Round Table: Open Sea Engagement Rules

[Fodderboy]

What is a "Round Table" thread?

A Round Table thread is slightly different from other official threads on the Pirates of the Burning Sea forums. They are designed to be a way for us to talk over ideas in a very directed way with you, our players.

Each round table discussion will be open for approximately one week. At the end of the week it will be locked, and then a few days later we'll kick off the next discussion. We might re-visit some topics down the road as things evolve.

Each thread has its own topic. The topic will revolve around either a change we are in the process of planning (i.e. it hasn’t been implemented yet) or a subject that is clearly in the community's mind as reflected in feedback gathered during the previous week.

Round Table threads will be moderated slightly more than normal threads, as we don't want to get off topic. Our aim is to have useful conversations with our players as we work to improve the game.

Disclaimer: Ideas discussed in Round Table threads, even ones we express interest in, may very well never end up in the game.


Round Table 7: Open Sea Engagement Rules

For our 2.9 release we plan to address some issues with the Open Sea (OS) engagement rules. There are two primary issues we want to address – higher level players hitting players much lower in level than themselves (often called “seal clubbing” on this forum) and extremely one sided battles due to numbers (often called “ganking” on this forum).

These issues are subjects that have some passionate debate both internally at FLS and in the game community regarding their impact on PotBS’s overall health. One side defends the need for unrestricted play where players must deal with the consequences of their choices – even if those choices put them in situations where there is no chance of success, the other side defending the need for more fair play by limiting the advantages that can be stacked against other players.

While both positions have their merits, we (FLS) feel free to play has shifted our demographics to a point where the incumbent position is no longer tenable. There are veteran players that have always advocated for a change in FLS’s position regarding these issues. New player feedback would place the two primary issues near the top of the issues list and they undoubtedly have a negative impact on new player retention. For these reasons we are going to address these issues and the subject of this round table will be how we intend to address them and the issues/concerns regarding that implementation.


At this time we already have the following changes working in our internal test builds:

-We have added an absolute level limit to the number of levels a target can be below your own and still be attackable. There is currently no limit to how many levels above your own you may attack.

-We have modified group strength to include player level as well as ship level.

Currently the level limiter is the first check and trumps group strength. It's not an ideal way to approach the issue but it is very effective. Ideally the group strength check should be the only necessary check and this is the direction we are continuing to work toward. If successful we'd still keep the level limiter but make it a subordinate to the group strength check to insure edge cases can still be covered.


-Changes to still be implemented include but are not limited to:

-Reinforcement timers are likely to be reduced.

-The allowed distance between ships contributing to a group’s group strength calculation would be reduced.

-The group strength value needed to begin blockading a port would be raised.

-Blockading fleets would not be able to enter a port for a period of time after the blockading effect has started.

-Leaderboards would be reset in conjunction with OS engagement rule changes.


One issue that has always been brought up in past discussions regarding these types of changes is the concern that limiting the ability to attack lower level characters will allow them to be used as an exploit to move cargo with decreased risk. I see the validity of this concern but feel this is an issue players can address if they feel strongly about it. Players who are deeply concerned about this issue can create/maintain lower leveled alts to deal with the problem directly themselves or can recruit lower leveled players in their nation to engage other low level players. Directly dealing with the issue provides additional and better PvP experiences by keeping contests more even. Recruiting the lower leveled players in nations allows the newer or casual players better opportunities to learn PvP as well as incorporates them to a much greater degree within the RvR efforts of their nation. More fair fights is a positive change overall and the cargo issue can be addressed by player action. Maintaining the status quo has not been proven to have any beneficial effects and increasingly we see less and less reason to maintain it.


What we are seeking in this round table as feedback and would like to see the discussion be about is the following:

If you agree changes like those listed above are needed, what are your concerns regarding their implementation?

If you disagree that changes like those listed above are needed what do you feel would address the two primary issues identified (i.e. “seal clubbing” and “ganking”) that could be implemented without sacrificing the game play you feel needs to be maintained?

One final point before the discussion begins:

We are well aware that there are more factors involved in this discussion than what is mentioned in this post. Their omission is intentional. It is neither practical or necessary for the initial post in each round table to cover every possible issue when we know that players are going to bring the issues up during the discussion. The first post in the discussion is a discussion starter and nothing more. If we feel an issue is being missed we will bring it up it later in the discussion rather than assume players are not aware of it.

We know some of you are very passionate about this subject but please, let's keep the conversation civil. Posts that border on flaming are very likely to be removed so if you have a point, don't lose a long post simply because you had to put that little shot in there to try to insult someone.

[Nestcrow]

I very much like those changes.

Originally Posted by Fodderboy -Reinforcement timers are likely to be reduced.

Is it possible to have dynamic reinforce timers? Generally this is a good idea, but just as it makes ganking harder it also makes evening the odds harder. Imo the best solution would be if the outnumbered side had more time to reinforce, or maybe a call for help skill like the NPC flare.

One issue that has always been brought up in past discussions regarding these types of changes is the concern that limiting the ability to attack lower level characters will allow them to be used as an exploit to move cargo with decreased risk. ...

If you expect people to level up lowbie alts then the XP gain from PvP should be changed. Killing a player should give no XP at all, but it fullfills a bounty mission or gives a turn-in that rewards this XP - so you can keep at low level indefinitely. That said, the total XP reward from PvP could be raised a lot, too, generates more interest from real newbies.
Still, I have a hard time to see this as a big issue. How high exactly is the risk to be caught in a Khan, if you use all skills and mechanic "exploits" (yeah, how's sailing next to NPC pirates to keep your cargo save not an exploit)? Close to zero actually. It takes a lot longer but that's more than balanced by 4 or 5 times the cargo space. Eh, and it's not like you can't use a sloop at level 50 with high end speed and spotting gear.
If it is an issue however, it might be a lot trickier for low pop nations to get lowbie hunters AND a high level fleet together, though.


Some other thing - can't the deathshead be removed? I guess it's in to prevent farming? But it really sucks when you sink someone in a though fight, maybe get sunk yourself and you get nothing just because someone else killed him. Maybe just have it apply to the same player or group that killed you?

[Josh_Brown]

Originally Posted by Fodderboy At this time we already have the following changes working in our internal test builds: -We have added an absolute level limit to the number of levels a target can be below your own and still be attackable. There is currently no limit to how many levels above your own you may attack.

This is a really bad idea unless you're going to put in limits on what low-level characters can carry, and definitely preventing low-level characters creating unrest bundles.

Originally Posted by Fodderboy -We have modified group strength to include player level as well as ship level. Currently the level limiter is the first check and trumps group strength. It's not an ideal way to approach the issue but it is very effective. Ideally the group strength check should be the only necessary check and this is the direction we are continuing to work toward. If successful we'd still keep the level limiter but make it a subordinate to the group strength check to insure edge cases can still be covered.

Hmmm... ok, so kind of see where this is going. I think the group strength check is definitely the way to go, though.

Originally Posted by Fodderboy -Changes to still be implemented include but are not limited to: -Reinforcement timers are likely to be reduced.

The 30s timer or the 2 minute timer? Reducing the 2 minute timer is likely to be counterproductive, preventing friendly reinforcement of for a ganked player. Reducing the 30s timer makes it easier to split groups. Not sure either of these is a help. What would be more useful is a limit on how many ships can reinforce a fight, based on group strength of the ships in the fight already.

Originally Posted by Fodderboy -The allowed distance between ships contributing to a group’s group strength calculation would be reduced.

A good step, this certainly helps with griefing.

Originally Posted by Fodderboy -The group strength value needed to begin blockading a port would be raised.

Ok, not a bad change. Will it apply to patrolling as well? It should.

Originally Posted by Fodderboy -Blockading fleets would not be able to enter a port for a period of time after the blockading effect has started.

An excellent change. Though why shouldn't this apply to patrolling fleets as well? It'll be very easy for higher-pop nations to defend ports just by hit-and-running Blockading groups with some failfit ships, while their Patrol groups can pop into port whenever threatened. It should be a two way street, IMO.

[Ryokan76]

Originally Posted by Fodderboy -Reinforcement timers are likely to be reduced.

Bad idea, IMO, and will only increase ganking - as then it will be easier to split groups, and harder to get to a buddy that got ganked and reinforce. Gankers usually sail in 6-groups anyway, so won't be affected.


I'd say increase the timer.

[DerHuhnTeufel]

I'd like to see a 1 v 1 flag, if possible. It'd basically work just like the pvp flag, but if two 1 v 1 flagged players hit each other, the fight instantly locks 1 v 1 rather than having 30 seconds.

Beyond that, seal clubber prevention and griefer prevention are fine in my book. I think the battle timer is perfect at 3 minutes - any longer and people can sail from halfway across the map to join, any shorter and group members who might be in port would have a hard time joining.

If you want people to have low levels to tag other low levels though, you might consider having an /xp off flag so that you aren't forced to level.

[PaulG]

Will keep it brief for now because 'm getting ready for work: THANKS! Thanks for addressing something that has annoyed me in game for a ever and a day.

[ARobertsFrenchie]

Fodderboy, I've read your entire post but I have not found a single line that would indicate you have anything addressing the typical 4+ 50s vs 1x50 player gankings.

In fact, the only change I can see is yet another buff to ganking (the usual result when you address it, sorry), namely this:
-Reinforcement timers are likely to be reduced.

Just last week I was saved from a gank through reinforcements. Reinforcements usually help the ganked party, the ganker party doesn't rely on a 5th or 6th ship. To them, it's better the battle closes quickly.

So here's my suggestion: PVP initiated fights should being at 1000yards. This would still make it possible to gank with some of the fastest ships in the game, but it would make it impossible to gank with normal speed, high acceleration and high combat strength ships such as sleek hercs.

As for the other things

-Blockading fleets would not be able to enter a port for a period of time after the blockading effect has started.

Blockaders would still have the option of just hitting a third party NPC to remove themselves from the OS the moment they spotted defenders, then click into the port after that fight.

I think if a port is under attack (pirate PVP circle created) by e.g. Britain, British players who are PVP+ should not be allowed to dock at that port at all anymore.


RE: Seal clubbing. I think a "level 40+ targets only" restriction would be a great addition to the game. I'm pretty sure you can see in your stats that the win ratio for level 50s against players 1-39 is somewhere at 99.99% if you don't count draws.

[Capitane Jean]

Would the reduced reinforcment timer have the intended effect of reducing say 1v1 or 2v2 becoming 1v6 or 2v6? Keep in mind that a change like this would hit both ways, if gets harder to participate in a gank, it gets harder for the ganked to get reinforcments.

other than that slight aber, its all simply wonderful changes!

[Kaede_Baq]

The OP's suggestions are well meant, but I doubt FLS have the time and resources to implement these changes. Sorr...

Oh wait...

I like all of these mechanics, actually. And I always thought lowbie alts carrying valuable cargo vs. seal-clubbing was a legitimate compromise. I rather see lowbies never get hit against their will while a 50 in a lowbie alt carrying a ship deed safely through the red, than see lowbies get farmed and I get a free HMC deed. The latter has been so rare it never really made any difference anyway.

The 1vs1 lock should come faster though, while the group timer should take longer.

The blockading group blocked from enterings is a really nice implementation aswell.

I want the level restrict to be at 45 for lvl 50's, 40 for 45, 30 for lvl 40's, 25 for 30's, 15 for 25, and 1 for 15's.

Ganking is a legitimate business today because it is allowed by the game engine. The "no cry in the red" is something I've been preaching to myself for long as recieved by others, but not always how I've acted upon (i.e. I rarely gank nor see the fun in it, but I never mope or QQ if I get ganked, wind stolen, split and etc.). These limits justify their means, imo. I don't think high-sea piracy and unfair advantages are mechanics we really can afford in a game that draws most of its players through even fights, even encounters of at least numbers and cannons. It wouldn't make the red as dangerous anymore, but at least it'd be even. And maybe more populated with people looking for a dusting.

Question around exploits: A khan sails alone in the red, minding his own business. Then a 6 group of pyrates arrive. The Khan feels safe with these new mechanics. But one of the pyrates leave his group, tags the Khan, then his group reinforce. Is this a possible way to circumvent your new mechanics?

[ARobertsFrenchie]

Originally Posted by Sensou.Shichiya Question around Liberty: Me and three mates wants to pew for lulz in Slercs. We see a 6 group of MB's, HMC and Mercys. We might wanna consider kiting around their sterns before charging, and soak up some debuffs and spikes before getting dirty into the pancake. At what distance will the group strength calculate our distance to them? If we start at like 300 yards away from them, I think one of our guys just died alot. Or have I misunderstood and the distance will actually increase if you attack with lower group strength?

What are you even talking about?