Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

New ROE discussion

Recommended Posts

i am not sure the new system is the best idea, but not bad.

if i sail around english harbour in the morning (gmt +1) with my trincomalee and a consti catch me, so i am sure i can try to fight without 2 belonas help him. and if i want to make some pvp fights with my friends in 3 frigates or so, they cant catch me with 3 belonas and 3 consti. its not realistic, but the only way we can do it. now we had no real chance, so we will never do it. for me its a way and we should try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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].

80% of the voters are... well... 60 people (!!!) ...among all the testers... who don't actually even represent all the future players...

 

Well, what to add ? That your opinion matters but is far from being representative of NA players.

It is representative of a certain kind of players. So no point is made. That's the hard law of Statistics.

 

Forum polls are only snapshots of what voters think at a certain time. And voters are generally only the most zealous posters.

So NA polls often have little meaning. No harm intended. Just a matter of objectivity.

 

Btw, polls aren't "Petition(s)", that is tools to force things on devs (!!!). I'll make no comment on that one, but...

 

So please, let's test new RoE first as testers. And then let's discuss about them as Gentlemen would do it  :).

Edited by LeBoiteux
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

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?

 

I can at least answer these two.

 

If you're in a Conn, and you attack a fleet, you get the entire fleet because they're more numerous/higher BR than you are.  You made the choice to attack, you get the whole bull. These rules only apply to a more numerous fleet attacking a lesser number of enemies.  I asked this same question way back in the early thread because it concerned me too.  :)

 

You can't stop them from picking the slowest ship, unless you "tailor" the attackers to those you want to attack them.  I can also see this as "I'll just choose as many smaller ships as possible so I can melt them and they have little to no chance against me."  In my opinion the system should make the choice, not the defender.  Let the system start by choosing the largest ship that is equal to or less than the attacked ship(s) highest BR (e.g. a Connie for a Connie, etc), and then work it's way down the list, choosing the biggest combination of ships that it can to meet the BR requirement.  Letting the defender choose is far too ripe for abuse.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the system makes the choice, then I am fine with that.  If the players make the choice, then I am not fine with it.  The system can at least be somewhat unbiased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im pretty sure the OP mentioned the system would pick the attacker, in the update anyway. I think it would also give a slight edge to the attacker, maybe a 1.5 BR advantage.... I would even suggest to remove the matchmaking if the defender have a total BR of, lets say, a 1000 or so... Then you are clearly a fleet and should be engage as such... 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im pretty sure the OP mentioned the system would pick the attacker, in the update anyway. I think it would also give a slight edge to the attacker, maybe a 1.5 BR advantage.... I would even suggest to remove the matchmaking if the defender have a total BR of, lets say, a 1000 or so... Then you are clearly a fleet and should be engage as such... 

 

 

No, the OP did not mention that, that is a changed OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting the Dev chose those 3 Flags to sail under and got a taste of what is happening week after week for these nations.

I like the basic concept of their suggestion on a way to fix it and personally I would like to test it.

 

One question that does come to mind is, is this a blanket implementation ?

Does this only apply to Human players or bots too?

If I get targeted by a Bot Connie,Frigate and a Surprise or some combination like that  in my Connie then what happens ?

Does the game balance what can come in or can I allow all to come in as in my case I would like to have them all come in ?

 

I see who is so against this and respect your views but on the other hand I know why a select few are so against it as I see you day after day week after week not stopping what your doing so it is to the point actions have to be taken. Hammering small nations that much and not going after your equals in strength and size was going to lead to this so why the shock and surprise as the super ganking was a topic for awhile now and was getting to the point if you didn't slow it down actions needed to be put in place. Not a bitch or a moan you overdid it now talk is of you had no restraint or common sense to stop and rethink so steps now have to be talked about. I got targeted by 7 players in brigs and Navy Brigs and a Renom yesterday and they tried to kill my Basic Lynx with great zeal spouting I was in their territorial waters and I needed to learn my place. They were taught bad behaviour like that by others teaching them it was proper to kill all Swedes regardless of what they were sailing.

 

Yes I eventually outran them but the point is it shouldn't of happened no one gained anything in fact all that was generated was a feeling of the sheer stupidity of what they were trying to do and way the game is heading.

 

Point of relating what happened yesterday is to show in that case what would the new proposed ROE have done ? Allowed one Brig in or not allowed the battle?

 

Is there a skill level the game would allow or give the option to allow the battle ?

 

Example ; I am a Flag in rank so killing a brig in a Lynx is not that hard it takes awhile and when grape worked it was a little faster to complete but a Midshipman might not have the skill and find it impossible so what happens in that case does the battle abort and it doesn't happen or he has to run with the whole thing just a waste of time nothing gained or learned by anyone leading to that mindset just better to run later into the game for that player ?

 

Players had it in their hands to avoid this scenario the Devs are proposing they chose to carry on day after day week after week against the protests of the weaker nations with lesser ships of quality and quantity and told them if they didn't like it change sides or move so lets see what happens might be interesting.

 

You have better learned some skills having your buddies help you overwhelm single and tiny 2-3 person fleets because those you attacked learned how to last longer against those odds and now your going to have to fight them in a fair maybe one on one fight without your buddies there to save you.

 

Just a thought. Reap what you sow and some of you have reaped a lot from the few this might be the equalizer, I see why you oppose it so loud now you will have to use skill not numbers to win.

 

Sounds like the Dev got an eyeful playing as a Swede or Dutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin has highlighted two core problems that need to be addressed.

1. First problem is the mega gank where odds are so tilted that fighting at all is pointless. Sometimes this can be fun due to the improbable escape, but overall it not really fun for either side in the long run if it becomes the most common form of battle. I've already proposed a solution: in situations where BR is massively mismatched, allow the low BR side choice to surrender with token loss at the start of the battle, or decline and attempt the improbable escape or win (they could still surrender later in the fight, but with greater loss). If they chose to surrender at start, they would suffer only a token loss of some form (maybe a % of cargo hold, which would be good because new players carrying no cargo would effectively suffer no loss), but would keep their ship. "Gank" side would gain only this token loss, split between all the participants, diluting it into a meaningless reward. They would of course also gain no XP and lose reputation. They would not get the player's ship. Personal rewards would provide little motivation, and from a conquest perspective, such actions would be largely pointless. You might even be helping the player by sending them to the nearest port (or perhaps they would just be allowed to go on their way with increased invulnerability / invisibility). Likewise, if low BR side initiates the attack, allow high BR side to decline combat, which prevents griefing the other way. Combined with a reputation system that has tangible incentives and disincentives around balanced (or even against the odds) PvP, this would largely remove most motivations for engaging in "mega ganks."

This is historically justified to a degree because no captain would want to sail around in a large group attacking small, individual ships, as their personal rewards would be massively diluted. Captains lusted for the independent cruise not tied to a squadron, because it was the only way to become wealthy. And from a warfare / conquest standpoint, it is waste or misuse of resources to have large groups of ships engaging weak individual targets when they could be otherwise occupied, so should be discouraged.

It is as artificial in some ways as the proposed forced balancing, but will work out more naturally in the open world setting, creating a bigger role for players to seek out balanced fights and cruise solo, without attempting to artificially force every fight to be even (and thus eliminating the possibility of interesting and varied unbalanced fights).

2. The problem of players creating alts to get around reputation system to gank rookie players. Although above system would address this to some degree, regardless of that more balanced fights won't solve this! The experienced players will defeat the rookies and the rookies will feel just as discouraged and leave the game. Rookie players must be provided with much more active protection as they get on their feet in the game (separate starting areas, high-protection zones, additional loss prevention, etc.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if you are in a major guild that has a population of so much that other major guilds should be open to attack you without this system.  This way the major guilds can conduct warfare in their way against other big guilds while smaller players and smaller guilds won't be able to be swamped by the bigger guilds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read through admin’s posts and it seems clear that some of us may be off topic. Admin has made up his/her mind that ganking is a problem. It seems that the discussion is not about sand box and open world and other options, but how to make people fight. It may be counter productive to express that ganking has it’s place, I assume admin represents the developers and they have decided that ganking is bad.

 

Suppose we should get on board and support the direction we are sailing.  Make it work the best we can.
 

Serious matter. So lets not talk about sandbox and promised open pvp and other things. We clearly have a problem and need to fix it.

  • The problem is simple
  • You cant find a good fight.
  • It was impossible to find a reasonable battle.
  • Current problem is force escalation and ganking.
  • Ganking is a problem.
  • Again would like to repeat, ganking is a problem.
  • My view on this. Ganking is a problem.
  • 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.

The only part that confuses me the last line ...


"But we can provide options of course if you wish so."

What does that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the question is, from my oint of view. What kind of game is being built ?

A recreation of the Age of Sail ? Or a sophisticated Arcade with very nice 3D models ?

 

Cutting players freedom, and assuming most player will gank, or that ganking will finally be the main activity in the game, sounds a little bit disappointing to me.

 

Real Naval battles at those ages were rarely balanced. Small ships or novice comanders ussually avoid combat when sailing alone. Fast small ships were mostly used for exploring and giving notices about the enemy location and composition of fleets.

 

I think that when a new player arrives, he would have to be granted with a grace period, measured in "gaming time". During that period, the new player would have time for finding others, and acquiring the basic skills.

 

About a way for balancing combats .............. I think the honour system pointed by Bungeelemming and DazednConfused, may be the best way to go.

 

In the real world, things were as they are now in the OW. If enemy was too strong, the solution was running away and/or looking for help, if the "thing" could be handled, just engage. But it was always a Captain's decision.

The main difference is that at those ages "HONOUR" was quite a serious thing that was always at mind, and today, that concept and the related behaviour is almost forgotten.

 

Why not just include the honour rating system and leave strategies for the players ?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The change Admin is discussing does not "Balance Battles" - it is mute when a lesser group attacks a larger group. It only comes into play when a larger group attacks a smaller group that is smaller beyond a threshold (a gank).

 

I really don't see a problem trying it out.

 

So TDA has a fleet of 5400 BR and attacks a SLVN fleet of 5000 BR = game on

 

TDA fleet of 5400 attacks a small group of 400 BR = game limits the TDA fleet to 600 allowed in, simple

 

----

 

Allows the fleet of 400 BR to go about their business (most likely) without wasting their time running from the TDA fleet - or they get a good fight!

 

Both better outcomes than a gank "lopsided" fight.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if you are in a major guild that has a population of so much that other major guilds should be open to attack you without this system. This way the major guilds can conduct warfare in their way against other big guilds while smaller players and smaller guilds won't be able to be swamped by the bigger guilds.

Defenders should be able to decline matchmaking as well, regardless of guilds.

There will be a creed of proud pvp purists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defenders should be able to decline matchmaking as well, regardless of guilds.

There will be a creed of proud pvp purists.

 

You could simply allow the defender to "Select All".  Not sure how many would use it, but it would be a nice option to have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

Get good then 

 

Edit: not enough fuel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real Naval battles at those ages were rarely balanced. Small ships or novice comanders ussually avoid combat when sailing alone.

I don't think history is on your side with this one. While encounters between warships and merchantmen were almost always one-sided affairs, cruising frigates were always alone.

While the OW is impressively large, the real ocean is yet larger, and your chances of falling in with an enemy squadron would dismay a historical captain. If the game perfectly mimicked history, one-on-one encounters would predominate. Instead we have mini-fleets everywhere.

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?

Attackers should not be able to split a targeted group and exclude ships. They live and die by the circle.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frigates often cruised as a squadron with a commodore (Pellew's was rather famous).

Only with a concrete (often short-term) mission, though. Usually in littoral operations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest raat

Get good then 

 

Edit: not enough fuel

 

This is gold.  Kind of proves the whole point of this new system.

 

Group fighting would decline.  It would be an OW of nothing but duels.  That or the players that did "get good" would be excluded from every battle by the defender.

 

While the attacker, knowing that the defender will exclude a player or two, will put his worst players in bigger ships specifically so they get excluded.

 

Either way, the new system keeps everyone, but the mediocre player from playing the game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be simpler if the engagement process with the attack command with its expanding circle were discarded. The engagements can be left to the ships and their commanders to engage if they can catch their prey and see the ships that may be with them. Anyone close enough to get to the battle before it's over could join. I think that's the way it went historically.

I admit I'm ignorant when it comes to constructing programs on a computer, but it seems it would be easy to substitute the above with the present system. I think it would solve a lot of problems.

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.

 

The problem with this system is that the ships waiting outside of the instance will be able to easily kill the smaller group (if they win) once the battle is over due to battle damage.  Unless you adapt an "auto repair" that PotBS did, then you've not changed the end result of the original "gank" instead you've delayed the "gank" into a two battle fight.  The more numerous player group will still win.  It just seems like a "to treat the infection, cut off the leg and it still might not save the man" kind of solution.

 

Instead, use the BR system as a reward/punishment indicator in the lobby screen.  If the larger group attacks the smaller, then the difference in BR equates to an xp/gold reward or a xp loss.  In your example, lets say the small group is BR 300 and the larger group is 2000.  The 1700 BR difference is so large (say over some 50% BR "fair" number) that the reward for the attackers (or each player doing damage) is an automatic 2000xp loss resulting in demotion of rank and no gold.  Too much xp loss can turn you "pirate" as well.  I'd suggest changing experience points to a reputation/honor points for immersion sake.

 

Additionally, attackers get no reinforcements.  Defenders can get reinforced by players or AI.

 

Approach ganking like you approach dealing with pirates, harshly.

Edited by Dharus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Either way, the new system keeps everyone, but the mediocre player from playing the game.

 

Just make sure everyone is up to snuff and then it dose not matter who gets excluded!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please listen carefully folks:

 

The new system WILL NOT allow a single ship to attack a fleet and get a one on one.  Attacking a fleet as a smaller fleet (or a single ship) will put the entire fleet into your instance with you.  There will be no choosing.  Admin has stated that the new fleet reduction system will only come into effect if you are attacked by a superior force.

Some captains have suggested that a solo frigate then can split groups. No. It can't. Attacker does not get the benefit of a semi-balanced fight. Only defender.

  • Like 2

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

×