Battle system core ruleset discussion

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Iroquois Confederacy said:

A different thought is that if it is too easy to escape, why not make it so damaged hull/sails slow you in the OW as well?

That doesn't solve enough, and it relies on repairs which is a shaky feature.
Here we have some core mechanics which are calling to be changed, build from the ground up for a new concept of PvP which aims to satisfy people's want for consistently good battles that are good matches with both sides engaging in a full on fight without so much run and gun mentality or people only choosing advantageous battles, going so far as to grief people's time by engaging them in a battle where one side couldn't possibly win and or lose.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[DeRuyter]

7 hours ago, admin said:

• Problem 1 - inability to help your own.
  • The common message from rookies in national chats are well known - "I got attacked near XXX port - please help if you can" or "I see enemy ships - lets tag them - come help"… 
  • Usual answer in chat - silence and "tough luck" - as you CANT. I think its time to accept the fact that distance based ROE is bad and is reducing pvp and only helps solo hunters (which based on data are a huge minority).  
  • This is a problem because we know that pvp assists has 100% of correlation with retention. If you dont participate in group activities you drop from the game 10x faster.  
• Problem 1.1 part of lack of group pvp
  • There is actually not enough ganking (hold on and bear with me).  For accounts created in December: Only 5% of players have pvp assists and only 1% of players have more than 10 pvp assists. 
  • Again the problem because assist increase retention
• Problem 2 Speed
  • Fast ship controls the OW pvp, and heavy battle ready ships do not have anything to counter against the gank even if they outnumber enemies in guns.
• Problem 3 combat ready ship balance - described by OP in the post.
  • When line ship is fighting 3 fast frigates to win the lineship must not make a single mistake
  • When 3 fast frigates fight the lineship they can always run away if they make a mistake

snip

 

Problem 1:  Would doing away with distanced based ROE increase pvp? Many players want to enjoy an advantage in a battle, would the uncertainty of an always open battle encourage pvp? Maybe only for the larger nation/clan? Would a balancer for the weaker side help possibly but still you have uncertainty. COD in the OW? What about a trader who is trying to run away but gets tagged with no chance to escape. 

I think representational distance is a solution if it can be coded (maybe there is a way around the land in battle issue). The initial pull is version of the WYSIWYG circle or maybe with the 2 minute timer. Ships arriving after that click on the swords and join a side and are placed in the battle at a distance away based on the time they clicked in. So someone arriving at 2:01 isn't shut out and someone arriving 30 minutes later has a long sail. A bonus effect of this might be secondary battles if late joiners arrive from either side. This encourages sailing in a group and not the gamey waiting in port for a battle to happen. Just leaving a battle open encourages waiting in port until the call is put out. 

Problem 2 & 3: Really these go together. A fast ship controlling the engagement is simply what happened in the age of sail. Maybe the burden should not be on the lineship to not make a single mistake but on the frigates? A weight system sounds very interesting 🤔. Might be a solution here for small ship stern camping/ hugging (plus musket/swivel fire).

A historic example of a lineship, well 4th rate in game, our famous HMS Agamemnon fighting a number of frigates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_22_October_1793

I am not sure any of these ROE issues really address @Banished Privateer original issue with the griefing but it may make it harder for one small ship to kite and delay a number of lineships. 

[Vernon Merrill]

6 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

That doesn't solve enough, and it relies on repairs which is a shaky feature.
Here we have some core mechanics which are calling to be changed, build from the ground up for a new concept of PvP which aims to satisfy people's want for consistently good battles that are good matches with both sides engaging in a full on fight without so much run and gun mentality or people only choosing advantageous battles, going so far as to grief people's time by engaging them in a battle where one side couldn't possibly win and or lose.

Sorry, but thats just NOT going to happen.

I'll tag up to Pirate Frigate in my Prince....   most of the times (luckily for me) I'm able to get the kill.  But if I sense things starting to go South or I make a critical mistake that cripples my chances of victory, you bet your sweet arse I'm going to escape if I can...

This is the trade-off I assume when engaging a more powerful opponent.  

Dont like it?

Sail a fore/aft ship and come get me.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Vernon Merrill said:

Sorry, but thats just NOT going to happen.

I'll tag up to Pirate Frigate in my Prince....   most of the times (luckily for me) I'm able to get the kill.  But if I sense things starting to go South or I make a critical mistake that cripples my chances of victory, you bet your sweet arse I'm going to escape if I can...

This is the trade-off I assume when engaging a more powerful opponent.  

Dont like it?

Sail a fore/aft ship and come get me.

Well...What's the BR of those ships? If it's between 1.5x and 2.0x BR then I'd say that's fair enough odds for a fight, but add a second pirate frig and I'm starting to doubt your skills are enough, or anyone's for that matter.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Angus MacDuff]

15 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Here we have some core mechanics which are calling to be changed, build from the ground up for a new concept of PvP which aims to satisfy people's want for consistently good battles that are good matches

There is no chance of good battles with the OP here.  Forced to stay in battles as per the PZ?  That makes it suicide to initiate a 1v1 because you will get ganked.  We'll have players sailing around looking for ongoing battles and hoping for easy kills.  Nothing is simpler than killing a player who has just been victorious (or about to be) and has major battle damage himself.  Hell, I'll wait till he kills his opponent before I engage, so that I don't have to share the loot.

[Slim McSauce]

6 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

There is no chance of good battles with the OP here.  Forced to stay in battles as per the PZ?  That makes it suicide to initiate a 1v1 because you will get ganked.  We'll have players sailing around looking for ongoing battles and hoping for easy kills.  Nothing is simpler than killing a player who has just been victorious (or about to be) and has major battle damage himself.  Hell, I'll wait till he kills his opponent before I engage, so that I don't have to share the loot.

I don't know man, I don't like how that sounds either. Instances and OW don't really belong in the same conversation. They're so vastly different I say do whatever for each that makes them both individually fun, and try not to connect them so much because you just won't find a satisfying solution that way, we've tried and it's pure pseudo-babble via NA's best and brightest lampshades

Edited January 18, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Marquis de la Fayette]

Hello,

Can clearer than the previous message ...

Anyway, the ADMIN is right on one point: the one who provokes the fight must fight to the end. Whoever is attacked must be allowed to flee after 20 minutes.

Clear:

I attack, so I CAN NOT leave;

I defend, so I can leave after a minimum of 20 minutes in battle.

 

The battle must remain open for a maximum of five minutes. Thus, the SAIT striker that he can not leave (unless the defender took over the battle of course), but also knows that after 5 minutes, no one can enter battle.

 

Helpful?

Good game everyone.

 

 

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 hour ago, Marquis de la Fayette said:

Hello,

Can clearer than the previous message ...

Anyway, the ADMIN is right on one point: the one who provokes the fight must fight to the end. Whoever is attacked must be allowed to flee after 20 minutes.

Clear:

I attack, so I CAN NOT leave;

I defend, so I can leave after a minimum of 20 minutes in battle.

 

The battle must remain open for a maximum of five minutes. Thus, the SAIT striker that he can not leave (unless the defender took over the battle of course), but also knows that after 5 minutes, no one can enter battle.

 

Helpful?

Good game everyone.

Already replied: what about defensive tag?

You are making it a suicide.

And assuring that a fast pursuer will get a super close tag.

 

1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:

I don't know man, I don't like how that sounds either. Instances and OW don't really belong in the same conversation. They're so vastly different I say do whatever for each that makes them both individually fun, and try not to connect them so much because you just won't find a satisfying solution that way, we've tried and it's pure pseudo-babble via NA's best and brightest lampshades

The first step is accepting that "fair" battle is a no-sense.

Not last because... The wise Captain would (and SHOULD) choose a fight having the upper hand.

It's not being unfair.

In the end it's his damned duty.

 

1 hour ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Sorry, but thats just NOT going to happen.

I'll tag up to Pirate Frigate in my Prince....   most of the times (luckily for me) I'm able to get the kill.  But if I sense things starting to go South or I make a critical mistake that cripples my chances of victory, you bet your sweet arse I'm going to escape if I can...

This is the trade-off I assume when engaging a more powerful opponent.  

Dont like it?

Sail a fore/aft ship and come get me.

You know.

Fore-aft rigged ships... are not "real" ships.

[Liq]

tbh should bring back NAL

[Licinio Chiavari]

Just now, Liq said:

tbh should bring back NAL

Reasonable.

What vocal defenders of "fair" and "to the end" fights are missing is that in warfare these are senseless concepts.

[Marquis de la Fayette]

5 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Déjà répondu: qu'en est-il tag défensif?

Vous en faites un suicide.

Et en assurant qu'un poursuivant rapide obtiendra un tag super proche.

Hello,

 

What you say is true: the defensive tag becomes a suicide.

But, unless I'm mistaken, the defensive tag is not a realistic maritime maneuver, is it? Just a peculiarity of the programming ... A hole in the racket.

Cordially.

[Licinio Chiavari]

Just now, Marquis de la Fayette said:

Hello,

 

What you say is true: the defensive tag becomes a suicide.

But, unless I'm mistaken, the defensive tag is not a realistic maritime maneuver, is it? Just a peculiarity of the programming ... A hole in the racket.

Cordially.

Yes and nay.

What's more un-realistic?

A battle starting at 100 mt, so no shot even fired before getting so close (fast chaser against no defensive tag).

Or a battle starting at 500 mt, so still within gun range, but we can say within a reasonable range (thanks a proper defensive tag)?

Please note I finished more than a couple battles within battle start timer (1 min 30 sec?): super close tag, setting sails faster, one manouver, board. End.

Are you sure is defensive tag so wrong and gamey?

[Marquis de la Fayette]

2 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Oui et non.

Quoi de plus irréaliste?

Une bataille commençant à 100 m, il n'y a donc pas eu de coup de feu avant de se rapprocher (chasseur rapide contre aucune étiquette défensive).

Ou une bataille commençant à 500 m, donc toujours à portée de canon, mais on peut dire dans une fourchette raisonnable (grâce à une étiquette défensive appropriée)?

Veuillez noter que j’ai terminé plus de quelques batailles au sein de la bataille (1 min 30 s?): Balise super proche, régler les voiles plus rapidement, une manœuvre, un tableau. Fin.

Êtes-vous sûr que la balise défensive est si mauvaise et si délicieuse?

No, I'm not sure ... I'm looking for the best compromise.

cordially

La Fayette OCB

[Simon Cadete]

Licinio why are you so obsessed with defensive tags? Is that your only way to escape Kpr or wherever it is you hang out nowadays? I really am trying to understand your point of view. Only the attacker is stuck in battle so it’s all good unless you’re one of those captains that runs away from battle if the other player is not afk or a moron

[admin]

4 hours ago, Castañon del Rey said:

Wasn't around for that but sounds like a good mechanic, why was it changed?

Because I did not like it. I was sailing for pirates then and missed several great battles just because i could not turn in time, literally seconds away.

[admin]

5 hours ago, rediii said:

A smaller map leads to more pvp per hour

 

This is the map we have. Sorry. No plans for another map.

[Licinio Chiavari]

10 minutes ago, Simon Cadete said:

Licinio why are you so obsessed with defensive tags? Is that your only way to escape Kpr or wherever it is you hang out nowadays? I really am trying to understand your point of view. Only the attacker is stuck in battle so it’s all good unless you’re one of those captains that runs away from battle if the other player is not afk or a moron

Because I know how they are the last hope to avoid a gank.

The proposal is assuring battle start at super close range. That's unreal by itself.

So a gift for gank teams.

And you should know I engage too often in risky positions. More than others.

[admin]

30 minutes ago, Liq said:

tbh should bring back NAL

No thanks.

1 pvp kill in 8 in game hours for an average new pvp player is horrendous and will be fixed. Some tears will just make the soup a bit better - natural salt.
If you attack a weaker ship you will most likely have guests. This is already in test bed builds since last week. Battles will close when BR evens out (reverse automatic signalling)

[Licinio Chiavari]

38 minutes ago, admin said:

Because I did not like it. I was sailing for pirates then and missed several great battles just because i could not turn in time. 

All captains missed great battles for similar reasons (not last missing joining timer by a few seconds).

But I sincerely invite you to think a lot about changing RoE in the way you wrote, evaluating all potential consequencies.

 

31 minutes ago, admin said:

1 pvp kill in 8 in game hours for an average new pvp player is horrendous and will be fixed. Some tears will just make the soup a bit better - natural salt

Are you sure that even some of these kills arent done by a new... alt?

Are you sure these new players were really looking for PvP?

Are you sure that more PvP could lead to more kills for new players?

And we are not talking about some tears. You are talking about making all OW like PZ. With a bulkload of veterans hating already PZ RoE.

[admin]

2 hours ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Exactly.  So why should a player be allowed to join a "battle" that has already been underway for "hours"....  

Think of a closed battle as "tomorrow" and it makes sense.

Time to change the mindset. 

There is no tomorrow. It's your evening and its your time and its your game. Game!  You come to pvp server to pvp and if you (on average) pvp once in 8 hours in game - this is not a game. So lets move on from that "it has been underway for hours - thus you will pvp once a week" - its not working out. 

[admin]

4 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Are you sure that even some of these kills arent done by a new... alt?

Are you sure these new players were really looking for PvP?

Are you sure that more PvP could lead to more kills for new players?

And we are not talking about some tears. You are talking about making all OW like PZ. With a bulkload of veterans hating already PZ RoE.

Of course alts make it even more bleak. Lord Lorkoon i am talking to you   (So many pvp kills before even getting ranked up)
PZ rules everywhere need to be thought about as they increase griefing if spread everywhere. But we would like to find the way to force the attacker to fight

We will start with the following.
All battles will be open for the weaker side (vs ai or players does not matter). Attack a weaker ship - prepare for guests.

[SS Minnow]

Some good ideas here.  Along these line, can we do this?

1. Join swords only.  No circles.
2. Battle stays open indefinitely until everyone leaves (or some timeout alg)
3. Wind and Weather in battle instance same as open world (find a way to do this)
4. Escape must be possible (traders, damaged ships no repairs left).  Eliminate tagging timers (I tagged him, is he tagged?).  Use distance from nearest enemy.
5.  Exit point in battle instance must be projected to open world coordinates (find a way to do this).   Eliminate invisibility mechanic.
6. Suppliment hostility missions.  When an OW battle starts in the hostility zone of a port, it will now stay open indefinitely as described in 2.

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by SS Minnow

[Licinio Chiavari]

Just now, admin said:

Time to change the mindset. 

There is no tomorrow. It's your evening and its your time and its your game. Game!  You come to pvp server to pvp and if you (on average) pvp once in 8 hours in game - this is not a game. So lets move on from that "it has been underway for hours - thus you will pvp once a week" - its not working out. 

When actively looking for PvP I got a bulkload of battles every 8 hours.

Winning/losing and how many kills is another matter.

[admin]

1 hour ago, DeRuyter said:

Problem 1:  Would doing away with distanced based ROE increase pvp?

The problem is that you are sitting on two chairs.
There is distance and there is no distance. If there is fast travel - there is no distance anyway.  Whats the point cant help a friend just because of the biobreak, whats the point if you cannot even out a gank. 

There is no distance based roe, there is solo hunter ROE (close the battle please whenever i attack and do not let everyone in because WYSISWYOUFW).  We had tunnnel vision before. Now we see. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, admin said:

No thanks.

1 pvp kill in 8 in game hours for an average new pvp player is horrendous and will be fixed. Some tears will just make the soup a bit better - natural salt.
If you attack a weaker ship you will most likely have guests. This is already in test bed builds since last week. Battles will close when BR evens out (reverse automatic signalling)

need some more br balancing then so the likes of endymion and trinc arent higher br then 3rd rate. Increase br on 1st and 2nd rates and even them more out so people would value 3rd rates more in pbs