Nation Size! Ruining game play?? Hostility needs rework??

[North]

So, here's some  of the problems i see:

 

Hostility raising and lowering: raising hostility toward a enemy that has more players are near impossible.. should it be desided who can do this by the size of the nation?

Lowering hostility against a larger nation also impossible as they outnumber you when it comes to this pve grind that this port battle future has become.

 

Screening fleets: Also here the nation with the largest player base has a huge advantage! should be that if a small nation wants to take a even fight in port battle that they have to try and get through 100+ screeners??? if so then just give the map to the brits or the dutch..

 

Should be allowed to join a port battle anywhere inside the hostilie region, this would make it harder to screen/ more skill based instead of 100+ players sitting on undock.. This would also mean that smaller nation can do port battles and get a fair fight without useing what the brits call exploit witch themself has used several times as at amalieborg, saint nicolas etc etc, but then it was a game mechanic not a exploit??

 

The way the game and the development is going now all the smaller nation are getting killed cause there is no reason to try capture port, this devs can see on there stats.. 

 

Do we want the game to have 6 Nations + Pirates, but only player in 2 of them that are active and get to do port battles or pvp? 

 

the port battle mechanic need serious work to get the smaller nation a fair chance to get this kind of gameplay..

 

 

[Eishen]

This balance problems are quite difficult to tackle, and even to test with current population but you are right it should be taken in account ,

 

   For some hostility balance maybe if the defensive side missions do not count to lower hostility  (so defender would need to really find attackers doing missions) may help balancing -while maintaining quantity own quality-   (and PvP over PvE grind would be promoted for RvR at same time).

 

  The screening against imposible odds was the (perhaps only) bright side of the PB lobby entry proposal... moving entry point away from the port itself would help (a little) and blockading -closing to teleport/respawn- ports in a 100% hostility region would be IMHO a big step on balancing.

[Hagen v Martius]

That's where diplomacy comes into play, IMO.

As much as I dislike the three-way alliance nonsense and the broken voting rounds, the system itself has been working remarkably well. Be it for defense or offense, in basically every contested PB so far there was a merry mix of many of the nations for the screening and sometimes for the PB itself.

 

The PB lowering/raising needs some refinement though, I agree.

Apparently there is an issue where when you kill ships allied to the attacked nation you can't raise hostility, but those Allies by killing the attackers can lower it for the defender. Which needs some looking in to, as in, Allies need to count for region hostility.

[Anolytic]

I think the PvE-grind to gain hostility is too harsh at the moment, and wearing players out. It needs some looking into, though I will try to be patient. But I don't want playing a small nation to be just as easy as playing a large one. I didn't choose Danmark-Norge to play easy mode. I think numbers should give a noticeable advantage, and I don't mind if the odds are stacked for the Brits/Dutch to control a majority of the map if they work for it. Eventually the map will stabilize and we will start fighting for the important regions, flipping them back and forth. But numbers shouldn't be something you can spam to prevent a proper fight, spamming grey ships to preempt skill. That doesn't make for a fun game. 

 

And just to repeat. The issue with PB screening isn't numbers, but the ability to screen from undocking and respawn indefinitely with grey screening ships. There's no realism or tactics in spamming grey fireships just to waste the opponent's time. There's no victory in successfully doing it either. It would be perfectly possible for small nations to accomplish the same if what we cared about was just keeping ports and not fighting for them.

[North]

This balance problems are quite difficult to tackle, and even to test with current population but you are right it should be taken in account ,

 

   For some hostility balance maybe if the defensive side missions do not count to lower hostility  (so defender would need to really find attackers doing missions) may help balancing -while maintaining quantity own quality-   (and PvP over PvE grind would be promoted for RvR at same time).

 

  The screening against imposible odds was the (perhaps only) bright side of the PB lobby entry proposal... moving entry point away from the port itself would help (a little) and blockading -closing to teleport/respawn- ports in a 100% hostility region would be IMHO a big step on balancing.

 

yes it should be impossible to teleport to a port that has 100% hostility witch would help the smaller nations alot and the bigger nations actully have to do some work aswell

[Chimera]

So, here's some of the problems i see:

Hostility raising and lowering: raising hostility toward a enemy that has more players are near impossible.. should it be desided who can do this by the size of the nation?

Lowering hostility against a larger nation also impossible as they outnumber you when it comes to this pve grind that this port battle future has become.

Screening fleets: Also here the nation with the largest player base has a huge advantage! should be that if a small nation wants to take a even fight in port battle that they have to try and get through 100+ screeners??? if so then just give the map to the brits or the dutch..

Should be allowed to join a port battle anywhere inside the hostilie region, this would make it harder to screen/ more skill based instead of 100+ players sitting on undock.. This would also mean that smaller nation can do port battles and get a fair fight without useing what the brits call exploit witch themself has used several times as at amalieborg, saint nicolas etc etc, but then it was a game mechanic not a exploit??

The way the game and the development is going now all the smaller nation are getting killed cause there is no reason to try capture port, this devs can see on there stats..

Do we want the game to have 6 Nations + Pirates, but only player in 2 of them that are active and get to do port battles or pvp?

the port battle mechanic need serious work to get the smaller nation a fair chance to get this kind of gameplay..

Not sure if any of your comaints are actually happening right now.

Britain (obviously the target of your complaint) had less then 20 players working in the windward islands to reduce hostility. The only "Zerg" here is in the clan tag some of us wear ;-)

Britain has tried to raise hostility against Spain in different regions and has never achieved it due to French, Spanish and Swedish ships most of the time outnumbering out activity.

Screening only worked once against France in the beginning. Since then every PB that was slotted actually happened. The most effective attempt to screen actually worked against the Dutch fleet in cumana (i think)

As far as I see this the grand alliance of smaller nations does not have less (in some cases probably more) active captains in the ow.

It is really hard to get a region over 100% atm and I don't think national imbalance really is a factor right now

Edited November 3, 2016 by Chimera

[fox2run]

The system is Hard and time demanding. Please make a system that gives easy access to battles for casual players. As unfair the 5-10 min ROE seemed, it gave us big battles, a lot of fun, and plenty of enemies. Now we have a time-demanding system for clan-nerds with TS. The decline in player-base reflects this.

 

Being in the D-N nation I need to use 2-3 hours to go to the action hot spots.

 

Before when war was all over, I could just set sails and go into the fray. Needless to say, I play other games with more fun in it.

 

Please rebalance so normal guys can play the game.

[Hagen v Martius]

The system is Hard and time demanding. Please make a system that gives easy access to battles for casual players. As unfair the 5-10 min ROE seemed, it gave us big battles, a lot of fun, and plenty of enemies. Now we have a time-demanding system for clan-nerds with TS. The decline in player-base reflects this.

 

Being in the D-N nation I need to use 2-3 hours to go to the action hot spots.

 

Before when war was all over, I could just set sails and go into the fray. Needless to say, I play other games with more fun in it.

 

Please rebalance so normal guys can play the game.

Hat Island, ten minutes sail from CS.

Jamaica, fifteen minutes sail from La Navasse.

 

Literally nothing has changed about that. Just the names of the Freeports.

[fox2run]

Hat Island, ten minutes sail from CS.

Jamaica, fifteen minutes sail from La Navasse.

 

Literally nothing has changed about that. Just the names of the Freeports.

 

You are not right here. Read Æthelstans points of view regarding the social aspect contra action. This game was so much more FUN in february. Maybe not as realistic - but the battle-mecanics gave us a lot of action all over the map. Now its almost dead compared to back then. Something is not right. Maybe its the alliances AND ROE together that makes the game hillarious to play. I dont know. But I do now that many players dont have the time required to use hours and hours for setup in order to get a big battle. 

 

The action part needs to get attention! Or hopefully some other developer can make a naval action game that suits normal player needs. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by fox2run

[The Spud]

You are not right here. Read Æthelstans points of view regarding the social aspect contra action. This game was so much more FUN in february. Maybe not as realistic - but the battle-mecanics gave us a lot of action all over the map. Now its almost dead compared to back then. Something is not right. Maybe its the alliances AND ROE together that makes the game hilarious to play. I dont know. But I do now that many players dont have the time required to use hours and hours for setup in order to get a big battle. 

 

Hopefully some other developer can make a naval action game that suits normal player needs. 

 

Its true that the focus is more and more shifting from doing PvP to managing things, keeping your buildings up and running, replenishing crew, sailing goods around, managing your outposts, etc... Its more realistic true. In theory this shouldn't matter, as the game doesn't force you to craft and run around with goods, but its just in our nature to try and get what we want, and we'll be running stuff around, and at the end of the night we'll be wondering "Did I actualy do anything fun tonight?". We could be having the same thrill of having what we want without having to go trought hours of sailing stuff around. And do less sailing and more PvP'ing. I get that this might be golden times for people loving the trading business and love shifting stuff around all day long, but I think the majority would rather be doing fun stuff instead.

 

I still wouldn't call it game breaking, but I just feel like some of the fun got sucked out of the game for some reason. When I used to come online I would just craft my resources from my buildings. In case I needed some of the resources, I moved them to KPR, which took me only 15 minutes tops. Now I come online, craft my resources, do a smuggler run to get some stuff out of a port I used to have plenty off at KPR, and send the goods via freeports (money + time delay). At some point moving the resources from the free port to the new HQ. This will take you probably close to an hour or so a day, thats all good gametime lost for the benefit of... not much realy.

 

However at the moment with all the golden ships I and many others still have, its like you're a millionair, and someone is still forcing you to get out of bed early to go do an awefull job, if we would be forced to start from zero again, at least you would feel like theres a purpose in doing it.

[Salty Dog.]

So, here's some  of the problems i see:

 

Hostility raising and lowering: raising hostility toward a enemy that has more players are near impossible.. should it be desided who can do this by the size of the nation?

Lowering hostility against a larger nation also impossible as they outnumber you when it comes to this pve grind that this port battle future has become.

 

Screening fleets: Also here the nation with the largest player base has a huge advantage! should be that if a small nation wants to take a even fight in port battle that they have to try and get through 100+ screeners??? if so then just give the map to the brits or the dutch..

 

Should be allowed to join a port battle anywhere inside the hostilie region, this would make it harder to screen/ more skill based instead of 100+ players sitting on undock.. This would also mean that smaller nation can do port battles and get a fair fight without useing what the brits call exploit witch themself has used several times as at amalieborg, saint nicolas etc etc, but then it was a game mechanic not a exploit??

 

The way the game and the development is going now all the smaller nation are getting killed cause there is no reason to try capture port, this devs can see on there stats.. 

 

Do we want the game to have 6 Nations + Pirates, but only player in 2 of them that are active and get to do port battles or pvp? 

 

the port battle mechanic need serious work to get the smaller nation a fair chance to get this kind of gameplay..

 

I don't see this as an issue.  The ports will balance out in the week to come.  The nation with a lot of players will eventually have a lot of ports and they will be spread out.  The nations with few players will have a better chance then to take some ports from the bigger nations then.  

 

You don't really expect Spain to continue to hold all the ports they have now do you?

[Hagen v Martius]

You are not right here. Read Æthelstans points of view regarding the social aspect contra action. This game was so much more FUN in february. Maybe not as realistic - but the battle-mecanics gave us a lot of action all over the map. Now its almost dead compared to back then. Something is not right. Maybe its the alliances AND ROE together that makes the game hillarious to play. I dont know. But I do now that many players dont have the time required to use hours and hours for setup in order to get a big battle. 

 

The action part needs to get attention! Or hopefully some other developer can make a naval action game that suits normal player needs. 

Any mechanic that stops you from whining about random stuff in faction chat isn't necessarily a bad one, far from it, but you are simply wrong or I wouldn't have bothered with the reply 

 

Anyway, I and the folks I play with are getting just as much action as before and the amount of folks that hunt in "our" waters lately out of Hat Island is just as high as when Island Harbour was the freeport.

It's fine that Æthelstan and apparently you feel that way, but it does not match up with what I've seen from the game lately. People did run just as much when I was active in Feburary and March as they do now when faced with superior odds or when they afraid for their precious pixels.

 

Ignoring of course that since I switched to Denmark in September I've not seen you outside of Danish home waters once, but that's a different story.

[Mrdoomed]

Any mechanic that stops you from whining about random stuff in faction chat isn't necessarily a bad one, far from it, but you are simply wrong or I wouldn't have bothered with the reply

Anyway, I and the folks I play with are getting just as much action as before and the amount of folks that hunt in "our" waters lately out of Hat Island is just as high as when Island Harbour was the freeport.

It's fine that Æthelstan and apparently you feel that way, but it does not match up with what I've seen from the game lately. People did run just as much when I was active in Feburary and March as they do now when faced with superior odds or when they afraid for their precious pixels.

Ignoring of course that since I switched to Denmark in September I've not seen you outside of Danish home waters once, but that's a different story.

PLEASE let him continue to whine in faction chat because it has ebbed his whines here. ALso act like you care so he keeps his good ideas with his friends in faction chat.

The system is Hard and time demanding. Please make a system that gives easy access to battles for casual players. As unfair the 5-10 min ROE seemed, it gave us big battles, a lot of fun, and plenty of enemies. Now we have a time-demanding system for clan-nerds with TS. The decline in player-base reflects this.

Being in the D-N nation I need to use 2-3 hours to go to the action hot spots.

Before when war was all over, I could just set sails and go into the fray. Needless to say, I play other games with more fun in it.

Please rebalance so normal guys can play the game.

You should join a huge clan and use this thing called ts. Not sure if you've heard of it but its great.

[admin]

yes it should be impossible to teleport to a port that has 100% hostility witch would help the smaller nations alot and the bigger nations actully have to do some work aswell

interesting and reasonable idea

[Anolytic]

interesting and reasonable idea

The only problem I foresee with that, is that it will lead to more empty port battles again, when nations decide not to make the sail somewhere to defend. That is why I prefer making it easier/possible for attackers to join Port Battles, rather than making it harder for defenders to show up and defend. 

[Guest]

The only problem I foresee with that, is that it will lead to more empty port battles again, when nations decide not to make the sail somewhere to defend. That is why I prefer making it easier/possible for attackers to join Port Battles, rather than making it harder for defenders to show up and defend. 

 

This is why I suggested making regional capitals only function for PBs, while all the outposts, docking possibilities and production is in other ports.

 

People could still teleport in to nearby ports where they have their outposts, but if they can't dock up in the regional capital is about to be assaulted - it gives the attackers and defenders equal opportunities outside of the port, instead of the defender being 100% guaranteed to be able to enter with a full fleet with zero effort.

 

Then again though, that would favour screening even more than before, which brings up back to the issue of large nations getting yet another advantage. Reckon we'd have far more of a dynamic game if the nations were closer to being equally populated (as it was in the local conflicts that were had before the 2-sided war was solidified), but alas, that's not the case.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Guest

[Sir Texas Sir]

interesting and reasonable idea

This is bad so I spend a good time trying to stop a hostility and I pop my ship in port and than a few days later when the port battle starts and I'm all ready to fight I can't leave the port cause it's at 100%?  Than I have to take another ship from some where else to get to the battle?

 

And why does attacked and captured ports have such long cool down, but a well defended port battle has ZERO cool down until hostility can be built back on it?   A successfully defended port should have the exact same cool down as captured ports.

[Jeheil]

In the Euro-peak time Brits/Dutch v Spain, France and Dane (and Sweden) is I believe very close now. The active PvP British contingent is vastly reduced from 4 months ago, where we had 3 clans who could all field at least a fleet.

 

Your discussion is still valid. But I would raise it a level to that of 'game intent' rather than current numbers.

 

I cannot believe the game is being balanced and tuned for a target of 800 people online. If it is...then there should be some very different conversations.

 

Now should a small nation be on equal footing with a large nation. I would say...get ready for this....NO.

 

Is this because I am a British Bastard...no...that is simply a coincidence...to make a game work where the number of players on one side versus the other has no impact...will be to make a crap game...and we will be reduced to Lobby/Drop-In/Pre-canned engagements model (World of Naval Action Ships).

 

Can I just say Games-Labs have (you'll like this) really missed the boat here. They should 100% have a lobby version (like sea trials) of this game, either as a sister game or as a thing from the dual, small battles screens. They could fund 5 years development this way. The battle mechanics in this game are BETTER than that of many well established games and adding a lobby game would draw THOUSANDS of players and could be seen as a teaser into the open world. Just segregate ships, mods etc of the Lobby game.

 

It would also allow the player with an hour on his hands to drop in and have huge fun.

 

Would this distract reduce open world players ? I don't think so, overall it would bring more into the game than not.

[fox2run]

In the Euro-peak time Brits/Dutch v Spain, France and Dane (and Sweden) is I believe very close now. The active PvP British contingent is vastly reduced from 4 months ago, where we had 3 clans who could all field at least a fleet.

 

Your discussion is still valid. But I would raise it a level to that of 'game intent' rather than current numbers.

 

I cannot believe the game is being balanced and tuned for a target of 800 people online. If it is...then there should be some very different conversations.

 

Now should a small nation be on equal footing with a large nation. I would say...get ready for this....NO.

 

Is this because I am a British Bastard...no...that is simply a coincidence...to make a game work where the number of players on one side versus the other has no impact...will be to make a crap game...and we will be reduced to Lobby/Drop-In/Pre-canned engagements model (World of Naval Action Ships).

 

Can I just say Games-Labs have (you'll like this) really missed the boat here. They should 100% have a lobby version (like sea trials) of this game, either as a sister game or as a thing from the dual, small battles screens. They could fund 5 years development this way. The battle mechanics in this game are BETTER than that of many well established games and adding a lobby game would draw THOUSANDS of players and could be seen as a teaser into the open world. Just segregate ships, mods etc of the Lobby game.

 

It would also allow the player with an hour on his hands to drop in and have huge fun.

 

Would this distract reduce open world players ? I don't think so, overall it would bring more into the game than not.

 

I total agree on this. Apart from one thing: if you could make a combination between OW and the Lobby/drop in/pre-canned engagement model this game would be golden. Maybe the PBs or some kind of hostilty counter. Another option could be joining the fleets which meet other fleets etc. The 10 min timer somehow compensated for this - but some didnt like it, The 2 min timer was awfull and the new ROE is better. But now we need easy and quick access to larger battles. If this could be made - I think this game would grow rapidly.

 

Imagine that the hostility levels are made by the outcome of lobby-battles... Then you will reamin the feeling that you participate in the OW even if you make the quick lobby based battles. A lobby battle could also be placed in OW where the players around have the opportunity to reinforce it. Or something 3rd. Try it out!

Edited November 4, 2016 by fox2run

[Mrdoomed]

The easiest thing to do would be put a nation population graph on the forums or on the character launch page when you create a character. Then you will see if you are joining the zerg or the underdog.

Exept every single try hard would just join the zerg making it worse.

At least now they have to make the captain before deleting him and going to US or pirate.

I say let evolution take its course BUT dont allow people to swap nations without losing half thier xp or something. If they are first or second level and realize they are on a dead faction they lose about 5 battles worth of time . THis will ONLY harm players who want to be in the winning side or who ONLY want to be the underdog. BOth players hurt thier teams.

By 3rd level you know what is what and if at max level you wamt a new challenge then you get the added cool challenge of losing xp.

Win win !

Evolution will decided within a few months what powers will be super powers and who will be 3rd world partners. Just the facts of evolution.

[CeltiberoCaesar]

We need a mechanic that ENCOURAGE (afaik that word doesnt mean force anyone) new players to join the small nations.

Edited November 7, 2016 by CeltiberoCaesar

[HardyKnox]

The easiest thing to do would be put a nation population graph on the forums or on the character launch page when you create a character.   Then you will see if you are joining the zerg or the underdog. 

 

For myself, I joined the US faction without knowing the odds, because I, and my ancestors, are/were Americans and served in the military for generations.  Also, I know the language and the local geography.  I suspect many others did the same for their own chosen faction.

 

Regardless of "real world" personal history, I suspect only a minority would pay money and then choose a faction in which they would be guaranteed to be an completely outgunned, outmanned and out classed "underdog."   But perhaps I underestimate the basic instinct to be the one eating rather than the one being eaten.  This natural tendency, added to an experienced and dominant player group with maxed out XP, accumulated assets and experience, leads eventually to a "singularity" ... in which one powerful faction becomes the only rational choice to play as.  

 

"Now that your credit card has transferred the money to our account, here is the choices screen:  Do you want to play as:

• "X" ... a nation with 1,000 players with average experience level of 85%

• "Y" ... a nation with 45 players with average experience level of 24%"

Select your choice and hit "Join" ...

 

And Hey!  Have fun out there, and tell your friends about this great game!"

 

~ HK ~

[CeltiberoCaesar]

For myself, I joined the US faction without knowing the odds, because I, and my ancestors, are/were Americans and served in the military for generations. Also, I know the language and the local geography. I suspect many others did the same for their own chosen faction.

Regardless of "real world" personal history, I suspect only a minority would pay money and then choose a faction in which they would be guaranteed to be an completely outgunned, outmanned and out classed "underdog." But perhaps I underestimate the basic instinct to be the one eating rather than the one being eaten. This natural tendency, added to an experienced and dominant player group with maxed out XP, accumulated assets and experience, leads eventually to a "singularity" ... in which one powerful faction becomes the only rational choice to play as.

"Now that your credit card has transferred the money to our account, here is the choices screen: Do you want to play as:

• "X" ... a nation with 1,000 players with average experience level of 85%

• "Y" ... a nation with 45 players with average experience level of 24%"

Select your choice and hit "Join" ...

And Hey! Have fun out there, and tell your friends about this great game!"

~ HK ~

Ooh my **** gosh... I'm just freaking out... Are you seriously saying what you said? You just made a perfect picture of a "Typical American" hahahaha GL&HF

Pd: thats why I and others think we should have fictionary nations instead of real history ones.

Edited November 7, 2016 by CeltiberoCaesar

[Mrdoomed]

Ooh my **** gosh... I'm just freaking out... Are you seriously saying what you said? You just made a perfect picture of a "Typical American" hahahaha GL&HF

Pd: thats why I and others think we should have fictionary nations instead of real history ones.

Well other than your bigotry and ignorance im curious why you want to play in Narnia rather than spain or England? I mean if we are gonna play in fake nations like narnia or middle earth i hope they put us in a bathtub so we dont have to be in a real ocean.

Smfh.

[CeltiberoCaesar]

Well other than your bigotry and ignorance im curious why you want to play in Narnia rather than spain or England? I mean if we are gonna play in fake nations like narnia or middle earth i hope they put us in a bathtub so we dont have to be in a real ocean.

Smfh.

Read you previous message and you SHOULD learn why... Yoy should... Just Should.

Hint 1: this is a game.

Hint 2: Hollywood and Anglosaxon propaganda has hurted a lot the history.

Pd: I never said a fantasy worlds but FICTIONARY NATIONS.

Edited November 8, 2016 by CeltiberoCaesar