admin Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 Captains. We are not satisfied with RVR incentives and goals and wanted to discuss them with you. Things that can be done within a short period of time. Tie port hostility points to port tax income Reduce costs of ports trading posts and timers Remove conversion of victory marks on War (RVR) Server as their current prices in doubloons is one of the things that makes RVR not worth the time. RVR rewards must only be accessible through RVR on the War server (but should be tradeable like right now). Additionally RVR reward trading should be disabled as i doubt Nelson could trade his Baron of the Nile title to others. This will make it important to participate in RVR if you want RVR related ships or rewards. Add items or chests for victory marks to the admiralty with some conquest related exclusive items. (Including paints and rare ships) Longer coding required and riskier features Add feature allowing lockdown of ports by clans (giving access to port resources only to the clan who owns the port) + maybe adding docking fees. 26
Socialism Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 Hostility grind needs to be lessened and/or the amount of 1st rate hostility ports needs to go down. Ports need to matter - even wood ports currently don't matter with the weird drop system you have. Needs to be a solution other than staying up (or getting up early) 2 days in a row to trigger and fight battles. Needs to be some sort of immediate solution to help counter long term ownership of ports by different time zones. Basically a flag system....but not the flag system. Chest rewards for port battles again. Was a good idea that had paints and ship notes. Why did we stop. More 25 on 25 battles please! 6
Sir Texas Sir Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 Cost seems better with the change to doubloons system. When we had Marsh Harbor and three other ports Marsh paid for all four ports. We only had timers on Marsh and we even started to earn some money. Pre patch we where all ways loosing money cause the coast was to much, specially when we had timers on three ports and had a bunch of ports that didn't have timers. For a smaller clan and only having one money making port it got costly. Useless ports should not be such a burden on the clans to have. Maybe have an option that one port can be set clan Home and it gets a discount of 50% Maintenance, but the clan has to keep it's warehouse int that port. Hostlity missions was a pain, cause when you get a group togehter and defenders jumped in you could now be fighting 2 times the ships you have. If you lost one or two ships in a 1st rate mission you could loose almot all your agro. I remember one battle we where at 97% hostility after two hours grinding and French jumped in sunk two of our ships. When we all got out we noticed that hostility dropped over 50%....so all that hard work was pretty much gone specially since we got tagged again and the rest of us was wiped out. Being wounded and having same or more ships jump in was a killer. Only way to do them was to flip fast and quick which is hard on the bigger BR ports. Kinda wish we had other means to do hostility like bring the old flag system back or something. Pull a flag and have to get it to the port and you get 33% hostility. You can't pull next flag until first one is placed. If flag is capture or ship sunk you loose that 33% so it sets you back. Something like that which could be added to the grinding, just needs more option. Even if we can slowly flip a port by sitting in front of it with said flag. Once a port flip and it's a red zone turn that zone into a hot PvP zone until port battle happens. (like the POTBS red circles when PB are set). Clans need to be in control of there ports, we brought up many times about allowing clans to set who can or can't put contracts up in the port. Defualt would be only your nation. Open port to all allows all to put contracts up. Have setting for only friendly clan and only your clan can contracts up. Let the nations police folks that abuse it by not supporting. Only strongest clans can be greedy and sooner or later even they will fall if they don't support nation and keep it all to them selves . This will fix the problem with alts and super rich folks buying up all the contracts. VM are pretty much useless right now other than to buy permits. IF your not usiing SOL than they are stacking up. I think I have over 200 if them right now and I have stacks of permits in reserve all ready. Let us convert them back into Doubloons. You can buy a VM for 1000 Doudbloons why can't we convert them for doubloons? This will allow folks that don't have a lot of time but been to port battles get 1000 Doubloons or more a week as payment for being in port battles. I bet it would encourage more port battles too. Bring back the reward chest for port battles too. I'm going to put my old paint chest would be great here;) Or as you stated chest and items in the shop we can trade them for, cause right now it's only permits and nothing else. If a clan owns ports in shallow and only shallow water fights what the point of a VM if they don't use SOL? To many deep water ports have very low BR so that small group of elite players can tie down that port from any one even big nations/clans from taking it. It's okay for none important ports to have low BR so small clans can have a port, but any port with inportant locations or resources should not be on the lower end of BR. We have to many 2500 and 5K BR deep water ports basicly. Some of them need higher BR or as spoken about before if a port makes more money raise the BR of it to match it's income. 1
Georg Fromm Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 (edited) I do not think it makes sense to reduce the maintenance costs for ports and timers, because the costs are already no longer a real problem. Before the change, many port owners had a problem to maintenance their ports. I know clans who were permanently in the minus for maintenance. If you lower the maintenance costs even further, these costs are not even worth it to take some money out of the game. Complete agreement... -Add feature allowing lockdown of ports by clans (giving access to port resources only to the clan who owns the port) + maybe adding docking fees. (A white list for people who can trade in the harbor would be desirable) If the DEVS ever have the time and interest to rework the pirate faction, I would suggest that the pirate faction is the only nation exempt from this rule. Although they can not set contracts, but they can not be completely excluded from trading. (Pirates as the classic smugglers!) Edited December 10, 2018 by Hellmuth von Mücke 1
RedNeckMilkMan Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 (edited) The docking fees is a great idea. Punishes people for dock humping. Along with port lockdown this would make so many ports valuable since alts could not buy up everything. Clans could cause shortages of resources and to end it RvR would have to take place. Scarcity causes conflict. Edited December 10, 2018 by RedNeckMilkMan 5
Aster Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 (edited) Talking about titles maybe make thoughs titles worth something. Perhaps when you have X amount of title points (perhaps like the old conquest points where some ports are worth more) you would be able to buy a special reward like a paint, a flag, one of the special ships. Maybe it would be a tiered system or maybe you would just get the points and spend them. Ideally it would promote RVR without promoting swapping of useless ports. Edited December 10, 2018 by Aster 2
Vernon Merrill Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 Could just be silly stuff like nobility titles for X amounts of Victory Points.... play on people's egos. 1
do not say dlc Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 Can we get a turn based RVR? I mean we vote as a nation to attack a port, just like we voted for allies. Then the next day the pb is set, right on their timer, because this way maybe less salt. If the defenders win trow in some chests for the defenders same the other way. Now to make this right think about the screeners, by this i mean make all the fights between the two nations at pb window, allover the map as part of the war and reward accordingly. My ideea on this matter at this moment! 2
z4ys Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, admin said: Remove conversion of victory marks on War (RVR) Server as their current prices in doubloons is one of the things that makes RVR not worth the time. RVR rewards must only be accessible through RVR on the War server (but should be tradeable like right now). Additionally RVR reward trading should be disabled as i doubt Nelson could trade his Baron of the Nile title to others. This will make it important to participate in RVR if you want RVR related ships or rewards. Add items or chests for victory marks to the admiralty with some conquest related exclusive items. (Including paints and rare ships) Longer coding required and riskier features Add feature allowing lockdown of ports by clans (giving access to port resources only to the clan who owns the port) + maybe adding docking fees. I like it. What I personal would like is customization of ports. Ofc we already have some kind of it but thats just done in a few clicks. I would want to see my clan port grow. I would like to improve it. I want to feel linked with it. -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Every captured port starts with minimal fortification (minimal fortification depends on city status aka regional capital for example) Fortification can be improved by building it. location is determind by the game "NO PLACING" Example: A = minimal fortification (after captured against AI) B = Clan can build additional fort and tower (just like a shipyard or workshop by delivering stone + iron + coal + wood) This could be set as "Trade mission" so anyone in the nation can contribute to the goal of building the tower. Ofc player that contribute get rewarded by tax % off or or or When an improved port gets attacked and forts/ towers get destroyed they have to be rebuild so it might be wise to not destroy them to reduce rebuild cost This feature could be hidden and fortification has to be scouted before attack. Time of building after resources are delievered depends on townsize /tax income etc 2. A clan can build/spawn 1 additional resource by building/exploring the port (to make ports more attractive) Destroying and rebuilding / or further exploring is possible and generates a new RNG round. Manufacture has upkeep Example: Lets say a port produces hemp and stone (this port might never be attractive to any kind of player because that are some easy to get resources). A clan could now improve this port by exploring the surroundings ( cost doubloons or resources or both) this will add one random resource. Or they could build a manufacture which spawns a rng (trading good) 3. Port map windows shows additional information when visited to make certain things more obvious and attractive for other players Edited December 10, 2018 by z4ys 10
Anolytic Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 47 minutes ago, admin said: We are not satisfied with RVR incentives and goals and wanted to discuss them with you. Personally I don't think that the incentives are the main problem. The cost, i.e. risk, is the main factor. Considering it is easy for absolutely any conquered port now to make profit for the owner with little effort, the owning ports is actually more profitable now than before. The problem is that the rewards do not match the risk, and the amount of grind required both for rising a port and for building the ships. If successful RvR would offset some of the grind, i.e. by rewarding owning clans with a pension of doubloons balanced to allow rebuilding RvR-fleets that are lost. Another option is clans that own ports will have extra insurance on their lost Lineships. Insurance that also recovers say 60-80% of doubloon cost of a ship. Those who want to use a Lineship only to grind AI in reinforcement zones can afford to grind a couple of thousand doubloons to build their lineships. Those who want to do RvR every evening cannot afford to have to spend 3-4 evenings grinding doubloons for every lineship they have to replace. So the insurance would work that as soon as you participate in RvR your RvR-ships have extra insurance. Screening is definitively a problem also, exacerbating the risk/reward factor. This has been pointed out an endless amount of time, but if we ever get back to a well populated server, most port battles are never going to happen simply because it is extraordinarily easy to screen out any attacking fleet now that all ports have very limited BR rating. 1 hour ago, admin said: Tie port hostility points to port tax income Sounds like a worthwhile idea, but I don't see it as really changing that much. 1 hour ago, admin said: Reduce costs of ports trading posts and timers Currently this is not necessary. Again. Ports can easily make profits now with relatively little effort from port owners. With a higher population, ports will automatically be profitable. Your plan to improve the economy to implement distances in trade goods profitability - if you also implement it to make trading equally profitable outside of capitals - will make most ports on the map into potential gold-mines. 1 hour ago, admin said: Remove conversion of victory marks on War (RVR) Server as their current prices in doubloons is one of the things that makes RVR not worth the time. I don't agree that this is a factor at all, but I nevertheless agree that Victory Marks should not be possible to convert from doubloons. I would rather seriously consider making the reverse conversion possible though, turning victory marks into doubloons. It would expand the RvR pension as I suggest above, with much less coding. 1 hour ago, admin said: RVR rewards must only be accessible through RVR on the War server Yes. 1 hour ago, admin said: Additionally RVR reward trading should be disabled as i doubt Nelson could trade his Baron of the Nile title to others. This will make it important to participate in RVR if you want RVR related ships or rewards. For ships - NO. Just no. I do not get why we are constantly getting back into this track of suggesting changes that enforce certain playstyles. I want my playstyle enforced on other players no less than I want others' playstyles thrust upon myself: I refer to your post in the link above. Moreover, we simply cannot have the (semi-)clan-based RvR that we have now and then add on top of that RvR-exclusive ships or content. This will give to clans the ability to arbitrarily restrict core content in the game from players. Giving control of RvR to clans is a good thing as we have got now. But then you must be careful what dependencies you build between RvR and other content. It is bad practice to tell people who want to sail all the ships, but simply cannot get into an RvR-clan for whatever reason (teamspeak, past history, general likeability, etc.) that they have to go re-grind on the PvE-server to get access to some of the content. 1 hour ago, admin said: Add items or chests for victory marks to the admiralty with some conquest related exclusive items. (Including paints and rare ships) YES. Absolutely. 1 hour ago, admin said: Longer coding required and riskier features Add feature allowing lockdown of ports by clans (giving access to port resources only to the clan who owns the port) + maybe adding docking fees. Docking fees sound potentially interesting. I do however completely oppose the idea of ports locked down by clans. At least for as long as there are RvR-strategic crafting-resources with limited availability. In RvR everybody has to have reasonable access to the same strategical resources and modules. Otherwise those who do not have access will feel like they have no chance and cannot get ahead even if they work hard, and that will tear on communities and in the end reduce RvR and challenges. Maybe the clan that owns i.e. Cartagena should get some drops of Tar for free, or have access to cheaper bidding. But RvR-important resources such as for instance French sail and Cartagena Tar should be available to all that can afford to buy it. Winner-takes-all sounds cool until the looser tires of it and quits and then there's nobody to challenge the champion. This is boring for the winner as well. Whoever is the dominating fleet on the server at any time needs to be constantly challenged, and for that to happen it needs to be easy to challenge them and recovery after a failure needs to be quick and easy. Even the winner has more fun successfully beating back attacks 19 times only to be finally defeated on the 20th run, than if the challenger has to give up after 7 attempts. 4
Sir Texas Sir Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 OK I'm going to say this and it's going to piss some folks off......how about every 3-4 months we have a map reset? Part of the reason folks don't fight is cause they are settled in with what they have. If they have to decide every 4 months (better than 3) what ports are important and what is not in the scramble than some folks might snag up the others and we have a change in the map. We also need less nations....11 is to many as it cuts numbers down to much. Maybe if we have 2000 players bring back extra nations but right now and while we have a base number we need less not more. I bring this up cause of some factions getting ports and putting them in retarded timers that no one can fight in and than nothing happens cause of this. If they have to reset ports than folks have to decide do I wan tto keep all the US coast line or grab my high making port back home first? If they don't move fast enough the high profit port can be capture and than they have to fight for it again. We don't fight enough to to many folks settle for what they have. Hell can even just do the rest every 6 months. Just like anything else if you don't want to loose your stuff when it's reset and another nation takes the port keep your goods in a free town or none captured port. As for the three impossible nations, well you picked extra extra hard mode.
Custard Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 I remain unconvinced that there isn't enough incentive to RVR and as for risk people have doubloons, I believe it's purely down to lack of numbers playing. Non elite players are more care bear than any of you realise, the casuals are almost all gone, players like me are finding it a bit too hard because of the changes to AI fleets and Missions that leaves less for the better players to feed on when you are not engaged in RVR. 3
Marques Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 ARCADE...do you know what is this ?? Make game more and more ARCADE....now is unplayable. Is a big boring....Do you really want to sell this game.... PLEASE think about it , and restart to do everything NEW EASY to PLAY, FASTER TO GET FUN.... remember 3 words..... EASY TO PLAY. MORE History.....we are 3 years given us advices...but the game does not work properly and everyday is getting hardest to play. Thank you.
Archaos Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said: OK I'm going to say this and it's going to piss some folks off......how about every 3-4 months we have a map reset? Part of the reason folks don't fight is cause they are settled in with what they have. If they have to decide every 4 months (better than 3) what ports are important and what is not in the scramble than some folks might snag up the others and we have a change in the map. We also need less nations....11 is to many as it cuts numbers down to much. Maybe if we have 2000 players bring back extra nations but right now and while we have a base number we need less not more. I bring this up cause of some factions getting ports and putting them in retarded timers that no one can fight in and than nothing happens cause of this. If they have to reset ports than folks have to decide do I wan tto keep all the US coast line or grab my high making port back home first? If they don't move fast enough the high profit port can be capture and than they have to fight for it again. We don't fight enough to to many folks settle for what they have. Hell can even just do the rest every 6 months. Just like anything else if you don't want to loose your stuff when it's reset and another nation takes the port keep your goods in a free town or none captured port. As for the three impossible nations, well you picked extra extra hard mode. I doubt this would work. Just look at the drop in numbers because the rumors of a wipe coming up, and now imagine that every few months. The game would become a quick rush for neutral ports after a reset followed by a bit of RvR activity which would die down as you got closer to the reset because why spend the time and resources capturing something you were going to lose shortly after. If the game is going to have map resets it would have to be based on some form of victory condition such as when one nation controls more than a certain percentage of ports they are declared victorious and the map is reset. At least this way people would ally together to stop one nation claiming victory and it would not be a set time for reset. 1
Sir Texas Sir Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Archaos said: I doubt this would work. Just look at the drop in numbers because the rumors of a wipe coming up, and now imagine that every few months. The game would become a quick rush for neutral ports after a reset followed by a bit of RvR activity which would die down as you got closer to the reset because why spend the time and resources capturing something you were going to lose shortly after. If the game is going to have map resets it would have to be based on some form of victory condition such as when one nation controls more than a certain percentage of ports they are declared victorious and the map is reset. At least this way people would ally together to stop one nation claiming victory and it would not be a set time for reset. It worked in POTBS, but they had the victory thing and the time set thing....so you couldln't drag it out and not have a victory. 36 minutes ago, rediii said: have fun in your pve server. Because thats what you get. (after a sipe there is 2-4 weeksnof pve to get all ports on the map The US has ports without any timer on the US coast, why not attack that? Dude really it's more than folks are doing now and you do know it's a PvP/PvE server, some times you actually do have to kill AI you know, but if they fix the hostility to make it easier and not such a grind than something is better than nothing. I think the problem is we have to many folks that don't like PvE when just about every game out there is mainly PvE......with a grind to get just about every thing and than PvP. How else you plan to open up those slots on your ships....oh wait we have been playing for ever and our slots are all ready open....I see the problem. As for US ports, come help us take them....your good at that aren't you, or do you only play on the best of the best teams? I never seen you play on an underdog team. Would be nice to see some of these so call pros actually take on a challenge. 1
JDAM Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 What if upon capture of the port your clan got deposited 50,000 or some other random large number doubloons for the effort, therefore getting a squadrons worth of pay for for the trouble of sacking the port. Call it a special hidden vault that has been collected the taxes for the town, now sacked by the victor and paid handsomely. Maybe 500,000 real per player (again robbing the town bank) and make it nice and juicy/worth the time & risk of spending 150,000 doubloons on a real PB fleet. Clans also need numbers to flip the larger ports, most have had suppressed player activity, but I think being able to tell your clan you'll bring them a large prize if they win with you, would go a long way to getting more RVR.
greybuscat Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 5 hours ago, admin said: Remove conversion of victory marks on War (RVR) Server as their current prices in doubloons is one of the things that makes RVR not worth the time. RVR rewards must only be accessible through RVR on the War server (but should be tradeable like right now). Quite the opposite, victory marks should be able to be converted into doubloons, IMO. And in the absence of that, what would make RVR more worth the time is allowing victory marks to be spent on things you normally need doubloons for (mods and notes). They're undervalued right now because they're fairly easy to acquire, in small numbers for individuals and hilariously vast numbers for clans, but no one can spend them as fast as they earn them because of the steep crafting requirements for 1-3rd rate ships. Give me something to burn them on other than permits, and I will actually care about being a viscount. Who is even buying victory marks in any appreciable amount, to the point that it supposedly hinders RVR? I assume you have data on it? It was my understanding that everyone who needs them already has huge stocks of them. 2
Sir Texas Sir Posted December 10, 2018 Posted December 10, 2018 Here is the issue that killed US with RvR. Back when the game was more active we had about 30-50 players that would show up to port battles. Great Screening fleet that when they did there actual job could keep folks out of the ports so we could keep them. The problem is they didn't have enough none casual expierence PvPers. SO when we would attack and only 5-10 players could get into the port battle those 5-10 wasn't good enough to fight elite players holding down ports. Most of the ports we lost early on was cause of game mechanic (dead clans not being able to trade to active clans) changes and well just flat out human error (folks forgetting to put timers on.) With that there are two things that I mention above that needs to happen. Important ports should have bigger BR's than the majority that are 2500 and 5K along the US coast. Only ports that should have that low BR are none important or shallow ports. The other thing is we need a way to switch ports in nation between clans. So that way a dead clan can hand an important port over to an active clan. This killed us more than anything on loosing over half the ports over time. Cuase not every one wants to get up at the crack of dawn (actually early than that) and be on right at server reset time. As for going after ports that don't have timers, it's getting there and setting the agro. Every time we would try to hit a French or Prussian ports we would start and French, Prussian, Pirates would all come out and smash the fleet and not fight each other. They had most of the Vets in there time zone so it was easy for them to jump into a mission and kill off 10 guys fighting 10 and most the time very wounded. This discourage folks for showing up. Numbers started to drop and than you where down to maybe 10 guys that might want to do something and or less. No more screeners to keep folks out of PB and lost of ports. Lets not add getting constantly farmed every day in front of your capital. @admin still never showed us the Death list on those stats the other day. I bet the folks that die the most get hardly any if any at all kills them selves. It gets frustrating when you are never winning. Hint why right now I prob couldn't get 5-10 guys to muster up. I was really suprise we had 20 for Marsh Harbor and 6 of those guys where 1st Lt's that just joined the game. Great guys and hard players but I fear we might loose them cause of the farming. They all ready complain they can't get out of port to level up without getting ganked half the time. This is why we need true safe zones for casuals to level up and enjoy the game so we can keep them around. 4
SnovaZdorowa Posted December 11, 2018 Posted December 11, 2018 6 hours ago, admin said: Captains. We are not satisfied with RVR incentives and goals and wanted to discuss them with you. this (если еще не читали мой "крик души") По теме - только после перезапуска экономики можно будет предметно думать, как наложить на нее сверху владение портами. Может все-таки осилите алли/клан стендинги? Только у торговых хабов зеленка и постоянный суверенитет, вокруг лоу с менее жесткими ограничениями на пвп. Там генерация миссий где-нибудь до 2/3 прокачки, но с сильно заниженным по сравнению с "нулями" выхлопом по реалам/дублонам/луту. Крафт кораблей не выше 4 ранга и без бонусов на часы и прочее. Порты эти в зеленке и лоу ничьи, док для всех. Если основа игровой экономики торговля нпц товарами, то пусть все будут в одинаковых условиях, тащат "корованы" индусов со своих суверенных территорий на продажу, обратно разное там лакшери, потребляемое портами в нулях. Тащить можно по разгонным течениям, вдоль них запустить алли флоты (медленные), рядом с которыми одинокий торгаш может медленно, но надежно доехать. По поводу рвр - у вас уже заложены в игру зоны влияния портов, сейчас они не оказывают никакого влияния на игру (кроме зон с реинфорсом, которые нужно вообще убирать, чтобы незахватываемых портов у наций вообще не было, при наличии ничейных зеленки и лоу). Так вот. Инстанс механика сейчас на мой взгляд неправильная. Все эти невидимые бои, расцепы, маринад и прочее. Ориентирована в основном на ганк, на бои в большинстве. Можно сделать так, чтобы игроки, которые в зоне влияния своего национального порта могли открывать инстанс для игроков своей нации. Но с ограничением по БР, чтобы это не работало как бейт. Т.е. затагал кого-нибудь с перевесом в его(их) национальных водах - будь готов получить равный бой, если не сможешь быстро утопить. На счет равного надо думать, потому что десять каких-нибудь сноу или ниагар в состоянии спокойно утопить одинокий рейт, а их суммарный БР будет такой же, как у рейта. Возможно, что БР флота надо рассчитывать не как простую сумму. К примеру одиночный мортирный бриг это мясо, а в рейтовом бою, да с прикрышкой из легких кораблей и форта сила. В общем, если вы запустили "any ship matter", то тем более должно быть "any port matter". Еще стоит как-то вводить значимость границ. Т.е. национальные порты получают некую поддержку от других национальных портов. В результате порты в глубине территории становятся менее уязвимы для атаки, чем приграничные. Защищать и содержать удаленный форпост, который доставляет кучу хлопот противнику пока работает телепортация между портами, должно быть тяжело, дорого и накладно. Еще можно добавить какие-то инфраструктурные вещи, типа если у порта есть 2-3 национальных соседа, то он дропает ремонты и ром. Одним словом должна быть существенная разница, когда ты ведешь оборонительную войну и когда наступательную. По поводу накачки портов: сейчас она скрытная и архи быстрая, особенно для небольших портов. нация не успевает реагировать, при низком онлайне тем более. люди набрали кучу хостилок - владельцы порта не в курсе, хостилки могут висеть долго. сообщение о несчастном торговом флоте, который раскидало штормом видит весь сервер - за набивкой своих портов надо следить глазками по комбат логу и ручками по карте. это неправильно, должны быть какие-то оповещения, ускоренная переброска флота защитников. т.е. если давать ништяки за владение портами, то и давать какие-то инструменты для их защиты столько вот разных мыслей, да
Gregory Rainsborough Posted December 11, 2018 Posted December 11, 2018 (edited) One thing that has changed perhaps that needs to be looked at is the NPC spawn routes. It's actually beneficial now to have enemy ports among your ports (Ruatan & Trux for instance). Maybe balancing them out a bit so a few more enemy AI spawn inside territorial waters but absolutely none in safe zones. I've gone to Swedish waters and seen some really nice fleets which they attack and the same at Belize. That's the opposite I think of what you were trying to achieve. It needs a bit of tweaking is all. Ports still simply do not make enough money, take SNOWs ports for instance, they're not amazing but they've generated just over 3 million reals since the patch was dropped. Not really an incentive when you have to split between over a dozen folks and let's face it, the hostility grind is just not fun (hence why I liked Christendom's suggestion the other day about accepting a challenge to a PB) and for the meager rewards, it's simply not worth it. One of the biggest things though I feel is how many doubloons it costs for a ship. Grind for days/weeks and get a 1st rate, lose it in a screening battle. Why bother? There are various people who have said in the nation they don't want to do hostility because the risk is not worth the reward. Why bother risking a 1st rate? They're simply too valuable now which I like in some aspects but it should be offset so those that participate in RvR or are willing to get a reward to some degree, even the losers perhaps. Ten times the number of doubloons for every kill in a PB or something. I know you want PvP to have risk by carrying doubloons but why bother if the ROE are not changed? A attacks port B, A fails to capture port, A gets attacked upon leaving PB in a string of battles for several hours when you then die for lack of repairs. This is something most RvR players have faced on the server and is a disincentive to bothering. Worked hard for several hours to kill folks? Tough, some guy in a fir/fir ship will kite you until you can get ganked. Folks like fights, not kites and certainly not to die for no reason which it is because people talk and know in advance what the likely numbers will be that the enemy will summon. Even if you still want to cling to the whole, looting doubloons, upping the reward for kills would be ideal since at least those who are kited/griefed to death get something for their time. Edited December 11, 2018 by Gregory Rainsborough 3
Gregory Rainsborough Posted December 11, 2018 Posted December 11, 2018 This may also be a strange suggestion but... Why not get rid of territorial control completely. Assign ports to who controlled them historically (as I believe it was when I first joined the game after the big big wipe) but allow clans from other nations to seize control of ports so that they get the income. Cartagena would therefore be Spanish but the income would be given to Sweden (HRE) and the port would be open to all Swedish players. So formally owned by Spain, but controlled by Sweden, the port could show half Spanish, half Swedish flag for instance. Sure, historically not realistic but neither is the way it is now. That would get rid of ports of course that are capture-able and that would impact ship crafting. You could manually designate ports high or low risk for the RNG aspect. Low RNG ports would be like safe zones, high risk (those near to enemy waters) would be higher as in capture-able are now. Sure, it would make some nations smaller territorially (Sweden for instance) or non-existent (Prussian, Poland and Russia) but it could be offset by a free 1 time use forged paper for those wishing to move.
King of Crowns Posted December 11, 2018 Posted December 11, 2018 1. I see lots of people complaining about the hostility grind. as one of the few clans in the game that actually stops people in their hostility missions let me just say that there needs to be at least two missions to set a port. you should not be able to set a port in one 10 man hostility mission. it should take at least two and no more than 2. this gives the defenders time to rally and try to stop the setting of the PB. many ports take 4 missions to set right now, and that's just simply to much. However, I do understand that this is a population issue as well. if the game were full it wouldn't be hard to get 40 people from your nation to go grind a port. but we need to work with the numbers we have right now. we can tweak later if we need to. 2. Also increase the rewards during the hostility missions. I would also argue that hostility mission rewards should be some of the best loot in the game or at least equal to that of open world loot. Hostility mission is open for the full duration which means it is by far the most risky type of mission in the game. yet it has 0 reward except setting a port battle. 3. We need motivation to do port battles. right now there is none. RVR is the end game for naval action. therefore, it should have end game rewards involved. 4. I really like your idea of clan controlled ports. thus nullifying the ALT issue that is making RVR so meaningless 5. I also LOVE the idea of being able to customize things about the port for the clan owners. That way a home port for a clan will feel like home. (also opens up some options for some more cosmetic DLC) give us décor for our ports. 8
z4ys Posted December 11, 2018 Posted December 11, 2018 RvR shouldn't be about to make it a 2 or 3 clans per nation show. All clans of the nation should want to RvR. So far most suggestions by the big RvR players are all about when they would accumulate more ports. 3
z4ys Posted December 11, 2018 Posted December 11, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Coraline Vodka said: the history of this game has been about big clans pushing RVR if you deny this youre just in denial And RvR was almost always uninteresting for the majority you can't deny it. Ports have a limited number. With every NA clan highly interested in holding/getting a port overall RvR activity would raise. Edited December 11, 2018 by z4ys
staun Posted December 11, 2018 Posted December 11, 2018 (edited) Lets not pretend only problem is hostillity grind. It all started when the merge came and therefor we made the timer system, then timers where way to expensive so there would not be timers on every one. Still there was pb, But it limited it. Then patch 27 hit the server. Bam it stopped, what changed. My guess expensive ships. Now the talk is that clans should have the posibility to restrict the ressources. Most big clans is for it. Why, well it favors them. I can tell you what will happend. Ore maybe history of the game can. Look at Spain lately, the US. GB before Rediii. All small Nations will stop show up. We will end with2-3 nation fighting, maybe 6 clans in total. Soon they will not have any to fight, because thet in generally don’t Fight each other. What will happen in OW, well those guys that can’t get acces to decen’t Wood will stop going out. Why you ask? Ppl just don’t Fight if they think they have no chance. So by care for the top RvR clans, you soon will have killed the rest of. Thats a choise and a fair one. They do make contend. Just dont wonder why there are so few left. Edited December 11, 2018 by staun 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now