[Propsed New Open world Battle Mechanics]

The battles should be open as long as they last. If I have a ship and pass a battle, I should be able to join.

Its too weird to close battles. I wonder why you did it in the first place?

I like this idea but I'm not positive it wouldn't run into a flaw at this stage of the game.

Currently there are few if any battle fronts in NA. To find pvp I think most players simply sail to the enemy capital port. I agree these areas should be dangerous to assault and the resulting build up of enemy defensive ships could be naturally very large. I think the problem is that the game doesn't offer very many ways for the attacker to find other players than to sail into these dangerous home waters.

If the game mechanics were changed to generate war fronts or ways to find pvp other than enemy home ports think your method would be the best.

[Why don't we have a PvP server?]

It might depend on your definition of "hardcore".

If hardcore means "those who favor skilled-based naval combats", most certainly support the idea of a limit of imbalances in fights.

1v2 requires good skills. 1v3 higher skills. 6v20 ace level players.

1v1 is the lowest level of challenge and skill. This is where challenge first starts. It's not hardcore on a definition based on skill and challenge. One could argue its beginners level play.

[Why don't we have a PvP server?]

Hardcore pvpers were all supporting 1.5 limits.

So now your inferring all those of us against BR limits must not be serious pvp players?

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

I think sometimes people forget this is a game, they roll play as if it were real life and a real war that they were really fighting in real life. As always it's quite usually a two way street, if something isn't realistic with the ganking they go ape, but if it's anything else that is unrealistic they are OK with it. The problem with that is, it's not fun. Most PvP consisting of ganks is boring and a rotten experience on the open world. You cannot avoid them if your enemy has a superior force and tags you, the new postional reinforcements will have you done in within a few minutes.

Unfair fights are great, but gank squads are just for people who want to troll players, they get enjoyment out of making the people they gank have a miserable, boring time on the game. That is their goal. Ganking isn't fun, no matter what way you put it. And this is a game, and it is played for enjoyment. If the open world is consisting of mostly ganks, then something is seriously wrong.

And now your arguement has come full circle.

In the other thread you started with the "but it's just a game" tack. It may be a game but it's a game where the most of the population are gaming a war simulation. When you come out with too many forced non-warlike rules it dumbs down the war and they don't want to play it anymore. That's why the population nose dived for the week you got what you wanted with the BR rule. It doesn't work. No matter how many times you offer the same argument over again it's still not going to work. The populace wants a war game. Not an arena game.

Chess is a game. Some like the high strategy, slower pace, the variety of the pieces and long term planning.

Checkers is a game. The strategy is lower, the pace faster, the pieces all fair and equal at the start.

Invite a bunch of players to play chess. Then dumb down the rules on them till it becomes checkers. Don't expect them to keep playing. Just because it's a game doesn't mean it needs to be simple.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Glad we are clear on exactly who won WWII and who surrendered.

Please don't spam the thread with several posts in a row - just use edit to add additional thoughts you have.

That's where it pertains to the topic.

If not for allied forces being allowed to "gank" the Germans in a war zone they may likely have never lost WW2. It is a good example of how such "forced fair battles" rules skew the results of the combatants in a war scenario. It creates favoritism for the elite teams over the more numerous less skilled teams.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

I did not discuss small or large battles because they have ZERO to due with my argument or any of the points I have discussed. It is a completely different game mode that has nothing to due with OW and one that shouldn't even be part of these discussions. What we ARE debating is a game mechanic that effects the very core of NA since it takes place on the OW where a good 90% of your play time is spent. If you want to have some random discussion about arena by all means do so but have it in another thread because it is irrelevant in this one.

Furthermore, I would suggest going back and reading my comments and others again...carefully....and slowly perhaps so as to not misunderstand. I said REPEATEDLY that fights do not, and should not, always be guaranteed to be "fair". In the 1.5 BR system you could still have a Connie versus a Brig....or 2 Trincs vs 1....or 6 vs 1.....or a whole variety of other fights that would not necessarily be considered "fair". However, larger numerical forces needed to put in effort and a bit of sailing skill to ensure they all were within the engagement circle....which is quite large mind you and represent many many miles in the game world.

The system that we have now is completely flawed and unrealistic....might as well introduce magic and dragons in the next patch. Group A can have a fast tackler chase down an opponent on the OW and initiate combat while his slower companions eventually catch up to the battle marker and then magically spawn in front of the guy who they pursued. You end up with ships that were slower and never would have been able to catch the opponent warping into the battle in front of everyone which is laughable. Not too mention they still have two minutes of real time to join the battle....except OW time compression and battle time are completely different making this even more fantastical.

No, we are discussing if the open world should be a lawless war zone or a rule burdened arena. Since the large and small battles are already arena set ups it begs the question why they are not used vs. forcing rules on the war zone. If the large and small battles can be made into something you find more fun I would support that 100% over destroying the war zone atmosphere and dynamics of the OW.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

I also cannot see navies, historically, sending 7 ships to take down 1. Waste of resources. Maybe they would send 1 or 2. But I may be wrong as history is not my forte.

Your not wrong. History is my thing. Economics are a major factor of real war we don't usually see modeled in game. If an Admiral knew ahead of time there was only one enemy ship in a area he certainly wouldn't waste the over kill costs. However, if he didn't know the enemy strength but needed an important zone patrolled he would send hat he could spare.

In a war zone a patrol rarely knows the enemy strength. So in NA ten players go out on patrol. They run into one lone enemy with this hair brained idea that he should be able to sail into their waters and sink lone training ships, traders and the like off their coast. Just happens to already be 10 men on the patrol so they all sink him. They sail back thinking the patrol was a success and some lone team mates were probably saved. Meanwhile that lone enemy is screaming up and down what cowardly gankers those guys are. This is more the case than not. It's not like the game is actually filled with evil low skilled people that only ever fight if they have huge advantages. But if you listen to these loner players complain you would think there were.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Fun fact: some battles in the Age of Sail were fought with "BR restrictions" (i.e. combatants made active efforts to equalize odds in an engagement even when more force was available).

Also, your understanding of WWII is drawn mostly from silly stereotypes. The US had enormous tech advantages over Germany, and superior "skills" (although this a pretty silly concept to apply to national comparisons) in key areas.

When you start your air campaign with Brewster Buffalos and Curtis Hawks you don't have a tech advantage over Bf-109s and the rest of the German Air Force. When half the German Air Force did its training in the Spanish civil war learning why the allied "V" formation sucked as a tactic you don't have a skill advantage. When Albert ball the top US ace has less than half the air to air kills of the top three German aces you don't have a skill advantage.

Should we get into Sherman tanks vs. Tiger Tanks?

US subs that would accidentally sink themselves vs the German North Atlantic wolf packs?

USA rifle companies vs. German mp-40 armed storm troopers?

About the only area the USA started WW2 with any kind if tech or skill advantage was in aircraft carriers since the Germans never felt they needed them. The USA may have learned fast but they started out rather pathetic. The huge production sleeping giant that they were could produce enough second rate tanks and equipment to offset the German tech and early skill advantages.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

We want UNFAIR FIGHTS, not seal clubbing zerg ganks. 

 

Also I wouldn't say sailing solo doing Econ is sailing "solo". You aren't looking for fights are you? Sailing solo is not someone that sails solo in a trader, that would be sailing in a warship looking for fights. So in other words you only sail solo in traders to do econ but the only time you fight is with a group to protect your back?  

If I want a fair 1v1 fight I don't just go sail off to the enemy coast and expect to get one. I arrange one. So anytime in out in the open world sailing solo then it's most likely going to be doing Econ. Thinking you can just sail over to the enemy capital and get a fair fight is where thus whole far fetched notion of open world fairness an non-war zone rules are coming from.

Maybe he, like me, likes the thrill of sailing in enemy waters looking for an unexpecting player instead of a 'here you go, battle'.

Nothing wrong with that as long as you aren't demanding the enemy give you a fair fight. You came to their home looking for trouble. They don't owe you a fair fight and anyone thinking in terms of war isn't going to give you one.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

I'll do what you have been doing. If you sail solo so often, then what are you so worried about not being able to gank for then?

Because when I'm not sailing solo doing Econ I'm sailing with the squadron waging war. I see your efforts would stop the war being as war like as I prefer it to be.

Still waiting for an answer on what's wrong with the large and small battle arena system.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Lol you don't get it do you?

For Everyone who wants less ganking, is not the fact that they can't avoid ganks, it's that that IS what most of the PvP consists of. It can take you hours to find a fight that isn't a gank.

And now avoiding ganks being easy, that is less true, because even if you defensive tag. The enemy can just sail past the original tag and spawn infront of you.

That's because it's modeled after a war zone and not an arena. No war strategy ever revolved around generating a fair fight when one can get a strong one. By the same token most generals wouldn't engage by choice without first securing an advantage. In short, you shouldn't be expecting a fair fight in a war zone. It goes against every concept and study of warfare. You sir are obviously not here to fight a war. Hence gladiators.

Still waiting for an answer on the large and small battles and what would make them better for you.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

It's not unrealistic. The open world is sped up, it is compressed speeds. So you are actually way behind where you would be when you enter the battle. The battles are Real time and the open world is compressed time. So teleporting 25 ships into a battle after a tag is unrealistic. Maybe we should have real life sailing times without any compression? That will fix the problem, right?

How does this answer the large and small battles question?

We all use the same time compressed open world. Barring invisible entry from ports or battles it's just as fair to either side. If you are in enemy waters you should xpect the time compression to likely work in their favor. When you are in your home waters it will likely work in your favor.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Eating a box of donuts?

I don't get ganked often, the point is. You can sail to enemy waters to look for a fight, you are either going to have to fight a gank, or if you do manage to find a somewhat relatively unfair/fair fight that is enjoyable it would seem enemy wants to bail on the fight knowing theirs a chance they might lose. This is the kind of behaviour that we have now in the open world, and now with the new spawn mechanics, what else do the gankers need to help them? They can just tag you and then the rest can just now sail infront of the original tag and bam now they are infront of you, no getting away. They have everything handed to them on a platter.

1.5x BR was great, be in the circle and you still got your ganks. But for the gankers I guess that wasn't enough, correct?

Read what you just wrote.

"I don't get ganked that often". So why are we even talking about this.

If you sail alone into enemy waters looking for a fight shouldn't it end up being unfair. You, after all, chose to put yourself there.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

I don't think you read his post. He didn't ask for fair fights.

I asked him to answer my question about large and small battle system. He gave me an answer regarding how lopsided battles were still possible on the OS. Not the same thing.

In fact none of you ever answer that question. Why is the current atena system inadequate? Why do you insist we need unrealistic war strategy conditions in the OW to have a "fun game".

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but when we had the 1.5 BR system you sure as hell could still have 5v1 or a 10v1 even....it did NOT prevent that....it just required that those 5 or 10 ships be sailing in formation close enough that they were inside the engagement circle. It is completely misleading to act like those of us that thought it was a good mechanic only wanted 1v1's....no, we just wanted the brainless zerg to actually need to do something besides blobbing around the map. Removing the BR requirement does nothing more than promote all the worse styles of gameplay we currently have in game right now....port campers....zerg blob groups....invisibility abusers. Having an expectation that those who decide to sail in a large group might be required to sail in "formation" to reap the benefits of those numbers does not mean we only want arena style game play. Far from it....I just don't think we should be rewarding lazy unskilled blobs.

You completely avoided answering both our questions.

What is wrong with the large and small battles mechanic that you are not using it to get fair battles?

What would make them better for you?

Why do you feel your battles have to be forced fair ones in the open world war zone?

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Well put.

 

I Must say as a vet PvPer since sea trials, it is quite disheartening to see this happen to the game and open world. I Never thought skill based combat would be a thing of the past and all that would be left is ganking.

It's not a thing of the past and you shouldn't be such a doom sayer just because this didn't go your way. My group fought and fight 6v20. It's not impossible in this game. Lord Drake defeated the numerically superior Spanish Armada on skills. So numbers don't always win the day. But if you quit at the sight of the Mongol horde at your doorstep then fighting you has nothing to do with skill it's all mental.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Well, then put a diplo system in if you want your ganking RvR tactics:

Nations in war: No BR restrictions

Not at war: 1.5 BR

You can call us gladiators if you want if it is your term for us, but yes we do enjoy fights..we do enjoy beeing outnumbred but not in a stupid manner of so high numbers that it gets redicoulous. And to join the arena is not the same as that. but the 1.5 was a decent thing, if you were not much worse in skill you easy win a 1.5 advantage...if you dont, you DESERVE to be destroyed and should not complain.

And to the WW2 thing...there is a small difference: this here is a game, you have the honor of the war, the heros with the "plays", thats the difference between war and a war game.. but well, gonna back out of this lame disscussio... very sad about the change, but I guess I got that point across

If we gave you what you are asking for it would start the game population into a downward spiral despite the good intention. Hopefully that is the point that got across from all these players expressing they're displeasure at it and the populations of pvp1 & 2 noise diving over the last week.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

So you want to empty the open world and just leave zerg gankers in it? The rest play arena? I don't think that's the solution.

I don't understand how you are managing to get ganked so often in the open world. That experience is not happening to me and I sail around solo more often than not. If I feel I have chosen a relatively safe vector I even do it AFK.

What are you doing when you get ganked?

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Seriously stop it, you are making yourself look bad.

Atleast contribute to the topic instead of telling every single player to go play arena, each one of us players has a right to an opinion and if we feel the open world is being ruined because all that's left is zerg ganks than we have the right to do that.

If we don't like zerg ganks, and you are getting upset about that, so be it. Not everyone here is wants this to happen to the open world, or be in a zerg.

Actually he has brought up a good point to the topic. The large and small battles are there for those liking even contests and honing skills. What do you find is the problem with them? What would make them better?

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

You are forgetting those in the middle, those who don't like to gank and are not all about 1v1s, 2v2s and so on. The players who like unfair fights such as 3v6, 2v4, 5v8, 8v14, 7v12 and do like being outnumberd and having a challenge. Just not fighting a fleet that is impossible to defeat which is pointless and not worth your time. Theirs not just a group that likes ganking, and another group that likes 1v1s. So right now, basically the only fun right now is for those who don't find ganking boring.

 

The truth is here people just want FUN battles that you know you aren't going to get murderd in within a few minutes. If we still have a 85% chance of losing every single ship we bring into the battle we don't care as long as the battle is FUN. Not being pulled into a battle, you look at the teams and you say. Well this is going to be boring, I already know I'm going to lose without doing any damage at all.

Large battles

Small battles

Or simply using enough recon to see what battle is coming before you get into it.

To get what you are dscribing above just isn't that hard. My group does it every day.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Is the joining mechanic also changed now? or can they just gank me 10 vs 1 and join all around me? that would be very bad and not logical because on the open sea i would not let them go around me also...

The BR limit was good, it gave the zerg the advantage and the good pvp player a chance. Now it will get back to ganking and skill is worth as much as the gold.....spoiler: nothing

Yes, the positional mechanic will allow them to surround you. It's not a very good mechanic.

In any contest of RVR opponents are not necessarily equal in skills, numbers, technology or economy. 1v1 by far favors technology and skill while minimizing economic and numerical advantages. So it's only realistic simulation of war in 2 out of 4. Ganking or otherwise using strategy that pits superior numbers to inferior numbers neutralizes skill and tech advantages and favors numeric and economic. Throughout history, real life history, the balance of these four factors if war has shaped the world. The more numerous little guys only chance to combat the high tech skilled giant has always been to swarm the opponent. It's as important strategically to be able to do this as to exert superior skills. Forced 1v1s is just favoritism to skill and tech.

If WW2 had been fought with 1.5BR rules enforced we would all be speaking German right now. The Germans had the higher tech and skills. The Soviet state excelled in numbers. The USA in economy. The British skills at espionage and recon had the rest beat. The Japanese probably the most determination. We can't just shut an entire groups war advantage off and think we're still simulating a war.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

If you don't put restrictions on ganking there will only be the zerg remaining in the game. All smaller groups will leave. I don't see how a 10vs1 or 20vs7 is contributing to the quality of the game.

I don't bother getting ganked once in a while but before those mechanics where introduced 90% of the fights we had where ganks where 1 side didn't even had the chance to win or escape.

If the majority of the fights i have are ganks i don't see any reasons to play this game, also there is no reward for winning such a fight, i don't need xp, i don't need gold and sinking a guy that hasn't even a chance is not even close to satisfying.

Sounds good in theory but in reality it tends to work the opposite.

There are two basic pvp styles that join an RVR. Soldiers and Gladiators.

At first glance you might think soldiers require a higher population to enjoy a game. After all, they tend to join games as pre-made teams of bands of brothers so they are a good chunk of the population. The soldier mentality is that he is fighting a war. As such they don't consider a random chance 10v1 in a war zone to even be a gank. To the, it's just part of the war. Ironically the "I'm fighting a war effect" allows them to see value in the play even if they do a 2 hour patrol and only find one player to fight. Guard duty may be low in action content but it's still important to the war effort. As such it takes less battles to keep the soldiers happy. But you can't ever split them up or they will turn on you for it. There highest priority is generally honor to the band of brothers and the flag.

Gladiators are generally the smaller population of the two. Few players can just jump into any game and be successful 1v1. It takes time to develope those levels of skill. Most of us start as soldiers and only some of us can then become gladiators. A Gladiator doesn't want to go n a 2hour patrol only to come up with one fight. Especially if that fight ends up being a 10v1 gank. He would have preferred x10 separate 1v1s over two hours. However, since gladiator action is more fast paced and actually requires battles to be considered a successful time spent in the game it actually requires a higher population to support this. Or a smaller play area. So in any RVR arena you need more population to keep the gladiators happy as compared to soldiers.

Now the tricky part. Soldiers aren't complainers. On the forms, if they even read them, they are silent majority. The gladiators are your kill board junkies. They are boisterous about there successes and about being ganked as they call it. So they tend to be a loud minority. If the devs commit the cardinal sin of the soldiers and divide up the band of brothers for the sake of creating more gladiatorial 1v1s the band will likely leave the game. They won't post a lot of complaints they tend to just leave. Once they do the population drops to the point that even fixing 1v1s becomes more difficult than it was and the quality of the war game aspect of the game suffers. This then begins to feed itself in a spiral of decline.

So moral of the story is to leave the soldiers to play together and fight wars. But find ways, other ways, to get the gladiators into 1v1 situations that aren't at the expense of the war game. This could be done, in my opinion, by creating demilitarized sea zones around free cities that were restricted to group size based on BR. This would allow the soldiers to defend home ports in mass and to patrol enemy ports as a squadron or fleet. While at the same time providing concentrated free city areas that the kings of each nation have agreed full squadrons will not be allowed in. These areas then become 1v1 zones and trader hunting zones. Maybe, it's just a thought.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Of course, because "tackling" to pin a player in OW time and space is an exploit that favors the side with numbers, giving them much more flexibility than the chase. Removing this from the game is a huge improvement. These 3 can sail together and join together, they just can't use the "tackling" exploit.

That said, I don't like the 1.5x reinforcement limit, but it cannot simply be removed without a different limit on exploiting the new positional spawn system. If it is just removed or increased, you will see ganking just as it has always been, but now groups will be able to completely encircle prey, not just warp in as a mass behind.

An excellent solution has been proposed: grow the circle after instance creation so that staying out of the initial instance to join from a different position on the circle translates directly into increasing distance penalties in the instance. Solves all the current problems without falling back to a system that was already deeply problematic (including the widespread acceptance that the "tackling" concept was legitimate and fair).

Just for clarification, using harassers, scouts or recon groups to slow down the movement of lighter armies so the bulk of your main army can catch them has been a valid and taught tactic of warfare since biblical times. Alexander was known to employ this to great effect after he aquired horse archers in his march to the east. It's not new and in a simulated war zone it's not an exploit.

[Remove 1.5BR anti-gank programming]

In the short time after that patch i had more good fights than in the whole time before. I don't believe this is a coincidence. Some ppl that are against the mechanic argue hat numbers have to matter others argue that it doesn't prevent ganks. So basically its the same situation as before the patch from your point of view, why should the mechanic be removed if nothing has changed? OS-discipline is now important, if you stay together and tag defensely everything is fine.

Soldiers vs Gladiators my friend. Two different philosophical approaches to pvp.

A soldier wants to fight a WAR. That means that if his platoons task is to control a hill side or pass it means from ALL enemies. So if a lone enemy wanders into the pass the whole platoon does their job and kills him. They don't consider it a gank. It's war. If the soldiers job is to protect the homeland, trainees or civilians then jump into all those fights to protect is his job. He doesn't let them die just because the enemy only brought 1 man. The psycological affront the 1.5 BR rule is to soldier pvp players is high.

A Gladiator is only out there looking for great 1v1 fights and is what he considers the most fun. He doesn't really care about any war. He only cares about individual fights and the quality of those fights. For him to do what he does best and likes most requires a "fair" starting point for all the battles he fights. He tries to be the best 1v1 fighter he can be. Even if it means his team, if he does even consider himself part of a team, loses some silly war which to him it's not as important as the individual fights. He will consider anyone who kills him 1v10 as unskilled cowardly gankers. Even if he was that lone fighter who wandered into the mountain pass the soldiers were guarding. Even if he is that lone fighter attacking trainees and civilians off the homeland that the platoon over runs. He will always consider the large force as "gankers".

Basically, anytime you put the two different mantras of pvp into the same sand box your going to have the problems. The gladiators want the sand box to resemble an arena and the soldiers want it to resemble a war zone.

[Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit]

Restrictions tend to generate very vocal reactions (usually hyperbolic and laden with blackmail threats) from a limited subset. The addition of land to instances is a far more significant change than a 1.5x BR reinforcement limiter (which is actually not even new, as such limiters have been experimented with before), yet note how this addition has gone almost completely unremarked in comparison to the outrage about not being able to reinforce battles past 1.5x BR. Other changes to battle instance creation were both necessary to have land in instances and to resolve ongoing problems with the disconnect between OW and battle time and space. In fact, more problems have been solved than created, and we get land!

Also, a core problem is that quite a few people complaining the loudest do not know how instance creation and reinforcement works now, which complicates the discussion. I think if we pare things down, the problems are quite limited, and some "new" problems are just variations on old problems (e.g. port battle fleet splitting).

Not even close to the reality. We've been testing the new system all week.

The land is cute and nice. But it doesn't really come into play all that much. It does require some players to turn graphic settings lower for battles. It also doesn't have shallows. You get to sail right up to the beach. If you can get an enemy to chase you to an island on the open sea that had shallows you normally can't cross. You can tag him in battles then suprise him by going around the island that you can now cross. Without the shallows it's not exactly the same but it is still a pretty nice addition.

The BR rule and I'm not going to get into the specifics again, has much more exploitable potential than having land is worth. If it was ever an either or choice you can take the land away if it has to be done to get rid of the 1.5 BR restriction. Players will avoid games that force them to split from playing with their friends and family. No amount of land eye candy is going to change that.