Are 3rd rates too disposable?

[Aetrion]

Ships of the line don't come with 5 durability, and even if they did, all that does is somewhat reduce the amount of upkeep grinding you have to do, not make it into a game where you fight over rewards rather than punishments.

 

 

This is part of economic PvP.

 

Sure, but I can only say once again, the clans that actually want economic PvP could just as well have it if all those big costs were incurred with things like harbor defenses and troop ships, rather than forcing that aspect of the game into absolutely every possible mode of play by going straight to the one thing you need to play the game at all with, which is ships.

 

The whole fear of "everyone is in a 1st rate" is a symptom of the fact that there is no good reason to use anything else, and that's what needs to be addressed rather than simply saying "Well obviously everyone would want to use this one thing, so we just need to make sure not everyone can have it".

Edited March 9, 2016 by Aetrion

[Slamz]

Sure, but I can only say once again, the clans that actually want economic PvP could just as well have it if all those big costs were incurred with things like harbor defenses and troop ships, rather than forcing that aspect of the game into absolutely every possible mode of play by going straight to the one thing you need to play the game at all with, which is ships.

 

The whole fear of "everyone is in a 1st rate" is a symptom of the fact that there is no good reason to use anything else, and that's what needs to be addressed rather than simply saying "Well obviously everyone would want to use this one thing, so we just need to make sure not everyone can have it".

 

This runs into what I call the "PvP/PvE ratio" and the debate of what an acceptable ratio is -- how much tedious, boring PvE is required to sustain an hour of PvP?

 

Your argument seems to be that the acceptable PvE amount must be 0. No matter how much you PvP and how many ships you lose, you seem to want 0 PvE to be required to support this. You think this would result in endless glorious PvP but in my experience it leads to PvP itself feeling like a grind and the game becoming boring because even if I beat you 100 times in a row, there you are again, coming at me in the exact same ship I just sunk 100 times already.

 

This is a problem with a lot of MMORPGs that have open world combat. If this was WOW, I would beat you in open world PvP and then run away because if I don't run away you might just keep spawn rushing me from the graveyard and I don't especially want to fight you ten times in a row. WOW PvP was really just a battle of who was the hardest to bore because in the end, that's who was left standing in an area: the guy that was the hardest to bore and just kept coming back regardless of if he won or not. Naval Action could easily turn into that. We sink two dozen 3rd rates and here they come again! Sink them again and poof, there they are!

 

We must, at some point, be able to actually force you to stop and deal with the fact that you are losing ships.

 

So I think meaningful PvP requires personal loss.

 

That's why I think the ratio cannot have 0 PvE in it. Maybe it could be 1 hour of PvE sustains 10 hours of PvP. Or maybe it's 1:1. I'm not sure what the magic number is. I don't want it so much PvE that I feel like that's mostly all I'm doing but I also don't want it to be 0 PvE, implying PvP has no loss and therefore is "just for funsies".

 

It's not just for funsies if sinking you a few times means you have to go off and grind fleets for an hour.

 

 

So, back to the topic, my concern is that easily farmable 3rd rates makes the ratio too low: too little PvE is required to sustain a 3rd rate PvP habit and therefore the PvP does not have as much meaning as it should.

 

For that matter, I think 5 durability on regular ships might be about 2 too many.

[Doschichis]

The problem with PvP losses in this game is simply that it's your ability to participate that's under threat when your ship is under threat.

 

.

tell that to demon souls. You can lose lvl in one of the bosses. In dask souls, if you go to crystal upgrade, you will lose your weapon. If you die in human form, you will lose humanity. Even if you want to pvp in dask souls, you still need to farm humanity...

[Aetrion]

This runs into what I call the "PvP/PvE ratio" and the debate of what an acceptable ratio is -- how much tedious, boring PvE is required to sustain an hour of PvP?

 

No, PvE should not be tedious and boring in the first place, and people should be free to play the game with however much of either one they enjoy.

 

This idea that PvP requires loss because you don't want to fight the same person 100 times in a row just shows the blatant elitism at work there. You want the other person to actually be forced to quit fighting if you beat them a few times because you're tired of them getting another go at you? Seriously?  I mean fuck their enjoyment of the game right?

 

Being on top shouldn't be easy. Being ahead shouldn't just get you further and further ahead. That's exactly why the open world combat has already self destructed into just a few nations owning everything and people mass migrating to Pirates. 

[kumisz]

and people should be free to play the game with however much of either one they enjoy.

 

Just days ago, you suggested that crew should work like labor hours to prevent people from spamming 3rd rates and not caring about losing them (which was a good idea). Now you want infinite pvp gameplay with no consequences (like losing your ship and getting set back to the nearest port you can dock at). I can't follow you.

[Azzak]

Infinite PVP Gameplay with no consequences => Warthunder,WOT etc...

 

I'm not sure I want naval action to be like that.

 

Play, die, retry, play, die, retry, play, die , retry.... you unlocked a new tiers !

Play, die, retry, play, die ....

 

until you reach tiers 10. End game. Uninstall.

(and people usually uninstall way before that).

 

Should NA be like this ? No, we want an open world, we want a sandbox MMO game. We went some risks involved with fighting. We want an economy that should work with fighting, the ability to cripple your foes (to a certain extent), conquer their ports etc...

Edited March 10, 2016 by Azzak

[jodgi]

Ah, yes. The looming shadow of...

Infinite PVP Gameplay with no consequences

Horror.

So, to avoid silly...

Play, die, retry, play, die, retry, play, die , retry.... you unlocked a new tiers !

Play, die, retry, play, die ....

 

until you reach tiers 10. End game. Uninstall.

gameplay, I suspect some of the sandbox and loss hardliners of adhering to...

run, run, grind bots, run, run, run, gank, run, grind bots, grind bots, get ganked, run, run, run, grind...

gameplay.

I don't get it, I think "retry" is positive and uplifting word.

---

Relax, az. NA won't change that significantly, very few people ask for it. Lower your guard, you're swinging at a shadow.

[Ligatorswe]

The attempts to stop a spam of Victories ans santtis in the game wont funktion as long as all Players want them as the endgame reward. Players wants the HIGHEST ships, the endgame ships. Like you want level 10 tanks in world of tanks to participate in clan wars.

The only way we can stop this is by making 3rd rate to 1st rate the endgame. By restricting the number of 1st ans 2nd rates in portbattles and such. And by creative game content that makes 4th and 5th rate the preferable ship.

Max 3 first rates and 7 2nd rates in Every large battles. That makes 3rd rates too the endgame.

With this said i support the ideas crewlimits. An excellent idéa. Every captain or has to gather crew like laborhours today. And perhaps by huring recruiters.

Excellent. It will limited the amount of ships of the line in your fleet to perhaps one.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Ligatorswe

[Porpoise]

Today we saw a battle where pirates lost 20 3rd rates while killing 4 Victories and call it a victory. Yes, it was economical victory. They lost 20 captured vessels which will be replaced immediately without any serious effort. On the other side the Brits lost 4 capital vessels worth 40 days of crafting for a single player.

 

I do not think this mechanic is good for the game. I mean having endless resources.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Porpoise

[jodgi]

40 days of crafting?

It's only a matter of time before we're at full santi pb spam. Then the free 3rds won't matter as much. I dunno, but think this is a temporary problem.

[Porpoise]

What about just limiting the quality of all captured ships to basic teak? There will be huge difference between them and the crafted ones, but the ability to replace ships for free will be kept.

 

I really do not like the situation now when yolo 3rd rates gank victories without caring about their own losses, because they can cap limitless number of them. When using crafted and expansive ships, they will more care about the tactics and survival.  

[jodgi]

Well, if yoloing capped 3rds are making the zerg think twice about bringing out their vics I think it's a great "feature". Some of us have done this a few times already; The SOL creep is about to get real.

[Porpoise]

Well, if yoloing capped 3rds are making the zerg think twice about bringing out their vics I think it's a great "feature". Some of us have done this a few times already; The SOL creep is about to get real.

 

But this makes 2nd and 1st rates only overpriced luxury, when anything can be achieved with "free" ships. If the devs want working and player driven economics, they should get rid of captured NPC ships. Or at least limit their potential.

[ajffighter86]

But this makes 2nd and 1st rates only overpriced luxury, when anything can be achieved with "free" ships. If the devs want working and player driven economics, they should get rid of captured NPC ships. Or at least limit their potential.

 

I agree with this.

 

3rd rates, if you had to craft them, would be incredible resource-sinks. However as they stand in game they are basically free ships that you don't care about if you lose them.

 

So resources that normally would have gone into the production of 3rd rates (i.e. a metric fk ton of iron) are essentially banked for later use for building victories and santisimas. There's hardly another ship in the game has as little appreciation for value as the 3rd rate. Even a crafted lynx requires more resources to obtain.

 

And to those who say that free 3rd rates benefit the smaller nation, and that removing them from AI fleets would benefit only the zergs. I ask, How so? 

 

Ian2492 makes a good point:

 

Why draw the line at 3rd rates? If making 3rd rates so common benefits smaller nations, wouldn't adding AI 2nd and 1st-rates into AI fleets make it even easier for the weaker faction? —Of course not. It would be a hellish nightmare for the smaller faction if the zerg nation showed up with a fleet of easy-bake Victories, with even more 1-durability reserves sitting back at their docks that they picked off of dumb AI that kept trying to turn to get broadsides off on them while they just sailed behind the stern raking away the robot's crew.

 

What you should want, if you are a smaller nation, is that big ships be a luxury for your enemies that you might see once in a blue moon, so that you actually have a chance to make a stand in a battle where your team mostly has frigates.

 

Supposing you were that smaller nation and actually managed to craft a victory, would you really want it to be sunk outright by a bunch of players who showed up in 1 dura 3rd-rates that were essentially given to them by the AI? They're already seeing this becoming a problem on PVP 1. Soon, no one is gonna want to bring out their first and 2nd rates because they keep losing them to players in 1-dura 3rd rates who have not used any resources to get them.

Edited March 14, 2016 by ajffighter86

[jodgi]

...when anything can be achieved with "free" ships...

That's only a temporary problem, capped ships are only used now when ppl are still craftgrinding... Well, all but.

[ajffighter86]

This runs into what I call the "PvP/PvE ratio" and the debate of what an acceptable ratio is -- how much tedious, boring PvE is required to sustain an hour of PvP?

 

Your argument seems to be that the acceptable PvE amount must be 0. No matter how much you PvP and how many ships you lose, you seem to want 0 PvE to be required to support this. You think this would result in endless glorious PvP but in my experience it leads to PvP itself feeling like a grind and the game becoming boring because even if I beat you 100 times in a row, there you are again, coming at me in the exact same ship I just sunk 100 times already.

 

This is a problem with a lot of MMORPGs that have open world combat. If this was WOW, I would beat you in open world PvP and then run away because if I don't run away you might just keep spawn rushing me from the graveyard and I don't especially want to fight you ten times in a row. WOW PvP was really just a battle of who was the hardest to bore because in the end, that's who was left standing in an area: the guy that was the hardest to bore and just kept coming back regardless of if he won or not. Naval Action could easily turn into that. We sink two dozen 3rd rates and here they come again! Sink them again and poof, there they are!

 

We must, at some point, be able to actually force you to stop and deal with the fact that you are losing ships.

 

So I think meaningful PvP requires personal loss.

 

That's why I think the ratio cannot have 0 PvE in it. Maybe it could be 1 hour of PvE sustains 10 hours of PvP. Or maybe it's 1:1. I'm not sure what the magic number is. I don't want it so much PvE that I feel like that's mostly all I'm doing but I also don't want it to be 0 PvE, implying PvP has no loss and therefore is "just for funsies".

 

It's not just for funsies if sinking you a few times means you have to go off and grind fleets for an hour.

 

 

So, back to the topic, my concern is that easily farmable 3rd rates makes the ratio too low: too little PvE is required to sustain a 3rd rate PvP habit and therefore the PvP does not have as much meaning as it should.

 

For that matter, I think 5 durability on regular ships might be about 2 too many.

 

Agree completely. 3rd rates are a phase right now that doesn't fit in with the rest of the ships in the game. Every ship up until that point requires you to risk some degree of loss in order to progress to the next phase. 3rd rates are like a "pass Go, collect pavel" space on a monopoly board.

Edited March 14, 2016 by ajffighter86

[Slamz]

This idea that PvP requires loss because you don't want to fight the same person 100 times in a row just shows the blatant elitism at work there. You want the other person to actually be forced to quit fighting if you beat them a few times because you're tired of them getting another go at you? Seriously?  I mean fuck their enjoyment of the game right?

 

Yes, seriously, because if they can't enjoy the challenge of losing and the costs involved, then they are not really a PvPer in my book.

 

My PvP is about the thrill and the suspense of knowing there is risk and knowing that failure has consequences. I feel that every time I carry a load of cargo across the open sea in a Trader Brig. I feel it when fighting in an Exceptional ship with nice permanent upgrades. And I know that the enemy is risking something too and has good incentive to not want to just yolo his way through every fight.

 

 

If you want shallow PvP, go play Smite or DOTA or any of the other pointless brawl games out there. Some of us want 1 game with a little depth.

 

With this said i support the ideas crewlimits. An excellent idéa. Every captain or has to gather crew like laborhours today. And perhaps by huring recruiters.

 

It might be interesting if rank determined:

Maximum crew you can have. This is the max crew you can have if you hire crew.

Minimum crew you are granted. This is how many crew you get without having to hire any.

Labor hours per day to hire new crew?

 

 

Minimum crew might peak at around 300. High ranks can always captain a Frigate, without having to worry about labor hours. Crewing a Victory might be more for special occasions. If you try to PvP in one on a regular basis, the enemy might be able to get you out of it just by using enough grapeshot (implying crew does not refill for free after every fight...maybe it only refills up to that "minimum crew" value. Or maybe you can refill on the open sea for convenience sake, but it costs double normal labor hours. Kinda like repairs, it's cheaper if you do it at a port.)

[Sir Henry de Montfort]

The problem with the 3rd Rate is dual....

Positive

1) Players need them to level (great kill/assist) exp.

2) It's the first real lineship, a player uses and most frequently in game for grinding and port battles.

3) Makes a player lots of loot if sold along with guns.

4) Large amounts can be captured during several hours of team grinding.

Negative

1) To easily capped and in large amounts. This makes crafting and losing a 3rd rate in battle of little regard. No point crafting and taking care of a 3rd rate, like you would your trincomolee or bellona. I could just go cap another in 15min. Port Battles are getting silly, example. Pirates and Danes throw 2 fleets of 25/25 capped 3rd at Jeremy every night for almost a week defended by british. They lost 50 third rates attacking each night for 7 nights. That's 350 sunken third rates at 1 port. That is ridiculous...

It makes crafting kind of pointless in the 3rd rate catg. Unless your a cpt who likes good mods on your third.

Port Battles at will.... the capping of thirds and port battles all day with capped thirds is putting so much money in people's pockets and the amounts of thirds capped...that port battles are happening TOO MUCH. People are getting burned out doing 3-5 port battles a night.

I know thirds are a part of the world exp/port battle/money equation but my opinion is they need to go the way of the pavel. Port battles should be carefully planned battles where you SHOULD be scared to lose your crafted ship..not disposable ship that has 10 clones standing by. Make you think wither that attack is worth it.

[Porpoise]

Absolutely true Slamz. The PVP should be and must be challanging content. If there is no risk of losing items/gold/xp/whatever,  then it is not true PVP. Losses should have their consequences and wins should have their rewards. This is what makes PVP thrilling. 

 

If there is mechanics that allows to remove valuable assets from players without risk or risking "free ship" only then something is wrong. Especially in the endgame, which 3rd rate probably is. I can imagine in few months that PBs will be all about Vickies and Santissimas, but for now the ammount of disposable 3rd rates are really hurting the RvR environment where all losses should count and have their consequences. 

I like the limited number of labour hours. It is great mechanics to make capital ships, high grade upgrades and exceptional ships rare. This will be even more emphasized when the endgame ships will be no longer available for free. 

Edited March 15, 2016 by Porpoise

[Musuko42]

There should be ratings below basic, for captured AI ships:

 

Worn out,

Very worn out,

So full of rot that it's barely afloat.

 

They should still be a viable option...but one with severe quality drawbacks compared to purchased/crafted ships.

[xAzDKr]

I voted yes in favor of encouraging more ship variety, I love the playstyle of Frigates and wish they had more use in this game..

[Porpoise]

Captured 3rd rates are not a medicine to cure 1st rate spam dissease. Big ships like 1st rates come into game with 1 durability and you need 13 days of labour hours to build one with the new production system. No nation can afford losing so much resources on a daily bases. Now everybody wants Victory/Santissima, but 80% of players will switch back to 3rd rate after losing theirs 1st rate simply because it will take them over week to gather resources or money to buy/build a new one. Many of them will rather buy a 3rd or Bellona with 3 lives. 

If you do not remove the option to use captured third rates then they will simply sail them while saving the resources for the Victory, so IMHO the "Free" 3rd rates will only increase the number of players sailing Victory in the end. 

[Ledinis]

Although rushing to and spamming 1st rates is an entirely different problem witch needs addressing (hopefully it will be somehow cured when developers introduce land and normal forts for port battles), the current situation with AI captured 3rd rates just takes away all purpose from the game. 24 3rd rates and a victory vs 25 3rd rates ? - ""Ok guys all 3rds bum rush and ram the 1st rate." They are so expendable, they are literally taking away any tactics from the gameplay and making the games economy close to non-existent. I really hope they make it so that ships captured from AI go directly to the admiralty and you can only keep ships captured from players.

[Justme]

So let me get this straight.

Players are afraid to lose duras on their ships due to tanks and Zergs. This is due to the high cost of replacing 1st,2nd, and 3rd rates.

The solution that has been proposed is to limit the duras further because a small segment of the population believe they are hardcore thinks it will encourage PVP, even tho it's been shown not too?

[Ledinis]

So let me get this straight.

Players are afraid to lose duras on their ships due to tanks and Zergs. This is due to the high cost of replacing 1st,2nd, and 3rd rates.

The solution that has been proposed is to limit the duras further because a small segment of the population believe they are hardcore thinks it will encourage PVP, even tho it's been shown not too?

No its just that some of us would prefer less, but actually meaningful pvp, rather than a clusterfuck of free 3rd rates lemming ramming that one 1st rate loosing their entire fleet in the process because they can replace it in 15 mins. Seriously there's a lot of it, but it cant even be called pvp.