Battle system core ruleset discussion

[Jack Lowe]

@admin IMHO this conversation is a bit like getting the cart ahead of the horse. Does not, as you have proposed,  conversion from diameter based damage to weight based damage solve to a degree many of the issues. I tag a wasa with a requin as an example. Under the current damage model I can get a mistake or two and still survive. Under a weight based model any mistake at all means being dismasted or sunk in one decent broadside. In my mind that is as it should be. Each vessel is more or less designed to fight against ships with similar sized guns. You want to tag for any reason at all a ship with guns 2 or 3times the size of your main battery then one mistake thet your enemy takes decent advantage of and your done. Very high risk, practically suicide should generally be how it works. Only the most highly skilled should be able to pull it off to even a 25% chance of success. The vast majority of such attempts should end in a retreat by the attacker after a perhaps 10 min delay or the attacker gets sunk probably in a few minutes. 

I dont like griefing but I do support the idea of tactical retreat or delay to allow a retreat. In most cases such delaying actions should be short lived buying a few mins. the majority of the time. The presumably weaker force either sacrificing themselves or taking a rather fierce beating. Few should result in extended delay or the delaying force escaping without significant damage or loss. 

I don't really want to dumb down the game further and dont see how it helps the game to be better in any practical way. Sounds more like using a battle axe to "cure" a paper cut. Fighting withdrawals and delaying actions for a variety of reasons add tactical and strategic depth to the game. Griefing is a result of an imbalance in the way combat works. Solve the imbalance or reduce it and things will work as intended without taking a chain saw to the current ROE.

I will end by returning to the beginning. I truly believe shifting from  diameter to weight based damage with some tweeking will be helpful in resolving the issues your observing as it will make these undesired behaviors much more risky to engage in. It will also still allow for more legitimate uses of fighting delays creating opportunities for heroic feats, encourage out of the box thinking, and in general add a subjective form of content that will make your game better. If after the damage change this problem still persists then we can look at getting out the chain saw if you feel so disposed, although I fear the results.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Jack Lowe

[jodgi]

5 hours ago, admin said:

don't wobble like cows on ice.

Oh, my! That's harsh!

[Rompers]

Just spitballing here, but how about a implementing some kind of reputation/honor score system where a player's (or clan's?) public score is based on positive/negative feedback by other players after each battle, or some other formula? And then have this reputation score impact one's ability to participate in certain parts of the game like trading/contracts or Admiralty benefits like acquiring ship permits or elite refits, or participating in missions or patrols (or duels - see my previous post)? Maybe even let port owners open/close their ports to players or clans above/below a certain reputation score (even enemies, if open port), or at least allow port owners to ban specific notoriously dishonorable players or clans from entering their ports? That way gankers can still gank but there is a potential social-economic penalty, just like how reputation works in real life. Honor and reputation were a big part of naval life back in the golden age of sail, after all.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, rediii said:

a circle of death system is not the solution of griefing because you can also grief ppl inside this huge circle for 1 hour or more.

The circle of death system would kill the OW and would be a big hit against the population again.

 

Another system has to be found. Like attacking and escaping = -1 level of knowledge of the ship you are sailing or even a downrank.

 

But even that wouldnt be a problem to people keeping someone in battle for 1 hour.

 

You will get more pvp kills each hour with more players on the server. For that you cant get big changes into the game everytime it gets a healthy pop again though 

What about having the OW joining circles expand outwards from the first point of the tag and so increasing the distance of engagement from within the battle instance.

This would give Charlie (or group) a chance of escaping if more players join. The later ganking members join the battle the more remote they will be from the initial attacker and Charlie battle position.

[van der Clam]

@admin can fix this without a complete rework easy peasy.

1. Extend battle join timers to 5 minutes, or leave open indefinitely for the defender, and/or
2. Set a "Cannot Leave Timer" in battle to say 20 or 30 minutes.

If RoE gets completely reworded and screwed up to be "To the Death" for every battle and will not allow the escape of either side, then this game will be completely broken. Historically, ships escaped...they disengaged and came back for another battle another day. There is no reason to punish captains that potentially sacrifice their ship to save a SoL. If they are clever enough to escape, then so be it.

[Angus MacDuff]

Bottom line...If I cant escape a battle that I initiated, I will stop initiating battles.  And so will many others.  Leaving battles open for the defender also means that the attacker will be ganked more often.  And that means less people initiating PVP.

[Jack Lowe]

Ganking is a rather abstract term. Even in its purest definition it is going to happen regardless of what steps are taken to prevent it. The best these steps can do is reduce the most egregious instances. The reason it happens has nothing to do with design or mechanics but with player perception and the reasons people play. Most people come to the game for the ships and more importantly to sink other ships that's the fun for those who fight. Vetting sunk as long as it's a rare occasion is acceptable, but not fun.

Getting sunk is losing, losing is not fun in the average person's mind they will avoid it. Easiest way to reduce the risk of losing have more or larger ships than the enemy or both. Thus ganking is born. Players will only engage willingly in a fight they think they can win however the average person is so risk adverse that this essentially means a 85% or better chance of winning in order to seem like "a good fight". Add to this the known steep learning and the uncertainty of who your tagging and they may have "super fittings" and it's worse. The mere perception kicks in a fear response that means they won't engage unless victory without loss is practically certain. 

Forget the ship costs and all the other in game distractions. Fear of losing or failure is the number one reason for ganking. There are others revenge, trolling but those are generally limited to a minor number of players or are situational.

You can change any and all the rules of the game and ganking will remain, unless you go to evenly matched death match duel rooms. Ganking is not a result of the game or a reflection on it, ganking is a result of society and psychology. It's a reflection on all of us as human beings.

In short admin unless you have some mechanics that can change the way people in this modern age think on a massive scale you will have ganking, like it or not.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Jack Lowe

[Slim McSauce]

1.5x BR for battle join, under BR sides gets reinforcement up to 1.5x BR, a constant teeter-todder of battles being balanced out. Easy. That's the ganking issue all just about solved.

As for people not fighting as attackers, the sentiment is right. If you initiate attack you don't back out. Mods and books are still a big problem because people are able to take just about any ship to speed cap and escape a battle they don't like, even if the odds are even they just rather fight a gank. So that mentality has to go. We'll see, I'm still not sold on either side, mainly because we can't predict what the ROE change will be. More even battles, more commitment to fight and less ganks appeal to me so I'm looking forward to it.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Licinio Chiavari]

5 minutes ago, Jack Lowe said:

In short admin unless you have some mechanics that can change the way people in this modern age think on a massive scale you will have ganking, like it or not.

All perfect aside this word.

All along history, all people tried, if possible, to fight with best odds. If not having odds, with technology (so mods here), choosing the place and the time.

Down to asymmetrical warfare... That's attaining local superiority (by numbers, position or both) to... GANK a part of a superior force.

[Slim McSauce]

3 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

All perfect aside this word.

All along history, all people tried, if possible, to fight with best odds. If not having odds, with technology (so mods here), choosing the place and the time.

Down to asymmetrical warfare... That's attaining local superiority (by numbers, position or both) to... GANK a part of a superior force.

Mods are the reason this is all happening. People can no longer deny the effect of gold ships and powerful rare books effect on PvP. A ship that's the speed of a fir/fir with the tank of a teak/wo requires a gank to kill. Worse part is the best players have these ships, and that makes them extremely hard to fight. Stat padding at it's best and worse.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Licinio Chiavari]

Just now, Slim McSauce said:

1.5x BR for battle join, under BR sides gets reinforcement up to 1.5x BR, a constant teeter-todder of battles being balanced out. Easy. That's the ganking issue all just about solved.

Bismark vs. Hood was a gank... Ended bad for the gankers.

Bismark sinking was a successful ganking.

Right?

[Hethwill]

11 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

1.5x BR for battle join

No. 1:1.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

No. 1:1.

That works too and have the battle close immediately after.

[Licinio Chiavari]

10 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Mods are the reason this is all happening. People can no longer deny the effect of gold ships and powerful rare books effect on PvP. A ship that's the speed of a fir/fir with the tank of a teak/wo requires a gank to kill. Worse part is the best players have these ships, and that makes them extremely hard to fight. Stat padding at it's best and worse.

Yes and Nay.

I'm not a super captain. I'm very good with Requin.

I fought some requins today. I'm sure mine was better geared (like, may be, Elite pirate v normal, AoSH against without, t/wo v t/t? - no idea).

Still fights ended with my requin barely losing a couple of ticks on sides, mainly due to going side to side to finish the enemy (not during the initial battling) and the enemy sunk.

Get a Bellona specialist... and he will dismantle a random bellona user in 10 minutes... barely having to repair.

You know I agree that mod stacking is excessive, and should be more limited.
As I always said that the "mainstream mods" should be readily available almost for all. But I have to agree that gear starts to matter really only in case of similar skill levels.

Between a veteran and a "young" casual no. It makes only things faster (if used by the veteran).
And therefore I "defend ganking"... because, moreover with this gear gap, it's the only hope for a group of even-not-so-terrible-casuals to face a veteran on a nice ship.

Limiting BR, CoD, etc... I read here, would be an even GREATER GIFT to elite captains... at expenses of casuals.

 

PS/EDIT:

The more complex ROE, the more tricky ways to exploit them... and who are the best (potentially) exploiters? The veterans, moreover having a working group with them. So, moreover: more and more advantage to old veterans.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari

[Angus MacDuff]

I'm not saying that ganking is bad...or wrong.  @admin has already stated that there is a place for it.  What I'm saying is that when we initiate a battle, we don't want to be ganked.  If I am sure that there is no one in sight, that I'm not in the enemy reinforcement zone, and that I have a reasonable join timer, then I will initiate combat and be happy that there is a reasonable chance that I'll be undisturbed.  Acceptable risk. There is skill involved with this and a feeling of satisfaction that you've done it right.  If there is a long timer or no timer for the defence player, then the risk is no longer acceptable.  

[Slim McSauce]

1 minute ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I'm not saying that ganking is bad...or wrong.  @admin has already stated that there is a place for it.  What I'm saying is that when we initiate a battle, we don't want to be ganked.  If I am sure that there is no one in sight, that I'm not in the enemy reinforcement zone, and that I have a reasonable join timer, then I will initiate combat and be happy that there is a reasonable chance that I'll be undisturbed.  Acceptable risk. There is skill involved with this and a feeling of satisfaction that you've done it right.  If there is a long timer or no timer for the defence player, then the risk is no longer acceptable.  

If you don't tag someone that you're way above their BR than, then you won't get ganked. It's only when you gank that you recieve the counter gank from BR balancing.

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 minute ago, Slim McSauce said:

If you don't tag someone that you're way above their BR than, then you won't get ganked. It's only when you gank that you recieve the counter gank from BR balancing.

Standard today reply: Mr. MacDuff tags a 3rd rate with his Endymion.

BR wise, so technically, it's a gank... with open entrance for defender reinforcements... like another Endymion. So now it's for sure a counter-gank. But Mr. MacDuff is the attacker... and for this reason he should "bear the responsability of starting the attack". So unable to run.

Interesting, isnt?

[do not say dlc]

first of, if you all want more pvp then, you all have to agree that ships need to be dirt cheap.

second, why pvp?

as the looser that i am i see no point to pvp. there is way to little incentive to risk my ship. From time to time i sail to nassau PZ just to get demasted and lose ...again and again. In most other games when you engage in a new battle there are other enemyes, well not here, in NA feels like u get the same ppl over and over again. why can't we have challanges with player more like your own lvl. LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD! we are tired of looosing!!! i call for a sheep revolt!

[Slim McSauce]

1 minute ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Standard today reply: Mr. MacDuff tags a 3rd rate with his Endymion.

BR wise, so technically, it's a gank... with open entrance for defender reinforcements... like another Endymion. So now it's for sure a counter-gank. But Mr. MacDuff is the attacker... and for this reason he should "bear the responsability of starting the attack". So unable to run.

Interesting, isnt?

And then you set the BR of the endymion to 200 or something and all is right in the world.

[Slim McSauce]

Repairs are also a big problem, damage doesn't stick so fights boil down to repairing and dragging the battle on. Should be some limit, along with a limit on grape.
All ships crafted should be 5/5, mods and books balanced around that. All books being purchasable with DB.
Special crafted ships should recieve refit bonuses at a max of 2.
And ROE changes to suite committed, fair battles.
Very good game.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[do not say dlc]

12 minutes ago, rediii said:

(why dont you take mastmods like everyone else in Nassau PZ)

Is that all ? So there will allways be my faut... great ideea. Do not make the game enjoyable just blame the players.

Roger! Roger!

Edited January 20, 2019 by do not say dlc

[Jack Lowe]

37 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

All perfect aside this word.

All along history, all people tried, if possible, to fight with best odds. If not having odds, with technology (so mods here), choosing the place and the time.

Down to asymmetrical warfare... That's attaining local superiority (by numbers, position or both) to... GANK a part of a superior force.

Absolutely correct my mistake. Let's remember that the connie wasn't kedging to escape one British frigate in chase. She was running because that frigate was attempting to hold her in battle, "grief" her so that an entire British squadron could come up and "gank" her. 

Real life application of what we see in game. This is generally how wars are fought. Destroy or deny assets to the enemy while preserving your own. Fair fights don't accomplish that. From this point of view NA does an excellent job mimicking reality in this regard. 

Now reality doesn't always equal fun. Therefore some modifications to the general ROE may be neccessary to allow the proper blending of fun and realism. 

Slims idea of a 1.5 BR difference being the factor is fairly valid and remains a certain amount of realism although examples are fairly limited. Maybe the number to give a good feel is off and perhaps a timer should remain in conjunction with the limit, say 5 min joiner can only enter if br is within 1.5 of the difference. Something like that. I really can't see to opposing sides setting sails up staring at each other joining one at a time to fill the lower side BR for 5 mins. I'm betting they just try and start several other smaller fights in the vicinity trying  to deny one side helping their buddies. There's more PvP for you. 

With that out of the way we can focus on balancing combat so that the PvP that's generated is a good quality experience on average, or we can just leave this part as is and embrace the realism of ganks.

[Christoph]

8 minutes ago, do not say dlc said:

Is that all ? So there will allways be my faut... great ideea. Do not make the game enjoyable just blame the players.

Roger! Roger!

Whats your ingame name?

Sinking fast and furious?

 

[do not say dlc]

Now i have to change it! ffs...

[Jack Lowe]

28 minutes ago, rediii said:

like repeated 9000 times the delay in action wouldn't be a problem if the ships in OW wouldnt sail 300kn compared to the 10kn inside the battle.

If its repeated 10,000 times do we win the toaster oven? Better yet one of the dev's says "hey guys I think I'm noticing a trend........".

Apologies I'm usually rather sympathetic to the devs in this case couldn't resist poking a little fun.