Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Bis18marck70

Members
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Bis18marck70 last won the day on January 13 2015

Bis18marck70 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

145 Excellent

About Bis18marck70

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. There is nothing 'pedantic' about clear definitions. Anyway, all of this is off topic. Back to the real issue of ganking/griefing. As Prater pointed out, griefing was an issue in OW. I also see a problem in the fact that everyone has their own perspective. For some, certain actions might classify as perfectly 'legal' and they percieve it as a legitimate strategy. Others might view it as somehting else and if they suffer from it, respond in kind. Breaking down the difference between ganking/ griefing and finding areas where one can break them apart from each other. That should be the first step to prevent griefing while retaining the option of a gank (while not specifically rewarded beyond the 'making it easier to defeat thy foe') in game.
  2. (I hope I am not misunderstanding you here. If yes, please pull me into the light) This is about definition. When someone runs from another player and he/she happens to catch him, he/she naturally dictates that the fight will take place. He/She wants the battle, you failed to prevent it. Whether you wanted the battle or not doesn't matter, the fight will happen if one didn't react fast enough, sailed the wrong way etc. Whether one agrees to it or not is not part of the equation from the moment you join the server. If someone wants to do PvE content on a PvP server - fair enough - but he/she consents to being targeted by other players. When it acutally happens, you consented to it by being on that server. You can't turn around and say 'I didn't want this, I didn't agree to this'. Instead, the player should realise he/she took the risk but failed to prevent the engagement. Maybe you don't want to fight, maybe you don't agree with the terms of the engagement, but you put yourself out there at your own risk (and I say this while fully suportive of those that want to PvE on the PvP server and I am more than happy enough to allow for mechanics that allow them to play in peace - most - of the time. Provided they learn how to minimize the risk of running into a player).
  3. When you join a PvP server, you consent to PvP. When one side of the team has an obvious advantage, they played their cards right. Edit: I know the obvious answer is PvE - but that is slightly off topic imo and PvE is not the solution. A well designed PvP server benefits the game and community more than two sperate 'expereinces'. Edit 2: Just saw your edit.
  4. We will always see threads on everything. If the core design is sound, they are often no more than the lamentations of an entitlement crowd. The main issue is that ganking is a mushy subject. Ganking itself is, in all honesty, a sensible tactic. The problem is that it often translates into griefing. If a nation or group is well organized, of course they will target ships together and why should that be a bad thing? The cooperate together, they communicate and that means they will benefit. Punishing them for coordiation and cooperation seems hardly fair and would be to the detriment of the game. But then we come into the area that we all know from every MP game. Players getting annoyed, players having a low temper tolerance, players not liking to lose, and then going out there abusing systems to grief, troll and so on. Some don't even do it as a reaction, but as a primary inclination. They want others to get angry and thus will poke and poke and poke until they finally get the satisfaction of having gotten under someones skin. Thus, how to build the game so that it provides as limited a scope for griefing while not taking out the challenges (and dangers) of the basic game.
  5. No, I find it counter-productive if someone comes into a discussion with off the topic nonesense and it interferes with the debate. As for popularity, that was never an indication of anything. The content shows the worth, not the likes. Your comment added nothing but confusion since it was taken to be a genuine addition. Reply if you have to, I will stick to the actual discussion from now on.
  6. In that case it is even more unless. If you don't have something substational to add to a serious discussion, don't add anything. It is hard enough trying to nail down the issue as it is without silly intermissions of non-sensical comments and off the topic cowdung.
  7. Oh I fully understood your post. It is illogical and I am not convinced by it. Fighting fire with fire does not work. (unless we maybe talk about blowing up dynamite to stop an oil well from buring dry.) Instead, one should design the game for the inital fire never to fully take hold. If you condem a single nation to a blockade by multiple nations just because some of its playerbase are 'known' to use the mechanics of the game to gank...seriously? Beyond the fact that whole 'nations' are not the culprits but a few individuals that happen to use that flag are, we will be stuck in an endless pointing of fingers and an endless struggle as each nations/group considers itself as the white knight and blasts everyone that is not them. Do you want the community to blow each other up and descent into an ever more spiralling abyss of doom? Because thats how it starts. The solution to ganking is not to condem a nation but to design the game in the right way. If ganks reward players the same or 'just enough' to make them worth over targetting something akin to your own weightclass, then ganks will be the order of the day. If you make alternative solutions that are more attractive to the player, then only a minorty will gank (those that want to see the world burn/ griefers/trolls - every game has them) and they will be dealt with on an one to one basis.
  8. We all know every group has ganked so far. Pointing fingers at this stage will only exaggerate the problem. Also, what's with this 'if Sweden keeps it up'. Surely you don't suggest that literally the entire playerbase that is prone to gank decided unilaterally without any consultation between each other that they will pick up the Swedish flag. As for your aparent dislike for a particular group or groups. There are two sides to every coin and we would be hard pressed to find a single group in the game, whatever flag they chose, to be innocent of having used the present mechanics to their advantage. Instead of pointing fingers and building up a huge war/ mutual dislike at this stage, how about talking about ways to improve the gameplay design to entice non-ganking behaviour.
  9. There is nothing hard or 'more' time consuming about ganking.
  10. Nothing accounts for those that 'want to see the world burn'. But game design does account for those that use ganking to advance. Make it unrewarding and it will be less practiced. Some places being safer than others is in no way an argument for ganking. A place is unsafe due to increased activity not because suddenly someone gets ganked. That can happen in the most safe areas. That ganking will always exist is a fact of life. We, and admin, know this. However, there is absolutely no reason to submit to this by way of not encouraging the opposite to improve the overall gameplay experience. Nobody has to 'get over anything'. This discussion is not a QQ session but an attempt to produce incentives to countermand a great deal of ganking that has an adverse effect on gameplay and the players game experience. Like I said in this post before, ganking is a reality all of us accept. That does not mean that we have to give up and just let it go as it is. Incentives can be created to counter ganking and while these will never do completely away with them, they at least diminish the occurance. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nobody is trying to make a game fair or balance it. Nearly everyone that got into Sea Trials and contributes to the forum wants a challenging (and punishing) experience. Diminishing the incentives for ganking is not taking anything out of the game, on the contrary, it is adding something. Again, we all know ganks are gonna happen. A lot. But design the game to reward non-ganking behaviour and you will cut back on it as well have a more positive basis upon which your game is build. Of course it will still happen but then it does because some players chose to gank freely instead of being it being 'the optimal way' of advancement in the game which would see way more ganking.
  11. I would say that crew loss has to be painful. If you come out of battle, the captain should have to anaylze the damage taken (to his ship and his crew) and weigh his options. Staying out at sea might yield further rewards, but going back home allows him to stock up and replenish. It might be harsh if you would like to sail from one part of the world to the other and two hours into the trip need to seek out the nearest port, but hey, that will be part of the challenge of the game. If you don't wish to get into a fight and have dead crew, plan accordingly and do your best to run away from trouble. I am fine with having little trouble finding crew in ports - pressing, heaving drunks on to ones ship, stealing them from other boats, etc - there are so many sources of manpower that finding a few guys to join the crew is not hard. That being said, it would be nice to place meaning behind crew hiring i.e. a reduction in the crews average experience depending on how many new guys are on board etc. I don't know if you guys plan that, but refilling should be more about a mere press of a button.
  12. You can also have a system in which ships that are far below your own rating yield practically no reward in terms of XP, Gold and advancement. That means to progress captains have to look for somehting their own size. As well as that, you can have a system (take the Sea Trials MM for example) which analyses the balance of the battle (ships involved both sides/ captain playtime/ crew experience/ kit) and, while not preventing the battle, greatly diminish the reward the players get & distributing it among the gankers as such decreasing the individual reward once more. I am not saying both systems marked above are foolproof. Just throwing something out there. Ganking is a gameplay design issue. Design a game as to reward ganking behaviour and it will happen. While one can trust in the integrity of an individual, trusting the honour of the player base is a lost cause. Currently, in this early stage, ganking is rewarded. Not intentionally, that is true, but the system has not matured far enough to implement limitations. If alternative ways to aquring gold, experience and advancement are implemented and, simultaneously, rewards for the harrasment of new players/small ships & ganking are cut back significantly, the practice will cease to exist (well, not 100% but the main drive that propells players to do this will be no more). Edit: One more thing. To prevent ganking or the harassment of weak ships, the effect has to be immediate. The idea that something, at some point in time is going to come back at you (nation strengthening patrols/ investigating) does not prevent these players from doing such things. The player engages in ganking to obtain quick loot and advancement. Some repercusion that might hit him at some popint in the future are not part of his risk assessment.
  13. I hope to see something along some of these ideas too. However, a 'saving your crew' option only really becomes important if your crew earns experience and is hard to replace. An experience system for the crew would prompt the player to think more about what fights he wants to get himself into and to actually consider them as crucial to his success rather than a mere means to an end. Saving/caring for one's crew should definetly be one of the main concerns a captain has. Considering that the durability system (if it stays implemented [i hope not but we will see] and if the player has spares) already allows players to essentially throw away there ships a couple of times in reckless play, this might at least make such endeavours more costly. That being said, a lot of thought has to go into such a system and I expect it to take some time - and revisions - until a working balance is found. The overall game has to mature alongside it or even be completed before a more detailed crew management. Make a crew loss/experience system without brushing up the gameplay to alleviate ganking and the harrassment of new players/weaker ships and we will see an increase in the latter as such actions bare less risks and still yield rewards. Make it too slack and the system loses its importance.
  14. Thanks for sharing. Good to see that the Daily Mail is at least good for one thing
  15. PvE/ PvP are two different gamemodes. If you don't like that word, we can call them whatever you want. Servers, experience, whatever. Yet, they play 100% different and are thus different gamemodes. Yes, the sailing and shooting will be the same etc etc. but the fact that a player does not have to account for the fact that he might be set up by another player totally changes the equation of just about everything (from the fighting, to economy to guilds to nations). The change of that single parameter, as you call it, creates something entirely different. If this whole PvE thing was so obviously going to be included in the game, how come we (and yes 'we' because looking at this thread and the reaction of many prominent forum goers) are so surprised. PvE-only option for the release version was never in the equation. I understand your data suggests a huge PvE crowd. I get it. Many people that showed of your game never - not even once - made any attempt to explain what this game was actually going to be. To this day I have to clear up the confusion for some of my new viewers that come to my channel first time. They, having watched one or two videos on other channels seem to be under the impression that this game is supposed to be a 'World of Warships' with sails etc. Many of these - not all - bought your game without a single second thought and when they realized the gaming experience was more challenging than the run-of-the-mill F2P and that in fact the whole game was never going to be like that, they stuck to PvE because it gave them the quick action they craved with no need to learn anything. These are not the people that have supported your game or your vision. They do not come to the forum, they do not give feedback, they do not care about behaviour, they do not in a single moment ever care about the success of the game. They care about their own little bubble, fast instant action and now that they check out OW they realize it is PvP and panic, coming here for a PvE option. (Some time ago Ram and me - others too - advised you to turn off the PvE option in Sea Trials to avoid multiple issues, this being one. Had any of us heard that NA will have PvE-option, we would never have bothered to give that advice) And yes, indeed, you have never said that you were going to please everybody - up to this point. That is why we supported you because that was proof to us that you have a set vision enshrined in stone and will stick to it. But now with PvE-option happening, that is no longer the case. Now you do go the way to please everyone. By spliting the community and your resources you are shooting yourself in the foot.
×
×
  • Create New...