To gank or not to gank

[Slim McSauce]

Should ganking be a part of the game? I'm talking about 20v5 situations where there is no chance of victory.

Why are ganks allowed and encouraged by the developers? Look at patrols which still are broken and allow one side to be stacked 25 to 1

Why not implement ever growing 1.5x br limitations to battles, that way fights can grow into 25v25 without ever being a gank?

Really how does the community benefit from 10v2s? Why not make every battle a good one instead of making half the battles complete trash?

I want your opinions on this, why are we allowing for such negatives to exists when they don't have to?

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Because every solution that has been attempted (and there were quite a few attempts) caused more problems than they solved?

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Henry d'Esterre Darby said:

Because every solution that has been attempted (and there were quite a few attempts) caused more problems than they solved?

like?

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Someone with more time (and a better memory) than I have today will need to respond. 

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Banished Privateer said:

Ganking = small rewards

Fighting against the odds = high rewards

The best solution and never tested/tried, carry on.

For Patrols BR joining limit modifier 1.25 or 1.5 or 2.0 (need testing).

people will still gank for 0 rewards as long as they can capture the ship or deny the enemy a ship. It's a human tendency to destroy the opposition.

[Slim McSauce]

2 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Not players from my clan. We think in terms of benefits, rewards and personal gain. If equal fights will mean better and higher rewards, we will rather prevent 10v1 situation and go for 1v1 fight. If gankers will not benefit from ganking then the ganking will be reduced greatly. 

you say this but then the opportunity arises to take out a fleet of the enemies 1st rates 2 or 3 to 1. Besides this is a game, there's no need to bank on player's moral standards in order to provide good gameplay.

[Hethwill]

16 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

0 rewards as long as they can capture the ship

🤨 ... please read that slowly.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Banished Privateer said:

It's hard to gank SOLs unless they sail alone... and you seem to forget the Reward/Risk ratio. Fighting SOLs comes at great risk. No one should sail SOLs alone knowing the risk + no one would 1v1 in 5th rate vs 1st rate against a good player. 3x 5th rate vs SOL is not a gank and comes as good, even battle. The reward split divided by 3 players is still great.

no it's not the BR shows that 3-5 frigates v 1 SOL isn't a gank depending on the ships. That's perfectly within 1.5x or 2.0x BR

3 4th rates v 10 5th-4th rates is another story and happens all the time.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Slim McSauce

[Sir Lancelot Holland]

There has to my knowledge been few 'even' fights in naval warfare, Denmark Strait was one, 2 v 2 numerically with the German navy fielding  a battleship and a cruiser, against a battleship and a Battlecuiser. 

I suppose that one could argue that North Cape was a gank (Scharnhost v  a Battleship and three cruisers) or was it just pure bad luck on the part of the Scharnhorst? Certainly the British wanted Scharnhorst sunk and to a degree she was 'set up', Bismark which was actively hunted by over 50 ships (including Force H from the Mediterranean Fleet, and convoys were stripped of their escorts as well)  was eventually caught by 2 battleships and a cruiser, it is, I think, a question of degree, although, in Bismark's case, it was a cold blooded act of revenge for the loss of HMS Hood.

Do we need 25 ships to take down a single ship? it is arguable that like Bismark, you may need a large number of ships to locate her, but, you really do not need them falling over each other trying to sink her! Only 2 or 3 ships are likely to have a clean shot at her, and, damage from friendly fire and collisions has to be made good, which, may curtail the chances of staying at sea longer to fight on before having to return to a home port for repairs that may not even be there.  

So what are reasonable odds when compared to a gank? 2  v 1 perhaps 3 v 1 at most should be able to deal with most ships,  a good Captain can reduce the odds by good sailing and defensive fighting, anything above that is overkill. Anything greater than those odds is not necessary, the enemy can neither run nor fight with any prospect of escape or success, unless the ship is really tooled up and her Captain very confident in their abilities, and, players persistently on bad end of such engagements eventually just give up the game, why play at all when there is never the chance to actually win a battle?  Perhaps Group commanders should simply put in what is required to do the job, and if the enemy has beaten them, then at least give the guy some respect for having done so, he earned his survival in that battle.  

In a live war sink the enemy at any price is the rule, in a game that rule will kill the game, better that players fight with reasonable odds than overkill and chain battles to make sure the enemy is sunk, after all, if a player has just beaten 2 or 3 ships, he has earned his freedom, to sink him immediately after that, knowing he may be virtually out of repairs does no one any credit, holds no enjoyment as the Captain has no way to credibly defend himself against what is a certain outcome. If, twenty minutes later, he is caught by another group that is just unfortunate for him, but at least he got away from the initial battle and had a fair chance of escape.

[jodgi]

Everything tried has faced opposition due to breaking the ga... sandbox. In patrol zones we could do almost anything to promote fun because sandbox fundamentalists don't participate.

Look at @Liq's patrol ROE topic.

I'll link later...

[Hethwill]

Duel Tournaments still a thing to come, right ?

[Slim McSauce]

There seems to be a notion that because NA is a sandbox that it doesn't need any toys, and that simple sand in a box is enough to garner fun from everybody all the time.

[TheHaney]

25 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

There seems to be a notion that because NA is a sandbox that it doesn't need any toys, and that simple sand in a box is enough to garner fun from everybody all the time.

This has proven effective in many games, and been a disaster in many others. I think there's a distinction to be made between providing mechanics to drive gameplay, and providing layered systems that drive gameplay.

A good comparison would be vanilla World of Warcraft versus EVE Online.

I recall with glee the heady days of Tarren Mill versus Southshore open-world PvP ganksquads, prior to Battlegrounds. They provided no purpose other than gankfest joy/misery. Battlegrounds were introduced as a reward-based mechanic that drastically reduced "ganking" but made the open world feel less alive. BG's effectively killed the need for open-world PvP.

Comparatively, there's EVE Online. You have such depth of economy in the game that open-world PvP thrives on merit of economic impact alone, without the need for heavy-handed mechanics to drive players in one direction or another. Obviously there are many mechanics to help new players and veterans slot into their respective spots, but it's mostly subtle. The Sandbox is largely free.

 

I think there's a fine line between providing enough layered gameplay to let players naturally sort themselves out versus stymying entire segments of gameplay by providing reward-based mechanics.  As EVE developers say, "players will optimize to the point of boredom." We mustn't provide mechanics in Naval Action that players will potentially view as "the only effective option."

 

EDIT: I guess my whole point there is to say that ganking should be "allowed," but there should be systems of gameplay in effect to make ganking just slightly unattractive. Give players a reason to prefer harder opponents and even fights. But you have to make it a SMALL reason, otherwise you're just eliminating options.

Edited November 8, 2018 by TheHaney

[Slim McSauce]

E.V.E is a great example. Reserving this slot for a future response

[TheHaney]

2 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

E.V.E is a great example.

Now remember, ganking is alive and well in EVE. There are entire ships and combat mechanics built into the game specifically to support ganking. To be fair, though, new players have VAST options when it comes to mostly avoiding PvP, which this game does not support in any way whatsoever.

Edited November 8, 2018 by TheHaney

[Stars and Stripes]

Slim, you are known for fighting in larger ships vs smaller. You rally the US to attack lone pirates all the time and yet you post this topic.

Kettle......black I think

 

[Barbancourt]

10 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

Ganking = small rewards

Fighting against the odds = high rewards

On the contrary, I'm sure that when I'm getting ganked the enemy is getting much greater rewards than I do, even after splitting it between them. 

 

[Macjimm]

Slim,

I really don't understand the nuances of battles within NA.  But it seems to me that if you limit all battles you will make the game restricted or complicated.

Suppose we have a port squadron that is ready and willing to protect the shipping for a key set of ports.  These ports are deep within our nations home waters, and the only ships sailing about are friendly, from our nation.  The port squadron is powerful.  Our meek traders feel protected.

Now a group of two raiders boldly sail into these home waters, on the doorstep of our capital, all alone, far from their home ports, looking to fight and ready cause trouble for my nation.   Their closest friendly ports are 20 minutes away.  They are intent on sinking ships, any ships: - NPCs, Players, traders, warships. 

• Are you suggesting that even if we can rally a couple dozen warships, we must line up and wait to attack the raiders in little groups of 1.5x BR? 
• Or if we only have a powerful warships, that exceed the 1.5BR,  we must  just sit and watch the raiders sink traders?

[Slim McSauce]

2 hours ago, Macjimm said:

Slim,

I really don't understand the nuances of battles within NA.  But it seems to me that if you limit all battles you will make the game restricted or complicated.

Suppose we have a port squadron that is ready and willing to protect the shipping for a key set of ports.  These ports are deep within our nations home waters, and the only ships sailing about are friendly, from our nation.  The port squadron is powerful.  Our meek traders feel protected.

Now a group of two raiders boldly sail into these home waters, on the doorstep of our capital, all alone, far from their home ports, looking to fight and ready cause trouble for my nation.   Their closest friendly ports are 20 minutes away.  They are intent on sinking ships, any ships: - NPCs, Players, traders, warships. 

• Are you suggesting that even if we can rally a couple dozen warships, we must line up and wait to attack the raiders in little groups of 1.5x BR? 
• Or if we only have a powerful warships, that exceed the 1.5BR,  we must  just sit and watch the raiders sink traders?

Tell me why do you need more than 2x odds to win a fight? What about 3x? No more than that.

So use to ganking all the time, you don't need a dozen ships to take on 2 ships, especially with repairs balanced, there's no reason not to want an decently even fight over a complete mismatch.

You should take your warships and go fight the enemy not sit at home doing little to nothing.

 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Slim McSauce

[La bouche]

Ppl will always  have good excuses to gank...they think that is good opotunity to practice with low risks to lose a ship. Dont expect honnor in XXI century. Human kind forgot what it means since WW1...

[Macjimm]

1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:

Tell me why do you need more than 2x odds to win a fight? What about 3x? No more than that.

So use to ganking all the time, you don't need a dozen ships to take on 2 ships, especially with repairs balanced, there's no reason not to want an decently even fight over a complete mismatch.

You should take your warships and go fight the enemy not sit at home doing little to nothing.

I think you might have misunderstood my post.  The questions were not rhetorical.  I was trying to understand your OP.

In answer to your questions and statements:

Tell me why do you need more than 2x odds to win a fight? What about 3x? No more than that. I don't know if anyone needs more than 2x odds, but there is a easier chance of winning the battle and protecting the port with higher odds.  

...there's no reason not to want an decently even fight over a complete mismatch.  I don't want a fight.  I just want to trade and am grateful for the escort ships that provide protection.  I have a good reason for wanting mismatched battles, because my journey is safer if  the warships that are protecting me can chase away the raiders.  Mismatched battles near my capital may act a deterrent to enemy raiders.  I hoping that if my capital is unsafe for raiders, they will seek combat somewhere else.  For me it would be great if there was a home squadron always based near the capital.  It would also be helpful for the econ because the home squadron could help player & NPC traders to resupply the port.   If I wanted to fight a competitive, balanced, battle I would seek an area where there were likely targets, and willing opponents.

Quick Story: 
When I was returning from my voyage tonight I noticed that a single enemy had sunk about 6 players in a little over an hour.  I learned that this raider was positioned right on the doorstep of my destination.  Several friendly warships returned to port to deal with her.  The group was a mix of ship types.   It was reassuring to know that I had support.   I'm not sure what the BR was, but the raider evaded them all.  From the reports I heard, the raider was outnumbered 5 to 1, and he bested them, and escaped.  I think he was just a better player and had a very good small ship.

Making more rules and restrictions does not always create more fun.   Players can be very creative at adapting to challenges.  Sometimes we can modify our personal tactics and strategy rather than imposing changes on everyone else. 

 

 

[Slim McSauce]

6 hours ago, Macjimm said:

I think you might have misunderstood my post.  The questions were not rhetorical.  I was trying to understand your OP.

In answer to your questions and statements:

Tell me why do you need more than 2x odds to win a fight? What about 3x? No more than that. I don't know if anyone needs more than 2x odds, but there is a easier chance of winning the battle and protecting the port with higher odds.  

...there's no reason not to want an decently even fight over a complete mismatch.  I don't want a fight.  I just want to trade and am grateful for the escort ships that provide protection.  I have a good reason for wanting mismatched battles, because my journey is safer if  the warships that are protecting me can chase away the raiders.  Mismatched battles near my capital may act a deterrent to enemy raiders.  I hoping that if my capital is unsafe for raiders, they will seek combat somewhere else.  For me it would be great if there was a home squadron always based near the capital.  It would also be helpful for the econ because the home squadron could help player & NPC traders to resupply the port.   If I wanted to fight a competitive, balanced, battle I would seek an area where there were likely targets, and willing opponents.

Quick Story: 
When I was returning from my voyage tonight I noticed that a single enemy had sunk about 6 players in a little over an hour.  I learned that this raider was positioned right on the doorstep of my destination.  Several friendly warships returned to port to deal with her.  The group was a mix of ship types.   It was reassuring to know that I had support.   I'm not sure what the BR was, but the raider evaded them all.  From the reports I heard, the raider was outnumbered 5 to 1, and he bested them, and escaped.  I think he was just a better player and had a very good small ship.

Making more rules and restrictions does not always create more fun.   Players can be very creative at adapting to challenges.  Sometimes we can modify our personal tactics and strategy rather than imposing changes on everyone else. 

I hear you, but the challenges you speak of have been problems in this game for a long time. It's not a good thing that battles have to be 5 to 1 in order to secure a single kill, even if that sometimes gets away.

Do you think that single raider would fight if it was 1v1 or  2v1 instead of 5v1? Do you think he would've escaped if he didn't have a hold full of repairs to get out of any dangerous situation with little affect?

Sometimes you need to be urged to fight, otherwise everyone turns into a passive-agressive captain unwilling to engage in a battle and instead only participating in ganks either out of fear of loss or that for some reason you need 5+ships to secure a single kill (due to unlimited repairs which are still after all this time since limiting chain a problem)

Edited November 9, 2018 by Slim McSauce

[Cmdr RideZ]

BR difference should never increase rewards.

1.5x BR difference, rewards are still 1x

1.5x - 3x BR difference, reward goes towards zero, reaching zero at 3x.

3x or bigger gank and you lose ship insurance.

 

Signaling perk should be a feature that is on all the time.  Both sides should be always open for X players (for example 2-3), even if BR would be else even.

 

Multireps should be removed. 1 of each without global CD. Repair kits should be weightless like before, allow longer voyages and increase survivability when chain attacked.

Gear should be balanced. Best upgrades should be for all. Upgrades that are rare should be for special builds. There should be more viable builds than the gank builds.

 

Ship rates should be like levels in other mmo games. It is easy and fast to get gear and ships for 5-7th rates, even the most rare gear is common at these levels, everyone has it. It is slow and behind a grind to get gear for 1st rates. 5-7th rate copper platings are very common & cheap and for end game ships like 1st rates those are rare & expensive.

Ship price curve from 7th to 1st rate should not be linear, it should be more like exponential. Cheap 5-7th rates, expensive end game 1st rates, SOLs.

New players in their 5th rates will have the same gear as veterans have in 5th rates. Veterans will have a gear advantage in RvR, SOLs. You still have to grind and group up for the end game. Everyone will be able to participate in OW PvP, everyone will be useful, there will be plenty of PvP.

What will happen when speed and gear advantage is removed from our pro gankers?

 

Ganking should be in the game but the game should not be about ganking.

[Macjimm]

2 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

Do you think that single raider would fight if it was 1v1 or  2v1 instead of 5v1? Do you think he would've escaped if he didn't have a hold full of repairs to get out of any dangerous situation with little affect?

Sounded like the single raider was attacking ships near my capital with almost no resistance.  When the group of 5 tried to stop him,  he kept fighting.

From the reports I heard he repaired after receiving significant damage, but I don't know how many repairs he had.

[traitorous mctraitoro]

Ganking is a CHOICE that really only happens at capital waters, and/or mostly new players, or certain clans that only gank (not naming). 

Ganking rarely happens elsewhere and most players will avoid ganking and continue sailing where they are heading even if a ship(s) of opportunity presents thereselves.

How do I know this? Im always sailing alone in 1-3rd rates that are terribly slow, so I know the FEW clans that CHOOSE a gank when it's not necessary, and they are few and far between.

Capitals are hubs of activity, ganks will always occur. Unless raiders ask for a fight before hand.

Anywhere else is rarely a gank.