Ad-Hoc pvp idea - ship level limits, not 6vs6

[Gustave Molyneux]

Originally Posted by Spinnaker Sam I would think this would lead to the discovery of the best group template that gives you the most ship power and would make you invincible to anything but a similarly constructed group. Then everyone would be forced into this template in order to stand a chance.

Like another poster said... as opposed to the current two template setup for successful group ad-hoc pvp? 6 lvl 50 heavies or 5 level 50 heavies and tackler. If you attack one of the premier pvp societies rolling out in a group like that with anything less, you will not only lose, but be totally dominated. Opening up the option for lesser ships adds numerous possibilities to group combat. Got 9 guys online? Figure out what the best setup you can use to roll with nine guys. Only got 6, well then use the current tactics. I believe there would be more than one or two optimal combinations, and alot of it would depend on the players you've got online to group with, what class they are, and what ships they've got available.

Originally Posted by pokerman69 I agree wholheartedly. I havn't had much pvp experience because of this exact reason. While I can see the other side of the argument, all I can say is something has to change, otherwise, it's going to become a big problem. Experiences I've had were, being the lowest lvl player in a 6v6 high lvl pvp. I was around lvl 26. Our players where more spread out. We had 26, 29, 34, 37, 45, 50. They had, 50, 50, 50, 50, 45, 45. What we did was run for the hills. I was the only one that sunk. It really annoyed me that 4 lvl 50's can just go around and kill everyone with relitive ease. It shouldn't be easy. It's supposed to be a CHALLENGE, something that's not happening now. Well, thats my two-cents worth.

In this particular scenario, your opponent would have been unable to add another ship due to the lvl 15 minimum value of ships. However, your own group could have added another 79 levels worth of ships. Maybe a heavy deliverance and a Stralsund. What went from a 6 man power squad ganking a 6 man average joe group, into a 6 man power squad attacking a larger and varied force. I bet you wouldn't have run if you'd had roughly equal firepower spread over more numbers. It's still entirely possible they dominate you, but at least it'd have been alot more interesting for both sides.

Originally Posted by IrNinjaBob But instead of making it a max of 300 level points, I think that they should give every ship a seperate point value, and have it be a max of 100 points per battle. It would work pretty much the same way as your idea, except then there will actually be a difference between a level 1 ship and a level 15 ship. Because in your example a schooner and a Xebec would nearly be worth the same amount. Here was my post on the other thread:

My reasoning for setting the minimum value is due to limiting battle sizes from getting too crazy (The value of level 15 is just a nice guess, as it rounds to allowing a nice even 20 per side maximum participants) Jamaica sloops going to level 5 now, you could fit 60 of them in an ad-hoc fight without limiting thier value upwards some. That'd probably crash the battle instance server. How about 300 level 1 ships on each side... that'd be ridiculous. By setting a minimum value, you are able to maintain some control over battle size, while still allowing for a ton of variety. Sure a sloop wouldn't be as helpful as a Xebec in most cases, but the difference and penalty for using one in adhoc as opposed to a Xebec is negligible compared to the penalty of using one right now against a heavy deliverance.

Thanks for the various opinions being discussed about the idea. I'm highly in favor of a system like this replacing the current hard cap of 6 vs 6 players. It'd be really awesome to see some of the combinations of ships that get used for pvp. More importantly though... NOBODY gets left out due to ship type (except maybe the atlas bark guys ). EVERY ship will have a viable endgame market (We're you really considering owning a non mastercrafted stralsund at the endgame for any reason? Really? With this change, it's something you'd actually need to consider). Single 6 man groups wouldn't be able to shut down a pvp zone for an entire evening due to thier dominance. The other nation could get try getting together a large group of small quick ships to literally chase them out of the zone. No matter what, there'd always be the ability of fielding a group of ships roughly equal in power to your opponent, no matter your level or ability to afford ships.

[Tjalve]

I partly agree, and partly disagree with this suggestion. Which is no wonder, since I do that with a lot of suggestions :-P

The system the way it is now, is far too restrictive. As the OP said, it basically restricts PvP to groups of 6 lvl 50 players. And that is NOT a good thing.

The suggestion of the OP makes it better. Then the groups will be restricted to 300 ship levels. Meaning that you NEED 300 ship levels in order to be able to PvP. You can probably PvP with 280 ship levels. But you can't PvP if you have only 200 ship levels. And while the players will not HAVE to be lvl 50, low level players will still have a great difficulty finding a group that is willing to accept them.

I would prefer to change the AdHoc battles completely.
The way it is now, every battle is the same size. Or at least limited to the same size. That alone makes it rigid and restricted. And I don't like that.

What I would suggest, is that each battle has it's own sensible limit.
When one player attacks another player, those two will automatically join the battle. Then you take the ship levels of the defending group, add a sensible number such as 25, and that will be the ship level limit of the attackers.

This means that as a solo player, you can effectively PvP. You can be attacked by any one player, irrespective of whether you're in a lvl 1 or lvl 50 ship, and irrespective of their ship level. If you're in a lvl 50 ship, you can be attacked by a total of 75 ship levels, which would probably be quite difficult.

The reason why you should add a number such as 25 to the defender's group, is to prevent a situation where the defenders are 98 levels, and the attackers are all in lvl 50 ships. Then they will only get in one single ship. And in practice, the attackers would ALWAYS have a lower ship level total than the defenders.

Additionally, to prevent other people from messing up your battle, the fight should be limited to the two groups (attacking and defending) for the first 30 seconds of the opening, and the last 30 seconds, anyone should be able to join.

In addition to this, there should be a limit of total ship levels. Such as 150 or 200 ship levels in total.

If part of a group is left outside the battle, and are then attacked themselves, then only the ships outside the original battle should be counted then finding out how big the next battle could be.

With a situation like this, smaller ships would actually be preferred. Or rather, any good group should have at least one or two smaller ships. Firstly, because a full group of high level ships would break the 150 or 200 ship level limit, and thus be not needed. And secondly because a lvl 20 ship or so, could be able to join a battle where a lvl 50 ship would be too big.

With this rule, all battles would be different. You don't know how big it will be. You don't know if your group would be bigger or smaller than the opponent's. It would give an advantage to attacking if you're a big group, since you would be allowed more ship levels than your opponent. Groups of any size, and ships of any level would be useful in PvP.

[Ozzimo]

Im interested to know why people think a lvl 45 player can't take down a lvl 50 player? every argument here has been that all you're fighting is lvl 50s when on my server only 10-20 lvl 50s even exist yet... I'm really asking here...

[Tjalve]

I don't think anyone is saying that a lvl 45 can't take down a lvl 50. But the point is that in a 6vs6 battle, it very often boils down to dps. That is, Damage Per Second. How fast can you cause damage to your opponent, compared to how much Armour and Structure he has.
In a 1-on-1 fight, I'm sure that a lvl 30 could be able to take down a lvl 50. Even though he'd have the odds against him. And the lvl 50 would not be be a very good player if this should happen.

Also, you're saying that on your server only 10-20 lvl 50s exist. I don't know how true that is, nor how populated your server is. But I'm quite certain that on my server, the vast majority of people in port battles would be lvl 50.

[IrNinjaBob]

Originally Posted by Gustave Molyneux My reasoning for setting the minimum value is due to limiting battle sizes from getting too crazy (The value of level 15 is just a nice guess, as it rounds to allowing a nice even 20 per side maximum participants) Jamaica sloops going to level 5 now, you could fit 60 of them in an ad-hoc fight without limiting thier value upwards some. That'd probably crash the battle instance server. How about 300 level 1 ships on each side... that'd be ridiculous. By setting a minimum value, you are able to maintain some control over battle size, while still allowing for a ton of variety. Sure a sloop wouldn't be as helpful as a Xebec in most cases, but the difference and penalty for using one in adhoc as opposed to a Xebec is negligible compared to the penalty of using one right now against a heavy deliverance.

Oh, trust me, I understand why you used your example the way you did, I was just saying a system working with points may be more effiecient.

If you make the lowest level ship worth 5 points, then continue up from there, and make the max 100 points, the most ships you could have would still be 20. But then you could continue to raise better ships by 1 or two points, and make it a little more even.

Where this system would really make a difference would be with the level 50 ships.

with your system a group could have either 6 1st rate SoLs or 6 4th rate SoLs. That isn't really even. The 1st rates would win every time.

If you used a system like mine and made 4th SoL's 25 points, and 1st rate SoL's 30 points, then one group would have 3 1st rates and a smaller ship, or 4 4th rates. This fight would be much more even then the previous one.

What I could see happening with your system is in the end it would come down to whoever has the better level 50 ships would win every time, which in the end isn't better than what we have no.

And another example would be to compare the weakest level 50 ship with the strongest level 50 ship. 6 of the weakest level 50s wouldn't stand a chance against 6 1st rates.

But if they could have 4 or 5 of the weakest level 50's, plus maybe a few smaller ships, against 3 1st rates and a smaller ship, the fight is a lot more even

My point is just that not all ships of the same level are even, and with a point system FLS could determine how much each ship actually should be worth in battle.

[kurtilator]

Ozzimo, if you don't think that a group of 6 high rank ships in a red zone can effectively shut out low level players from fun PvP, then this probably isn't the thread for you. That is the basic premise, right or wrong, for which we wish to find a correction. If you don't see it as a problem, just come out and say so.

Irninjabob, I'd have no problem with FLS assigning points to ships on an individual basis, though I must admit I partial toward a calculated system where ship rank plays a major part, maybe even calculated off straight ship level as Gustave suggests.

[James Blythe]

I only see two, maybe three problems with the solution, altough I like the general idea to make all kind of ships more worthwhile on the open sea.

1) Given the current boarding system, having twice the numbers of your enemy would be a factor to simple to abuse in my eyes. Two low level ships with high level outfittings will take one high level ship. Set up one for a boarder role and the other for the DPS role and the higher level ship will have a hard time coming out of it alive.

2) The different price tags of the would still result in limiting the actual choices for an open sea ship very much. You would not choose ships that might let you use up the 300 points optimally when they costs twice as much as others. So I think it would simply lead to all "pro" groups switch to the most cost efficient setting and still dominate the PVP zones in the same way as now. Except for the fact that loosing a ship will not matter anymore for the effect on your wallet. In the end, I think this change would result in banning all expensive ships from open sea for good, leaving their only purpose to be pulled out for a port battle once in a while only to be reduced to splinters there in a couple of seconds in a worst case scenario.

3) You can smack me if you want, but I expect this chance would shift the balance towards pirates a lot. Since it could make fourth rates upwards simply unreasonable for open sea battles, the free ships would now really come to have much more of an impact in terms of high level ships if nationals could no longer field an ship advantage.

[Mini Marine]

I'm like the idea, but as has been mentioned it does have some flaws. That being said, it is a far better system than is currently in place.

My thought was possibly a 3 ring setup, with the the 2 outer rings having some sort of max tonnage/total ship value setup and the inner ring having a total ship limit.

that way you could engage in diverse battles out on the OS, but right by the port you would need to use just the heavy hitters...sort of a port battle "lite" if you will.

just my 2 cents, i'm still just a noob trying to find my way in this game.

[Gustave Molyneux]

Originally Posted by IrNinjaBob Oh, trust me, I understand why you used your example the way you did, I was just saying a system working with points may be more effiecient. If you make the lowest level ship worth 5 points, then continue up from there, and make the max 100 points, the most ships you could have would still be 20. But then you could continue to raise better ships by 1 or two points, and make it a little more even. Where this system would really make a difference would be with the level 50 ships. with your system a group could have either 6 1st rate SoLs or 6 4th rate SoLs. That isn't really even. The 1st rates would win every time. If you used a system like mine and made 4th SoL's 25 points, and 1st rate SoL's 30 points, then one group would have 3 1st rates and a smaller ship, or 4 4th rates. This fight would be much more even then the previous one. What I could see happening with your system is in the end it would come down to whoever has the better level 50 ships would win every time, which in the end isn't better than what we have no. And another example would be to compare the weakest level 50 ship with the strongest level 50 ship. 6 of the weakest level 50s wouldn't stand a chance against 6 1st rates. But if they could have 4 or 5 of the weakest level 50's, plus maybe a few smaller ships, against 3 1st rates and a smaller ship, the fight is a lot more even My point is just that not all ships of the same level are even, and with a point system FLS could determine how much each ship actually should be worth in battle.

I agree that 1st-3rd Rates would be more powerful, however I disagree with giving them higher point values. Anyone who ponies up the cash and labor to produce those behemoths, and then actually decides to use them in ad-hoc pvp absolutely deserves to have an advantage. They're taking a HUGE risk by bring those ships out there. Heck, if the entire other side simply focused fire and suicided onto the 1-3 rated ship in a fight, even if they all sunk in the process it'd be a very large victory just to bring down one such ship. I see where you're coming from about the disadvantage... but I think they've already paid economically for the advantage of the extra power, they shouldn't be limited by a points system that puts them on a level playing field.

Originally Posted by James Blythe I only see two, maybe three problems with the solution, altough I like the general idea to make all kind of ships more worthwhile on the open sea. 1) Given the current boarding system, having twice the numbers of your enemy would be a factor to simple to abuse in my eyes. Two low level ships with high level outfittings will take one high level ship. Set up one for a boarder role and the other for the DPS role and the higher level ship will have a hard time coming out of it alive. 2) The different price tags of the would still result in limiting the actual choices for an open sea ship very much. You would not choose ships that might let you use up the 300 points optimally when they costs twice as much as others. So I think it would simply lead to all "pro" groups switch to the most cost efficient setting and still dominate the PVP zones in the same way as now. Except for the fact that loosing a ship will not matter anymore for the effect on your wallet. In the end, I think this change would result in banning all expensive ships from open sea for good, leaving their only purpose to be pulled out for a port battle once in a while only to be reduced to splinters there in a couple of seconds in a worst case scenario. 3) You can smack me if you want, but I expect this chance would shift the balance towards pirates a lot. Since it could make fourth rates upwards simply unreasonable for open sea battles, the free ships would now really come to have much more of an impact in terms of high level ships if nationals could no longer field an ship advantage.

1) I see bringing two ships and using one to focus on attempting to board while the other does damage as a pretty darn interesting TACTIC for dealing with a bigger, more powerful ship. I don't look at that as abuse, but as strategy. That'd be the whole point of my idea, to allow for such situations. A MC Lexingtion can't possibly 1 v 1 a Heavy Deliverance in 99% of situations(1% being the Heavy Deliverance player went linkdead or something ).... but a 2 v 1 of MC lexingtons vs a Heavy Deliverance.... now that's a fight.

2) I think your second point FURTHERS the idea of ship tonnage limitations. In this game risk vs. reward dictates what you can afford to fight with. MANY players complain they can't afford to pvp at all because they can't pay for the top end ships required to be competitive with the elite pvp societies. Change adhoc to ship level limits, and suddenly ALL ships are viable now. So even if all you can afford is a cutter, you can use exactly that, and engage in meaningful group ad-hoc pvp. The determination on what ship to use as opposed to what you can afford becomes an actual option. With the current system it's not. If you bring what you can afford to a group fight right now, and what you can afford is less than level 50 ship, you will get crush repeatedly. As for pro groups determining optimal setups, I predict that societies would use many different setups depending on who they have online at any given time. Good pvpers are good pvpers, no matter thier ship. The good fighters will still win more than they lose, at least now there would be variety in how it's done.

3) Pirates would still be limited by 300 levels, even if they can always roll out in bigger captured ships, the nationals can still use the cheaper ships to match them with larger numbers. If Nationals wanted to field 4th rates for ad-hoc they certainly could do so. They just gotta be more careful about what enemy groups to engage. If they fear being zerged by a group of 15 cutters, they'll have to be wary of that. Right now 6 SOLs are dominant. If it becomes where risking them in ad-hoc is too much with the idea of ship level limits in place... well, that's risk vs. reward working perfectly if you ask me

Let's keep it coming, alot of good points being made here for and against. I'm still convinced that ship tonnage by way of level limitations would be the best and easiest to implement solution.

[James Blythe]

Originally Posted by Gustave Molyneux 1) I see bringing two ships and using one to focus on attempting to board while the other does damage as a pretty darn interesting TACTIC for dealing with a bigger, more powerful ship. I don't look at that as abuse, but as strategy. That'd be the whole point of my idea, to allow for such situations. A MC Lexingtion can't possibly 1 v 1 a Heavy Deliverance in 99% of situations(1% being the Heavy Deliverance player went linkdead or something ).... but a 2 v 1 of MC lexingtons vs a Heavy Deliverance.... now that's a fight.

It would not be an abuse if it could not be used as one. But the first player needs only to board the enemy and then play for time and they would have won. Normally, this would be a valid tactic, if there wasn't the safe zone at the beginning of boarding and if it wasn't possible to run around in circles so easily. The other player can kill of the enemy in the meantime by sitting on his stern. Of course, the boarding would still have to succeed first, but a normal ship would not have enough firepower to sink an opponent due to one unsuccessful boarding attempt.
Therefore, the risk in bringing one higher ship instead of two smaller vessel is larger. So I would always pick the two smaller vessels. Two vessels against one also means two skillsets against one. Meaning being affected by skills all the time whereas you can only affect one of the enemies for part of the time.

2) I think your second point FURTHERS the idea of ship tonnage limitations. In this game risk vs. reward dictates what you can afford to fight with. MANY players complain they can't afford to pvp at all because they can't pay for the top end ships required to be competitive with the elite pvp societies. Change adhoc to ship level limits, and suddenly ALL ships are viable now. So even if all you can afford is a cutter, you can use exactly that, and engage in meaningful group ad-hoc pvp. The determination on what ship to use as opposed to what you can afford becomes an actual option. With the current system it's not. If you bring what you can afford to a group fight right now, and what you can afford is less than level 50 ship, you will get crush repeatedly. As for pro groups determining optimal setups, I predict that societies would use many different setups depending on who they have online at any given time. Good pvpers are good pvpers, no matter thier ship. The good fighters will still win more than they lose, at least now there would be variety in how it's done.

While I agree that it would be giving all kind of players the ability to afford PVP, it would in my eyes banish high level and expensive ships from PVP. Why bring a more expensive ship of lets say 40k when the other side can bring two ships of equal or even more firepower for 35k? I assume you would end up seeing whole fleets of Xebecs, Cutters and Stralsunds. All relatively cheap for their firepower or boarding capacities. So the variety would in my eyes only be how many ships of each type would be in the group. But you would from my point of view not see an expensive ship in a group anymore. Better risk loosing cheap cannon fodder than an expensive ship if it gives you no edge at all. So yes, PVP would be open for all but you could delete most high end games ships from the game.

3) Pirates would still be limited by 300 levels, even if they can always roll out in bigger captured ships, the nationals can still use the cheaper ships to match them with larger numbers. If Nationals wanted to field 4th rates for ad-hoc they certainly could do so. They just gotta be more careful about what enemy groups to engage. If they fear being zerged by a group of 15 cutters, they'll have to be wary of that. Right now 6 SOLs are dominant. If it becomes where risking them in ad-hoc is too much with the idea of ship level limits in place... well, that's risk vs. reward working perfectly if you ask me

But now the nationals would always loose. They cannot overpower the pirates anymore and therefore are at the loosing end of the bill all the time. What good is showing up in 6 Sols if the pirates can show up in 10 normal ships at the same time? Nothing, as you risk 6 ships costing money versus no money loss in mere ship value on the pirates side. The better ships and therefore more expensive shps you would field, the worse the ratio would become. It would be a battle the Nationals could no longer win. No ship advantage means the cheaper ships win. You would not even need to outfit the ships anymore. Just throw them at the Nationals and sink half the nationals and you would win sooner or later due to zerg tactic the way I see it.

I really fear that such an implementation would simply be the birth of the lowlevel ship zerg.