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

Due to the lately rising amount of tribunals referring to griefing in the OW, I created a poll about what players actually consider griefing in this regard. Also there are some proposals upon solutions stated by multiple players like @Liq, @Banished Privateer and others, though I chose some to me reasonably sounding parameters. Regarding the possible changes, the question of considering Reinforcement Zones as special or just part of the open world also seems plausible to be asked.

None of the answers you choose are binding, the actual values of invisibility time etc. are only proposals and tuning and adjusting recommendations are very welcome. This poll shall only serve as an overview to the community's opinion on the matter.

I would feel delighted, if you are interested and could advertise this poll on global chat.

Edited by Palatinose
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fight? or no fight that is the question. Safe zones should be SAFE not half in half out but they should be very small but big enough for new players to interact with AI and remove f11 co-ordinates. I don't want to see the elite players being able to tag and escape with impunity though outside capitals this is the scourge of new players.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think 60 second is over the top. Might have a turn boost to get your ship in the direction you want. Invisibility not 100 % desided. Maybe like now ore 2-5 sec more proberbly. Have a hard time to understand you should be able to take a 1 rate out, get in a fight and then get enough escape buff, so you can outrun everything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day ROE can be tweaked, rolled back, and totally changed, but there will always be a potential for exploit. We, the players define how we play the game. It is up to us to show some manners and fair play.

The real issue is within the community. between the toxics, those taking the game so seriously it is not even a game anymore, the opportunists and and those combining all three, what can ROE do?

I only hope for harsher tribunal sanctions, fresh blood joining the game, and manners/fair play be rewarded in some way or ladder+tournament room for solo and group fight.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO Tagging and holding in battle til reinforcments arrives is not valid tactics; it basically bypasses the join timer for instances - which exists for a reason

But reinforcment zones should be safe again.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RKY said:

At the end of the day ROE can be tweaked, rolled back, and totally changed, but there will always be a potential for exploit. We, the players define how we play the game. It is up to us to show some manners and fair play.

The real issue is within the community. between the toxics, those taking the game so seriously it is not even a game anymore, the opportunists and and those combining all three, what can ROE do?

I only hope for harsher tribunal sanctions, fresh blood joining the game, and manners/fair play be rewarded in some way or ladder+tournament room for solo and group fight.

ROE can and should do everything, it is the meaning of abbreviation "RoE", that is the whole point. You expect "fair" fights? Which fight is fair IF RoE doesn´t determine the rules?

“If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.”(John Steinbeck)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hawkwood said:

ROE can and should do everything, it is the meaning of abbreviation "RoE", that is the whole point. You expect "fair" fights? Which fight is fair IF RoE doesn´t determine the rules?

“If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.”(John Steinbeck)

Where do you see fair fights in my post? fair play and manners does not mean fair fights.

Your last quote just display all the wrong things in this comunity. fair fight = run, unfair for you = run, unfair for enemy= chase.

I don't want to play such game, I want a game where people fight and behave correctly. You have had a fight, no need for a revenge fleet or chase all left alive people for hours.

On a side note what is considered a fair fight depends from each person's point of view.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bit of grey area here. 

I view tagging and keeping in battle in terms of RVR and hostility missions as valid.  It’s also a valid tactic to split a fleet up and tag something larger with smaller fast ships.  

How many minutes constitutes trolling?  How can you govern intent?

When I first got this ball rolling and illicited the response from @admin “players who join the battle should fight in it” it was to stop players from randomly joining patrol battles and immediately kiting for an hour.

Seems we’ve gotten a little out of hand as far as what constitutes trolling these days and every fight where a player runs ends up on tribunal.   

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mon vote est fait. 

Merci à Palatinose pour ce questionnaire pertinent et pratique. Ce système me semble parfait pour faire progresser le jeu.

Que ceux qui ne votent pas ne se plaignent pas.

Cordialement, La Fayette

 

Edited by Marquis de la Fayette
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove F11 and additional speed boost and  invisibility would do some way to alleviating the problem.

Tribunal is just a waste of time now, nothing is done.

Edited by Gregory Rainsborough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for the long timer but my favorite would be a "tow to next friendly port" option. Enemies in reinforcement zones should not have that option.

Btw. how about using the time gap between battle and OW as a factor for the speed boost and invisibility. Time (shipspeed) runs much slower in battle so it would be fair to multiply this with the time the battle took. Doing so it is most likely like teleporting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RKY said:

At the end of the day ROE can be tweaked, rolled back, and totally changed, but there will always be a potential for exploit. We, the players define how we play the game. It is up to us to show some manners and fair play.

RoE can not be tweaked, rolled back and changed if it´s set once and forever. We the players DO NOT DEFINE how we play the game. We use the possibilities of RoE, and the gaps within RoE some call "exploit".

And this is where your post demands "fair play", where you can not expect fair play. RoE needs to define "fair play", not manners, because if you relly on manners, there will be no "fair fight"..

Savy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Little bit of grey area here.

To me it's totally off-washed black aswell as grey-hazed white. As Kant's categorical imperative does obviously not work, we have rules (laws IRL). On the other hand it's a game and perhaps one essential reason for many to play is exactly the lack of or the limited number of rules to be obeyed - to flee reality for the sake of fun. As this differs from player to player I would advertise a compromise. As few rules as possible, as many as necessary to accomplish enjoyable gameplay for everybody. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Your last quote just display all the wrong things in this comunity. fair fight = run, unfair for you = run, unfair for enemy= chase.

I think there's nothing wrong with quote attitude. It's natural and absolutely part of warfare.

First: "fair" is a point of view. At this state of the game, I consider an Agamennon a fair target for my Requin... but very often the Agamennon thinks it's not fair (for him) fighting me.
Second in general: "fair" is a complex mix of relation of stats (both base and mods) of ships involved plus involved captains' skill.
Do really someone consider fair a same ship, even same mods, fight between a 2000+hr veteran and a 100hr fresh-of-exam newbie?
Do really someone think me wrong avoiding to engage on a speed/no-mast modded Surprise (may be built for tagging or raiding) a famed dismaster on the same ship?

Therefore there could be nothing as a "fair" battle. As duels were not duels in warfare. And even a duel... is only formally fair.

The very expression "fair game" solves the issue. If it's enemy he's fair target or a danger. So the very natural reply: "fight or run".

6 hours ago, RKY said:

You have had a fight, no need for a revenge fleet

I was on receiving side of revenge fleets more often of being on the outnumbering side.
And I consider them fair: it's my choise (more potential preys per time unit) to engage in enemy waters. It's fine it comes with higher risks, for me.

6 hours ago, RKY said:

chase all left alive people for hours.

This is the very only real issue ingame and about RoE.

Because no one should be obliged to play 4 hours or more in a row being chased all over the map.
If I sail having 30 minutes to play... I end up in a battle lasting more and I have to surrender. It's a my fault.

But if I log with 2 hrs play time available, I should not obliged to play more if I already fought a 1h30m battle.

Therefore a way to avoid the griefing of infinite tag should be implemented.
The old teleport post battle (BUT TO THE LAST PORT VISITED) could be fine: as ships cant join after a couple minutes because the instanced battle is already finished in OW time, same way when I finished the battle I can be not anymore in that spot of the OW.

6 hours ago, Liq said:

IMO Tagging and holding in battle til reinforcments arrives is not valid tactics; it basically bypasses the join timer for instances - which exists for a reason

But reinforcment zones should be safe again.

Right. Both points.

The situations of highly unbalanced forces involved are so many (and THERE IS people attacking 1st rates with Snow) variables that an hard coded RoE could be harmful.

I'd suggest more a "written" rule allowing to tribunal anyone who exploit the tagging mechanic.

Like "keeping tagged an enemy ship for more than X (5? or more with teleport afterbattle) minutes showing no intention to get in combat range is considered griefing and will be punished" - nothing too complex.
Some tactical delay would be allowed but for limited time and less useful if coupled with postbattle teleport.

 

Edited by Licinio Chiavari
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I don't remember anything good for my enemies at KPR concerning TP back to port. Only the raider had advantages. As soon as it gets crowded, just leave and return at a pleasing time. It could only be a thing to TP back with empty hold, no fleet and to the last entered port. Make it a really tough choice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

TBH I don't remember anything good for my enemies at KPR concerning TP back to port. Only the raider had advantages. As soon as it gets crowded, just leave and return at a pleasing time. It could only be a thing to TP back with empty hold, no fleet and to the last entered port. Make it a really tough choice.

Get rid of Capital Areas.

Make Reinforcement areas smaller and working as now.

Add a Control Area - bigger than today R-Areas, without reinforcements but with free join for controller.

In both areas: no TP last port for enemies.

In all cases: TP last port without content of the hold (so no doubs nor mods looted) and no fleet ships (no captured ships).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phaserburn said:

Make all timers start after the battle AND when you lower sails (aka move forward) this would let people with longer load times and the need to turn not reduce your invisible time.

So If I don't move I can stay invisible for ever?

 

Make battle reports only show up 15 minutes after the battle has ended, not after the last person leaves.... if that makes sense? -This way someone can hide in the battle a few minutes after it’s over, leave, have invisibility, turn, then go their merry way. And then the report shows up 10 minutes later. This way people don’t use the “report” to track when someone left.

Not sure it will make much difference. Ppl will just stay in and first jump after the player. That way they to get a speed buff too.

 

Let people log off the game when in battle. Maybe not go instantly back to port. But at least give people the option to “log off immediately” after the battle is over so they can go to bed and not constantly keep dealing with revenge fleets. When they log back on, they show up in open world where they joined said battle.

And hence remove all posibility to sample a defence fleet . Another free out of jail card

 

Edited by staun

Share this post


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

TBH I don't remember anything good for my enemies at KPR concerning TP back to port. Only the raider had advantages. As soon as it gets crowded, just leave and return at a pleasing time. It could only be a thing to TP back with empty hold, no fleet and to the last entered port. Make it a really tough choice.

I think there is a way so it not is free to teleport out. Ofc you lose all your spoil of war. Maybe a permanent upgrade you could put on your ship. cost like maybe 1/2 the price of the ship in dbl. But a minimum of 2000 dbl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If TP comes back it should be done only with an empty cargo hold and fee deducted from bank account based on ship size (compounded fee with fleet ships) to the last port visited. I support this. 

BUT I don't think that is the solution to escaping campers and tagging for hours until death. For example.. you attack someone and have a good fight, you survive and leave only to find 5 ships waiting for you... 1) once you leave battle you have missed your chance to TP to port 2) even if you didn't miss your chance to TP to port, you are the one being punished (paying money to teleport) when you are the one who is being harassed. 

Inivisibility must be increased to the point where a player can leave render range of his/her enemies after battle. I'd argue for 15-20k distance. If you escape battle, you should be able to escape in OW. 

Share this post


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

To me it's totally off-washed black aswell as grey-hazed white. As Kant's categorical imperative does obviously not work, we have rules (laws IRL). On the other hand it's a game and perhaps one essential reason for many to play is exactly the lack of or the limited number of rules to be obeyed - to flee reality for the sake of fun. As this differs from player to player I would advertise a compromise. As few rules as possible, as many as necessary to accomplish enjoyable gameplay for everybody. 

Sandbox rules.  Anything goes.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the issue with teleport to friendly or last port after battle? 

For the raider in enemy waters yes, it can be used to evade / escape from a revenge fleet, so what...at the very least he is either out of the area or you have a very good idea where he went and can sail there if you like ( if you dont want the enemy in your area, shut down the avail to all ports).

For the trader, the teleport at least will make it where the trip was not a total loss as it is currently due to the raiders ability to engage the same trader multiple times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...