Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

New ROE discussion

Recommended Posts

That wouldn't be too bad Prater, no big red rings though, somehting suttle, just informing you of your current danger zone.

 

Then I agree Ampaholic, but that isn't ganking, people pushing the limits of ganking are usually seal clubbing. It a very fine line, and I know people who intentionally walk it boldly, I just don't like where this mechanic leads in the long run and think this is too much of an overreaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wouldn't be too bad Prater, no big red rings though, somehting suttle, just informing you of your current danger zone

 

No, it would be ui, not on the game world.  No white or red zones around the world.  If in the future they add a basic map, the map would show these zones.  Maybe a red square that says high risk in the compass area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dev's have already proven that - what is allowed to be done (by the mechanics of the game) ----- WILL be done (at least by some).

 

They proved that with stackable mods, and hiring fleets - some went over the edge and around the bend on both.

 

Some didn't - it's the same with "ganking" most don't do it, or do it modestly (not Trinco v Lynx) - but some will always do it over the edge and around the bend.

 

------

 

So ---- the only solution if you don't want ganking - is to limit it mechanically.

 

------

 

The argument left is "do you want ganking?" ---- If you want big groups fighting smaller groups, be the smaller group and go out and attack the bigger group, you'll see no protection involved.

 

 

I like your idea Prater.

 

 

Yes, this solves one type of ganking.  However, it still doesn't solve Trinc vs Lynx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I will be fine in the end, but the game will not, this mechanic appeals to casual players, it was stated by the devs that they wouldn't do this (Prater quoted it in another thread I am not sure how to quote it here) casual players are great, and I understand not everyone can game as much as some of us, I am not one of the guys who hates casuals, but if you start to base your game around the casuals, who will only be here for 2 years max, the game will die.

 

MMO games only last if the hardcore fans are interested, if not it becomes a arcade game in which you need to spam one out every 1-2 years to keep the series alive. I know that this is only the first stage of the process I am talking about, but this option is on that road to terrible MMO games, and the response this thread has got proves that.

 

 

Generally speaking, a game's ability to attract new players to replace the normal and expected attrition of existing players is what keeps it alive\growing.  And, to a certain extent, making a game attractive to new players requires de-hardcoring the game somewhat.   It's a fiendishly difficult path that a developer has to follow and is almost guaranteed to upset pretty much everyone in one regard or another. 

 

But, compromise is like that, whether it's a an age of sail video game or a democracy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this solves one type of ganking.  However, it still doesn't solve Trinc vs Lynx.

 

Sorry, I don't follow. Wouldn't the BR be so different as to disallow the Trinc attacking the Lynx - while (I suppose) you could still go about capturing Trincos with your Lynx. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had the proposed changes the default for everywhere, and had zones of high risk elsewhere, I think this would be a decent solution.  In high risk zones anything goes.

 

Make these types of areas high risk areas:

 

1.  Area right around pirate ports (50km)

2.  Open ocean with no port around for 200+km

3.  Clan ports (if clans can have ports) can set the security around their ports.  This might be good or bad.  Low risk zones would encourage traders to come to their ports and trade.  High risk zones would keep traders away but allow clans to police the area around their ports to how they see fit.

 

 

You would have to have something let you know you are in this type of zone.

 

 

Probably a terrible idea.

 

Yeah my thought along this line would be that anywhere within visual distance of land (maybe excepting pirate\strategic ports) is a "controlled" area where pvp can only occur under certain proscribed circumstances (incursion is under way, infamous enemy of some sort is plaguing the area, etc).    Once you're out of sight of land, anything goes.  The downside is that pretty much puts a damper on locking down resources and that sort of thing.

 

I still prefer my 3 faction concept which would be pvp anywhere but that's a pretty significant change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had the proposed changes the default for everywhere, and had zones of high risk elsewhere, I think this would be a decent solution.  In high risk zones anything goes.

 

Make these types of areas high risk areas:

 

1.  Area right around pirate ports (50km)

2.  Open ocean with no port around for 200+km

3.  Clan ports (if clans can have ports) can set the security around their ports.  This might be good or bad.  Low risk zones would encourage traders to come to their ports and trade.  High risk zones would keep traders away but allow clans to police the area around their ports to how they see fit.

 

 

You would have to have something let you know you are in this type of zone.

 

 

Probably a terrible idea.

 

I don't think they had buoys in this era, but maybe the safe zones could have porpoises that follow your ship around. When they're gone, so is your safety net!

 

Maybe small fishing boats on the border of the zone? Just thinking out loud (in type).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't follow. Wouldn't the BR be so different as to disallow the Trinc attacking the Lynx - while (I suppose) you could still go about capturing Trincos with your Lynx. :)

No, from what I understand 1 ship can still attack any 1 ship. A Trinc can still attack a Lynx. The BR is only for when there is more than 1 player on a side, it doesn't affect when it is 1v1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the system will work to a certain degree. But finding good fights is not the same thing as stopping ganking.

In my post i was addressing the "good fights". To make it easier to get good fights i think increasing the player base would be a positive thing.

We saw this when we when from 40 people online to 150 online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea will kill any competative/team work atmosphere. If me and my 4 freinda want to play togather and if us 5 see an enemy player fleet of 3 ships and we attack, what does johny and billy do for the 25 minutes that the other 3 of us are in a battle? The answer, yo play something where freinds and clan mates can play with their buddies.

Going from a system that punishes solo players to a system that punishes companionship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea will kill any competative/team work atmosphere. If me and my 4 freinda want to play togather and if us 5 see an enemy player fleet of 3 ships and we attack, what does johny and billy do for the 25 minutes that the other 3 of us are in a battle? The answer, yo play something where freinds and clan mates can play with their buddies.

Going from a system that punishes solo players to a system that punishes companionship

 

If you are companions in ganks? - well yes.....

 

If you are 5 brigs (1000 BR) and the enemy are 3 Connies (1500 BR) - have a good fight ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea will kill any competative/team work atmosphere. If me and my 4 freinda want to play togather and if us 5 see an enemy player fleet of 3 ships and we attack, what does johny and billy do for the 25 minutes that the other 3 of us are in a battle? The answer, yo play something where freinds and clan mates can play with their buddies.

Going from a system that punishes solo players to a system that punishes companionship

 

This is the issue. 

 

Friends like to play with their friends.  Nation mates like to sail into battle with their nation mates (any and all that are available, within a realistic radius of reinforcement).  Fair fights are not what make a war game.  Stage the fights and it will be an arena game.  Please do not buff the unprepared group or player, by handicapping the fleet or player who planned their open sea voyage better. 

 

The three who get attacked by the five, will hopefully realize that they need to make some more tradeoffs before setting sail.  Get faster, smaller...  learn.  Adapt and improvise.  Part of the excitement should be trying to set up in such a way that can handle as many scenarios as possible.  If you fail, reflect on what you did wrong not what the game did wrong.

 

There is a sizable population of the MMO world that is watching which way NA goes on this.  Sandbox/OW requires risk.  Players should be willing to take on that risk by adapting and attempting to overcome the risks presented by other players.  Not having to figure out how to work with artificial barriers. 

 

All the graphic improvements in the world will not create an immersive experience, without the game-play to go with it.

 

Implement a concept that values honor and other factors that will discourage the most blatant and least arguable of 'ganks'.  Why sink the single ship, when forcing a surrender and acceptance of surrender could yield greater xp/loot/honor?  Particularly when the variables involve newer players or highly lopsided engagements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the development of the game is taking another direction. I bought a game that would be a naval simulator, but is turning into an arcade like any other. Please let the game flow normally! I am also hardcore pvp, but I think that over-rules make the game boring. My opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the development of the game is taking another direction. I bought a game that would be a naval simulator, but is turning into an arcade like any other. Please let the game flow normally! I am also hardcore pvp, but I think that over-rules make the game boring. My opinion.

Pirates running around in ships of the line and it's the ROE that tipped you off about the simulator thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to get ganked, but it certainly is exciting to fight my way out of a sticky situation. I don't think game mechanics to stop ganking will be healthy for the game. Let's see how it plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that one of the main issues currently is that there is a huge difference in the actions and visibility between the AI and players. When you hail a player you clearly get a huge flag "I AM HERE...I AM A PLAYER" I think this causes huge problems.

 

I believe that the direct targeting of players can be minimized dramatically as follows.

 

1. More single ship AI, to mimic and hide single players in the open world, since players obviously only show up as single ships only.

 

2. Make these single AI ships run away from players in the open world if they see that they will be over matched the same way a human would.

 

3.Don't allow hailing until ships are much close than they are now, make players pick a ship out of the horizon and close distance before they can hail instead of the "Radar system" we have now where you can spot and categorize ships at huge ranges.

 

4. Remove the markers that separate humans from AI in open world. If you can no longer tell if its a human or an AI. Players will blend into the open world more seamlessly. In addition people and fleets only picking out a Human players at range and focusing on them will be much harder since there is no "I AM HERE TAG" in the open world.

Edited by Rramsha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think removing titles and names when hailing enemies is a great idea. Imagine the mind games that will happen then. I would purposely sail around like an AI and if i was in a frigate and an enemy player was in a surprise they might attack figuring i was killable as an AI and boom, suddenly its a player in a larger ship. Lol love this idea. Freindly hails should still tell you if its a player though imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that one of the main issues currently is that there is a huge difference in the actions and visibility between the AI and players. When you hail a player you clearly get a huge flag "I AM HERE...I AM A PLAYER" I think this causes huge problems.

 

I believe that the direct targeting of players can be minimized dramatically as follows.

 

1. More single ship AI, to mimic and hide single players in the open world, since players obviously only show up as single ships only.

 

2. Make these single AI ships run away from players in the open world if they see that they will be over matched the same way a human would.

 

3.Don't allow hailing until ships are much close than they are now, make players pick a ship out of the horizon and close distance before they can hail instead of the "Radar system" we have now where you can spot and categorize ships at huge ranges.

 

4. Remove the markers that separate humans from AI in open world. If you can no longer tell if its a human or an AI. Players will blend into the open world more seamlessly. In addition people and fleets only picking out a Human players at range and focusing on them will be much harder since there is no "I AM HERE TAG" in the open world.

I guess that the main (if not the only) reason why there's right now a difference in markers between AI and humans is to allow players who so wish to play PVE.

AI bots are also in the OW in such large numbers to remedy the current lack of players. I guess there will be less in final release when players come in. However, it may always serve as a regulation device. 

Besides, a PVE server may well be created for players who would wish to play PVE only.

Right now, it is also a good way to test IA behavior. As you point out, single bots should try to flee in OW sometimes.

So I guess differences in markers may be temporary, more related to that particular phase of testing than to devs' choice of gameplay. A question only devs can answer.

 

Just deduction.

 

PS : like you, I think marker differences should disappear in the long term. A matter of immersion. But there may be others factors...

Edited by LeBoiteux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought up the human name on hail thing in another thread, I think the more the idea spreads, the more likely the dev's might adopt it.

 

I really think it is just an artifact of the Sea Trials system, and the person coding that aspect just had a choice so he flipped a coin and we got names displayed - where if the coin had gone the other way we wouldn't have them.

 

Some decisions are really that simple sometimes.

 

My  $.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately removing names won't work. If the problem is people running, then wont players become even more nervous and skittish if they cannot immediately determine if that conni coming towards them is a player or not?

 

And then we will get the guy in say a surprise acting like a bot in the OW to tempt other frigates into attacking it and wrecking it with mad ninja skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Ampaholic :

Speculating about how NA development is made is quite off-topic. However, you're right about some decisions but here is my €.02 bet about NA : I am sure every little details about gameplay is weighed.

Some decisions may be taken, others may be suspended till further test.

But thinking of every details about gameplay and rules of the game is devs' job and fun. ;)

Edited by LeBoiteux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion ganking is such a problem because there isn't much/no content at the moment and there aren't a lot of player. So you must take what you can find and that are the new players. Although you know where you can find them.

I believe in a finished game there will be no such big problem with ganking because people have something to do.

So please Dev's stay focused on real things that should be done and not invest much time in this Kindergarten. It is just a appearance of the moment.

There a so many ways to avoid this like sail away from the capitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep it simple!

When you use *surrender* in a battle with a huge BR difference. You don't lose a durability of your ship.

That's the only reason why people are crying at the moment, because of their durability and why they didn't use surrender.

Edited by z4ys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the problem is, like the admin said, most players avoid PVP battles. And that´s no wonder, because they learnd fast its useless to fight via much higher BR and much more ships in PVP. So they will find a way for more even battles, and thats for me not a bad idea.

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

×