaps we could get a few hundred on line at once and see how the current mechanics really hold up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin, give us your system for people testing and we will give you feedback. You can adjust or eliminate it later based in real feedback, not guessing.

 

For avoid the valuable ship loss feeling, could you deactivate the durability loss all weekend and get feedback from people without fear of loss? I think that is the main factor that people fear testing features in this game.

 

Now let me please, add some suggestions for braking the gank.

 

Tutorial mode for new players: New players obtain invulnerability two or three weeks or when they reach some rank like Leutenant or other or certain class of ship. They can deactivate the tutorial mode too. For avoid xploits, they can not tag non-newbies players ships or NPCs into battle ring tag other player's influence.

 

Based in BR, put the ships more far in instance independent the OS postition and deactivate the timer for exit battle for ganked side. When the gankers side waste 2 minutes without enemy every time, they will rethink two times before next gank move.

 

In case of future valuable cargos and missions let the ganked be ganked of course. Valuable cargo or ships making missions must be intercept if enemy could.

 

And like others had suggest before add Navy Mission features. Some missions can be go to x,y place and patrol the area. In other country at same time there is the same mission with same coordinates and time. For this mission, the admiralty gives you a free ship based in your rank. Is something like a covert arena mode but integrate in OW game. For obtain that missions and made it more dinamic, we can use the national chat or a menu. If you accept this mission, you gain access a special Navy/free ships in shop. In change for the free ship, you can made this mission less profitable in XP, but the people will not bother because they obtain free fun. You can not tag other ships out of the mission when you sail a Navy ship or you will be coutmartialed.

 

I think with that 3 things all people can be fine and by the way you can try free ships without loss feel factor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe a lot of confusion is being generated due to a lack of a common glossary of terms.  Perhaps if I once again ask for clarification as to the distinct difference between 'ganking' and 'griefing', if any, as it's being applied here, it would help me as well as some others.  

 

I would like to present a situation from my own experience and ask how this terminology might be correctly applied. 

 

In some of my professional education a technique was occasionally used to highlight and distinguish conflicting concepts through a historical context.  The class would take a field trip ("staff ride") to a historic battlefield to consider a specific situation that opposing commanders had faced and then attempt to view the event through the lens of the issue at hand.  I found this helpful and it might just help and others me understand what others are trying to get across.    

 

This will be highly condensed to get straight to my question. During the mid-morning of 17 Sep 1862 at the Battle of Sharpsburg during the American War Between the States, 350 men of the 2nd and 20th Georgia Regiments supported by two artillery batteries defended a stone bridge across a shallow creek being assaulted by major elements of the IXth Army Corps numbering 12500 troops and 50 guns in all. The Confederate troops were well positioned on a 30m high wooded and bouldered bluff immediately behind the bridge pictured here.

 

The bridge was held for over 3 hours at estimated odds of between 15 or 20 to 1 and only yielded after the defenders had run out of ammunition, safely withdrawing to another defensible position to the rear. Now, were the defenders being ganked under the current concept? Or, by virtue of their superior tactics and use of planning, employment of the terrain and discipline were they indeed ganking the Federal troops?  I can certainly see a case for griefing but the whole using your head as a force multiplier thing has me a bit shaky if you use it to disadvantage your opponent.

post-3749-0-37669900-1436874976_thumb.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Coordinated groups have an opportunity to be the example. Nothing forces coordinated groups to send the whole fleet to attack 1 enemy. Right now they are the source of ganking.

 

 

 

This will help players choose the right side. 

 

Players who always supported developers before know that if the feature is bad, or not working properly it will be cut the next day or next patch. You seem to forget fleets, bot entry, and many other things that were cut from the game. Such players usually are in direct contact with us and sometimes can ask for changes that go into patches for their testing

Players who side with angry mob get a huge discount to their opinions losing the opportunity to influence the development completely. 

 

Now last time.. 

  • Honor point might work but no one has offered any detailed proposal, all we heard was "some honor points, go implement them instead"... Honor points have the "I win" button problem, if you implement the I win button, some players will use it despite any punishment unless the punishment is immediate ban. In this case it is just better to avoid the temptation and eliminate the button whatsoever. 
  • Player numbers will not solve the problem because small groups are lost and not retained...Increasing players will just increase the losses because of ganking. Ganking must be fixed before losses
  • Most of other ideas were always presented under a cover of non-constructive flame

 

 

1. I'd like to repeat this for the Devs to bring forward whomever it was that suggested the Honorpoint system and explain exactly how they would go about using it.  

 

2.You can usually predict it will happen on this forum, but flaming and angry mobbing wasn't the original intention of the petition post.  It was to show developers such as yourself we're all for extreme testing but this is one we really do not want to see or experience as it takes the game down a route we don't want it to.  With 80% of all players who voted, in support of not introducing the even fight patch. [i would say It could be locked now due to the point being made].

 

3.I shall create an Honor points thread and see if we can get a dicussion going about this new potential system.

 

4.Even though you may not agree with the petition post, I thank you for still humouring the crowd and listening to what we have to say. Thank you.

Edited by Richard Bolitho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ganking, Schmanking!  

 

What "in the wide world of sports" do we think happened in the real world!  

 

Every ship that could be, was "taken", if they were enemy.  If smaller, usually without a fight.  A shot across the bow and they surrendered.   And there were many!   It's the way it was.  Period.

 

What we need are more players and (as others have said) a reason to fight.  Colonies to defend, ports to conquer, cargo to move, convoys to escort.  You know, the old boring stuff that made history over and over and over.  

And, OK, give newbies some extra durabilities (or something like that) to keep them in the game.

 

Still a great game fellas!  Keep it up!

 

Oh, god, "I love the smell of cannonpowder in the morning".......

Edited by Yankee Jack Tar
  • Like 4

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

×