Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 We need a nations balance system that really works, not the crew system that have no effects... And we also need at least a relative comparation between nations, something like "current players in nations: 4 british for each player from the other nations" If the devs dont want to pay attention to such issue the game will be always the same, everyone against british+usa/holland or it wont be balance. tirelessly i will try to explain to you that "number of players" has no direct impact on "number of active players in RVR". a large nation with lots of ports will always draw players that dont care about RVR but want the relative peace and security. British nation probably has more active RVR players then Spain, i give you that. But the margin is a lot smaller than you seem to believe (or are willing to acknowledge)
CeltiberoCaesar Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) "current player" doesnt mean something like player playing right now? Then every nation will have a similar % of playing in RvR...but I will tell you more, that doesnt change anything, players gathering resources have a similar impact on the RvsR outcome. The issue still there no matter what reasons you bring, if there is a difference between players, no matter what they do ingame, there is an inbalance between nations... And thats why Swedish switch faction, to balance the game... What is very honorable and, IMO, the wiser decision a faction has made in order to improve the game itself. Edited September 2, 2016 by CeltiberoCaesar
Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) "current player" doesnt mean something like player playing right now? you seek balance in RVR (Port battles and conquest). if a larger percentage of players from 1 nation doesnt participate in that but enjoy other ways to play the game the total number of current players in the game is no ondicator for the balance you seek. in a smaller nation it is more difficult and dangerous to play as what some people refer to as a "carebear". therfor people that dont want to participate in RVR gravitate towards nations with more ports and a perceived security. in the british nation there is a very large community of players that dont participate in RVR. the overall number of current players therefor is no indicator for british strenght in RVR. e.g. Danmark norway can muster at least 1 full PB fleet made out of players from 2-3 very dedicated RVR clans. the british nation very rarely can muster more than 1 full fleet either. there can be 1 Million current players casting there votes in politics. if only 25-30 of the players online in a specific timezone are willing to participate in a PB fleet or screening the rest of the players simply dont matter that much when it comes to the balance you seek. (the only impact they might have is collecting ressources and putting them on the market. they use up ressources as well to craft ships for the non RVR community. ) Edited September 2, 2016 by Chimera
CeltiberoCaesar Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 That just false, but anyways... You dont want to accept in public you not only abbuse of that superiority but you also abuse of your 24/7 capacity.
Twig Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 I just want to clarify I will attack any sverige ship from now on whenever I can and I will never support any sverige ship. Furthermore I will try to join every enemy side to fight them and I recommend every british player to never vote them as allies since you can't trust them anymore. Nah, dont be that way, at some point I am sure that we find together. You can (and should) attack us - We will handle the things that way too. But to say that you can't trust us seems not right. 2
Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 what is that just false? i havent seen more than 2 full fleets out in port concquest in british nation ever. and i have ammassed 1200+ hours of gametime in this nation. if you attack jamaica you will see 100 SOL defending but thats the only part of the carribean a lot of players in british nation care about. our 24 hour capability is a strenght i give you that, but in no way it is an "abuse". thats just plain and simple BS
Guest Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 you seek balance in RVR (Port battles and conquest). if a larger percentage of players from 1 nation doesnt participate in that but enjoy other ways to play the game the total number of current players in the game is no ondicator for the balance you seek. in a smaller nation it is more difficult and dangerous to play as what some people refer to as a "carebear". therfor people that dont want to participate in RVR gravitate towards nations with more ports and a perceived security. in the british nation there is a very large community of players that dont participate in RVR. the overall number of current players therefor is no indicator for british strenght in RVR. e.g. Danmark norway can muster at least 1 full PB fleet made out of players from 2-3 very dedicated RVR clans. the british nation very rarely can muster more than 1 full fleet either. there can be 1 Million current players casting there votes in politics. if only 25-30 of the players online in a specific timezone are willing to participate in a PB fleet or screening the rest of the players simply dont matter that much when it comes to the balance you seek. (the only impact they might have is collecting ressources and putting them on the market. they use up ressources as well to craft ships for the non RVR community. ) Not only are we told that 'timers are fine' by the only nation that has the playerbase to fight 24/7, but now we're told that RvR is imbalanced because "we have so many safe ports and carebears that wont fight" while most carebears in the smaller nations have had to either quit or adapt because RvR has been a matter of survival rather than "Oh, we just can't be bothered with it". Do you see why it's not particularly convincing?
Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) Not only are we told that 'timers are fine' by the only nation that has the playerbase to fight 24/7, but now we're told that RvR is imbalanced because "we have so many safe ports and carebears that wont fight" while most carebears in the smaller nations have had to either quit or adapt because RvR has been a matter of survival rather than "Oh, we just can't be bothered with it". Do you see why it's not particularly convincing? show me were i said it was imbalanced all im saying is: you look at the numbers of votes in politics and make assumptions i dont share Btw: i am toatally fine with sweden switching to the other side. i would like to see alliances be a much more dynamic thing. right now: voting once seems like enough for ever. i would also like wars to have a defined ending. i believe that would take some emotions out of it if you new at some point: "war is over, cards reshuffled, lets go again" Edited September 2, 2016 by Chimera
Guest Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) Simply seemed implied since you equated what the Brits and the Danes could field, which by a pure numbers' game (3 nations fighting 4) would've favoured the Danes. Just seems in poor taste to compare nations' RvR ability when one has a large 'carebear' community and the other doesn't even have that as an option. For the diplomacy to start shuffling I think that wins or losses have to feel merited. Even if the losses would've been inevitable in time, it took a long time for the Swedes to ever cooperate with the Danes after Black Friday, and the same will go for the French and the Dutch after being pushed to Martinique, and now the Spaniards and the Brits. Gaming the mechanics to their fullest extent will hardly ever allow for the closure a war to shuffle the deck. Edited September 2, 2016 by Guest
Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Simply seemed implied since you equated what the Brits and the Danes could field, which by a pure numbers' game (3 nations fighting 4) would've favoured the Danes. Just seems in poor taste to compare nations' RvR ability when one has a large 'carebear' community and the other doesn't even have that as an option. For the diplomacy to start shuffling I think that wins or losses have to feel merited. Even if the losses would've been inevitable in time, it took a long time for the Swedes to ever cooperate with the Danes after Black Friday, and the same will go for the French and the Dutch after being pushed to Martinique, and now the Spaniards and the Brits. Gaming the mechanics to their fullest extent will hardly ever allow for the closure a war to shuffle the deck. And how do you wNt to resolve that? Smack our carebears to even it out? From an RVR perspective it's not as imbalanced as you want to make believe.
CeltiberoCaesar Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) Boost small nations while big ones are penalized... In anyway. From a RvR perspective its imbalanced... But its not good for you to admit it. Having 3x players farming give you 3x materials and crafters... It so easy to get that I feel like a fool trying to explain it... Edited September 2, 2016 by CeltiberoCaesar 1
Eishen Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Boost small nations while big ones are penalized... In anyway. From a RvR perspective its imbalanced... But its not good for you to admit it. Having 3x players farming give you 3x materials and crafters... It so easy to get that I feel like a fool trying to explain it... Penalize any faction only for being numerous does not seem a good way to go... on the other hand for playability we need mechanics who help lower the impact of pure raw numbers in results. Up to now the only one example that comes to my mind is the 25 player limitation to a single PB. Limiting the number of ports that can be attacked at the same time could be an equalizing tool , I hope that when the new region conquest hits the number of regions of the same that can be put at stake is limited to only one by each enemy faction. Penalties to big numbers of ports are implicit somehow in the limited number of outpost available but i am sure some other method could be devised to add trouble to overextended factions.
Gooneybird Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 That just false, but anyways... You dont want to accept in public you not only abbuse of that superiority but you also abuse of your 24/7 capacity. Abuse of numbers and timezone capability.... We could ridicule this but we won't, there is no need.
CeltiberoCaesar Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) Penalize any faction only for being numerous does not seem a good way to go...why do you think that? Penelize doesnt mean make it unplayable but make it harder in comparison with small ones, a big boost on the small nations and remove the penalization to the big one will have the same effect... i suggested a lot of things on the proper section and I didnt get any answer from devs though. on the other hand for playability we need mechanics who help lower the impact of pure raw numbers in results. thats the aim of the measures of boosting small nations. Edited September 2, 2016 by CeltiberoCaesar
Eishen Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 why do you think that? Penelize doesnt mean make it unplayable but make it harder in comparison with small ones, a big boost on the small nations and remove the penalization to the big one will have the same effect... i suggested a lot of things on the proper section and I didnt get any answer from devs though. thats the aim of the measures of boosting small nations. Because arbitrary penalization is orthopedic and far from elegant, making number advantage not being a great deal on the other hand (hopely) should have the same effect without ruling against (or on advantage of) no one in particular..... Limiting battle participant and concurrent battles are two examples of this. Making crew limited by nation (as it was suggested initially) should heklp too Really would like to see those propositions you made (will try to find those)
Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Making Crew Limited is the worst option I think. "Oh great a can't play... Somebody else has used all the crew" Sounds like an awesome mechanic
Hethwill, the Red Duke Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Making Crew Limited is the worst option I think. "Oh great a can't play... Somebody else has used all the crew" Sounds like an awesome mechanic Doesn't work like that. The allowance is calculate per player basis. So any player can't take more than its due and every single captain in a nation would have the same amount.
Kloothommel Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Abuse of numbers and timezone capability.... We could ridicule this but we won't, there is no need. The reply I want to give to this... I won't, because 2
Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Doesn't work like that. The allowance is calculate per player basis. So any player can't take more than its due and every single captain in a nation would have the same amount. And if I sink I can't play anymore while a Spanish captain that sinks, goes back to port and merrily plays on? Don't think that will make a lot of players happy
Guest Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 And how do you wNt to resolve that? Smack our carebears to even it out? From an RVR perspective it's not as imbalanced as you want to make believe. Simple RvR balance doesn't mean jack when prowess is inflated by the use of anti-PvP timers, buying flags to block friendly ports e.t.c. - if it had been about straight-up fights it would've been easier to gauge the balance and we'd might never have switched sides at all, but since that hasn't been the case, well... It's a vicious cycle, because using these methods leads to more EU timezone enemies to counteract it (due to the lack of US/AUS players), which leads to facing even more of a challenge and making even more use of these methods. Eventually it might lead to each half of the server dominating its separate timezones, effectively killing their own RvR scene just as the US/AUS players have already done. The best thing had been if we could've fought against the US/AUS timezone players to reactivate that scene and bring some balance and activity to both, but can't do that without having that playerbase. And given how it was first dominated by pirates and now by the US/GB, they if anything seem obsessed with winning rather than anything else.
Nikodemus Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 I think the best way to go is as a faction gets smaller (less Ports) the ports get harder to take. More towers or what ever. So spain right now may have like 7 towers in there ports where Brits would have 1 or 2. 2
Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 I like the idea of an upkeep. The further a port is from you honearea the more upkeep you have to pay as a nation to keep control. If you don't pay enough the port falls into unrest and at some point it will become neutral. 3
Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) so much for being a zerg: 11 british captains made the daunting 30minute sail from jamaica to defend serrenna a shallow water port where all you need is a 30.000 gold ship.maybe the imbalance bullshit will stop sometimes 0/ to the spanish captains for an entertaining little fight :-) Edited September 2, 2016 by Chimera
Hethwill, the Red Duke Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 And if I sink I can't play anymore while a Spanish captain that sinks, goes back to port and merrily plays on? Don't think that will make a lot of players happy Not saying I agree or not, was just pointing out the attrition mechanics behind population balance. A large population nation can zerg and work of hostility levels in multiple regions while a smaller one has to focus more. A larger nation has large player reserves while a smaller one has more crew reserves. There's a lot of similar mechanics in asymmetrical wargames, especially regarding guerrilla warfare.
Chimera Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Not saying I agree or not, was just pointing out the attrition mechanics behind population balance. A large population nation can zerg and work of hostility levels in multiple regions while a smaller one has to focus more. A larger nation has large player reserves while a smaller one has more crew reserves. There's a lot of similar mechanics in asymmetrical wargames, especially regarding guerrilla warfare. not saying i wouldnt support a mechanism that helps to even out economics. just getting tired of the 30% of the server are brits when its used as an argument for RVR imbalance. there can only be 25 players in a given battle and or 3000 player votes cant even muster that to defend a port in our home waters at times. just saying: the perceifed imbalance that some players are moaning about isnt nearly as bad as they think
Recommended Posts