Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

National Reputation Persistence (Karma) - Entry to enemy battles.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Urchin said:

Look at it from a new or casual player experience. Having a Snow jump into your battle and stern camp while trying to gain XP vs NPC for a lot of people isn't PVP  but griefing and just another reason why many folks do stop playing.

 

Are for me recently,  having some one jump in while your in the middle of boarding an elite ship (AdR) and than you have to fast disengage and fight two ships now, just cause the guy wasn't easy targets and is a dick while folks try to get rare event ships.  If I wanted PvP I would of gone to the PvP zone for it not the event.

I like the concept, of this new system as I have suggested reputation systems in the past.  I think as long as it doesn't effect the PvP zones it should be good.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Captains  There is a mechanic in game where you are able to join enemy NATION battles if they are open and support one side or another.  It works like this You can support other nat

Sooo...you're saying that for every choice we make in PvP from now on, we are limiting our future choices in PvP?  By definition we're all eventually only going to be able to join the battles of

Read the post first. You can practice by attacking.. Attacking is not affected. Joining the battles is affected. Read the announcement first There will be no I forgive you button. If you joined a

10 minutes ago, admin said:

About this... 

Post forthcoming

 

It's really getting old when lokis run instead of fighting you cause they are tryinng to be dicks and deny you your kill.  So yah if you fight against odds or something you should get rewarded more.  I really feel reals is to low in battle rewards still.   It barely pays for repairs on most ships so you end up doing trade runs to make money to do your econ instead.

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

I beg to differ

You should never stop carrying about players who make the game glorious. They are those people who carry this game through time. You remove them by making their game less enjoyable and rookies will exit the room soon as they entered it. 

Instead of bringing everyone to rookies levels you should bring rookies to everyone's level.

the majority of players make the game glorious not one ore two players or a nation ganking others.
fair fights is the key not players with overpowered ships which have nothing better to do then playing the whole day.

as long as those people won't or don't understand that this game is for all the players, doesn't matter if good or bad, we don't attract more players.

I (and for sure more others) can live without "Anolytic" - "Sekira" and "Ram Dinark" - it has no influence to the game. maybe more players will then come back (again). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Koltes said:

I beg to differ

You should never stop carrying about players who make the game glorious. They are those people who carry this game through time. You remove them by making their game less enjoyable and rookies will exit the room soon as they entered it. 

Instead of bringing everyone to rookies levels you should bring rookies to everyone's level.

you are twisting words and you should not
I have said that i do not are about them being able to join some other nations battle for each other with the convoluted network of alts or secondary accounts just to pvp

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

the majority of players make the game glorious not one ore two players or a nation ganking others.
fair fights is the key not players with overpowered ships which have nothing better to do then playing the whole day.

as long as those people won't or don't understand that this game is for all the players, doesn't matter if good or bad, we don't attract more players.

I (and for sure more others) can live without "Anolytic" - "Sekira" and "Ram Dinark" - it has no influence to the game. maybe more players will then come back (again). 

Sounds like a Tall Poppy syndrome to me. Ram was accused of anything but not about being unfair to what he brings to the fight as he usually faces more than one opponents on larger or equal ships than his.

Your arguments about OP ships or OP players have no relation whatsoever to the issue at hand - reduction of means to attack other players.
We have already been through this many times since players "like you" dont like being attacked by "players like me" and you want immunity and hard coded mechanic to protect you.
- Hence why we had rebalance after rebalance of ROE.
- Hence why we had green on green removed
- Hence why we had implementation of coastal defenses and soon after their removal (because guess what? removal of coastal hunting also reduced ow hunter and made game dull for everyone
- Hence why alliances were created and then removed again as they didnt work
- Hence why map grid was removed so ganking would be harded
- Hence why join timer was reduced so it would be harded to gank, but it bite back as ganked could not get protection
- Hence why self balance join was introduced 

The list can go on and on and on. Maybe we should just go primal and remove all restrictions and make it free for all to attack, anywhere, anytime, anything.
Maybe THEN more players will comeback (again).

Changing the game aspects THATS what reduced player base!

I remember when we had 2000 players online and it was normal. We were very vocal about warning that implementing more restrictions will damage the very core of the game model and therefore reduction of interest. I dont want to sound like "this is the last nail" or "this patch will kill this game", but it surely will make it no better.
We all care for Naval Action as we invested plenty of time in it (Im personally over 10k hours). I have seen it all from all angles and directions.

Lets be honest here and look at the hard facts. Today we have 300-600 players online. If you believe that with online like that this game is playable you are kidding yourself.
Its just dragging on. You could still play Asheron's Call after 17 years but it felt like ghost land. Especially to those of us who remember trade hub being so full you had to jump so people would see where to come to trade with you in the crowd.

I stand my ground - I'm against this Karma patch for the reasons explained above. It reduces PVP further. It kills the very basis of the OW hunting. While proper RVR mechanic would have easily fix current issues while creating lots of PVP content. Period. But fails or wins is all about the choices people make

Edited by Koltes
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin said:

you are twisting words and you should not
I have said that i do not are about them being able to join some other nations battle for each other with the convoluted network of alts or secondary accounts just to pvp

Sorry, but I read them over and over again and this is how I hear them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Öhhm well: 

This will help Bigger nations. How: 

Imagine u are hunting in PVP. U have like 3 guys with u 1 has positiv Karma GB 1 SW 1 Whatever so wherever u hunt u can try to restock ur Repairs... 

ROFL... And that should help how?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see how this works out; the developers have clearly thought about it and its consequences.

Personally if I join someone else's battle I try to pick the underdog, and I play as loyal ally. I'll miss that, on the other hand I won't be interrupted by half a dozen random players upsetting the odds in battles I've initiated.

It does seem to open the door for pirates being a special nation, I'd welcome that.

 

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

It's really getting old when lokis run instead of fighting you cause they are tryinng to be dicks and deny you your kill.  So yah if you fight against odds or something you should get rewarded more.  I really feel reals is to low in battle rewards still.   It barely pays for repairs on most ships so you end up doing trade runs to make money to do your econ instead.

I think @Sir Texas Sir points to the core of the issue. There are players who are not interested in a fair and fun game for everyone, but only interested in winning and exploiting everything. That is why a reputation score is good. You get penalised for being a dick. Simple.
There are of course lots of honorable and non-dick players. But this behaviour is not rewarded in a winner-takes-all game. Let's remember that it IS a game. I had a nice experience a couple of days ago, while hunting down a Diana, I was unlucky to get a Loki jumping in. I was already undercrewed (and with lousy ping), but I am sure I could have taken the AI. Against the Loki, no chance. In fact, I was demasted rather quickly. However, the Loki surrendered after demasting me. Whoever it was, thanks, it was very honorable, you won the battle, and I was not frustrated with the results of my very-short-play time. I took the Diana home. 
As for those who are interested in realism, I find that this goes well in that direction. Gentlemanship was a thing back then. As for the PvP, well, you will have to help your colors and find your own targets. I don't see this helping the bigger nations per-se. Only if players prefer to join only on the winning side and create bad karma only against smaller nations. Dicks again. :P
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Nations will still be enemies of each other.

Players will still be able to attack enemy player from all nations. They will not be able to JOIN battle on the side of a enemy nation they before JOINED against.

I'm not getting the confusion that seems to be arising.

Enemy player will still be enemy player.

Nations will not be allied.

Players actions will be their own, so yeah they might get locked, so clans better get their manure together.

(better put your alts all in one nation, like lenin god of alts does, and not the crap cross over nation alts everywhere you guys do and then cry when some changes to the game hit them alt usage)

Thanks devs.

Glad you have a full grasp on it Hethwill. I understand what happens when pressing the JOIN button but what happens when I don't TAG and I don't JOIN but I am dragged in to battle?

 

If I am dragged into battle by being within the TAG CIRCLE of someone else can this effect my 'friendly nation' list? Will it matter if its a player or an AI battle?

Is it possible to be DRAGGED into battle against a player on your personal 'friendly nation' list, whether or not the other nation player is attacked or attacks a player from my nation and I am in the TAG circle (or whatever it is called)? 

If a player from my nation is attacked by a Privateer fleet from a nation on my 'friendly list' can I JOIN that battle against the privateer? Can I be DRAGGED into battle by the Privateer?

 

Buster (Potential Victim)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Busterbloodvessel said:

Glad you have a full grasp on it Hethwill. I understand what happens when pressing the JOIN button but what happens when I don't TAG and I don't JOIN but I am dragged in to battle?

 

If I am dragged into battle by being within the TAG CIRCLE of someone else can this effect my 'friendly nation' list? Will it matter if its a player or an AI battle?

Is it possible to be DRAGGED into battle against a player on your personal 'friendly nation' list, whether or not the other nation player is attacked or attacks a player from my nation and I am in the TAG circle (or whatever it is called)? 

If a player from my nation is attacked by a Privateer fleet from a nation on my 'friendly list' can I JOIN that battle against the privateer? Can I be DRAGGED into battle by the Privateer?

 

Buster (Potential Victim)

 

 

 

 

when you are dragged that means a national friend started the battle. So you are still true by your national flag. Karma system doesn't apply in this case. 

you cannot get dragged when 2 other nations start the battle.

Karma system only plays are role when joining a ongoing battle between 2 nations that are not your nation. And this is a choice by yourself while you must click join and sail into the appropriate circle.

Edited by z4ys
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, van stiermarken said:

the majority of players make the game glorious not one ore two players or a nation ganking others.
fair fights is the key not players with overpowered ships which have nothing better to do then playing the whole day.

as long as those people won't or don't understand that this game is for all the players, doesn't matter if good or bad, we don't attract more players.

I (and for sure more others) can live without "Anolytic" - "Sekira" and "Ram Dinark" - it has no influence to the game. maybe more players will then come back (again). 

Sekiro

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, admin said:
13 hours ago, mikawa said:

Players who fight bravely should get a bonus over players which run - Any war court would have given high punishments for cowards ...

 

About this... 

Post forthcoming

And no crew would like to fight for a captain who is only fighting lower ranked players. For instance capital harassers.

Such captains, who only enter or accept a fight when their BR is x3 the enemy, or Admirals fighting 1st lieutenants only, should have trouble for recruiting. 

We also need a reputation system in your own nation. Penalty to cowards should also include penalty to fighters-only-when-my-side-is-the-strongest.

Why do Snows run to my privateer? Xebecs to Niagara?

 

Edited by Aquillas
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Aquillas said:

Such captains, who only enter or accept a fight when their BR is x3 the enemy, or Admirals fighting 1st lieutenants only, should have trouble for recruiting. 

What about Admiral in Prince or Rattle hunting fat Trader Brigs in the Gulf, or in Bahamas?
It's prize money and money is better for a crew, cause glory won't buy you bread

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Malcolm3 said:

What about Admiral in Prince or Rattle hunting fat Trader Brigs in the Gulf, or in Bahamas?
It's prize money and money is better for a crew, cause glory won't buy you bread

Right. Hunting traders should not impact reputation. But hunting big traders in a tiny ship is better. Surcouf got his highest reputation while capturing East Indian Kent from the brig La Confiance.

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

your personal 'friendly nation' list,

Hey @Busterbloodvessel Think Z4ys answered it but...

- there's no friendly nations per se. Just sworn enemy nations on top of enemy nations.

If you look at it with a binary karma value.

0 being "enemy nation"

1 being "sworn enemy"

Say you are a captain for the Knights of Malta and you see a battle between Portugal and Ottoman Empire.

You decide to join on Portugal side ( obviously, given your grand master is portuguese :D ) then your karma value will be 1 - sworn enemy on the Ottoman Empire side.

You will not be able to join Ottoman side in the future. ( unless you pay whatever value )

This does not mean you cannot attack Portugal ships. You can.

But if you join against Portugal in another battle, say between Spain and Portugal, then you are karma 1 towards Portugal.

At that point you are sworn enemy to both Portugal and Ottomans. You cannot join either side in a battle.

You can still initiate battles against whomever you want. You simply can't join.

But that's the beauty of it...

... you can always join against a sworn enemy.

 

Edited by Hethwill
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2020 at 11:11 AM, admin said:
  • You will be able to clean your reputation if you made a mistake by paying a significant fine.

 

People seem to realy not like this payment part. I suggest to make this payment a real-money, instead of reals/doubloons.

 

People spend their valuable time in game to get reals for ships. I get it that they don't like to spend it to join PvP. Let them enjoy the full PvP potential, that is after they pay and support NA and new GL games with some real funds.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Nations will still be enemies of each other.

Players will still be able to attack enemy player from all nations. They will not be able to JOIN battle on the side of a enemy nation they before JOINED against.

I'm not getting the confusion that seems to be arising.

Enemy player will still be enemy player.

Nations will not be allied.

Players actions will be their own, so yeah they might get locked, so clans better get their manure together.

(better put your alts all in one nation, like lenin god of alts does, and not the crap cross over nation alts everywhere you guys do and then cry when some changes to the game hit them alt usage)

Thanks devs.

This is the best summary for all the whinning in the topic:

Quote

move your alts to the same nation

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly my opinion is that a Sworn Enemy should not be able to enter that nation ports under any circumstances. Not even with trader.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Koltes said:

My issue is this. Since this game only has 300-600 players online (specifically on the lower end during my prime playing time) it greatly limits me of finding targets to attack. This might come as surprise for someone, but about 1/3 of my engagements are joined someone else's battles. I dont really care which side I join. I only care to get a kill. Exiting battle I might re-engage my "ally" and kill him too. There were nights where I couldnt find anyone and all I saw where already started battles. Since everyone is an enemy this means that as a pirate I will never be able to join any battles if there are no pirates involved.

Any hard coded mechanic that limits or grants players some kind of ability or inability will only cause more issues on the other end let alone finding way to exploit it. One of the things comes in mind for exploit is picking up an alt that is enemy of your enemy and attack him in OW to prevent being attacked.

Easy solutions to complex problems DO NOT exist and will never work.
What works for Fallout 76 with their online average of 30k players will kill rest of the PVP for solo hunters in NA with its 600 online players.

That is my issue

Your issue is more to do with the low population during your play time which makes you join any battle just to get some action. For a persistent world MMO that sort of play does not make sense, first you join a battle to help someone and then straight after you tag him and sink him too. With this change you will have to find your own battles or be wary of which battles you join to protect that reputation. Remembering of course that you can always join to aid your chosen nation.

In some ways it is like the alliance system where you could not attack nations that were allied to you, but now you have the choice individually to attack allies with only you bearing the consequences. Each individual player can choose which nations they want to be allied with and which are enemies. I am sure some clans will set strict rules to ensure their members fall in line to avoid the situation where some are unable to join certain battles.

The only thing I hope they add to it is a way for bad reputation to decay over time or by positive actions towards a nation rather than a simple large payment to reset.

Once a reputation system is introduced it could lead to a bounty system where a player with a really bad reputation against a nation could be hunted for a large bounty or other such mechanic. People have been asking for some sort of reputation system for a while and I think this is a step in the right direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Honestly my opinion is that a Sworn Enemy should not be able to enter that nation ports under any circumstances. Not even with trader.

So you are a sworn enemy if you join a fight against someone but you are only an enemy if you instigate a fight against someone?

The logic doesn't sound right, but I understand the maths. Perhaps we need a new terminology.

 

Buster (No expert)

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

So you are a sworn enemy if you join a fight against someone but you are only an enemy if you instigate a fight against someone?

The logic doesn't sound right, but I understand the maths. Perhaps we need a new terminology.

 

Buster (No expert)

Well I suppose the classification of enemy and sworn enemy does work in this case. If you are fighting under your nations flag you fight enemies but if you hate someone so much that you would change flags to fight them then you are a "sworn enemy". Seems quite logical to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Your issue is more to do with the low population during your play time which makes you join any battle just to get some action.

Thats right and any change of mechanic that leads to further decrease of player population IMHO is wrong priority.
When RVR is done and does not drive people away. When players start enjoying crafting without even fighting. When players will have fun doing econ. When online population gets on a rise. When alliances done and make sense.
THAN such a change would make a priority. Until then its a wrong time for it.

Also proper mechanic should be implemented not as Karma. There should be properly done criminal mechanic for green-on-green for example. Not hard coded, but with game consequences, such as getting criminal tag that would allow your own nation to sink you without penalties etc  

Besides 600 players in your timezone is also pretty low to keep players happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...