Massive Points for each handicap level per shot instead of ship balance

[Destraex]

Frankly I am sick to death of playing games where everything has a built in weakness and everything is in a constant state of balance tweaking as new things are introduced.

You get to the point where you wonder why you play the game because nothing is really different. Anything you do differently that the game allows you to tweak is always countered by a built in negative that brings it back to par with every other vehicle\gun etc in the game. It might just play a little differently but things get so well balanced and so equal that any flavour to be had gets completely lost in the struggle by people to beat the game via patch META builds.

 

1) I propose instead that we just get the ships to the state and stats they had in real life. If it had excellent sailing, guns and size then great. Leave it be. Best ship in game but least points brought in per match.

2) We then impose a points handicap for ships. The weaker the ship the more the points multiplier, which would be a larger multiple depending on the power of the vessel you hit.

 

Hit a Trincomalee in a yacht and expect a x44 multiplier for each hit you land for instance.

 

How would this work?

 

Well say you are a fully laden merchantman with only a few cannon. You get attacked by a 44 Frigate. Usually in a games world you would have some sort of silly balance mechanism like insane armour and speed on the merchantman. In the system I am proposing, every cannon shot the merchant connects to the frigate gets him x50 points. No more damage than normal is meated out. BUT the merchant man can earn the same if not more than the frigate even not getting a kill and only getting a few hits in. 

 

This would mean that the more outclassed you are the more money you bring in for each hit or whatever other objectives are in game.

 

This in turn would mean skilled players may well take up a challenge and do interesting things instead of just looking for the most powerful META. 

Skilled players may attempt to attack things that theoretically outclass them in shot weight, speed, nimbleness etc for the challenge and the coin instead of 

trying to win win win. People will take more risks and still have fun dying knowing that based on points they did well in their underpowered vessel.

 

This is what I would prefer rather than the rock paper scissors we usually get.

 

I want to be scared by the Victory. I want it to mean something when I see it. To cause a bit of awe other than people saying "hey that's not balanced it should be horrible at sailing because it has so many guns".... poor balance.

 

I would rather more points for taking a less powerful vessel than the simplistic boring equal fights we get in most games to make people feel good.

 

I like to call this system - Reverse EVOLUTION. The  LEAST fittest/biggest/best ship may not win but he\she will win on points with a sense of satisfaction that on points maybe he\she did win!!!!.

With it we can start using vessels for what they are best at instead of worrying about being disadvantaged in a fight.

We can marvel at peoples skills with less powerful vessels.

 

Mechwarrior Online is a great example of a game where no matter what you do all roads lead to Rome (200 mechs and not one that is more or less capable of killing the other, whats the point of owning more than one as the experience is the same). They have recently taken to what they call Quirks system to balance the mechs that did not pan out in the meta. This means they just stats pad them to bring them in equal with all the other mechs. How boring unless you are the type that likes to exploit the META by researching and doing calculations with each patch. In addtion MWO has lots to customise but nothing meaningful role wise to do with any of it. In part because every disadvantage is offset by an advantage and everybody knows exactly what they are so games always turn out very samish.

 

EDIT: For clarification points gained from damage done are used as in game money. Thus the more points earned from damage the more money a player can use for colour schemes, ships, good ropes etc. In other words if you have a crap ship that you hate you won't have to grind while being plastered by the ELITE crowd and the ELITE crowd will not shun less powerful ships so much as they can get good points/money with them.

[ThePfeil]

Sorry, but I fail to see how that applies to Naval Action!? As far as what I've seen and experienced, there is no balancing like: "Since ship x has powerful guns it needs to be less maneuverable or have less speed than ship y, with it's inferior firepower". Ships were built for certain purposes and thus had their strong- and weakpoints in their specific design and I think those are fairly well implemented so far.

 

Going against a Victory in a yacht shouldn't wield more exp/rep, imo. It's just plain suicidal (could even call it plain stupid) and no one in their right minds would have done so back in the 18th century. "Skilled" captains ought to know better when and what to engage.

[Destraex]

I am not saying you have to engage. But I can see balance being discussed and applied already. What I want is to ensure we get a clean game free of all this dithering about trying to make everything match against each other. So far Naval Action has not been like that. But there is a long way to go.

 

You do not think that my idea is not workable for the open world?

 

I suppose it could have the detrimental effect of three or four yachts hunting larger vessels and sinking them while getting all the bonus points making larger ships useless. But then who is not to say those larger ships do not come back with many of their brethren?

[Flip]

Frankly I am sick to death of playing games where everything has a built in weakness and everything is in a constant state of balance tweaking as new things are introduced.

You get to the point where you wonder why you play the game because nothing is really different. Anything you do differently that the game allows you to tweak is always countered by a built in negative that brings it back to par with every other vehicle\gun etc in the game. It might just play a little differently but things get so well balanced and so equal that any flavour to be had gets completely lost in the struggle by people to beat the game via patch META builds.

 

1) I propose instead that we just get the ships to the state and stats they had in real life. If it had excellent sailing, guns and size then great. Leave it be. Best ship in game but least points brought in per match.

2) We then impose a points handicap for ships. The weaker the ship the more the points multiplier, which would be a larger multiple depending on the power of the vessel you hit.

 

Hit a Trincomalee in a yacht and expect a x44 multiplier for each hit you land for instance.

 

How would this work?

 

Well say you are a fully laden merchantman with only a few cannon. You get attacked by a 44 Frigate. Usually in a games world you would have some sort of silly balance mechanism like insane armour and speed on the merchantman. In the system I am proposing, every cannon shot the merchant connects to the frigate gets him x50 points. No more damage than normal is meated out. BUT the merchant man can earn the same if not more than the frigate even not getting a kill and only getting a few hits in. 

 

This would mean that the more outclassed you are the more money you bring in for each hit or whatever other objectives are in game.

 

This in turn would mean skilled players may well take up a challenge and do interesting things instead of just looking for the most powerful META. 

Skilled players may attempt to attack things that theoretically outclass them in shot weight, speed, nimbleness etc for the challenge and the coin instead of 

trying to win win win. People will take more risks and still have fun dying knowing that based on points they did well in their underpowered vessel.

 

This is what I would prefer rather than the rock paper scissors we usually get.

 

I want to be scared by the Victory. I want it to mean something when I see it. To cause a bit of awe other than people saying "hey that's not balanced it should be horrible at sailing because it has so many guns".... poor balance.

 

I would rather more points for taking a less powerful vessel than the simplistic boring equal fights we get in most games to make people feel good.

 

I like to call this system - Reverse EVOLUTION. The  LEAST fittest/biggest/best ship may not win but he\she will win on points with a sense of satisfaction that on points maybe he\she did win!!!!.

With it we can start using vessels for what they are best at instead of worrying about being disadvantaged in a fight.

We can marvel at peoples skills with less powerful vessels.

 

Mechwarrior Online is a great example of a game where no matter what you do all roads lead to Rome (200 mechs and not one that is more or less capable of killing the other, whats the point of owning more than one as the experience is the same). They have recently taken to what they call Quirks system to balance the mechs that did not pan out in the meta. This means they just stats pad them to bring them in equal with all the other mechs. How boring unless you are the type that likes to exploit the META by researching and doing calculations with each patch. In addtion MWO has lots to customise but nothing meaningful role wise to do with any of it. In part because every disadvantage is offset by an advantage and everybody knows exactly what they are so games always turn out very samish.

 

Honestly, just no.

 

The merchantman would never have insane armour etc, its going to lose to a frigate unless that merchantman is insanely good and the frigate is insanely bad. 

People always gravitate to the optimal thing as this is how life works. Natural selection, schedules, you name it, they all move towards the optimum. 

 

In reality the victory and santisma and any big gun ship WAS bad at sailing, its not some made up number its reality. You stick a massive wooden platform weighed down by 100 guns it will sail poorly. 

 

Your points system doesn't make sense in a open world game, this isn't basketball or some other sport.. you win or you lose the battle, and your ship, and a point modifier has nothing to do with it.. France and Spain didn't win at Trafalgar on points because they lost the battle but were outclassed by the British skill. See the logic?

 

Please don't use MWO as a reference, its a terrible game and most people agree its terrible. Its also a arena game with no MMO aspects. Apples to oranges.

[ThePfeil]

Your idea would be workable, no doubt, but I think that bonus multiplier is not needed and would mostly encourage engagements that would have never happened in real life, like in the example of a yacht going for a ship of the line.

 

Working together with other captains however opens up new possibilities where the "underdogs" could actually pull something off. But again, I don't think that would need an extra incentive and should be filed under "common sense".

[Destraex]

The points I speak of are literally the in game money system. 

I am asking for realism.... which we may not get in some aspects. I don't know yet. 

 

I would just like the more unpopular jobs to be fulfilling and challenging as well as rewarding. 

[Flip]

The points I speak of are literally the in game money system. 

I am asking for realism.... which we may not get in some aspects. I don't know yet. 

 

I would just like the more unpopular jobs to be fulfilling and challenging as well as rewarding. 

 

So you wan't a person to earn money based on how much they hit an enemy? Thats realistic to you? What?

[Johny Reb]

It would be just the opposite of realism. All of a sudden you would have a schooner griefing a 1st rate because by hitting the firstrate he will get more money. It encourages unrealistic game play by encouraging players to take on ships that they just shouldn't be attempting. They should be running from.

 

I agree that we don't need to balance the ships so much that they are essentially the same but there is no indication that NA is doing that whatsoever so why even bring it up as if its a problem?

[Destraex]

 Let me ATTEMPT to explain again.

In game money as it stands at the moment is based on the damage you do to a ship correct?

More damage = more points towards another ship.

 

Assuming this system continues in the open world OR even in the other game modes (like the one we have now) I would like less powerful ships shots to count for more than more powerful ships.

 

It's not about realism. I don't know how the games you gents play work. But all the games I have played in this vein have been about being granted points for damage and using those points to buy things in game like a figurehead for your ship or a new ship. 

 

To ensure the game stays realistic in terms of battle mechanics and that the smaller or less powerful ships get used I am proposing they get points based on a handicap adjusted system.

 

This will mean there is no disadvantage money wise taking a lesser ship.... just disadvantage in performance.

 

Now I base this on seeing some threads about this or that ship being OP already and them being adjusted against each other for balance ALREADY!

 

Johny how is it unrealistic if the first rate still wins? I admit it is a disadvantage that some weaker ships may unrealistically try to tackly larger ones. So I do think you have me there.

 

But I would now ask.

 

WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE? Or are we all to captain consititutions eventually?

[Kaos]

So you want people to easymode in some overpowered pixelship and just to not make it's opponents feel bad for getting wrecked or as you call it, ''to make people feel good'' - throw some points at them? No. That's call of duty / WoT tier babysitting. Nobody will care about some silly points, people will still rush to powergrind the most powerful/easy to play ships just to stomp everything that they can meet. They would even pay for this ability with whatever 'points' available in game just to get a slight upper hand in the game (gold ammo spammers in WoT just for example).

With your merchan ship and 44 gun frigate example you should not make any merchant ''feel good and equal'' with points, instead he should feel pretty fucking dumb and embarrased to get caught pants down by getting into that situation in the first place. You see, things like this will not help anyone learn anything. All these merchants and future carebears will just have to deal with the fact that it's not 'realistical' to wait somekind of a compensation from game to pay for their judgemental mistakes or lack of thereof.

Also I can already see the ways to exploit this by arranging fixed encounters where noobs will powergrind themselves with their friend in the biggest ship possible for maximum ''points''

[Destraex]

Honestly, just no.

 

The merchantman would never have insane armour etc, its going to lose to a frigate unless that merchantman is insanely good and the frigate is insanely bad. 

People always gravitate to the optimal thing as this is how life works. Natural selection, schedules, you name it, they all move towards the optimum. 

 

In reality the victory and santisma and any big gun ship WAS bad at sailing, its not some made up number its reality. You stick a massive wooden platform weighed down by 100 guns it will sail poorly. 

 

Your points system doesn't make sense in a open world game, this isn't basketball or some other sport.. you win or you lose the battle, and your ship, and a point modifier has nothing to do with it.. France and Spain didn't win at Trafalgar on points because they lost the battle but were outclassed by the British skill. See the logic?

 

Please don't use MWO as a reference, its a terrible game and most people agree its terrible. Its also a arena game with no MMO aspects. Apples to oranges.

FLIP

You seem to agree with everything I said but have it backwards so you think you disagree.

 

• People do not always gravitate to the optimal - BUT I agree 85% do. Others get bored and love to try things with equipment they rarely use for the challenge.
• Wants realism such as the santisma being a bad sailor - me too and we can have this in game with this system. No need to BALANCE it. Which the devs without a system in place will have no alternative to do. If not the open world then the single battles
• Points for damage = money.... it's a game and I don't know what reward you want for in naval actions trafalgar? Nothing? I am not saying you win on points but that you get rewarded in points for a handicap in power.
• You will still lose the battle if outclassed very badly... hard to make that up with skill in a lot of cases especially when skill is similar!!!! So reward the poor sod with the beginner ship a little or the captain brave enough to take a frigate at Trafalgar! They were in a supporting role and it is realistic to have them there. But who will want to take one when one broadside from any of those SOLs will realistically render you ineffective.
• Merchantman = should never have insane armour. They will be balanced somehow or players will just gank them and this was a hypothetical
• Natural selection can be reversed. WE ARE humans not animals. Well I suppose gamers are animals There is always one numb skull that wants to be a hero with OP gear and thus balance was introduced. Making everything same single flavour and spoiling any realistic mechanics or recreations.
• MWO = bad

[Destraex]

So you want people to easymode in some overpowered pixelship and just to not make it's opponents feel bad for getting wrecked or as you call it, ''to make people feel good'' - throw some points at them? No. That's call of duty / WoT tier babysitting. Nobody will care about some silly points, people will still rush to powergrind the most powerful/easy to play ships just to stomp everything that they can meet. They would even pay for this ability with whatever 'points' available in game just to get a slight upper hand in the game (gold ammo spammers in WoT just for example).

With your merchan ship and 44 gun frigate example you should not make any merchant ''feel good and equal'' with points, instead he should feel pretty fucking dumb and embarrased to get caught pants down by getting into that situation in the first place. You see, things like this will not help anyone learn anything. All these merchants and future carebears will just have to deal with the fact that it's not 'realistical' to wait somekind of a compensation from game to pay for their judgemental mistakes or lack of thereof.

Also I can already see the ways to exploit this by arranging fixed encounters where noobs will powergrind themselves with their friend in the biggest ship possible for maximum ''points''

Always exploits. People will always easymode no matter what the META. Unavoidable but what I am proposing is by no means the final system just the concept and can have all those exploits thought about and countered. The concept in general though of taking bad stuff on purpose or because you are new or don't play much to have fun I thought was worth considering.

I suppose like in mech we could just buy ships. The devs will be offering that for special ships.

 

Have you not already seen people getting their socks knocked to kingdom come in smaller ships in the BETA before when all ship sizes sailed together?

Have you not seen the devs reactions by separating light and heavy ships into rooms so this is not so bad? How do you propose to fix this. Or do we just do WOT style where bigger tanks are separated from smaller noobs? We don't have the population for those antics.

 

Ok then we go back to the devs balancing ships MWO style so that X beats Y beats Z and humanity suxing once again.

[Flip]

 

FLIP

You seem to agree with everything I said but have it backwards so you think you disagree.

 

• People do not always gravitate to the optimal - BUT I agree 85% do. Others get bored and love to try things with equipment they rarely use for the challenge.
• Wants realism such as the santisma being a bad sailor - me too and we can have this in game with this system. No need to BALANCE it. Which the devs without a system in place will have no alternative to do. If not the open world then the single battles
• Points for damage = money.... it's a game and I don't know what reward you want for in naval actions trafalgar? Nothing? I am not saying you win on points but that you get rewarded in points for a handicap in power.
• You will still lose the battle if outclassed very badly... hard to make that up with skill in a lot of cases especially when skill is similar!!!! So reward the poor sod with the beginner ship a little or the captain brave enough to take a frigate at Trafalgar! They were in a supporting role and it is realistic to have them there. But who will want to take one when one broadside from any of those SOLs will realistically render you ineffective.
• Merchantman = should never have insane armour. They will be balanced somehow or players will just gank them and this was a hypothetical
• Natural selection can be reversed. WE ARE humans not animals. Well I suppose gamers are animals There is always one numb skull that wants to be a hero with OP gear and thus balance was introduced. Making everything same single flavour and spoiling any realistic mechanics or recreations.
• MWO = bad

 

 

I disagree because I highly doubt the end game currency will be damage.

[Destraex]

Well then I can certainly appreciate and respect that. What do you think the end game currency will be?

[Kaos]

Currently the game is in alpha status and everybody is thrown into the same pot just to TEST the basic mechanics. Things like matchmaker and open world engaging mechanics are future music so it's not the time to complain about this yet, give it time.

[Flip]

Well then I can certainly appreciate and respect that. What do you think the end game currency will be?

 

Probly this: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/1587-game-currency-please-propose/?hl=currency

 

And when it comes to admiralty ranks probably wins.

[Destraex]

In my experience by the time a game decides on a mechanic it is too late. The time to suggest things is now before things are set in stone. Perhaps the devs can tell us what they have in mind.

We already know they are planning in game money. We just don't know how the reward system will work. Whether it is just missions that will get us in game money or whether damage will be kept as a measure of worth for an engagement. 

 

* Damage

* Sinking

* Capture

* Mission completion

 

None of it matters. All I am saying is make sure people are confident they are not going to get smashed into oblivion by the 90% of people who will be playing the Connie for no gain. Enabling the devs to keep realism without any attempts to balance in favour of people being able to fight better ships by becoming motor boats or by nerfing longer range gunnery (which has already been discussed and groupings nerfed a little to give smaller ships a chance to close). Close range is always best but at close range is where the little boat has the edge in manoever. 

[Destraex]

Probly this: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/1587-game-currency-please-propose/?hl=currency

 

And when it comes to admiralty ranks probably wins.

I thought you were going to tell me that if not damage that it was missions or some such that earned in game money.

I don't care what they call name the money.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Privateers and merchants will likely earn money by hauling cargo or taking prizes, respectively.  Naval Officers will earn reputation (and a little money), but the reputation will be far more important to use to get another ship when you lose yours.  The Devs will likely create mechanics to ensure the merchantman has a good reason to strike to a Frigate who has caught them instead of fighting it out to the death.  Similarly the privateer.

 

In reality, the merchantman didn't do well by firing his meager 24lb broadside at a 44 gun Frigate.  He convoyed, hired armed ships as escorts, or entreated a friendly Naval vessel to accompany him for a while (usually as part of a convoy with the ship ordered to escort it).  

 

Similarly, a Privateer didn't profit from going toe to toe with a superior vessel, he ran like smoke and oakum and struck if the fight got too rough.  

 

A Naval Captain fought what he thought he could beat, ran from what he couldn't, and struck in the face of insurmountable odds.  Unless ordered directly to sink or take a particular vessel a prize, that was their job.  And if they failed, they faced a Court Martial to see if they could have done it better.  If it was felt that they shirked their duty or were negligent, they were convicted and turned out of the service.  In game, you'd likely lose your nice third rate for a negligent failure and be sent down into a corvette or even a brig.

 

Damage is the "currency" right now to force people to play the different ships.  It most assuredly won't play much factor in advancement in the Open World once the game is live.

[Destraex]

Well then. This would be the first game where reputation is a staple. But i would like that as it wwoukd mean the admiralty will give me my ship rather than owning it myself.

[Johny Reb]

Johny how is it unrealistic if the first rate still wins? I admit it is a disadvantage that some weaker ships may unrealistically try to tackly larger ones. So I do think you have me there.

 

But I would now ask.

 

WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE? Or are we all to captain consititutions eventually?

What i changed to bold is the point of the unrealism.

 

I have nothing to propose because I have no idea what the devs are thinking with regard to ship ownership other than reputation. Either way, if its money that is earned through combat then I think it should be proportionate to the size ship taken plain and simple. Did privateers irl complain that it was unfair that the small fishing schooner they took wasn't worth as much as a warship?

[Mirones]

i think he is talking about later in the Matchplay mode that if the matchmaker fails like our beloved balancer that you get an higher score for evry hit you make on the said higher tiered ship be it the trinidad or victory or what ever if you are using a beginner ship like the yacht.

 

no reason to start a gigant florastorm about that idea.

[BlouBulle]

Simply put it we are in Alpha, when you have the full game you can always outrun if you are nimble enough (I will laugh at 1st raters, slow 9KTS beasts).

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

i think he is talking about later in the Matchplay mode that if the matchmaker fails like our beloved balancer that you get an higher score for evry hit you make on the said higher tiered ship be it the trinidad or victory or what ever if you are using a beginner ship like the yacht.

 

no reason to start a gigant florastorm about that idea.

 

It should fail both to your benefit and detriment in general though, so why the need to "balance" it out by rewarding extra for damage?  Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes you are the bear.

[Mirones]

Simply put it we are in Alpha, when you have the full game you can always outrun if you are nimble enough (I will laugh at 1st raters, slow 9KTS beasts).

Victory 11.5knots at 135° good luck with your nimble cutter 

http://youtu.be/5-xImaQga30?t=2m33s