Hotfix 1 for patch 10.3

[Elbizor]

13 minutes ago, akd said:

If ganking is primary concern, then it needs to be addressed differently.   Revenge fleets just encourage more ganking.

We had an equitable solution that addressed specific issue of unfair fights being created in areas where defender had strong possibility of reinforcement (so called "safe waters"): signal perk.  Bring it back and allow 1.2x-1.5x BR reinforcement for 5-10 minutes.

Then allow option to stop playing if you win or escape a battle.  I don't care what form this takes, but you must allow players to stop playing after fighting a battle.  Log-off with hard no-attack penalty when logging back in is a balanced solution.  You still suffer a revenge fleet penalty (blocked from playing, still have to extract yourself from unsafe area when you log back in), but aren't held hostage to your PC.  This time penalty is applied whether you just fought a 1.5hour fair battle or participated in a gank, so is fairly harsh and indiscriminate as a balance for ganking, thus things are still tilted toward the carebear side, but at least not in a fatal, game-destroying way.

Can any one see an exploit in being able to log off when the battle says battle over,  like the old end of battle screen.  I can't but then I'm not an avid pvper.

Though tbh I don't really care, if people wanna attack populated waters they should bring their mates or attack trade routes.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Elbizor

[Flankengott]

2 hours ago, Liquicity said:

Exactly, "enemy in sight" could be seen by nearby ships (NOT ships docked in port) so they could come and help. Hence the three minute timer.

But isn't that exactly the point? Only friends "in sight range" should be able to help. Imo the problem with revenge fleets is that they can be arranged by the means of "modern" communication, i.e. chat and TS. While the first can be prevented by e.g. disabling outside battle chat function to call for help while in battle, I'm not sure how to heal the latter one tbh...

Why not implementing some visual signal in OW when getting ganked (signaling for help, periodically appearing lights/firework, ...), appearing at the position the battle takes place and initiated by the attacked ship (stuff/mats to be taken with you)? By this, ships that occasionally come by / are in sight can come and help. Or even wait for revenge, why not? Gankers ganking in fully crowded enemy waters (near the capital) should be aware of the risk of being outnumbered, which is lower the more outside the capital regions the raid takes place. Whether the help comes directly or later doesn't change the situation basically. But important: only ships in SIGHT range (as it was in these times) should be able to be involved...

Hope my suggestion isn't completely ridiculous as I'm only a causual player, but I track these forums discussions very eagerly interested and simply would like to see this game being improved.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Flankengott

[Liq]

1 hour ago, Flankengott said:

But isn't that exactly the point? Only friends "in sight range" should be able to help. Imo the problem with revenge fleets is that they can be arranged by the means of "modern" communication, i.e. chat and TS. While the first can be prevented by e.g. disabling outside battle chat function to call for help while in battle, I'm not sure how to heal the latter one tbh...

Why not implementing some visual signal in OW when getting ganked (signaling for help, periodically appearing lights/firework, ...), appearing at the position the battle takes place and initiated by the attacked ship (stuff/mats to be taken with you)? By this, ships that occasionally come by / are in sight can come and help. Or even wait for revenge, why not? Gankers ganking in fully crowded enemy waters (near the capital) should be aware of the risk of being outnumbered, which is lower the more outside the capital regions the raid takes place. Whether the help comes directly or later doesn't change the situation basically. But important: only ships in SIGHT range (as it was in these times) should be able to be involved...

Hope my suggestion isn't completely ridiculous as I'm only a causual player, but I track these forums discussions very eagerly interested and simply would like to see this game being improved.

"But important: only ships in SIGHT range (as it was in these times) should be able to be involved..." 
I agree

But since we DO have communication in terms of teamspeak / ingame chat, and we DO have two dimensions (compressed OW and battle instances), a balance needs to be made.

Basically we already have the 3 minute timer which should be more than enough for players in range to join. We just don't know yet how to deal with revenge fleets.

[Vernon Merrill]

My solution would be:

- Option to log off from Battle Results Screen IF:

       - You do NOT have a Fleet Ship (no trader-raiding and running)

       - You are NOT the attacker (weakens defensive tagging as a compromise)

       - You cannot ATTACK another ship for 10 mins. after logging in (no using log-off to merely hide and serves purpose of "defending home waters")

       - Log-off notification is made visible to everyone in Battle Results screen. (no wasting "home defense fleet's" time)

Although I think AKD's plan is more elegant and effective.

 

ADMIN!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

 

 

[Liq]

7 hours ago, springby said:

did you have an even balanced fight? consider yourself lucky.

Plenty.
Maybe I should play the lottery?

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Liquicity

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

1 hour ago, Elbizor said:

Can any one see an exploit in being able to log off when the battle says battle over,  like the old end of battle screen.  I can't but then I'm not an avid pvper.

Though tbh I don't really care, if people wanna attack populated waters they should bring their mates or attack trade routes.

Log off on battle screen was used to hide in front of port to spawn the next day in front of it just before the port battle for exemple.

Plus this was bad for the game as often, players where logging off very often (when escaping to avoid retag or when near potential enemies) meaning people playing less, others waiting for nothing in ow. That was dumb.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Baptiste Gallouédec

[Liq]

1 minute ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

Log off on battle screen was used to hide in front of port to spawn the next day in front of it just before the port battle for exemple.

Plus this was bad for the game as often, players where logging off very often (when escaping to avoid retag or when near potential enemies) meaning people playing less, others waiting for nothing in ow. That was dumb.

Hence the 30 min 'you cannot enter PB' timer, and possibly a 10 min 'you cannot attack anyone' timer.

IMO revenge fleets are way dumber than giving players the possibility to take a rest after a battle.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

I can understand that, but no game can rely on people just stopping the game to avoid a problem (=revenge fleet problem, "rest problem" is not a dev problem).

That's why i've suggested that the longer you fight, the farther from tag you should be allowed to spawn in ow. That way someone who fought for hours could simply jump out far from where the tag took place (somewhere where revenge fleets will probably not be looking for you or in front of a friendly port if in range)

 

Easier than a spawnzone circle size, invisibility time could depend on the battle duration, the longer you fight, the longer you can be invisible while out.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Baptiste Gallouédec

[Zooloo]

8 hours ago, Aegir said:

Isn't that a capital area battle since they reinforced beyond 3 minutes?

No it was quite far from capital, i dont think the trinc reinforced after 3 min

[Daguse]

11 hours ago, TommyShelby said:

@Daguse

1 example;

A group of 5 go into a fight with AI. Outside they have a scout sitting at their battLe. 

The 5 people in the battle sails away from The AI (the ai doesn't leave = battle doesn't close.

Then the scout sees an enemy ship approaching, he tells they guys in battle and then the guys in battle leaves and sails over to the enemy ship with the "cloak" on. 

 

While it never happened to me there many many posts about these situations last time we tested invisibility.

I don't think not being able to see the enemy ship would fix this because their scout can guide them as to which direction and how far away the enemy ship is.

So yes they could guide a group of ships close to the location. However once the fleet of 5 pop out of invisibility, they would still have the delay before attacking. If need be increase the attack timer too two minutes as well. 2 minutes of invisibility both ways, 2 minutes of no tagging.

I'm not going to tell you there is no way that it can be abused, personally I feel any mechanism added could be abused. However, I feel any sort of tp could be abused as much or more, unnecessarily removes players from the ow and adds to much protection to the offensive ships. 

[Hodo]

So all these people arguing over realism with revenge fleets, is just pointless.

Historically and realistically, when a battle happened there was no instant vanish in to some magic untouchable battle arena.  But also there was no FAST way for a ship in the real world to leave port, sail 30-100 nautical miles and enter a battle that at best may last 2-6 hours.  

Usually by the time a "revenge" fleet would arrive the victors would already be several hours away with their prize.   

So the idea of 60 second double invisibility with a 125% max speed in any direction after a battle, is a solid one to fix the issue.  The double invisibility will mean you as the player leaving the battle wont see anyone outside of the battle, as they wouldnt be there yet, and they wouldnt see you because you are no longer there.  

[Daguse]

6 hours ago, Liquicity said:

I dont expect them as in I dont think they should even be a thing and therefore not needed to be expected by anyone.

Obviously game mechanics allow them right now. But only because you can do something, that doesn't mean it's a good and proper game mechanic.

Just because you expect and plan for something doesn't mean you support it or believe it is good or proper game play.

I do however believe player A shouldn't be able to attack player B in player Bs home waters without risks of a counterattack. Removing counter attacks is dull game play.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Daguse

[Liq]

1 minute ago, Daguse said:

Just because you expect and plan for something doesn't mean you support it or believe it is good or proper game play.

I do however believe player A should be able to attack player B in player Bs home waters without risks of a counterattack. Removing counter attacks is dull game play.

so remove ow pvp, as all battles were taking place in one nation's waters?

looking at how it is, pbs are already pretty much removed aswell due to the fact that you dont even need to fight for a conquest mark income atm, we had 2 proper pbs since the wipe lol

early access gone wrong?

[Daguse]

10 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

so remove ow pvp, as all battles were taking place in one nation's waters?

looking at how it is, pbs are already pretty much removed aswell due to the fact that you dont even need to fight for a conquest mark income atm, we had 2 proper pbs since the wipe lol

early access gone wrong?

Dude I'm not sure what you are on but please share! 

In no way am I saying remove ow pvp.. this is a pvp game after all.

If you go to enemy territory you should be at risk for being sunk, if you attack enemy ships in theirs territory, the risk should increase again. I don't want this baby pvp where I can attack some and then hid in port or get tped home.

You can argue the early access point all you want, it won't change anything.

[Liq]

16 minutes ago, Daguse said:

If you go to enemy territory you should be at risk for being sunk, if you attack enemy ships in theirs territory, the risk should increase again. I don't want this baby pvp where I can attack some and then hid in port or get tped home.

 

You are risking getting sunk, if they get you in OW in the first place, without the need to create, in my view, "baby pvp" revenge fleets.

3 min join timer is plenty. Don't sail alone in an area, you should always be aware of the fact that any time you set sail you're risking your ship.

In your opinion, where therefore ow pvp should be, if not in a nations waters?

Edited June 28, 2017 by Liquicity

[TommyShelby]

1 minute ago, Liquicity said:

You are risking getting sunk, if they get you in OW in the first place, without the need to create, in my view, "baby pvp" revenge fleets.

3 min join timer is plenty. Don't sail alone in an area, you should always be aware of the fact that any time you set sail you're risking your ship.

In your opinion, where therefore ow pvp should be, if not in a nations water?

Come on Liq. 
Only the "wolves" should be aware of that fact. The "Sheep" shouldn't. They must feel 100% safe and if they lose a ship, they should be guaranteed revenge! 

[Daguse]

3 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

You are risking getting sunk, if they get you in OW in the first place, without the need to create, in my view, "baby pvp" revenge fleets.

3 min join timer is plenty. Don't sail alone in an area, you should always be aware of the fact that any time you set sail you're risking your ship.

In your opinion, where therefore ow pvp should be, if not in a nations waters?

Why do you think I'm for the current system or want to remove pvp from national waters? In no way do I think it is right or fun.

A system needs to be built that if so that players can't attack traders or lowbes with no fear of reprisals.

so what is your situation to this mess?

[Daguse]

8 minutes ago, TommyShelby said:

Come on Liq. 
Only the "wolves" should be aware of that fact. The "Sheep" shouldn't. They must feel 100% safe and if they lose a ship, they should be guaranteed revenge! 

Says the guy that wants to be able to take a trade brig from a noob and then tp back to port without hitting the open water.

 

I want to promote more balanced pvp where players who attack in other nations waters have a chance to get away but are not guaranteed to. If that makes me a care bare/ sheep then I totally miss understood the meaning of them.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Daguse

[TommyShelby]

2 minutes ago, Daguse said:

Says the guy that wants to take a trade brig from a noob and then tp back to port without hitting the open water.

Oh right, i forgot that is exactly how i play! 

I only attack low ranked players, traders and ships that are atleast 1 class lower than my own. 
Thanks for reminding me of my playstyle and what it is i want and don't want

[Liq]

1 minute ago, Daguse said:

Why do you think I'm for the current system or want to remove pvp from national waters? In no way do I think it is right or fun.

A system needs to be built that if so that players can't attack traders or lowbes with no fear of reprisals.

so what is your situation to this mess?

"In no way do I think it is right or fun."

Dunno really but Ive had quite a lot of fun in my ow pvp experience.

Rookie Zone was a good idea, so noobs wouldnt get rofl stomped and quit after the first day. Not exactly sure why it got removed.

In other games, you get an invulnerability status for the first few days / or maybe the first week you play. Somewhat exploitable in this game through alts, but maybe limit it to the date where you bought it on steam so you cant recreate the status every time you delete your char.

[Daguse]

7 minutes ago, TommyShelby said:

Oh right, i forgot that is exactly how i play! 

I only attack low ranked players, traders and ships that are atleast 1 class lower than my own. 
Thanks for reminding me of my playstyle and what it is i want and don't want

So because you say your honorable all other players are going to be the same way? Fact is your recommendation allows for players to take ships well below their own with not reprisals!

[Hethwill]

There is no per~player~custom rule.

The rule affects all equally. A merciful captain might make good use of the rule. A powergamer won-t.

[Daguse]

8 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

"In no way do I think it is right or fun."

Dunno really but Ive had quite a lot of fun in my ow pvp experience.

Rookie Zone was a good idea, so noobs wouldnt get rofl stomped and quit after the first day. Not exactly sure why it got removed.

In other games, you get an invulnerability status for the first few days / or maybe the first week you play. Somewhat exploitable in this game through alts, but maybe limit it to the date where you bought it on steam so you cant recreate the status every time you delete your char.

Really dude what the hello kitty are you smoken I want some of this shit.

you just said you don't like revenge fleets but now you say you like the current system... 

Wait are you a politician cause you flip flop like them.

As for your solution, I'm not sure how that would prevent revenge fleets. After the days of invisibility expired we would be in the same place we are now.

[Liq]

1 minute ago, Daguse said:

you just said you don't like revenge fleets but now you say you like the current system... 

 

I never said that I like the current system? I said I had a lot of fun in OW PvP in enemy waters, as a response to your question.
However what happens after it, the revenge fleet BS, is another topic.

I know you said you didnt like promoting ow pvp in enemy waters. So again. Where to pvp?

[Sureshot]

Game mechanics right now in a nutshell.

 I'm going to capture a ship in enemy water and while I'm doing that enemy is setting up outside and surrounding my battle. When I get out I'm going to lose the ships I captured + the ship that I own. They will tag me over and over and I will have no way of escaping. 

So waaaaaaaaaait a minute, please tell me how everything is not in defenders favor? Why look for PvP again? This is supposed to encourage PvP? lol ;p very realistic too.

Edited June 28, 2017 by SeaHyena