Fixing Tag Mechanics: the 3x / 10s method.

[Carljcharles]

People who are against this idea please don't forget ow/os scale is massively different to battle instance and that is why there is a problem.

If your mate is in port and you are at sea outside and are attacked. Tough! You missed the fight.

This also stops hidden players in port ganking. Seems like an excellent trade off.

Next, positional reinforcement, is good but should not allow others to repositions to an advantage on those initiating the fight. Easy fix, you all start whereever u are when the tag is first made.

Next, show a list of all ships that could join the battle, they all have 5 seconds to decide join or ignore. DEFAULT ignore.

Much larger tag circle as was suggested to and no need to 'sail' to join to try and make a timer.

Now we may then need to look at exit timers because more of the chase will be in battle rather than ow.

I am really interested to hear the problems with this approach because it's seems like a big improvement on what we have now and no BR limit

Edited April 25, 2016 by Carljcharles

[fox2run]

The opposers of ganking (another term for pvp) like short or no joining timers. That's odd. The longer the timer the more likely reinforcements will arrive that could even the odds.

 

Do we have two camps here... One that is in favor of pvp and another one that dislike it... ?

Edited April 25, 2016 by fox2run

[Carljcharles]

We must all accept the very nature of this game has ganking at its core. That maybe 10 vs 1 or equally faster powerful raider on a crappy trader.

No one likes getting slaughtered, but players must get over it. Sometimes you'll get ganked (running compass wood or supplies) other times you'll pop out of port in your trinc to find some poor player in a trader just left the same free port ahead of u and is going to be toast.

That is this game, in ow, sometimes u get lucky and have a great multi ship close battle. Good times. Otherwise expect to get ganked and play accordingly to try and mitigate.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Carljcharles

[fox2run]

Short battle timers favours "ganking".

Long battle timers favours safe home waters and large scale battles.

 

Now how on earth would you like to have short timers in order to prevent ganking? I simply dont get it. The only argument is something vague about the scale of OW and battles...

 

Read my lips when I say that we need 5, 10 or 15 min join timers if you wants to get rid of ganking.

[admin]

 

The battle is only open to joiners for 10 seconds. That seems like a big change but since the join radius is huge, there is no need to "sail in to join the fight" -- everyone in practical range can join immediately.

 

 

Also, 10 seconds will not be enough time to sail across the battle and enter from some totally different direction.

 

Done. I think admin can code this up in about 10 seconds (unless there's some problem with people clicking in from so far away). It's just changing two existing values.

 

 

10 seconds on OW is more than 5 mins in battle (based on speed difference)

Its a huge difference and even 10 seconds can give you a head start 

 

But again the main problem is not with the initial tag.

The problem lies in a subsequent connections to battle. 

We must spawn them where they are located on the OW (previously we spawned them 500 m away from the most distant ship)

If we spawn them based on old system they might get spawned onto land. If we move them around to avoid land they might get moved to the opposite side of cuba if the battle is starting right near shore. 

 

Thus we must spawn them where they are located on the OW.

Thus the only option is to give them the zone from which they can enter if they are late to battle that is not near the enemy.

This is what we are coding in now.

[Eishen]

10 seconds on OW is more than 5 mins in battle (based on speed difference)

Its a huge difference and even 10 seconds can give you a head start 

 

But again the main problem is not with the initial tag.

The problem lies in a subsequent connections to battle. 

We must spawn them where they are located on the OW (previously we spawned them 500 m away from the most distant ship)

If we spawn them based on old system they might get spawned onto land. If we move them around to avoid land they might get moved to the opposite side of cuba if the battle is starting right near shore. 

 

Thus we must spawn them where they are located on the OW.

Thus the only option is to give them the zone from which they can enter if they are late to battle that is not near the enemy.

This is what we are coding in now.

 

Can this be a quick option? :    

   At battle initiation record the "in battle" virtual coordinates assigned to the ships (one for each side) farther from the tag  . Make that the reinforcement spawn for each side ....only a basic colition avoider needed for multiple reinforcements

[Plak]

I have read through all of the suggestions and do see the problem in the system as it is right now or proposed in the leading post.

 

I would suggest the following system:

1. Everyone in a group with the attacker (tagger) and defender get dragged into the battle at the relative position they are in if they are within a specific range to the tag (5-10 times current tag circle or maybe more, subject to tweaking. Let's call it group-circle).

2. Vulnerable people close by (within the new larger tag player-circle to the battle start) get a popup with a 5 sec timeout asking them if they want to join the fight. The popup has all the information that the current battle markers have. Timeout -> No.

3. After close by players have had their decision the battle is filled up with AI that was in the tag circle. (could be the same as the player circle or different)

4. If the battle is startet away from any "reinforcements available" area the battle is closed right away and there is no need for a marker on the open sea.

5. If you happen to tag in an area marked "reinforcements available" for anyone in the defender group then that battle spawns a battle marker open for anyone from the reinforced nation to join the battle. The battle marker stays open for 1 minute so anyone on the open sea at the time of the battle start (patrolling the area) can still join but anyone getting out of port can not. You will get a popup with a 5 second timeout as in point 2 when you cross the outer edge of the new larger tag circle. (Join circle could be 2-3 times player-circle size)

6. Patrolling late joining defender should push out AI ship if the battle is full. (optional)

7. Group leader of the attacking and defending groups get command of AI ships in the battle. Commander of the AI can transfer command to another player. (both optional)

8. If at any point you decline joining the battle (out of range group members, pressing NO when asked through option 2, pressing NO when asked through option 5) you are banned from joining the battle.

 

The join circle for point 1 could be made bigger than the join circle for point 2 and 3.

 

Popup for joining the battle would need to show:

attacker group br and ships - defender group br and ships

close by attacker nation br and ships - close by defender nation br and ships

close by AI Nation br and ships - close by defender nation br and ships

 

This system would address some of the most common problems:

1. Groups join the battle together even when dispersed. No need for a long join timer.

2. People close to a battle starting have an option to join or to be left alone.

5. Reinforcement area has a meaning again and invisi-gank has been made a lot harder.

6. Takes care of full battles. Players should be able to take the fun away from AI

7. AI is quite stupid atm. This could help with it being a challenge and not shrugged off.

8. Helps with trying to use OW for positional trickery.

 

All points together make battles more resistant to people abusing the invisibility system and it is compatible with the spawning system admin talked about.

It also allows for more tactics than just bunching up. And it does 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Plak

[fox2run]

Hmm. Why on earth shouldnt it be possible to leave a port and come to aid in a battle? Makes no sence to me.

 

However: Theres something completely wrong with the overall gameplay approach, I think. 

 

Its getting too focused on small details where as the big picture is lost. 

 

What KIND of game do we want? 

 

Do we want small skirmishes, large battles, arena-fights, mixed battles, SOL-only battles? What do we want? Make a descision and THEN fix the OW battle mechanics. 

 

I would be a favour of an OW with a lot action in it. I like to see big battles with all kind of ships in them... An unpredictable and dangerous world. Not just small, controlled skirmishes where PvP fights are seen as "ganking". Its the whole idea behind PvP that disturbs me right now. 

 

We need to think of the game as a place WITHOUT AI alltogether. Clear the table of AI in your heads and THEN make mechanisms that would enhance a good PvP experience for the newcomers and hardcore SOL clans altogether. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by fox2run

[Skully]

Hmm. Why on earth shouldnt it be possible to leave a port and come to aid in a battle? Makes no sence to me.

I agree.

 

However: Theres something completely wrong with the overall gameplay approach, I think. 

 

Its getting too focused on small details where as the big picture is lost. 

 

What KIND of game do we want? 

 

Do we want small skirmishes, large battles, arena-fights, mixed battles, SOL-only battles? What do we want? Make a descision and THEN fix the OW battle mechanics. 

 

I would be a favour of an OW with a lot action in it. I like to see big battles with all kind of ships in them... An unpredictable and dangerous world. Not just small, controlled skirmishes where PvP fights are seen as "ganking". Its the whole idea behind PvP that disturbs me right now.

You ask the question that should/can not be answered.

While it makes logical sense, this discussion isn't about the kind of game we want in terms of fleet composition. And as you can see yourself you immediately put in your favorite style.

Gaming style is for each his own. The 1.5 BR rule tried to impose a certain gaming style and you see what happened.

This discussion is about creating a good bridge between OW and battle. "Ganking" is a perfectly viable tactic in PvP. But abusing game mechanics, like overshooting the circle to abuse positional reinforcements, we should get out of the system.

(Note that I really like the positional reinforcement system.)

 

We need to think of the game as a place WITHOUT AI alltogether. Clear the table of AI in your heads and THEN make mechanisms that would enhance a good PvP experience for the newcomers and hardcore SOL clans altogether.

AI will be part of the final game. We should keep that in mind.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Skully

[fox2run]

Yes - Im not saying that AI should be removed. Im stating that in order to get a good PvP experience the design of the game should be around PvP. How can we have fun gameplay? 

 

If I would like to be a part of a big battle, I need the following stuf:

 

1) be a long time member of a clan

2) be a happy owner of a first rate ship of the line

3) to know the timers in each port (for those that dont know, there should be a webpage with the times somewhere)

4) wait for the enemy to show up at a port that maybe - maybe not will be attacked. 

5) be the first of 25 lucky guys joining 

 

I wonder how many Nelsons or Hornblowers we have lost on the path...

 

When the battle timers where longer, there where actually bigger battles in OW becourse plp could read a warning at the nations chat or maybe on a clan TS. They sailed out - joined the battle and had fun. Now you will rarely participate in any bigger engagement. If you engage at all. I have the feeling that it is not ok anymore as plp get upset if they are attacked (on a PvP server - remember!). The devs seems to listen a lot to the PvE oriented player base, that like to harvest AI fleets in peace without interference. (Still on the PvP server).

 

That leaves us, the Nelsons, in between the PvE peace or the heavy and time-consuming clan-based PB system. And there we are in a vacuum...

Edited April 28, 2016 by fox2run

[Skully]

We are going off-topic completely here.

 

I agree there is a fundamental problem in the OW mechanics that prevent good PvP action, but I think it is around teleport timers.

 

For me your arguments do not hold: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=674713540

1. I'm not a very long member of AUSEZ (maybe 1 month now?) and I was doing clanless screening for BRITS and BWTC before.
2. As you can see I owned a Surprise at that time and still I mostly sail in 4th or smaller.
3. I don't know the timers, but you can check them in game on the conquest port tab.
4. Once a flag is bought there might be a battle, or not. It is a gamble. You do need to have a good set of outposts though and a ready teleport. (<= I think here is a problem.)
5. The screenshot is not a port-battle.

Is it a lost battle that I'm showing? Yes, most definitely, but it is a large one.

(PS. I survived   )

 

I suspect that different nations have formed up different game styles. There is nothing devs can or should do about that.

 

In the mean time I have had very good frigate battles with French, Danish, Spanish and Pirates. Some involved some 3rds and Pavels, others did not. To me a PB is not the holy grail, but just another activity.

 

Note that PB battle timers are already longer.

 

Back to the topic:

As I see it, one of the goals of OW is making strategic placement of ships and fleets important. Having a large battle timer makes these placements insignificant. You could almost tailor craft a ship and sail it in from anywhere.

[Kiefer Cain]

Hmm. Why on earth shouldnt it be possible to leave a port and come to aid in a battle? Makes no sence to me.

 

I kind of question this, too.  If you are attacking the enemy outside of their port... part of the thrill should be knowing that a horde of enemy are potentially en route to your battle.  On the other-hand, port camping utilizing invisible-like abilities to pop out when it is the best time to do so is a bit gamey.

 

It seems to me, that upon approaching a harbor/port, one could imagine that a passing ship should be able to count masts in the harbor at anchor?  In the game this would present itself as a listing of ships(players) logged in (at the port clicked on) and the relative strength of the ships at anchor when clicking on the port.  Maybe some ports were harder to scope out such intel... but I imagine this could help alleviate to some degree the port-camper reinforcement by making it visible.

 

I have another idea (more of a brainstorm) and I am only throwing this out there with little to no knowledge of harbor/port piloting.  The idea is to charge a fee for setting sail from a port 'immediately', without invis/invuln.  The fee would be associated with the cost to purchase the most knowledgeable harbor pilot(s) to steer the ship to sea??  Not sure of the proper terminology so don't get caught up on that side.

 

Maybe the fee could be associated with how many tugboats (or the equivalent of that time period) are assigned to pull/steer your ship to sea.  That way... there is a cost associated with immediately (no invuln/no invis) setting sail on the OS.  Want to further counter the zerg exodus of ships from port?  Fee costs would spike per how many requests are made in a 1-15s period.  If 20 players click to jump out of port within a 1-15s ... The fee would spike according to that sudden demand (doubling/tripling per each subsequent request) .  Make the fee high enough to actually be a factor in a player's decision to jump out or not (which at current currency rates... would have to be substantial).

[Vllad]

I don't understand the need for any limitations. I get it that open world scaling vs. instance scaling is totally different but I just don't understand what relevance that has. That has zero impact to the primary issue at hand.

 

In other MMO's when one is running down the road and you see your team engaged in a fight I must get the option to engage regardless of scale. It is over all healthier for the MMO.

 

It doesn't matter what limitation you put in they all have serious flaws for game play. The only limitations put on battle should be relevant to game performance. We have that with a max size of 25 v 25.

 

Why do you need more than that?

[fox2run]

BTW, there is room for improvement on tagging. I think that fixed positions for the parts in battle would give better gameplay. 

 

In that case reinforcements wouldn't certainly surround your ship out of the blue.