Hotfix 5 for patch 9.97 - event changes + minor fixes

[TommyShelby]

24 minutes ago, koltes said:

Remove OW free for all type engagement and you WILL lose your PVP player.

1st. 
I don't think you can call people that only "gank" a PvP players. I know i know, it is still "Player versus Player". I would however call that kind of player a carebear-gank type of player. 
A true PvP'er (In my mind) is someone who seeks out a challenge in fighting other players. 

2nd.
I don't think anyone is saying to remove the "Free for all" OW Stuff. 
However, i think a lot of people (Including me) thinks that there must be some incentives for people to seek out "Relatively Fair" engagements (2v3/4v6, instead of 1v5/3v12).
It doesn't mean you can't gank or that you should be punished for ganking. It does however mean that you should be rewarded for doing "Relatively Fair" fights rather than ganking people. 
I know i'm weird but i don't see how a 1v10 is fun for either side. One side has no chance of winning, the other has 100% chance of winning - How is this fun? 
NA has amazing combat mechanics, it is probably the most developed part of the game. But most people don't get to experience how great it is because all they do is extremely unbalanced fights with no skill involved. 

[Yar Matey]

1 hour ago, TommyShelby said:

1st. 
I don't think you can call people that only "gank" a PvP players. I know i know, it is still "Player versus Player". I would however call that kind of player a carebear-gank type of player. 
A true PvP'er (In my mind) is someone who seeks out a challenge in fighting other players. 

2nd.
I don't think anyone is saying to remove the "Free for all" OW Stuff. 
However, i think a lot of people (Including me) thinks that there must be some incentives for people to seek out "Relatively Fair" engagements (2v3/4v6, instead of 1v5/3v12).
It doesn't mean you can't gank or that you should be punished for ganking. It does however mean that you should be rewarded for doing "Relatively Fair" fights rather than ganking people. 
I know i'm weird but i don't see how a 1v10 is fun for either side. One side has no chance of winning, the other has 100% chance of winning - How is this fun? 
NA has amazing combat mechanics, it is probably the most developed part of the game. But most people don't get to experience how great it is because all they do is extremely unbalanced fights with no skill involved. 

This is a game of conquest first and foremost, and with conquest comes war, and the only sole purpose of war is to annihilate your enemy.  This naturally means being an opportunist and striking down your enemy when he is weak or outnumbered and running away when you are at a disadvantage and/or outnumbered.  Should the Allies during WW2 have called up America and said "you know, those strategic bombing raids your doing on Germany are unfair, and we want a fair fight down here on the ground."  Ridiculous.

I understand you want even fair and challenging fights, but the only way you will ever achieve this is arranged matches like tournaments and/or organized matches. Of which, a few of us used to do on PvP2 and we would wager labor contracts to the winner.  Yes, sometimes you will find that in OW, but you and I both know that it will be a rare occurrence.  It's just the nature of war, you can't change that.  

As far as ganking is concerned, you have tuns of fleets and towers in friendly waters, use them to your advantage, it's nearly impossible to get ganked in friendly waters now.  If you do, your doing something wrong.  

[Koltes]

4 hours ago, TommyShelby said:

1st. 
I don't think you can call people that only "gank" a PvP players. I know i know, it is still "Player versus Player". I would however call that kind of player a carebear-gank type of player. 
A true PvP'er (In my mind) is someone who seeks out a challenge in fighting other players. 

2nd.
I don't think anyone is saying to remove the "Free for all" OW Stuff. 
However, i think a lot of people (Including me) thinks that there must be some incentives for people to seek out "Relatively Fair" engagements (2v3/4v6, instead of 1v5/3v12).
It doesn't mean you can't gank or that you should be punished for ganking. It does however mean that you should be rewarded for doing "Relatively Fair" fights rather than ganking people. 
I know i'm weird but i don't see how a 1v10 is fun for either side. One side has no chance of winning, the other has 100% chance of winning - How is this fun? 
NA has amazing combat mechanics, it is probably the most developed part of the game. But most people don't get to experience how great it is because all they do is extremely unbalanced fights with no skill involved. 

1st. Lets not give any cliche lables to PVP players. Keep it simple. Some like to have 1n1 or even fight outnumbered (i had lots of those too), or gang where you experience a thrill of a man hunt where its not about challenge but about the chase. Funny enough a good pvper also enjoys being ganged too as this provides different challenge. Also PVP guy only plays PVE content so that provides him means to fight. He cant care less for losing a ship. All this makes player pvp oriented. Carebear is a typical player that though likes being able to interact with other players though dont want to sit on the edge of his seat all the time. He wants the "safe" pvp when it suits him. Sort of like PVE server with PVP arena which you can join when u like. Also PVE guy playes the game with a goal to get rich. Aquaring wealth and assets pleases him the most. In his mind this guy "sacrifices" his assets in order to get pvp so when he looses his assets not according to the plan that upsets him. PVP guy will treat all his assets as means to pvp. Thats quite the opposite to what you wrote  Maybe you are a carebear guy after all lol. Nothing wrong with that by the way. I played plenty carebear style too.

2nd. Easiest incentive is pvp ex bonus when 1n1. And greatly reduced ex when in group even though you might have done most of the damage. Seems fair to me. Top rank guys probably wont gang a trader in snow as this just will be a waste of their time. But catching a player in indiaman everything is fair. Especially now with this bullshit teleport out if OW after the battle. Also if you had somewhat equal BR in the fight the winner could get better chance of getting paints and quality upgrades

[TommyShelby]

4 hours ago, Yar Matey said:

This is a game of conquest first and foremost, and with conquest comes war, and the only sole purpose of war is to annihilate your enemy.  This naturally means being an opportunist and striking down your enemy when he is weak or outnumbered and running away when you are at a disadvantage and/or outnumbered.  Should the Allies during WW2 have called up America and said "you know, those strategic bombing raids your doing on Germany are unfair, and we want a fair fight down here on the ground."  Ridiculous.

I understand you want even fair and challenging fights, but the only way you will ever achieve this is arranged matches like tournaments and/or organized matches. Of which, a few of us used to do on PvP2 and we would wager labor contracts to the winner.  Yes, sometimes you will find that in OW, but you and I both know that it will be a rare occurrence.  It's just the nature of war, you can't change that.  

As far as ganking is concerned, you have tuns of fleets and towers in friendly waters, use them to your advantage, it's nearly impossible to get ganked in friendly waters now.  If you do, your doing something wrong.  

This is a game about Naval Action first and foremost. If the game was all about "Conquest" and if that was the main thing about Naval Action, then explain to me why the combat mechanics have been developed for 3-4 years? There is a reason why the combat mechanics are the most developed thing in this game. 
If the game was all about "Conquest" then you know, there would be no point in having such well developed, complex, combat mechanics. No point at all. 

Real life war and gaming is 2 very different things. Comparing them is, ridicoulus... 
A game is meant to be fun. If all the game is about is ganking, then man oh man. You will soon find yourself with noone to play with! 
- And i know you specifically have complained about mechanics allowing ganking, even when the rest of us weren't getting ganked with those mechanics. My question to you is, considering your previous stance on timers and your past complaints about ganking, how come you suddenly defend it because: "OH, this game is about war, just like in real life!" (Real Life war isn't fun for anyone, it never is..) 

I don't get ganked very often because i understand the game mechanics, even when i'm in hostile territory in a slow ship i can usually get away. My problem lies not with the few times someone succesfully ganks me. My problem lies with the fundamental "Gank or be ganked" attitude that most players seem to have lately. 

4 hours ago, sruPL said:

Ad 1 What if I prefer doing both? Fair fights and so called in dumb way "ganking"? I can seek for fair fight among friends, in chats, in duels, in small/large battles, port battles etc. Open World was never meant to be a place for gentlemen. It is meant to be cruel, without rules and mercy...   Don't try to enforce fairness into world where it's not supposed to be.

If you prefer doing both thats all good. 
But you really should have read my comment more closely...

I stated, and i've done it many times before. 
We should NOT enforce fair fights - We SHOULD however encourage it. 

Don't force fair fights, encourage it. 
It will make for a better game and new players will have a much better time. 


 

[Puchu]

 

7 hours ago, koltes said:

ganging 1 trader will cause problems for the nation, ganging 5 or 10 might even cripple nations economy. Ganging will become a valuabe tool in fight vs other nations just what privateeres were for.

 

We have infinite ressources and nations cannot realistically be crippled to a point where it really matters. So basically ganking traders only hurts the casual single player. Clans dont care about a trader getting ganked. Nations certainly dont care about it. Ganking doesnt help anybody. It only hurts. 

There are good reasons for that.
1: The older players know what happened when nations got reduced to 1 port. It sux for that nation! They will loose players, some will quit and many will be frustrated. That's why alliances formed, so that horrible situation doesnt happen anymore.
2: Being crippled is not fun. The more crippled you are the less you seek pvp, the more afraid you are, the less content happens. 

It's basically like this:

If you sail on the ow you offer fighting content for the other ppl on the ow. If they gank you, they turn your offer into bad content, if you get a roughly even fight, your offer turns into good content. If you get ganked, you pay with your dura (which ultimately is game time spent) and your lost time on ow and the sad gank experience for offering game content to the other players. Imo thats a sad state of the art.

If i see someone on the ow, he is my friend. Well, in the game he is my "enemy", but "enemy" in the language of games means: "Person with whom i can play". So i am Happy to see him. I dont want to make his day miserable by ganking him and giving him no chance to win.

 

Dont worry, ganks will not be remooved, and ow will not be remooved. Just we need incentives for ppl to seek fair fights. Maybe better drops, maybe special currency, maybe something else. Maybe we will come up with an idea. Maybe ppl one day will get bored of ganks, like many ppl i sail with did a long time ago. 

[Yar Matey]

2 hours ago, TommyShelby said:

This is a game about Naval Action first and foremost. If the game was all about "Conquest" and if that was the main thing about Naval Action, then explain to me why the combat mechanics have been developed for 3-4 years? There is a reason why the combat mechanics are the most developed thing in this game. 
If the game was all about "Conquest" then you know, there would be no point in having such well developed, complex, combat mechanics. No point at all. 

Real life war and gaming is 2 very different things. Comparing them is, ridicoulus... 
A game is meant to be fun. If all the game is about is ganking, then man oh man. You will soon find yourself with noone to play with! 
- And i know you specifically have complained about mechanics allowing ganking, even when the rest of us weren't getting ganked with those mechanics. My question to you is, considering your previous stance on timers and your past complaints about ganking, how come you suddenly defend it because: "OH, this game is about war, just like in real life!" (Real Life war isn't fun for anyone, it never is..) 

I don't get ganked very often because i understand the game mechanics, even when i'm in hostile territory in a slow ship i can usually get away. My problem lies not with the few times someone succesfully ganks me. My problem lies with the fundamental "Gank or be ganked" attitude that most players seem to have lately. 

Your right, I complained a lot about the ROE and Ganking quite a bit, but it is not nearly the problem now it used to be.  Ganking in enemy waters now requires perfect timing and executution.  Back when I complained about it, ports had no defenses and fleets did not get pulled in to aid you.  You were all alone with no hope of winning.  The 2 min timer in my eyes was the worst thing to happen to this game because, at the time, it created the most hostile environment to new players.  The RoE we have now is the best it has ever been you at least have to agree on that.

bit still these changes, do not change the fact that this is a game of conquest and ganking will always be a problem between warring nations.  It can be frustrating when you want a good fight, and you find yourself in a lopsided match either with yours or the enemy with the advantage.  But I don't really see a solution to the problem of uneven fights.  

[Koltes]

1 hour ago, Yar Matey said:

Your right, I complained a lot about the ROE and Ganking quite a bit, but it is not nearly the problem now it used to be.  Ganking in enemy waters now requires perfect timing and executution.  Back when I complained about it, ports had no defenses and fleets did not get pulled in to aid you.  You were all alone with no hope of winning.  The 2 min timer in my eyes was the worst thing to happen to this game because, at the time, it created the most hostile environment to new players.  The RoE we have now is the best it has ever been you at least have to agree on that.

bit still these changes, do not change the fact that this is a game of conquest and ganking will always be a problem between warring nations.  It can be frustrating when you want a good fight, and you find yourself in a lopsided match either with yours or the enemy with the advantage.  But I don't really see a solution to the problem of uneven fights.  

Thats why there should be pvp events that allows to enter only 1v1 in a fight over a wreck or something. Who gets the kill gets to loot. Also pvp events for small teams 3vs3 5vs5 etc

Then various PB size matches for equal ship setups for larger team vs team. 

But leave OW a sandbox with minimal restriction mechanics. Battles should stay open for at least 30 min. No one gets pulled in apart from person being attacked directly, but then anyone can join no matter BR. Exit location from battle into OW is based on relocation in the battle. Players get kicked from battle screen in 5 mins or immediately if alt-f4

Edited December 26, 2016 by koltes

[Fenris]

Instead of this "Event" they could have code in rewards in _SMALL BATTLES, make rooms for different ships(rates), and there you go with "fair" fighting.

Sailing in OW will almost never provide "fair" fights. Everybody knows it sucks when you get in a fight outnumbered,or you just need to run away being in a trader.Thats why NA is (still) so great.

Players also suggested "ESCORT" missions for traders, with small rewards(XP,money),but here we are.....Turning around in circles.

Edited December 26, 2016 by Fenris

[Busterbloodvessel]

Another update going in today 26/12/16

Buster

pushes a plate of turkey twizlers to one side.

[Chimera]

dont restrict the open world... its calle "open" world for a reason.

if you restrict battles to 1v1 , 3v3 and so on you might as well make it a lobby game, all you have left is basically a lobby that you have to sail to, if you do.

[Pada]

Constitution mast thickness is now back to 103 but Trincomalee is still 108. Makes sense?

[Puchu]

10 hours ago, koltes said:

Thats why there should be pvp events that allows to enter only 1v1 in a fight over a wreck or something. Who gets the kill gets to loot. Also pvp events for small teams 3vs3 5vs5 etc

 

I like that idea.

[Neverdead Ned]

I think people are caught in a what came first chicken or egg kind of thinking.  Back before there was an open world, NA was primarily a PvP game where people entered battles through lobbies back during Sea Trials.  The open world was added by player request but it was never supposed to take over or become the main part of the game which is ships fighting ships.  I personally think people, especially carebears, are trying to turn this game into a strategy game totally ignoring what makes this game great, fantastic ships fighting each other.  So far the strategy game has been failing...why?  because the keep it simple stupid philosophy has been lost.  On a PvP server, if you sail out of port, you do so with all the risk it entails.  There should be no "safe area" or "fair play".....there is a PvE server for that.  Let's get back to the basics and prepare to lose durs.  I'd rather see the devs working on new ships to fight with than all this how to appease the carebear open world BS.

[Koltes]

2 hours ago, Neverdead Ned said:

I think people are caught in a what came first chicken or egg kind of thinking.  Back before there was an open world, NA was primarily a PvP game where people entered battles through lobbies back during Sea Trials.  The open world was added by player request but it was never supposed to take over or become the main part of the game which is ships fighting ships.  I personally think people, especially carebears, are trying to turn this game into a strategy game totally ignoring what makes this game great, fantastic ships fighting each other.  So far the strategy game has been failing...why?  because the keep it simple stupid philosophy has been lost.  On a PvP server, if you sail out of port, you do so with all the risk it entails.  There should be no "safe area" or "fair play".....there is a PvE server for that.  Let's get back to the basics and prepare to lose durs.  I'd rather see the devs working on new ships to fight with than all this how to appease the carebear open world BS.

Well said

[MasterChief]

dont turn it into a fight  OW lovers vs. Lobby Lovers.

the open world have his charme, 

all we need on the pvp server are open battles for all and all the time,  just spawn far away in the battle , so all have time to react (flee, regroup or fight) while others joins the fight,  yes its PvP,  

if u sail alone u have to take the risk to be ganked, if u are ganked by overwhelming amount of ships call for help,  who can join the fight and help u or get ganked by another hostile group outside of battle, there is so much potential.

in other case dont sail alone, if u are affraid to be ganked make a group, oder while u have a trader with a expensive cargo make a convoy,whos will save you ( atleast try) 

if u cant afford to loose a ship or cargo, stay at port.  

 

[Sir Texas Sir]

7 hours ago, Neverdead Ned said:

I think people are caught in a what came first chicken or egg kind of thinking.  Back before there was an open world, NA was primarily a PvP game where people entered battles through lobbies back during Sea Trials.  The open world was added by player request but it was never supposed to take over or become the main part of the game which is ships fighting ships.  I personally think people, especially carebears, are trying to turn this game into a strategy game totally ignoring what makes this game great, fantastic ships fighting each other.  So far the strategy game has been failing...why?  because the keep it simple stupid philosophy has been lost.  On a PvP server, if you sail out of port, you do so with all the risk it entails.  There should be no "safe area" or "fair play".....there is a PvE server for that.  Let's get back to the basics and prepare to lose durs.  I'd rather see the devs working on new ships to fight with than all this how to appease the carebear open world BS.

I don't want lobbies, but I want to fight and I think your right.  I mean why the hell is the hostility mission only open for 5 mins now?  We can't even hunt for them unless you win the lotto and luck out right when they leave a mission to find them and stop them.  It needs to be back at 15 mins and I would prefer some type of notice about what port is getting the most hostility in what area of a region. If I"m spending all my time hunting for that player causing hostility I"m not getting PvP or grinding it down.    Pretty much all flips are Bomb to 50 and than rush grind to 100%.     Small nations have no chance stopping others with counter grind but they could if they can find the missions and fight them.  Bring the timer back to 15 mins if anything so there would be more PvP in OW.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I don't want lobbies, but I want to fight and I think your right.  I mean why the hell is the hostility mission only open for 5 mins now?  We can't even hunt for them unless you win the lotto and luck out right when they leave a mission to find them and stop them.  It needs to be back at 15 mins and I would prefer some type of notice about what port is getting the most hostility in what area of a region. If I"m spending all my time hunting for that player causing hostility I"m not getting PvP or grinding it down.    Pretty much all flips are Bomb to 50 and than rush grind to 100%.     Small nations have no chance stopping others with counter grind but they could if they can find the missions and fight them.  Bring the timer back to 15 mins if anything so there would be more PvP in OW.

Completely agree. Five minutes is absurd.

[Kiithnaras]

3 hours ago, EliteDelta said:

Completely agree. Five minutes is absurd.

Wasn't aware of this. I concur, hostility missions are supposed to be a way of broadcasting where the action is and drawing in PvP. Closing the battle after 5 minutes is absolutely silly. I'd say to take it a step further and drop it back to the original 30 minutes of open time.

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 hours ago, Kiithnaras said:

Wasn't aware of this. I concur, hostility missions are supposed to be a way of broadcasting where the action is and drawing in PvP. Closing the battle after 5 minutes is absolutely silly. I'd say to take it a step further and drop it back to the original 30 minutes of open time.

I just found out last week too that it was lowered.  I don't remember seeing this in any patch notes or what not.  I mean really they keep doing changes that are for PvE style players and it's killing things.

[Jean Ribault]

5 minutes does seem silly for that, doesn't it?  But it doesn't stop the revenge fleets, once you're done the hostility mission unless you BS camp you come out and then POP, there's the rest waiting to jump you.  They will be the ones that took 6 or 7 minutes to get to the fight instead of being able to make it in 5.  They need to get something out of the trip.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

I hope at term, they add another type of hostility mission called "blockade missions" and  "blockade buster"   similar to hostility missions, generating a 1 hour pvp event zone marked on the map in the region of your choice.

The zone close when you enter your battle

ROE depend on your level and the difficulty of the cost/level of the mission (acces closed after br limit reached) Fleet pvp missions start at the first tag and remain open for defenders for a long time

The hostility points being calculated after the event is close depending of the kill achieved in the zone.

All participants get drops at the end of the battle (including paints) to incitate defenders to come and fight.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Baptiste Gallouédec

[Sir Texas Sir]

9 hours ago, Jean Ribault said:

5 minutes does seem silly for that, doesn't it?  But it doesn't stop the revenge fleets, once you're done the hostility mission unless you BS camp you come out and then POP, there's the rest waiting to jump you.  They will be the ones that took 6 or 7 minutes to get to the fight instead of being able to make it in 5.  They need to get something out of the trip.

If your in enemy waters than you should expect revenge fleets.  You send out one guy and than you check.  Or you can all just be cowards and go to friendly port now with the new option.  Sorry if your fighting in hostile waters you should expect that.  Now you can't even join them at all and you do the same just sit out side until they pop out so how would that change anything?  Though with the friendly port teleport option it means you can't even do that.

[Jean Ribault]

14 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

If your in enemy waters than you should expect revenge fleets.  ...

 

So then why are you complaining about the 5 minutes?  What's the difference?  No big deal.  You either fight the hostility battle or fight the battle afterwards with your fresh superior force.  You still get the battle then, so no reason to whine about the 5 minutes.  Or do you want your cake and eat it too?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Jean Ribault

[Llewellyn Jones RN]

This all makes me laugh as all you are worried about your pixel ships and points or you are all complaining about lack of pvp. So the devs put in another get out a jail free card. 

If you are raising hostility be prepared to fight a revenge fleet don't just Tele back to a friendly port fight your way out of the hole you got yourselves in then you will all get the pvp you want. Loss of ships is something you should all expect. 

The use of all these exploits and community based whines to the devs enforced game changes really is pissing me off. 

[Angus McGregor]

Aside from BR balancing, I still think one of the main griefs with leaving battles (PvE/PvP) open for longer is the way late arrivals 'pop' into the battle at pistol shot range. They should spawn into the instance at the perimeter of the pull circle.

I picture a captain spotting a battle, seeing only crossed swords at extreme range. Clicking on them through telescope does not reveal BR details, just the nations and total number of ships involved. The haze of gunpowder smoke make identification impossible. They approach to investigate. At the perimeter of the pull circle a Battle Info window automatically comes up with details - number of ships involved by each nation and BR totals. The options are 'Attack' and 'Withdraw' and you MUST choose one (or enter port) to make the Battle Info window go away.

• Attack - takes you into the battle instance at the spot on the pull perimeter when the Battle Info window first appeared, NOT where you are when you get around to clicking the attack option.
• Withdraw - makes the the Battle Info window and battle marker (crossed swords) go away, which effectively locks you out of ever joining that battle.

Solves the issue with 'johnny-come-laters' suddenly appearing at <200m with 'prepared' broadsides. New arrivals appearing at the pull circle perimeter gives existing combatants time to prepare or flee (if possible).

Making the spawn point where the Battle Info window first appeared solves the problem with possibly spawning into the battle instance on land.

BR balancing issues are a different topic.