Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Screening action and rewards

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

And how will playercounts be offset? Anti-zerg measures?

 

If the results are only a leaderboard and reward and doesn't impact the port battle, then there is no need for anti-zerg measures.  We don't currently have anti-zerg measures.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please no silly scoreboards. This is about conquest and players should be encouraged to focus on team work. Just provide interesting/unique rewards for those involved with bonus for winning side and for players with most kills/damage in a  given battle. I have also heard people complaining about randomness of rewards in PvP events. Perhaps introducing of new PvP currency and a dedicated shop/items to be purchased on that currency would be even better long-term solution. This would allow people to safe PvP points for something they really want/need. Alternatively allow marketplace for all those items so players can sell.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in Sea Trials we had scoreboards.  There was no conquest then.  To me the game is not about conquest.  That is a part of the game, but the meat of the game has always been open water sea battles (battles other than port battles and conquest).  What's wrong with scoreboards?  What makes conquest mean no scoreboards?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wind said:

Why not add Rewards + PB Bonuses 

For example, sink NPC or Players(give away more points) and earn points for PB Port.

1000 extra hostility points will give attacker +2% reload

2000 extra hostility points +2% accuracy

3000 extra hostility points +2% speed

and so on

 

same for defender.

 

How about we not go down that rabbit hole.  People have demonstrated that they are more than willing to PvP for either aesthetic rewards, access unique (not necessarily better) ships, or even just the "national cause" (PBs). Such accelerating of advantages to victors so that losers just lose more and more is unnecessary and harmful (not to mention downright silly at a time when the game needs a serious curtailment of magic bonuses to put the focus back on player skill).

Not even sure leaderboards are necessary or helpful.  Simple vanity items like paints, pennants and such might be equally effective and promote a better community (leaderboards do not do this, IMO).

Anyways, I'd rather see the focus on hostility generation through triggering of PvP events and passive hostility generation through presence in zone (to avoid no showing).  Also raids on minor ports that if unopposed can result in hostility generation.  Not the topic, I know, but far more important and deserving of time and resources.

Edited by akd
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prater said:

 

If the results are only a leaderboard and reward and doesn't impact the port battle, then there is no need for anti-zerg measures.  We don't currently have anti-zerg measures.

Agree. A nation with largest number of players has always advantage in those "scheduled" hostility mode. A surprise isnt possible.

If this "screening" doesnt impact the PB, then, people be my guests, go fight for paints and ships, but if it does, its gonna reduce even more the player base.

Edited by Fenris
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, admin said:

Admiralty pvp events work with no bugs and allow us to implement another feature that we wanted to add long ago. Such defined pvp zones with no AI provide interesting options to reward OW battles before and during port battles (screening rewards).

For example. 1.5 hours before port battle starts and 1.5 hrs during port battles all kills in the PB harbor and vicinity count to leaderboards and provide rewards to those who intercept fleets and sink stragglers. In case port battle does not happen due to large fleets intercepted players will be rewarded for such successful interceptions. 

Of course number of players on the leaderboards should be increased in this case.

I am not sure if points from OW action (for kills) should be added (influence) port battles themselves. But it could also be an interesting mechanic which might eliminate all friction that arise because of instanced PB. (some players suggested many times that PB could be a series of battles in the harbor - not one decisive battle).

 

Discuss

 

OK I get this we are discussing screening here.

The question remains the same - small nation vs big nation.

Right now screening is killing conquest for the small nation completely. When small nation can provide 25 players to fill in the PB and give a fair fight, but they are all screened by a huge force outside the PB and can't even get in do you find this fair and actually want in your mechanics? Or are you exploring other means to balance this issue?


4 hours ago, admin said:

ps. the main killer of pvp only based hostiltiy generation is non-attendance. We have some ideas on how to solve it but its not the time yet. This topic is about screening and rewards for screening

Thats right, but non-attendance is also an issue for actual PB fights because small nation of hardcore PVPers can't give a fight to large nation of carebears due to pure numbers screening issue. You said that you have some ideas to solve PVP generated hostility, does this mean you also will look at PB screening to balance big/small nations?

 

Edited by koltes
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JonSnowLetsGo said:

Why not use these PvP zones to gain hostility?

Actually depending if your in certain areas you do create hostility the other day we killed a bunch of brits in the shallow water and put like 13% on the zone that was closes to that side of the circle.  So if your smart you can get them to that zone and and sink some of those of that nations you will be building hostility too.

 

As for the OG the problem with this is the SERVER TIMES you can't do port battles needs major adjustment to match server maintenance time.  Right now you can't have any port battles for 6 hours before servers go down for maintenance and can't build hostility for 4 of those hours.  BUT you can have a port battle right after the server 1 hour maintenance comes up which means you can't screen for it while the server is down and what happens when the server is down for like 2 hours for patches or even more if there is any problems?  The window that no hostility and port battles can be set needs to be moved closer to the maintenance time and down times.  That will allow for after maintenance Port battles to be screened before the battle and there isn't such a big dead zone of no port battles.  Right now that means no port battles in US REAL PRIME TIME ON THE PVP2 server and on the PvP1 server for the off prime time players.   This would also move the port battles after server maintenance more into the SEA players time zones and allow folks to be able to get on and screen those battles.

 

I like the screening reward thing cause one of the biggest issues is getting folks to the PB early and ready.  That and folks that can't stay for the whole battle can maybe make it to screen out side before or during the battle and get some points/credit too.   This will get more folks to show up to port battles and fight in both the OW and in the PB.  At least that is what I'm seeing the Devs are trying to do here.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Actually depending if your in certain areas you do create hostility the other day we killed a bunch of brits in the shallow water and put like 13% on the zone that was closes to that side of the circle.  So if your smart you can get them to that zone and and sink some of those of that nations you will be building hostility too.

First of all its superhard to find players in OW with such a huge map and so few players, I dont waste 3 hours to MAYBE find another player. Oh and there are also still too much fleets and forts everywhere. And second chances that you get actual PvP are close to zero (no, ganking traders isnt PvP). 

So imo you have to have a marked area to attract people to it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Wraith that if the screening points directly affect the PB victory points, it could have very negative results.

  • Give a definite advantage over the PB outcome to large nations/alliances able to muster more ships.
  • Less experienced players could be made to feel unwelcome even for the screening action.
  • A significantly outnumbered screening fleet's best option would be to just withdraw.

Not the desired effects at all.

Edited by Angus McGregor
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

У меня вопрос. Что делать малым нациям, которые хотят воевать помимо альянса, но у них нет народу организовать хороший отцеп против зерга? Сидеть все время в дефе? Из за того, что до ПБ не будет возможности дойти, и они откажутся от этого бессмысленного занятия и просто забьют на него. Уже говорил, что система когда 10 фрегатов отцепляют 25 рейтов и держат их в бою сколько потребуется, на дальнем расстоянии стреляя по парусу выглядит бредовой, так отбивает все желание заниматься этим делом ибо ни какого фана от этого не те, не другие не получают. Так что сначала нужно продумать нормально систему отцепа, а потом говорить о наградах.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Отцеп должен нанести непоправимый урон атакующей эскадре, чтобы та из за потерь сама отказалась идти дальше на ПБ, а не заниматься маринадом, убивая и так время которого нет.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, admin said:

Admiralty pvp events work with no bugs and allow us to implement another feature that we wanted to add long ago. Such defined pvp zones with no AI provide interesting options to reward OW battles before and during port battles (screening rewards).

For example. 1.5 hours before port battle starts and 1.5 hrs during port battles all kills in the PB harbor and vicinity count to leaderboards and provide rewards to those who intercept fleets and sink stragglers. In case port battle does not happen due to large fleets intercepted players will be rewarded for such successful interceptions.

I am mostly an Interceptor/Screener and like the idea. If the Area around the harbour is similar to the current pvp events and the leaderboard means the same as the currenty system, then I would like to see it in game.

Of course number of players on the leaderboards should be increased in this case.

I am not sure if points from OW action (for kills) should be added (influence) port battles themselves. But it could also be an interesting mechanic which might eliminate all friction that arise because of instanced PB. (some players suggested many times that PB could be a series of battles in the harbor - not one decisive battle).

I am not sure, either. But it feels good, so i want a chance for this to come into the game

 

BUT - like much of the others - I also absolutely agree that is very important to reactivate the screening mechanic by stopping the logout and login problem in front of the harbour. I know the devs say "players must be able to logout if real life calls". And that could be, but then please implement another mechanic to prevent that these players cant be intercepted by the screening fleet. Otherwise screening is senseless. Maybe give them a 15 Minutes time based debuff countdown to prevent joining a PB after logging in or something.

A little story from the game experience: I wanted to help my nation in the Port Battle. Most nations do the logout/login thing because a win is nearly impossible if the PB fleet has been intercepted (after pb starts, just some minutes to join). The leaders says we need to do that and that means I have to logout and stop playing NA and wait in TS for the command to login when the PB entry is open. So i dont like to play a PB with such a need.

What does it means to the game?: PB Players dont like that and the sense of screening has been killed.

And now the bridge to the Topic: If screening is senseless, the screening rewards are also senseless i fear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sven Silberbart
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this idea is great and has great potential.

I do not believe that the screeners should effect the PB. As others have said, the purpose of screeners is to screen for and prevent enemy ships from entering the battle. That is how they effect the PB. Don't make some invisible force that is operating on the outside influence a PB!

I'm not so against the idea of multi-stage portbattles for certain ports. Not all of them though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be more in favour of the PvP points you can use to purchase stuff, like Stilgar suggested. Could be a multiplier used for these points when screening. This way even the casual players can over time gain enough PvP points to be able to purchase a paint or get one of the rare ships. It might also keep it interesting and rewarding for those top rank players who do lots of PvP.

Would even be in favour of giving the Pirates a bonus in points, as their situations is less favourable for RvR stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want a game where all actions effect/influence the pb system wouldn't it then make sense for screening actions to add/remove points depending on what's being sunk outside the pb? Surely the easiest way to do this is to have a 60min countdown from all open world screening fleet action from the region outside the pd (mini pvp event) after 1 hr the in game map shows the number of openworld ships sunk. A simple attacker /defender (USA election first past post chart) two lines showing ships lost or as my other post states crews lost! 

After that 60mins screening event finishes the openworld kills/crew killed equals points in the pb.

For example if the attackers get more kills in openworld then get 250 points in the pb. (to stop event abuse Or cheating the attackers must sink at least 30ships or kill 3500 crew)

This would enable the real world screening action to help the attacker or defender. If your team is struggling to win the pb your nations outside efforts could help swing the tide and effect the outcome.

This would need testing but it would help link pb and the screening actions outside into one region battle. 

It needs to be fool proof and easy to see what's going on.

Alliances should effect the pb. Call it a resupply for the besiege port for those who'll cry about immersion.

Pirates get a hub to pvp at will but until they get the ability to fight for a side they can't influence the outcome (future proofing call it)

It should always to harder for the attackers making a port battle to quote the admin a national effort.

What do u think?

Edited by monk33y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Wraith said:

I think making those screening actions influence port battle outcomes would be fraught with issues but very interesting to test. I'd say they might just start the balance of points one way or another, but could easily result in a system where a nation would be begging it's newer, less experienced players to stay away from port battles instead of going out to screen and get involved with the danger of them getting sunk, negatively influencing the port battle in some way.

I guess I'd lean towards it not influencing port battle mechanics...

I think it'll kill off any screening action as ppl are just gonna send 25 peeps, log out in front of the port and jump in after timer starts..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countering the logging in is one thing, and would probably have to figure out a way to counter waiting in a battlescreen until the battle starts as well. The best thing would've been area-specific rules (e.g. no logging off just inside the PvP zone, since screeners can end up logging in on top of fleets as well), but the tricky part is for how long that has to happen - 12 hours lockdown before the PB? 24? 46?

Might also want to touch on the endless waves of suicidal gray-ship screening - e.g. if you surrender/die you get sent a few ports away, or a time limit on how soon you can enter the OW after surrendering/dying in the port PvP zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of connecting screening outside battles to the port battles but at a reduced rate.  However playerbase size will affect it especially with allies.  There needs to be some "underdog" mechanic i think.

 

I'd suggest that traders ships could carry "troop", "extra cannons", or "whatever" items during the pb window to generate points.  Obviously the amount is questionable but the idea is that even if the enemy has sea control the defender has fortified the port from invasion to prevent capture for a "pb reset" time delaying port capture.  This would be a defender only option and coded through missions.

This would add a "run the blockade" mechanic.  I see it doing a few things: 1) gives screeners something to hunt 2) gives underdogs a strategic option to a zerg attack 3) separate forces between pb and OW which could lead to strategic events (ei 25 in PB, but screeners get overwhelmed and traders add points OR most attackers blockade outside allowing defender to generate points inside PB through smaller engagements, Etc).

This might also stop PB login too fight too as now the OW area could swarm with traders transporting troops to counter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, koltes said:

OK I get this we are discussing screening here.

The question remains the same - small nation vs big nation.

Right now screening is killing conquest for the small nation completely. When small nation can provide 25 players to fill in the PB and give a fair fight, but they are all screened by a huge force outside the PB and can't even get in do you find this fair and actually want in your mechanics? Or are you exploring other means to balance this issue?

 

Thats right, but non-attendance is also an issue for actual PB fights because small nation of hardcore PVPers can't give a fight to large nation of carebears due to pure numbers screening issue. You said that you have some ideas to solve PVP generated hostility, does this mean you also will look at PB screening to balance big/small nations?

 

I keep hearing people wanting things balanced so the "small nation" can compete, but the simple solution to this is, do not be a small nation, recruit more people, work better with your allies. With all the balancing you want all you do is exclude other players from participating in content.

I get the feeling sometimes that some people like to be the underdog yet be able to claim "oh look how good we are, this small nation defeated the mighty ....". You cant have it both ways, you cant claim to be a small nation and have the playing field leveled yet still gloat that you beat a large nation.

As you say yourself "...small nation of hardcore PVPers can't give a fight to large nation of carebears ..", which would indicate that the small nation is more organised and ready for PvP, maybe that is why they remain a small nation, because they do not make the so called "carebears" welcome. As someone else mentioned, if the screening battle can affect the port battle result, then maybe the nation with more carebears are at a disadvantage against a well organised small nation of PvP'ers as the experienced PvP'ers should make short work of them. Having a large nation of carebears is not always a good thing, have you tried organising a group consisting of many different clans many who are not on or dont want to use teamspeak? I have played other games where the most effective nation in RvR was the smallest nation as 90% of them were in the same clan and on TS.

Maybe some sort of nation balancing is required, but trying to bring everything down to equal fights is not the answer. A small nation that can only field a port battle fleet shouldnt be able to reach a port battle.

edit: BTW I do not think that the screening should affect the port battle result, as someone already mentioned, if the screening is sucessful then the port battle is avoided, and that should be job done for the screeners.

Edited by Archaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I LOVE this idea. Yes yes yes. So, I wouldn't go so far as to say to tie them to the results of the PB, but instead link them to the rewards of the PB, and give screening-action participants a share of the PB loot and rewards (in redeemables?).

Nation A applies a heavy screening force to a port from being taken by Nation B. A decimates B in the screening action, but has very few defenders in the actual PB. B takes the port in the decisive action, but with heavy losses outside. Because of this, B's XP and gold rewards are reduced (PB multiplier lowered, minimum 0.33x) and A's ones are increased (Max 3x). In addition, A receives a better chance for some blue/purple/gold mods compared to B even though they lost the port due to their valiant efforts and crippling the enemy forces (even though they still lost the port).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sven Silberbart said:

 

BUT - like much of the others - I also absolutely agree that is very important to reactivate the screening mechanic by stopping the logout and login problem in front of the harbour. I know the devs say "players must be able to logout if real life calls". And that could be, but then please implement another mechanic to prevent that these players cant be intercepted by the screening fleet. Otherwise screening is senseless. Maybe give them a 15 Minutes time based debuff countdown to prevent joining a PB after logging in or something.

A little story from the game experience: I wanted to help my nation in the Port Battle. Most nations do the logout/login thing because a win is nearly impossible if the PB fleet has been intercepted (after pb starts, just some minutes to join). The leaders says we need to do that and that means I have to logout and stop playing NA and wait in TS for the command to login when the PB entry is open. So i dont like to play a PB with such a need.

What does it means to the game?: PB Players dont like that and the sense of screening has been killed.

And now the bridge to the Topic: If screening is senseless, the screening rewards are also senseless i fear.

 

 

The new PB join mechanics will take care of this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sven Silberbart said:

Don't how the new join mechanic will do that.

 

From the other thread. In the screen shot you can just barely see the edge of the attackers circle Attackers must be outside circle giving screening fleet opportunity to intercept. Also may be beneficial for attackers to sail in from several directions, depending on port geography.

Example of entry circles and capture points
MirSGfn.png
attackers will be able to enter anywhere from the outside circle, defenders will be able to enter anywhere in the inner circle. 
Approximate time at good wind to sail through all capture points is 25 mins on the good speed frigate. Against the wind it will take up to an hour. Thus attackers will have to control wind carefully. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, simply HURRAH !!

Oh and if you login, you can't join a port battle for 3 minutes and YOU ARE tagable. That is all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...