The Rules of Engagement

[StuntPotato]

The current rules of engagement on the PvP server is, in my opinion, skewed to heavily towards the aggressor. There is no reason that an AI would need a 20 minute window to get reinforcements. I think that a solution could be that the old 2 minute window, or even 1 minute, is used if the aggressed party is not a player. The only reason I see to reinforce AI is so you can't escape a battle by aggressing AI. This will encourage, instead of punish, players that venture out the reinforcementzone. If you are open world hunting for AI, you simply scan the horizon for hostile players, and if you see noone, you're reasonable safe and can enjoy your morning coffee and AI Battle in peace. For missions, I think there maybe shouldn't be any option to reinforce the AI at all, but the 2 minute window will do there too to prevent escaping into the mission with a hostile player hot on your tail.

Alternatively, all OW battles could be open for the duration of the battle. Then you can at least leverage the social element of the game to get out of a sticky situation or secure a high-value kill.

An in battle ROE hud element (with a mouseover explaining the current rules) telling you if the battle is open, to whom, and for how long, would also be greatly appreciated.

[Angus MacDuff]

14 minutes ago, Wraith said:

If you want to hunt AI with no danger of PvP then go to the PvE server or hunt AI with more BR than you.

The current mechanic is nice because it allows roving players to find fights slightly more frequently. 

ROE should be consistent and easy to understand. 

I agree with you, but im wondering if 20 minutes is too long.  As a OW hunter I think it is great...until im in a fight and want to be left alone, then it's far too long. 5 minutes is a long time in OW.

[HachiRoku]

26 minutes ago, Wraith said:

If you want to hunt AI with no danger of PvP then go to the PvE server or hunt AI with more BR than you.

The current mechanic is nice because it allows roving players to find fights slightly more frequently. 

ROE should be consistent and easy to understand. 

You seem to always want things both ways brother. On the one had you are critical of anything I say to make combat harder for casuals and on the other hand you simply say pve battles should stay open. What if keeping battles open forces a casual to quit the game? You should not always be so selfish. Who do you care about more. The casual frigate group gankers or the casuals that get themselves ganked in pve missions? 

[Teutonic]

The only adjustment I would make to the new RoE is that the attacker, if lower BR, should not get reinforcements.

[AeRoTR]

1 hour ago, StuntPotato said:

An in battle ROE hud element (with a mouseover explaining the current rules) telling you if the battle is open, to whom, and for how long, would also be greatly appreciated.

This is much needed !

 

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

I still dont get why an enemy AI needs to be reinforced. Imo, this new rule should not happen when dealing with AI.

This is for sure !

 

27 minutes ago, Wraith said:

If you want to hunt AI with no danger of PvP then go to the PvE server or hunt AI with more BR than you.

It will be farming casuals and you know it. It is not PVP. Do not underestimate ai firepower when dealing with another player, it is mostly lost battle for the guy attacking the ai when enemy player joins, easy kill for joining player.

 

14 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I agree with you, but im wondering if 20 minutes is too long

that is really long, if reinforcement joins OW time scale converted to real battle instance time scale , and joins that far away it is okay . 5 to 10 minutes timer is better.

[jodgi]

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

I still dont get why an enemy AI needs to be reinforced. Imo, this new rule should not happen when dealing with AI.

I heartily agree! I see no overreaching and long term value of PvP'ers being able to pounce anyone grinding bots outside the 2 min tag window. I kinda hope this is just an oversight because it's possibly the most gank and grief enabling feature we've ever had.

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

If you want to hunt AI with no danger of PvP then go to the PvE server or hunt AI with more BR than you.

Boooooooo! (hiss)

 

44 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

the attacker, if lower BR, should not get reinforcements.

Yes, or else we give an unreasonable amount of power and auto-win abilities to tackler-gank groups. We sacrifice the ability for a trader or little ship to counter-tag and get help, but that is more than ok in my book.

 

[Raekur]

2 hours ago, Intrepido said:

I still dont get why an enemy AI needs to be reinforced. Imo, this new rule should not happen when dealing with AI.

This was due to the constant tactic used by some hunters to avoid combat. I have seen this several times where a lone raider would escape from a hunter fleet by attacking an AI just to get the speed boost once he exited (this was when there was only a 2 min timer for joining)

1 hour ago, Teutonic said:

The only adjustment I would make to the new RoE is that the attacker, if lower BR, should not get reinforcements.

So a raider who is built to only attack traders gets a free ride is what you're saying since the only way to get rid of the raider is with a combination interceptor and warship approach. This suggestion eliminates that possibility completely. Not to mention that from your statement that if the attacker has a higher BR that his buddies can join in. How is this even close to fair?

[Teutonic]

20 minutes ago, Raekur said:

 

So a raider who is built to only attack traders gets a free ride is what you're saying since the only way to get rid of the raider is with a combination interceptor and warship approach. This suggestion eliminates that possibility completely. Not to mention that from your statement that if the attacker has a higher BR that his buddies can join in. How is this even close to fair?

I'm confused on how you took my suggestion and seemed to have run with it to something other than what i meant.

A raider/attacker/ or "the player who initiates the attack."

If they are lower BR than the ship they are attacking they do not get reinforcements, the defender has a higher BR ship and also would not get reinforcements.

If they are higher BR, the attacker does not get reinforcements, but the defender with less BR would be able to get reinforcements.

Both sides still have a 2-3 minute join window (i forget exactly what it is at the moment).

If you want to get rid of a raider you bringer ships that can catch it, you don't bring a heavy slow ship and expect someone to "hold" the enemy for you. Or you setup escorts, or bait tactics or heck do trading together with others to make a large fleet that a lone raider can't contend with.

[Neads O'Tune]

Yes @admin please prevent the attacking side being reinforced if they have a lower BR, by tagging an enemy ship with higher BR then they take the risk involved. Otherwise it is just open to abuse

[StuntPotato]

@Neads O'Tune

what is wrong with combined arms?

Edited March 5, 2019 by StuntPotato

[MassimoSud]

Here is my experience with the new roe:

cry baby srupl attacks me in his fast Endimion (I'm in a Bellona).

He keeps me tagged 20 min in battle, and finally his friend warrioz join the battle in a bellona!.

So I ve been attacked by a ship with less br and at the end I find myself in 2 vs 1 (how a Bellona could join this battle, it certainly went well beyond the br of the battle!).

For the record, after two minutes a Brit Trinco joined the battle (thanks Henry Turner), with the result that warrioz and  srupl both flee from the fight!

Something is not working as intended i suppose!

[Sir Loorkon]

5 minutes ago, MassimoSud said:

Here is my experience with the new roe:

 cry baby srupl attacks me in his fast Endimion (I'm in a Bellona).

He keeps me tagged 20 min in battle, and finally his friend warrioz join the battle in a bellona!.

So I ve been attacked by a ship with less br and at the end I find myself in 2 vs 1 (how a Bellona could join this battle, it certainly went well beyond the br of the battle!).

For the record, after two minutes a Brit Trinco joined the battle (thanks Henry Turner), with the result that warrioz and  srupl both flee from the fight!

 Something is not working as intended i suppose!

You are right. The general idea with open battles on low BR side is good but can be abused. Problem seems that you can not change this to „only the defender side stays open when low BR“ because than you can not defence tag any more. General problem (not only in this game) seems to be human nature: Everything that is possible will be done.

[Angus MacDuff]

4 minutes ago, Sir Loorkon said:

You are right. The general idea with open battles on low BR side is good but can be abused. Problem seems that you can not change this to „only the defender side stays open when low BR“ because than you can not defence tag any more. General problem (not only in this game) seems to be human nature: Everything that is possible will be done.

So the 20 min timer is too long.  We all agree.  put it back to 5.

[Liq]

9 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

So the 20 min timer is too long.  We all agree.  put it back to 5.

Idea is fine, just shouldnt work like it does atm, when you can double the current BR in battle - the way it should work is only let players outside join UNTIL br is even or maybe 1.3x the BR of the other side, certainly not 2x.

[StuntPotato]

On 3/6/2019 at 7:58 PM, Liq said:

Idea is fine, just shouldnt work like it does atm, when you can double the current BR in battle - the way it should work is only let players outside join UNTIL br is even or maybe 1.3x the BR of the other side, certainly not 2x.

Although the current system surely can be tuned, I just don't like it for some reason. It seems uneccesary complex. What was wrong with the simple timer used earlier?

And regardless of timers and systems,  I'd like to see from both outside and inside the battle  how long it is open on each side.

Edited March 8, 2019 by StuntPotato
rephrased sentence

[Zoky]

On 3/6/2019 at 7:58 PM, Liq said:

On 3/6/2019 at 7:47 PM, Angus MacDuff said:

 

Idea is fine, just shouldnt work like it does atm, when you can double the current BR in battle - the way it should work is only let players outside join UNTIL br is even or maybe 1.3x the BR of the other side, certainly not 2x.

I disagree. This new ROE kills any enjoyment in hunting down prey when he can call reinforcements at will. What's the point of OW when every battle is forced to be fair? Why not remove OW completely and make duel rooms? People who want a fair fight have solo patrol zone, while those of us who like to role play as true pirates and hunt for traiders and other weaker prey are screwed. Why should LGV get reinforcements when I attack him in my p frig? Isn't it enough that they can destroy entire cargo with few clicks and thus deny me my loot? Now they can call friends from other side of map to rescue them and thus deny me reward for finding and creating opportunity for myself.