Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Slamz

What's more lame: hiding in battle to avoid screeners, or screeners?

Recommended Posts

tl;dr: Is it more lame to hide in a battle in order to avoid enemy screening fleets, or is it more lame to use screening fleets to avoid having a 25v25 battle?

I keep going back to the idea that port battles should be something you can join from the comfort of your own nation's capital. And when you're done, you are back in the capital. Basically they are a special 25v25 fight that, once scheduled, cannot be avoided (assuming enough interested people are online). You don't even have to sail there.

Screening fleets are lame because half of their intent is to grab people to prevent them from entering the port battle. Removing the possibility of screening does not eliminate much fun from the game. Screening can be interesting but it's mostly just a delaying tactic. But screeners messing up port battles DOES eliminate a lot of fun from the game.


Plus, it's hard to really stop people from hiding in battles to avoid enemies. Pirates can do an outlaw battle but anyone could just attack an NPC fleet and sail away from them. (Or a "friendly" enemy, alt or otherwise.)


So given that screening fleets basically suck to begin with, is it worth the effort to try and make them functional?
Do we really want to prevent 25v25 battles from occurring?
Should we not, instead, actually facilitate 25v25 even if it means screening as a concept goes away?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing I wonder, is it possible to prevent defenders from joining a port battle at a port they're docked at?

 

and if so - is that how it should be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

For those who want 25v25 PBs without all the contrivances and fuss of the open world (including the politics, drama and whatnot that you also seem to dislike) then NA Legends will be perfect for those folks. Zero fuss.

Screening is still part of the PB experience, and while it's not perfect - such as being able to relatively easily segment PB fleets with the current tagging circles - it's still way better than it was pre-patch where entire PB fleets were halted by just a few frigates with borderline free ships that would suicide charge just to keep people in battle for a few minutes. Now you at least have to step up with a sizable force and at a moderate risk.

If you show up with a strong screening force it can either be a good way to prevent PBs via the OW - either as an anti-hostility fleet or as a screen - but also risks losing it leaving you wide open for subsequent attacks if you don't manage to replenish the fleet in time.

Milking the time inside battles just to stall for PB entry is one thing, but doing so by making use of alts, outlaw battles, mass teleports and shit is on a whole other level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a lobby based game (yet....).  

Port battles should be a national effort with multiple groups of screeners on both sides preventing each other's fleets from getting into the battle.  The scope of this game is and should always be larger than just 25 vs 25.  Screening encourages players to come out and attempt to win ships off the enemy.  This is a sandbox after all.  I've been apart of actions where we've successfully screened out defensive players trying to join from the docks.      

Yes BR mechanics need to be adjusted and they were supposed to have been with this mega patch.  It seems they have not.  5 Frigates should not be be able to tag 25 players in a fleet and 25players should not be able to tag 1 person to hide in the battle.  The door swings both ways.

Historically there is precedent with blockade fleets, delaying actions and disrupting of attacking forces trying to land troops and the like.  Nelson didn't use a lobby, Nelson didn't fight ONLY 25v25 battles and Nelson didn't tag his friends and hide in battle for an hour and a half.  

Tagging an alt or tagging each other into an outlaw battle is an abuse of game mechanics and punishment should be served.  Screening is an allowable game mechanic.  If you think differently you're playing the wrong hello kittying game.  

TDLR - cheating is lame.

Edited by Christendom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither, the people who defend exploiting are. 

"Its not an exploit" - It is, you're the only ones who think its not.

"Anyone can do it, they just don't know how" -Everyone knows how its done, no one else does it because they aren't dense.

"We won*" Because you exploited

inb4

"get gud" -exploiting to win, regardless of how many times they're told by devs not to, no matter how many people they drive away from the game, of how fed up the community becomes. These people are sore winners who would gladly exploit their way to every nations capitals until there is no one left to play against because that's the ultimate "win" to them

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The screening of convoys, fleets and port installations has been a valid and legitimate tactic in naval warfare since the ancient Greek fleet beat a Persian fleet many times their size at Salamis hundreds of years Before Christ.

Screening fleets by definition are designed to screen convoys, the heavy ships of the main fleet and even port installations from attack by the enemy, Many ships made their name in one sided screening actions, Ardent and Acaster, Rawalpindi, Gloworm  all lost defending their charges against impossible odds, sometimes even after their charges were sunk and their duty discharged.

They were also expected to engage and tie down enemy Capital ships until their own Capital ships could catch up and engage, as the Battlecruisers, Cruisers and Destroyers did, at great cost, at Jutland.

Until someone can demonstrate any battle where the enemy appeared and disappeared magically to avoid fighting screening fleets or could appear as if by magic in exactly the right position to win a battle then such tactics are unacceptable, a deliberate ploy to cheat players of the opportunity to exercise valid and legitimate  tactics to defend against or attack their enemy.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

Circle on attacker is more lame

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the amount of meta-gaming in regard to PB's to be equally lame, no matter who is doing it. 

Anyway,

Screening should be an integral part of how port battles go down. I just don't like how pull-circle sniping allows players who have no actual interest in fighting to break up a bigger, heavier BR fleet. If you want to screen-- PvP, have fun and if you lose, hope the players you have earmarked for the PB itself are up to the task of defending the port. 

On the flip side, if the attacking force can't get through the screen, that sucks, but defense in depth is a thing.  Just enjoy the PvP you got, sink ships, capture ships, get some marks and go have a damn beer. 

 

 



 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sir Lancelot Holland said:

Until someone can demonstrate any battle where the enemy appeared and disappeared magically to avoid fighting screening fleets or could appear as if by magic in exactly the right position to win a battle then such tactics are unacceptable, a deliberate ploy to cheat players of the opportunity to exercise valid and legitimate  tactics to defend against or attack their enemy.

Please demonstrate where in history ships could sail at 75 times faster speed than others in a "time compressed" setting, and could travel 450km while two other ships were in battle for 15 minutes.  I'd also like to know what era the radio was invented.

Edited by Prater
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quineloe said:

one thing I wonder, is it possible to prevent defenders from joining a port battle at a port they're docked at?

Currently it is. The battle join timer prevents entry to the PB but the "cannot be attacked" timer is much shorter.

It's possible for a screening fleet to sit right outside the port and tag anyone who jumps out. They will be forced to click back into port and will never be able to join the defensive battle without the risk of being tagged.

It's really just another way that "screeners" can basically ruin what should be a fun 25v25 experience.

 

I mean another option is to just do away with port battles entirely and come up with a completely different port flip mechanic. Maybe 25v25 really is a "Naval Action Arenas" concept and has no place in this game.

2 hours ago, Christendom said:

 If you think differently you're playing the wrong hello kittying game.  

Big words from a guy playing on the #1 most overpopulated team.

Why don't you experience the game from the perspective of, say, the Dutch (or better yet, the Spanish), then come back and see if you hold the same opinion. Your narrow viewpoint and lack of experience with other teams is coloring your opinion.

Edited by Slamz

Share this post


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

Please demonstrate where in history ships could sail at 75 times faster speed than others in a "time compressed" setting, and could travel 450km while two other ships were in battle for 15 minutes.  I'd also like to know what era the radio was invented.

To be honest sailing in real time would not bother me in the least,  it would bother most others I am sure. Radio was used at sea in the late 1800's/ early 1900's,and the adoption of Marconi radio transmitters/recievers and Samuel Morse's famous code, prior to that signals were transmitted by semaphore or flag hoist both systems are still used alongside radio along with light signals (which were in used prior to the Spanish Armada in the form of beacons along the coast). Of course I'm sure not everyone would like to learn how to make up flag signals, have them hoisted and wade through the code and signal books to translate them! However such realism is a far cry from magically appearing and disappearing ships unless of course you are aboard the Flying Dutchman. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signal flags have a range of 1000km?  Also, again, once again, as has been said many times, outlaw battles are open to everyone for at least 30 minutes, if not all 90 minutes.  They aren't disappearing.  And my whole point is all of what I said above is just as bad as ships which do disappear, but some people seem to only be able to focus on how others exploit and don't care about how they exploit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Prater said:

Signal flags have a range of 1000km?  Also, again, once again, as has been said many times, outlaw battles are open to everyone for at least 30 minutes, if not all 90 minutes.  They aren't disappearing.  And my whole point is all of what I said above is just as bad as ships which do disappear, but some people seem to only be able to focus on how others exploit and don't care about how they exploit.

No they don't, they are as I am sure you are well aware a line of sight medium, in fact the only medium at sea during that time aside from shore semaphore or beacon fires. With regard to the exploit issue, while I have never made a practise of using exploits I can and do accept that that the last part of your sentence is accurate, irrespective of which side practises them. On that I think we can agree.   

Share this post


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

Please demonstrate where in history ships could sail at 75 times faster speed than others in a "time compressed" setting, and could travel 450km while two other ships were in battle for 15 minutes.  I'd also like to know what era the radio was invented.

by that metric it your ganking excursions out of pirate territory should take you weeks of actual sailing. 

Share this post


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

by that metric it your ganking excursions out of pirate territory should take you weeks of actual sailing.  

 

Game allows pirates to attack each other for whatever reason they want.  Those battles stay open to everyone and whoever wants to can enter those battles and fight the pirates.  It isn't anymore cheating than screening is, until admin says otherwise.  Anyway, you missed the point

 

P.s.  I said this stuff would happen when pirates can attack pirates.  That's one reason why I advocated for the removal over a year ago or whenever that was.

Edited by Prater
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Slamz said:

tl;dr: Is it more lame to hide in a battle in order to avoid enemy screening fleets, or is it more lame to use screening fleets to avoid having a 25v25 battle?

I keep going back to the idea that port battles should be something you can join from the comfort of your own nation's capital. And when you're done, you are back in the capital. Basically they are a special 25v25 fight that, once scheduled, cannot be avoided (assuming enough interested people are online). You don't even have to sail there.

Screening fleets are lame because half of their intent is to grab people to prevent them from entering the port battle. Removing the possibility of screening does not eliminate much fun from the game. Screening can be interesting but it's mostly just a delaying tactic. But screeners messing up port battles DOES eliminate a lot of fun from the game.


Plus, it's hard to really stop people from hiding in battles to avoid enemies. Pirates can do an outlaw battle but anyone could just attack an NPC fleet and sail away from them. (Or a "friendly" enemy, alt or otherwise.)


So given that screening fleets basically suck to begin with, is it worth the effort to try and make them functional?
Do we really want to prevent 25v25 battles from occurring?
Should we not, instead, actually facilitate 25v25 even if it means screening as a concept goes away?

  It's a very bad idea.If you delete screening that means less PVP, less opportunity to capture lineships.Also, you will loose the ability to decrease enemies number in a PB.Screening fleet doesnt messing up PBs.They are the first line of defense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Screening fleet doesnt messing up PBs.They are the first line of defense.

If the screening fleet actually succeeds, there will be no PB.

If they partially succeed, there will be a lopsided PB that one side just runs from.

Actually having a good PB requires the screening fleet to fail.

And screening fights themselves are rarely "good fights". They are either ganks or delaying tactics. (I'm fine with ganks, really, but plinking someone from max range just to hold them in so they can't make a port battle is lame.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if screening is lame or griefing, what do you call the counter screening fleets for after the Port Battle?  Ultra-griefing?

 

While the tactic of hiding in a battle to exploit the broken mechanic of no join timer for port battles.  Is an exploit of a broken or unfinished mechanic plain and simple.  It is also a cowardly act.  For a group that touts how they want PVP, yet avoid it whenever possible.  Hmm.. that is kind of like saying I want to gamble but dont like taking risks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have zero problem with screening. It is why small ships have existed in navies through out history. It also creates more pvp in the OW which is good for the game. I have no issue with the attacker having it harder by getting its fleet to the PB. The more screening and counter screening in the game the better it is for PVP.

I am all for new PB mechanics as we have discussed in other threads. PB's should take multiple fights and should take more than 24 hours real time to complete. However given the current mechanics screening is great for NA.

The abuse of said mechanics are easily fixed. Just add a time limit to how long a battle can be with zero damage.

Plus if this debate is about what happened at PAP while the Pirates certainly abused a mechanic but the Brits are just as much to blame. They should have had screeners at sea well a head of time to prevent it from hiding and the Brits easily could have joined that battle as the French and kept people in combat much longer than that hour.

Regardless of the mechanics in play screening should be part of those mechanics. It is a central piece of Naval Warfare.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slamz said:

If the screening fleet actually succeeds, there will be no PB.

If they partially succeed, there will be a lopsided PB that one side just runs from.

Actually having a good PB requires the screening fleet to fail.

And screening fights themselves are rarely "good fights". They are either ganks or delaying tactics. (I'm fine with ganks, really, but plinking someone from max range just to hold them in so they can't make a port battle is lame.)

If the screening fleet succeeds or partially succed that's mean enemy's screening fleet failed. If attacker's screening fleet doing a proper job your main fleet abel to join in PB.Also, you can have a good fight between screeners or screeners and a few first rate.This way more people are involved in one PB.I think it's a good flavor in the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vllad said:

 

I have zero problem with screening. It is why small ships have existed in navies through out history.

So when a small ship "tagged" a larger ship back in the day said larger ship disappeared from the world and was stuck in an instance completely removed from the rest of their fleet?

2 minutes ago, Vllad said:

Just add a time limit to how long a battle can be with zero damage.

This already exists, yeah?

 

I'm not saying screening is bad.  Just saying the current mechanics kinda make it lame just a bit.  At least that seems to be the complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Cimbi said:

If the screening fleet succeeds or partially succed that's mean enemy's screening fleet failed.

This still comes down to my question of whether or not port battles are a thing we want to prevent.

If the answer is "no" then it makes it easier for a smaller team to attack a larger one.

Imagine a scenario where you are going to bring literally 75 people to this port battle whereas my team can only bring 25. In your scenario, there is no chance my team can even make it to the port. We don't have 50 screeners. It doesn't even make sense to attack you at all. There will be no battle. We probably won't even bother trying to flip your ports. This encourages the general state of the game we see today: stalemates. You don't care enough to attack my team and my team is incapable of attacking yours.

If we make port battles hard to prevent, though, then small teams have a bigger chance. Assuming we can get your ports into contention then we have a chance to take them provided we have 25 people. To really play the RvR game you only need 25 people.

Your setup means the attacking team always needs more people than the defenders, just to reliably make it into the port battle.

Basically it favors the zerg.

 

This is also all an offshoot of the "8 team problem".

This game does not work well with 8 teams. The smaller teams end up being choked out. This would be much less of a problem, I think, as a 3-faction game.

Edited by Slamz
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

This still comes down to my question of whether or not port battles are a thing we want to prevent.

If the answer is "no" then it makes it easier for a smaller team to attack a larger one.

Imagine a scenario where you are going to bring literally 75 people to this port battle whereas my team can only bring 25. In your scenario, there is no chance my team can even make it to the port. We don't have 50 screeners. It doesn't even make sense to attack you at all. There will be no battle. We probably won't even bother trying to flip your ports. This encourages the general state of the game we see today: stalemates. You don't care enough to attack my team and my team is incapable of attacking yours.

If we make port battles hard to prevent, though, then small teams have a bigger chance. Assuming we can get your ports into contention then we have a chance to take them provided we have 25 people. To really play the RvR game you only need 25 people.

Your setup means the attacking team always needs more people than the defenders, just to reliably make it into the port battle.

Basically it favors the zerg.

 

This is also all an offshoot of the "8 team problem".

This game does not work well with 8 teams. The smaller teams end up being choked out. This would be much less of a problem, I think, as a 3-faction game.

 

There is no system that does not benefit a larger team.Look at your system, your 25 people are waiting for a PB my 25 as well but I have got 50 screeners without job.What will I do?Split up them by three group and they will flip your 3 ports.So If you win a port battle It's not a problem for me because I will surely occupy 2 port on next day.You can't do anything, you can't stop me because of no screening fleet.Also, you will eliminate a lot of battle from the game and I think this game need more PVP not less.

What we have now it's not perfect, better for a larger nation but at least you have a chance stop an enemy fleet.In your system is zero chance.The main problem is we haven't got enough players to fill up nations.

I agree 8 team looks like too much.They should try with 4 nation (Spain, Brittain, Netherlands, France) plus pirates but they should re-design pirates.Also, 4 nations give a good opportunity to make content like "Nation ship trees".Sometimes less is more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem lies where any nation can easily capital lock another by simply sneaking past the screeners. Is the PB a fair fight? Yes, and the defenders can still defeat the attackers. But its not suppose to be a fair fight. A region that's right next to the capital should be nearly impossible to capture without an extraordinarily large attacking fleet.

By denying screening you're denying the most prominent advantage that the defender SHOULD have in that situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

The problem lies where any nation can easily capital lock another by simply sneaking past the screeners.

A larger team's force of numbers already helps them in so many ways. Is there no room to have 1 area of the game that forces them to win a fair fight?

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...