Fargo

EvE graph seems wrong. http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

No, people used Surprises for month. Whats the point then to use Indef or trinc over Connie, or Frigate over Pirate Frigate?! Maybe they buffed those ships, equaling out turnrate in addition?! Reno is a worse ship even in teak compared with a fir surprise. Why dont just give all ships same base speed for maximum "variety"?! Thats nonesense, so is speedcap. Its not variety if all those "different" ships are speedcapped, build in the same way and have similar specs. How much decisionmaking is involved here?! Speed grants some control in OW and battle besides beeing a combat stat and is always going to be important, but it must never control the fight. And thats exactly what speedcap does, pushing the value of speed to extremes. We should do the opposite and try to reduce the meaning of speed. If you cant fully repair inside a battle, speed wont lets you escape when you messed up. If slower ships can intercept you, speed looses value. If smaller ships are by default faster than larger ships, speed looses meaning. Speed is not that great anymore once youre in an actual fight. Since your fastest connie is going to be catched by fast smaller vessels and outruns all other 4th rates nevertheless, there is no need anymore to go for max speed. Then balancing is possible. Variety is achieved when people start to make decisions how much speed they need at cost of manouverability or firepower. Brainlessly maxing out speed has nothing to do with this. 63 wood combinations, dozens of upgrades and skills. Assume those would be balanced, do you realise that it makes 99% of this redundant?! I can just point out the obvious again. OW PvP is not working when ships are all the same speed and enemies have to agree to fight each other.

It was a pure surprise meta after the cap... I dont know the current situation, but thats hard to believe reading about speedcapped Wasas. If something improved then because they nerved speed boni and increased the speedcap -> made the speedcap less important.

Please dont start this disussion again. Equaling out conditions has absolutely nothing to do with variety. Variety is a result of balanced options. Speedcap simply reduces these options?! Balance ships, frames and planks if you want more variety. And reduce the OPness of speed, in the first place by removing this magical cap granting sanctity, messing up all general ship balancing. Youre not only lacking an explanation how exactly this should lead to more variety, reality proved that its not working.

How do they know they are. If they are its still a risk that they dont have to take. Well, balance frames and planks?!^^ Most importantly nerv escaping: Remove speedcap. Remove defensive tagging. Restrict repairs. Allow ships to intercept an close enemy. Nerv 100% accurate chasers. Control as a default mechanic. It should be obvious that open world PvP cannot work when ships are not able to force each other into battle. Besides that this all is simple, logical and fair. Its neglectable how battles are fought, its important that they are fought.

On paper its a fair fight, but if these ships are fir they are exponentially weaker than any teak ship. Fir is heavily imbalanced, its not a fair payoff of hullstrenght for speed even if you define speed as extremely valuable. Such ships are made for escaping, what game mechanics allow and support. Thats ganking. Reducing rewards isnt fixing any of those issues...

All true, but i dont get the point :s

When there is a 3v1 situation, no admiralty would tell you to engage one by one or to ignore the target because the fight is not fair. This doesnt mean that you should run from a 3v4.

Gold is also given to you by the admiralty... Yes it makes sense for a reputation system, but PvP marks dont represent that. Usually you cant sell your reputation for millions and its gone then, its a reward. In terms of rewards the admiralty would never promote high risk, but to keep losses as low as possible.

Why not just fix the cause of the problem instead?! Unfair battles are no problem at all. Its a viable tactic to outnumber an enemy and wouldnt effect youre rewards, its not plausible that youre nation pomotes maximum risk. When PvP marks are a problem this should be addressed. When people surrender/give you their ship to deny PvP marks, something seems to be seriously broken. For a proper reputation system it might actually make sense to reward heroism, but not for current marks that directly can be converted into gold.

Ganking has nothing to do with unfair fights. The OW is not supposed and not able to work as a matchmaking system, no matter if we like fairness or not. The problem is not that players pick weaker targets, the problem is that these dont stand together and fight back. That people are allowed to avoid battles and only pick weak targets is the major cause of the problem. Thats not an opinion, but simple logic.

Economy actually plays an important role, because it gives trading and conquest a meaning, therefore motivates related PvP. But every single change since wipe from capturable ships to safezones contradicts a meaningful economy. Nothing against PvE content, but its seperate. We dont need an OW for this. Imagine they would add PvE content and PBs to NA legends, whats the point to play NA then?! Sailing out with meaningless cheap ships just to fight for no reason?! Thats just a very bad matchmaking system. Progress in NA is so fast that its not motivating either, a joke compared with similar but very successful games. Meaningful gameplay, thats what NA is totally missing. All NA really needs is a dynamic OW from economy to conquest, not specific content. PvP is whatever players do with this. The whole talk PvP content vs PvE content makes no sense. PvP means playing the game, and "PvP server" is just the not PvP restricted server. Escorting an important trader and nothing happens, thats sandbox gameplay. People just searching for PvP 24/7 in most cases are going to play legends, unless they are RPing.

Well, you always have to care what you pay for. Read through the steam description and you wont find a single word about PvE. It is very clear that this game focusses on player interaction. PvE is a feature, not ment to give you a PvE only experience. Sure it would be nice to have better and more challenging PvE content, but its not necessary for a functional OW, and it might be lots of work to develop required AI for example. PvE players often dont understand that OW is supposed to be a dynamic system, from economy to RvR. Why not give PvP focussed players the opportunity to do PvP somewhere somehow?! Because its not working like this. Im not saying i support latest changes mostly contradicting an dynamic OW aswell, but in general you cant argue that way. PvE is a feature, PvP means playing the game as intended. PvE only isnt working for an economy relying on ships sinking. Its not working for the PvE player that is saturated of everything at some point. That youre expectations are low and you simple enjoy sailing large ships is fine, but the average player is going to expect more.

If anything you guys are selfish trying to restrict everyone just in favour of your personal niche playstyle. Nobody wants to restrict your PvE gameplay, you can do whatever you want. That you feel restricted without noob protection isnt other peoples problem. So please stop talking about toleranz. Its ridiculous how you guys avoid all argumentation. How dare you to claim that rising numbers would prove anything regarding safezones. How can you u ignore that there were thousands of players enjoying NA without anything like that? I guess that these left is evidence that safezones are necessary too?! When you cant explain why that is, its highly unlikely to be true. "The game will die without safezones", thats basically youre whole "argumentation". NA is supposed to provide a dynamic world and maximum freedom. If anyone would care about logic, safe zones would never have come up as an idea. If protection of new players is necessary, what should require evidence, keeping battles open for the defender would only be one much more reasonable option, atleast leading to player interaction. @Landsman You both should get a way from this PvE vs PvP point of view. The average player is a healthy mix of everything. PvP server is a misleading name, its just the normal, not PvP restricted, server. People expect more than specific PvP or PvE content. Its a big difference to sink someone for fun, or to protect an important trader, to weaken an enemy nation, to distract the enemy for tactical purposes, to keep your waters safe, to collect a bounty, etc.

Because its a sandbox that is by definition supposed to focus on player freedom and immersion. Your artificial safety is a restriction for other players, reducing their possibilities and everyones immersion. We dont have to tell you why you shouldnt be safe, you have to tell us why it makes sense at cost of player freedom, realism and immersion. I can understand that some people are happy just enjoying to sail their big ships, but this game is supposed to offer more and the average player expects more. You should respect that. Note that when there were not even forts, max rank took month, and a trinc was a huge ship, we had 1-2k average online and 2 EU servers were necessary. You can do so much PvE how you want. You can do whatever you want, but so can other players! Nobody forces you to actively participate in PvP or RvR. Im fully on your side when you criticise enemy ships spawning right next to you that you couldnt even see behind the horizon when you started your mission, or similar nonesense, but artificial safety is nonesense aswell. Otherwise nobody forces you to play a game you hate. You dont get into a sandbox game and then complain about player freedom, thats either stupid or very cheeky.

Contracts are used to trade for profit, not just to buy what you need. Buying from EU traders would be the very last option when gold would mean something. Devs gave up on that, the eco part even got deleted from the steam description already. Just look how every change is working against economy: Capturable ships, ships for marks, reduced ship cost and suddenly 100% increased income resulting in massive inflation. Safe zones and easy escapes result in less ships sinking/less demand. Labour contracts for marks. Buffed npc trading resource margins. And recently BR restrictions limiting the use of firstrates. People are not only earning way too much, they are restricted to use/sink all those meaningless resources. Originally we only had 5 contracts btw.

Sure?! How weird would it be to be outrun by a reno in battle sails. My speed fitted teak Essex does 13,4 kn or so. Funny how things are able to reach a next lvl of stupidity again and again. Exposing crew would be reasonable to make it a more tactical decision to repair within a fight, but that alone is not preventing easy escapes and boring chases.

Nobody talks about no crewdamage. In the past e.g. there was no crew repair and you had to do more damage to an enemy. I could still fight back against multiple smaller ships, while those were able to efficiently rake me down if i mess up. On the other side penetration was way more realistic (powerful) back then, and shiphandling different. Just a question of balancing. Arent you always arguing for skill? This is what makes skill matter. Penetration is provably way too low if supposed to be realistic (Historical gunnery - Realistic ballistics and cannon performance of the period.), while accuracy is way too high. I do think this should change, and frigates shouldnt be able to tank such heavy guns so easily. I would prefer cannons to feel powerful as they were, because thats immersive. In reality a frigate so close to a lineship would also face lots of musket fire, this could be implemented atleast by numbers without visual effects and anything. Difference in height would result in very difficult boarding. Atleast a lone frigate should have a much harder time against a lineship.

If they dont think about something while doing changes, its economy... They said they changed repairs to give lone players better chances against groups, dont remember the exact words. For the same reason they changed chaser accuracy, and probably dont care about defensive tagging too much. Surprisingly all this effects the aggressor aswell. That a group profits more from repairs is simple math. Slightly increasing chances to escape for the lone guy, at cost of heavily decreasing his chances to win an actual fight?! Also heavily reducing chances for hunters hunting the hunters to catch those. Less friendly ships around results in increased risk for the lone guy. I dont get that if a change is a maximum failure, why it not simply gets reverted back. As pointed out already, number of repairs isnt that important, it just needs conditions besides the crew it uses. If you had to use battle sails until you repaired, lets say for 20 seconds, they might have catched you. If there also was a cap at lets say 80% sail, they would have gotten your for sure. Something like this should be the way to go.

Why would i ever balance this with a magic surgeon, instead of balancing crew damage that cant be realistic nevertheless?!

I think its fun to have rum as a surgeon recource, but the surgeon should work differently. Crew should be restored constantly, slowly, and never up to 100%. Affected by skills etc (slightly!) increasing efficiency, or the skill of the surgeon to fix heavier injured crew. If someone gets a massive hit on your crew, this should have concequences. If raking is OP, its not task of the surgeon to balance this! Lets say each 3rd injured crew remains desabled, and 50% of those die. You still would be able to stabilize over time, and back in the OW your surgeon would continue to fix half of the heavy injured people. The magic option to restore crew on OW could be removed, you would always restore 75% of crew losses back in the OW within a certain time. But thats just an optional idea for more plausibility and depth.

Du hast grundlegend recht mit allem, aber selbst wenn es reine PvP-Fraktionen geben würde, denen brauchst du nicht die Schuld geben. Richte dich an die Devs die keine Ahnung haben wie dieses Spiel funktionieren muss, dass Wirtschaft wichtig ist, etc. Devs haben immer alles gleich um 100%, von einem ins andere Extrem geändert und daraufhin nie wieder in Frage gestellt. Wenn NA ein richtig gutes Spiel werden will, muss es ein funktionierendes Ökosystem simulieren. Das erfordert ausgefeilte Mechaniken und enorm viel Balancing, woran über Jahre einfach 0 gearbeitet wurde. Jeder andere Entwickler würde sich Experten suchen wenn er selbst keiner ist, hier wird sich stattdessen blind auf die Community verlassen, der noch nichtmal eine konkrete Zielvorgabe oder ein Konzept vorgelegt wird. Diskussionen sind nie zielgerichtet und enden meist mit Seiten über Seiten voll mit unterschiedlichsten meist unbegründeten Meinungen. Dass Menschen alles einfach und sofort wollen (egal ob PvP oder PvE fokussiert) ist halt so, man denkt nicht soweit dass letztendlich der eigene Spielspaß auf der Strecke bleibt. Balancing für Einkommen und Kosten, Erfahrung und so weiter muss auf Daten und Statistiken beruhen, egal was die Community will. Details und Zielvorstellungen können diskutiert werden, aber nicht die Zahlen selbst. Es fragt dich auch keiner wieviel Steuern du zahlen willst, oder was du gerne verdienen würdest, weil es nicht funktioniert. Wirtschaft hat nichts mit PvE zu tun. Wirtschaft basiert darauf dass PvP/RvR genug Nachfrage generiert. RvR und PvP ist zumindest in der Theorie von Wirtschaft motiviert. Auch als PvP fokussierter Spieler würdest du den Markt und deine LHs nutzen, was nichtmal den Besitz eines Handelsschiffes erfordert (Ein funktionierender Mark bedeutet, dass du nichts selbst produzieren musst). Als Händler und Crafter bist du auf Nachfrage angewiesen, als Jäger in der OW willst du bedeutungsvolle Ziele. PvPler sollten sich nicht weniger um eine funktionierende Wirtschaft kümmern als Händler, aber versuch das mal jemandem klar zu machen. "PvP-Server" ist einfach eine schlechte Bezeichnung für den normalen Server. Der durchschnittliche NA Spieler will nicht irgendwo PvE oder PvP machen oder handeln weil er grade Lust darauf hat, er will eine dynamische Welt erleben in der er selbst und sein Handeln eine Bedeutung hat. Selbstversorgung, PvP Zone hier, PvE zone da, hier noch ein paar bedeutungslose NPC recourcen zum Handeln, das ist nicht das Gleiche.

But realism is a major point against it. Youre saying it, repairs favour (gank) groups. They take away all your chances against a team of 3 smaller ships barely knowing what they are doing. Sure you can try to focus on a mast after a repair, etc. But youre in the defensive spot, you have to avoid rakes, you are constantly slowed down. With previous repairs they atleast had to disengage when they took too much hull damage, you had a chance to win that fight. What has teamplay to do with repairs, you would always try to spread damage and cover wounded ships?! Im also not arguing to remove repairs completely. Why should people use more fast ships when speed becomes less important?! Full tank ships still get raked down and are easy prey in the OW?! Yes restricted repairs would actually allow a tankier ship to sink a faster ship that cant escape that easy anymore after it messed up raking. But thats a good thing. When youre chasing a guy repairing back from 70 to 100% sail, you have to do so yourself while your sails still were at 90%, then he has the advantage of speed and chasers. With restricted repairs he would not have escaped from you. Alone you dont have a chance to catch a faster ship with chasers repairing back to 100%. Even with multiple ships it depends on the situation, distance etc. Easily repairing back to full speed is what makes speed so powerful. And its not the task of repairs to balance broken upgrades, demasting, how fast ships are sinking, or other stuff.

Sure, just that some people might have to use less powerful/worse ships than others. I guess people still want to use the largest ship possible. Why should i decide to sail a frigate in a PB when there is no specific use for it, its just a weaker ship. For the battle it wouldnt matter, but for me it means im less important, i sink faster and im likely to earn less rewards.

@rediii You cant call it skill to turn away, hit repair and wait. Repairs have 0 conditions that would require skill to use it. Repairs can be unlimited, but you must not be allowed to repair back to 100% of anthing. And there have to be serious conditions restricting the use of repairs. I often proposed to make repairs only possible in battle sails, there are probably further options. Such examples arent important, there are enough examples showing how broken repairs can be. Tournament has the goal to sink each other, is not representing OW PvP. Try to explain why current repairs are not totally unrealistic, and how it is reasonable to repair from 10% back to 100%. How they dont allow fast ships to fool around with you. How they dont allow easy escaping even from close range situations, highly promoting gank tactics.