Battle system core ruleset discussion

[Sir Lancelot Holland]

There is a 50/50 chance that the sail coming over the horizon is friendly, those odds are the same on both sides. The problems start when it is a squadron or a more powerful ship coming at you. That is the point where every Captain decides whether he has time to finish off his opponent, or, if his ship is still sound, fight defensively and disengage.

This is  why it is important that a Captain, whether he starts the fight or not has a reasonable chance to disengage, even the Articles of War recognised that, they had to, for a mans life depended on their interpretation.

Fighting defensively to disengage is a world away from entering a battle to waste time for no purpose, outwardly, the two may look similar, and, if my opponent suddenly breaks and runs, I have no way of knowing his reasons for doing so unless I know help is imminent, or, I have damaged his ship to the point where running, repairing, then disengaging  is the only choice left to him. In that situation the onus is on him to preserve his ship and on me to stop him from doing so.

Now if a Captain starts a battle to run the clock down on another battle, preventing a player joining, then,that i think is legitimate, but not if the sole reason is to prevent another Captain's participation in a battle and then run, It is true that sometimes when a Captain of a smaller ship realises that he has taken on more than he can handle he would fire a broadside pour le Pavilon then, disengages he still ran a high risk that if the enemy did not give chase and sink him, his own Admiralty may hang him!

Sometimes it is better to apply regulation over mechanics, while regulation is open to interpretation a mechanic cannot distinguish motivation and worse restricts freedom of action that would otherwise be acceptable. 

 

[Sir Max Magic]

15 hours ago, Bumsebiene said:

I love the idea to rework the battle system. To join the weaker side will increase PVP but i think you have to do more. Nobody who is ganked by several people have the time to write in Nationchat or something. There must be a button to Call help and it should be appeared on the Map and in the Chat for other players..

Like this :

Great idea !!!

This combined with the "Battle is open for the lower BR side" will lead to massive PVP battles !!!

...and even better, the usual ganking Fleets would take advantage of such a system because "their" nation will also be on the receiving end sometimes and by such a message, they will quickly find their targets !!!

...instead of searching the Open Seas for hours and then gank the poor lonely Trader because he is the only one, they found

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Great idea to spend all the time sitting in port, teleport to closest spot and sail to GPS location 🍻

( seas were empty when we had similar options - why sail when one can just wait - it led to even less conflict )

Beware what you wish for... for it might become true... just not the way you envision it.

[Sir Loorkon]

17 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

get over it. This is the "battle system core ruleset discussion" and I'm discussing battle core ruleset, scrub.

Edited 16 hours ago by Slim McSauce

How about just playing the game and gain experience? You could add a second bookslot for your Constitution Classic. If you reache all five, the ship feels different and you will not need so many gear slots any more.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Sir Loorkon

[Sir Max Magic]

23 hours ago, staun said:

But isent that the system in patrolezone. Don’t get me wrong, I am fine with the RoE in patrolezone, But lets be honnest. There is multi thread and post abouth broken RoE in patrolezone. 

Because Circle of Death prevents fleeing in PZ most times... THATS the reason why people are avoiding PZ because they fear to get stucked in a situation that cant be solved anymore !!

[staun]

14 minutes ago, Sir Max Magic said:

Because Circle of Death prevents fleeing in PZ most times... THATS the reason why people are avoiding PZ because they fear to get stucked in a situation that cant be solved anymore !!

Thats why I wrote if we wanted the same mechanic in OW.

On a side note, lots of ppl actually goes to the patrole zone. I am pretty sure if admin made a stat over fights, my guess  is Nassau and Deadman when they are on, can compete with the total fights in OW on the rest of the map. So ppl do go to patrolezones.

[Licinio Chiavari]

22 minutes ago, Sir Max Magic said:

Because Circle of Death prevents fleeing in PZ most times... THATS the reason why people are avoiding PZ because they fear to get stucked in a situation that cant be solved anymore !!

 

8 minutes ago, staun said:

... lots of ppl actually goes to the patrole zone. I am pretty sure if admin made a stat over fights, my guess  is Nassau and Deadman when they are on, can compete with the total fights in OW on the rest of the map. So ppl do go to patrolezones.

 

As usual people adapts.

Organized teams form up groups that (if possible) almost cap PZ BR, so being sure to never fight outnumbered. Coupled with coordination and purpose fitted ships (the inner no-sense in any other situation of 11ish kts LO/WO+Kiritimati carro Surprises, just to say) they work to get best odds for themselves (rightfully I'd add).

Now, getting back to topic, imagine the same ROE all over OW.

Organized groups will wander around with bait ship, tagger and a bunch of purpose fitted ships, moreover using a mix BR ships allowing to them to

- be tagged

- tag

- fight with best odds (joining all, some,  reinforcing or screening out help) depending on the prey found.

So bigger veteran groups will (faster) adapt, they will have the means and with knowledge and experience will exploit the most from the eventual new ROE, on the skin of?

New players and brave lone raiders, who for a while, will keep tagging potential targets. And after losing few ships, lone raiders will rage quit like new players.

This is, IMO, most probable outcome of such ROE.

Not to say, again, that "same BR" has NOTHING to do with "fair" battle.

Same BR can be a gold ship with some millions worth upgrades vs. a shop one, a 4000 hrs veteran vs. a 100 hrs (or less) noob, or even both.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

There was never a mention of Fair in the OP.

Only notion regarding fair is open to the weakest BR side.

Do not distort the initial notion.

[Licinio Chiavari]

25 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

There was never a mention of Fair in the OP.

Only notion regarding fair is open to the weakest BR side.

Do not distort the initial notion.

So why tweaking more and more the ROE leaving battle open for the "weakest" side, BR wise, when BR has nothing (almost) to do with real battle value of the ship and the player on her?

Edited January 22, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

1 minute ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

So why tweaking more and more the ROE leaving battle open for the "weakest" side, BR wise, when BR has nothing (almost) to do with real battle value of the ship and the player on her?

Is warrant a test, as devs put it - they want it.

Circle no. Signalling, sure. I don't mind the equal fights. Rework of tag mechanic ? Absolutely. Dynamic BR, would be awesome.

and quoting a designer of wargames

"...Talk is cheap, lots of people will express vast enthusiasm for you to develop games they would like to play, and then never play. It takes an unlikely combination of factors to get a community going."

100% correct.

 

[Angus MacDuff]

46 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

So bigger veteran groups will (faster) adapt, they will have the means and with knowledge and experience will exploit the most from the eventual new ROE, on the skin of?

New players and brave lone raiders, who for a while, will keep tagging potential targets. And after losing few ships, lone raiders will rage quit like new players.

This is, IMO, most probable outcome of such ROE.

This is exactly what will happen.  I got hooked on this game because I had finally found something that I could play solo, and I've spent many happy hours solo hunting.  Taking away that ability will make my wife very happy.  Don't do that....

Edited January 22, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[Licinio Chiavari]

15 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Is warrant a test, as devs put it - they want it.

Almost everything is warrant a test.

What I sincerely fear is hurting the player base now, when logged population is growing hitting highest pop seen in more than an year.

Moreover, granted so many issues (ship balance, mod balance,...) and other stuff under work (battle UI, trading patch,...) in our beloved game, is it really the case to touch probably the most sensitive matter in any sandbox ow pvp game (the RoE) granted so many critics and doubts about these proposals?

Edited January 22, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari

[Licinio Chiavari]

4 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

will make my wife very happy.  Don't do that....

EVERYTHING BUT NOT THIS!!!

😂😂😂

Edited January 22, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

More PvP. PvP is when you want it and when others want it. Game is very complex in OW ( lot's of rules ) and we humans "exploit" every corner of it ( aka. waste time to shut down opportunities ). Many strive to play as clean and honest as possible, others don't even know what that means anymore.

So, after many tests, devs have data we don't. They can link different pieces of different tests during different time frames together as they wish.

Plus is not a game for solo, but to play together.

If battle open for weak side is the way to put 2 players playing together, then that's good and outweighs the necessity of the solo player.

 

 

 

 

[Angus MacDuff]

9 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Plus is not a game for solo, but to play together.

If battle open for weak side is the way to put 2 players playing together, then that's good and outweighs the necessity of the solo player.

Guess i'll have to find another game

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Peace server is all single player, as much as I want. Good spot now and then.

[Angus MacDuff]

I'm sick of hearing "go to the peace server if you don't like it".  It's a weak and lazy cop-out.  Peace server is boring.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Then play along others or risk the solo hunter, like others do

Is not like the guys joining the weak side will teleport into the battle.... ( oh wait!... hmmm... bad idea...bad idea... )

[Licinio Chiavari]

23 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

More PvP.

By no way "more" implies "better".

23 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

PvP is when you want it and when others want it.

Negative.

This kind of PvP exists in arena/duel games. Not in a OW PvP sandbox. Would you not attack an enemy trader found in the sea? Yes. Still I am pretty sure he does not want to pvp.

In a PvP MMO you like NA you state that you want PvP by the second you choose PvP server and you repeat everytime you sail.

23 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Game is very complex in OW ( lot's of rules ) and we humans "exploit" every corner of it

KISS principle.

Then I can quote an italian motto: rule made, trick found.

The more complex rules... The more tricky ways to exploit them.

And who will be better able to exploit them? A team of veterans, a solo veteran or a bunch of random casuals?

23 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Plus is not a game for solo, but to play together.

If battle open for weak side is the way to put 2 players playing together, then that's good and outweighs the necessity of the solo player.

All players solo play MMOs.

Or you make trade trips in convoy? Or you farm PvE with other usually?

The solo part is often the preparing part of the group play.

 

Not to speak about that a good part of NA is allowing a good share of solo play.

Even highly successful games (like World of Warcraft) that originally were suited almost only for organized groups, moved more and more to be solo-friendly to survive and keep growing.

[Licinio Chiavari]

13 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Then play along others or risk the solo hunter, like others do

Solo hunters already take plenty risks. Surely more than any hunting group.

There's a huge difference between high risk and a probable suicide.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari

[Sea Archer]

In my opinion most battles should be 1v1. In frigates or lower with mainly equal chances for both players. Mainly depending in skill.

Of course this means that new player might loose the first battles, but even after more than years of NA, I still have to learn a lot. And exactly this is what keeps me playing. Always learn and improve your skill.

I wouldn't mind if upgrades increase the BR, but I wouldn't mind to ban upgrades either. Fair fights in comparable ships are what I am looking for. 

 

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Licinio, I think you didn't get the part of "accepting" and "agreeing". But hey, can't help you with that.

And no, solo is not suicide. 

[Hawkwood]

On 1/20/2019 at 11:13 PM, Angus MacDuff said:

Bottom line...If I cant escape a battle that I initiated, I will stop initiating battles.  And so will many others.  Leaving battles open for the defender also means that the attacker will be ganked more often.  And that means less people initiating PVP.

This post makes no sense at all. Why are you initiating a battle then if you can´t win? The attacker can not be "ganked" if the BR gets equal on some point, no?

[Licinio Chiavari]

10 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

And no, solo is not suicide. 

Indeed it's not now. An interesting high risks high stakes.

It's close to a suicide... In PZ.

And we are looking to proposals giving OW battles RoE similar to PZs.

Ergo?

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Licinio,

As i posted way above, for me circle of death makes no sense, hence i focus on the other aspects that do make sense. Glad I put that out of my way.

If it comes to that I will simply change my "character" career to play the "new edition".

Is like playing a french army with any wargames rules on the table in a waterloo scenario. I don't like it, i know i will be ganked and will not win, but still is great fun.

We have fundamental differences. I see the game as a mean to play a character, whatever the rules. You see it as a big arena to game the game.