1.5BR Balanced Alternative

[Jakob.Kettler]

Hello, hallo!

 

I can not understand why on PVP servers a BR-regulation is introduced. If the game is to be realistic, rules must be significantly reduced. Especially those rules that limit the groups and communities play.

Ich kann nicht verstehen, warum auf PVP-Servern eine BR-Regelung eingeführt wird. Wenn das Spiel realitätsnah sein soll, müssen Regeln deutlich reduziert werden. Ganz besonders solche Regeln, die die Gruppen- und Clanspielweise einschränken.

 

Jakob Kettler

[Arsilon]

I would have thought that the concept of Duels, Small Battles and Large Battles would have served the purpose of "Honor" battles.  I really hope the devs are not thinking that this concept needs be enforced on the open seas too.  Even if you point to examples of where this happened in real life, I think it is a mistake to force that on all possible encounters.  

 

I think the issue many 'ganker' supporters have with 'anti-ganker' code isn't that they really want 20v1 fights.  They just don't want restrictions on group play and all that happens with it, eg boat variety evolving to fail fit speed boats only, split groups, people waiting on battles, etc.

 

If you look at the big picture of how other game mechanics/reality play into this its a much bigger problem than just preventing 20v1 fights.

 

- It takes too long to sail anywhere on open sea.  Groups that want to play together will not be happy sailing 1 hour only to be left out of a battle (regardless of whether or not you can force them to sail in better formation this will not always be possible when dealing with wind and other dynamic factors)

- Nation population imbalance will always lead to one side being able to patrol in larger numbers if they want to.  Without better mechanism to control that imbalance you will always have situations where there will be more people available to fight than can get into fights.

- Map size and PvE options limit ability to focus players into concentrated areas.  It is still hit or miss depending on time of day and what part of the map on whether you sail and see 1 person or no one or whether you run into a fleet of 5, 10, 15 or more on the open sea.  

 

Compound all these things together and this is why you have people saying I would rather have no limits on combat.

 

If Option 1 is:

- Forced "honor combat" only.

- No possibility of 20v1 'boring' fights

- Reasonable probability of "no combat at all" unless you can fulfill specific formula requirement where engagement is allowed

- High probability of minimal ship diversity -- everyone in same boat -- so people can optimize engagement probability and ability to control

- Since gankers know the formulas, they can optimize tactics to make it so they can continue to gank with impunity

 

and Option 2 is:

- No restrictions on open sea fighting

- Higher probability of 20v1 boring fights

- Take what you get combat opportunities even if it means 20v1

- Groups stay together

- Bring whatever ship interests you

- Have options to counter against the gankers and/or come to defense of people getting ganked

 

Many of us still pick Option 2.

 

This doesn't even consider implications on broader conquest game.  If Open World is the battleground for Conquest if you limit engagement how do you deal with fleet engagement of attackers/defenders on open sea?  If you do not want those battles to happen either, why not just buy conquest flag, open port battle instance and have people teleport to it instantly?  What is the point of even having to sail a flag from Point A to Point B in the first place if no engagement is possible?  

 

There are too many interdependencies of what open sea combat and sandbox play has on every other game mechanic. Once you start trying to micro-manage it, the rest of the surrounding elements start to unravel and you end up in an endless balance/rebalance/tweak cycle because players will always out-optimize your ability to code things into the game.  Just let the players sort it out themselves.

 

There are still many game mechanics that need to be fixed regardless of where you fall in the open sea engagement guidelines issue.

- Hiding in port battle window still needs to be addressed

- Popping out of port to join battle still needs to be addressed

- Home port reinforcement rules need to be addressed

- Alt tagging needs to be addressed

 

 

If you really want to enable honor battles on the open sea I wonder first why you bothered with the Duel system in the first place.  Be that as it may, you can still enable honor battles on the open sea via a simple challenge button next to the Attack button.  It accomplishes what you want without introducing all the other negative aspects.

 

Being able to issue an honor duel request doesn't mean it needs to be accepted.  Putting mechanics in place to limit engagement (whether its BR or otherwise) is forcing them to be accepted and saying this is the only type of combat that is allowed.  This is a much different game setup than what you normally find in open world sandbox games and I hope not a direction Naval Action is headed.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Arsilon

[Bach]

Its just your opinion and we disagree with it. But that's the purpose of the forum - to disagree.

USS Chesapeake frigate was lost to Britain because of the honor duel. Other ships in harbor did not come out to help uss Chesapeake.

I dont see it happening in NA - thus rules must be tuned and searched until Age of Sail honor is provided (FORCED) by design.

Well you better get ready because he won't be the only one with that opinion. After the first the 1.5 BR rule scare a number if the gaming teams out there started looking for alternative games that will honor an RVR war scenario. Selling the game as a sand box war simulation and then making all the open world battles akin to arena fights is a form of bait and switch. You think the steam reviews are bad now wait till those come out. Teams join games as teams to battle fighting side by side in a simulated war. Who joins a war game to run around solo anyway?

[Bach]

Its just your opinion and we disagree with it. But that's the purpose of the forum - to disagree.

USS Chesapeake frigate was lost to Britain because of the honor duel. Other ships in harbor did not come out to help uss Chesapeake.

I dont see it happening in NA - thus rules must be tuned and searched until Age of Sail honor is provided (FORCED) by design.

If your going to quote US history at least get the whole story straight.

The invitation to battle arrived after the fight. No one on the USA side even knew about it. The USA only had x6 hvy frigates in the war of 1812 and none of the others were in Boston to help at the time.

The USA captain, James Lawrence, was fool hardy. He arrived in Boston to take command and in just 10 days decided to take his inexperienced crew and ship, he never even took on sea trials, into battle against British veterans. In gaming terms this was almost seal clubbing. If Lawrence hadn't been killed in the battle he would have been subjected to court martial.

The Chesapeake was known to have an untested crew and captain in June  of 1813 when Shannon decided to engage her.  Chesapeake failed to take advantage in the battle when raking was possible.  The crew and captain not realizing the situation.  Once boarded by Shannon nearly the entire Chesapeake crew ran for below decks leaving the 44 marines to defend the entire ship.  This was seal clubbing in 1813

 

As for honor in the war of 1812, its was purely situational.  Five british frigates sighted off New Jersey attempted to gank the lone USS Constitution but it managed to slip away. One of those x5 British frigates...the HMS Shannon.

 

After suffering several losses to the Americans the British admiralty issues orders not to engage the American frigates 1v1.  This really happened and its got nothing to do with honor bound war.

 

 

As far as honorable fights in NA, there is nothing stopping players from doing that now. I have arranged several of my own 1v1 fights. "Forcing" honor on players should be an interesting concept. Good luck with that.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Bach

[Trevish]

Fair/balanced fights are what duel/small/large battles are for, OW should be unrestricted.  2 minute join timer is enough, Positional system should require you  to be inside the circle rather than outside (but maintain the distant spawn), the join radius should be smaller (if made small enough the join from outside the circle could be maintained) and all closed battles should still show up on the OW but with a different icon to show it closed and it should keep track of ship numbers and BR currently inside the battle or at the results screen.  These together should fix most of the current problems, only port hiding remains.

 

As to the inside vs outside the circle, currently if you are just outside the initial battle circle you end up inside the positional circle and must sail back out of it to join, which can prevent you from joining completely if you happen to be in a channel with bad wind or near shallows with bad wind etc.

[Bach]

it was around 1.5br diff

not more

From the challenge letter send by HMS Shannon

As the Chesapeake appears now ready for sea, I request you will do me the favour to meet the Shannon with her, ship to ship, to try the fortune of our respective flags. The Shannon mounts twenty-four guns upon her broadside and one light boat-gun; 18 pounders upon her maindeck, and 32-pounder carronades upon her quarterdeck and forecastle; and is manned with a complement of 300 men and boys, beside thirty seamen, boys, and passengers, who were taken out of recaptured vessels lately. I entreat you, sir, not to imagine that I am urged by mere personal vanity to the wish of meeting the Chesapeake, or that I depend only upon your personal ambition for your acceding to this invitation. We have both noble motives. You will feel it as a compliment if I say that the result of our meeting may be the most grateful service I can render to my country; and I doubt not that you, equally confident of success, will feel convinced that it is only by repeated triumphs in even combats that your little navy can now hope to console your country for the loss of that trade it can no longer protect. Favour me with a speedy reply. We are short of provisions and water, and cannot stay long here.

You realize this challenge letter NEVER reached the USS Chesepeake. It remains a tidbit of history that almost was.

[Bach]

This was my experience as well during the brief period that 1.5x BR was implemented. I'm your typical "small group/solo player". I got into more PvP during that stretch than ever, and it was fun! I don't belong to one of the big fleets and never will, so rolling around with 25 people is out of the question for me. For the first time since I began playing NA on Steam Launch, Day 1, I experienced fair(ish) fights where people would *gasp* actually turn and fight their pursuers confident in the fact that the people in the battle instance then and there were (within 1.5x BR and within 2 min.) the only ones joining in. All other PvP was always about big groups chasing solo players or smaller groups (which is still possible under this sort of system with those kind of restrictions so long as people are sticking together).

Land in battles and positional placement of ships is amazing and I wouldn't do away with those things no matter what system is used for reinforcements--period. Personally, I proposed that battles couldn't be entered into after the initial bubble at all, as well as offered a solution to the issue of people abusing timers and the end of battle screens. I'm sure it wouldn't go over well with the vocal majority on the forums here, seeing as how it is essentially an even stricter version of the 1.5x system, but I stand by it. My suggestions were here: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13461-my-humble-suggestions-for-fixing-battles-timers-etc/

PvP will actually happen more often when people can adequately gauge a threat and decide to either fight or run, rather than everyone always running until they can't run because they assume all attacks are going to turn into some kind of trap based on crappy game mechanics as soon as they commit to the engagement.

Why would you join a war game to play solo?

For you to get your enjoyment unrealistic war rules have to be forced on all your opponents. In short, all your opponents receive a handicap because you chose not to join a team. That isn't actually fair. In fact the whole situation is only fair when looked at from inside the individual battles. At the macro or team level of overall play it is very unfair.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Bach

[Anne Wildcat]

I like playing with a group but sometimes there are not enough around to find a group, especially with such a large map. A mmo should also provide for solo play when needed. I have a job, a house, a husband so should I only play when I can find a group? Not fun.

[Bach]

I like playing with a group but sometimes there are not enough around to find a group, especially with such a large map. A mmo should also provide for solo play when needed. I have a job, a house, a husband so should I only play when I can find a group? Not fun.

Fair points and it also leads to one of the things I think the game needs. Ways for players to know where the action is and its relative strengths. If battle indicators appeared on the game map and not just on the open sea we could all see where fights were happening and the relative strengths of those fights. It would save a lot of useless sailing. If you noticed a lone pirate in battles along an area you would know you could go there for a fight. If you noticed it was a fleet you could gather your own fleet or just avoid it.

When my team has mostly logged for the night I find the small battles system offers some nice fast action without all the sailing around guessing. Sometimes I'll ask in global for a duel or if any want to open sea 1v1. The duels work pretty good. The open sea in general just requires to much sailing so the small battles work best.

[Arsilon]

If your going to quote US history at least get the whole story straight.

The invitation to battle arrived after the fight. No one on the USA side even knew about it. The USA only had x6 hvy frigates in the war of 1812 and none of the others were in Boston to help at the time.

The USA captain, James Lawrence, was fool hardy. He arrived in Boston to take command and in just 10 days decided to take his inexperienced crew and ship, he never even took on sea trials, into battle against British veterans. In gaming terms this was almost seal clubbing. If Lawrence hadn't been killed in the battle he would have been subjected to court martial.

The Chesapeake was known to have an untested crew and captain in June  of 1813 when Shannon decided to engage her.  Chesapeake failed to take advantage in the battle when raking was possible.  The crew and captain not realizing the situation.  Once boarded by Shannon nearly the entire Chesapeake crew ran for below decks leaving the 44 marines to defend the entire ship.  This was seal clubbing in 1813

 

As for honor in the war of 1812, its was purely situational.  Five british frigates sighted off New Jersey attempted to gank the lone USS Constitution but it managed to slip away. One of those x5 British frigates...the HMS Shannon.

 

After suffering several losses to the Americans the British admiralty issues orders not to engage the American frigates 1v1.  This really happened and its got nothing to do with honor bound war.

 

 

As far as honorable fights in NA, there is nothing stopping players from doing that now. I have arranged several of my own 1v1 fights. "Forcing" honor on players should be an interesting concept. Good luck with that.

 

So the honorable Captain of the Shannon was actually a ganker?!?  LOL

[Taki1980]

Its just your opinion and we disagree with it. But that's the purpose of the forum - to disagree.

USS Chesapeake frigate was lost to Britain because of the honor duel. Other ships in harbor did not come out to help uss Chesapeake.

I dont see it happening in NA - thus rules must be tuned and searched until Age of Sail honor is provided (FORCED) by design.

 

Please dont bring back those Anti-Ganking Rules. They where crap.

 

More diversity and different Tactical Roles for Ships, no "Battle Closed" Rules and the whole Match openend for Reinforcments that could swing the Tide back and fourth! That would be a Solution!

 

Those 1,5 BR Rules made me quit

[Johny Reb]

If your going to quote US history at least get the whole story straight.

The invitation to battle arrived after the fight. No one on the USA side even knew about it. The USA only had x6 hvy frigates in the war of 1812 and none of the others were in Boston to help at the time.

The USA captain, James Lawrence, was fool hardy. He arrived in Boston to take command and in just 10 days decided to take his inexperienced crew and ship, he never even took on sea trials, into battle against British veterans. In gaming terms this was almost seal clubbing. If Lawrence hadn't been killed in the battle he would have been subjected to court martial.

The Chesapeake was known to have an untested crew and captain in June  of 1813 when Shannon decided to engage her.  Chesapeake failed to take advantage in the battle when raking was possible.  The crew and captain not realizing the situation.  Once boarded by Shannon nearly the entire Chesapeake crew ran for below decks leaving the 44 marines to defend the entire ship.  This was seal clubbing in 1813

 

As for honor in the war of 1812, its was purely situational.  Five british frigates sighted off New Jersey attempted to gank the lone USS Constitution but it managed to slip away. One of those x5 British frigates...the HMS Shannon.

 

After suffering several losses to the Americans the British admiralty issues orders not to engage the American frigates 1v1.  This really happened and its got nothing to do with honor bound war.

 

 

As far as honorable fights in NA, there is nothing stopping players from doing that now. I have arranged several of my own 1v1 fights. "Forcing" honor on players should be an interesting concept. Good luck with that.

Lets also add to the list of historical references, the loss of the President that was also chased down by multiple British ships, and the bottling up of the United States by a superior force. Oh, and the Essex, which had thrown a mast was pounded on be two separate ships out of range of the the Essex carronades, after which, the Captain of the British ship was confronted about his honor and replied essentially by saying it would have been worse for him if he didn't do what he did.

[Bach]

Just curious. Since there seems to be a fair rift of players around the battle restrictions vs. full war. Simply use pvp1 and pvp2. Why not just make one of them a "full war simulation server" and the other an "honor in th age of sail server". Full War can be no rules and Honor server can be 1.5BR. Then just let us play which ever we like.

[Sir Robert Calder]

It seems we're going to arguing about this 1.5 BR rule until we're old men.

 

If the devs really want to institute a BR rule, there better be some concessions for those of us who enjoy playing with a community that surrounds an open world PvP game. The reasons against having such a rule as it was implemented previously have been beaten to death, so I won't be repeating myself here again.

[zeeph]

1.5 rule might come back

I tried the positional reinforcement with it and without it .

I like it less without it - thus it might come back if we don't come up with the better thing

people learnt to stick together. and there were more even fights.

 

Please no BR rule. Other pvp full loot games doesnt have rules like that, and thats good so. From the start of the Project NA till the end of it, you will have to deal with a zillion request´s of guys who will whine to the eternity and back, because they have problems with griefing, ganking and finally with pvp and dying in general. Those requests are usualy from ppl, who will later die in their 1st rate and prolly never touch the game again, or at least pause for a few days, because they like to shoot stuff, but cant handle to die.

Edited April 27, 2016 by zeeph

[Manta Scorpion]

Please no BR rule. Other pvp full loot games doesnt have rules like that, and thats good so. From the start of the Project NA till the end of it, you will have to deal with a zillion request´s of guys who will whine to the eternity and back, because they have problems with griefing, ganking and finally with pvp and dying in general. Those requests are usualy from ppl, who will later die in their 1st rate and prolly never touch the game again, or at least pause for a few days, because they like to shoot stuff, but cant handle to die.

Oh, imo they are the guys that actually have the skill to win even battles and sail frigates, because they do pvp often and dislike high rates anyways. I think those players do not care about sinking in winnable fights and take more risk then others. Meanwhile the guy that like the No BR just want a safe way of ganking without taking risks, because they dont want to lose a ship.

But well, I guess thats just my opinion

[zeeph]

Iam doing far more solo pvp than fleet pvp. Iam sometimes in battles like e.g. 1vs4 and sure ill die if i dont manage to flee. But i dont whine afterwards and iam not even annoyed that this battle wasnt even.

 

My best solo fight i had was me vs 6. They came  from all sides and it was a great and intense battle. I was sure that i wont survive this and I didnt, but i did not gave up and fought to the bitter end. That was so much fun!

[Liq]

On 23.4.2016 at 9:20 PM, admin said:

1.5 rule might come back

I tried the positional reinforcement with it and without it .

I like it less without it - thus it might come back if we don't come up with the better thing

people learnt to stick together. and there were more even fights.

r.i.p.

[Slim McSauce]

I don't understand. We already have reinforcement zones, forts, anyone from your nation/clan can quickly TP over and join the battle.

Why do we need to limit engagements by BR even more? If you somehow get caught by 5 ships in your traders i'd say that's your fault for not being aware and sailing to the nearest safezone.

Also If I go trader hunting in a rattler or a prince, the enemy frigate couldn't jump me in battle since the BR is much more than 1.5. They would come out and find out they're unable to join. If anything only one would be able to join which would really kill PVP spirits.

This sounds like a huge limitation on the OW sandbox which gets a no from me

Edited October 18, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Zoky]

4 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

r.i.p.

 

4 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I don't understand. We already have reinforcement zones, forts, anyone from your nation/clan can quickly TP over and join the battle.

Why do we need to limit engagements by BR even more? If you somehow get caught by 5 ships in your traders i'd say that's your fault for not being aware and sailing to the nearest safezone.

Also If I go trader hunting in a rattler or a prince, the enemy frigate couldn't jump me in battle since the BR is much more than 1.5. They would come out and find out they're unable to join. If anything only one would be able to join which would really kill PVP spirits.

This sounds like a huge limitation on the OW sandbox which gets a no from me

Necromancers  look at the date

[IndianaGeoff]

Wrong direction.  Even today, when you have a defense fleet spread out hunting the hunter it is very difficult to get the defense fleet into the battle (time limits).  BR limits mean it will not matter anyway.  End result, why bother with defense fleets and more unrestricted ganking.

[IndianaGeoff]

14 hours ago, Zoky said:

 

Necromancers  look at the date

Egads. You are right.  They need to lock old threads that are not active.