Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
LeeUK

Rate limits in battle in the future

Recommended Posts

I am just throwing this out there for discussion, as it's not something I feel is needed any time soon, but perhaps for early access Steam or full release.

 

What the topic implies is that for big battles, do you ever intend on limiting the number of 1st,2nd and maybe even 3rd rates that can participate on one side in a battle?. The reason I say this is because it dawned on me that as a player who enjoys sailing smaller ships in any sailing game I've played, how painfully boring it would be if PvP battles just ended up with huge fleets made solely of the biggest SoLs and there was no use for the smaller ships. This would force more co-operation/teamwork in nations and their fleets, there would be a much larger variation of ships in the battles and the smaller ships would add a lot more tactics into the battles for both sides. Of course this would only come into play in the big battles though.

 

It was just a rough idea that came into my head and I'd like other peoples thoughts or suggestions on the subject, I'm not here to argue or say I AM RIGHT THIS MUST BE DONE, but I do feel that something like this would improve the quality of battles we will see later in the games development ( or release ). Thoughts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't think people in SOLs will bother attacking lynxes, snows, cutters etc. the most smallest ship they'll attack is a trinc at worst a frigate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Just no. Artificial restrictions will just add frustration and get in the way of gameplay. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather make SOLs hard to get and maintain so there are only so many of them. Artificial limits are just frustrating.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if either of you understood the subject. I'm talking about 30v30 or perhaps bigger battles and limiting on how many of those ships can be 1st 2nd and 3rd rates, nothing extreme, but it will force fleets to use at leat a few smaller ships in bigger battles, making them a bit more interesting and fun. Otherwise in the future big battles will just be full of 1st 2nd and 3rd rates only, that would be pretty boring IMO, which is why I am asking for suggestions and opinions on this and big battles.

More so I am not talking about lynxes cutters etc lol Cromery. They would be utterly useless in a big battle with all the big ships.

And Arvenski you say any restrictions "get in the way of gameplay", yet you think big fleet v fleet battles full of only 1st 2nd and maybe a few 3rd rates would be fun gameplay? Please give me your opinion on why.

Edited by LeeUK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a very simple and realistic way to limit some battles to smaller vessels.

 

If a cutter gets attacked while sitting on the edge of shallows, it follows that that area of sea will be too shallow for SoLs and even frigates to enter. So they should be locked out of the instance.

 

Or else the instance should populate with procedurally-generated shoals and reefs that will limit the maneuvering ability of larger ships. On pain of being stuck on a sandbar or bilged by rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Filling a battle with Ships of the Line should be rare, epic, not a Trafalgar but the Trafalgar...

 

Ships of the Line are common and very easily obtained right now, I believe this will change in the future. And if filling a battle with SoL is an immense task, the most efficient way to build a strong fleet is with the 74. 

 

With 56-58 heavy guns (32/36 lb and 18/24lb) and 18-20 light guns (9/12lb), a 74 is only slightly less powerful than a 100 gun 1st rate like the Victory which has a nearly identical 58 heavy guns (32lb and 24lb) and the balance made up of 44 light guns (12lb). Light guns are not that effective in a SoL battle, so the 74 has a fighting chance of winning a straight up broadside duel, all while costing significantly less to build and sailing better.

 

What needs to happen (and probably will happen) is that SoL in general and 1st/2nd rates in particular will become a lot rarer, and the currently very overgunned 1st rates will either be restricted more in armament or heavily penalized in handling for exceeding the realistic limits (which, might I remind you, were what the navies of the time decided was the heaviest possible armament the ships in question could carry without major problems).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather make SOLs hard to get and maintain so there are only so many of them. Artificial limits are just frustrating.

This makes the most sense.

Make it so SoLs are costly to maintain, repair and purchase. Losing one shouldn't be taken as "oh, I'll just use one of my 27 others" but "Odin be damned, I had to work for two weeks to get that".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the current amount of SOLs needs to be reduced. Just make it way more expensive to buy and maintain and lessen the amount of gold earned in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then it will only be the no lifers who benefit from that system because they will be the ones who will always have SoLs and people who dont have as much time to play will not be able to use SoLs, maybe only once in a blue moon. Which is why I suggested some kind of mechanic to limit how many can actually be in one large battle at a time on each team. I did think of that option originally but as I explained I feel its just going to mean that people who have less time to play will suffer even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Isn't the point of the large battleships to fight large fleet battles though? I just had a look quickly on Wikipedia after reading this thread for the order of battle for Trafalgar and there were only 6 or so non Ships of the line on either side in the battle. That's just one example I'm sure there are others that give a different story.

 I guess I would disagree with your initial premise Lee, but that comes from the perspective that I really hope when proper factional conflict comes into play that the Devs manage to capture the real flavour of the AoS from a strategic point of view. I would want a faction to bring their most expensive ships to the most important battles of those wars. I would want the outcomes of those battles and the losses sustained to decide the outcome of the conflict to some degree or other. But that's just me.

 I would hope that the other point you made, about no use for the smaller ships, would be addressed in the same way. Finding the same sort of roles in our conflicts that they did in Real Life.

 

But anyway, that's all just me anyhow.

 

o7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Isn't the point of the large battleships to fight large fleet battles though? I just had a look quickly on Wikipedia after reading this thread for the order of battle for Trafalgar and there were only 6 or so non Ships of the line on either side in the battle. That's just one example I'm sure there are others that give a different story.

 I guess I would disagree with your initial premise Lee, but that comes from the perspective that I really hope when proper factional conflict comes into play that the Devs manage to capture the real flavour of the AoS from a strategic point of view. I would want a faction to bring their most expensive ships to the most important battles of those wars. I would want the outcomes of those battles and the losses sustained to decide the outcome of the conflict to some degree or other. But that's just me.

 I would hope that the other point you made, about no use for the smaller ships, would be addressed in the same way. Finding the same sort of roles in our conflicts that they did in Real Life.

 

But anyway, that's all just me anyhow.

 

o7

 

That's exactly where my own problem comes from though, when I thought about the epic tide changing battles like Trafalgar, but why were they such big important battles? because the battle meant a lot more than just losing some ships ( and in future in game it may only mean losing control of a port or two ) .

 

One thing is that in the game, we can all own several SoLs and replace them easily, it's not like reality where it took forever to make one, which was usually always unique in one way or another and if the ship was destroyed or captured it was gone. Of course for gameplay sake it is obvious why we don't follow that, the game would be ridiculously slow and painful and heavily limit the main part of the game, the combat, but in doing so it completely changes the long lasting effect of winning and losing.

 

The second issue I took from thinking about these big epic battles where the biggest ships duked it out ( well, there were a few smaller ships involved in Trafalgar anyway ), is that these battles were RARE, in game we are going to have these battles again and again and again when the games features and playerbase are expanded in the future. That sounds to me like it would get boring that everyone just fights in these battles with 3rd-1st rates every single time because there is no reason to take anything smaller. I just felt that forcing fleets to actually think about what smaller ships to use and tactics involving the smaller ships, would really bring some variation and most importantly, more fun, to these battles.

 

Some people are going to enjoy only having the biggest of biggest ships in battles, but I am pretty sure there are others like me who would love to see smaller ships playing their role in them too.

Edited by LeeUK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not another "limit ships of the line" thread? Do we not have enough of them going already???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restrictions exist in many multiplayer games (which are extremely successful). 

I think it is an interesting idea worth discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave the SOLs alone idiot. There should not be a limit to them in battle.

 

Such answers are not welcome here. This is a personal attack and is forbidden on the forums. 

Pre-mod is on for that person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restrictions exist in many multiplayer games (which are extremely successful). 

I think it is an interesting idea worth discussing.

It depends on what kind of restrictions we are talking about. If it is "rate limits in battle" like in the OP, I don't have any firm opinion. I guess big battles with mainly Sols are interesting too. 

But if it is that kind of restrictions :

Just do like in potbs where loosing one first rate was'devastating for you and all the society behind you wich help to craft it

That is limiting Sol access to guild (if I understand it well), I say no.

Casual single player should be able to sail Sol. In one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it will be pointless to make the small ships if everyone has a SOL. only noobs would have small ships and would get ganked by vets in big ships.

 

my suggestion was to have everything above a Snow be operated by a navy and require military service to operate. you would not need to buy it, only have the rank to be in it. everything Snow and below you would buy and be a civilian to operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such answers are not welcome here. This is a personal attack and is forbidden on the forums. 

Pre-mod is on for that person.

 

LOL. I was being sarcastic but okay...

Edited by Sir Madoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just throwing this out there for discussion, as it's not something I feel is needed any time soon, but perhaps for early access Steam or full release.

 

What the topic implies is that for big battles, do you ever intend on limiting the number of 1st,2nd and maybe even 3rd rates that can participate on one side in a battle?. The reason I say this is because it dawned on me that as a player who enjoys sailing smaller ships in any sailing game I've played, how painfully boring it would be if PvP battles just ended up with huge fleets made solely of the biggest SoLs and there was no use for the smaller ships. This would force more co-operation/teamwork in nations and their fleets, there would be a much larger variation of ships in the battles and the smaller ships would add a lot more tactics into the battles for both sides. Of course this would only come into play in the big battles though.

 

It was just a rough idea that came into my head and I'd like other peoples thoughts or suggestions on the subject, I'm not here to argue or say I AM RIGHT THIS MUST BE DONE, but I do feel that something like this would improve the quality of battles we will see later in the games development ( or release ). Thoughts?

I think this is misguided and that mixing a bunch of rates in battle does not result in better quality battles. In fact I think it has the opposite effect, with smaller rates being reduced to derp roles in battle, like sailing around shearing off bowsprits (BS mechanic that), or suicide ramming, or just generally getting in the way. Forcing mixed battles just forces players to play this way.

What is needed is good reasons to have an SoL fight going in one place, a frigate squadron fight somewhere else, and an unrated ship brawl at another location, all for strategically valuable objectives.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it will be pointless to make the small ships if everyone has a SOL. only noobs would have small ships and would get ganked by vets in big ships.

 

my suggestion was to have everything above a Snow be operated by a navy and require military service to operate. you would not need to buy it, only have the rank to be in it. everything Snow and below you would buy and be a civilian to operate.

You shouldn't sail small ships because you have to but because you want to. It's a matter of fun.

 

In others words, it's not by limiting access to big ships that you should make ppl sail small ships, but by giving small ships usefulness, that is by creating special missions and use (coast patrolling or exploration in shallows...). That is you sail small ship because you can't do what you want to do with a Sol.

 

In others words, make positive restrictions by the gameplay, not by costs or extra conditions.

 

Sailing small ships shouldn't be felt as a punishment but as a fun thing anyone would do from time to time.

You fight in a big Sol combat, then you patrol around your port...

 

And NA shouldn't be felt as an elitist game for hardcore gamers and guilds that would be the only one to have access to Sol.

 

Anyone should have access to any ship and any ship should be a joy to sail for anyone.

 

If not, NA would be a compartmentalized game : Sol for guilds, small ships for noobs and casual gamers, grind for all as the only ingame goal.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience with PotBS port battles ended up being ruled by the lager ships and due to the limited amount of players people where excluded that didnt have SOL's. Not sure how NA intends on running larger battles but a solution I had put forth is the following.

I apologize for my use of PotBS terminology but it all I have to go by for the moment.

Port Battles should be restricted to depth of the port.
A shallow water port would restrict ship size so SOL's could not participate. Think of this in terms of 7-4 or even 7-5 rate ships. (Personally I would lean to shallow water ports being restricted to 7-5 rates.)
Deep water ports would include all ships as it makes sense that all could easily get within range of surrounding area.

This accomplishes a couple things.
1. It makes smaller ships valid and valuable throughout the entire range of game play.
2. It gives new players a chance to experience larger battles and have more than a minimal impact.
3. Provides an opportunity for veteran players to "train" newer players at a lower risk/cost.
4. Should provide a more cohesive community among the nation as it allows all members to work as a team on a larger goal.

We already have a battle rating in place and that can be another way to set limits on ships. An actual draft mechanism would be nice but battle rating is probably easier to code. /grin

Think of this as a way to utilize all aspects of game play in the larger picture and not as a means of restricting play.


Just to be clear this is not for OW battles.

Edited by ID I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember to lead few pb against colossal fleet. We didn't have the number to face and we asked to brings frigates. We moved a lot a manage to sunk several rated ship before forcing enemy to join the fortress to limit looses.

We women the pb and causalties were so high that we didn't see rated ships for nexts pb...

Just make them enought costy to make people fearing the loose of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British had at the battle of Trafalgar three 1st rates  four 2nd rates and twenty 3rd rates and six Frigates.  This should give  you a idea what a large fleet battle may look like.  3rd rates were very common and should be the only common SoL in the game which means it should be extremely easy to obtain compared to 1st and 2nd rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To further that also 4th rates were considered the real workhorses iirc. The problem is that with any game you will have power creep towards the top. You have to think of the longevity of the game and putting in systems to deal with issues that will arise over time. In PotBS SOL's were supposed to be a national effort and they were when first implemented. Over time you will accumulate a force of top tier ships. It is inevitable. What I propose is a logical way to mitigate the inevitable.

Making it costly kinda works. Generally if you had sketchy leadership people would not bring out their big expensive ships. They only tended to do that when they thought there was a good chance of winning. That is more a leadershiup issue than one of facing smaller armed forces.

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...