Server Merge Proposal

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Abram, There's always something happening. Merge is only about RvR port battles set timers.. OW and conquest missions are 24/7

[Christendom]

6 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

While Eleazar de Damas was the one behind the proposal that finally convinced admin, I was a strong supporter of the iniciative.

However, we already had fully contested PB before the new BR system was implemented.

But you need about 18-20 guys online to have any chance to defend a port.

no you don't.  Plenty of the smaller BR ports only need 10.  2400 BR pbs were fought on global the past couple of nights and it works out to exactly 9 wasa's and 1 surp.  

The point of the BR system is that you know what size your clan/group/nation is and you can attack a port based on what you can fill.  It works.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Christendom

[Archaos]

4 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Whats the difference between having 2 hours for pb timers that 4?

The US based nations set the port battle timers at the midd of the europpean nights and no EU clan will dare to attack them.

The EU based nations set the port battle timers when the US are working or sleeping so no US clan could attack.

More important, giving that option just will make that even EU based nations will set the PB timers at bad hours just to piss off other EU nations. 

So the rvr will end ruined for everyone, no matter the region you are in.

 

You are worried about toxicity, but that change you are proposing will make the sea less salty than global chat and national news forum.

 

The ironic thing about what you say here is that with the current setup on EU server it is as if the EU based nations have st the PB timers when the US are working or sleeping, the only difference is that they managed to get the Devs to set the PB timers that way rather than set them themselves. You completely ignore the fact that anyone who does not play in the EU prime time is therefore excluded from the RvR part of the game. You can say well they still have the Global server to play on, but the way it was implemented the Global server was always going to have the lower population and the Global server still has the issue of night/work flips. It is as if one subset of players has decided the PB timers for all.

Every clan who owns a port should be able to defend it in a time suitable to their clan, if they decide to set it to a time that they cannot defend then they only have themselves to blame if someone realizes that and takes the port from them. It should always be remembered that the attacking side can make arrangements to attack a port, ensuring they will have enough members available in advance before they trigger the battle even if it is at an unsociable hour, but the defenders are forced to defend when they are attacked or they lose the port. That is why the defender should be able to nominate a defense window to suit themselves, within reason.

As to the excuse that English speaking nations will then have an advantage because they tend to gave a greater coverage of different timezone players, so they can attack and defend round the clock, I think a slight adjustment to the clan mechanics and who can help defend a port could solve that. If clans were limited in the number of friendly clans they could have ant there was a delay between leaving one clan and joining another as was originally proposed, then you would not have a whole nation being able to defend a port for one clan and they could not just move players around to make up the numbers.

If nothing else I think they should at least implement such a system on the Global server to test it out, I am sure it would attract more players to the server including many who are currently excluded from RvR on the EU server.

[Archaos]

47 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Full contested port battles. Thats a success.

Before we had a great % of empty pb with the flag and pb timers system. Great Britain did many times the same dirty tactic of conquering ports and setting the pb timers at the midd of the night, even when they didnt have anyone online to defend them. Only for the pleasure of seeing the impotence of Spain.

I keep seeing people make this excuse of people setting PB timers for times when they themselves cannot defend, and all I can say is that if you believe a clan is doing that then keep setting up a PB for that time even if you do not have the numbers to attack, they will then have to be around to defend just in case you do attack. Once you capture the port you can set the timer to suit yourself.

[Iroquois Confederacy]

So, really, there are two options on the table:  grudgemonkey's idea of splitting the map into regions, and having port timers on those based on their geographic location, and having clans set their own timers.

I originally favored clans setting their own timers, however, it has been repeatedly stated that players cannot simply not be schmucks.  So it would need to be hard coded.  As such, I am in favor of grudgemonkey's proposal - geographic based timers.

The issue of one faction running rampant through all zones seems silly with that in mind, as there should be defenders of the European prime time during said European prime time.

The issue of nobody being on to hunt seems a non-issue as well.  This should increase sailing traffic - you might just hunt players in different zones based on different times of the day.  (Much as is already done now.)

Edited November 17, 2017 by Iroquois Confederacy

[Iroquois Confederacy]

8 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Tell the same when real life issues call to your door.

 

So, to clarify, the Global server is so strong in all time zones, that it is stronger than the Europeans in their alleged prime time?

[Iroquois Confederacy]

7 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

If GB, US or Pirates gets the numbers of both servers combined, no nation will be able to counter that.

If people were to come to the EU Sector, in EU Prime Time, and beat players in a fight, I can only assume that it is Europeans beating other Europeans, exactly as happens on the EU server right now.

[Iroquois Confederacy]

Just now, Intrepido said:

Recently I saw a video where Christendom was fighting in a port battle in the EU server at EU primetime. 

So... really you just don't want certain people playing on the same server as you...?

[Norfolk nChance]

@Iroquois Confederacy

 

Glad to see you back fella. Just a couple of points or thoughts to look at…

 Can’t/Won’t see the future Issue…

I’ve always being a big one state universe believer in the game’s final state. Looking from all angles and sides we as a community tend to fall into a trap of looking at the game right now and not where it actually will or needs to be at launch. Leads to pages of POSTs containing little if no added value which won’t be read by the Dev’s or @admin as a whole.

The largest populated server at the moment is [PvP EU] by a large amount. However, these amounts are still way below any viable business model. So, what is the main issue between the two servers? Port Battle times that’s it…?

The future wider audience needed…

Localization, attracting more than just the current player base is a good idea to make this NA-OW a viable business model. ASEAN countries is a PRIME target if that is going to be a focus? If not do the Dev’s just focus on EU customers instead? Use NA-Legends to then suck them into the deeper OW game?

If we want to be just EU focused, NA doesn’t have any problems and we just merge. Stick with this fixed time slot with the current majority. Really…?

Realistic Solution…

The final idea I had or solution for the One Server is based on PC/Clan location. Like in EU now with its PB fixed window timer, we add two more. These other two straddle EU becoming ASIAN and US centric.

When creating a PC/Clan you will be asked preferred local US/EU/ASIA. What happens now is the attacker grinding HOSTILITY will pop the PB into the defenders TIMEZONE. Aggressor always pays up…

This solves the night flip solution and is much better than FIXED time areas on the map.

Final point…

Before any merger, I think the UI, tutorials and Localization testing needs to happen. Would suggest using [PvP Global] as a real testbed with its small population while it won’t risk the current main on EU. Bare in mind what @admin has said countless times “Don’t worry about player numbers…”.

From my small knowledge of gaming and seeing what they’ve produce I must give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Norfolk nChance [ELITE].

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Norfolk nChance

[King of Crowns]

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 5:24 AM, Intrepido said:

Whats the difference between having 2 hours for pb timers that 4?

The US based nations set the port battle timers at the midd of the europpean nights and no EU clan will dare to attack them.

The EU based nations set the port battle timers when the US are working or sleeping so no US clan could attack.

More important, giving that option just will make that even EU based nations will set the PB timers at bad hours just to piss off other EU nations. 

So the rvr will end ruined for everyone, no matter the region you are in.

 

You are worried about toxicity, but that change you are proposing will make the sea less salty than global chat and national news forum.

 

if you merge the server you will get enough americians to balance out the majority of the USA population. all of the clans you used to fight against a year ago have gone their separate ways example: WO is French now... and keep in mind there are 4 full port battle fleets on global right now. and the new br system makes it so that you don't have to have 25 member to fight any more. I think the time for a merge is now the mechanics are in place so that port battles can be faught with a numbers disadvantage and still be equal... this was not the case until the last patch. this makes the servers ripe for merging. there are 100s of players waiting to come back to the game when a merge happends.

[King of Crowns]

1 minute ago, rediii said:

Dorsnt even matter because the mechanic we have favours one day one timezone.

This issue needs to be fixed by design, not by the playerbase

uhhh........ it is fixed by both currently.  design is the current port battle mechanics where 10 line ships can fight 19 frigates and still win. player base is the mixing of the USA AUSSY and Chinese player populations. 

[CoolBreeze66]

Nation based fighting relationships has got to go.  Look at World of Tanks and World of Warships, those guys understood you need to give the player base real choices for developing fighting relationships.  One server with clan based relationships that allows the french to ally up with Brits, Spanish or whomever is the way to go.  Nation based in too rigid and too limiting, and players like choices.  Oh yeah, one more thing.  I have spoken with numerous folks on their TeamSpeaks who would come back to the game provided there is one combined server.  The feeling is simply this, the bigger the player base the greater the probability that PVPers can find a fight in a reasonable time frame, and not sail for hours looking for a PVP battle.  I mean this is how a lot of folks feel, this is what is motivating them to stay away and choose other games.  I am confident the time zones issue can be worked out, but if we don't do this how will we know.  

I think there will be an immediate gain the the server populations soon as the servers are merged and some system for redeeming ships and mats that might be part of a players dual holdings on both the Global and EU server is worked out and made available.

[Iroquois Confederacy]

7 minutes ago, rediii said:

One global server doesnt realy mean a bigger playerbase. You just look at the sort term and it doesnt work. Global population went down for a reason aswell.

Thats no fix. Sweden wont ever have 10 players in this timezone. Also its not the optimal setup.

So, you have two things you're saying here:

The Global players are somehow just inherently bad for Naval Action, and should go away to their own server (or perhaps even from the game?) so that it does not infect your playing.

The EU players should be able to conquer every port at will, whereas the "Global Players" (IE - The rest of the world) should play a pauper's server without enough people.

Further still, you believe that bringing the two communities together is bad for Sweden, therefore, bad for the game.

I think the issue is this:

You believe that what is good for you is good for the game.

[PIerrick de Badas]

i don't read anything there exept the name of the topic.

Having 2 server is the thing that make most of europe server works. Many europe player may leave again as before if merge is made and nightflip back

[Iroquois Confederacy]

Just now, PIerrick de Badas said:

i don't read anything there exept the name of the topic.

Thank you for your well informed and thoughtful response.

[PIerrick de Badas]

12 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

Thank you for your well informed and thoughtful response.

I'm sorry but i think we dip enough about this topic before and we don't need to spend more time to find a solution veterans didn'ant have found thinking about it for weeks before

[Iroquois Confederacy]

2 minutes ago, rediii said:

A global server benefits GB US and maybe even pirates while crippling everyone else.

Qlso I dont say you should go away. You can play on global server like now or like I think NA works best on a American server with a adjusted conquest window and adjusted maintenance time.

1.  You really need to stop thinking in terms of faction politics from a year ago.  There are literally entirely new factions that are actually in the game.  The status quo of old is long since gone.  Though I could see why people would go to a place where they actually feel welcome - you've made it clear you don't even want to share a server with "those people."

2.  "You don't have to go away, you just have to go away from my server."  That's what you're saying.

And to make matters worse, the argument is that the 150 peak "Global Players" are believed to totally upset the 600 or so peak "EU players" to such a point that they will rampage through the server destroying all.  The leading idea is to have parts of the map with different conquest windows, to get everyone together.  But.  No.  "The Americans" (they're not all Americans, by the way) will ruin everything, so the theory goes.

[Iroquois Confederacy]

4 minutes ago, rediii said:

Also I proposed regional servers, You didnt get that. In my oppinion the global concept doesnt work. Instead servers have to have a window like on EU server covering a few hours in the US and AS timezones

Your idea to solve a server population issue is... more servers?  This is ludicrous.

The proposed idea of one server with multiple conquest windows (regionally) keeps server population up, while having the exact same positive effect of "regional servers."  I do not see how if, hypothetically, the Antilles kept the EU Server Conquest Window, the "Horde of Barbarians" you seem to be so worried about would force you out.

You said above that you're happy to have the Global players come to your server, so long as the timers are the same.  The proposed idea is to keep the timers the same, for one chunk of the map.  Probably a third of the whole map, judging by @Grundgemunkey's idea.  So, is the issue then that you just don't want to be "locked out" of two thirds of the map?  Imagine being locked out of three quarters of the player base!

[Iroquois Confederacy]

This is a thread for people to bicker.  I've realized that there are some that are unwilling to see any sort of reason.  That's fine.  This thread is perfect for arguing.

The other thread is an actual working thread for real proposals.

To answer your concerns:  Conquest would happen in their own time zones.  Events around that would also happen in their own time zones.  In off times, people would go out raiding and doing economy in other zones.  People would see more players, because there are physically more of them on the map.  The only thing that would be restricted is when a port battle could go down.

Yes, I would restrict everyone a tiny bit.  If memory serves, only about 10% of the player base has participated in a single port battle.  It is better to restrict that 10% a little bit (they cannot conquer every port within the same conquest window) than 20% of the player base a massive amount (you cannot play with the other 80%).

[Iroquois Confederacy]

3 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

The map is not big enough to divide it in multiple timezones.

If the map covered Europe for example, we would gladly play there while you have the entire caribbean for your entertainment.

That's a ludicrous notion.  Map is huge.  You just don't like Americans, and don't want to be forced to interact with them.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

For a unified serve to work the Conquest must work different. Cannot be as is, all the gamble being decided in one dice throw called "the one PB". And that is the truth, and you know it.

[Iroquois Confederacy]

Just now, The Red Duke said:

For a unified serve to work the Conquest must work different. Cannot be as is, all the gamble being decided in one dice throw called "the one PB". And that is the truth, and you know it.

Gotta work with the tools we have.  There is only one more chance for a wipe to get everyone back together, and that's right before release.  We need to get everyone on one server first, and, if map split by conquest windows is only a band-aid, so be it.  However, split servers are a gaping wound.  We can fix one, but we only have one chance to do it - at a wipe, before release.

Once we get everyone on one server, with different conquest windows as a temporary (if not ideal) fix, and the game is released, let the post-release support improve the quality of conquest.

I think in this case, "Perfect is the enemy of good."

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

The tool we have is a round planet and stubborn RL affiliations that flood five specific nations with single timezones - US, Sweden, Spain and now Prussia and Commonwealth.

Interesting enough that the other nations are worldwide populated

[Iroquois Confederacy]

4 minutes ago, The Red Duke said:

The tool we have is a round planet and stubborn RL affiliations that flood five specific nations with single timezones - US, Sweden, Spain and now Prussia and Commonwealth.

Interesting enough that the other nations are worldwide populated

If we solved the "flooded nations" so to speak, would we be able to resolve the round planet?  (I think the time zone-based map regions would resolve that.)

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

3 minutes ago, rediii said:

We dont need to get everyone on one server. I dont see any reason for this.

What we need is good gamemechanics, UI etc. so the global server can grow again. I dont feel the special need to play NA with players that currently play on global server

Thank you for your own personal and individual opinion. Let's keep on hearing others

IF mechanics are change to allow a unified server, all good. Don't resist. Embrace change.