How to make skill matter? - Suggestions

[jodgi]

Since I am an obedient and well behaved kind of a guy...

 

I also suggest interested parties to create a topic in Suggestions and propose ideas on how to make skill more important, answering the question how 1 skilled trincomalee can win against 2-3 other less skilled Captains.

I'll start off by reinforcing what's been said by many elsewhere:

Devastating rakes.

It could be argued that even ridiculously well angled, aimed and timed rakes aren't devastating enough to enable 1 vs 2-3. Things have gotten better with the penalties of low crew. We discussed raking gun loss earlier, that sure would help. I've tried my best with gun loss, but I'm no programmer. I wouldn't know if you could slap a multiplier on balls coming from a given stern sector of a ship, nor if we want that? It could get gamey real fast.

Crew loss penalties could be tweaked too. If your frigate has lost 100 guys and you stay in gunnery focus, maybe we could increase yard speed penalties?

Rudder "shock".

How would increased down time for damaged rudder work? Maybe make damaged rudder due to damage of the actual rudder "blade" take longer to fix than damage to the other parts? I can't tell if this is a good idea, tho.

[Powderhorn]

Each cannon should represent a loss of a handful of crew as well. If a gun is violently dismounted, it will make some number of crew around it combat ineffective.

I would further reduce or remove the rate that cannons are brought back via repairs, as remounting guns is labor intensive, and some gun tubes may be physically damaged.

I would want someone more knowledgeable on cannon remounting to weigh in, however. My only experience with cannons has been more terrestrial in nature.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Each cannon should represent a loss of a handful of crew as well. If a gun is violently dismounted, it will make some number of crew around it combat ineffective.

I would further reduce or remove the rate that cannons are brought back via repairs, as remounting guns is labor intensive, and some gun tubes may be physically damaged.

I would want someone more knowledgeable on cannon remounting to weigh in, however. My only experience with cannons has been more terrestrial in nature.

 

The following discusses realistic results, it does not necessarily make for good gameplay.

 

One did not just "remount" a cannon, especially not in battle.  You'd need to rig tackle to lift it.  Very likely, there would need to be extensive repairs to the mount itself requiring the carpenter and hours of work.  And as you said, this all assumes that the tube itself hasn't been damaged in some way.

 

In game, we do need cannon to come back from the dead to some degree, but I too would like to see greater consequences of a successful rake.  Right now, I still feel like I don't mind getting raked so much - and that's just wrong.

 

So getting past the rake, let's ask ourselves this question:

 

Historically, what happened when more than one inferior ship "caught" a bigger adversary?  What were the tactics employed?  Understanding the "correct" and common tactics of that era in facing a larger enemy with superior numbers might give us better insight into what can be done in game to bring about the answer to the question that Admin is asking.

[Siegfried]

-Disabling Auto Skipper maybe... only manual sails.

 

-Disabling auto turning with 0 sails and 0 speed.

 

My 0.02 cents.

[Schuetzengel]

how 1 skilled trincomalee can win against 2-3 other less skilled Captains.

 

in a somewhat realistic game: it cant as long as the enemy ships are in the same ship tier

in potbs it was mainly possible with the help of magic dps and repair bursts (with short cooldowns) or rageboarding and the enemy still had to be inexperienced by a big margin

 

but since you asked:

 

No autoskipper

No rolling broadside

No hull repair

No turning without the thrust of sails or flowing water past the rudder

Increased gun disabling from rakes

Less HP on the rudder

No shooting broadside arc indicator

No shooting sector indicator for single cannons

No shooting aimbar

[Snoopy]

The only solution that I can see to make skill matter more without disfiguring current combat mechanics is to simply create more 1v1 opportunities rather than awkward attempts to make 1v3 winnable.

Reducing battle entry timers in OW would help. A lobby system where you can see what you are up against would help.

I do not believe in the premise that 1v3 odds should be made winnable as there has to be at least an option for players to protect themselves from dedicated lone wolfs by sailing in convoys.. much like in reality.

[maturin]

Admin clearly asked about how skill can matter more once the battle is already joined.

 

The hypothetical situation was 1 v 3.

 

 

 

Of course, maybe everyone is off topic because people don't have many viable ideas. I certainly don't. Probably the only answer would be to make the game really arcade (stamina bars powering WoW spells and heals) or really harsh and sim-level (requiring excellent planning and energy management to pull off well-timed broadsides while maneuvering hard) with RPG elements in the crew (huge rate of fire and morale disparities).

 

The first two elements are obviously off the table. The third could only work in an essentially SP game with limited pop-in PvP like Dark Souls.

[Ink]

Guys, please, stay on topic! The question of this thread does not include the timer issue, we already have another thread to discuss about it

[Mr. Doran]

Guys, please, stay on topic! The question of this thread does not include the timer issue, we already have another thread to discuss about it

 

It would be off topic if they weren't tied to the exact same issue. Most of us are here to state how futile it is to try to expect any kind of equalizers to allow anyone to fight their way out of these flights of fancy ganks. The root of the issue is the timer. 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Ink
Forum rules, par. 8

[maturin]

 The root of the issue is the timer. 

No it isn't. Timers are irrelevant. 1 v 2 fights will happen with regularity even if battles close instantly. The matter at hand is how to give 1 player a chance against the 2.

 

Admin asked for this thread with the express purpose of separating the issue of timers (and almost everyone agrees with you on this point, seriously). Say it's futile if you want (I did), but don't hijack. If you have nothing to contribute, you refrain from posting. You don't spam.

[Mr. Doran]

No it isn't. Timers are irrelevant. 1 v 2 fights will happen with regularity even if battles close instantly. The matter at hand is how to give 1 player a chance against the 2.

 

I am pretty sure with 3000 to 4000 people on the server 1v2 fights are going to pale in comparison to the 2v6s or bountiful amounts of other ganks that are going to be bound to happen on a daily basis in mass. Sounds like a bit of a defeatist way of trying to figure out how to help someone once they are already boned. What happens in a world where there are not many of these "unskilled captains" and the experienced gankers just use these new found equalizers to finish the job on our "one" in this 1v2, 2v6, etc... to finish the job even faster than before. If someone gets a weapon of mass destruction then everyone else does simultaneously. 

[Magnum]

The historical battles with one vs two and the one winning are very rare - especially if the ships are similarly fitted and sized.

 

The biggest barrier to "making skill matter" I see is the demand on sinking to win ---- very unhistorical.

 

----

 

In reality if a single ship was skilled enough to batter one or even two enemies enough - one or both would surrender, sometimes quite quickly.

[Puchu]

in a 1 vs 2 situation, with the ships being voulnerable 360° now, there is very little way to reduce incoming damage. 

 

Especially vs 2or more players there will allways be 1 of the 2 that has a decent angle towards you, so he can shoot you effectively. Even if you perfectly outplay one, still the other one will mess you up by just simple hull shooting. In the apocalypse days, before the last wipe, we once won a 4 vs 8 (all in santis) (i think it was 8, correct me if im wrong) That was due to the fact that the ships were basically invoulnerable from the front due to how sailmass and cannonballs interacted, due to the crazy power of boarding and due to some other little factors. In the current installment this isnt possible anymore since there is no "invoulnerable" side on the ships anymore and no quick equalizer like rageboarding. You could win a 1vs2 situation by having superior boardingmods aswell, but that has also changed. I like most of the parts of the current system, but winning a 1vs2 situation is basically impossible without implementing some massive quick equalizer, which imo shouldnt be there.  (Or you make the game so complicated with to many options and influencing factors, that only the most skilled players with 4 hands and 4 feet could possibly get all the buttons right and any noob will just sail straight without maneuvering orreloading because the game does nothing by itself)

 

EDIT: Magnum, if we had crewlives that actually matter, then ppl would start surrendering, but since atm the lives of men, sailors officers and your own dont matter at all, there is no surrendering at all.

[akd]

I agree that the root question is somewhat misguided. It almost never happened in reality, and when it did, it was probably down to factors that would be impossible to capture in a game (complex issues of human psychology and morale that lead to opponents surrending despite an advantage in terms of actual combat power), extreme incompetence on the part of the defeated (which is certainly possible in the game currently), or the luck factor (e.g. the lucky cannonball that brings down the mast of one ship, totally crippling her, and turns a 1 v 2 into a 1 v 1) that gamers - particularly competitive, online PvP gamers - cannot tolerate.

[maturin]

 

 

I am pretty sure with 3000 to 4000 people on the server 1v2 fights are going to pale in comparison to the 2v6s or bountiful amounts of other ganks that are going to be bound to happen on a daily basis in mass. Sounds like a bit of a defeatist way of trying to figure out how to help someone once they are already boned. 

Again.

 

We could cut the battle timer to 1 millisecond, and there will still be ganks on a high-population server. Because we have an engagement circle. The gankers just have to sail closer together.

 

Admin asked for ideas to make uneven battles more fun even in this extreme scenario, which is the exact opposite of defeatist. Impossible, maybe.

[Mr. Doran]

Again. 

 

Gankers sailing together in loose or tight formation is the exact reason why we want one minute timers to begin with. With one minute timers uneven fights become avoidable because unless you are in fog or some other thing obstructing your view you will see the Zerg hoard coming your direction and avoid getting into an uneven fight to begin with. The idea of ganking/jumping as a whole is not an entirely negative thing but what is an entirely negative thing is not being able to find or participate in any decent pvp of any size big or small and it being ruined by "lol my battle is 200km to your east go bring the swarm" . With low timers you can adapt to the situation that is presented to you. If you see three people on the OS in a world of one minute timers you know immediately to disengage. The big and small can pick whether to engage or disengage accordingly. This whole topic of making it fun or possible to "take on" three ships of the same class and caliber who are "lower skilled" because there is a "lack" of equalizers is not the issue. This would not be an "issue" if the timers were simply set to as low as they should be in the first place. I'm sure the person in these uneven fights would prefer to get his teeth kicked in and will have tons of fun compared to being able to fairly access risk on the same level of everyone else regardless of numbers. 

[jodgi]

Again.

What is the reason to keep 5 min. timers?

Why avoid the obvious positives of 1 min. timers?

[Puchu]

Again:

 

All we want is the ability to see what's coming for us. And judge the situation.  

 

You can not judge the situation you are in, with 5 min timers.

 

Let's just try 1 min timers. Reduce the map to the lower antillies, for 3 weeks and try different timers, 30 minutes, 5 minutes and 1 minute. each for one week and see how it turns out. 

[Magnum]

OnE idea to test is limiting the battle size and timer based on the original tag:

 

A brig tags a smuggler AI Tsnow - battle closed - they fight it out. No gankers in Trincs coming upon it and joining the Tsnow

 

Same brig attacks a player in a cutter - battle stays open till BR equalizes (or 10 min whichever is first).

 

Same brig attacks a Navy Brig - battle closes, Navy Brig needs to figure it out

 

----

 

You know, if it's not to much programming ........

[Mr. Doran]

OnE idea to test is limiting the battle size and timer based on the original tag:

 

A brig tags a smuggler AI Tsnow - battle closed - they fight it out. No gankers in Trincs coming upon it and joining the Tsnow

 

Same brig attacks a player in a cutter - battle stays open till BR equalizes (or 10 min whichever is first).

 

Same brig attacks a Navy Brig - battle closes, Navy Brig needs to figure it out

 

----

 

You know, if it's not to much programming ........

 

BR equalization has been talked about extensively in the past.... I personally think that even this limits groups a bit too much. If you have numbers then great use them but said numbers should not have the attack range of 200+ kilometers. Let risk be decided by what is seen but not what is not there... give us 1 minute timers or put on your ganking pants and start mass recruiting for the 1984 like never ending war human wave style. 

[Prater]

Ya, if you have a group you should be able to use it.  Britain should be able to use its "zerg."  If the population in NA grows several hundred more players, you won't be able to have a battle without a group joining your battle and we will just all have large battles (==might as well drop OW and go back to Sea Trials Arena).  A shorter timer is needed to stop this.

[Xoosch]

in a 1 vs 2 situation, with the ships being voulnerable 360° now, there is very little way to reduce incoming damage. 

 

Especially vs 2or more players there will allways be 1 of the 2 that has a decent angle towards you, so he can shoot you effectively. Even if you perfectly outplay one, still the other one will mess you up by just simple hull shooting. In the apocalypse days, before the last wipe, we once won a 4 vs 8 (all in santis) (i think it was 8, correct me if im wrong) That was due to the fact that the ships were basically invoulnerable from the front due to how sailmass and cannonballs interacted, due to the crazy power of boarding and due to some other little factors. In the current installment this isnt possible anymore since there is no "invoulnerable" side on the ships anymore and no quick equalizer like rageboarding. You could win a 1vs2 situation by having superior boardingmods aswell, but that has also changed. I like most of the parts of the current system, but winning a 1vs2 situation is basically impossible without implementing some massive quick equalizer, which imo shouldnt be there.  (Or you make the game so complicated with to many options and influencing factors, that only the most skilled players with 4 hands and 4 feet could possibly get all the buttons right and any noob will just sail straight without maneuvering orreloading because the game does nothing by itself)

 

EDIT: Magnum, if we had crewlives that actually matter, then ppl would start surrendering, but since atm the lives of men, sailors officers and your own dont matter at all, there is no surrendering at all.

 

Once Officiers are implemented they should be costly and it should be possible to keep them if you surrender. If you fight to the end and sink the expensive chaps are gone. So here where a reason to surrender. On the other hand the adversary should be asked if the accepts the surrender. So if someone waits to long with his surrender, the other player could refuse the surrender and still sink him.

[Barhidious]

Sort of a gamey approach to it, but it could help compensate and allow for allowing skilled players fight outnumbered.

There could be a debuff applied to he vessels when they're fighting out numbered. It could be sort of justified by saying the men are cocky going into battle. It would have to be small, like 10% reload speed or something like that. But enough that could allow for skill to have an additional chance.

The other option would be, as someone suggested disable a lot of visual guides people get. But that would make it a lot harder for new players, and really wouldn't make it more skill based. i think it would just make it more about memorization, or will make a lot of people turn to external programs to replicate what was already in game.

[admin]

lets stop talking about timers for a while

 

what else besides the timers?

[Powderhorn]

I think ships have to be able to sink from raking fire. (If memory serves, that was done away with and never came back.) I'd say to treat bow and stern armor the same as broadside armor - if it's gone, you start taking on water.

This would allow a skilled player to eat broadsides on flanks while knocking people out via sterns. With one repair, a player would have to successfully stern rake 6 times to take out three ships - tough, but possible.