Some small adjustments to proposed RvR

[OjK]

Ok, so it looks like with this iteration, we got a really nice founding for a proper RvR.
This looks like a really proper background, however, there are few things, which should be adressed, and I hope we can fix them, making some really, really nice RvR

So first, a list of aspects that should be taken care of:

1) Too many Port Points for investment
2) Artificial "locks" in the map due to Frontline systems
3) Overinflated BR limits

If all above would be tweaked, we could have a really great, great system for RvR. 

So let's go into details of each of the point:

1) Too many Port Points for investment

I was waiting to see after maintance, how the investment system will look like. And unfortunately, I can already see that there is some urgent need to adjust the values of both Port Points and the cost of going further into specific ship bonuses. Two reasons:

A ) "One port to rule them all"

There is basically no need or incentive for making more than 1 shipbuilding port. With 35 points, You can pretty much unlock absolutely everything within single shipyard.
With 35 points available, You can unlock either 4-3-3-3-3 with still one point left for the fort for example, or 4-4-3-3-2. Looking at the cost of such improvement, I doubt anyone will ever consider making another port with different shipyard bonuses. That, will quite quickly lead to the fact "We don't need more ports".

B ) All bonuses = like no bonuses

The gradation for the upgrade levels have also another problem - if almost all upgrades are obtainable from one port, that mean, that stats won't really matter. If You can spec in all of the aspects, hull, speed, crew and guns - there will be no variety whatsover. If every ship from vast majority of ports will have same or very similar bonuses, that would make every bonus obsolete. 

The system should promote focusing. The system, should promote decisions of what each port is specialized with. 
There should be clear decision do we want to build all rounders? Or do we want to build fast ships? Or the sturdy ones?
If You can get all bonuses, that makes system very flat, very boring and quite irrelevant

PROPOSED SOLUTION:

Revisited cost of upgrade cost. Instead of 1/2/3/4 it could be f.e. 1/2/4/8. Also, smaller pool of Port Points could help that as well - f.e. 25
If You really want to specify in something, You should pay the price. 
You should decide or You want to focus on all-rounders, but not excellent in any of the bonus, or getting max bonus in one aspect, but not getting any on the others.
One port focused on making a Ship of the Line - with bonuses to hull and gunnery, other one more focused on frigates, with speed and crew bonuses etc. Yet another for all-rounders

POSITIVE OUTCOME:

- More variety of ships
- More pressure on having multiple shipyard ports, for different ship types
 

 

2) Artificial "locks" in the map due to Frontline systems

Already discussed on many other topics. In short words of what we discussed in other topics on the forum:

- Problems with some specific "routes" of attack
- Problems with some part of the map beeing easily locked due to placement of Free Towns
- Problems with no possibility to go "through" friendly neighbour (not all neighbour must be an enemy)
- Problems with attacking specific regions for specific reasons (war, and nation conflicts)

PROPOSED SOLUTION (ADDITION):

Allow taking DELAYED hostility missions - INVASION - on any port capital on the map

If for any reason, a nation would like to attack some county, which is not directly accessed due to Frontline system, they can start preparation for Invasion.
The Invasion mission would not be restricted by Frontlines rules, but would require time to work.

Day (or two?) later, the attacker can get hostility missions, available for one day only, without Frontline restrictions.
During those two days, Invaded nation could prepare defenses through port investments, gather allies etc.
Requirement to attack the County Capital is a big 'chokepoint' enough, to allow nations for some more variety for their war plans.

Also, the invasion missions should be announced on Combat News - f.e.:

"Poland-Lithuanian started preparation for Invasion on PONCE County"

POSITIVE OUTCOME:

Attackers will have more options to move through the map, defenders will know when the attack will come, so they will know how to react.

 

3) Overinflated BR limits

That was already discussed by me in this particular topic:

As You could see, it came with pretty good reactions from different player and different nations.

YES - we want big battles
NO - we DON'T want boring battles

As it's easy to verify on the server records, recent PB's were always maxed out on player numbers when possible, not on ship sizes.
If the BR limit will allow 25 people on 3rd Rates, we will go in 25x 3rd Rate.

Overinflating the BR limit will have only negative effects:

- Boring PB battles, with L'Oceans everywhere
- No PB composition whatsoever - every county Capital will be attacked by exact same zerg of L'Oceans
- Locking out people with smaller ships, making participation in RvR very distant for new players.

 

Positive outcomes of restricting the BR limits:

A ) PB could be fought by either 25 people on smaller ships, or half of that size in 1st rates
Yet it was proven already, that bigger fleets of smaller ships tend to act better in PB, the smaller nations and clans could have an alternative.
Every nation could show up to PB either by bringing the numbers, or the size. With too big BR limit, there is no choice - You have to come on 1st rates
Smaller nation could always have at least some (yet still disadvantaged) chance to fight. Outnumbered, but in bigger ships. With current BR limits, they don't have even that chance.

B ) Various fleet compostion
Interesting part of RvR is also composing the fleet, using many of the ships available in game. Making some tactical choices etc.
With overinflated BR limit, there are no choices whatsoever. On every PB You'll need to take L'Oceans, and L'Oceans only.
Every other choice would automatically put You in loosing position, as enemy can fill out the Capital with 25 L'Oceans.
With smaller BR limits, You never know for sure, what the enemy will bring. How many Bucentaure's? How many 3rd Rates? How many 1st rates?

C ) Shorter time to get new players in RVR
With more restrictive BR limits, and bigger pressure on smaller ships, we could integrate new players to RvR much faster. If we could get some new players to the PB, using their 5th rates etc, they will enjoy the game faster, and the retain factor would be much bigger. With BR limits proposed in this patch, no player would participate in PB's, unless he maxes out L'Ocean. That could take a month or two in some cases. For some, that will be too long, and they will quit the game before that.

PROPOSAL:

Using a 3rd Rate BR for a benchmark on PB BR Limit.

Trust the players! If there will be a space for more players, we will use that space.
Check the fleet composition of all PB's for last half a year or more. 

MOST IMPORTANT PORTS ON CARIBBEAN - 25x 3rd Rate = 12,500 BR
COUNTY CAPITALS: 20x 3rd Rate = 10.000 BR
REGIONAL PORTS: 15x 3rd Rate = 7.500 BR

With this settings, we will have various team compositions, and I'm pretty sure that county capitals will be still fought rather with 20x3rd Rates instead 10x L'Oceans.
We will have the bigger Port Battles in PLAYER numbers. We dont need a SIZE numbers here.

 

 

I hope You'll take this feedback, and with all changes implemented in that patch, we will finally have really nice and rewarding RvR system

 

[Sven Silberbart]

completely agree to you

[Carlos_Condell]

i agree with you in all points