Short announcement on the 1.5x BR reinforcement limit

[mouse of war]

With the greatest respect to the devs I must say that the 1.5 rule was a big mistake

[pietjenoob]

i do agree with mouse of war it is more helping the gankers instead the people who get ganked

[Slamz]

the invulnerability timer must be increased to 120 seconds so to prevent Result screen camping, which apparently was the biggest motif behind the changes.

 

Well....

 

I think we should have two main goals:

 

1) People who are not visible at the time of the tag should not be able to get in.

2) People who are visible at the time of the tag within a reasonable distance (3x tag radius??) should be able to get in (and get placed at appropriate range)

 

I don't think extending invulnerability timers to 2 minutes necessarily does what we want.

 

Thinking about it further, maybe the battle timer should be 10 seconds (with a join radius of 3x tag radius).

 

Given: Invis timer is 30 seconds. Invuln timer is 60 seconds.

 

MM:SS

00:00 you pop out of port.

00:29 someone does a tag

00:30 you become visible

00:49 tag lands

00:59 battle closes

00:60 your invuln wears off.

 

20 second tag + 10 second battle open window = 30 seconds of invuln where you can't join.

 

Meaning that if you look around you when a tag starts, that's who can get in. Anyone popping out of invis 1 second after the tag can't join (tag would have to be reset to let them in).

Edited April 20, 2016 by Slamz

[Niels Terkildsen]

I agree with Slamz here: I think the best approach, and the most fool-proof one (or abuse-proof if you like) would be to have the second  "reinforcement"-circle as I proposed earlier and then keep that circle up for ten seconds - meaning that if you were just outside of the initial radius (like green 3 is in the example) you have a few seconds to turn around and join the battle as reinforcement (at the very edge/horizon).

[oneclam]

Devs - I have seen a number of times now where the initial tag did not bring everyone into a 'ganking' as some were fractionally outside the circle. These are not instances where any deviousness was at play, for example 7 ships sailing in close formation, 4 get in but the other 3 are just seconds out of range.

 

I wonder if a second timer (rather than a wider circle) would resolve this. If there were no BR restrictions for 5-10 seconds after battle starts, then the 1.5x BR rule starts from then until the 2 minute mark then sailing in formation toward an enemy would still be an effective, yet not devious, way to allow for the 'best' PvP battles to take place.

 

After all, if 7 ships are patrolling an area and come across an enemy ship, you would expect the battle to be 7v1, rather than 4v1. It is when the game mechanic is used other than how it is intended that this is an issue for gameplay.

 

For example

Tag - No BR restriction

Tag + 10 seconds - No BR restriction

Tag + 11 seconds - 1.5x BR restriction

Tag + 121 seconds - battle entry closed

 

PS - it appears others have made similar posts.

[Qusso]

Have any changes to 1.5x were made ?

Edited April 21, 2016 by Qusso

[JCDC]

Look, the reason and intention behind this rule is good but combined with positional re-enforcements its far too complicated and has so many unintended consequences.

 

The fact is, the more complicated these sort of mechanisms are, the less fun and more frustrating it is to use, the more 'legit' players will get caught out by them and the more loopholes and exploits the gankers will find to abuse them.

 

This mechanism can be used to surround ships that were ahead in open water, which makes no sense. it can be used to gank ships of the line with large numbers of small ships and leave friendlies outside helpless to intervene thus preventing anti-ganking, it can be used to split up large fleets moving in open water, meaning fleets sailing together in close company suddenly find half of them locked out of a battle artificially etc.

 

The answers to ganking lie in good gameplay, not these artificially constructed rules. the negatives caused by this are worse than the positives, you will never design gamplay so ganking is impossible, its just part of the game and people need to get used to it.

 

 

 

If you really want to stamp down on ganking then you could make the rules differnet for attackers and defenders so that attackers have limited re-enforcements and defenders have as many as they want. however this will just give loopholes to the use of alt accounts and tricking people into attacking etc. however you try and fix it, the toxic players will find a way around the rules and use them against the 'normal' players. and it will also mess with fleet on fleet normal engagements.

 

You just need to accept its part of the game and move on. none of the changes you have made have really helped, they all just make it worse in my opinion.

 

 

I think you should have a slightly longer timer and higher BR level for defenders than attackers, this would give a mild boost to the attacked party and cancel out the silly advantages but not cause too many side problems. its a compromise but it might work.

Edited April 21, 2016 by JCDC

[Carljcharles]

Here is my suggestion for a serious re-work - after much reading of the complaints on the current system. Clearly a few of us are looking more at the 'almost' instant battle mechanic and that includes me...

 

This is about battle start/initiation...

 

Attack button enabled circle is something similar to what it is now. I don't know if this need tweaking.

A new Catchment/allow join circle is MUCH MUCH larger. No Sailing OW timers.

All players get a prompt to join or not (Ignore) 
5 second timer before battle instance starts, but ships start position based on when attack was initiated
5 Seconds for all other players to select join battle or it defaults to Ignore.
The PVP battle Initial attacker and tagged defender never starts closer than just outside long cannon range.
OW Sailing position of all other ships is set as soon as 'ATTACK' is Selected not at end of count down to battle start. You should not gain an advantage by OW sailing to a different position within the 5 seconds.
All Ships are listed that are able to join battle instance and their status (joining/Ignore) shown until the battle starts in the Join/Ignore dialogue.

If multiple attackers target multi defenders within the 5 seconds they will join the same battle instance.
Ships in port screen aren't considered In circle they must be in OW.
cannons start loaded

 

No BR Considerations - However ship numbers limits may need to be considered 25vs25 to prevent exploit. (I bring 35 players so only 15 of yours can join) Its not realistic but neither is the game limit of 50 ships max so we must have this restriction
Current OW draw distance may need to be considered

We must reconcile the huge scale/time difference between OW and Battle Instance

You cant join a battle after it has started. You are in catchment or NOT
This should more accurately reflects real life encounters
Takes account of OW positions of ships
SOL re-enforcements dont need to worry about difficult sailing conditions to make a small join circle.
Pre-Port battle delaying by dragging EVERYONE into little battles - but the whole flag carrier PB things needs a review anyway.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Carljcharles

[mikawa]

Oh man. This whole discussion circles around the 1.5x BR rule like flies around a rotten apple.

Every decision has its advantages and tweaks.

 

We have now the possibility to join a battle at a chosen point round the battle circle. The enables a group of small ships to completely surround a larger ship making it impossible to flee from battle. It does not enable a group of big ships to surround a small ship. But it also enables a group of big ships to jump as a group into the battle to chase a smaller ship, enabling the smaller ship to flee if it is faster. It also prevents a battle from getting extremely unfair *after* it has initially started.

 

Given the fact that the starting point in a battle can now be chosen and the fact that a possible escape from a battle might also be harder with the "land in battles", the battle joining rules are quite fair; so far I can see only *advantages* from all possible viewpoints.

 

Of course, we have OW and this means we have a certain degree of unfairness (a group crossing the ocean for half an hour just to discover a possible target which flees might be as upset about it as a trader who left his port just to discover that he ran into an enemy fleet which captures his ship), but hey - IT'S A GAME!

[Niels Terkildsen]

Well, I'd agree that it's a rotten apple - I don't understand what you're trying to convey though: you think the current system is good as is? I can only assume, since you're not contributing with any new suggestions or points, only defending the way it is now.

[OTMatt]

I would have preferred to play with my group and let the open world judge the positioning of reinforcements.

 

Giving players the ability to select the point of entry is weird and gives the gankee even less chance of escape. To top it all off the 1.5x br does nothing to stop the gank except make the battles even slower.

[Blackjack Morgan]

Have not had any issue or problem with the new mechanic at all....in fact I quite like it as it forces ow sailing to mean more. If a group is sailing in close enough proximity they all get to enter the battle regardles of BR....if you are too spread out then you don't. It just seems like a relatively simple concept that puts more of an emphasis on co-ordination.

[Anne Wildcat]

Not sure you all know, but the 1.5BR mechanic was removed.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13448-they-disabled-the-15-br-limit-difference/?p=246568

[Neptune]

Hell yeah! Lets get some big gank squads going to celebrate. Fun for all.

No, jk.

But however, I personally would much rather see a reputation system. Serious gank offenders should get minus rep and lose access to bigger ships, quality and mods.

This would mean you can't just gain access to bigger ships by PVE on a PVP server. You would need a certain amount of rep points with your crew xp level.

And if all you do is gank your rep would take a hit meaning you lose access to bigger ships. Promote PVP on PVP servers. Less PVErs who just power level in PVE and only gank, and have not a clue how to PvP.

I must say, Ive had some priceless fights with BR system. Those who used to only gank and mouth off who got roped into a 1,5x v 1x BR still outnumbering us but showing how bad they sucked at PvP. No wonder some people didn't like it. Shows what happens when their large group of buddies couldn't magically teleport a fleet into a battle with a time compressed open world.... lol

Edited April 22, 2016 by Acadian44

[Sven Silberbart]

Hell yeah! Lets get some big gank squads going to celebrate. Fun for all.

No, jk.

But however, I personally would much rather see a reputation system. Serious gank offenders should get minus rep and lose access to bigger ships, quality and mods.

This would mean you can't just gain access to bigger ships by PVE on a PVP server. You would need a certain amount of rep points with your crew xp level.

And if all you do is gank your rep would take a hit meaning you lose access to bigger ships. Promote PVP on PVP servers. Less PVErs who just power level in PVE and only gank, and have not a clue how to PvP.

I must say, Ive had some priceless fights with BR system. Those who used to only gank and mouth off who got roped into a 1,5x v 1x BR still outnumbering us but showing how bad they sucked at PvP. No wonder some people didn't like it. Shows what happens when their large group of buddies couldn't magically teleport a fleet into a battle with a time compressed open world.... lol

 

I think u didn't (or want to) understand the motivation of the most Anti-1,5x players, yet. Ganking isn't generally a bad thing. Come out of your small scope of the battles and do a more global view of the game and it's gameplay options. This isn't just another Arena Game!

[Neptune]

Ganking isn't generally a bad thing.

I Agree with that! Ganking is awesome. Ganks give us more epic, challenging battles, and less time running and chasing.

Come out of your small scope of the battles and do a more global view of the game and it's gameplay options.

Um what? I've done large group PvP and lots of PBs.. If you mean doing large gank squads, not everyone finds seal clubbing entertaining.

This isn't just another Arena Game!

I know that, this is an open sand box. It cannot have any restrictions and it MUST be exactly like EVE, or the game will die right? We should also have real life sailing time, that fixes the magical teleports after a real time battle instance is started and everyone jumps into the battle after it has started.  

Edited April 22, 2016 by Acadian44

[Skippy]

i would see the 1.5 timer gone.  But people should not be allow to join any battle for a good time if they undock or go out of a battle. And protection when going outside a battle should be set higher timer.  Then i would instead make a safe zone of protected towns for each nations (like in EVE they have the empire territories). Like that soem people can pve, pvp outside, conquest, gank.  Make attack circle 3 time bigger and a 15 second timer to join it.  Merge all server into 1 super server with many different node server to support it with good tech to keep everyone a good ping (like Eve again) etc. Make map bigger (down brezil and up to Saint-Laurence River). Make everyone keep what they have in their capital's outpost, including xp and blueprint they learned and gold. like that everyone would be happy.  Also make a new campain to get more players. Finaly rework BP mecanic and take off silly window timer. add your land into PB with good defense even if noplayers to defend.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Skippy

[Otsego]

If you don't put restrictions on ganking there will only be the zerg remaining in the game. All smaller groups will leave. I don't see how a 10vs1 or 20vs7 is contributing to the quality of the game.

I don't bother getting ganked once in a while but before those mechanics where introduced 90% of the fights we had where ganks where 1 side didn't even had the chance to win or escape.

If the majority of the fights i have are ganks i don't see any reasons to play this game, also there is no reward for winning such a fight, i don't need xp, i don't need gold and sinking a guy that hasn't even a chance is not even close to satisfying.

[Manta Scorpion]

Is the joining mechanic also changed now? or can they just gank me 10 vs 1 and join all around me? that would be very bad and not logical because on the open sea i would not let them go around me also...

 

The BR limit was good, it gave the zerg the advantage and the good pvp player a chance. Now it will get back to ganking and skill is worth as much as the gold.....spoiler: nothing

Edited April 22, 2016 by Manta Scorpion

[Neptune]

Is the joining mechanic also changed now? or can they just gank me 10 vs 1 and join all around me? that would be very bad and not logical because on the open sea i would not let them go around me also...

 

The BR limit was good, it gave the zerg the advantage and the good pvp player a chance. Now it will get back to ganking and skill is worth as much as the gold.....spoiler: nothing

 

Oh yeah, just wait.. It's even worse now, enemy can just sail past the battle and spawn infront of you so theirs no getting away now. Now they can put 5 boats behind you, 5 on your sides and 5 infront of you. The zergs are most definitely drooling over the new spawn mechanics. You can't even run anymore!

This is what happens when you listen to zergs instead of PvPers. Numbers combat is here to stay, say bye to skilled PvP in Naval Action.

 

Zerg Action

 

Never mind the amazing combat system they worked on for years, lets just throw that all away for brainless zerg PvP. Which is all that will be left on the open world.

Forget skilled PvP, that isn't needed here. That takes time to learn how to be a good PvPer, so just lets make the gameplay bigger numbers wins so nobody has to learn. And you can guarantee the zergs a victory with these mechanics so they don't have to worry about losing.

And eventually all you will have left is the zergs, and no real PvPers who played the game for the epic combat system.

 

These mechanics are helping the zergs troll anyone who isn't part of a zerg, making the game boring for them. Good way to force those players out the door.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Acadian44

[Bach]

If you don't put restrictions on ganking there will only be the zerg remaining in the game. All smaller groups will leave. I don't see how a 10vs1 or 20vs7 is contributing to the quality of the game.

I don't bother getting ganked once in a while but before those mechanics where introduced 90% of the fights we had where ganks where 1 side didn't even had the chance to win or escape.

If the majority of the fights i have are ganks i don't see any reasons to play this game, also there is no reward for winning such a fight, i don't need xp, i don't need gold and sinking a guy that hasn't even a chance is not even close to satisfying.

Sounds good in theory but in reality it tends to work the opposite.

There are two basic pvp styles that join an RVR. Soldiers and Gladiators.

At first glance you might think soldiers require a higher population to enjoy a game. After all, they tend to join games as pre-made teams of bands of brothers so they are a good chunk of the population. The soldier mentality is that he is fighting a war. As such they don't consider a random chance 10v1 in a war zone to even be a gank. To the, it's just part of the war. Ironically the "I'm fighting a war effect" allows them to see value in the play even if they do a 2 hour patrol and only find one player to fight. Guard duty may be low in action content but it's still important to the war effort. As such it takes less battles to keep the soldiers happy. But you can't ever split them up or they will turn on you for it. There highest priority is generally honor to the band of brothers and the flag.

Gladiators are generally the smaller population of the two. Few players can just jump into any game and be successful 1v1. It takes time to develope those levels of skill. Most of us start as soldiers and only some of us can then become gladiators. A Gladiator doesn't want to go n a 2hour patrol only to come up with one fight. Especially if that fight ends up being a 10v1 gank. He would have preferred x10 separate 1v1s over two hours. However, since gladiator action is more fast paced and actually requires battles to be considered a successful time spent in the game it actually requires a higher population to support this. Or a smaller play area. So in any RVR arena you need more population to keep the gladiators happy as compared to soldiers.

Now the tricky part. Soldiers aren't complainers. On the forms, if they even read them, they are silent majority. The gladiators are your kill board junkies. They are boisterous about there successes and about being ganked as they call it. So they tend to be a loud minority. If the devs commit the cardinal sin of the soldiers and divide up the band of brothers for the sake of creating more gladiatorial 1v1s the band will likely leave the game. They won't post a lot of complaints they tend to just leave. Once they do the population drops to the point that even fixing 1v1s becomes more difficult than it was and the quality of the war game aspect of the game suffers. This then begins to feed itself in a spiral of decline.

So moral of the story is to leave the soldiers to play together and fight wars. But find ways, other ways, to get the gladiators into 1v1 situations that aren't at the expense of the war game. This could be done, in my opinion, by creating demilitarized sea zones around free cities that were restricted to group size based on BR. This would allow the soldiers to defend home ports in mass and to patrol enemy ports as a squadron or fleet. While at the same time providing concentrated free city areas that the kings of each nation have agreed full squadrons will not be allowed in. These areas then become 1v1 zones and trader hunting zones. Maybe, it's just a thought.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Bach

[Neptune]

You are forgetting those in the middle, those who don't like to gank and are not all about 1v1s, 2v2s and so on. The players who like unfair fights such as 3v6, 2v4, 5v8, 8v14, 7v12 and do like being outnumberd and having a challenge. Just not fighting a fleet that is impossible to defeat which is pointless and not worth your time. Theirs not just a group that likes ganking, and another group that likes 1v1s. So right now, basically the only fun right now is for those who don't find ganking boring.

 

The truth is here people just want FUN battles that you know you aren't going to get murderd in within a few minutes. If we still have a 85% chance of losing every single ship we bring into the battle we don't care as long as the battle is FUN. Not being pulled into a battle, you look at the teams and you say. Well this is going to be boring, I already know I'm going to lose without doing any damage at all.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Acadian44

[Bach]

Is the joining mechanic also changed now? or can they just gank me 10 vs 1 and join all around me? that would be very bad and not logical because on the open sea i would not let them go around me also...

The BR limit was good, it gave the zerg the advantage and the good pvp player a chance. Now it will get back to ganking and skill is worth as much as the gold.....spoiler: nothing

Yes, the positional mechanic will allow them to surround you. It's not a very good mechanic.

In any contest of RVR opponents are not necessarily equal in skills, numbers, technology or economy. 1v1 by far favors technology and skill while minimizing economic and numerical advantages. So it's only realistic simulation of war in 2 out of 4. Ganking or otherwise using strategy that pits superior numbers to inferior numbers neutralizes skill and tech advantages and favors numeric and economic. Throughout history, real life history, the balance of these four factors if war has shaped the world. The more numerous little guys only chance to combat the high tech skilled giant has always been to swarm the opponent. It's as important strategically to be able to do this as to exert superior skills. Forced 1v1s is just favoritism to skill and tech.

If WW2 had been fought with 1.5BR rules enforced we would all be speaking German right now. The Germans had the higher tech and skills. The Soviet state excelled in numbers. The USA in economy. The British skills at espionage and recon had the rest beat. The Japanese probably the most determination. We can't just shut an entire groups war advantage off and think we're still simulating a war.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Bach

[Sven Silberbart]

..Numbers combat is here to stay, say bye to skilled PvP in Naval Action...

 

Join the arena battles. Not much waiting time for enemies. fair balance. U can feel master of ur great skills. That's what u want, just do it.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Sven Silberbart

[Neptune]

Join the arena battles. No waiting for enemies. fair balance. U can feel master of ur great skills. That's what u want, just do it.

 

Seriously stop it, you are making yourself look bad.

 

Atleast contribute to the topic instead of telling every single player to go play arena, each one of us players has a right to an opinion and if we feel the open world is being ruined because all that's left is zerg ganks than we have the right to do that.

 

If we don't like zerg ganks, and you are getting upset about that, so be it. Not everyone here wants this to happen to the open world, or be in a zerg.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Acadian44