A sink, no kill or assist.

[Quineloe]

Well do they sink their ships to deny you from getting xp or from denying you to capture the ship?

 

It doesn't matter, it's nonsense either way.

Survival should not be optional. The crew would try to save the ship, because they can't swim.

[Kloothommel]

Again, kill denied. 

 

This is getting very frustrating.

 

[Bommel]

You only shot his sails and complain that you didn´t get a kill or assist?

[Quineloe]

You only shot his sails and complain that you didn´t get a kill or assist?

You're saying ships should sink from sail damage?

[Bommel]

I´m saying that this screenshot doesn´t show the amount of leaks the others might have put in him, it´s a Trinco after all. One broadside can create a devastating amount of leaks which will sink a trinc very fast = low damage against that ship = no kill.

 

And even if he did ram them and or turned survival off, he did a good job by denying them a ship. It´s called tactics. And when those three guys are primarily after a kill then they should put as much damage in him as possible and they will get XP and gold for kill.

So where excatly is the problem you guys are having?

 

And keep that "a crew would never let their ship sink" to yourself, I bet there are lots of historical proves that it was done back then. And after all it is a game not a historical reenactment.

A game needs to have mechanics to make it more playable or enjoyable for all parties involved, not only for the guys that do not want to adapt to this mechanic.

Asking for a forced survival on mechanic only because some players (opponents) make clever use of it? No thanks I´d say.

 

Keep in mind what enables them to "self destruct" and play accordingly.

[Quineloe]

No, it's not called tactics, it's called gamistic meta-features that go against realism.

 

And when those three guys are primarily after a kill then they should put as much damage in him as possible and they will get XP and gold for kill.

incorrect, one early leak is all it takes to have the ship sink without awarding a kill. Again, the problem is, as explained ten times so far in this thread, that ships sunk through skill (carefully aimed broadsides below the waterline during a heel), do not reward to player for doing so.

And keep that "a crew would never let their ship sink" to yourself,

read: I don't like the argument so I'll just dismiss it because realism doesn't suit me in this case.

 

I bet there are lots of historical proves that it was done back then.

Prove it. Name them.

 

A game needs to have mechanics to make it more playable or enjoyable for all parties involved

Yeah, I'm sure a game where people constantly try to cheese each other out of their earned rewards is gonna be enjoyable.

 

You seem remarkably defensive about this mechanic.

[Bommel]

Earned rewards? If you didn´t manage to get the reward you obvioulsy didn´t earn it...

 

Admin stated that kills are rewarded only by amount of damage. Not enough damage = no reward earned.

 

Regarding your comparism with realism: My crew doesn´t sleep/shit/eat/puke/suffer from scurvy and so on. Want to have all that ingame because of realism? It´s a game and I don´t like when people bring up those "...because realism" arguments when we are talking about a game. And they only bring it when it appeals their request.

 

 

And yes I´m remarkably defensive about this mechanic because it adds more options/tactics to the game. 

And of course this statement of yours implies I use that mechanic to my advantage all the time. Maybe some day when we have a battle against each other you can find out. I won´t say wether I do or not, because it doesn´t matter the people who fought me know how I fight.

Only thing I´d say is I do not suffer from this mechanic at all, because I simply like it if the other guy uses the tactics/mechanics the game has to offer. 

 

Just counter their tactics.

[Long Beard]

Perhaps the damage (xp) multiplier should be increased when you cause a leak?

[Quineloe]

 

Just counter their tactics.

How do you counter it when you catch a santisima on the open world, but an enemy cutter joins in as well and shoots a hole into the santisima, which then sinks before you get close enough?

How do you counter that?

[Jacarie]

Well I think leaks and fires should do damage also. I mean if a fire breaks out on a ship, some of the crew gets killed or put out of action and the ship get damaged. I can't count hows many times I've watched a ship burn slowing and not see one crew loss or no damage. Same with leaks the crew below decks drown and the ship is damaged why no exp?

Even if the the crew sinks their own ship the enemy ship or ships should get exp for the kill they just "learned" how to scare the crap out of a ship that it had to sink its self rather then being taken or sunk. Talking about sinking your own ship as a tactic, ok they don't get take your ship but they should get exp and gold for making you use that tactic its called "intimidation".

[Kloothommel]

If you look well I was in a LGV. I shot his sails to make him slow enough for the rest to catch him.

But the rest, who did damage, did not get kill or assist either.

 

I'm just saying this kind of tactics should equal a surrender, but giving a kill/assist instead of a cap.

[Jeheil]

In an AI fleet mission, I put 14 leaks into an enemy trinc on my first pass. It sank no XP, I F-11'd it. That doesn't seem right to me, I actually did a super efficient job. 1 broadside, negligible damage taken mission accomplished.

 

TBH in PvP, I am not so worried about XP...I see the PvP goal as killing my opponent.

 

As for hitting Rear Admiral, i would like to see an alternative to 'dead xp', convert overkill AP into gold or labour hours or some such.

[Long Beard]

In an AI fleet mission, I put 14 leaks into an enemy trinc on my first pass. It sank no XP, I F-11'd it. That doesn't seem right to me, I actually did a super efficient job. 1 broadside, negligible damage taken mission accomplished.

 

TBH in PvP, I am not so worried about XP...I see the PvP goal as killing my opponent.

 

As for hitting Rear Admiral, i would like to see an alternative to 'dead xp', convert overkill AP into gold or labour hours or some such.

 

It's my understanding that leaks that sink a ship are created by shooting below the enemy's waterline. If you don't want to cause leaks, just shoot him above the waterline.

But yes, there should be some kind of XP bonus for causing leaks in the first place.

[Quineloe]

It's my understanding that leaks that sink a ship are created by shooting below the enemy's waterline. If you don't want to cause leaks, just shoot him above the waterline.

But yes, there should be some kind of XP bonus for causing leaks in the first place.

 

 

That's the point, in PVP we want to sink target fasts. If in PVE we can casually grind down the side armor and get full exp and gold for the kill and a lot of exp and gold for the damage done, while in PVP we kill someone with carefully aimed broadside, we get rewarded 1-2k gold only for the damage, despite having sunk the ship

 

Or even worse, you shoot an NPC down to 10% armor, then board and kill him, you walk away with capture money and kill money, ie easily 50k in case of a 5th rate - vs 2k with a leak kill.

 

You are suggesting deliberately playing worse so the rewards are better. That is not good design.

PVP is supposed to pay more than PVE, but with the system as it is right now, both with intentional kills from leaks against someone who is fighting back and with suicide to sink from a single leak by turning off survival, PVE actually pays more money than PVP.

This is not the declared goal. Therefore it should be changed.

[Kloothommel]

That's the point, in PVP we want to sink target fasts. If in PVE we can casually grind down the side armor and get full exp and gold for the kill and a lot of exp and gold for the damage done, while in PVP we kill someone with carefully aimed broadside, we get rewarded 1-2k gold only for the damage, despite having sunk the ship

 

Or even worse, you shoot an NPC down to 10% armor, then board and kill him, you walk away with capture money and kill money, ie easily 50k in case of a 5th rate - vs 2k with a leak kill.

 

You are suggesting deliberately playing worse so the rewards are better. That is not good design.

PVP is supposed to pay more than PVE, but with the system as it is right now, both with intentional kills from leaks against someone who is fighting back and with suicide to sink from a single leak by turning off survival, PVE actually pays more money than PVP.

This is not the declared goal. Therefore it should be changed.

 

 

this is EXACTLY what I am trying to get across

Edited May 13, 2016 by Kloothommel