BR ratio as a multiplier for rewards

[Cmdr RideZ]

BR 6000 vs 600

 

The fleet with 6000 BR will win, but their reward has a multiplier of 0.1

What ever the other fleet did, it will have a multiplier of 10

 

Well, do not know what would be the best possible multiplier, but as an example.

 

Could also be some kind of function F, that defines how the BR ratio will affect to rewards.  Also possibly some kind of limits.

 

So this way, you can still define your battle, go ganking, but you wont get rewarded from that.  The guys who take risks will be rewarded.  Lot of people just run in ports, scared, but after this..  Maybe you want to take a risk?  This should include AI BR rates as well.

 

Could have other modifiers as well, but I think BR rate would be a very good point to start from.

 

...

 

Some could come now and say that very good players will get this way even richer and richer, and bad players will lose more and more.  I would say, that yes, true, good players will get even more.  How many players you know that take fights vs 2-3xBR rate?  And how many guys you know who gank 5vs1?  Or hide with their 6000 BR fleet in BR Screen, and gank 1000 BR fleets?

 

This would be a crushing blow for gankers, and only a small percentage from players will actually benefit from this kind of rewarding.

 

...

 

To be honest, I did not think every possible scenario.  But I have a feeling that this actually might be a good idea.

[Guest]

Doubt that it will be a crushing blow for gankers but it will provide an incentive for taking smaller raiding parties.. Hethwill has presented the idea before and I like it.. And btw good players will allways make more gold, xp and rewards than bad players.. as they should..

[Sir Texas Sir]

Doubt that it will be a crushing blow for gankers but it will provide an incentive for taking smaller raiding parties.. Hethwill has presented the idea before and I like it.. And btw good players will allways make more gold, xp and rewards than bad players.. as they should..

And good players can take on bad odds.  Been in many a fights where it was 2-3 vs 1 odds adn we still beat the team that had more ships (mainly cause of all the AI's they bring) and had hardly any lost on our team.

[Rychu Karas]

sounds good.

[Eishen]

sounds fair ... and abusable at same time

[Cmdr RideZ]

Agreed, maybe not like a crushing blow, but have to say that it is at least should start to feel pretty useless for them.  You should earn like 20k from the gank and then you get 4k, I think that is pretty depressing at least.

 

If this is exploitable, it could be so that 1.0x is the maximum reward, and minimum is 0.1.  I suppose this would remove the possibilities to exploit.

 

AI BR should be counted.  It should encourage to use AI only as escorts.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Cmdr RideZ

[admin]

there is already a small BR multiplier in game 

it gives you more rewards if you kill a ship with higher br than yours 

 

it was bigger before and was abused 

 

the group BR vs group BR was also implemented and switched off as it provides even more abuse potential.

[Destraex]

Perhaps it should just be a negative modifier for the gankers. I.e. the rewards are split between the attacking ships. More attacking ships means LESS THAN NORMAL reward. This would mean the only reason for ganking would be strategic. Because there would be little reward in it.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Perhaps it should just be a negative modifier for the gankers. I.e. the rewards are split between the attacking ships. More attacking ships means LESS THAN NORMAL reward. This would mean the only reason for ganking would be strategic. Because there would be little reward in it.

Kinda like empty port battles right now you get pretty much little to nothing other than the end of port battle resource/mod/note reward.   Killing towers really don't give you much.   Prob should be the same for killiing players 8 vs 1.   

[squedage]

also if you think about it most gankers reward is the ship they take as a prize and any and all rescourses that were with it. So i could some kind of restriction to the rewards you would get from a fight in that situation.

[Bach]

I find it unlikely that players gank for gold rewards. Remove all the gold and you will still have miss matched contests.

The better question is why are there mismatched contests?

My group usually get together in numbers of 2-6 depending solely on who is online at the time. We try to include everyone. It's not like players build groups specifically to create off match contests.

Then we sail to enemy waters. This typically takes 30 minutes or more. Once there we look for targets or defenders. If the first target that comes along after 45min of game play happens to be a lone Constitution what would you have us do? It sounds like some you expect us to hold a mini lottery and the one guy that wins gets to play the game while the other 5 sit there and wait for an hour. Because matched battles in this game take around an hour. Now that's 1hour and 45 min time input into game with zero action for 5 guys and game play for just 2 guys.

So let's say the remaining 5 either split their group and leave there other behind and move one. Next target they stumble across is lone Indiamen. Again they draw lots to see who fights it. 1 Fights the Indy and the other 4 either wait or move on. The one guy caps the Indy with 6000 Tobacco on board. Now what? How do you split it? Whom escorts it back to port if the others move on? How is this possibly fair to the other 4 who now have invested 2 hours 45 min into game with again ZERO action to show for it?

So once again let's say those remaining 4 just moved on and let the other guy have the Indy and the spoils. Now they reach the enemy capital. Outside are 20 various ships all ready to defend for King and country. So our x4 are laughing. They sail into the 20 ships and grab a weakfish ship compared to theirs. Meanwhile the other 19 trying to guard the coast rush to the rescue! But only three of them are getting in and since the first was weak they are handicapped. The 4 handily win that one hour battle. They now finally got x1 fight and they have put in 30min to station + 15min to first potential fight + 15min to second potential fight + 15 min to 3rd actual fight + 1 for that one fight = 2hours 15minutes into game with one fight to show for it. Meanwhile 16 players just wasted an hour watching that battle.

It's not hard to go on and on with this. We are playing an incredibly SLOW game already. It is rediculous to put in restrictions to whatever PvP we might happen to come across for the sake of "balanced ideal battles" unless you can speed up the rest of the game. Otherwise we're better off just to let the chips fall where they may and fight each battle however it occurs.

[Cmdr RideZ]

I find it unlikely that players gank for gold rewards. Remove all the gold and you will still have miss matched contests.

...

It's not hard to go on and on with this. We are playing an incredibly SLOW game already. It is rediculous to put in restrictions to whatever PvP we might happen to come across for the sake of "balanced ideal battles" unless you can speed up the rest of the game. Otherwise we're better off just to let the chips fall where they may and fight each battle however it occurs.

Slightly confused, do you mean it does not matter, or it matters?

[Bach]

Slightly confused, do you mean it does not matter, or it matters?

What I mean is that having balanced battles does not matter as much if it costs extra hours of game play to achieve. Time spent in game doing nothing should be minimized as much as possible. Players don't control what number and type of enemy ships they happen across. So asking them to sit outside a battle for an hour doing nothing is worse than just letting off balanced battles happen.

[Cmdr RideZ]

What I mean is that having balanced battles does not matter as much if it costs extra hours of game play to achieve. Time spent in game doing nothing should be minimized as much as possible. Players don't control what number and type of enemy ships they happen across. So asking them to sit outside a battle for an hour doing nothing is worse than just letting off balanced battles happen.

The fight against the lonely one wont be really exciting either, right?  So does it really matter if you get less from it?

 

If your fleet of 5 will later encounter an enemy fleet of 25.  This rule would do the same for them, right?  So it can be that those 25 will agree that only 10 will enter, so that they at least get 50% reward from you guys.

 

If your fleet of 5 is only ganking 1 ship at time, and you never take bigger battles, or equal battles, or risk to take battles where you have a small disadvantage.  Well, then, actually, this whole feature is designed to make it less fun for you.

[Bach]

The fight against the lonely one wont be really exciting either, right? So does it really matter if you get less from it?

If your fleet of 5 will later encounter an enemy fleet of 25. This rule would do the same for them, right? So it can be that those 25 will agree that only 10 will enter, so that they at least get 50% reward from you guys.

If your fleet of 5 is only ganking 1 ship at time, and you never take bigger battles, or equal battles, or risk to take battles where you have a small disadvantage. Well, then, actually, this whole feature is designed to make it less fun for you.

You are making the assumption that one sided battles offer no fun. This isn't the case. In a 5v1 reasonably the 5 are at least having some fun. The 1 is being challenged to escape and he may well succeed. Often we get counter attacked or chased by 20 ships. It's some of the most exhilarating adrenaline pumping play making those escapes. When it's 5v12 and we manage to sink even one enemy ship it tends to be a more memorable battle than a simple 1v1.

So if I had to make a choice between splitting up my group of friends and/or waiting outside an hour long battle vs. allowing 25 players to gank the 5 of us? I say let them gank us. Or try to gank us.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Bach

[Blackjack Morgan]

I find it unlikely that players gank for gold rewards. Remove all the gold and you will still have miss matched contests.

The better question is why are there mismatched contests?

My group usually get together in numbers of 2-6 depending solely on who is online at the time. We try to include everyone. It's not like players build groups specifically to create off match contests.

Then we sail to enemy waters. This typically takes 30 minutes or more. Once there we look for targets or defenders. If the first target that comes along after 45min of game play happens to be a lone Constitution what would you have us do? It sounds like some you expect us to hold a mini lottery and the one guy that wins gets to play the game while the other 5 sit there and wait for an hour. Because matched battles in this game take around an hour. Now that's 1hour and 45 min time input into game with zero action for 5 guys and game play for just 2 guys.

So let's say the remaining 5 either split their group and leave there other behind and move one. Next target they stumble across is lone Indiamen. Again they draw lots to see who fights it. 1 Fights the Indy and the other 4 either wait or move on. The one guy caps the Indy with 6000 Tobacco on board. Now what? How do you split it? Whom escorts it back to port if the others move on? How is this possibly fair to the other 4 who now have invested 2 hours 45 min into game with again ZERO action to show for it?

So once again let's say those remaining 4 just moved on and let the other guy have the Indy and the spoils. Now they reach the enemy capital. Outside are 20 various ships all ready to defend for King and country. So our x4 are laughing. They sail into the 20 ships and grab a weakfish ship compared to theirs. Meanwhile the other 19 trying to guard the coast rush to the rescue! But only three of them are getting in and since the first was weak they are handicapped. The 4 handily win that one hour battle. They now finally got x1 fight and they have put in 30min to station + 15min to first potential fight + 15min to second potential fight + 15 min to 3rd actual fight + 1 for that one fight = 2hours 15minutes into game with one fight to show for it. Meanwhile 16 players just wasted an hour watching that battle.

It's not hard to go on and on with this. We are playing an incredibly SLOW game already. It is rediculous to put in restrictions to whatever PvP we might happen to come across for the sake of "balanced ideal battles" unless you can speed up the rest of the game. Otherwise we're better off just to let the chips fall where they may and fight each battle however it occurs.

 

I don't think the OP was saying anything about forcing "fair" fights, rather an idea to scale rewards based on BR difference. A byproduct of the suggestion would be perhaps to encourage underdogs to fight rather than simply trying to run away. I think it is a reasonable suggestion. The only real concern or counter point is the notion of potential abuse by players for financial gain/xp. That concern is valid, however, I do think it is worth discussion. Anything that helps promote more pvp is almost never a bad thing. The fact of the matter is that there is almost zero incentive in NA for the average player to engage in pvp if they do not have a clearly superior advantage. I know many simply pvp for the "fun factor", which is great, but I'd like to see a system that encourages people to take on less "sure-win" only engagements. People do not like to take big risks with little reward and that is exactly what we have in game.

[Cmdr RideZ]

5vs1, how much fun the 5 will have?

 

It is also a question of realistic vs game.  In real life, it only makes sense to take battles when you have a clear advantage.

It is also about sports, we would not like ice hockey if both teams would not have 5+1 on ice.

 

Maybe we cannot find one big bonus to do it all, but instead multiple small ones.  Small bonuses will be harder to exploit.

 

Some ideas...  (Could be bad, but to start from)

 

This whole subject is also bound to death penalty.  As death penalty is a bit high, we are actually mostly punished to take hard fights.  Maybe consider decreasing crew casualties in case of high BR difference.

 

If the BR ratio as a multiplier has already been tested and exploited, maybe just a very small bonus.  For example in situation of 2xBR, you get 1.1x reward, your enemy will get 0.5x.

 

If the BR ratio goes high and you are not in a trader, maybe give a coward perk like bonus.  The BR ratio would define how much shorter timer you get.  For example 2vs20, and you have pretty good position to start from.  The enemy is still able to shoot your sails, and you will be in that battle 30 minutes before you are able to escape.  I would not mind if 30 minutes of wasted time would be less in the future.

 

Extra reward could be also bound to loses you cause, and not calculating captured ships.  If you sink your friends 1st rate, make sure that the friend will suffer higher loses than you get as a reward.

 

 

... edit..

 

Just to clarify.  I am not recommending this for Port Battles or Hostility Missions, etc. that are clearly part of the end game.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Cmdr RideZ

[Vernon Merrill]

Maybe, just maybe, there needs to be a bit of the onus placed on the supposed "gankee" here too. I'm fine with some sort of BR multiplier. Sure. But it's ridiculous that people don't expect people to sail in groups in this game. You can make all the arguments in the world about how you shouldn't have to be in a clan/have TS/go along with national politics/etc. The fact is, however, that most people prefer the social aspect of this game. Sailing together is a big part of that. Again, the tools are there for the solo player to play this game successfully. It's just that most can't be bothered to either figure them out or use them.

I''ll even give a current example. US chat right now is just SOS call after SOS call. Why? Because every solo player who just got to master commandant is buying a trinc or Connie and undercrewing it while sailing solo around Charleston. Or someone is using a LGV to transport their 20 mid grade notes and tobacco instead of making 2 trips in a TLynx. Now, are these people "ganking" victims or just making really bad decisions??