Battle system core ruleset discussion

[staun]

Can we have a 5 rate patrole to? Maybe change Aved ore Tumbardo.

[Guest]

@admin what about defensive tagging? should players just let the ganksquad sail up right next to them and let himself get tagged?

[Jack Lowe]

3 hours ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

I propose 2500m on Signalling entry.

800m on normal tag.

If by signaling entry you mean reinforcement then I think that distance is to great. When wind is taken into account the result will be many situations where your help must travel to far. Equated to approximate time to get into the fight roughly 10 mins in average or more. In a unequal fight your friends are likely sunk or beyond beaten to ineffectiveness. The reinforcements become the second part of the gank, or simply never get into the fight.

500 m is probably to little if I judge correctly 500 is about the range you start seeing player names roughly. At that range your already in cannon shot and essentially engaged. This would lead to unfair situations for the attacker to often, not allowing them enough time to adjust to the new situation. I would propose something like 1 km to about 1.5 km. That should allow friends to get into the fight in about 5 mins or less give or take depending on wind and give the other side time to reevaluate and adjust.

I'd rather not put much more effort into this idea unless there is some indication from admin that it's something they think worthy of consideration. If it is then it's worth further effort and time to work out and discuss, otherwise although a interesting conversation to this point ultimately a waste to continue.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

750m is where the names popup.

[Angus MacDuff]

I find it ridiculous that we are discussing someone dropping into a battle within canon range.  How can you go from over the horizon to within gunshot range with what is effectively a teleport.  I'm not even convinced that 2500m is reasonable.  There is too much emphasis on "rescuing" players.  If they wanted to be safe, they should have an escort.  I attacked an Indiaman the other day with 1 in fleet.  Nearby (also in the tag circle) was a Niagara with 2 in fleet.  I ended up against a group that worked their bots well and I had to bail out (I had been hoping for less competence!!).  To me, that is properly done PVP where the trader had plenty of teeth. 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I find it ridiculous that we are discussing someone dropping into a battle within canon range.  How can you go from over the horizon to within gunshot range with what is effectively a teleport.  I'm not even convinced that 2500m is reasonable.  There is too much emphasis on "rescuing" players.  If they wanted to be safe, they should have an escort.  I attacked an Indiaman the other day with 1 in fleet.  Nearby (also in the tag circle) was a Niagara with 2 in fleet.  I ended up against a group that worked their bots well and I had to bail out (I had been hoping for less competence!!).  To me, that is properly done PVP where the trader had plenty of teeth. 

same i proposed a mechanic that admin ignores that would give players "you fight what you see" and players that can join, joins from their initial OW location.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Guest

[Jack Lowe]

@Angus MacDuff the point to the discussion isn't about saving people, although being a bit of a side discussion it may be hard to pick out. It's about those instances where joiners magically appear right in the middle of a fight.

Sometimes a fleet appearing right on top of an inferior number of attackers with perks the first thing they know about it is when their hull is coming apart. Conversely a lone joiner might land magically in the middle of a group of enemies. 

Either way how do you say this is ok? That's the issue at its extremes. 

The discussion is about how to have joiners from either side enter in such a way that is relatively fair to both sides and realistic-ish. Also consistent and simple enough to be easily understood by players in game. No ones trying to give extra advantage to your prey.

The fact we even need to have this discussion is rather ridiculous I agree. However current mechanics allow it thus sadly.....

Edited January 23, 2019 by Jack Lowe

[Angus MacDuff]

51 minutes ago, Wyy said:

same i proposed a mechanic that admin ignores that would give players "you fight what you see" and players that can join, joins from their initial OW location.

@Jack Lowe, here is the answer.  You see the swords...you click on the swords and you enter the battle relative to where you were in OW.  Make the swords disappear after 1 minute, because you have to be in sight already and click on them right away.  Players who were close when the battle initiated will still be close. 

[Capn Rocko]

Can we make the swords Red too? Imagine how many battles have been missed because someone didn't see the swords because they are the same color of the clouds 😉

[Dalai Lama]

I don't think changing the ROE will considerably change the amount of PVP we have. I like keeping it sandbox and immerse with the least regulations/rules possible. Changing the OW ROE to PZ ROE with circles will kill the immersion (for me) as well as create new problems with defensive tags and other possible exploits. 

Rather than trying to "regulate" people into pvp they don't want (what is basically how this whole discussion has been started) we should encourage players into pvp they enjoy.

Basically what I mean is to guide new players better into the game (e.g. start with some quests with simple explanations, creating the right mindset with stories/immersion and the advice to look for a clan), tweak economy to make pvp affordable (reduce the fear of loosing a boat... right now many freshies cant even deal with npc and go bankrupt), bring back special pvp rewards (atm pve is way more lucrative and economically there is no sense in pvp), create content for traders (the thrill of trading is the risk vs reward isnt it? so make those risky routes very rewarding.) and pvers (more endgame content and maybe multiple quests/missions with a little story connected with special rewards: first cap that boat then bring the captured captain there etc...). Make RvR more rewarding (right now you risk a lot (balloons/money) while gaining what?, e.g. special boat you can redeem only if you finish a RvR mission)

This will increase pvp not another test on the ROE.

my humble opinion

 

[Christoph]

about griefing and boring 1 1/2 h running/hunting battles

we need an option to leave the battle when the enemy dont make enough damage. 

the most tribunals about griefing are the same. only shooting with balls in sails. 

i think the best is when you can leave battle after 30min when the enemy dont make enough damage (Hull,Crew,Sails) at your ship.

the same is with hunting battles.

6 enemys vs me all the same speed. 

they can only shoot with front cannons (balls) in my sails. they dont make enough damage to stop me.after a 1 1/2h battle i can leave. why not after 30min?

 

[Tiedemann]

On 1/18/2019 at 11:48 AM, admin said:

Current ruleset is based on these ideologies

• I want to attack someone and people far away must not enter = "i must be able to sink you solo if i want to"
• I want to be able to sink a 1st rate in a cutter (old heated topic). 
• I want to be able to run away if i want to (because my ship is fast)
• I do not want a player from far to join my battle, because its mine. 

Most of the active veterans that are playing and follow the forum are happy with the old ideology, that is why they are still here. So keep that in mind when the "entire forum" hates the proposed ideology change. I some times fear that the current player base/forum members no longer helps this game moving in a healthy directions for getting a larger stable player base (I'm looking in the mirror here). 

On 1/18/2019 at 11:48 AM, admin said:

Patrol rules for the whole world. Circle of death.

This is practical reuse of a working mechanic, but far from elegant and I think/hope we avoid this. Having this all over the map would be a crazy huge change and we would still be able to be attacked by smaller ships. So getting locked in battles for 20-30 minutes before we could leave would become more common! And if you have allies/friends in other nations this would be insanely annoying because we can not see who we are attacking until we are in battle. 
Also the shrinking circle works great for sinking players fast, but it is exploitable by those who know it. Having a dusin defending rookies getting lured up to the circle edge, being sunk by shrinking circles because they got their sails shot out immediately after repairing hull will not increase their impression of this game. I think you need a more elegant solution if you want to make it the standard ROE for the entire map.

On 1/18/2019 at 11:48 AM, admin said:

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. 

I have argumentet a lot for a mechanic that allows this in the past, so I'm very positive to this. But I belive you have to put some thought into making new ROE that does not involve a shrinking circle of death because it is so extremely unrealistic and ugly mechanic in this beautiful game.

ROE suggestion: Need 40-50% BR to be able to drag an enemy into combat. Battle open for weakest side for 20-30 minutes, if BR is equal open for both sides. Instant leave option for defender if attacker is further than 400-500 meters away, even if defender is tagged. This would force the attacker to stay close, making it hard to grief in small fast ships. 

Consider a start option to lock the battle for entry. So solo players doing a duell in OW have an option to have a battle with out more players joining. Just like we can chose control on of now in the beginning of the battle, players can chose to "Close battle". If players involved agrees it closes.    

[NethrosDefectus]

Make all battle have the Patrol Zone ROE and you will have a mass exodus of players. You recently made battles close sooner and it has improved the game dramatically in my opinion. Gone are the days of attacking a single Russian ship outside a freeport with the intention of a 1v1 and having 4 or 5 other players jumping out of the port to join because they simply do not have time for that tactic anymore.

I've said it before (and I mean no disrespect) but @admin, I'm sure you do not play the game as instensly like the rest of us and as such do not know what it is like on a day to day basis for a player. Sure, you have access to stats and figures but they mean very little without the proper context.

Edited January 25, 2019 by NethrosDefectus

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Just now, JG14_Cuzn said:

This is a viable solution! 

Or... we can only count hull penetrations as ‘tags’.  

Sail hits are damage but not counted as a ‘tag’. 

 

You saying that shredding the canvas ( no penetrating shots ) wouldn't keep a ship in battle ?

I must disagree with such monotonous way to see naval engagement being relied solely on hull shot.

Damage threshold would work better as I see it, and allow for different tactics and approaches to battle. With equal rates needing minimal %, and maximum difference of rates, high % threshold, as presented before. A 8% tag needed for a 7th rate to keep a 1st rate in battle ( 1% + rate difference % ) makes more sense than having to rely solely on hull penetrative shot/mast penetrative shot.

 

[Angus MacDuff]

Or just have a "Leave" distance.  Control distance is what?  750m?  Make "Leave " distance 2500m.  Simple. 

[Thonys]

9 minutes ago, rediii said:

I would even decrease the leaveRange to increase the will to fight. You want to keep your enemy in battle? rather go close and not shoot into masts/sails from 1000m distance

nah i think what we have is good

sometimes people have to leave beyond their own will (moms and dads shouting>  put it off, or i pull the plug)

(i hear it just to often in my headphone )

Edited January 25, 2019 by Thonys

[Hullabaloo]

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.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Hullabaloo 'The Thief'

[Slim McSauce]

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

[Hullabaloo]

Ganks i'm ok with, it is exploits and over complicated RoE mechanics that I would be worried about:

BR limits/spreads I disagree with. They will also be exploited by shysters like WTF. The precise BR spread required to bait and gank would be calculated and used. Being told you cannot enter a battle that started right next to you because of an arbitrary BR limit will be annoying. You won't be able to defend home waters or Ports (outside zone) with numbers. Again it will all be bait and counter gank. Travelling in large groups so noobs can PvP or you can protect valuable cargo etc, that will be gone.

I'm ok with some mechanics INSIDE the battle instance to prevent griefing and tweaking where people join is ok too. But I think the OW battle tagging RoE should be kept super simple: 

If you were nearby when the tag took place you CAN join, if you were in another battle, or in a Port or too far away then you CANNOT join

 

[Hullabaloo]

What about this:

OW Tagging

When you click on a ship there is a circle around it which you have to be within in order to tag it. (as is)
This circle varies in size depending on your relative class. So if you are in a 6th rate and want to tag a 5th rate the circle is a bit smaller (you have to get closer). If you are in a bigger class ship then the circle stays as it is.

Once a tag is started every single ship in the vicinity gets the countdown timer. So you have 10 seconds to select the side you will be joining. If when the timer has ended you did not select then you do not enter the battle (except the target ship of course which will auto join). If you did select a side within the 10 secs then you join the battle exactly where you were when the timer finished. (yes that could be a long way away).

If you were in a group with the tagged ship or tagging ship then you auto join

There is no other way to join. If you were not in the vicinity when the tag started you cannot join that battle.

Increase in timer to be re-tagged when leaving a battle.

Tagging is not possible while another tag timer is running in the vicinity.

 

In the battle instance

Control for all ships. Control range is larger for higher rate ships. If you are not in the control range of an enemy ship in the battle instance then you may leave, no cooldown, no timer (instaleave). Regardless if you have been hit recently. Reload shocked ships temporarily lose control while they are shocked. (This could include rigging and crew shocking if you like)

Increase in the speed penalty for damaged hull and structure.

 

PROS:

Openworld sailing discipline will be introduced. Ships will need to stay close together in OW if they want to fight close together in Battle instance. Organised disciplined fleets will have an advantage.

Griefing will be reduced, as a small ship targeting a larger one will be taking a greater risk as it will start the battle much closer and if it gets damaged it will be more difficult to disengage/continue the pursuit. If it gets crew shocked the target ship can leave and small ships will need to stay close to maintain control.

Ganking will be more difficult: (as above) and .. A fleet made up of large ships with a fast tagging ship will still have problems. The faster ship will make the tag but (with good play by the target ship) will be separated from its friends when the battle starts. The target ship will have a better chance to disable the tagging ship before his big buddies arrive by either sinking it or crippling it's speed and leaving it's control range or by shocking it and insta-leaving. Once you have left you will have a longer aggro timer to allow you more easily evade a re-tag.

Fewer fir/fir speed fit ships. It will be less of an advantage to have these ships. They will tag yes but they will be increasingly separated from their fighting friends and will be more easily disabled as they will lose speed dramatically as they take damage and/or more easily reload shocked.

No need for the daft on-comms tag countdown as everyone will see it.

 

CONS:

Slow ships might find themselves in a battle where they have little hope of engaging. But at least they will be able to insta-leave

If you hear on TS that a battle has started you won't be able to join if you were not already there. (also a pro imo)

If you were semi afk during the 10 second tag and you didn't select then you will not be able to join the battle (unless you were in a group in which case you have no choice)

It might get a bit confusing, particularly if others who are not connected with your group are tagging nearby.

 

PB Screening:

This would need discussion. It might be advantageous to group or NOT group. If not grouped you could only screen out individual PB ships every 10 seconds. This might be interesting as you would get situations where players were screened out but back ups might be able to enter. So you would have partially successful screens where PB BR still filled but not with optimal fleet composition or preferred players? You could also have counter screeners who would tag screening ships and so prevent others tagging for 10 seconds?

 

[Angus MacDuff]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 11:17 AM, Angus MacDuff said:

@Jack Lowe, here is the answer.  You see the swords...you click on the swords and you enter the battle relative to where you were in OW.  Make the swords disappear after 1 minute, because you have to be in sight already and click on them right away.  Players who were close when the battle initiated will still be close. 

@Hullabaloo 'The Thief', thanks for putting in the work and giving a more detailed plan for what I put overly simply.  The devil is always in the details.

[Sir Loorkon]

@Hullabaloo 'The Thief'The ROE admin suggested is simpler and better (without CoD of course).

Control is a sword that cuts in both directions.

If you pull all ships in (those that selected yes in your system) where they are, its pointless for those who are above 4 squares away. They have to waste a lot of time to engage if they can participate in activity at all. There are two very different clocks running in the incident and on OW. Pulling ships where they are are is just a waste of time for those fare away. Thats even worse than battles closing after 2 1/2 minutes.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Sir Loorkon

[Sir Loorkon]

8 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.

A BR limit on OW is a bad idea. Just more battles insta closing? Leaving battles open for the weaker side is a better idea. The BR must be dynamic to get this running.

[Hullabaloo]

1 minute ago, Sir Loorkon said:

They have to waste a lot of time to engage if they can participate in activity at all. There are two very different clocks running in the incident and on OW. Pulling ships where they are are is just a waste of time for those fare away

Yes. But under this idea they at least chose to join (perhaps to avoid being left outside). Or they were in a group in which case they should have had better discipline and been sailing closer together. If they still end up that far way they will not be under the control of an enemy ship and can leave at any time (no timer).

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

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.