Bach
-
Posts
1,108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Bach
-
-
+1Mind you the system was not devised to stop ganking. Please read the notes again. The system was devised to STOP the invisible flotillas ambushes. That is the start and end of it.
I agree with an open system as we had before, but to protect the Devs from all the reports the invulnerability timer must be increased to 120 seconds so to prevent Result screen camping, which apparently was the biggest motif behind the changes.
-
i agree lets try pvp 2 as eve style and see where it goes
I predict you would probably see a large portion of the pvp players migrate to pvp2. I can think of 6 whole clans that would do it right now and they are probably good examples of the average pvp guild. Unfortunately, I also predict the 1v1 gladiators won't stay in the pvp1 arena. They will want more people and need more people in order to get quick battle after battle arena style combat in an open world. So they will also eventually come to pvp2. Then they will just start complaining about ow battles being unfair again. Some will learn the lesson that "fair war" isn't actually a majority of the pvp play style. But others will never let go of the idea that everything has to be fair.
-
2
-
-
As far as ganking goes, 3rds and higher are relatively rare. Sure you'll "win" most engagements you come across, but that doesn't mean squat if you can't catch anything except for maybe a questionable captain sailing a 1st Rate alone.
-- EDIT --
If anything, I'd say a ship like the Trincomalee is almost too good and too numerous as it is in relative terms to the 3rd Rate, but that's for a different thread.
What we saw when POTBS tried this same Open Sea strength balance idea is that it drove the player base into lighter faster ships that could control the open sea tags and therefore by the BR rule control who gets into the battles. So for NA that would mean Snow, Niagara and the like will become the predominant gank boats. Shortly there after, everyone else has to select the same style of boat in order to even get into the battles. Once all the players were primarily all in the same style smaller lighter boats the battles themselves then shrunk to the 1.0-1.5 goal which then made pvp itself much less available to the player base. In fact, in the end, duo teams of pirates used to hunt in plain view right off port Royal because the entire British fleet couldn't do a thing about it as the server protected the gankers from fighting a fleet of Brits off the home port.
This whole concept of balanced battles based on a ship strength assignment value enforced by the computer was thoroughly tested already in POTBS. NA has better graphic, battle mechanics and more potential than POTBS. But when it comes down to player base, human nature and the constraints of somewhat realistic ships the are the same. The 1.5 BR rule, in the end, is nothing more than an attempt to have the server moderate player behavior. However, experience has shown players don't like being told what to do and some will figure out how to game the new rules. The tested and truest method for moderating player behavior is in giving the tools to the rest of the player community to get the job done. Scrap the computer forced 1.5BR system and put in some system that helps the players team up, get too and stop the gankers themselves and everyone wins.
-
5
-
-
Sure, but how to solve the "oh no ! I was jumped by gankers hiding on the result screen" situations ?
That is the main thing and despite myself not resorting to less gentlemanly mechanics I know for a fact it is the norm, or it was, until changed.
That is kind of simple. Just change the battle and port exit invulnerability timers to 2.5 min and no hidden players will ever reinforce a battle. Yet, 20 British ships already in view outside Port Royal would still be able to protect it by getting into any of the battles in <2min.
The 1.5BR rule fails at stopping hidden ganks. It does not appear that stopping hidden ganks was even the intent. It does however, shrink the size or number of players involved in the average battle. It affords a huge amount of protection to the lone pirate or small pirate group hunting a nations capital.
-
1
-
-
Been testing this all week. In the typical hypothetical gank scenario it works just fine. The problems we have found are in its ability to be exploited to create atypical gank scenarios. It has the ability to give the smarter gank teams the ability to control the server computer to have it protect them from counter ganks, rescues or otherwise player driven responses. In these instances the ganking or raiding force get unrealistic advantages in protection once they learn how to abuse the new rules.Like 1-5 BR anti-ganking.
TEST IT....
In short this rule does more to stop rescues than it does to stop ganks. It also promotes lighter fail fit faster ships over heavier tankier ships.
-
1
-
-
Asking friends to show up in a defensive fight will not make it 1 vs. 1.
I´d love to join every fight to make it 4 vs. 8, instead of 1 playing 1 vs. 8.
And honestly, we are talking of game desgin, open water. Your "war" tactics don´t apply.
You think different? I want to do a 5 Surprise vs. 1 Surprise with you 100 times....then we can see
how much Napoleon ace stuff is inside you....
Do it like GALILEUS.
Ask what the suggeston is about and tell me if u like it or not ?
Or why it might FAIL !?
Do you like extended battle timers for the sake of defense and grouping?
Do you like PvP being liked with unlocking "upgrades" anf being able to craft them only after lots of PvP?
The 6v20 are fights I have already fought in this game and they were memorable. Its not impossible. Maybe we might not be Napoleon in a 1v3 in Surprises but the one battle won will be more memorable than a 100 1v1 battles in Surprises. My worry is that you would dumb down the war zone into a sporting match. I'm not an arena player I find limited variable 1v1 fights boring over time. Eventually the moves used versus different battle platforms all become repetitive. But fighting in a live battlefield where anything can happen and anything goes is about as exciting as it gets to me. I think the suggestion will fail in the aspects of it that remove variables from a warzone. Sure it will attract some players but its going to remove others as it is to favored to one particular play style.
I'm not sure I like extended battle timers. I don't totally dislike it either. I would have to play with it a bit. In generally anything that allows a group of players that joined the game together to stay together 100% of the time is a good thing for gaming.
I do like pvp unlocks for upgrades. That's just me personally. I can see where some econ centric players might not feel the same.
-
1
-
-
Before you can encourage "pvp" or discourage "victim hunting". You have to define what those are and if broaden our view beyond the infamous offered "gank scenario" it's a bit more problematic. You also have to decide if you want to simulate a war or a sporting match. One requires the trategy tactics and grit of a lord NELSON, Stephen dcateur or Napoleon. The other requires no more that the tactics of a Mike Tyson, Ronda roused or David beckham. Wars, after all, aren't fair and making them fair goes against most every battle strategy ever taught. Sporting events, on the other hand, are all about being fair. Also you have some that think fair fights are the height of challenge. Which is historically untrue. 1v1 is the lowest level of challenge. It is where challenge begins. 1v2 is a higher challenge. 1v3 higher still. 6v20 is ace level. Napoleon made a name for himself fighting the Italians against 3-1 odds. If the Italians had been forced to fight Napoleon 1v1 then Napoleon wouldn't have been anything special. Thermopylae is a historical legend of a battle. But if the Persian were forced to use 300v300 we wouldn't ever remember it. War and Great Battles arent about fair. Now sporting events are the other side of the coin. Everyone has heard if Foreman v Ali as an epic ring match. Some World Cup matches go down in history too. But these are sporting events and they have to be fair. Mike Tyson can dominate the ring 1v1. Put three boxers in with him and perhaps not so much. Put him in a ring with a special forces soldier and remove the rules protecting Tyson and ge probably dies there. Sporting matches need forced rules to make them fair. So do you want to simulate a war or a sporting match?
Scenarios all change from points of view.
Gank scenario from lone victim point of view.
These 6 guys that probably kick puppies when they aren't playing the game grabbed my ship because they are too afraid to fight anyone fairly. This unrealistic lunacy tends to prevail in forums with the negative natured of the readers.
Gank scenario but from the soldiers point of view.
Six men role playing a British patrol squadron come across a lone guy sailing off Jamaica hunting British mission runners. To protect the homeland and the British mission runners they engage the enemy as they are supposed too. 6v1 they sink him and continue their patrol in the war zone.
Gank scenario but from the pirate hunter point of view.
Off Jamaica a lone Pirate frigate has jumped a British training frigate with a new crew. They have little to no chance in the 1v1 against the veteran pirate. So the pirate hunters does what he is supposed to do but now the battle isn't fair by numbers even if it is by skill.
You simply can't assume every offset contest in a war zone is a bad thing. But you can at a sporting event. The more rules you throw in to force fairness the closer you get to a sporting event and the further you get from a war zone.
-
1
-
-
Hi,
It would be nice if there was a chance to catch the whales as in battle and draw the resources especially oil, and of course we will need whalers ships...
I like it. It's not politically correct but I like it. Of course war isn't all the politically correct either.
-
In real history there was plenty need for scouts.
Mail, orders and supplies were dilivered in lighter faster boats that could catch up to the fleet or run between them. There were no radios or nation chat to tell you where the enemy was. Someone had to deliver the message.
There were also light patrols that were way way way to expensive if attempted in rate ships. Sending a thousand men to check on a missionary out post was a economically rediculous.
But we live in a pixel world where we don't have to feed or pay crews. Cannon balls are free, endless and the mail comes in via radio. So why not do everything in rate ships?
So yes, they had scouts, scout interceptors and other hosts of smaller ships supporting the nations frontiers.
-
1
-
-
What it prevents is this:
An enemy squadron spread out across the horizon. A tackler tackles an enemy ship. They can't all jump on the single enemy ship, only some can. If they all want to jump on the enemy ship, they all have to sail close together, which gives the enemy ship a greater chance of getting away, or at least into a fight he can manage better, instead of 10 enemies who are spread out so they can cover more sea.
I think that was the intent. In testing it we discovered we can use the positional aspect of the system to surround the enemy player inside the battle. Or at least put one player in front of them to keep them from running. So although the idea may be to give them a chance to get away, it can be manipulated to place one if your members in front of the target. Too many quirky side effects in the rules as they are in this patch.
-
The tagging circle is huge, if you failed to stay together and all didn't get in the battle then that's what happens. If you want to gank someone make sure nobody in your group gets ahead of eachother. 1.5X is not a fair fight, you can still outnumber your enemy. And if you want to gank and get everyone in your group into a battle, stay organized. This mechanic is great so far, lots of fun PvP even if one side does outnumber you, it's not always lopsided making the battle pointless and boring.
We get it. Your a cheer leader for the new 1.5 BR rule. But those of us actually testing it are finding plenty of bad side effects and instances when it just doesn't work as intended. It's not a great rule and if a player is telling you it's bad enough that he and others of his team may not play, put your personal angles aside and listen to them. Just telling them it's all their fault is no better than telling some ganked guy it's all his fault for getting ganked. There has to be a way to make everyone happy and achieve the goal. But this new rule in its current form isn't going to be it. Just let it go and let's find something better.
-
1
-
-
Been testing this patch for a few days now. I cast my vote informed.
I think the biggest problem that leads to offset battles isn't numbers so much as invisible boats. If playe see 10 sails on the horizon they can take steps to avoid being overwhelmed. But invisible ships coming from hidden battles and ports don't give realistic warning time. I think it would be better if all battles remained visible on the OS (swords and ship count) and the port exit invul timer should be lengthened > the battle join timer. This would get rid of invisible groups of ships appearing right on top of you.
Another nice feature would be if the battles appeared on the game map as just crossed swords in the relative position. This would let players know where battles were taking place and speed up finding actions. It would also tell players when the home waters were under assault and needed their help. Give the players a better chance to patrol their own home waters.
-
5
-
-
Has anyone posting all these hypothetical "problems" with the new mechanic actually been denied a battle yet? Because we've been doing the same thing as always in our wolf pack and it's been an issue exactly once. Once. I was just outside the tag ring. I then told them I was sailing due north for 5 mins and that we'd rally there. In the meantime, I was able to either engage a lone frigate this wasn't able to get to the battle in 2 mins or take a bathroom break. Saw that the frigate wasn't too interested, took a quick bio break and rendezvoused with the guys who made short work of it. We then continued on our merry way. It was terrible, I tell ya.
Yesterday the system denied a ship that was inside the bubble at the time of the tag. We reported it as a bug. But we also had battles against lone runner ships that we ended up fighting three times so those locked out could pvp. The running vs our mixed pug group of ships resulted in some being out if the ring. As mentioned earlier, if we all just switched to the same boat or all lighter faster boats the problem is solved. But that is what this same rule did in POTBS. It promoted open see to be all smaller faster ships and the bigger ship designs were wasted other than port battles.
-
Playing over the last few days we didn't have this same result at all. Last night we also sailed from Tombado. Didn't see you guys at all. We found a lone Brit in an Essex and took turns sinking him in what was still essentially x3 battles he couldn't escape or win. He just ended up fighting 3 ships instead of 7. Had we all been able to fight at one time we probably would have just let him go after the first one. But it took three battles for everyone to get a chance at the do and gold. I would have preferred to have just sunk this guy one time. This wasted about an hour extra of game play.All I have to say is with the BR system, I've had some epic fun battles. More than I have had in the last 2 weeks. It is working nicely, less running and more players willing to fight it out because one side isn't always lopsided. It is doing what was it is intended to do, giving us more enjoyable battles.
After that the Americans were asking for us to come fight them off Habana. It took an hour to sail there. We got into two fights on the way against smaller groups of US players. The positional mechanic seems less fair than the BR mechanic as we were able to guarantee surrounding them at the start of the fight. We sailed closer and still all got into the fights which were no more fair last night than they would have been last week. By the time we got to Habana the Americans had logged and we needed to as well. Not really any great fights for a lot of time sunk into the game. The first Brit didn't need to be sunk three times, players didn't need to be held out of battles and the positional start is worse as it put players unrealistically in front of targets. But the single worst part if it all is that rather than feel I had fun I felt more like it was 4 hours of my life I'm not going to get back.
I'm glad you found some fun from Tombado to Bensalem. But you probably would have found that same fun last week.
-
Vladd gave a pretty good answer above. Basically this rule allows the initiator of a combat the opportunity to control the BR ratios and thereby decide who can and can't get into a battle. Since the gankers are usually the initiators of the combats, assuming they can do math, they then get to decide who gets into the fights or not.how does it stop rescue? If your friends can get there in time and your outnumbered then can come help... If it is a near fair fight and your any good you shouldn't need rescuing the 2 minute timer does that a LOT more then the 1.5BR rule...
Ironically this side effect turns what was intended to be an anti-ganker rule into a pro-ganker advantage. I think many casually looking at this new rule thought it meant battles would be forced to 1 vs 1.5 ratios. That is not what it ended up doing. Using this rule, a stop watch and some simple math I could set up a situation where I could get your Trincomelee into a battle with several pirates including a Victory while 6 of your buddies in 3rd rates right next to the battle could do nothing but watch.
-
1
-
-
I know it's a pain because this topic grew so fast but the majority of the posts are about how the 1.5 BR rule can be exploited by the gankers for their protection and to create split ganks.Haven't read the whole topic but would like to state my opinion:
I actually think the 1,5 BR is a good thing as it is right now. It makes the battles somewhat fair and interesting unless the enemy tagged you pretty good with his whole fleet dragging you into a battle above 1,5 BR against you, which means you made a mistake beforehand.
The problem I see is: The 2 Minute timer should go now, especially since "reinforcements" are spawning further away now and the fairness is based on the 1,5 BR.
Not many points made to support this argument, but that wasn't my intent so far^^.
The short version. The rule doesn't prevent straight up ganks or hidden ganks, it doesn't enforce 1.5 BR battles if the gankers know how to game it. What it does do is make it almost impossible for your friends and allies to help you if the ganker knows what he is doing. It essentially gives control of most fight situations to the gankers.
There was also some points made early in the thread that the computer shouldn't be deciding fairness as each players definitions differ.
-
I think the point is that the gankers would never be dumb enough to jump one ship with 10 if they were looking at a huge British rescue fleet within a 2 min sail. They would just send in what they needed to get the gank, gaming the BR rule and the others would continue looking for more splits.What?> if a single friend gets jumped by 10 ships you can join until your side as mad the BR 1.5 in your favor.... within the timers limits
For this 1.5BR rule to do anything but help the gank squad they would have to be the dumbest gankers a game has ever seen. This rule stops rescues. Not ganks.
-
1
-
-
We have a taker! So....Again, the main problem the system solved was the battle screen ambushes. Obviously different scenarios evolved.
That problem is now behind us. No more reports and tribunals of carnivore gankers materializing and jumping the poor herbivore coming back from grazing some AI.
Now you must get into the circle aka. be seen or resort to flotillas of small ships.
Regarding your nation buddies helping out nothing changed. They still have the 2 minute timer to join and help.
Situation #3- (I'm going to exaggerate the a bit and use a victory just to drive the point home)
Imagine a gank squad of x3 Snows, x2 fir fail fit Tricoms a Victory working the Jamaican new player area.
Getting on station our gankers grab an NPC fleet or just each other if they are pirates. At the end of the battle they all sit on the exit screen except one Tricom. He sits outside in the British travel route sails down pretending to be disconnected. Along comes a mission running frigate that sees him and tells two Brit Tricoms within 2min patrolling the area. They all move to jump the bait ship. Seeing these as the only ships in battle range the bait captain tells his ganker buddies to exit the battle screen as the Brits pop the battle bubble. The tag goes down just as the gankers invisibility wears off. It's x1 Gank Tricom (200BR) vs x2 Tricoms and X1 Frig (580BR).
The invul wears off before 2min. The gankers can stack 790 BR before the battle locks. So they tell the x3 snows to enter. Then they tell the other gank Tricom. Now they have 550BR and for them the battle is still open. So the computer still lets th Victory into the fight. Now it's 1450BR gankers vs. 580BR Brits. Almost a 3-1 gank. With the snows and Tricoms nothing escapes and the gankers clean house. The Brits going crazy put the call out that the gankers have a Victory. The Brits send X6 3rd rates to the area. The gankers sit on the exit screen except for the snows that go out to scout and spy all the Brit. The victory and gank Tricoms just stay on the battle screen as long as it take till the snows tell them it's safe to set the gank up again.
If a 3rd rate separates itself any at all from the others the gankers move to split. One snow moves to tag the split while the other moves to the main group. The tell their buddies to exit and the all move to the split. The BR still counts out of the exit screen so the snows actually tag both groups. So now they got X1 snow vs x1 3rd and x1 snow vs. x5 3rds. The split is 500 BR so will allow 750BR before closing. So the gankers move in the remaining snow and both Tricoms (500BR). The battle will still let the Victory in. The other battle waits for the battle timer and all ships immediately escape. But now they are on invul timer. By the time it ends they cant get into the other battle. So x5 Brit 3rd are left on the open sea and X1 snow that is laughing at them. The gankers win again, even with a hidden Victory twice, rescue is not possible as the gankers control the BR and so the fights AND most importantly the new rule is still crap.
Yes, 20 years of bounty and bad guy hunting in mmo has made me a pretty devious player. But imagine how that could be used to your benefit if you were coming up we ways to let me fight the gankers instead of ways they can keep me out of their battles.
-
4
-
-
I was expecting you to go this route. So....It's telling that people are resorting to bizarre scenarios (Pickle gankfleets) in order to show how the changes will cause problems.
Is anyone really worried about those fearsome schooner hordes on the OW? I think I'll just sail downwind.
Imagine a gank force of x6 fir fail fit Tricomelees cruising the Jamaican new player area....
Situation #2- the Tricomelees come across a frigate trying to mission run. They see two British Tricomelees in the distance and can do math. Two Gankers grab the frigate while the other x4 get out of the circle and rush the two Brit Tricoms headed in. The Brits radio the x6 3rd rates protecting Port Royale who scramble to the area 5min away. The Brit Tricoms being smart run towards the incoming third rates. The fail fit gankers catch the non fail Brit tricoms but the third rates are in the 2min range. So they tag them with x3 Tricoms and the last Tricom stays outside the circle looking for a stragling 3rd rate willing to chase him. He finds one and in a defensive tag can split it off. He radios the first two gankers that just finished off the mission running frigate to come to him. The Brit thirds can't help the two Brit Tricoms because the invisible hand of the computer prevents them from entering the 3v2. They see the two incoming ganker Tricoms and move to tag them hopefully before the get into the separated 3rd rate 1v1. But they need 20sec to get the tag and the other battle is already to let them in. So they get in. Now it's x3 gank Tricoms (600BR) vs. x1 Brit 3rd (500BR) no one else gets in. So outside sits x5 Brit 3rds that we always in sight of the battle when it started. The gankers sink a frigate and a 3rd rate. Possibly x2 more Tricoms or just withdraw from that one. When the battles all end the gankers sit on exit screens and leave at the same time fanning out so only x1 gank Tricom can ever even get in a fight with no more than x1 Brit if that. The gankers maintain total control of the fights, rescuing is still pointless and the gankers own the Brits because the new rule is still crap.
Shall we go for situation#3?
-
1
-
-
Because the control is in the hands of the faster ships. 9 times out if 10 that is the ganking force. The ones that planned to be there and are initiating the contest.You can still rescue people being ganked. The system allows the ganked players to be reinforced. What part of that isn't clear? You can reinforce players being ganked. You can't reinforce ganked players once the BR is over 1.5BR in favor of the ganked player. Players reinforcing ganked players by more BR are by definition gankers. If 10 players jump 1 ship, you don't need 20 players to jump those 10 players. It becomes a reverse gank in that case. Ganking doesn't need to be solved by more ganking.
Imagine a ganking force of 6 Snows cruising the Jamaican new player areas.
Situation 1- they come across a lone player trying to mission run and grab him. There is two other British players within 2 minutes away in Tricoms guarding the coast and x6 more in 3rd rates in the home port 5 min away. The gankers see the Tricoms and can do math. The frigate has 180 BR. No other ship can enter the battle until 270 BR of gankers get in. So x5 snows gank the mission runner while one steps out of the circle. The Tricoms are now left out of the battle with the lone snow who begins taunting one. The Brit in the Tricom gets angry and tags the snow who is dancing around the OS. Since the other Tricom is not in the circle it's a 1v1. The snow just stays up wind tagging sails at range griefing the Tricom. Meanwhile the gankers have sunk the frigate. They come out of the battle and see the lone Tricom. But the 6 thirds rates are now on the way strung out. Realizing this they radio their partner to get out of the other battle and the begin moving invisibly to the strung out 3rd rates. Sailing past they white circle the trailing one splitting the group. Now they got a third rate in battle. The other third rates can't get in and sit on the OS watching as the 6th Snow comes unstealthed, sails past, gives them a wink and enters the new battle that he can still enter. Now it's x6 Snows (300 BR) vs x1 3rd rate (500 BR) and outside is sitting x5 3rd rates and x2 Tricoms that were all with in sight of the battle. The gankers score another big kill, the defenders go play WOT because rescuing is pointless and the gankers terrorize Jamaica newb zone all they want because this new rule is crap.
-
2
-
-
The reinforcement mechanic wasn't terrible for preventing ganks in home waters.
-
Slamz has a point, we should be calling it...
"The anti-rescue split my group math quiz"
-
After playing around last night with the new rule:
We were still able to generate gank situation hidden in ports and battle screens.
We were now able to generate gank situation simply by sailing faster ships on the OS and splitting the target group.
Lone ships were still able to be ganked much the same as before as long as we all sailed fail fit. Which most gankers already do anyway.
The one thing we noted that this rule does successfully do nearly 100% of the time is PREVENT RESCUE or HELPING a team mate or even a player IN YOUR GROUP that may have been tagged right before your eyes. This one aspect is a game killer. If gankers can split or others wise get one of your group separated at the time the tag timer goes off the invisible hand if the computer will make you sit there on the OS while they kill him.
We should probably start calling this the " anti-rescue split my group rule". Because the one thing it doesn't do is prevent ganking. LOL
It's just stupid.
-
6
-
-
Initial testing shows this system can be exploited by gankers. The BR balance isn't consistent. The BR limit is only for adding ships to a battle. So a group good at math and timing can game this system to create ganks that can't be challenged. How many players are math majors?
For example: (using the hidden port gank everyone agreed was the worst)
A Tricom sitting outside the port can get attacked by another Tricom and a Cerb. (200 vs. 300 BR)But no other team mates can get in. Meanwhile a Victory and Renomee are sitting invisible at the port could still exit and join the battle. Providing the 2min timer was still in play and the Reno joins just before the Vic. If the gankees friends are to far away or don't realize what is happening the battle becomes locked at a Tricom, Renomee, Victory vs a Tricom, Cerb. And that's 1210 BR vs 300BR or 4-1 odds. So the system is going to need some tweaking. Someone else should explore thus but I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually pin the battle down to 1-1.5 BR. Just the entry access.
Honestly, no matter what you do in computer enforced rules the gankers will find a way until you start figuring out ways to let MORE players counter them.
Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted · Edited by Bach
Invisible ganks have definitely not gone away.