Proposal to change group size and open OW battle size to a maximum of 6on6

[z4ys]

Why should we do this?

The upcoming changes in the port battle mechanic will force people to participate in OW PvP to start a port battle by raising hostility levels at the port you want to attack.

For more Information about the upcoming changes see the links below:

• (http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13596-such-is-a-lord-simple-politics-and-alliances-part-1-heavily-moderated/

• http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/
•  

That leads to the question: How are these changes are going to affect player behaviour? At the moment we are facing a big problem. A lot of people are complaining that battles are not reaching anywhere near the full potential of what naval action battles can be due to one side always being able to field much larger numbers than the other making battles simply about who has more online and bigger numbers than skill, tactics and strategy to win battles. Most battles are so called ganks. People fear to leave the result screen because of revenge fleets. People think that to do any pvp you have to be in the biggest nations and clans to have a fair chance at Open World PvP and Port Battles (Port Battles still stay 25vs25).

 

We are not in kindergarten, not everyone can be a winner. But with this proposal we want to help all Naval Action players, solo players, casuals, groups, small and big nations to get the most satisfaction out of open world PvP that is possible to offer to everyone. Naval Action has one of the most unique combat systems that has ever existed in any game, with this proposal we can truly get the most out of it and overall add a lot more enjoyment to the game and PvP. As the title mentioned this is our proposal to change group size and open OW battle size to a maximum of 6 players per side.

 

 

What are the benefits:

• Smaller clans and smaller groups can be effective in PB screening/RvR and OW PvP

• Ganking Fleet size reduced even smaller nations can face bigger nations

• Bigger clans and nations will have to hunt and sail around in smaller group

• Makes Port battles unique in groupsize

• Handles Timezone problems, because it’s easier to have such a group size even it is not a Prime time

• Removes the much hated Revenge Fleets

• Battles will no longer be about who has more players online, it will be shifted to skill, strategy and overall superior tactics

• Helps causal players to find enjoyable PvP

• You will no longer need to search for a even fun matched PvP, every battle will deliver a new exciting epic battle experience

 

List of cons

• Large Clans will no longer be able to take a 25 ship fleet into every battle  (no swarm tactics)

• Large Nations will no longer be able to dominate open world PvP with superior numbers & large revenge fleets

• 25 ship fleets are no longer effective on OW PvP

 

 

Proposal 1: How a battle join mechanic could work

Attacking side:

A system to start OW battles could word like the mission enter system. When sailing in a group the attacker can press “attack as group” or “attack”. Attacking as group will pull all group members in range into the battle instance. Group members which are not in range will not get pulled into battle. Open slots can be joined by players who are not part of the group and in 2min range of the battle.

Attack will just pull the attacker into the instance. That leads to 5 open attacker slots which can be used by other player who are not belonging to the group.

Defending side:

When attacked all group members in range will join the battle. If there is no group, a group which is not full or not everyone in range. Then only the defender or all group members in range get pulled into the battle instance. Open slots can be joined by players who are not in group but can reach the battle instance in 2 min.

AI fleet:

If a player has an AI fleet every ship take a battle slot. Therefore AI ships reduce the maximum amount of group size.

Proposal 2: How a battle Join mechanic could work

If more than 6 people are in the battle circle. then first the people who are in the group with the attacker and defender gets pulled. If there are less than 6 people in the group and more ships in the circle then pull in the biggest player ship.

Example

10 swedish ships(group 1(st pavel 2 ingers consti)) group 2(  consti 4 frigates)) and group 1 attacks 6 pirates(6 constis). First the st pav 2 ingers and consti get pulled in because they are all in the same group, second the consti and one of the frigates gets pulled in due to the highest br in the battle circle.

And finally what about PVE?

Attacking ships in OW work after the same system mentioned in the proposals above. But creating a PVE battle requires that the PVE attacker or one of his/her group mates in range  is not being targeted by an enemy player.

Epic events will once joined by a player open a Battle Symbol in OW like the Port battle icon which then can be joined by everyone.

Designed by Seawolf, SeaHyena and Z4ys

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by z4ys

[Mrdoomed]

Well i definitely like that only 6 people can ttack me instead of 25 in the revenge gank

[Kaos]

Guys I am afraid you're being too optimistic here since this proposal would mean skill actually starts to matter so good luck trying to sell this idea to average player playing this game. 
Was thinking something along the lines when trying to figure out a way to have smaller groups incorporated into rvr and have actually good fights but I wouldn't limit the whole 25vs25, just make one way of gathering those rvr points or triggering pb's through pvp missions which could potentially be smaller scale, like 6v6?

[z4ys]

 just make one way of gathering those rvr points or triggering pb's through pvp missions which could potentially be smaller scale, like 6v6?

 

If the missions objective is to kill an other 6on6 group, it would be possible for a big nation or group to exploit the system. They just could stay in 25 player fleets. No chance to fulfill the mission.

That means no chance in gathering points which leads to no port battle. Port safe. That just favor big groups and nations.

Edited August 1, 2016 by z4ys

[Kaos]

If the missions objective is to kill an other 6on6 group, it would be possible for a big nation or group to exploit the system. They just could stay in 25 player fleets. No chance to fulfill the mission.

That means no chance in gathering points which leads to no port battle. Port safe. That just favor big groups and nations.

What I meant was group of 6 activates mission in enemy territory that could be only entered by defender team of 6, not 25. If noone reacts to this mission to keep the raiders away then it will gather those points that it would get upon successful 6v6 without a fight over time. The main goal is to offer smaller groups to have good fights instead of steamrolls. Even if they are not interested about those rvr points, they would know where to go for a fight that will not be another hide and seek or running down some innocent bystanders who don't even play this game for pvp to get some silly points.

[Sureshot]

 

That means no chance in gathering points which leads to no port battle. Port safe. That just favor big groups and nations.

 

I don't think a lot of people understand what the new port battle mechanics are going to bring to the game and why 25v25 has to change. If smaller nations cannot gain points for hostility levels then they will never get to attack ports. People need to be serious and actually read everything before shooting this down, if you are in a small nation you should most definitely be aware of this by now.

 

By voting no you are basically saying you only want big nations to be able to collect points for port battles, making it so only they can attack ports and small nations cannot.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Sureshot(SeaHyena)

[Crayon]

The problem I have with the proposed suggestions is they have no weight per battle rating. Both of the suggestions are great, but they don't aim to make the battle as fair as possible when there are lots of players to choose from. Lets say Team 1 is just 3 players 2 in a connie, 1 in a third. Team 2 is 6 players, comprised of connies, ingers, a 3rd and a buck for example. Team 2 is the the composite team resulting from 20 other ships because they are the largest. 

 

With your proposals, ganks are still a real possibility. Even more, these changes reinforce ganking because of no weight on BR. 

 

EDIT: They also allow for sniping. Personally I like sugestion 1 the most because it has clearly defined roles in the fight (attacker vs defender). With that said I think defenders/attackers get certain pre battle positioning capabilities instead of the static (and fairly innacurate) OW to battle positioning. The positioning thing would do alot to combat issues of ganking. For example, the closer you are, the less area the defender can position themselves away from you and they cannot position themselves behind the attacker. (Think of the board game 'Battle Ships' when you think  of positioning)

Edited August 1, 2016 by Crayon

[z4ys]

What I meant was group of 6 activates mission in enemy territory that could be only entered by defender team of 6, not 25. If noone reacts to this mission to keep the raiders away then it will gather those points that it would get upon successful 6v6 without a fight over time. The main goal is to offer smaller groups to have good fights instead of steamrolls. Even if they are not interested about those rvr points, they would know where to go for a fight that will not be another hide and seek or running down some innocent bystanders who don't even play this game for pvp to get some silly points.

 

Your suggestion is good but its a passive one. People have to sail and wait for other players to enter. which could be boring. Yes looking for players (active) can be boring too but you actually do something.

Edited August 1, 2016 by z4ys

[Skully]

It would be completely unfair to the British if they could only have brought in 6 ships.

[Anne Wildcat]

6 on 6 doesn't guarantee fair fights. For example, 6 SOLs vs 6 light frigates.

[Neptune]

6 on 6 doesn't guarantee fair fights. For example, 6 SOLs vs 6 light frigates.

 

And how would 6 SOLs catch 6 frigates?

 

Everyone is always complaining about revenge fleets, gankers & battle screen campers this eliminates all of that. Truth is people just like to find something to complain about and when someone offers a suggestion they shoot it down. Arguing that big SOL's will get in versus frigates, that doesn't matter they will never catch them. Lowering battle slots from 25 per side to 6 would most definitely go a long way in removing the garbage PvP in game and the revenge battle camping fleets.

 

When you see 15+ ships in a OW battle it's usually only for one side, the other is half of their force. If battle slots were lowered even maybe to 12 that would really change things for the better. And keep in mind flags will be soon gone.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Brisk

[ajffighter86]

What if you are the 7th player? You just get caught outside the battle and . . . good luck.

 

It's bad enough when you try to sail in massive screening fleets and you can't join a battle because it's already full with 25 players on your team. I don't think further limiting the size of battles is going to make that problem any easier.

 

Having played since sea trials, I can say that the more ships you can cram into a battle, the more awesome it is. And that was when we played in a shrinking circle that kept squeezing us to death.

Edited August 2, 2016 by ajffighter86

[Neptune]

What if you are the 7th player? You just get caught outside the battle and . . . good luck.

 

It's bad enough when you try to sail in massive screening fleets and you can't join a battle because it's already full with 25 players on your team. I don't think further limiting the size of battles is going to make that problem any easier.

 

I would believe this is why it limits the big clans and nations to go in groups of 6. You should not need to be joined at the hip. Lowering the battle slots would make it better for smaller nations so big ones can't steam roll them. If battle slots were always smaller I believe we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, because none of the revenge fleets and such would exist.

 

You would still have your 25v25 In port battles, the reason this needs to be changed is because when the hostility levels come in how are smaller nations going to flip a port when they cannot match superior nations numbers? I guarantee you people won't like this idea now but they will surely be complaining when only the largest nations can get a ports hostility levels high enough to start a port battle simply because they always have the greater numbers.

 

A small nation is doing battles around a large nations port trying to raise the hostility levels to force a port battle. The large nation shows up and camps the port with their large numbers that the small nation cannot match and there you go the ports hostility levels are back down. This goes the other way too, how will a small nation get their ports hostility levels down versus a large nation when they cannot match their superior numbers? Has anyone asked themselves these questions?

 

Leaving the battle slots at 25 is going to ensure only large nations can decrease hostility levels to prevent an attack on their ports and have the force to steamroll enemy from decreasing their hostility levels.

 

When flags are removed you will seldom see a 25v25 fight on the open world again.

 

I would suggest people look more into this and read the post about hostility levels, many do not seem to understand the consequences of the new port battle mechanics coming.

I Bet everyone who voted no don't understand what the new port battle mechanics mean for smaller nations and clans, but you will see when they are implemented why this is needed.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Brisk

[Pugwis]

I love your skillful video Z4ys, but i must admit that i don't like your proposal, this is awesome to make huge battle in this game, and there should never be a limitation on number of participating players or AI.

I totally disagree, better to get ganked from time to time, than destroying the game for ever.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Pugwis

[z4ys]

What if you are the 7th player? You just get caught outside the battle and . . . good luck.

 

 

Lets be honest. Who is sailing in big groups?

 

People who pull a flag for port battle and poeple who want to intercept the flagcarrier. - This will be gone with the new port battle mechanic

Gank and revenge fleets sail in big groups -  Do you support such a playstyle?

PVE groups - they are not affected. As mentioned above it is still possible to open a 25vs25 PVE battle

 

Furthermore how often do we see +7 groups in OW that dont have one of the purposes mentioned above?

How realistic is it for a +7 group to find an even OW fight? That are questions everyone should ask themselves before voting.

[Dekillos]

No, that’s stupid.

 

"We need more game mechanics from dead game like POTBS"

[Neptune]

No, that’s stupid.

 

"We need more game mechanics from dead game like POTBS"

Can you elaborate on how this will make the game like POTBS? Also what is your alternate suggestion for small nations to get points for when hostility levels are added ingame?

 

Also ask yourself, how often do you see 25v25 on the open world? It's only when their are flags pulled for a port and port conquest flags are soon to be removed. Other than that almost never see big battles.

 

This removes revenge fleets, ganks, battle screen camping & steamrolling.

 

This is a suggestion, people who vote no should give their alternate ideas as to how smaller nations should get points when hostility levels are added, it would actually help.

[TheAmerican]

I think people seem to be forgetting that hostility levels can still be increased by PVE. Even if pvp battles in OW are limited to 6v6, the smaller nations will still succumb to the numbers superiority that the bigger nations brig to the table.

If nation A devotes 100 players to go raise hostility levels at a port, and nation B can only muster 50, that still allows 50 players from nation A free to go ravage the AI in PVE. So, the "problem" you are presenting remains.

[Neptune]

No, that’s stupid.

 

"We need more game mechanics from dead game like POTBS"

 

6v6 capped battles were never in POTBS, you had a max group of 6 to raise hostility by sitting in front of the port. You could also enter enemy ports, much different.

 

In NA 25v25 battles were in because at one time we had our OWN AI fleets consisting of 1st rates and lower (fully crewed) which I believe was 3-6 ships max. Big AI fleets are now gone and we rarely see fights on the open world that are bigger than 6v6. The only time you see 25v25 on open world (rarely) is when a conquest flag is pulled and you will not see them once the conquest flag is taken out of the game.

 

You can say it is stupid to lower the number of battle slots but you will not see them fill, big AI fleets are gone.

 

By keeping 25v25 (which is never going to fill) You keep the following things in game for good

• Large Lopsided Ganks (one side will always fill due to higher numbers in bigger nations)
• Revenge Fleets
• Battle Screen Camping
• Steam rolling smaller nations on the open world
• Smaller Nations cannot attack ports
• Smaller Nations cannot lower hostility levels
• Free Port & Capital camping of Smaller Nations

Theirs really 4 cons to this whole proposal (For some people) 

• Cannot have crazy one sided ganks
• Cannot have revenge fleets
• Large Clans may need to split into 2 groups on the open world 
• Large nations cannot steamroll smaller nations on the open world

In NA You will need to win battles to raise and lower hostility, I don't think people understand it still. Yes you can attack AI to raise hostility levels (I guess?) But all the larger nation has to do is jump in and defend the AI.

 

Explaining this is doing no good, you will have to see it for yourselves when the new mechanics are added, most don't have any clue about what hostility levels will do.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Brisk

[ajffighter86]

I think people seem to be forgetting that hostility levels can still be increased by PVE. Even if pvp battles in OW are limited to 6v6, the smaller nations will still succumb to the numbers superiority that the bigger nations brig to the table.

If nation A devotes 100 players to go raise hostility levels at a port, and nation B can only muster 50, that still allows 50 players from nation A free to go ravage the AI in PVE. So, the "problem" you are presenting remains.

 

Indeed. From the sound of how it will work, the smaller nation could go halfway across the map and start raising hostility at another port and attack from the rear. So there's no way that a smaller nation will be completely boxed in and beat up on with the new system, as I understand it.

 

The game will always have a disadvantage if you are a smaller nation, I don't think there's any way to equalize the odds without introducing extremely 'gamey' mechanics (which I think limiting fleet size in OW battles falls into). You'll never have and hold as many ports, you'll never have as many players (personally I enjoy the challenge of such a situation).

 

With the new hostility system, it just makes it even easier to flank large nations. Right now fronts are pretty much established because there's only so far you can sail when you only have an hour to get to an enemy port and plant a flag.

 

 

But the game also has ways of letting you know just how many ports you can comfortably defend as a nation, regardless of size. Even when larger nations get over-extended, they become vulnerable.

 

And, we'll have to see how diplomacy works. If we can enter each other's battles I don't see why 2 smaller nations working together would not be able to fill fleets to 25 players for OW battles.

Edited August 3, 2016 by ajffighter86

[Sea Archer]

I can understand that you want to have fairer fights and increase the chances for smaller nations. But if you limit PvP to 6 per side it would not prevent a large nation to send 4 squadrons while the small nation only has one. So, while three squadrons are waiting outside the battle for enemies popping out, the smaller nation's squadron will be beaten bit by bit, if not in the first, then in the second or third battle, so nothing is won.

Though i like it when the chances are more equal. But that is more a question BR.

[OlavDeng2]

i would like to see battles with 50 vs 50 ! 

 

this would realy make the game epic!! 

Would also require you to have a super computer to run the game

[Sickerthansars]

Im still skeptical but this might be the first poll ive seen on these fourms where common sense prevails over nonsense

[Rebel Witch]

this suggestion places such a limitation on players the game will lose much of its player base as options and freedom are taken away from them. this sort of thing will kill this game eventually.

[Bach]

POTBS did have a 6v6 limit. Early on when the Guadeloupe server still existed and the population was high the French were attempting to flip a port through hostility gains on the open sea with 20 players. Our group of 6 sailed into them targeting the smallest ship. This forced 5 of them plus the small ship to fight our combat ready 6 man group. The 6v6 limit held the other French out. We sunk all the first 6. When we got out of the battle we immediately tagged the weakest ship again. So now we fight another 5 plus the weakest. We sunk all of them. We came out of the second battle and this time they made the tag and we fought their main 6 man group 6v6. We lost one ship and sunk all of them. When the 5 of us got out of the battle the remaining French had fled. Six players sailed into 20 and dominated the sea. I remember thinking that had to be the dumbest mechanic ever devised for open world RvR.