Battle system core ruleset discussion

[Tac]

59 minutes ago, rediii said:

Tagging and holding in battle so ganksquad can come to finish him off should be countered by a longer invis timer for the defending side to give him the chance to log off.

The escape mechanic should be reworked based on distance mechanic. Maybe only give 30 seconds timer for ballhit and 2 min timer for leaving the controlrange

if portbattles are not filled by 50% of possible BR on attacker side circles should be instantly captureable, making the defender waste less time

 

Think I forgot something I posted earlier. Thats my oppinions on this topic here.

 

I agree with the 10 min jointimer for the weaker side, however this will favor skilled players more than new/bad players who use numbers to overcome a skilled enemy.

Totally agree with the Pb 50% of possible br circles are insta capped because there’s not much more soul destroying than defending an empty Pb.

Waiting for the points to reach 1000 when the attacker doesn’t even turn up is too long .

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sir Loorkon said:

I do not understand the problem. The new system will give you the possibility to join. May be a risk, may be a chance. Your decision. With the system we have ATM you can not join because the battle is closed. No decision. Boring. The new way seems to be better.

alot of exploits will happen, because we are humans and humans works best towards their own winning.

3 Examples are:

• tagging Alt to bait other players in while sailing towards enemy join circle location.
• Tagging AI, demast it and wait until some unfortunate soul joins in
• Player just about to die, new player jumps in without knowing about this, the new player is then ganked by the same players, it repeats itself until BR is reached and battle closes or battle is over.

[Licinio Chiavari]

3 minutes ago, Borch said:

So both increasing population or encouraging them to stay in battles with rewards may fix the thing. Forcing players will do opposite what you want to get. Encouraging with positives can work wonders.    

Like giving rewards for FIGHTING even if losing the ship. As pointed a gazillion times.

For eventual (and normal, with ANY ROE) cases of griefing, Tribunal is the way.

[Celtiberofrog]

19 hours ago, admin said:

How is it relevant to increasing kills per hour for new player (30 real days in game or less)? How is it going to reduce fake battles? How is it going to reduce ganking?

Increase kills per hour for new player (30 real days in game or less) ==> Give low to medium ranked players 2 or 3 durability of their ships ?

How is it going to reduce fake battles ==> include in "combat reports" info about every PvP battle start (out of reinforcement zones), with position coordinates & BR difference. virtualy info that appears in OW crossed-swords. Let every single PvP battle to be constantly opened till its end (or a long time) for both sides ?

How is it going to reduce ganking ==> Ganking possibilty is a consequence of available mechanics, if above is applied ganking might become less effective or more risky ?

18 hours ago, admin said:

(Attacker) must actively engage the enemy or get punished for passivity

The attacker who tagged cannot escape his battle unless he has inflicted a certain amount of hull dammage, if he does before that he gets some penalty and defender gets some rewards.

The amount of hull dammage inflicted must occure within 15 min battle countdown ?

This entails a defending/escaping tagg as being kind of meaningless unless assuming penalty. (that will reduce repetitive "escape tagg" from fast ships)

Edited January 21, 2019 by Celtiberofrog

[Angus MacDuff]

2 hours ago, admin said:

this is exactly what we are trying to solve for (as a community) - we want to separate genuine attacks and attempts to destroy a stronger enemy from plain griefing by designs (implementing systems that stop it). No-one is trying to take your battles away.

But it will.  Right now, as @Spitfire83 says, we can attack a larger foe and if it's not going to work for us, we can move on.  I do this too.  You know within a few minutes if you can take him or not.  With the OP new rules, we would be stuck in that battle.....therefor we will no longer tag.  Additionally, we will often tag fleeted player traders.  With the "battle always open on defender's side" mechanic, this would also become too risky...therefor no tagging.  There is no question in my mind that this would lower my PVP experience and I doubt that I speak for myself.  Solo hunters make a great effort to initiate battles that are survivable.  The OP seems to make that almost impossible.  Maybe its time to admit that no matter what you do, some griefing will take place.  I don't like it either, but overturning the apple cart for a couple of rotten ones, feels like the wrong approach. 

Initiating a battle in order to delay an enemy may be considered griefing in the game, but it is a valid military tactic and I cant help thinking we are wasting too much time on it. 

[SnovaZdorowa]

3 hours ago, admin said:

Ganking is not discouraged by battles open for the weaker side for the following reasons.
1) 2 min free entry for all still exists
2) Once 2 mins passes the system checks the BR in battle and keeps it open for the weaker side. 
3) Battle closes when BR of the weaker side exceeds the attacking side.

Cool theme, with instances, you definitely need to do something, and open fights are the secret of the popularity of patrols.

Will the 3 close? or closes for one side and opens for the side whose BR has become smaller?

situation: the battle group attacks the enemy, for 2 minutes everything works according to the old rules? will everyone come?

five minutes later, another battle group with a dof of the BR from the nation of the attacked ship was approaching the battle in dense formations. what will happen next?

button to enter the battle will be active for any ship in the group? will drag everyone into the battle? if not, in what order? 
It is possible to determine in advance who will fit and who will not?

In the new om / combat interface will appear the BR of individual ships and the group as a whole?

Have current ROEs been published somewhere? I was told that there were, but I did not find it. How to consider whether the ship / group has enough BR to attack the ship / group?

And the main question: when is this monstrous experiment?

Edited January 21, 2019 by Chevalier du Ethuville
in english

[Licinio Chiavari]

2 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Maybe its time to admit that no matter what you do, some griefing will take place.  I don't like it either, but overturning the apple cart for a couple of rotten ones, feels like the wrong approach.

Griefing (as ganking and in general asymmetrical battles) are natural part of a sandbox OW PvP game. IMO it's plain reality. In ANY game.

As looking for battles with the best possible odds is natural part of warfare.

3 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I cant help thinking we are wasting too much time on it. 

Granted the bulkload of time sink already in NA I understand that "infinite-tagging-no-battle" could be an issue.

And again so: write a quite reasonable rule... like

- keep tagged an enemy in battle for more 5 minutes without showing any real effort to engage is griefing and will be punished in Tribunal (granted report and proof).

- tagging more that 2 times within 15 minutes in OW without any real engagment taking place is griefing and will be punished in Tribunal (granted report and proof).

Or something like that. And I think that even the risk of ban/suspention and even better de-ranking, unslotting ships or cancellation of wealth, would be a more than sufficient to keep these cases (already not so endemic yet) to a bearable level.

AFAIK there're already some rules that are not hardcoded but enforced.

[Hethwill]

No tribunals. Plus no, griefing is not the aim of playing game, at whatever media, unless you are "that guy". But i leave that self judgement to yourself...

Onto the correct subject...

Some try to emulate, as far as possible in a game, age of sail situations. Others just try to win ( at whatever cost ) with a game without any regards if it fits or not the theme.

The main issue, as presented by Admin, is the "declaration of intent" upon engaging an enemy. Second comes the possibility to reinforce weaker sides in battle.

Engagement is defined by damage inflicted upon the enemy. A weaker side is, by definition, the one with less combination of number of ship / battle rating.

There's nothing more. No tribunals, nothing.

Reinforcement is easy - open until one of two conditions are met > number of ships that do not sum more than battle rating necessary OR equal battle rating overall.

Circle of Death is not balanced towards a age of sail representation. Traders will have zero chance.

While damage threshold to keep anyone inside a battle may well be a more cheap and efficient way to do it as the base code is already in, and we have 7 classes of ships.

If it is 1% per class or 5% class matters not, it is the base ruleset that determines it that matters - so a lynx cannot keep a bellona in a battle indefinitely.

Also no more automatic Control. The perk exists for a reason.

[Guest]

@admin also what will happen to defensive tags? would you let an hostile ship sail up next to you before firing or would you start shooting at it within firing range.

The ideas you come up with has sooo many loopholes

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

If the goal is to give more pvp opportunities for noobs:

 

Here the result of circle of death + weaker side open :

 

-case 1 : i'm getting attacked by two enemy vets, a noob join my side, he will probably be of little help, and where i would have usually be able to escape , he will serve as food and sink or get boarded while stuck in the wind. ^^ he will not join pvp again.

-case 2: The same noob is tagged by the same two players, he ask for help in chat and i leave nearest outpost and join. Each time i've done that, the noob is usually already in bad situation, raked at least once and launched a repair already, the time i join him it's already like i am now facing the two by myself and i'm stuck. I will probably not assist alone again.

-case 3&4: replace the 2 pvpers by only one l33t in those two exemples: As there is great chance the lone "l33t" is confident enough to attack superior br ship with his properly fitted pvp ship: case 1 i can't get reinforced (noob don't benefit an opportunity to fight), and can't escape, if the two enemies pvpers pass nearby, they can join him (even if they are not from his nation, maybe only one of them) and my chances are even smaller to survive. if the l33t tag the noob, either the  case remain the same as the previous exemple, or the noob is the smaller br, but he will more than likely sink before any reinforcement can help (as instead of focusing on winning he will spend time in chat asking for assistance). Either the l33t tagged him with a much superior ship, or because the noob is far enough from his allies outposts. The "too late reinforcements" will most likely gank the l33t after that (l33t frustration), except if reinforcements are just more noobs = more food for "l33t".

-bonus = case 5 : the fight happen in the noob's protection zone (more than likely as noob never seems to fight outside) : if he calls reinforcements, are the attackers the ones  to be reinforced only ?

 

And all of this is because noobs don't sail far away from starting region & reinforcement zone and never in hostiles capitals looking for pvp. This result in vets going to farm noobs in their capitals, and noobs as eternal victims.

 

So if you want noob  to be eager for pvp, give them pvp mission with proper rewards (not suicidal delivery missions ) in neutral or hostile capital water, make them sail in dangerous waters and don't finding it boring, and give them a dura or enough to buy a ship back if they loose to a superior enemy in the process. Anything else will just mess up things for the vets and not retain much more noobs.

[jodgi]

20 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

and i'm stuck.

You won't be stuck when someone else attacks.

[Angus MacDuff]

30 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

if they loose to a superior enemy in the process

Noobs will always lose to a superior enemy so your suggestion is very important.  PVP opportunities for noobs is just a big problem for devs, because the learning curve is so steep.  I can't see very many noobs having successful PVP in the 1st 30 days unless they fight each other.  They're just baby seals in OW.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[Guest]

There is so many ways to help increase pvp that doesnt involve death circles and never closing battles.

Bring back signaling that holds the battle open longer AND shows the battle location on the map for allied nation. Boom you solved newbs getting screwed.

All these changes accomplish is promoting zerging the larger team will win everytime especially since death circles will prevent skilled players from kiting ganks.

[Sir Loorkon]

2 hours ago, Wyy said:

4 hours ago, Sir Loorkon said:

 

alot of exploits will happen, because we are humans and humans works best towards their own winning.

3 Examples are:

• tagging Alt to bait other players in while sailing towards enemy join circle location.
• Tagging AI, demast it and wait until some unfortunate soul joins in
• Player just about to die, new player jumps in without knowing about this, the new player is then ganked by the same players, it repeats itself until BR is reached and battle closes or battle is over.

What is better?  A system with more fights that gives more room for exploits or a system with a few fights and a little room for exploits. I vote for the first alternative. Do not get me wrong. I do not like exploits. You are right with your comment on human nature but in the end the only one that will be cheated is the exploiter himself. Btw. I would call your first point an exploit, your second an interesting trap and the third bad luck.

[SS Minnow]

4 hours ago, admin said:

we want to separate genuine attacks and attempts to destroy a stronger enemy from plain griefing by designs (implementing systems that stop it).

If more interaction with the Admiralty was introduced (lets call it your Admiralty Report) this may provide a means to discourage griefing and encourage risk.

Make a table of PVP actions that improve or detract from your standing with the Admiraltly.  If you overcome great odds in PVP battles, you get rewarded in some way.  If you do cowardice things, your standing with the Admiralty gets degraded.  Maybe you even lose Rear Admiral

[Angus MacDuff]

The best way to make improvements to Player's actions is to encourage and reward good behaviour.  Not develop mechanics which attempt to force a specific behaviour.  The forced behaviour mechanic will always result in dis-satisfaction, complaints, and exploitation of loopholes in the mechanic. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[SS Minnow]

Only other idea I had was to shrink the attack circle so it equals 400m in the battle instance(little more than effective shooting range).

Player that was attacked can leave instantly when no attacker is within 400m.  Wouldn't this force the griefing ship to stay within firing range of the griefed ship?

[Capn Rocko]

I would rather go the karma system option that @admin suggested as long as it does not punish the attacker for the defender escaping. Thus, only negative karma points if the attacker leaves battle without a ship sinking. 

[Guest]

I want to know what the pvp engagement numbers are from before PVP marks were removed. I bet pvp engagement was high.

[Hethwill]

2 minutes ago, Flinch said:

I want to know what the pvp engagement numbers are from before PVP marks were removed. I bet pvp engagement was high.

And I want to know how many initiated PvP battles end with just ppl running away. I bet is higher.

Here, take your torch and your pitchfork. You need it.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

And I want to know how many initiated PvP battles end with just ppl running away. I bet is higher.

Here, take your torch and your pitchfork. You need it.

What matters more?

If more ships got sunk due to pvp marks over all than its irrelevant that battles that resulted in one side running is higher or not.

[Hethwill]

You pvp because of pvp or because of marks ? If you answer yes, please step over to the left. If you answer maybe, please step over to the right.

Thank you. Hope it makes it clear.

[Sea Archer]

I think the difference between the ranks should be much more significant. You shouldn't have a good chance to fight anything that is more than one rank above your ship. This should come from armour and broadside weight. On the other hand, which is already quite good in my opinion, the smaller ships must have a better maneuverability. 

I would see frigate the fastest ships, while smaller ones may be a bit slower, but with a best point of sail that no frigate has (so escaping is always an option). Larger ships 4th to 1st rank should be slower with the 1st ranks the slowest.

These are ships of the line and therefore shall be used in the line of battle. 

In short: make the ships and gun stats more historical in their relations.

[Sea Archer]

By the way, the best fights I had were 1v1 in frigates of equal size.

It might be an option to close battles with nearly the same BR immediately, when no other player is close by.

[Angus MacDuff]

39 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:

By the way, the best fights I had were 1v1 in frigates of equal size.

It might be an option to close battles with nearly the same BR immediately, when no other player is close by.

I would love this, but the prevailing opinion seems to be against it.  There appears to be more emphasis on reinforcement and rescuing your friends. 

 

Really, this should be a very simple discussion.  If you are not in sight when a battle begins, you should not be able to join it.  Different rule for the reinforcement zone.