RVR (port battles and territory control) feedback

[staun]

Just now, vazco said:

1st rates - yes. The problem is that 1-4 rates are now expensive  

Another issue is also that you need to sail 1st rates to efficiently flip a port. There shouldn't be a difference in speed of flipping between 1st and 2nd rate, then sailing a 1st rate would be a ship to aspire to, but wouldn't kill RvR.

Yep 4-2 also got expensive, but think that was so we got more on 7-5 ships, witch I also think was a common goal. If we make them cheap again, will we then not just see ppl in big ships and very few on smal.

Ofc there should be a different. We talk about RvR. So yes there should be a bonus in using 1rste. You save time, but ofc at the risk of losing a expensive ship. 

Personally I have no doubt about the more hardcore ore unballanced you make a game, the less will be playing it. But thats the path admin wants to test, so lets give it some time.

[staun]

4 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

Rewards which strenghen your ability to defeat an enemy worsen the existing inbalance. True it's the question where to make the cut. But such new rewards will not cut but add.

You will put the cut a bit higher. But think the idea in this game is, the more unbalanced,  the more the top dog will fight to stay at the top and the underdogs will fight to get up there. This should then result in a win win for all.

[Archaos]

15 minutes ago, staun said:

You will put the cut a bit higher. But think the idea in this game is, the more unbalanced,  the more the top dog will fight to stay at the top and the underdogs will fight to get up there. This should then result in a win win for all.

You would think that is how it would work, but in practice what actually happens is that many who can defect to the winning side and many who cannot just give up playing.

[staun]

35 minutes ago, Archaos said:

You would think that is how it would work, but in practice what actually happens is that many who can defect to the winning side and many who cannot just give up playing.

I can’t say you are wrong. But unfortanally it is not the the mantra the games work out from. Players have kept asking for this,  so admin have chosen the winner takes it all direction. For some players it will be a great game and for some not. Thats why I sugested to make the peace server a light PvP/RvR server, where ppl doing PvE can totally safe. Think there is a segment for both.

Edited December 28, 2018 by staun

[Vizzini]

In the limited time I have been playing I have noticed that whenever a Nation gets too big for it's boots or gets filled with too many of the servers most despised players, that Nation tends to get stamped on by a rainbow alliance of the rest of the server. Not a bad thing imho

 

Clan wars / no nations is what I had hoped for but it wouldn't be for everybody and I understand many are tied to the historical accuracy / love their nation etc

I wouldn't be the only player who hates having certain players in their Nation. Being master of my own Nation would however give me some control of that.

 

just my thoughts

 

 

[Slim McSauce]

On 12/10/2018 at 12:27 PM, admin said:

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. 

alright please hurry it seems the game is slowly picking up steam again and we need some content.

Also war supplies, why does the defender choose the time to defend? I think something's wrong with hostilities to reverse the rule of attacker gets to choose the attack, and defender has defenders ready always. Jog your noggin and find a way to make that normal and not backwards.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Slim McSauce

[Archaos]

3 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

why does the defender choose the time to defend?

Because its a game and people are not invested in it 24/7. If the attacker could attack at the best time for them then they would choose to attack when the defender could not be there and you would have mostly empty port battles. Allowing the defender some control on the battle timing at least goes part way to removing the excuse that they were night/work flipped as the defender should set a time where they are available to defend. In a world where you had to be online 24/7 then I would agree that the attacker should be able to choose.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Archaos said:

Because its a game 

Stop stop stop right there. It IS a game. That means you can do whatever you want within a frame of concept. So you can code just about any feature in if you've got the know-how.

See, it doesn't have to be shit like you describe, we can have good RvR without commiting sacrilege on the common rules of war 

Just take a page out of other RvR games who do it right, don't follow the shitters who think TIMERS (lmao) are a good thing, they're a prop and a total sham, not at all reflective of what real RVR is. Can the devs create real RVR though? That is the question.

[staun]

48 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

If taking part of rvr brings some nice cosmetic stuff along with some quality of live features (higher ressources spawn, ressources directly to owners warehouse, cheaper prices of crew/repairs kits for owners...) it will improve rvr inmensenly without breaking balance.

That will break the balance. We saw it with the only top 4 nations getting VM. Yes ppl could buy them ore do a lot of PvP to get them. And what happend?

Who do you think will get those ports? My guess the top clans and the clans with the best players and numbers. So beyound having to some how raise abowe fighting better players and more players, you also should be handicapped on ressources. Yes that will work. All hail the top. My guess soon they only will have each other to fight in RvR, but Hey all it takes about 2 groups to have fun. Just ask @Christendom and @King of Crowns. They tried it in global.

48 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

In my view, our greatest enemy is how much time consuming is RvR and NA generally speaking. Grinding-getting prepared for rvr is mostly dependant on available time, not skill. 

If playing rvr gives us some short cuts I think it could be popular again. Back in 2016, taking part on a contested PB gave you around 1 million gold (apart from other rewards (grey screen of results)) which was equal to do several trade runs. 

The word is contested pb. The grind to day to create a pb fleet is to big and if you not are the best, there will be no reward that is high enough to get you in to a pb and lose all your ships. I do belive when the new RvR patch come it will some kind of first aid to the elite. They will proberbly have fun for a short time, but in the end they will be borred because there will be so few to play with,

[Archaos]

42 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Stop stop stop right there. It IS a game. That means you can do whatever you want within a frame of concept. So you can code just about any feature in if you've got the know-how.

See, it doesn't have to be shit like you describe, we can have good RvR without commiting sacrilege on the common rules of war 

Just take a page out of other RvR games who do it right, don't follow the shitters who think TIMERS (lmao) are a good thing, they're a prop and a total sham, not at all reflective of what real RVR is. Can the devs create real RVR though? That is the question.

I agree they need to create better RvR, but we know historically that when the attackers are able to surprise the defenders as they would try to do in real life, what it translates to in game terms is that the attackers choose to attack when the defenders are unlikely to be online or there are too few of them online to mount a credible defense.

What you need to decide is do you want a system where port battles are contested or do you want a system of empty port battles. The split timezone servers with limited port battle windows did work to a certain extent, but it excluded a lot of the playerbase who although they lived in those regions had different prime times to the port battle windows. I know personally I was never able to attend a port battle when the servers were split.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Just a sidenote for thought give your nice exchange ( this last posts ).

You thinking of RvR as simple PB arenas or RvR as Conquest mode ? 

With the arenas, the point is simply to have trafalgars, no consequence. With Conquest, the stronger will conquer. One cannot coexist with the other.

Good discussion, carry on.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Just a sidenote for thought give your nice exchange ( this last posts ).

You thinking of RvR as simple PB arenas or RvR as Conquest mode ? 

That's how the devs see it. They think 1 port BATTLE is enough. A single battle, sometimes not even a full single battle is what decides a port. IMO it should be like a tournament as to who can win the most battles for the port and should happen over the course of a few days, not a single battle on a single day.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Just now, Slim McSauce said:

That's how the devs see it. They think 1 port BATTLE is enough. A single battle, sometimes not even a full single battle is what decides a port. IMO it should be like a tournament as to who can win the most battles for the port and should happen over the course of a few days, not a single battle on a single day.

So a Conquest Zone tug of war ? ( conflict zone )

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

So a Conquest Zone tug of war ? ( conflict zone )

Really, anything is better than what we have now. But you clearly have the right idea with very little explaining necessary so I'd think the devs have that on their minds as well if they're thinking about making rvr "shine" again. Hopefully it's not another polished turd.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Slim McSauce

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

You know you can say the same exact things without resorting to vulgarity... It may actually pass the idea better than using such adjective... but ok.

One thing... Port Battle is a important part of Conquest, this is undeniable.

Someone suggested a mini-campaign running up to the final battle.

How would this prevent a defender sitting and just waiting - not proactive - and at the same time have the attacker commit to activities that can promote both sides to meet ?

( mind you that timezones populations are all time extreme polarized at the moment - clans are usually of the same zone, and rarely meet others outside theirs. Whereas during full nation conquest there was a unreasonable spread between nation but was definitely not so bad ).

[Hawkwood]

1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:

why does the defender choose the time to defend

Because Clausewitz already postulated that a conflict, a war, starts with defending. Not with an attack.

[staun]

1 hour ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

Right now the side with higher numbers wins, if they defend. They can draw in the PB fleet into battle to deny their access into PB. There it's decided which side is stronger. Attacker can sink all Screeners and won't get the port for this success. Giving Victory marks for damage, the attacker which is drawn into  screening battle and makes the most damage would be rewarded for this success with marks. Defender who has only a big but bad screening fleet to defend, would get few Victory marks to pay for future PB timers. He would lose the port sooner or later since bad screening with high number wouldn't give him what he needs to defend in his time zone.

But would that not also favor the nations with most players?  The game is so the best skilled and strongest in numbers will win. Only if they build in a handicap system that would change. Until then I have a hard time to see any system, that do not favor the strong one.

[staun]

19 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Why would break balance to be rewarded with some ressources spawning at your warehouse from time to time?

Those ressources can also be obtained through normal contracts. My proposal only save times to the owner.

Keyword is time and acces to the ressources. Ofc the determening Factor is ofc how much. But if we talk about motivation, my guess is that you don’t think about 1 teak log. Basicly you give some an advantage. We had the same when only top 3 got VM. How did that go?

You can care all you will for the elite, hide it behind fine words like motivation and reward. Short fact is  it change the balance  and favor the strong. Nothing wrong whit that. But lets stay honnest about it, Then we also can face the concequences with open eyes.

[staun]

11 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

You comparison with the old conquest system have no sense.

That system limited a ressource to the top 3 nations, my proposal only makes that the owner gets faster the ressource.

 

And who do you think would hold those ports that matter? They proberbly also don't have to pay market price for it. They get an advantage. Plain and simple. But nothing wrong with it. It is fine you belive in a rewarding the elite. I just think it might have a downside, but I also think I am one of the few that think so. 

An upside can be all want to do it, everybody wants to be the winner. Think that the general belive in here. Downside can be that the underdog just give up. But I soon think we will find out. I would be very supriced when the new RvR patch comes, if it is not a elite aid patch.

Edited December 28, 2018 by staun

[Slim McSauce]

5 hours ago, Hawkwood said:

Because Clausewitz already postulated that a conflict, a war, starts with defending. Not with an attack.

That's totally misread. There isn't a fight if there is nothing to fight for is what he meant. The attacker chooses when to strike, always.
(He is also at a disadvantage because of this, it takes roughly 1.5x more force to attack a defended position than if the defenders sallied out to fight)

Edited December 28, 2018 by Slim McSauce

[Hawkwood]

41 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

That's totally misread. There isn't a fight if there is nothing to fight for is what he meant. The attacker chooses when to strike, always.
(He is also at a disadvantage because of this, it takes roughly 1.5x more force to attack a defended position than if the defenders sallied out to fight)

Misread yes. By you.

[Njord]

@admin

Many within the NA community are eagerly awaiting the announced RvR update that is supposed to breathe fresh life into the conquest aspect of the game. Now we see everyone moving to GB getting ready to zerg all other nations down. I am afraid this is what always happens when RvR gains importance - players forming zergs to dominate the map. Especially if RvR becomes more clan based and clans gain more control over their ports, this will become a serious balance problem. It is the same as with ganking in PvP - the average player would rather have an easy fight without any risk, than actual competition but at least in PvP the reward is split between the gankers. RvR instead always promoted zerging over actually taking challenging wars. It should also be considered how this will play out after release, if we really get a lot more active players - the map is big but the valuable ports are very limited ( still only one cartagena and 2 copper ports ).

So I wonder, are you planning to discourage zerging somehow, maybe by rewarding the underdog clans / nations significantly more? Maybe split total reward between all Lord Protectors in the nation ( this would not only be much more balanced but also more realistic ) ? What about some mercenary faction that gets insanely high rewards for RvR but always has to play for one of the 3 weakest nations?  Or will the best possible outcome for everyone be to join the same single nation / clan, as soon as the snowball becomes too big?

 

[Slim McSauce]

It's an ROE problem. Ganks/Zergs will always be a problem as long as players are allowed to do it uncontested. Gank v Gank is the name of the game in PvP I wouldn't be surprised if Zerg v Zerg becomes ROE for RvR.

Really it's the job of the developer to draw the line on these situations as to not let all the nations devastate each other with massing ganks, no body wins that way.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Thonys]

i think is the problem of the name change DLC

it can also change the nation>  but that is discussed before...

[Galt]

33 minutes ago, rediii said:

lol. GB doesnt even match russian numbers but now its a problem for some reason

Prussia dominated pirates for months now. That was/is no problem aswell. Sweden dominated the whole map for over a year or so. etc etc 

Its playermade stuff and dynamicly changes.

Its a sandbox and if 1 nation do.inates other nations group up to fight it or they just wait long enough.

any mechanics in eve that make small coorps stronger/get better rewards or something?

I agree with Redii here; what we tend to see in zerg nations is an overall lack of skill across the entire playerbase. Numbers are good for RvR becuase you can screen and fill battles, fine. But what good is it if you lose everyone in the process? The Americans have very large numbers but are largely disorganized. Britain is a bit better off with their large organized clans, but any coordination between them seems lacking (as has always been the case.) To my knowledge, most the other nations may only have a few larger clans but that's it. 

Secondly, coalitions have existed in this game as long as I have played. If anyone gets too big, the other nations will try to cut them back down to size. As it should be. RvR is at a standstill, but everyone knows the yanks are trying to ally up with the Brits to help them get their coast back. The French and pirates took too much land, imo. But, as a French player, I am only concerned with fighting big battles; and if anytime we see a big alliance emerge, a coalition will form which should help drive RvR. That's what I'd like to see, at least.