Battle system core ruleset discussion

[staun]

18 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

Yeah, NO one likes ganks. Every battle should be decently fair like I mean 1.5-2.0x BR spread max.

With your limited br, have you found a solution, so ppl still will be interested in helping a trader?

How high doo you see the chances for a new player will get help with a limited br?

No one likes ganks. Think that statement is your opinion and not the general opinion on the server. Why do we ells have ganks?

But we soon get a new patrolezone, that is based 1 vs 1. We will find out how many goes to that one and not the group zone.

For the record I don’t care about getting ganked. I still have fun in those fights. They are often more fun, than a 1 vs 1 with a demast god. Everytime Nassau and Deadman is up, I go there 9 of 10 times I get ganked by the brits. Just before you yells bloody Dlc ships, nope I right now sails surprice to get knowledge on it. Only use my Herc if I run out of surprices.

[Palatinose]

Examples on a practical approach: these days I had engagements in 5v1 situations against newer players/unexperienced players. BR wise it was a 80:740 and a 175:400. I sailed good ships with mast mods, repair mods and gunnery mods. Both engagements had in common, that the players kept chaining me, though I sailed on battle sails and was at about 75% sails already. In the first named engagement I obtained and kept the weather gauge over the entire battle, in the second one my foes handed it to me after 3 minutes via the usual situation: want to chain, turn downwind, have bad angle on sails, shoot anyways, am afraid of getting a broadside, turn away downwind, weather gauge gone. When playing solo I have always found that if being outnumbered highly, obtaining the weather gauge is the most important thing. Newer players (aswell as about 70% of the rest of NA) usually don't aim for the wind advantage, but (and I imagine the players PoV here) get into the firering mode and turn their ship so the enemy is in the focus and shoot, completely unaware of the angle. This results in nearly no hull damage, very limited chain damage and depending on the mast strength and the sections focussed: nearly no mast damage. At the same time I was in the position to inflict damage with nearly a full broadside every time or shift the damage towards the masts. This nearly always results in a first draw back on the enemies side to repair the hull and in a quick return, then getting demasted/chained down and killed. Both engagements did not end like Dinarks 1v5's, still I killed 1 and 2 respectively.

Long talk to reach the essence: I see a dilemma situation in RoE balancing: if we have BR wise fairer fights, newer players will suffer from getting wrecked by experienced players, nearly without the chance of reinforcing their numbers. If we have it like right now, experienced gank squads will take down high numbers of newbies without a chance for the latter. Imo especially the second case is basis for felt grief and annoyance, therefore I argue for a change in RoE like announced. Not denying that this suits my playstyle as a solo player aswell ofc.

I also strongly argue for more possibilities in teaching newer players in pvp, especially the basics (once they obtain the basics imo only soloing improves/refines the skill). #bringduelroomback

[Sir Loorkon]

6 minutes ago, Palatinose said:

Long talk to reach the essence: I see a dilemma situation in RoE balancing: if we have BR wise fairer fights, newer players will suffer from getting wrecked by experienced players, nearly without the chance of reinforcing their numbers. If we have it like right now, experienced gank squads will take down high numbers of newbies without a chance for the latter. Imo especially the second case is basis for felt grief and annoyance, therefore I argue for a change in RoE like announced. Not denying that this suits my playstyle as a solo player aswell ofc.

Hi Pala, you gave very good examples. I know exactly these situations. How about solving the dilemma by the classic approach and create a trilemma by introduceing PvP ranks as a factor for the BR?

[Palatinose]

54 minutes ago, Sir Loorkon said:

Hi Pala, you gave very good examples. I know exactly these situations. How about solving the dilemma by the classic approach and create a trilemma by introduceing PvP ranks as a factor for the BR?

How would this be a trilemma? PvP ranks would be great, but probably hard to implement and I bet people will find ways to exploit them.

[Vizzini]

14 minutes ago, Palatinose said:

How would this be a trilemma? PvP ranks would be great, but probably hard to implement and I bet people will find ways to exploit them.

johnny five alts is already licking his lips at the thought of being a smurf again ... it will take 2 mins to wheel out the next steam sale alt and slap some noob about for kicks

 

seriously, why cant they just put a duel room in bermuda with a freeport there and let anybody who only wants fair duels  have somewhere to play their game. The vast majority can then play their game

trying to merge Legends and the OW will fail and fail hard.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

13 minutes ago, Vizzini said:

seriously, why cant they just put a duel room in bermuda with a freeport there and let anybody who only wants fair duels  have somewhere to play their game. The vast majority can then play their game

Testbed has shown 1v1 patrol zones. Once it gets back up again this week, go check. It will surely be populated a lot.

[Licinio Chiavari]

16 hours ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

group is spread, tough luck. Stay cohese.

Signalling 1.5 -2.0 BR ? That's what we have now in the majority of battles. Sorry.

1.0 BR

Will never get more fair.

Sorry. BS.

A - usual Endy (330) 3rd Rate (300) BRs comparison shuts any discussion.

B - no BR is taking into account Woods/Mods.

C - no BR take into accout players' skill and experience.

Conclusion: BS.

Really. Go play an instanced Arena/MOBA game.

[van Veen]

I like the idea of keeping battles open for the weaker side (in terms of BR). I made a suggestion how to implement it. All you need is 3 server parameters (t_battle_open_min, maybe t_battle_open_max, BR_max_ratio) which can be tweaked for optimization. 

Battles stay open for a minimum time for everyone to join (server setting, maybe t_battle_open_min = 2min). After that, the BR balance is checked. Equal battles (BR1/BR2<BR_max_ratio; BR_max_ratio = 0.7) are closed immediately. Unequal battles stay open only for the side with less BR. Repeat the BR balance check for every ship that joins. Battle is closed regardless of BR ratio after a maximum time (server setting, maybe t_battle_open_max = 10min). 

These parameters could be even region dependent (capital zones, safe zones are defined already), but I would not like that, making things too complicated. 

Example settings:

Gank fest: set t_battle_open_min=2min and t_battle_open_max=2min and battle will be closed after 2min anyway, BR ratio has no effect. 

A bit of ganking: set BR_max_ratio to 0.2 and t_battle_open_max=3min. That means a battles with BR ratio of 1/5 is considered an equal fight and reinforcements have 1min extra time to balance that out. 

Eliminate ganking: set t_battle_open_min=1min, BR_max_ratio to 0.9 and extend t_battle_open_max=90min. Battles are closed only when BR ratio is almost equally balanced (0.9). Otherwise it stays open for 90min (whole battle duration). As the test for BR ratio is repeated for every joining ship, the weaker side may flip also. 

[Sir Loorkon]

1 hour ago, Palatinose said:

How would this be a trilemma? PvP ranks would be great, but probably hard to implement and I bet people will find ways to exploit them.

Exactly this is the trilemma 😂

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

2 hours ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Sorry. BS.

A - usual Endy (330) 3rd Rate (300) BRs comparison shuts any discussion.

B - no BR is taking into account Woods/Mods.

C - no BR take into accout players' skill and experience.

Conclusion: BS.

Really. Go play an instanced Arena/MOBA game.

You have an absurd method of comprehension. You read what others write with your own reasoning, not what is written.

1.0 BR, no 2.0, no 1.5.

1.0BR

 

 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

2 hours ago, Wraith said:

My guess is that you have less than 5% of the population that would ever engage willingly in a 1v1

You guess right.

 

[Guest]

On 1/27/2019 at 4:29 AM, Hullabaloo 'The Thief' said:

Whatever changes are made IMO the most important thing is: if you are in a port or in another battle or out of sight range when a tag has started then you should NOT be able to join the battle. (With the exception of zones, yes). There are some real dicks out there who just want to kill at all costs and don't care about 'fair' or 'noob' they just want to spoil other peoples enjoyment of the game and troll. I got ganked today after having tagged a Connie hoping for a fight. Three more players joined and they were NOT in OW when I started the tag (I assume they were hiding in a battle and all on TS). That should have been prevented already. I would not have minded if I had run into them and they had chased me down, that's fine but exploit ambushes like this are bullshit. There are whole clans who basically operate like that. I won't name names but like WTF! What enjoyment people get out of that is beyond me but if changes are made that allow for this kind of tactic then the game will soon become an unplayable gank fest. imo people who do this should be up for tribunal and banned.

Funny how you and 2 others undocked to gank me at the testbed, without giving a fair fight.. but i guess double standards 👌

[Farrago]

On 1/18/2019 at 2:48 AM, admin said:

If the goals is to increase pvp these ideologies can be rethought or abandoned as they dont increase an amount of pvp. 

• 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

 

So why dont we just rework those ideologies from scratch and focus them on the main goal - increase pvp and group pvp per hour for all (not only solo hunter in a speed fitted frigate). 

Examples of clear solutions solving the problems and increasing meaningful pvp on the WAR server

• This is a war server. Why escape options? Whats the point? If you attacked - fight!
  • Patrol rules for the whole world. Circle of death.
  • If you are ready to attack someone - be ready to die and fight to the end. 
  • Sure some will cry about it  - tough luck like they say in national chats - but it will keep only meaningful pvp.
• Battle is always open for the weaker side 
  • This is a war server - this is a pvp game with the goal to increase amount of pvp for all. There is no point to close the battle for the weaker side. Let them escalate. This becomes the goal. 
  • Then you can come to help your own, and know someone will come to help.
  • Then you can build more friendships and get assists 
  • Then you will stumble to more battles and will have more pvp kills per hour. 

Basically.

• When improving ROE - Remove all features from ROE that reduce pvp per hour. Add features that grow the pvp per hour. 
• Ignore the cries like "but tumbado is 3000km away".
• Check only one parameter when determining the outcome of changes - number of PVP battles per hour and number of assists.
• Ignore the rest.
   

This will also solve the problem described in the post (with the move to weight systems because with proper broadside weight - prince will die in 1 min). 
 

PS
Current number for War server for accounts created in December
1 pvp kill every 8 hours in game per pvp engaged player. 
1 pvp kill every 24 hours in game total for the server
 

Attract more regular players and there will be more PVP. How? A rich, complex game where there are numerous paths for players to succeed however they define that success. Trade has to be intricate. Crafting needs to be creative. RVR has to be desirable and necessary. Individual PVP has to support the preceding three.

I’ve always thought the best solution to the difference between OW and Battle time scale is an expanding join circle. Players have to join outside the circle. Anyone can join but the longer the battle has been going on, the further they will join from initial battle swords. Revenge fleet camping can be dealt with by invisibility and hyper speed.

But this seems like a coding issue that you may not want to undertake.

Your clear solutions are not so clear to me.

Circle of Death like the Patrol Zones is the reason I do not participate in the Patrol Zone. There’s a quote attributed sometimes to Patton about its not your job to die for their country. It’s your job to make the other poor SoB die for his. It’s rare in NA that the best answer is to sacrifice yourself in battle. We just don’t have those total war mechanics. Such a philosophy spoils immersion for me and probably others. The game needs us history geeks who want to participate in both a strategic and tactical way. Even when ships are cheap and available, wanting to live to fight another day is a valid and real motivator in how we choose and fight our battles. Laying down our “lives” (our ships) for our buddies sometimes makes sense, but often does not. But if you build a game where total war becomes a thing, in my opinion, only then will you see a significant number of players who willingly expose themselves to the risks of PVP regularly. Especially if that risk is win or die. Yes, you can make it so easy to replace ships that we just have to click but then I think the game will lose all of its special qualities. You’d be competing in a space where I’m not sure you want to go.

Barring a solution like the expanding join circle, to me it only makes sense that the battle be open to join for both sides. This ROE provides the benefit equally to both sides. Otherwise it’s really impossible to determine who is the “weakest” side. BR doesn’t mean a lot in OW. Hunters often have less BR but more advantage and skill than their prey.

Thank you for creating a game that has provided me with thousands of hours of enjoyment. Please think bigger. If your goal is just to figure out more ways to get Player 1 to fight Player 2 you’ll be leaving numerous other players out of the game and they will ultimately either leave or never even buy the game. Fair sails. 

[Macjimm]

7 hours ago, Farrago said:

If your goal is just to figure out more ways to get Player 1 to fight Player 2 you’ll be leaving numerous other players out of the game 

Seems like each change to force players into PvP diminishes the game.

[Farrago]

1 hour ago, Macjimm said:

Seems like each change to force players into PvP diminishes the game.

We need a game that encourages a broader definition of Player vs Player beyond shooter and targets. Trader vs Trader, Shipper vs Shipper, Economy vs Economy. Then we’ll have a lot of pew pew too. 

[Macjimm]

Farrago,

What do you mean?   ????