Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Licinio Chiavari

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,457

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Licinio Chiavari

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted · Edited by Licinio Chiavari

    6 minutes ago, Sir Max Magic said:

    Why is "battle open for weaker side" taking away the ability to hunt solo ???

    I would say, its ENCOURAGING to hunt solo, because the Solo Hunter has most times the worser BR !!!

    May be you missed the dangerous ideas about attacker unable to retreat.

    6 minutes ago, Sir Max Magic said:

    Just thinking of Le Reqs jumping Fleets of Indiamens...and others

    You know.

    Requins are really a few devoted and specialized captains at the moment (speaking of those who could be a real danger for enemy shipping).

    And again ATM BR wise... Endymion is higher than 3rd rate or Agamennon 😎

    • Like 2

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

    So what about each player having an hidden pvp ratio calculated on win/loss, then when clicking on him the game calculate a score taking in account your ratio and his + your ship model server w/l ratio vs his ship model. Depending on the score, one or the other side can stay open for one allie or more, or just be a 1vs1.

    (I know i can be a bit too complex)

    A - if "hidden" it will mess up any group set up: I am on a Endy and I am killer with that... My "real BR" is not 330 but 460. I got in battle vs two veterans never pvping on Agamennon+Essex and they are the weak side.

    B - so why not working in PBs too? 😁 We could end with people like Ram Dinark filling half PB BR ALONE 😂😂😂

    C - Joking aside.

    Do you imagine the pain to wisely balance the weight of wood/mods/pvp rating for every player, on every ship depending on fitting too vs any other combination?

     

    Sincerely I proposed an "automatic" bounty of top leaderboard captains (both daily and weekly/monthly): the more someone kills, the far more should worth killing him. IMO not respective of being 1v1 or 5v1 (aside that being 5 the value of the kill will be "diluited" among 5 - as normal even now).

    This still requires (as repeatly proposed) to move doubloons reward from loot to directly chest one (more similar so to previous mark system).

    • Like 1

    LGV Refit

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    16 hours ago, Jim Bligh said:

    ... the ship knowledge slots already open. You do not need to combat a trader to open the slots. The LGVR  is an Admiralty PvP reward an must be used in combat to open the knowledge slots. They are locked as any other warship. It is a war trader. It is a Refit Le Gros Venture, a merchant warship with a smugglers flag.

    As far as I remember I had to slot up (as any warship) traders too to unlock the 3 maximum available (I am sure I had to slot the Indiaman).

    Still being 5th rate or less and only 3 slotted, not a terrible pain anyway.

    • Like 1

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted · Edited by Licinio Chiavari

    14 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

    the circle of death transformed into a circle of loose, meaning if you end outside of it after a countdown, you are considered as having loose the battle and can't shoot anymore, just leave the battle instance. The defender then is considered the winner and can loose if not tied in battle anymore, and gain usual battle victory reward, if he sink to another attacker later, he still get rewards for the victory against the ejected attacker.

    This starts being reasonable. A retreating enemy is a tactical victory for the other side. Let's say half ship value Doub to chest respect of sinking.

    BUT... have we idea of how many exploits...? Alt-Farming would be far more economically working :)

    And we are still missing the problem of defensive tag being the last defense of a trader or a single ship being chased by a group.

    Circle of Retreat to both sides? I sincerely think another terrible pain to balance.

    Granted that more or less today ROE is working, and granted so many stuff to balance (ships, woods, mods) and to work on (trading patch, Battle UI)... for God sake: let's touch it in a far future if ever, aside, may be, small timer corrections, corrections to positional joining (like no more someone spawning in front of you at 50mt in combat), single or double joining circle (joining circles on land anyone?) and similar without making a totally new one.

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted · Edited by Licinio Chiavari

    22 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

    You are not an entire game. Nor me, nor any single player.

    Developers and community are.

    Your opinion is as valid as any. Don't shake the water out of the cup. You get yourself wet.

    I do not consider me meter of the game.
    All opinions are to be respected; but respect has nothing to do with considering them "valid"/"reasonable".

    Being valid or not is based on the sounding of argumentation.

    Sorry. I am quite bound to old school philosophy: the "it's your opinion", "you have yours, I have mine", "every opinion is good", et similia of today relativism is utter no-sense for me.
    We can keep opinions if discussing if it's nicer blue or red. We cant have opinions about an object being red or blue.

    Therefore or I got serious arguments saying that OT proposal will be better than today RoE (which?), or I cant say "it's ok" if I think, for a bulkload of reasons repeatly expressed, I think it's a suicide for the gameplay, so the playerbase, so the game itself.

    PS: If I do not like the game, nor love it, I'd not give a crap about these discussions: I could simply stop play and GG.
    If I'm so vocal in some periods, it's because I love it... I see a potential (very often wasted) and I foresee more cons than pros in such proposals (moreover with more important stuff to be implemented and/or balanced already on the field).

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Sir Loorkon said:

    What I do not understand is the following: At the moment battle in OW closes after 2 1/2 minutes. No battle if you are to late. Boring. With the new system battle stays open for the weaker side. So you have the opportunity to join. You must not join, you are free to do so. What's wrong with that? @Licinio Chiavari I like your posts in general and your way of argumentation and I know you have a profound knowledge of the mechanics but you have not convinced me. 

    I have to add that I would recommend to identify the "weaker side" of an battle by BR (dynamic) x PvP rank.

    Thank you mate. That said.

    I agree that 2 minutes joining is too short. Not last because an upwind tag in a group of SoL easily means some mates even in plain sight cant join.
    Being used for long time to hunt in enemy safezone, I'm used to get a bulkload of defender's reinforcements against me. So I agree that a longer timer would be nice and I'm fair with that.

    What makes no sense to me are:
    - CoD uber-crappiness.
    - Attacker's responsability making him in someway unable to retreat.
    - BR based weak side that doesnt make sense ATM. And will never do.
    - Even a reasonable BR value would not take into account ship fitting/woods.
    - Even one taking it into account will not take into account skill levels.
    - Balancing a PvP players' rating + ship BR + ship fitting BR will be a NIGHTMARE. KISS principle. And it will be surely exploited in infinite ways... ways better understood by... veterans.
     

    We can see the BR rebalance effect on PBs.
    Is it really better having 2 Bellona than 2 3rd rates + Agamennon (BR 900 v 850)? I would say no. It's better the second set up.

    From these unbalances came out new PB meta based on Bucetaure (better 2 Buce than 1 Ocean... obviously) and 3rd rates (better 3 3rd rates than 2 Bellonas).

    These are practical examples of use of game mechanics. The more complex the rules, the more tricky the exploit, but often the more terrible the abuse.

    • Like 2

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

    Licinio,

    As i posted way above, for me circle of death makes no sense, hence i focus on the other aspects that do make sense. Glad I put that out of my way.

    If it comes to that I will simply change my "character" career to play the "new edition".

    Is like playing a french army with any wargames rules on the table in a waterloo scenario. I don't like it, i know i will be ganked and will not win, but still is great fun.

    We have fundamental differences. I see the game as a mean to play a character, whatever the rules. You see it as a big arena to game the game.

    Exactly the contrary. I hate arena games.

    I was a random noob. I was then a medium solo hunter. I was a more successful solo hunter. I am still but I found a nice group to work with.

    If I join always PvP servers in any game, and the more aggressive gameplay, the better, it's for the thrill of the hunt, being the hunter, the prey or often first one then the latter or even the contrary.

    Not to repeat AGAIN, that the more complex RoE, the more tricky ways to exploit it. And, AGAIN, who better be able to exploit? the solo player, the random casuals or the organized veteran gank squads?

    • Like 1

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Hawkwood said:

    This post makes no sense at all. Why are you initiating a battle then if you can´t win? The attacker can not be "ganked" if the BR gets equal on some point, no?

    A - an hunter usually tag something he thinks he can engage and beat. The higher chances to disengage if something went wrong, the more targets he tags.

    B - even in the most reasonable attack, something CAN go badly wrong, from an unespected very skilled enemy, a ship fitted (casually) to counter attacker fit etc... (and not last a brief DC changing a winning situation into a losing one).

    C - if something goes wrong also by Articles of War, it's captain duty to save the ship... a floating ship (aside the investment crafting/buying her and fitting her) is worth for another battle.

    D - A Bellona crosses a 3rd rate: is it fair? I'd say yes. BR: 450 v 300. Tagged side is the weakest. Battle stay open. A second bellona arrives and join the weak side.
    New BR: 450 v 750... and the attacker cant leave. Easy counterganking, isnt?

    • Like 2

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    23 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

    More PvP.

    By no way "more" implies "better".

    23 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

    PvP is when you want it and when others want it.

    Negative.

    This kind of PvP exists in arena/duel games. Not in a OW PvP sandbox. Would you not attack an enemy trader found in the sea? Yes. Still I am pretty sure he does not want to pvp.

    In a PvP MMO you like NA you state that you want PvP by the second you choose PvP server and you repeat everytime you sail.

    23 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

    Game is very complex in OW ( lot's of rules ) and we humans "exploit" every corner of it

    KISS principle.

    Then I can quote an italian motto: rule made, trick found.

    The more complex rules... The more tricky ways to exploit them.

    And who will be better able to exploit them? A team of veterans, a solo veteran or a bunch of random casuals?

    23 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

    Plus is not a game for solo, but to play together.

    If battle open for weak side is the way to put 2 players playing together, then that's good and outweighs the necessity of the solo player.

    All players solo play MMOs.

    Or you make trade trips in convoy? Or you farm PvE with other usually?

    The solo part is often the preparing part of the group play.

     

    Not to speak about that a good part of NA is allowing a good share of solo play.

    Even highly successful games (like World of Warcraft) that originally were suited almost only for organized groups, moved more and more to be solo-friendly to survive and keep growing.

    • Like 3

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted · Edited by Licinio Chiavari

    15 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

    Is warrant a test, as devs put it - they want it.

    Almost everything is warrant a test.

    What I sincerely fear is hurting the player base now, when logged population is growing hitting highest pop seen in more than an year.

    Moreover, granted so many issues (ship balance, mod balance,...) and other stuff under work (battle UI, trading patch,...) in our beloved game, is it really the case to touch probably the most sensitive matter in any sandbox ow pvp game (the RoE) granted so many critics and doubts about these proposals?

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted · Edited by Licinio Chiavari

    25 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

    There was never a mention of Fair in the OP.

    Only notion regarding fair is open to the weakest BR side.

    Do not distort the initial notion.

    So why tweaking more and more the ROE leaving battle open for the "weakest" side, BR wise, when BR has nothing (almost) to do with real battle value of the ship and the player on her?

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    22 minutes ago, Sir Max Magic said:

    Because Circle of Death prevents fleeing in PZ most times... THATS the reason why people are avoiding PZ because they fear to get stucked in a situation that cant be solved anymore !!

     

    8 minutes ago, staun said:

    ... lots of ppl actually goes to the patrole zone. I am pretty sure if admin made a stat over fights, my guess  is Nassau and Deadman when they are on, can compete with the total fights in OW on the rest of the map. So ppl do go to patrolezones.

     

    As usual people adapts.

    Organized teams form up groups that (if possible) almost cap PZ BR, so being sure to never fight outnumbered. Coupled with coordination and purpose fitted ships (the inner no-sense in any other situation of 11ish kts LO/WO+Kiritimati carro Surprises, just to say) they work to get best odds for themselves (rightfully I'd add).

    Now, getting back to topic, imagine the same ROE all over OW.

    Organized groups will wander around with bait ship, tagger and a bunch of purpose fitted ships, moreover using a mix BR ships allowing to them to

    - be tagged

    - tag

    - fight with best odds (joining all, some,  reinforcing or screening out help) depending on the prey found.

    So bigger veteran groups will (faster) adapt, they will have the means and with knowledge and experience will exploit the most from the eventual new ROE, on the skin of?

    New players and brave lone raiders, who for a while, will keep tagging potential targets. And after losing few ships, lone raiders will rage quit like new players.

    This is, IMO, most probable outcome of such ROE.

    Not to say, again, that "same BR" has NOTHING to do with "fair" battle.

    Same BR can be a gold ship with some millions worth upgrades vs. a shop one, a 4000 hrs veteran vs. a 100 hrs (or less) noob, or even both.

    Survival Bug

    in Support

    Posted

    51 minutes ago, EliteDelta said:

    Ouch, I definitely wasn't lagging this time though. Ping was solid the whole fight...

    I lost for sure a couple requins in these months missclicking the repair to do.

    I think, more than a bug, it's a player error. It happens.

    "Shit happens".

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

    Calling for help...….This is a big problem for me and my immersion.  I would love to see no communication with OW from a battle instance.  Nothing you can do about Discord and TS of course.

    For me too communication should be limited even more... and it could help immersion.

    On the other hand, today, there're so many ways to communicate (Discord and TS first and foremost) that limiting ingame communication would hurt... solo casuals who are already the most beaten category in game...

    So, for game sake (and - casual - player retention), better less immersion and simpler ways for them to get help... that more often than not will arrive anyway too late, aside if attacked close to high traffic areas (like Capitols - and they get R area ROE - and main FFA hubs like LT or Tumbado).

    • Like 2

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

    Maybe its time to admit that no matter what you do, some griefing will take place.  I don't like it either, but overturning the apple cart for a couple of rotten ones, feels like the wrong approach.

    Griefing (as ganking and in general asymmetrical battles) are natural part of a sandbox OW PvP game. IMO it's plain reality. In ANY game.

    As looking for battles with the best possible odds is natural part of warfare.

    3 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

    I cant help thinking we are wasting too much time on it. 

    Granted the bulkload of time sink already in NA I understand that "infinite-tagging-no-battle" could be an issue.

    And again so: write a quite reasonable rule... like

    - keep tagged an enemy in battle for more 5 minutes without showing any real effort to engage is griefing and will be punished in Tribunal (granted report and proof).

    - tagging more that 2 times within 15 minutes in OW without any real engagment taking place is griefing and will be punished in Tribunal (granted report and proof).

    Or something like that. And I think that even the risk of ban/suspention and even better de-ranking, unslotting ships or cancellation of wealth, would be a more than sufficient to keep these cases (already not so endemic yet) to a bearable level.

    AFAIK there're already some rules that are not hardcoded but enforced.

    • Like 2

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Borch said:

    So both increasing population or encouraging them to stay in battles with rewards may fix the thing. Forcing players will do opposite what you want to get. Encouraging with positives can work wonders.    

    Like giving rewards for FIGHTING even if losing the ship. As pointed a gazillion times.

    For eventual (and normal, with ANY ROE) cases of griefing, Tribunal is the way.

    • Like 1

    Battle system core ruleset discussion

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

    Can you nail down more specifics, admin?

    Is there a max BR that can join to reinforce?  [Will a 140 v. 150 be joined by a 300 to "even the fight," and force the 150 to suicide against them so as to not "leave the circle" (or do whatever they need to to prove to the game that it wasn't a "fake fight"?)]

    Will merchants be included?  (Merchants counter tag as their primary defense, but obviously want to run.  Warships hitting them are obviously trying to capture them, precluding the idea of fake fights)

    Defensive tag (I got called "defensive tag fanatic" for pointing it) was already repeatly underlined.

    No: no more specifics. That would lead to weeks or months of chaotic correction to proposed ROE... hurting hard a finally GROWING player base (I'd remember: yesterday we hit 610 online - never seen in a year), granted the infinite cases to be balanced (coupled with the broken BR atm... the old example of Endy 330 and 3rd rate 300).

×
×
  • Create New...