Battle reinforcement timer

[Galileus]

Sigh. With that other part of your suggestions you just forbid people from taking piss breaks.

When I spend hours in enemy territory without docking, I use battle-over screens for piss breaks.

 

All in all instead of improving the systems you focus on replacing them with your own vision. Ain't no-one got time for that, sorry.

[Quineloe]

Fixes must meet the majority of cases while also taking care of some specific situations.

The battle hopping was fixed, same as with the invisibility ambush.

As I have already explained in the previous post, it has not.

[KrakkenSmacken]

Did you read the entire suggestion? The invulnerability timer would be lengthened significantly and a speed boost would be added to it. The length of invulnerability would depend strongly on how the battle was started and a running defender would have significant advantage.

 

Edit. Also the complete suggestions includes reducing inertia and having faster turning in the world map mode because those don't currently make much sense on the scale of the world.

 

I did.  I focused in on the point (reduced invisibility timer) that I really did not like, and still do not like, even after taking all your other points into consideration.

 

EDIT:

 

Reduced inertia would effect both, making it a neutral change and not compensate for the quicker target location.

Invulnerability having different travel rules in the OW is a poor mechanic choice. The attacker still has the advantage of choosing the wind and direction that someone on the battle screen has not a clue about until they leave.

Edited April 7, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Marcomies]

Sigh. With that other part of your suggestions you just forbid people from taking piss breaks.

When I spend hours in enemy territory without docking, I use battle-over screens for piss breaks.

 

All in all instead of improving the systems you focus on replacing them with your own vision. Ain't no-one got time for that, sorry.

 

Post battle screens are exploited and used for war of attrition and unrealistic escapes from enemy territory more than they are used for piss breaks.

 

The current system has several issues that i have listed in my original thread and I am indeed suggesting a rather wide and all encompassing overhaul to the current system (and it is indeed my vision, whose vision should I be suggesting?). No amount of value tweaking or slight changes is going to fix the various problems with battle timers and the transitions between the world map and combat mode in general. My suggestion does not even really include some massive new systems or mechanic to the game, it simply includes a large overhaul to a lot of the current system and I have explained the goals and expected effects of it in quite a bit of detail in the original thread.

[Hethwill]

As I have already explained in the previous post, it has not.

 

The enemies will be visible even before they end their invulnerability.

 

If friendlies are around they know where they went and if they entered any battle.

 

It is fixed.

 

A team can still time the attacks sure. Same as the opponents flotilla can also setup a tag spread.

[Porpoise]

There is much bigger issue than timers - post battle screen camping. 

[Quineloe]

The enemies will be visible even before they end their invulnerability.

Yes, to those outside the battle. Those already in it because they got tagged won't see it.

 

Remove all forms of invisbility imo.

 

Port / battle camping to hide your numbers is still very much possible, no matter how often people claim it is "fixed"

 

There is much bigger issue than timers - post battle screen camping. 

 

I don't see how that's such a big deal, you're not entitled to a kill because you sailed to a battle that started half an hour ago.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Quineloe

[Slamz]

Post battle screens are exploited and used for war of attrition and unrealistic escapes from enemy territory more than they are used for piss breaks.

 

Which I think is actually somewhat fair and reasonable.

 

Real life:

2 ships fight

No friendlies from either side even hear about the battle much less have any time to get there

Whoever escapes very likely gets away, unless there were other incidental operations in the area that happened to run into them again

 

Totally unrealistic:

2 ships fight

Friendlies for one side hear about it and surround the area

Escaping enemy finds themselves cornered

 

Reasonable in-game compromise:

2 ships fight

Friendlies hear about it and surround the area

Escaping enemy can sit on the exit screen for an hour if they want

 

 

I actually wonder if land-in-battles will let us pop out of battle at a different place than we entered it. It probably should.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Slamz

[Marcomies]

Which I think is actually somewhat fair and reasonable.

 

Real life:

2 ships fight

No friendlies from either side even hear about the battle much less have any time to get there

Whoever escapes very likely gets away, unless there were other incidental operations in the area that happened to run into them again

 

Totally unrealistic:

2 ships fight

Friendlies for one side hear about it and surround the area

Escaping enemy finds themselves cornered

 

Reasonable in-game compromise:

2 ships fight

Friendlies hear about it and surround the area

Escaping enemy can sit on the exit screen for an hour if they want

 

 

I actually wonder if land-in-battles will let us pop out of battle at a different place than we entered it. It probably should.

 

Good points but I think that a solution that makes escaping from the "blockade" easier would result in much more enjoyable and realistic game experience for all sides.

 

Currently it's not really even worth the hassle to chase pirates/enemies who are sailing right outside your nation's capital because they will just keep tagging you defensively, leave the battle even if you are catching up and then enjoy the benefits of post battle screen and invisibility. The ganking army waiting outside is pretty much the only way a ship can be forced into a battle which it can't just start and leave with the current tag and escape mechanisms.

 

If invulnerability was extended to long enough time (especially for the defending side) and a small speed boost was added to it, blockading a site of battle would become much less practical and the escaping player would rarely be intercepted without a proper chase.

 

To put it in your format:

 

Real life:

Faster ship chases a slower ship and forces it to fight

Slower ship has to either cripple, seriously outmanouver or sink the enemy to get away

Even if the slower runner got away, the chaser would still not lose the sight of it.

 

Game currently:

Faster ship chases a slower ship

Slower ship forces the faster ship into battle map then disappears into thin air after 2 minutes

Faster ship no longer knows where the slower ship is (which should not have even been able to get away)

-> The only way to force the enemy into decisive fight is to have enough ships chasing it to prevent the defensive tag (aka gank)

A group of players waits in a circle around the battle site until the enemy comes out (and wonders if the enemy has logged out)

As a result either:

1. Cycle is repeated until the slower escaping ship reaches a port that it can get into or (as is more usual) the chasing side gets bored and gives up

2. Cycle is repeated until the running player makes a bad enough mistake to be caught in a battle that it can't leave or if the waiting game is played so many times that the other side manages to get sufficient number of fast ships into the area and "ganks" the runner to counter his defensive tag.

 

The solution I would suggest:

Faster ship chases a slower sip and forces it into battle

Slower ship has to take down the faster ships sails, outmaneuver or sink it to get out of the fight

At the end of battle all surviving players are forced out to the world map

If the ship gets out of the fight it has long enough invulnerability and speed boost which lets it get outside or evade any practical blockade waiting outside.

 

But yeah, the remaining problem is that information moves too fast and the different time scale of the world map could result into a situation where a ship that is anything short of the fastest of its class could never get away in the end if it got into a fight withing reasonable range from the another side's reinforcements. Although I do think that getting into a situation like that is not the smartest decision to start up with and currently escaping from it is way too easy.

 

It could be a great solution if the people leaving the battle would be moved by a significant distance (like 2-3 ship render distances) into random direction on the world map so that the runners and chasers were still relatively close to each other but too far away from the original site of battle to allow effectively encircling the whole area. I have no problem with making the unrealistic open sea encirclement of the battle site harder but currently it is the only way to catch almost any well handled ship that doesn't want to be caught, pretty much regardless of how fast it is in comparison to its adversaries.

[Dumu]

I like the idea of moving the spawn point in OW after a battle, wouldnt even have to be random, could be based on which direction you moved inside the battle. Just dont move the ships in to shallows. And could it be possible to make the spawn point for joining combat in correlation to time it lasted to join and to a general direction you last sailed, so you cannot sail past the swords to get ahead of the enemy. Might take some resources to actually record the direction you are sailing for last 30 seconds, dont really know how it works.  

 

I think majority of the problems for open water pvp is that the outcome is pretty much known when you know the participants, its really rare to see battles with even BR. Making the reinforcements spawn alot further would actually make things more interesting imo (tag a constitution with a renommee and you would have to stay afloat until the help arrives).

[fox2run]

Maybe you developers should make a new system where pvp players dont flee all the time but fight instead. Open world battles are too boring. I have stated it before and I say it again: pls make it fun and rewarding to get into larger battles in open world for cutter captains and 1st rate admirals all together. It must be possible. Clans should be about coordinating raids, battles etc. Not sit in ports luring eachother out. And gameplay before the rank of Flag Captain? Its just harvesting AI-fleets or bow chase smaller fish than yourself. This game is more boring now than ever before. It can be fixed but that require you to make the larger battles in OW more frequent and the possible loss of a ship less catastrophic. 

 

Get rid of that pve playstyle (except on pve-server). And enhance the immidiate rewards on pvp gameplay. (Not like now where you need to be a member of a clan and play for months before accepted into a port battle). Needless to say that the player base will shrink pretty fast. This is a game for the few dedicated with too much time to spare. No one in ordinary life would have the time required to get the most out of this game. Sorry to say, dudes. 

 

Pvp is dead. Its only about bow chasing or getting 3rd rates waiting in ports. This MUST be fixed at all costs!

 

1) get rid of battletimers (OW 2 min timers that is) or at least make them longer. Large battles in open sea almost never happens now.

2) get rid of port battles or change them dramatically

3) enhance the possibility to meet larger engagements in Open World.

4) drop the whole idea of harvesting AI-fleets (lead to complains about "ganking"/actual pvp engagements - complaining about such a thing is NUTS! in a pvp game. Imagine that players in a fps complains about being shot at!)

5) farvour the bold and brave captains that participate in pvp-battles - even in a lost battle (like Company of heroes2). Maybe pvp should be the only way to advance in ranks? ;-)

6) think about the OW as a place where those nice ships are actually sailing and do combat instead of habour-sitting on a clan basis dependant on timers 24/7.

7) Just remember: Nelson would have been bored in this game! A port manager maybe not so much....

 

Edited by fox2run, Today, 04:08 PM.

[Taranis]

I think that the battle timer needs to be relaxed. 

 

Example: last night, I joined a group of fellow players.  We encountered an enemy fleet.  One team mate tagged an opponent and the rest of us sailed towards the battle.  Being leeward, i missed the battle time window by a couple of seconds.  A few enemy players also missed the window.  The result: two less balanced battles.  The first where my fellow players sank a group of heavy and medium ships, the second where i (in an under-crewed Trincomalee) was confronted to a Constitution, Frigate and Trincomalee.   A more balanced and enjoyable result may have been achieved without a timer limitation.

[akd]

You mean the wind actually mattered in a sailing game?

[Taranis]

Yes, imagine that.  That said, the waves still need work.

[Thonar]

Heyho people!

We have currently 2 factions in this game: The people who are in favor of the 1.5 BR rule and the ones against it.

And both sides have good and valuable points... but they miss the main problem with ganking:

Battles are getting closed far too early leaving players alone without help despite it being near.

When someone is attacked by several enemies outnumbering him, it's his own fault... but he should always have a chance to get reinforcements and making play for time a valuable tactic.

With the new mechanic of reinforcements spawning far away of the actual battle the 2 minute battle timer needs to go as the attacker has time to disengage.

Reset the timer to at least 30 Minutes, even better: Throw it out completely and increase the distance of reinforcement-spawns even further.

This would make ganking harder without taking away the freedom of the players, it makes battles even more interesting even with a chance in escalating them to a full fleet battle.

Sincerely

Thonar

[fox2run]

+1 Would give pvp a hole new challenge... the role of frontlines, freetowns etc will change dramatically.... and epic battles will occur..

 

But I guess you will have some PvE guys complaining about being disturbed when battles escalate

Edited April 25, 2016 by fox2run

[Galileus]

There have been DOZENS of topics about timers!

 

Please don't spam more!

[Niels Terkildsen]

Some issues that spring to mind initially.

 

- The nation with most players will always have the upper hand.

- Goodbye realism.

- Goodbye tactical tagging.

- Goodbye sailing through enemy waters in anything less than a 25-player group.

 

And there are probably plenty more.

 

I'm of the entirely opposite conviction: we need to close the engagements (almost) instantly - but increase the tagging range (and/or add a second "reinforcement"-circle) as has been proposed by Slamz, myself, and others.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Niels Terkildsen

[Thonar]

1. Wrong. The nation with the most players doesn't have most players on a single point.

2. Wrong. "Realism" means there can be reinforcements... especially directly in front of a friendly harbor. No more ganking deep in enemy water without a fear in being engaged by a bigger enemy fleet in their own homewaters because defenders can't join anymore.

3. Wrong: Tactical tagging becomes even more important as you want a quick victory over your targets so you are able to disengage in time when needed. (Thats why spawns for reiforcements should be even further away in battle)

4. Goodbye engaging people in front of their harbors without fearing any kind of retaliation. Goodbye killing a Royal Navy Ship in Scapa Flow while the rest of the fleet is at anchor... but can't join the battle. (See realism)

What you guys propose means no more reinforcements for outmatched people who got ganked. It means a strengthening to ganking in positions where it should be dangerous for the attackers.

What you guys propose is the death to any coordinated defense in homewaters as the attacker gets all the advantages:

Time, initiative, tagging-location.

In my poposal at least time favors the defender partially (since attackers can get reinforcements too), while tagging and initiative are still in favor for the attacker.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Thonar

[Kokerpiraat]

I still don't see why people find ganking such a big deal. I have never been ganked in the over 500 hours I have played.

[Galileus]

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12940-battle-timers-killing-pvp/?hl=battle+timer

[Thonar]

I still don't see why people find ganking such a big deal. I have never been ganked in the over 500 hours I have played.

Join the Swedes. ????

There has to be a ganking protection especially for the smaller nations or they just lose their playerbase to constant ganking.

[Niels Terkildsen]

1. Wrong. The nation with the most players doesn't have most players on a single point.

2. Wrong. "Realism" means there can be reinforcements... especially directly in front of a friendly harbor. No more ganking deep in enemy water without a fear in being engaged by a bigger enemy fleet in their own homewaters because defenders can't join anymore.

3. Wrong: Tactical tagging becomes even more important as you want a quick victory over your targets so you are able to disengage in time when needed. (Thats why spawns for reiforcements should be even further away in battle)

4. Goodbye engaging people in front of their harbors without fearing any kind of retaliation.

What you guys propose means no more reinforcements for outmatched people who got ganked. It means a strengthening to ganking in positions where it should be dangerous for the attackers.

What you guys propose is the death to any coordinated defense in homewaters as the attacker gets all the advantages:

Time, initiative, tagging-location.

In my poposal at least time favors the defender partially (since attackers can get reinforcements too), while tagging and initiative are still in favor for the attacker.

 

1. Lets' rephrase: the nation with the most players in any given area/region will always have the upper hand.

2. Realism for you means that people can warp into a battle-instance from another dimension at any given time? Please consider the discrepancies between the OW and the battle-instances.

3. What I meant with "tactical tagging" (might be a bad choice of words) was that you never know what you'll get since people can join all through the battle time.

4. Or never even go close to enemy harbours since there will always be a swarm of random people coming out to join the battle even if it's only within sight of the harbour in the OW (and they wouldn't realistically have chance to reach the battle before after the engagement, time discrepancies considered).

 

What our suggestion means is that you get what you see, and that goes for both the attacker and the victim (or preferably the 'defender'). Abuse is almost impossible.

 

The only way your suggestion can work is if reinforcement spawns are stupendously far away after the first few minutes - and then we could just as well do away with the OW entirely and just sail in the battle-instance system; yay!

[fox2run]

I like your tagging idea Niels - but im also favorite to larger battles in OW - and they almost only occur if plp can join a battle over a longer duration... and to sail and come to aid is realistic in my view. If the join - time is longer then there will be no ganking-complains whatsoever as homewaters will be safe-havens.

[Barberouge]

Merged the new topic with the old one, edited the title.

 

Thanks.