Incentive to both Reduce Ganking and Promote Fighting Outnumbered

[Poyraz]

This is a suggestion against ganking and to increase low risk/gain ratio in uneven PvP situations to create more incentive to fight instead of running away in different ad-hoc OS fight scenarios.

If a battle rating system to enter instances, like the group strength in PotBS, might be added or not, is irrelevant for this concept. Here the battle ratings are being used to dynamicly adjust the XP and gold gain in various OS PvP fights.

Dynamic PvP Reward System:

After the battle is closed, the battle ratings for both sides are being used to calculate an extra PvP loot factor according to the BR ratio (Battle Rating) both for XP and gold. Lets say you are in a 3v1 battle and battle ratings are 200 for the attacker and 100 for the defender (one ship). The lonely ship might have a slight chance to sink enemy ship(s), but usualy this risk won't be taken by the majority of players. However, according to the extra loot factor introduced here, whatever damage he does, he could get double XP and gold for his efforts due to the fighting in an outnumbered and outgunned situation. On the otherside of the coin, each player of the ganking side would recieve half of the XP and gold compared to if they would sink the same ship in an even fight.

To sum up, in a 200/100 ratio battle, this concept means double XP and gold for the defender and 0,5x less XP and for both attackers.

PvP Loot Factor = BR of your team / BR of opposing team

Final XP/Gold = Current Loot Gain / PvP Loot Factor

Different scenarios can be seen from the table/graph.

This could be enough incentive to demote the ganking, however, if the ganking still occurs, this would also give the ganked side a reason to fight back despite the fact being outnumbered and outgunned.

An example for the realization of similar concept, the Microsoft Gaming Zone used to have similar rating system for many years, for instance in the legendary Age of Empires series matchmaking. The proposed loot balancing/stabilizing concept according to battle ratings would be a nice feature for the good of the game.

Poll removed by mod team for being non-essential to the discussion.

[Flamigant]

I approve of this!

[mouse of war]

Historically in the English Navy any captain who lost his ship by choosing to fight against much larger odds would have to face a court-marshal

[akd]

Historically in the English Navy any captain who lost his ship by choosing to fight against much larger odds would have to face a court-marshal

 

Not really, and especially not if he inflicted loss on the enemy.

[Prater]

The only thing I don't agree with is traders since traders have like 10 BR, otherwise, it is good.

Historically in the English Navy any captain who lost his ship by choosing to fight against much larger odds would have to face a court-marshal

 

In the Articles of War, any captain who does not engage an equal or lesser value target, the penalty is death, or whatever is recommended by the court.

[Nordsvard]

I want to agree, because for a game it's awesome. Although, it is a very good point it's not very historical... I'm really torn. The sad reality is you have to choose between being true to the simulation, or making it a more enjoyable and healthy game.

 

I give it a solid I'm not sure. Vote pending further thought.

[ObiQuiet]

Historically in the English Navy any captain who lost his ship by choosing to fight against much larger odds would have to face a court-marshal

Any captain who lost his ship for any reason faced a court-martial to determine who, if any one, was at fault. What conclusion do you draw?

[Hexxus674]

One way to help balance and realism might be to have this system affected by who started the battle. In a court marshal no captain who fought back against superior odds when he had no chance of escaping would have been punished. However, a frigate captain who engauged a couple of 3rd rates that he could have tailed and brought to the attention of friendly forces would have been punished. So if you are severely outnumbered and cannot escape then yes extra xp. But if you start the battle against a superior force then you would get the normal xp.

[Poyraz]

Historically in the English Navy any captain who lost his ship by choosing to fight against much larger odds would have to face a court-marshal

 

Nelson took this risk at Trafalgar with the odds 33 vs 41 ships (19,5t vs 28,3t broadside weight) fighting outnumbered and outgunned.

 

If he would lose the battle or his ship, he would have faced the court-marshal. But the risk he had taken, has maybe changed the history and gave him the present reputation and fame.

 

Do you think it would be the same if the brits had 41 ships versus 33 ships of franco-spanish fleet?

 

The answer is the very risk/reward gain proposed in this thread.

[eriks]

Martial, not marshal.

[jodgi]

For PVP grinding to look attractive in comparison with mission grinding (divided by time unit) the PVP XP factor has to be... <shoddy math> 5x or more.

But I heartily, and with tears in my eyes, support any and all motions to promote PVP.

I suspect the developers are concerned with all the possible exploits that will happen with proper PVP incentives in place. We need to help them with that. Still thinking...

[Ratline]

For PVP grinding to look attractive in comparison with mission grinding (divided by time unit) the PVP XP factor has to be... <shoddy math> 5x or more.

But I heartily, and with tears in my eyes, support any and all motions to promote PVP.

I suspect the developers are concerned with all the possible exploits that will happen with proper PVP incentives in place. We need to help them with that. Still thinking...

 

Given that we're in EA surely this is the time for them to actually test stuff like this rather than trying to theorycraft it. Any exploits would likely be thrown up pretty quickly and thus can be fixed.

[Stix]

I'm not a fan of this, why do we need to discourage ganking and promoting fair fights? If you want fair fights join small battles. What is needed is real pvp rewards. Reward pvpers with crafting notes or similar.

Make pvp the only place that gold and purple out fittings drop. Something unique that is needed and can only be obtained through pvp and of course is tradeable.

[Francis Tabernac]

Anything that encourages PvP is worth trying right now, I'd think. As Ratline pointed out this game is currently in early development, and there's no better time to try out these systems since that's why we're here to begin with. If it doesn't work great, toss it and try something else.

[Hethwill]

PvP is not really ready for these kind of rewards. As PvP is the energy that will move the wheels of the entire mechanics we should be careful and think ahead and more dettached from the current easy mode mechanics.

[jodgi]

...why do we need to discourage ganking and promoting fair fights?

Fun = (fair fights - ganks)/ total fights

What is needed is real pvp rewards. Reward pvpers with crafting notes or similar.

Make pvp the only place that gold and purple out fittings drop. Something unique that is needed and can only be obtained through pvp and of course is tradeable.

Could work... Or lead to more aggressive ganks and more timid sailing and preemtive running.

PvP is not really ready for these kind of rewards. As PvP is the energy that will move the wheels of the entire mechanics we should be careful and think ahead and more dettached from the current easy mode mechanics.

Not sure I follow fully, especially the "easy mode mechanics" part. Please elaborate.

[Hethwill]

Easy mode mechanics come to play at two levels. The game as a whole and particular pvp

 

- in a PvP server all activities in the future, I hope and from what've read since I first backed the project, are to be player driven with AI presence, but ultimately pvp confrontation would be the norm, so better to think as a whole than thinking little bits at a time. At moment there is little high seas frigate combat as there is little consequence. The only way around, maybe because of fear to lose duras, for many is to jump with more guns, more ships, any single combatant. Not bad in itself though, just easy game.

 

- easy mode mechanics. There is no multiplier regarding BR difference. If I interdict with a Privateer or a Trinc the damage bonus multiplier is the same. There is no consideration for BR difference, in a 1v1 or in a group BR vs BR values, and as such the "bigger the better syndrome" gains pace in a pvp environment.

 

Sorry if it sounds offset again.

[Selak]

I think something like this is a good idea, I think the values may need to be tweaked some.  I don't know the best way to tweak it but I do think it should cap out somewhere so that we dont get people on purpose looking to be ganked so they level up faster.

 

Also The game tracks which side is the attackers and which side is the defenders in a battle so maybe only make this happen when the Attacker side is larger than the defenders side. To avoid potential exploits to act as a deterrent for those people that would try and game the system but getting the exp boost when making an attack against a larger or more powerful target.  They should still gain normal exp because lore wise the admiralty would not reward captains for fighting outnumbered in a hopeless situation that was started by that captain attacking. 

[Neptune]

This is a great idea, Would be nice to limit the cowards who gank and won't fight a somewhat close fight, they run from anything that they might have a chance at losing. Theirs a major lack of good pvp.

[Puchu]

Such a great idea, let's not get it lost in the forum void!

 

The basis of this idea is great, though it has its problems when you think it through.

 

1. it will only affect pvp during the grinding phase, it wont have any effect on the endgame.

2. When do you count the br difference? At the start? At the end? Who did damage? 

3. Friendly gankfarming, that would be a huge exploit sure to come. 

 

But basically i love the choice it gives you. You can either gank and crush your enemy for a tiny bit of exp, or you choose a more risky approach and might end up with greater rewards. 

 

On the side of the lower br side, you will allways choose to fight, because you will definitely gain more from fighting than from running.

 

The numbers of the system, like jodgi said, would also need much tweeking. In a gank 4vs1, you would do only a very very tiny bit of damage before you are totally shreddered to pieces. So yes, you would need a HUGE boost to make it good. (But again, friendly ganking abuse would be a huge issue) You also cannot make the exp totally dependant on sinking an enemy, because in a 1vs4 situation you will never ever ever be able to sink one of your enemies, if they are not flipped in their cutter. 

 

 

Imo this is a great idea, but it would still need a lot of tweaking, adjusting and anti-expoit-measurements.

[Quineloe]

Being rewarded for damage on an opponent needs to make a glorious return.

[[MCC] Die Antwoord]

I like the idea. One issue though is that it would make exploiting xp a lot more viable. Powerlevel guys by using a Cutter vs big ships that sit idle.. Mad xp/gold.. Its already a problem as it is this would just exacerbate this.

[Puchu]

The devs tried to minimize the pvp-farming-exploit by introducing kill-exp. But in a 4vs1 it is almost impossible to kill any enemy, so if you would only increase the kill exp, it would not make any difference on ganks.

[Quineloe]

The devs tried to minimize the pvp-farming-exploit by introducing kill-exp. But in a 4vs1 it is almost impossible to kill any enemy, so if you would only increase the kill exp, it would not make any difference on ganks.

Maybe they should just stop trying to break the game to minimize exploits and instead just ban exploiters.

 

Every time I see how pitiful the reward for damage dealt is, I cringe. Of course PVP is massively unpopular if it's an exact copy of POBS.

[surfimp]

Maybe they should just stop trying to break the game to minimize exploits and instead just ban exploiters.

 

I get your sentiment, but the truth is that the devs don't want to spend their time and energy that way. They'd rather design mechanics that forestall those kinds of occurrences (needing to ban people) as much as possible.

 

There's already a BR ratio limiter in place that prevents me from attacking a 3rd rate in my Cutter. Some sort of way of awarding extra gold and XP to the person getting ganked, based on the BR ratio of the "victim" vs the "gankers" might not be a bad idea.

 

The theory being that even if you lose a durability on your ship during the gank, you have a fun fight and are richly rewarded for all the damage that you do manage to inflict as the "victim". The "aggressors" will still get something for their efforts in addition to the destruction of the ship they fight.

Edited March 8, 2016 by surfimp