Battle system core ruleset discussion

[Hethwill]

1 minute ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

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 

Look... read Developer thread opening post. And then reply to me like that again.

The post is entirely about PvP and engaging gladly in PvP and enjoying PvP and embracing PvP, increasing PvP and whatnot more about PvP.

Nothing else.

[Vernon Merrill]

2 minutes ago, Wyy said:

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.
• Res as above.

Both sides Solo

• Tagger AI is left out, defender has the option to drag in Friendly AI or leave it as 1v1
• Targets friendly nation players within the render range gets the option to join.

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?

Sure.   I'd test that.   Seems fair.  

Baseline pet peeve is people who arent even in render range actually being able to have an impact on my battle.   

I have zero quarrel with people getting pulled in with their friends to "get out of the OW"...

[Crimson Sunrise]

well for 1 i would remove the ability for pirates to join both sides of a battle, its over powered and allows for ganking too easily for pirates.  1 ship joins the battle to see whats in there then relays info to pirate fleet then the pirates can then choose which side they want to join in the battle rather then being locked like all other nations are,  pirates are a nation they should be constrained by the same rules other nations need to abid to 

[Licinio Chiavari]

5 minutes 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.

It's typical. Fight on our terms.

That leads to the speed meta: picking fights. And it is what also historically raiders did.

[Hethwill]

Is not about you, nor a playstyle.

Is about PvP.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Sure.   I'd test that.   Seems fair.  

Baseline pet peeve is people who arent even in render range actually being able to have an impact on my battle.   

I have zero quarrel with people getting pulled in with their friends to "get out of the OW"...

true although joining from the edge of the render range would most likely take you the whole battle to get to the target  

[Vernon Merrill]

Just now, Wyy said:

true although joining from the edge of the render range would most likely take you the whole battle to get to the target  

As it SHOULD be...  ;-)

 

[Crimson Sunrise]

2 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Look... read Developer thread opening post. And then reply to me like that again.

The post is entirely about PvP and engaging gladly in PvP and enjoying PvP and embracing PvP, increasing PvP and whatnot more about PvP.

Nothing else.

i was simply giving an example of what i would do if it was to be pure pvp about pvp and how pvp is currently for me as a player acceptable to within my tolerance for pvp currently on the war server. to further force pvp to be constant or more would make NA less about fun and more about long overly extended battles no better then playing another game that has instant battles with shorter duration. 

as pvp currently is on NA's war server is lax like very lax battles are short or long depending on what ships are involved and number of players in battle, RoE's do not need to be changed but the way battles operate do, short close battle timers are a hindrance to realism, duration of battles is fine as it is,  pirates being able to join both sides of a battle is not a fair balance to how nations are setup, they are a nation they should have to abid to the rules every other nation has to in regards to battles, they should be forced to pick a side and join that not be able to join both sides of a conflict.  

the current meta with upgrades and books and high quality ships needs to be addressed.  balancing of pvp mechanics needs to be discussed in regards to naval tactics while in battle and allowing enemy or allied ships to escape a battle or not. penalites to be applied to retreating forces or to add the death circle from the PZ's to OW battles in general.

many changes can and will change whether we keep or loose more players. by making the game more or less complicated by adding or removing mechanics will have a serious effect on how well this game does on release.

[Hethwill]

6 minutes ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

short close battle timers are a hindrance to realism

do a experience, to prove that.

Attack a AI next to a town. Then sail in battle instance to the next town. Take note of the time you take to sail there. Then do the same in OW. Take note of the time.

After you test then, tell me you could sail in 1:1 battle time to the battle that is happening near the next town before it was over.

Thanks a ton.

[Crimson Sunrise]

1 minute ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

do a experience, to prove that.

Attack a AI next to a town. Then sail in battle instance to the next town. Take note of the time you take so sail there. Then do the same in OW. Take note of the time.

After you test then, tell me you could sail in 1:1 battle time to the battle that is happening near the next town before it was over.

Thanks a ton.

if a passing ships comes across a battle why should it not allow them to join it if there is still ships on both sides alive realistically battles shouldn't close and should allow anyone who happens upon a battle to be able to engage ships within it assuming its still has an enemy on 1 side 

[Simon Cadete]

17 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

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.

If you’re in a prince or requiem or Hercules or similar why would you do a defensive tag vs a santissima or ocean?

The attacker side should be the side forced to fight since they started the battle

[z4ys]

7 hours ago, admin said:

It's a grey area.
There is no formal rules that do not allow attacking a player, shooting and running. Because they are based on initial core design elements built around instanced battles.  
But these core design elements cause such frustrations and problems that are not good for the long term of the game. 
Before the release the decision must be made about those core systems and here are the options.

Current ruleset is based on these ideologies

• I want to attack someone and people far away must not enter = "i must be able to sink you solo if i want to"
• I want to be able to sink a 1st rate in a cutter (old heated topic). 
• I want to be able to run away if i want to (because my ship is fast)
• I do not want a player from far to join my battle, because its mine. 

If the goals is to increase pvp these ideologies can be rethought or abandoned as they dont increase an amount of pvp. 

• Problem 1 - inability to help your own.
  • The common message from rookies in national chats are well known - "I got attacked near XXX port - please help if you can" or "I see enemy ships - lets tag them - come help"… 
  • Usual answer in chat - silence and "tough luck" - as you CANT. I think its time to accept the fact that distance based ROE is bad and is reducing pvp and only helps solo hunters (which based on data are a huge minority).  
  • This is a problem because we know that pvp assists has 100% of correlation with retention. If you dont participate in group activities you drop from the game 10x faster.  
• Problem 1.1 part of lack of group pvp
  • There is actually not enough ganking (hold on and bear with me).  For accounts created in December: Only 5% of players have pvp assists and only 1% of players have more than 10 pvp assists. 
  • Again the problem because assist increase retention
• Problem 2 Speed
  • Fast ship controls the OW pvp, and heavy battle ready ships do not have anything to counter against the gank even if they outnumber enemies in guns.
• Problem 3 combat ready ship balance - described by OP in the post.
  • When line ship is fighting 3 fast frigates to win the lineship must not make a single mistake
  • When 3 fast frigates fight the lineship they can always run away if they make a mistake

 

So why dont we just rework those ideologies from scratch and focus them on the main goal - increase pvp and group pvp per hour for all (not only solo hunter in a speed fitted frigate). 

Examples of clear solutions solving the problems and increasing meaningful pvp on the WAR server

• This is a war server. Why escape options? Whats the point? If you attacked - fight!
  • Patrol rules for the whole world. Circle of death.
  • If you are ready to attack someone - be ready to die and fight to the end. 
  • Sure some will cry about it  - tough luck like they say in national chats - but it will keep only meaningful pvp.
• Battle is always open for the weaker side 
  • This is a war server - this is a pvp game with the goal to increase amount of pvp for all. There is no point to close the battle for the weaker side. Let them escalate. This becomes the goal. 
  • Then you can come to help your own, and know someone will come to help.
  • Then you can build more friendships and get assists 
  • Then you will stumble to more battles and will have more pvp kills per hour. 

Basically.

• When improving ROE - Remove all features from ROE that reduce pvp per hour. Add features that grow the pvp per hour. 
• Ignore the cries like "but tumbado is 3000km away".
• Check only one parameter when determining the outcome of changes - number of PVP battles per hour and number of assists.
• Ignore the rest.
   

This will also solve the problem described in the post (with the move to weight systems because with proper broadside weight - prince will die in 1 min). 
 

PS
Current number for War server for accounts created in December
1 pvp kill every 8 hours in game per pvp engaged player. 
1 pvp kill every 24 hours in game total for the server
 

Is NAL still running? People rather played NA.

 

Regarding new player retention. I recently helped a new guy. He ain't bad and is learning fast would say he's above average new player. But playing together is just pain. I am doomed to shoot sails and to cause minor dmg otherwise he just gets assists. 

When I would play like I would like (even using similar ships) I would cause frustration on his side because I decrease his progress making lvling ultra slow giving him the feeling that it will last forever even he learns a lot.

When I let him secure the kill I have to sit on my hands causing frustration for me aka boredom.

Game doesn't encourage teamplay as long you lvl only social aspect is in play here.

It looks different endgame wise when xp and dbs are not necessary anymore. Because of no need for xp or endless piles of dbs.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by z4ys

[Hethwill]

Just now, Crimson Sunrise said:

if a passing ships comes across a battle why should it not allow them to join it if there is still ships on both sides alive realistically battles shouldn't close and should allow anyone who happens upon a battle to be able to engage ships within it assuming its still has an enemy on 1 side 

Because when you left "somewhere" the battle was "already underway for hours".

But guess Admiin proposal of Signalling, entrance in the battle to make it EVEN ( not 1.5br, not 1.2br, but 1.0 equal ) ( i hope) will suit you, and me and everyone.

 

[Crimson Sunrise]

4 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

do a experience, to prove that.

Attack a AI next to a town. Then sail in battle instance to the next town. Take note of the time you take so sail there. Then do the same in OW. Take note of the time.

After you test then, tell me you could sail in 1:1 battle time to the battle that is happening near the next town before it was over.

Thanks a ton.

the problem with that is OW is scaled different to battle zones,  being able to join a battle from OW compared to sailing between 2 towns in battle will both take a different amount of time even when using the same ship, a 35knt niagara OW speed will be 15.5knt battle speed 

[Hethwill]

Do the test. Is a simple simple test.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

if a passing ships comes across a battle why should it not allow them to join it if there is still ships on both sides alive realistically battles shouldn't close and should allow anyone who happens upon a battle to be able to engage ships within it assuming its still has an enemy on 1 side 

because the OW speed is so much boosted up then when in battle so if you have sailed for 2 mins in OW and finds the battle, by the same distance you would have traveled in a battle instance it would have taken you many hours maybe days before you would have reached the location

[Crimson Sunrise]

6 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

do a experience, to prove that.

Attack a AI next to a town. Then sail in battle instance to the next town. Take note of the time you take so sail there. Then do the same in OW. Take note of the time.

After you test then, tell me you could sail in 1:1 battle time to the battle that is happening near the next town before it was over.

Thanks a ton.

i believe u wanted to increase pvp not make it based on inbattle travel time to a battle currently happening. without accounting for OW scaling and OW speed compared to Battle zone scaling and battle zone speed. battle zone is a more expansive zone but with a different speed set to it rather then using OW speed in a battlezone scaling 

[Crimson Sunrise]

1 minute ago, Wyy said:

because the OW speed is so much boosted up then when in battle so if you have sailed for 2 mins in OW and finds the battle, by the same distance you would have traveled in a battle instance it would have taken you many hours maybe days before you would have reached the location

not quite so u can sail from charlseton to the mouth of the harbor in a few seconds in OW but it takes only a couple minutes depending on ur ship to traverse that distance in battle 

[Vernon Merrill]

2 minutes ago, Crimson Sunrise said:

the problem with that is OW is scaled different to battle zones,  being able to join a battle from OW compared to sailing between 2 towns in battle will both take a different amount of time even when using the same ship, a 35knt niagara OW speed will be 15.5knt battle speed 

Exactly.  So why should a player be allowed to join a "battle" that has already been underway for "hours"....  

Think of a closed battle as "tomorrow" and it makes sense.

[Crimson Sunrise]

a battle isnt determinded in a couple minutes historically speaking battles could take hours or even longer to end decisively 

[Hethwill]

I will tell you what happens. People will sit in port and wait for someone to get attacked. Then they all sail out and enter any battle.

After 7 days everyone will do the same. Sit in port because they know they can enter at any time.

But all good, playtested that, can do it again. Let's rock n roll.

( i remember a fellow that always wanted that. then timers went to 15 minutes again. he was never ever seen again in a pvp battle...for some reason... and i may guess why. )

[Hethwill]

Just now, Crimson Sunrise said:

a battle isnt determinded in a couple minutes historically speaking battles could take hours or even longer to end decisively 

Many many many battles were decided with the first broadside. Way more than battles that lasted hours, and some even days btw.

[Licinio Chiavari]

7 minutes ago, Simon Cadete said:

If you’re in a prince or requiem or Hercules or similar why would you do a defensive tag vs a santissima or ocean?

The attacker side should be the side forced to fight since they started the battle

LGV has higher BR than Niagara (or an Indiaman more than LRQ): would you consider defensive tag a bad idea?

[Crimson Sunrise]

think of it like this a battle has just started outside brunswick u are in charlseton it takes u a couple hours to get down to brunswick from CT u happen across the battle currently outside the port ur allied ships are in battle condition several have been sunk but a few are still in battle with the enemy, what could possibly prevent u and ur allies that followed u from engaging the enemy to save ur fellow ships

[Angus MacDuff]

38 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

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.

Sometimes it is larger/faster/better.  I'll tag anybody, but once in battle, I may find I'm outclassed.  Either by skill, or mods, or both.  Doesn't matter.  IF I have a faster ship, and IF he hasn't used his superior skill to slow me down, then I should be able to run like a screaming little girl. Conversely, I am indeed prey to those who are faster/stronger/more skillfull.  IF they can catch me.  The ability to run away (for trader or hunter) is just as much a skill as catching and tagging.  The way my ship is built, I don't always catch the prey and sometimes when I manage a tag, they can still get away (or they do a good defensive tag).  More power to em.  I would hate to lose this aspect of the game.

Always open battles would be another disaster.  The reason the PZ sucks is because you can fight for 20 minutes, be winning but damaged, and an undamaged ship or group can join and ruin the day.  Even if you win your battle, you are doomed by a crap mechanic.  If battles remain open, last player in...wins.  All most of us asked for is the 3 minute timer.