Battle system core ruleset discussion

[Vernon Merrill]

2 minutes ago, Wraith said:

🙄

As a half-time-solo hunter I agree.  As a half-time-group hunter, in a target-poor environment where you have to set an extremely wide net (ala U.S. prime times), it was horrific. If we want to encourage PvP then instant-close battles for either side are a non-starter for the vast majority of players.

@admin Like others I see the "Circle-of-Death" everywhere as a non-starter. It's a terrible mechanic that reinforces gank-or-be-ganked and in my opinion it would be the end of the game.

I'd be willing to test RoE that allows the lower BR side to be always-open.  But that must be accompanied by a sane join timer (4-5 minutes) at the beginning of battle for the higher BR side to support group play. I think that's a compromise that #TheUsualSuspects should have to live with.

But I think the biggest consideration in this discussion is not the timers but rather aspects of positional vs. two-circle joins.  I love/hate two circle joins because they're so easy to game (woe be my prey who I tag close to land and place their circle on it).  Any discussion of timers is obviated by two circle joins.

Instead, I think we should very seriously consider a slow moving, expanding-doughnut join zone. That expanding join belt moves away from the battle center as the battle progresses (also giving an indication in the OW for how long the battle has been going).  No more ships popping in magically next to you unless you've sailed far away from the battle center. It should be positional but should constrain the distance to the battle center.

I'd also urge the dev's to consider making safe zones actually safe. Make one, consistent RoE that is applied everywhere and once you learn how it works it always works the same way.  But I would make capital areas no-PvP zones.  I would make reinforcement areas PvP zones without ship loss (cargo can be looted but with no ship capture/loss for the participants of either side). Battles outside of these are full-loot, hardcore mode PvP.

And lastly: Implement Outlaw Battles for all Nations.

 

I can agree with most of that....  

However, I dont think people would tolerate a 4-5 minute "no tag" timer upon leaving port....

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:

Oh, by not fighting, kiting, and ganking? Sorry but you aren't entitled to winning. People value gameplay over time, and you wasting people time's with shitty gameplay trying to feel out a win for yourself, well, you better be ready to risk the lot for being such a big winner.

Me? I gank less than others, I kite less than others.

And... I do not like being kited... But should not a damaged ship try to buy time to repair? Or an outnumbered ship to divide up his pursuers?

You have big problems with reality I think. And not accepting being out smarted.

I am pointing to reality. Nothing personal.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari

[Crimson Sunrise]

2 minutes ago, Jorge said:

+1

no this will just encourage ganking further if u see a lone trader or a few ships of low rate and u tag them with a gank fleet they have no hope of getting help even if they are near their own starting zone because no one was in visual range of the battle so no help

[Vernon Merrill]

3 minutes ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

no this will just encourage ganking further if u see a lone trader or a few ships of low rate and u tag them with a gank fleet they have no hope of getting help even if they are near their own starting zone because no one was in visual range of the battle so no help

Why SHOULD they get help if nobody was within visual range??  that's 20-25k distance!

 

[Sir Loorkon]

1 hour ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

You should know perfectly that being the "weaker side BR" wise has nothing to do being really the weaker.

 Numbers is only (and very limited at the moment - due to gear and reps) defense and chance for average player vs. veterans.

I agree completely. If we would have PvP ranks and not only PvE ranks we could have a nice system with „PvP rank x BR“. That would make the good idea of only the weak side staying open in battle be practicable.

[Crimson Sunrise]

3 minutes ago, Sir Loorkon said:

I agree completely. If we would have PvP ranks and not only PvE ranks we could have a nice system with „PvP rank x BR“. That would make the good idea of only the weak side staying open in battle be practicable.

easily abused , small ship like a lynx starts the battle against a larger br ship  now the attacker/ganker side stays opened and the defender/victim closes  then the gank fleet can join the battle 

[Crimson Sunrise]

1 minute ago, Intrepido said:

Instant closed battles definitely wont bring more pvp.

this is why just having both sides to every battle open indefinitely and having battle duration have a timer then battles are not set in stone and allows anyone to join an battle they come across

[Hethwill]

People willing to PvP brings more PvP, whether they want to PvP or when others also want to PvP, even if they don't want to PvP. Alas they in a PvP environment with imminent PvP when they least expect.

Not only PvP when they want to PvP.

That's what brings more PvP. Whatever ruleset.

[Angus MacDuff]

The reason I avoid the PZ is because of the ROE.  Bring this to OW and it would kill it for me.  As a solo (mostly) player, I need to be able to fight on my own terms and not be forced into (or remain in) combats that I don't think I can win.  The statement that the priority is more PVP is flawed.  PVP where its just a big gang fight that the last to join will survive is very poor game play.  I want to stalk my prey, pounce and kill him.  The risk that he'll get help is acceptable, but I work hard to avoid that.  Proposed changes would take all of the fun out of solo play.  Solo play is what attracted me to this game.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Just now, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

People willing to PvP brings more PvP, whether they want to PvP or when others also want to PvP

Not only PvP when they want to PvP.

That's what brings more PvP.

Whatever ruleset.

those that want to pvp and those willing to pvp when they feel they want to pvp are different group of players on the war server.
1. hardcore pvper's that seek only pvp combat with other nations (gankers/Hunters)
2. casual pvper's that only do pvp if they have to or are out looking for it, (crafters merchants and coast guards)
3. hardcore PVE'rs those that avoid pvp as much as possible (armed merchants)
4. casual Pve'rs those that play the game at their own pace but dont want to be bothered with pvp (most new players, and antisocial players)

making rules that suit only 1 group over others alienates the other players because they feel cheated because the gankers or pvp players get what they cried enough for. over what will logically will bring or retain more players 

[Hethwill]

number 4 has a dedicate server for them

the rest take a risk when they press sail, whatever ruleset. Read what i wrote. PvP when want and when others want, is PvP.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Just now, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

number 4 has a dedicate server for them

the rest take a risk when they press sail, whatever ruleset. Read what i wrote. PvP when want and when others want, is PvP.

yes but not every player in bracket 4 wants to just play pve without anything ever happening thats where the excitment of maybe getting attacked comes in on war server. but the problem is battle changes like pvp combat with war will also effect pve server

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Angus MacDuff said:

I want to stalk my prey, pounce and kill him.  

This assumes your ship is somehow larger/faster/better than that of your target. In reality you're just as much prey as he is. I disagree with forcing people to stay in the battle, but there should be some kind of penalty/reward for forcing the enemy to retreat. Some ships are just too fast and the captains who sail them are too use to being able to run away at the drop of a hat.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Caramon Mayer]

IMO Banished original post is silly and written only due to being on the receiving end of an use of NA RoEs. He is always fine, smart, smiling and mocking too when he is the actor... Like when he chased me or Licinio for hours and hours in the darkest hours of the night. Then, suddenly, when he, or Prussians in general, are the receiving end, he cries and starts discussions about game rules being not fine. Wasnt showing off at Monte Christi PB with a bunch of random ships abusing game rules making 20 people losing time senselessly and so close to griefing too? Why not not coming at all in place of doing such crappy PB? We should not be childish. Real world is not here to play with it at your preferred rules, only when you want. It's a jungle, often unforgiving. NA OW PvP, being a simulation (war simulation) is a jungle too, with its own rules. And it is sameway unforgiving and cruel, or simply, tricky, like in this case. Therefore I suggest him to not be so hypocritical and to stop crying every single time actions do not follow his wishies. PS: IMO RoE at the moment are fine as they are set.

[Teutonic]

Arguably the only thing needed is the signalling perk again.

Keep all RoE we have and make the side with less BR be open until BR matches.

Boom done. No need for drastic change.

[Vernon Merrill]

There is really only ONE fundamental truth regarding the concept of a PvP server:

IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO "WIN", SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO "LOSE"....

The question is:  How much should should losing suck and what is the tolerance level for players dealing with "loss"...

My guess is that differs for all...

Of course if all you are willing to sail is purple/gold lineships, then you are agoing to have a far different take on what the ROE's should be...

I'm absolutely DYING to see how many people would sail their gold Bellona into "shrinking circle/patrol zone style" battle....   

[JDAM]

51 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Oh, by not fighting, kiting, and ganking? Sorry but you aren't entitled to winning. People value gameplay over time, and you wasting people time's with shitty gameplay trying to feel out a win for yourself, well, you better be ready to risk the lot for being such a big winner.

We need to get stupid terms like "kiting" and "ganking" out of our vocabulary.  What you call kiting is the military tactic of creating sea room (distance in which to maneuver the ship freely without enemy interference).  When the Connie went upwind to repair while the Java was heavily damaged (unknown to the Connie crew at the time of how badly they damaged Java) they were creating sea room to give them more time to repair their ship before reengaging.  Once satisfactorily repaired enough they wore down to Java to find her more/less unable to continue fighting.  But in your terms that would be kiting, when the reality is that they preserved sea room, while they ensured their ship was seaworthy enough to continue the fight.  If they would of been unable to complete the repair they'd of certainly "escaped" from the battle which is probably what the commander was balancing in his decision making around during the repair.  That's a real life example.  

Edited January 18, 2019 by Hemp Amore

[Licinio Chiavari]

2 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

I'm absolutely DYING to see how many people would sail their gold Bellona into "shrinking circle/patrol zone style" battle....   

Especially alone or in general without a backing support team.

[MassimoSud]

1 hour ago, rediii said:

just drag everyone in viewrange into a battle with instaclose. I think that mechanic was the best we had

remember the two circles RoE? That was great!

And yes keep it open for the weaker  side just to balance the fight!

[Simon Cadete]

What about making the no retreat, circle of death fir the attacker only. Also make hull hit be the only type of ammo that can reset the clock. If i’m In a 1st rate and couple canoes tag me they have to actually fight me and most likely die quickly therefore discouraging them from doing it in the future and not wasting my time. 

[Hethwill]

Yes, if developer's do that please remove reinforcement zones. They not needed with Signalling.

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 minute ago, Simon Cadete said:

What about making the no retreat, circle of death fir the attacker only. Also make hull hit be the only type of ammo that can reset the clock. If i’m In a 1st rate and couple canoes tag me they have to actually fight me and most likely die quickly therefore discouraging them from doing it in the future and not wasting my time. 

Insta-reply.

1. What about in case of defensive tag? No more viable. So be ready to be ganked at point blank.

2. At least make the stronger side forced to fight.

In general feeling and realism wise CoD is BS.

[Hethwill]

"PvP when i want it, not when others also want it" string of replies. Seriously guys, just read yourselves for a bit.

[Crimson Sunrise]

1 minute ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

"PvP when i want it, not when others also want it" string of replies. Seriously guys, just read yourselves for a bit.

if i wanted pvp all the time i would go play world of warships  i dont want pvp all the time its why i play NA 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Vernon Merrill said:

I don’t see that as a “negative”, really...   but easily enough solved by a chat box asking if you want to join a battle initiated by a friendly if you’re beyond a certain distance.  Also suggested many times.  

Think it would be this way.

 

In Battle group either side

• Friendly AI wont get dragged in.
• The whole group withing render range are dragged in from their exact OW location.
• Other friendly/enemy players gets option to join from their exact OW location, if from own nation can chose one side like today or from enemy nation can choose either side if none from their own nation has already chosen side, pirates can join either side.

In Group either side

• Friendly and enemy AI from the nation you tag are dragged in, spawn at exact OW location.
• Rest as above.

Tagger in Battle group, target in Group or Solo.

• Taggers AI is left out, Targets AI autojoins.
• Rest as above

Tagger in Group/Solo, target in Battle Group

• Both nations AI are left out.
• Rest as above.

Both sides Solo

• Tagger AI is left out, defender has the option to drag in Friendly AI or leave it as 1v1
• Players within render range can only join targets side

Players within render range

• Wild suggestion is  if there are one player on the edge of the render range, and there is a player just behind him again, but which the tagger cant see, that player as well gets the option to join, so it could get into a really long chain of players joining, but they would all be joining the same battle instance.
• All the option to join decisions would have to be made within 5 seconds for the target and the targets friendly players or the targets join button gets locked (as today) or 10 seconds for the tagger. This would leave targets to either join the same battle instance as your friend, or potentially join a 1v1 vs an other player so people just hinge on that last second join.

*cough* Gib back outlaw battle for pirates and make pirates hardcore again. #letpiratesbepirates *cough*

thoughts? @admin

Edited January 18, 2019 by Guest