Incentive to both Reduce Ganking and Promote Fighting Outnumbered

[Puchu]

This is a personal point now, and im very sure others feel very different, but: 

 

I dont care about ANY exp-exploits in the game at all! If people will be max level after 1h of shooting allied nation gankers, i dont give a damn. 

So, if you make a mechanic that increases the likelyhood of good pvp, then i am willing to accept exploits as a trade off. 

But: This mechanic will only affect the grinding phase of the gameplay.

 

The more important question is: 

 

What will happen at the endgame?

 

I personally think, people will start even pvp, out of boredom. And for when that time comes, i whish we had the option to mutually aggree on closing an instance. That would be a great feature. Or challenging someone to a duel, either through chat, or on the os or in port.

[Cragger]

Mentioned it before, got 0 response or traction on it.

[Wilson09]

Good approach.

 

Basically, what happens if you are outnumbered? Players "learn" quickly and surrender not allowing

the enemy to celebrate and endure the humiliation (also over chat). I did it and it happened to me often.

So, why should you engage in a battle on a Niagara if u face 1-2 Frigates?

 

No point at all. Try to escape, if u fail, surrender. No Gold/exp for the enemy.

 

As it is super-hard to find balanced PvP in an open world (how likely is that), you need to set the incentives right to engage

long-lasting, thrilling battles.

 

To prevent "grinding", exploiting the mechanics proposed, I´d go that far to invent even PENALTIES on the bigger ships.

 

IF a TEAM of 3 FRIGATES looses badly (damage inflicted, damage taken) ratio to a BASIC CUTTER,

they had to be penalized by dropping XP !

 

Penalties need to be introduced. Loosing only ships or durability will not help...

 

I vote for XP penalties, if u FAIL in battles where the BR tells the story...

 

I am writing just this, as I spent all day at ATWOOD (as the admin proposed) looking for PvP.

 

Many Pirates (I play Pirate) camping, we engaged 1 Niagara, he was outnumbered (8 vs. 1) surrendered,

0 Gold, 0 exp, time sink, boring.

 

I went on a Traders Snow to get some money through trade, did the laundry, came back, was tagged into battle

by 2 Renommees. I am empty, they chased me, we had a good conversation. I let them have the fun, did not surrender.

 

They told me, they changed from TRINC to Renommee as they are bored and there are too many Pirates, so they take

the "escape ship". Also, they were looking for a "fair" fight, they dont get any.

 

The PvP-mechanics need to be set right (with penalties / rewards).

 

It is just not enough proposing "enter the war, war is everywhere"....

Edited March 24, 2016 by Wilson09

[Cragger]

XP and gold and not acceptable incentives. They can be gained elsewhere doing other things and at a far faster rate.

 

People do not PvP for the gold and xp.

[jodgi]

True PVPers don't, but the masses of loss "aversives" (new word) need every nudge possible.

[Neptune]

I kind of wish I had of spent more time on Sea Trials had I known PvP would turn into this stupid Ganking and Running. Theirs nothing fun about it.

 

-PvPers don't PvP for gold they PvP for the fun of it.

-People who want ganks aren't PvPers because they want to know they will win before the battle even starts. They PvP for gold and XP not for fun.

 

Long live the glory days of Sea Trials & the BR system, when PvP was fun and challenging. The EVE players weren't on the forum wanting this game to be like EVE with big ganks, no skill, no challenge, no fun brainless PvP battles.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Acadian

[Wilson09]

I PvP 80% in "small battles" as I am limited on time.

 

Also, in those games, I know that I have (most of the time) a balanced duelling.

I don´t mind the 0.5 XP or gold or any loss. If I can afford I enter.

 

Unfortunatley I cannot afford to have outposts everywhere in the open world and put a range

of usable ships in there (Trinc, 3rd rate, Renommee and so on) to meet the demands if I get informed

that there are US/Brits around....

 

Basically, the PvP is only going to happen for me at Port Battles...and here it can happen too,

that enemey fleets get intercepted...and you spent 2 hours sailing for nothing...

[Vaan De Vries]

Why someone has to be rewarded with extra XP or GOLD by being dumb enough to be caught 4 vs 1 or to actually engaging 1 vs 4?

 

Also why at all GOLD AND XP should be given for the SAME things?

Current system where GOLD (not XP) goes for assisting or sinking enemy ship is historically accurate. Why should anybody be rewarded just for scratching some paint from 10 enemies ships. Part of captain's skill is to evade unfair fights.

 

Now about XP. I personally don't like system where you get XP in "managing and commanding your team" by sinking anyone or by performing missions.

You should get this xp by actually fighting (i.e. shooting, taking damage, rapairing, boarding, etc) and... wait for it.. sailing! Let some of the XP just add up when you are sailing in OW. Huge part of current PB wars is sailing around either in screening fleet or in main fleet. Let this give you som XP.

 

Such system also can be exploited (by afk sailing for example), but this can be easily fixed by the law of diminishing results, like:

1. on flagcaptain rank you won't get any new xp from sailing anything less then Frigate

2. when for the last 24 hours you sailed in OW for 2 hours - you will get no more xp today from OW sailing.

 

This system will be more historically accurate (like you learn how to manage your team by... managing them and you earn gold by sinking or capping enemy ships). And also AI missions will now net only raw gold but not so much xp compared with PVP. So more people will be willing to get into PVP and PB stuff cause now time to XP ratio will be better.

 

 

This will be more like EVE system, when you do missions and trading/mining for money and learn skills by studying them.  Now you will learn how to manage 3rd team by managing Constitution team (both in battle and OW sailing) and etc.

 

 

This all can go even further. Like you crew will be better in tasks you do more often - If you are fighing a lot - it will be better at shooting. If you are running a lot - it will be better at sailing.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Vaan De Vries

[CptEdwardKenway]

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.

He did it before Trafalgar too. At Abukir he engaged with 15 ships 17 enemies. He destroyed 4 and captured 9.

At the second Algeciras battle the brits engaged with damaged ships against a franco-spain fleet double the size of their own.

Cpt. Keats engaged alone with the HMS Superb, an sol 3rd rate, 2 spanisch sol 1st rate and desroyed them while he also engaged another franco sol 3rd rate what makes em 3 vs 1 and forced the enemy to capitulate after a 30 minute battle.

At this point I suggest the HMS Suberp as another 3rd rate beside the Bellona in this game. The 3rd rate "Bellona74" can be removed since it was just a placeholder for the Bellona.

Edited March 28, 2016 by CptEdwardKenway

[Cragger]

He did it before Trafalgar too. At Abukir he engaged with 15 ships 17 enemies. He destroyed 4 and captured 9.

At the second Algeciras battle the brits engaged with damaged ships against a franco-spain fleet double the size of their own.

Cpt. Keats engaged alone with the HMS Superb, an sol 3rd rate, 2 spanisch sol 1st rate and desroyed them while he also engaged another franco sol 3rd rate what makes em 3 vs 1 and forced the enemy to capitulate after a 30 minute battle.

At this point I suggest the HMS Suberp as another 3rd rate beside the Bellona in this game. The 3rd rate "Bellona74" can be removed since it was just a placeholder for the Bellona.

 

I've bolded the main part that separates historic events from the reality of the game. Crews do not surrender once their morale is shattered (Even if the officer is command is against doing so).

[Oliver Tressillian]

Ahoy Ye Sailors

 

Player versus Player battles in any game environment is part of the allure of the game itself.

 

"Ganking" is a very loose term, i.e. so what is ganking, well for me its where more than one individual, i.e. group of sailors ranging form two or more depending on what is allowed purposely seek out or by chance attack either a single opponent or group consisting of fewer ships than what they have, i.e. yer were ganked or yer ganking someone else

 

It is not always the attacking of an single opponent or targeting of any single sailor per say, although it is what happens in most scenarios.

 

Its the term more commonly used to indicate that you were the target of an overpowering force where you had very little to no chance of being the victor and by the natural outcome of such battle left you with a feeling of despair, fury and hatred towards the dammed pirates or nationals, whoever they may be for the loss you just had experienced.

 

It is what happens when you find yerself in such a situation that matters, for there are a few factors that has an influence on the pending battle that will ensue, i.e. were you properly tagged considering the prevailing wind conditions or weather at that moment and or distance from the target being tagged, as it will or should most certainly have a bearing on the placement of the ships for battle.

 

Now this is or where "Naval Action" should come into play, for if you were incorrectly tagged considering all the factors that may influence the starting positions of said battle, it may be that you as single sailor or lesser group have an opportunity to either escape the battle or to engage the enemy and win the battle.

 

Now should you as single player be so lucky so escape the battle should you be rewarded for it?, if so how and with what, something simple should suffice if the answer is yes or is the satisfaction that you got away not enough reward, for if you turned and fought you would under the current battle reward system gained exp and gold after the battle has finished which should be enough.

 

The question being asked regarding ganking may be the wrong one or the solution to the problem of ganking that is being sought to either prevent or to discourage it may be being approached incorrectly.

 

The problem that exists is the targeting by a single player of another single player that has a lower rank than him or herself with the sole intent of being guaranteed to be the victor in the battle that is about to happen.

 

So how do you stop "Bad Ganking" and in the same time encourage PvP, as something we are all seeking.

 

There is but a few ways in my mind to accomplish this, i.e.

 

1. Prevent any single player from attacking any other single player that is a level lower than him / herself, which will "sort of force" him /her to engage other players of the same level and encourage normal PvP, for its very rare to be engaged by someone of yer own level, as its normally being done by someone that is preying on lower levels or new players and bragging about how many kills he or she has.

 

2. Only allowing a player to attack another single player that is either one lvl below yer current level, which will stop the targeting of lower level players all together and provide an opportunity for new players to settle in and contribute to PvP, as you as new player on lvl or rank "1" may now attack another new player of the same rank, which will have PvP start much earlier than normal and allow people to hone their skills.

 

3. Only allowing players to attack another player which is one level or rank below / the same level or rank  / one level or rank above the attacking player, this will too prevent the lower level or ranked

or new players of becoming the target of certain individuals who shy away from a fair engagement.

 

Now I just can imagine the response that's going to being coming and the questions it will bring forth.

 

But before ye all jump overboard, remember that if you are of an lower level and you are in a group, your groups Battle Rating should be the deciding factor if you can be attacked or not.

 

""Bad" Ganking occurs when lower level or new players are the target of certain individuals who prey on them, as they are to scared to engage somebody of their own level in a fair engagement.

 

"Good" Ganking occurs when an opposing force has prepared itself and placed itself tactically so, to happen on a unsuspected mariner transporting his / her valuable cargo all alone without any escort and capturing the prize reveling in the booty obtained and sharing the spoils afterwards.

 

The question should be how do we STOP BAD GANKING and encourage Player versus Player battles in the manner it should take place.

 

Yours truly

 

Sir Oliver Tressillian

 

May yer anchor be tight, yer cork be loose, yer rum be spiced, yer compass be true and may yer guns be loaded for the problem is not the problem, the problem is yer attitude about the problem.

[Marcomies]

I like the basic idea of the suggestion and would like to see some bonuses for fighting superior enemy.

 

However there are couple issues: I don't think the attacker should be penalized for having a numbers advance, the combined amount of xp/money they are going to get from the fight is already going to be modest if the fighting is done by most of the people in battle. Also the scale of xp/money/loot increase would have to be at a level where it does not encourage seeking bad fights or losing. I don't want to see players getting into pvp battles at enemy capital in basic cutters or telling their own team not to help in pvp encounters because they want the multipliers.

 

The main goal of a scaled reward system like this would have to be making losing desperate battles less pointless and giving a better reward for making a last stand. It should no be making losing better or as good as winning or penalizing players for playing well aka not getting into fights they can't win. Ganking should not be considered a bad thing, it is basic strategy and getting into situations where you can't match the enemy numbers should be avoided. I hate using quotes as a point but here is some Sun Tzu:

 

8. It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two. 

 

9. If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him. 

 

10. Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.