Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Palatinose

Possibilities of OW RoE changes regarding delay actions.

Possibilities for a change of OW RoE to reduce griefing. Is delaying griefing?   

66 members have voted

  1. 1. Please read description below first. Fundamental question: Do you consider delay actions (tagging without the intention to fight) griefing? (Multiple Choice)

    • Yes.
      26
    • No.
      15
    • I consider it valid tactics in RvR.
      21
    • I'm okay with being tagged and not engaged, IF the tagger leaves after a reasonable amount of time (e.g. 5min) and DOES NOT repeat the action.
      27
  2. 2. Regarding invisibility, speed buff and cannot attack timer

    • Prolonged invisibility timer to 60s, 2xspeed boost, prolonged cannot attack timer to 3min (only defender)
      11
    • Prolonged invisibility timer to 60s, 2xspeed boost, prolonged cannot attack timer to 3min (everybody)
      23
    • Prolonged invisibility timer to 60s, 1,5xspeed boost, prolonged cannot attack timer to 3min (only defender)
      2
    • Prolonged invisibility timer to 60s, 1,5xspeed boost, prolonged cannot attack timer to 3min (everybody)
      7
    • Prolonged invisibility timer to 60s, NO speed boost, prolonged cannot attack timer to 3min (only defender)
      1
    • Prolonged invisibility timer to 60s, NO speed boost, prolonged cannot attack timer to 3min (everybody)
      5
    • Keep it as it is now (let tribunal decide in every case individually).
      17
  3. 3. Should the just stated options ALSO apply for Reinforcement Zones

    • Yes - RZ should be secure homewater
      34
    • No.
      21
    • I chose option 7 above.
      11


Recommended Posts

I think that if the attacker knows he can get support within 5 minutes of engaging an enemy then a delaying action is valid, deliberately delaying knowing there is no support and without the intent to fight is  not an option.

It is one thing if you actually have instructions to delay with the intent of fighting with equal or greater forces,  after all, the target still has a chance to escape with speed and invisibility or increase his odds by putting some of the enemy ships out of a good position to get into the fight. It is quite another to engage knowing there is no support and with the sole intent of wasting time, to do so is wrong on so many levels, even, setting aside that such behavior can ruin the playing experience of others,  which is counter productive.

Consider this:

No Officer, or man, shall fail to do his utmost to defeat the enemy under sufferance of death, - Articles of war.

This was the article that Admiral Byng was tried and executed under, it is clear and concise, if you engage the enemy without doing all you can to defeat him then that is an offense under law 

No Officer, or, Man shall recklessly hazard his ship under sufferance of death- Articles of War.

This is the opposite, If you engage the enemy knowing he has overwhelming firepower and without prospect of relief by friendly forces then that is an offense under the law, excepting where your orders expressly command you to delay or harass the enemy, or, if to continue the action will result in needless losses then escape or surrender are permitted without fear or favor. The first article would not apply in that instance.

No man can do wrong if he lays his ship alongside the enemy- Nelson of Bronte.

What Nelson actually means here is that if you engage the enemy closely, and, charges are laid that you hazarded your ship then he will not pursue those charges, but if you cut and run then he will apply the first charge of 'failing to do your utmost'.

Those two articles deal with neglect,/cowardice, and all points in between the two, by extension if you grief a ship then either article can be applied, but if you delay  a ship under orders the first article cannot apply as you are clearly not expected to defeat the enemy alone, the second may still apply but is very difficult to prosecute as the accused is acting under orders, unless you are very unfortunate you would most likely be acquitted, at the worst the Admiralty would express it's displeasure and the death penalty would not be applied. Should either charge fail, you, cannot be tried under the other, even in military law you may not be tried twice for the same offense.

That is how such a case would have been dealt with in real life, the problem in game is that there is no defined regulating structure, how can there be in a sandbox game where pretty much anything goes?  

Neither can you over regulate without removing a good deal of the fun from the game, the Articles of War cover every single aspect of behavior in peace and war, but, are too rigid to apply in a game without adaptation, also, it may not be desirable to do so, the big question is can ROE's tied to the Articles of War work within a sandbox environment?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem with "no itention to fight". How do you judge that? 

Finding out what a player wants to do (i.e. his itentions) is simply impossible. You can only judge what he is actually doing (actions). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking how split are the answers, we're never gonna reach consensus.

Someone will whine one way or another.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, van Veen said:

I have a problem with "no itention to fight". How do you judge that? 

Finding out what a player wants to do (i.e. his itentions) is simply impossible. You can only judge what he is actually doing (actions). 

You judge by the action. If he only tags to keep you in battle, suddenly stops,  leaves.  You leave and find yourself surrounded, his intention was obviously not to fight but to keep you in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem should be solved by BR rating ROE.

1) Minimum BR ratio required (e.g. BR1/BR2 > 0.4) for drawing into battle. We had that, but is it still in place? Not sure about that. 

2) Battle should stay open for a certain time for everyone to join (e.g. 2min). 

3) Battle should stay open for the BR low side until balanced (0.75 < BR1/BR2 1.0) or automatically closed (e.g. 5min). 

The parameters could be different for safe zone and captial zone for home nation (more time for reinforcement, less ganking possible). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Palatinose said:

You judge by the action. If he only tags to keep you in battle, suddenly stops,  leaves.  You leave and find yourself surrounded, his intention was obviously not to fight but to keep you in battle.

But then his intention is actually to fight. But to fight on his terms. First battle is a delaying battle with the clear intention to fight it out later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think delaying battles are legitimate tactic. As in all warfare. Get your skirmishers in, make contact, wait for the heavy infantry to arrive. 

Trolling is a different story. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys! What is everyone complaining about?

Getting ganked? Then, just don't sail into hostile waters in low numbers. 

Getting kited? Then, bring a fast ship with you next time. Mixed fleets are more flexible. 

Annoyed by that basic cutter or the requin trolling you? Just sail away straight downwind. You should be faster. If you are not, demast that bastard and sink him. 

You can't be bothered chasing endlessly? You can't sink the enemy, but he also cannot sink you? He doesn't react to your in-battle chat request to stop that nonsense? He keeps going just to annoy you? That's trolling. Report it and get that bastard banned. 

Expecting a fair fight on your terms? Forget it. Try to win. Have fun anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, staun said:

 

Obviously you would have some mechanic so it’s not permanent.

This would clearly be a feature for “the victor” if you losing, you’re a bit hello kittyed.

And if we’re talking “free get out of jail free card.” Logging off means you’re not playing. No one should be able to stop someone from not playing. That’s just griefing. I logged off once and found rediii plus crew still waiting at my log off spot an hour and a half later. They still beat me because of it. If someone needs to go offline, let them... don’t punish them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read the questions for the first time I made my choice. Before I pressed "Submit...", I thought about situations that happend to me in Naval Action as attacker and as defender. I deleted all my choices, because I recognized this questions are hard to answer.

The first question is, which behavior is "griefing"? The longer I think about it, the weaker gets my answer.

The second question - do I have an idea to reduce griefing, that can't get abused in the other way, that gankers can do there shit without risk?

Maybe a single Player should have different rights than a fleet, maybe equal fights in BR and/or number of ships sholud have another mechanic. 

The only mechanic that hardly can be abused - if the attack timer, the speed buff and the invisibility is random nobody can calculate the prospects.

In this case

A ganking fleet cannot calculate with the saftey of long timers, the guy that holds others in battle buy just tagging and waiting for a revenge fleet does not know how big the escape chance for the enemies will be. 

I thinks randomnes in a range of factors is the only way that helps reducing ganking and griefing. This means not only the end of a battle also the joining time can be random.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditch can(t) leave timer. 

Everyone gets 350m area control

Skilled area control gives 750m

OW tags can only happen within 350range

If outside of ac range player can leave.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 12:15 PM, Phaserburn said:

Obviously you would have some mechanic so it’s not permanent.

This would clearly be a feature for “the victor” if you losing, you’re a bit hello kittyed.

And if we’re talking “free get out of jail free card.” Logging off means you’re not playing. No one should be able to stop someone from not playing. That’s just griefing. I logged off once and found rediii plus crew still waiting at my log off spot an hour and a half later. They still beat me because of it. If someone needs to go offline, let them... don’t punish them.

Firs point, was trolling.

Second point, you actually neither need to win ore lose. 3 guys chasing you and you run in battle, stay ahead. No winner and no loser. Just don’t think it will make much different. Not in regard to griefing.

third point. Think your argument is a bit thin. “ No one should be able to stop someone from not playing. That’s just griefing.” So if I am on a short traderun and only have the 5 min, I should be able to log of, and not be forced to fight?

We both know how instan log of will be abused. Oh a defence fleet. I log of. Send an alt out to see when it is safe to log in. Lots of players proberbly switch to an alt and keep playing.

It should cost to want to dodge fights. Yes real live can be a bitch. There have been plenty of sugestions of losing all in the ship, But oh no thats not a solution. Not fair I risk lose my spoil. I actually think it is a bit cheap. Think it also should cost maybe 1/4 of the ships price and have a cooldown, so you not just can use it everytime you get in trouble.

I understand the idea of not have to lose if real life knocking on the door. Should that then not also be so even if you are in a battle? We are here to give feedback on game. Devs have said they want a game that works for the 2 h man. How do you think it will affect him if He knows there is no way of stopping the hunter?

Btw how can multi battles be griefing, if the goal is to hunt you Down and kill you. It is you thats keep dodging fights. 

 

Edited by staun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@van Veen telling people which ships to bring is not the answer to the question whether we as a community consider artificially prolonged join timers valid tactics or an exploit of game mechanics which in that case would need tweaking. 

To me that's a complex question, which needs either a rudimentary answer aka "allow everything - live with it" or a finely tuned adaption of RoE. Both solutions are fine imo. The question is what does the community want and not "Why don't you guys accept this is a war game where winning is everything?"

Edited by Palatinose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sir Lancelot Holland said:

I think that if the attacker knows he can get support within 5 minutes of engaging an enemy then a delaying action is valid, deliberately delaying knowing there is no support and without the intent to fight is  not an option.

If he knows there is supports 5 minutes away, then he can wait for it to be within fighting distance without tagging. Otherwise everyone throw out their idea of time compression and keep battles open, with no limits for 10 minutes since tagging, and retagging is a way to get around this aka an exploit or generally non-intenional function of a mechanic.

Edited by Slim McSauce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

If he knows there is supports 5 minutes away, then he can wait for it to be within fighting distance without tagging. Otherwise everyone throw out their idea of time compression and keep battles open, with no limits for 10 minutes since tagging, and retagging is a way to get around this aka an exploit or generally non-intenional function of a mechanic.

Actually he might not be able to wait. If they sail, lets say West and the reinforcement is to the east, they will only catch up is he tag and keep them in the same spot OW. But you have a valid point with time compression. If I had a solution to it, I would tell. Nobody has a good one, witch deals with that problem, but not create a problem in orher areas of OW fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, van Veen said:

Come on guys! What is everyone complaining about?

Getting ganked? Then, just don't sail into hostile waters in low numbers. 

Getting kited? Then, bring a fast ship with you next time. Mixed fleets are more flexible. 

Annoyed by that basic cutter or the requin trolling you? Just sail away straight downwind. You should be faster. If you are not, demast that bastard and sink him. 

You can't be bothered chasing endlessly? You can't sink the enemy, but he also cannot sink you? He doesn't react to your in-battle chat request to stop that nonsense? He keeps going just to annoy you? That's trolling. Report it and get that bastard banned. 

Expecting a fair fight on your terms? Forget it. Try to win. Have fun anyway. 

Noone is requesting fair Fights only, if you get ganked regularly in OW by sailing by a much larger force, so be it, deal with it

However if you got a battle, say 2v3, noone else joins, manage to win / Escape just to then outside in the OW meet a force of ~15 ships (which were not able to join the battle for a reason), thats bs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Liq said:

Noone is requesting fair Fights only, if you get ganked regularly in OW by sailing by a much larger force, so be it, deal with it

However if you got a battle, say 2v3, noone else joins, manage to win / Escape just to then outside in the OW meet a force of ~15 ships (which were not able to join the battle for a reason), thats bs.

This^

What is worse even than fighting that good battle, is getting a nice battle, 1v1, 1v2, 2v3, etc and then having those players kite you around till their friends are ready outside, then they leave and you get ganked.
They technically "fought" (shooting some ball or chain and generally being an annoyance without actually accomplishing anything) looks like fighting...at least in the server logs and on the tab screenshot (so a tribunal is worthless). But everyone knows they weren't actually going to fight you, just wait for their friends to gank. Then, thanks to short invisibility & speedboost, you (the hunter) are not likely to get away. Which is arguably fine if you were just a mile or two offshore of your enemy's major port...but we all know that revenge ganks can and do form almost anywhere. 

 

RvR, is a different animal. I personally think screening, as a tactic, is poor gameplay, at least with the current RvR system. Screeners have 24 hours to form a fleet and position it to catch the attacking fleet (which will be a mix of ships). The easy answer is "well they need to bring screeners too" and that sometimes works. But it just doesn't appeal to me. Spend hours grinding dumb bots to set a PB, then spend time getting a fleet ready, sailed to there, only to be denied content by a fleet of crap ships that don't intend to fight you, just waste your time. Most everyone has been on both sides of that screening fleet before....but maybe I'm alone in not liking being on either side of it (unless the fight happens to be somewhat reasonable and enjoyable, not just a kiting fest).

Delaying in hostility is another thing....one part of me says thats OK because you are technically in there and can be sunk by their fleet (which chose to start a battle that would be unlimited join for your side)...another part of me recognizes how trolly that is. 

At least in the old flag system, screeners had an hour to fleet up and stop it. Fleets were haphazardly thrown together (at least for the non-major port defenses) and hopefully you could stop the flag runner and/or intercept the main battle fleet. Screening felt a lot cleaner then. More pure and fun. 

 

Finally, the grief-by-chasing. This has happened to me more than the other types of griefing. I generally sail light, fast builds. I reserve my right to run away from any fight I don't want to engage in by sacrificing my HP, thickness, turn rate, reload, mast thickness, etc. So if I get tagged into a fight I don't want to fight in, I turn and run away. Then (assuming no revenge gank outside), the enemy often chases, maybe is faster than me in OW so he tags again....I escape again. He tags again....that is trolling. He may have intention to fight, but I don't; and he should know by that point that he can't catch me. So, I'm in battle with no intention to fight, but I didn't start the battle. He has intention to fight...but knows he can't make it happen. Who is at fault? I say he is, for tagging over and over, wasting both our time.

 

So ultimately:

Yes, any time a player initiates a battle with no intention of actually fighting the enemy, and no reasonable reason to start the battle...that is griefing. Especially if that player does it over and over.
RvR is a grey area for me, and I can see both sides of that opinion. I think better PB setting and BR mechanics would go a long way to fixing that. 

 

I think a partial solution to the griefing issue is to increase the invisibility timer and cannot attack timer. I chose 2x and 3 minutes for all because, honestly, whether you pressed attack or not, there is always a chance a revenge fleet will be out to get you. Both the hunters and the prey need at least a chance to make good on their escape before being thrown to the jaws of the revenge fleet.

Further solutions to this problem: join timer is unlimited for anyone within sight of battle at the tag (if in render distance, then can join), join timer for anyone else is 5 minutes, with an ever-expanding join circle so that if you join close to the 5 minute mark you'll be super far away from the battle (unless you saw the battle start, then you get normal join circles and have unlimited time to press 'enter'). This will encourage sailing as a fleet, but also allows a hunting party to spread out a bit to cover more ground. 

 

Finally, Reinforcement zones: 

  • Should be extremely reduced in size. Make them maybe 25-50% bigger than the capital zone. Big enough for new players to figure out how to make their ship move on OW, sail to missions inside the zone, etc.
  • Should be 100% safe for new players. Let players up to (and including) Captain rank (5th rates) spawn missions in their reinforcement zones.
  • Remove all AI fleets bigger than 6th rates.
  • Allow maximum of level 2 shipyard in capital ports. 
  • Remove ability to tag players in their reinforcement zones. 
  • Remove ability to join player's battles in their reinforcement zones.

Reinforcement zone is NOT for Admirals to get rich grinding AI. Reinforcement zones are NOT for players to set up their primary econ/crafting hub. If they want a safe space to do that, PvE Server caters to them. 

But, reinforcement zones are also NOT for hunters to go hunt players in.

Implement proper mechanics that encourage players to move out of their reinforcement zones as they gain rank and skill, and hunters won't be trying to go into those zones to hunt. Add in proper ROE for patrol zone battles and you're well on the way to a properly functioning PvP server. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise the threshold for damage that qualifies as a tag. A cannonball through your sails at 500m should not be enough.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right' oh Farrago, as i posted somewhere...

basically rate gap +1%

7th rate should need 8% to tag a 1st rate. 6th would need 7%, 2nd would need 2%, A higher rate would simply need the 1%.

( not just a ball theough sail, but 1% dmg combined )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Liq said:

Noone is requesting fair Fights only, if you get ganked regularly in OW by sailing by a much larger force, so be it, deal with it

However if you got a battle, say 2v3, noone else joins, manage to win / Escape just to then outside in the OW meet a force of ~15 ships (which were not able to join the battle for a reason), thats bs.

Why is this bs? 

One side called reinforcements, the other did not. For whatever reason. 

Yes, it's unfair. It's even ganking. But I don't see an exploit or anything close to trolling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, van Veen said:

Why is this bs? 

One side called reinforcements, the other did not. For whatever reason. 

Yes, it's unfair. It's even ganking. But I don't see an exploit or anything close to trolling. 

why have a battle join timer at all then? should battles be open for the whole duration? They cannot, due to time / speed compression openworld compared to battle instace.

French / Spanish couldn't call "reinforcments" after Trafalgar that magically teleported, surrounding the victorious british fleet - reinforcment would have had to sail form port, and as there are not two dimensions (OW and Battle) in Real Life, they would have never gotten there

I have understood that some people think as this is a game, taking revenge should be possible - personally, I don't think it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Palatinose said:

To me that's a complex question, which needs either a rudimentary answer aka "allow everything - live with it" or a finely tuned adaption of RoE. Both solutions are fine imo. The question is what does the community want and not "Why don't you guys accept this is a war game where winning is everything?"

Agree to that. 

What I don't like is the hypocrisy by some persons. Everybody says he doesn't expect a fair fight. But when ganked some start a tribunal. It's the same people that tell others to git gud. 

"no itention to fight" can hardly be a criterion. Firstly, it's close to impossible to find out player itention. Secondly, everyone trying to escape a fight has no itention to fight. You'd have to ask why there is no itention to fight, because there might be a legitimate reason (a trader trying to escape) . But answering why is even more difficult. You'll never solve the problem with this approach.

Wrong question may produce a good answer, but only if you are very lucky. 

I understand that something needs to be fixed, but we are on the wrong track here. 

Again, trolling is a different story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Tribunal is the new meta ;) ... 

And i'm totally not trolling, but some "pros" apparently are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×