Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Puchu

Current open world status preventing fights

Recommended Posts

Maybe we all have different definitions of "fight". 

 

(btw.: you cannot dodge cannonballs. If they dont hit you its due to a) bad aim or b ) dispersion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we all have different definitions of "fight". 

 

(btw.: you cannot dodge cannonballs. If they dont hit you its due to a) bad aim or b ) dispersion)

 

come to me Puchu, I will fight you to death in consti or frigate anyday you want :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The problem is not that ppl are getting away. The problem is, that chasing after a frigate for 40 minutes, slowly hitting it with the few chasers you have, till they are down to 75% sails, then repeat the process untill they are finally at a state where they realise that running is pointless, is not fun for either side. 

 

 

 

I dunno, that sounds pretty realistic to me. A chase, a catch, a win (I presume you win?).

 

What's the downside? I'm missing the downside?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's boring!  

 

If you get your "fun" from the win alone, you might aswell go sealclubbing. But im getting my fun from challenges, and if everybody just runs downwind i will certainly die from boredom and many many others will aswell.

 

Latest case: Player in a fully crewed constitution running away from a surprise 1vs1.  Not shooting chasers, just sailing downwind.  What goes on in the Minds of ppl who do that. i dont get it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but i like to win. It sure when that became a bad thing.

But to what extent do you like winning? The problem is that people would rather have a 5 v 1 that they will win., then a challenging 1 v 1 that can be enjoyed by both sides.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even a 1v1 can be totally one sided. Totally. Hard to define fair to be honest. But back to it, we having great evenings with fights in the south coast, dutchies, french, pirates. So I guess a lot of folk and their groups are more than willing to skirmish. There is the usual pursuit, drag 1 victim which usually manages to escape or communicates position and people in the area move in to help.

 

PvP outside port conga line is taking shape I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us already have suggested in the past Puchu that the game needs a built-in mechanic that rewards 'somewhat' honorable gameplay and discourages repeated ganking ala an honor/rep system.  Maybe people with positive rep (that fight mostly even or underdog battles) have cheaper repairs and people with very negative rep lose 2 durabilities instead of 1.  But the devs stated way back they did not want to implement any kind of honor system *shrug*

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to what extent do you like winning? The problem is that people would rather have a 5 v 1 that they will win., then a challenging 1 v 1 that can be enjoyed by both sides.

I play to win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard for me to get my head around the idea that durability loss and the expense of replacing one's ship prevents pvp in NA.  Are people not willing to just use common quality ships for pvp?  I'd say using that ship with mastercrafted permanent mods must be what has people scared...  Otherwise, this is nothing compared to EVE where getting your new ship, and all those modules - of certain quality levels - can be super tedious for the non-hardcore player.  This is like get a new Merc, or Cerb throw simple cannons on it and go.. also it should take awhile to go through 5 dura.

 

It must be the fact that OW fights are almost always going to be horribly lopsided, and the victim is just cussing these guys out in his mind because they think their awesome for having numbers.

 

But, of course this is a tactical strategy game where turning the map your color is the object, not fun fights... I mean, for a huge portion of the player base it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the ideal situation involves ZERO enemy resistance.  Right?  Just crush em', we rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the game will change massively once we all hit endgame. At the rate at which ppl are progressing, this will be soon. And some ppl just still aren't bored enough of the grid because its not their 3rd or 4th time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest raat

How about, and bear with the simplicity of this idea but, since there are separate PvE and PvP servers....

 

Any attacks on NPC targets while on a PvP server are confiscated by the "Admiralty" of your nation and you've given an utterly paltry reward, including captures (and I'm talking some figure nearing 0).  While, you get to keep all the normal bonus income and XP that we currently get in game from PvP (or maybe even slightly improved).

 

While on a PvE server, there's no penalty obviously.  But of course in this system, Gold and XP would not carry over from PvE to PvP servers and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victory is hollow if your opposition has no real chance of beating you.

Sure I can beat a toddler at basketball but what kind of win is that?

Yes thats why when sports teams are winning they stop trying and divide the score up even and let the bad team have thier player picks.

If a toddler logs into NA and attacks me and expects me to lose then they are wrong. How do you know everyone your facing isn't a toddler amd YOURE picking on them?

People play games to win weather its monopoly or NA and to think otherwise is childish.

You play to win the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard for me to get my head around the idea that durability loss and the expense of replacing one's ship prevents pvp in NA. Are people not willing to just use common quality ships for pvp? I'd say using that ship with mastercrafted permanent mods must be what has people scared... Otherwise, this is nothing compared to EVE where getting your new ship, and all those modules - of certain quality levels - can be super tedious for the non-hardcore player. This is like get a new Merc, or Cerb throw simple cannons on it and go.. also it should take awhile to go through 5 dura.

It must be the fact that OW fights are almost always going to be horribly lopsided, and the victim is just cussing these guys out in his mind because they think their awesome for having numbers.

But, of course this is a tactical strategy game where turning the map your color is the object, not fun fights... I mean, for a huge portion of the player base it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the ideal situation involves ZERO enemy resistance. Right? Just crush em', we rock.

You could remove all RvR aspects and all loss and the situation would be the same, because some people only

play to win

Which conversely means they won't risk losing in a fair fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could remove all RvR aspects and all loss and the situation would be the same, because some people only

Which conversely means they won't risk losing in a fair fight.

Being ashamed to win is what has real countries in trouble. Sorry i wont apologize to a bunch of people who want a 1v1 arena game. If you want to beat someone then do it or shut up its easy.

You play to win and a can GAURENTEE you do too so get off your high horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being ashamed to win is what has real countries in trouble. Sorry i wont apologize to a bunch of people who want a 1v1 arena game. If you want to beat someone then do it or shut up its easy.

You play to win and a can GAURENTEE you do too so get off your high horse.

No.. There a lot of problems with this statement but I'll skip to the main one: many of us here in the thread or on the forums play the game to have a fun competitive game in which challenge and skill are prevelant and matter, getting into a 10 v 1 and only caring about winning is NOT what this game should be about. And you'll probably say that I shouldn't force you to play a certain way and that is correct I have no right to make you play the game in a way that you wish not to, however I can suggest that this game implements mechanics that deter such actions purely for a 'win' such as those Puchu posted earlier. Edited by Ellis
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mechanics which would be backed up by history, by the way, because "playing to win" and avoiding fair fights in the Age of Sail would see you dismissed from the service, or even possibly executed.

This way of "playing to win" (without honor) in game should just be another way to lose in the long run.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mechanics which would be backed up by history, by the way, because "playing to win" and avoiding fair fights in the Age of Sail would see you dismissed from the service, or even possibly executed.

This way of "playing to win" (without honor) in game should just be another way to lose in the long run.

Good point.

I'm not sure this doctrine was motivated by honor as much as forcing British officers to be aggressive. The very reason that officers had no choice but to fight (or capture) their opponent was not to create a "fair" completion , but to increase the opportunities for the British navy to win the war.

Fighting Instructions & Articles of War

One key to the success of the British Navy during the age of sail was reliance on a set of "no-excuse" rules forcing captains to fight. Under the British Navy's Articles of War, captains must engage the enemy if in the same class -- or die. Indeed, by the end of the age of sail it was expected that a British warship would be victorious, even with uneven odds. British commanders were expected to defeat enemy forces much stronger than their own. In single ship actions, it was reckoned that a British ship had a good chance against an enemy of 50 per cent greater gun power and crew.

Article XII of the 1749 Articles of War read as follows: "Every Person in the Fleet, who through Cowardice, Negligence, or Disaffection, shall in Time of Action withdraw or keep, or not come into the Fight or Engagement, or shall not to do his utmost to take or destroy every Ship which it shall be his Duty to engage, and to assist and relieve all and every of his Majesty's Ships, or those of his Allies, which it shall be his Duty to assist and relieve, every such Person so offending, and being convicted thereof the Sentence of a Court-martial, shall suffer Death." Prior to this time, British Naval officers had frequently shown a tendency to refuse to engage the enemy, despite direct orders from superiors to do so. And under the previous Articles, enacted in 1661, courts martial frequently refused to inflict severe punishment on such officers.

Given that ships were propelled by wind, disasters, losses in battle, and other failures of duty could be blamed on the ill fortunes of nature. Article XII ruled out such excuses. The lieutenant's job was to watch the captain and keep a separate log. He was the watchdog of the navy, and every ship had at least one lieutenant. The incentives to lie were kept in check by having more than one lieutenant, and the master also kept an independent log.

In Voltaire's Candide, the protagonist learns that the English use a remarkable disciplinary practice, based on the British execution of Admiral John Byng in 1756 for failing to relieve Minorca (in the western Mediterranean) from a French siege. It goes without saying that the English are the most enlightened people in the world: "...in this country it is found requisite, now and then, to put an admiral to death, in order to encourage the others ["pour encourager les autres"]..." French Admiral Galissoniere reported that on 19 May the English "seemed unwilling to engage" and that on 20 May, "the English had the advantage of the wind, but still seemed unwilling to fight."

The Captain is responsible -- even if a junior officer runs aground it is the Captain's responsibility. In principle the junior officer's training and capability are the Captain's responsibility to conduct and assess. The junior should not have been in the position to make the mistake if the Captain was in doubt. It is still a long honored military principle of command, part of the pride and prestige of command, and historically Admirals were punished (Admiral Byng's execution in 1756) for failure that was not entirely theirs.

Historically I can image that a vastly superior British fleet would have been duty bound to pursue, attack and capture a weaker enemy fleet. Ganking would have been required. The honor would have been expressed in the treatment of captured enemy officers not in avoiding a fight were enemy defeat was assured.

We have had a lot of informative content in this thread . I hope some of the more knowledgeable naval historians contribute to this point.

Did the British just think they were better than everyone else and expect their officers to act accordingly?

Did other nations adopt this mindset?

But as a game do we care about historical accuracy? We may be wanting more of a competive battle generator where the mechanics are focused on forcing gameplay similar to a sporting event.

Or perhaps the measure of winning is at a strategic level and the individual battles can be allowed some freedom of development towards larger economic or geographic objectives. If so we might impose the British Articals of War on the more successful NA nations. Force the bigger more successful nations to fight (in each battle) or be demoted in rank, XP and gold. Weaker nations would be permitted to flee without penalty.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.. There a lot of problems with this statement but I'll skip to the main one: many of us here in the thread or on the forums play the game to have a fun competitive game in which challenge and skill are prevelant and matter, getting into a 10 v 1 and only caring about winning is NOT what this game should be about. And you'll probably say that I shouldn't force you to play a certain way and that is correct I have no right to make you play the game in a way that you wish not to, however I can suggest that this game implements mechanics that deter such actions purely for a 'win' such as those Puchu posted earlier.

I will say this for the last time because its getting old. You and your crowd are looking for a battle arena game where you click you ship avatar and are taken to 1 of 3 random generic maps and have no idea what a sandbox war simulation game is.

Unless you and your white knight internet justice warriors sail around in your white ships with flowing white manes and look ONLY for ships of the same class and then send a PM to the target ask him if he has the same set up as you to ensure everything is fair AND THEN attack with mo wind advantage to keep it fair AND THEN once youre in battle and you realize you have bigger guns than him you agree to bot fire all yours AND THEN if you realize your skill is so superior to his you agree to stop using tactics and just fire broadsides untill someone sinks then YOU dont play fair either so stop being hypothetical.

Learn to enjoy this great game as its intended or go play another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you understand what me and 'my crowd'(The ones who have been here for over a year with thousands of hours in this game?) are trying to do. There is no point to this game if it doesn't have a focus on skill/preparation it just becomes a game of seeing who has more people online at a certain time.

Edited by Ellis
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you understand what me and 'my crowd'(The ones who have been here for over a year with thousands of hours in this game?) are trying to do. There is no point to this game if it doesn't have a focus on skill/preparation it just becomes a game of seeing who has more people online at a certain time.

First. How much time you have in game means crap. Nice attempt at trying to pull rank.

Second. Fair fights in an open world PvP games happen very rarely in all the ones I've played. I'm sorry but it's the truth. And so many games have gone "soft" to protect those that cry for fair fights only those games don't have near the numbers they once did, or are dead.

I don't play OW PvP games expecting a fair fight. I expect to get ganked, gank, waste your time fleeing or chasing you for over an hour, anything I can do withen the rules to destory your ship, or make it costly in time and effort to you.

When I want a fair fight where people are matched up by skill and everything is fair according to the rules, I play a game with a ranked matchmaker that matches me with someone that is at my skill for a fair fight.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread started out with many constructive ideas and derailed into a blaming festival.

 

 

True, how much time you have in game means crap in terms of your skill level. But how much time you have in game means how long you have played it, and it means how much stuff you have already done in game. People with 2000h into the game know how the game feels when you have 2000h into the game. People with 100h into the game will think differenty about the game than people with 2000h. People that have grinded up to max level 3 or more times feel different about the grind than ppl doing it the first time. 

 

For me, who has 2000h into the game pve is boring. Chases are boring, ganking is boring, getting ganked is boring. Ive done all of that sooooooooooo many times. And sry, it's not in my character (thats a personal issue) to take away stuff from people who cant defend themselves anyways. 

 

For me who has 2000h into the game equal (skill and material) pvp is interesting, fighting vs bigger (more skilled or material advantage) enemies is interesting. 

 

If you are "young" into the game, you will feel very different, that's clear and understandable. But also for the ones talking abour RvR, there will come a time when you realise that in the long run not much of what you do will really matter. You take some ports, they take some ports, in the long run it doesnt matter it will be a constant back and forth anyways. So what will keep you playing once you realise you cannot "win" anyways. For me it's the "fun" part. 

 

So we're trying to figure out how we can make the "fun" part more dominating over the "win" part. 

 

Im just gathering suggestions.:

 

Get rid of pve on the pvp servers.

Force ppl to fight pvp through quests

Force ppl to turn and fight equal fights by disabling the click out option for fights where you have 1-1 or 1-2 advantageous situation. 

Make ship speeds more different from each other, so that the faster ships are much faster than slower ships and that chases will be faster.

Make pvp give more exp and gold than missions per time investment (searching, hunting and chasing a player could give as much gold as doing missions during that time)

Disable missions above a certain rank. 

 

Those who argue "it's a sandbox, you should be able to do whatever you want" refuse to see that every sandbox has its mechanics which steer player behavior. It's never truely free. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. I took a break when open world came out to see how it would turn out, it appears they have not designed things with the proper perspective, something i was afraid would happen.

 

You can not use mechanics to force players to play a certain way, players will always do everything they can to play the way they want to, and if you get into a battle with players you will just keep telling them 'no no no' patch after patch until they all run away and do something else entirely. You must instead convince players to play a certain way with rewards.

 

People avoiding uneven fights is not a problem, its realistic and exactly what you should expect people to do under the conditions they have been given. You are not going to have a successful game by simply creating an environment where good pvp is 'theoretically possible' and then trusting that players will do it. Not many players actually want to fight just for the sake of fighting, even if they like the idea of a good fight their natural human instincts will always be evaluating things as risk vs reward, and it is completely unintuitive and against instinct to engage in a fight where you stand to lose something, if you really dont stand to win anything.

 

There needs to be something you stand to lose by never fighting as well. Basically, the rvr aspect of the game has to be so dominant and involved, and actual loss from inaction needs to be such a central part of the game, that people feel the need to fight their enemies even in situations where they do not have a clear victory. Your well being as a player in the game needs to be so bound to your factions well being that you are willing to sacrifice your ship to try and prevent a greater overall loss. The idea of random encounters between players fighting for fun is unrealistic and incompatible with an open world game. If thats what people want then they need to argue for a lobby based combat game. Open world is for territory control and rvr gameplay, its pointless to do it otherwise, players need to be playing for faction losses, and faction victories, the cost to a player losing should be minimal, how well off their faction as a whole is should be what dictates how difficult it is for them to recover, and preserving the power and control of their faction should be the thing everyone thinks of first and foremost before their own assets. Look at something like planetside if you want a good large scale rvr game, you dont have to copy the economic model exactly where its totaly meaningless to die, nor do you need to copy the pacing, but you can make the general flow of assets feel the same by making individual losses be less significant provided you counterbalance them with victories.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about with Elysion... we're missing a component that will provide a reason to fight a reasonable battle.

If a player's combat record shows consistent running from close-to-even matches, label him "Timid " in the OW.

If a players combat record shows consistent battles against weaker enemies label him a "Coward".

If a players combat record shows consistent wins against even-or-better opponents, label him a "Fighting Captain".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...