One Server for PVP

[azu]

Just now, OneEyedSnake said:

i guess those 20-25 people were all in our heads then eh? crap. 

no they stayed up late at night losing out on family and work life because of a video game, how long do you think it would be before they would find another game where they did not have to give up there personal life to play it ?    

[OneEyedSnake]

1 hour ago, azu said:

no they stayed up late at night losing out on family and work life because of a video game, how long do you think it would be before they would find another game where they did not have to give up there personal life to play it ?    

i know a lot of people that play this game are retired or do not work, and as far as their family, idk. maybe they arent the family type? A bit presumptuous on your part isnt that? 

 

1 hour ago, azu said:

no they stayed up late at night losing out on family and work life because of a video game, how long do you think it would be before they would find another game where they did not have to give up there personal life to play it ?    

but yes, i agree that the time dump into this game is too large. 

[azu]

1 minute ago, OneEyedSnake said:

i know a lot of people that play this game are retired or do not work, and as far as their family, idk. maybe they arent the family type? A bit presumptuous on your part isnt that? 

maybe you do but most of the people in my clan has work and family's and cant stay up every time some people from another continent want to play, which is why servers is good thing so we don't have to any more       

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, OneEyedSnake said:

i know a lot of people that play this game are retired or do not work, and as far as their family, idk. maybe they arent the family type? A bit presumptuous on your part isnt that? 

That's another point though, at least at daytime you still have a fair shot at calling in players who are students, unemployed, retirees, flexible schedules and so on, whereas 3am is a shitty time for practically everyone.

Edit - And while you're at it, could you clarify the following? Because it sounds an awful lot like yet another make-believe statement that makes it difficult to take you seriously.

12 hours ago, OneEyedSnake said:

I dont believe there would ever be an empty PB. since US would fight each other in our times. And EU would fight each other in their times.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Guest

[Cmdr RideZ]

America normally has a decent amount of players in every game.  It can be that after launch they are not happy to play on global either.  Maybe they end up to similar issues.

I have been playing RvR in some games, and a bit boring thing indeed is that you leave the game in state A, you sleep, you work, and you log to see that the situation is something totally different.  I have to admit that I stopped playing RvR games just because of this.

Word Of Tanks did it right, as clans can agree fights. Their system is also super simple, maybe even way too simple, but it works.  In WOT you will always have fights in some specific time, more or less.  This helps you to organize your real life, which makes it easy to "access".  You can agree with your GF/wife/kids/friends/mother/whoever that every evening a gaming session at this time.

(The same goes with BRS, it provided a moment of pause for RL)

[Guest]

12 hours ago, OneEyedSnake said:

Or its because the servers are split so there arent enough players to fight each other. Yea, and all the threads about night flipping are by european players that just suck at this game, to be completely honest. 

lol yeah.. right.. and that's why the entire brit/dutch/US alliance resorted to nightflips.... Because we suck at PBs.. I think the general consensus is that the DK/NG has the best PB fleet in the game and the US got the least experienced PvP'ers - which is quite natural since the US rarely meets anyone they can PvP against in their own primetime.. Least of all after the alliance system was introduced and they allied themselves with the only other faction that had players online at their hours.. So as someone else wrote - I wipe my ass in your honesty, to be completely honest..

 

1 hour ago, OneEyedSnake said:

i know a lot of people that play this game are retired or do not work, and as far as their family, idk. maybe they arent the family type? A bit presumptuous on your part isnt that? 

Yeah.. Let's cater to the MASSIVE amount of players that got - no jobs, no families, no lives.. And doesn't care for their health or getting any of the aforementioned.... Just drop the bad idea for what it is - a bad idea..

[Anolytic]

4 hours ago, OneEyedSnake said:

i know a lot of people that play this game are retired or do not work, and as far as their family, idk. maybe they arent the family type? A bit presumptuous on your part isnt that? 

You're arguing with someone who was there almost every time. You're literally telling someone who was there that maybe they are unclear about why and about their own situation. Who then is the presumptuous one?

Clearly it's you who have no idea what you're talking about.

[Liq]

This has been discussed lifely in the past few months. No better solution than setting up two servers for the two major timezones could be found, so people stopped taking each others ports without any resistance.
I think we should test two servers first, rather than jumping to conclusions too early. It might turn out nice, two decent running servers with decent both RvR and OW PvP actions. Or it might result in one server being abandoned and everyone joining the 'main' one after a few weeks. who knows?
Just the same goes for the 'anti 1 dura' arguement. Some want to already abandon the idea, before even having tested it. Give it a chance, test it, then make suggestions on what to change in what way.

[Potemkin]

Honestly, i kinda miss the lord protector system. It had serious flaws but its redeeming feature was that it allowed the defender to pick a time when they could field the most players to defend instead of having the attacker being able to choose. If you set your timers to absurd times, you lost the port to a handful of people. I think we're all aware by now that players will utilize any advantage the game offers. The problem i keep seeing is a tug and pull between giving players more freedom and more oversight from devs regarding rvr, its why we will have two pvp servers which im pretty sad to see. Bottom line is i think the conquest system, being the very foundation for rvr, should have the current owner pick the time when it feels it can best defend not the attacker choosing the time when it feels it will have the best chance to win. If you honestly think theres a solution thats all rainbows and unicorns that makes everyone happy then idk what to tell other than pass the bowl. This problem can only be solved by picking the lesser of however many evils we have or will come up with.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Potemkin

[Cpt Fred]

It's not servers that's the issue here; it's in-game features that are.

If 1000 players were playing; they are split up by time zone anyway. Splitting up servers (or rather time zones) isn't going to matter a lot if you're not a hardcore gamer (or have loads of spare time). 2 servers are more beneficial because of better ping, for example. Of course nobody thought of the bigger picture;  Nobody took in account an actual economy (trade). While one server has a full 24h cycle of trade (because NA prime time, EU prime time); two servers 'only' have a cycle of 12h. More trade; more price competition; cheaper ships, resources,... In the LONG run, one server will be the best solution anyway and you can't deny it. The only issue here is nightflipping as it seems; which is a problem with regard to nations and alliances choices imo. If those can divide the player population somewhat evenly (EU and NA) there won't be a problem at all. A very good example is PvP Global where everyone is joining GB (as usual) and some are switching to USA. Rumours say those are going for an alliance (or not?), while we can clearly see this is a huge issue for the other nations due to underpopulation. If the system would work properly, and players help the system accordingly (even out nations or at least alliances between EU and NA timezones) there would not be such a thing as nightflipping. Of course one should feel somewhat forced to do so, that's the biggest issue right now, but isn't necessarily bad either.

While one can choose between an astounishing amount of 8 nations, alliances pretty much fix a flaw in the system; it brings back a bigger block of players who can unite. Players only make it worse due to 'wrong' alliance choices (underpopulation of EU in one alliance, overpopulation of NA in other alliance -> guaranteed nightflips - unevenly divided population). The thing the servers are 'trying' to solve is the over and under population of certain time zones in an alliance; with forced PB timers. 8 nations divide the ECONOMY even further, meaning there is even less competition to start with. Alliances tend to 'fix' this again. That's why one, central trade hub for numerous nations isn't a bad idea; to stimulate price competition (as an example).

Instead of one 1 rate in every port; eight  1 rates that all cost 5M each... would become sixteen 1 rates (24h trade / craft cycle); 2 in every port... there is already a price competition going on here; second 1 rate is guaranteed cheaper. Now if we have 2 big alliance blocks and ships are in one place (and if resources too; crafting would be even faster); that'll cause a price competition between eight 1 rates instead of a meager 1 or 2 simply because we let trading and crafting continue for an extra 12h (it goes on and on). I always say: less is more and one server will eventually rise; and hopefully new features will help out the economy even more... only stimulating PvP and RvR. If then, in the meantime, players 'help' out the system (evenly balance players by time zones, etc.) we would eventually see a much better game. The biggest issue here: what will the population be and ESPECIALLY: how will it be divided (first by nations, then they come back as one thanks to alliances, but is it fair, even?). The con here: you need more ships (because you have a bigger population) but the prices are cheaper on all aspects because there is more trading. Now players most likely need to worry about LH but then again; more players, more LH... which could result in more (and efficient) crafting.

Everything is cheaper -> everyone buys more resources / ships -> everyone crafts more ships, cannons due to cheaper prices (because we have way more resources in one place opposed to 8 nation ports, it's simple) -> more PvP activity due to an 'overabundance' of ships and resources,... -> what can trigger RvR are the new resources (wood - crafting); Players fight for resources and safe waters. A good example is the alpha game Foxhole. It's such a simple, yet complex game. 2 sides fight against each other; each town you can conquer has a set of resources / buildings you can use... and certain towns have different building sets (the fight for resources / able to craft something).

Imo alliances and nations could be simplified to a system like this; we have 4 NA nations, and 4 EU nations (yes, on one server). If one is from NA, you'll automatically join a NA nation and the same goes for EU. This way time zones are guaranteed divided 'evenly'. Then alliances are there to divide the time zones even further (2 NA zones - 2 EU zones, etc.). Even when you're 'forced' to join a time zone specific nation; alliances can bring back the time zones again. The biggest issue here: you're forcing players to play a certain nation.. but if you keep 4 nations, for example, players can still have a choice. It's been like this most of the time anyway... on average UP has more dutch players, France has more French players, GB has more english speaking players (with various nationalitiet), Spain (had) has more spanish speaking players,... it goes on and on.

A 'nation' such as the pirates could be a NA and EU mix (a combined time zone nation); just like GB could (English is a common language in games). Of course this isn't a final solution, as this issue is bigger then it looks but there have to be limitations and restrictions. There's too much freedom at the time being (and it's complicated); two servers, 8 nations, alliance choices,... players will exploit as we have seen numerous times. A good example is the old lord protection system (above comment) and port battle timer restrictions, instead of 2 servers.

Even this is overly complicated... one server, X nations (not too many - give players a variety - let's say 3) and you don't even need to develop alliances. Nation A vs Nation B... Nation C being in the middle of it all (perhaps a starting, tutorial nation; you don't have to choose right now). You don't even have to force flags; they don't have to be nations but they can be an alliance of numerous nations already. Customization: you can choose your own flag in that certain 'alliance'. Start in Nation C under a white (noob) banner... learn the game and funnel them accordingly; learn about nation (alliance) A and B, let them make choices which lead to them eventually choosing for nation (alliance) A or B (leaving noob nation C). Current NA funnel system is overly complicated: choose server (2 - time zone), choose nation (8, what's the difference?), choose alliance (2-3), choose clan (TS - bring players together),... it's all over the place.

But in the end my teacher always tells me: Can you KISS?: Keep it simple (and) stupid: "The KISS principle states that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore simplicity should be a key goal in design and unnecessary complexity should be avoided.". IDK if this will ever be the case for NA; but perhaps for NA2.

 

 

[Barbancourt]

9 hours ago, OneEyedSnake said:

oh i saw both sides night flipping for a while until one side quit and lost. 

"Night flipping" is something we should be working to avoid.

 

[OneEyedSnake]

Just now, rownd said:

"Night flipping" is something we should be working to avoid.

 

I agree, but I don't think our population is high enough to support this if we want to fill port battles unless the servers are combined. Then after growth perhaps then we can consider splitting servers. Just look at NA server to see what I am talking about 

[Ratline]

Get rid of port battles, no more night flipping

[Ser_Slack]

4 hours ago, Ratline said:

Get rid of port battles, no more night flipping

Without rvr/pb's you just have an arena game. That's coming if you want that.

[Challenge]

without rvr/pbs you have a game of smaller battles and trading/sailing in the Caribbean. OW is what makes this different than an arena game, not rvr/pb.

[Ratline]

2 hours ago, Ser_Slack said:

Without rvr/pb's you just have an arena game. That's coming if you want that.

I never said anything about removing RVR.

I've always held that port battles are terrible, unhistorical and simply lead to stupid gamey tactics. It was bad with fantasy flags, it's even worse with magical capture circles and meaningless, abstract war supplies. There must be better ways to encourage OW pvp (pb are rubbish for that.. people grind npc then sit about in port waiting for their oh so bloody important port battle). Territorial control could be done much better and in a way which negates the problems port battles create.

[Ratline]

1 hour ago, Challenge said:

without rvr/pbs you have a game of smaller battles and trading/sailing in the Caribbean. OW is what makes this different than an arena game, not rvr/pb.

Indeed, and if anything port battles are far closer to the arena game than proper ow pvp. Perhaps it's the PB afficionados who should be holding out for arena mode so that the OW game can have some decent mechanics.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Ratline

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Ratline said:

I never said anything about removing RVR.

I've always held that port battles are terrible, unhistorical and simply lead to stupid gamey tactics. It was bad with fantasy flags, it's even worse with magical capture circles and meaningless, abstract war supplies. There must be better ways to encourage OW pvp (pb are rubbish for that.. people grind npc then sit about in port waiting for their oh so bloody important port battle). Territorial control could be done much better and in a way which negates the problems port battles create.

Then tell us how to do it better.

Direct competition is subject to timezone incompatibility.

Indirect competition isn't nearly as fun/interesting (multi-day hostility system, grinding progress bars and so on).

Almost all OW and PB/screening fights are such vastly different beasts that something better be brought to the table  to fill the gap after axing major chunks of content.

[Ratline]

7 hours ago, Aegir said:

Indirect competition isn't nearly as fun/interesting (multi-day hostility system, grinding progress bars and so on).

And yet this is exactly what the current system demands. Look, I don't really expect them to remove PB, they're way too invested in the concept,so I'm being slightly facetious but I do think they're pretty bad. The fact that they're having to come up with ever more elaborate and gamey arena rules for them is clearly an indicator of this imo.

Personally I've always argued that territorial control based on ships in the water (in OW) + kills for attackers vs kills for defenders would be simpler, lead to more and better pvp and would result in way less bullshit gamey cheesing. The only way to take territory would to be out and exposed to attack, the only way to defend would be to fight. All in OW, no stupid win circles. It would encourage real world tactics such as blockades, defensive patrols etc. Not just a couple of fleets grinding npc like true pve pros.

 

Yeah, you'd still have time zone issues but since everything wouldn't be compacted down to a couple of hours hardcore grinding and a 90min port battle it would be less of an issue. One server would then clearly be the better solution. We're currently heading in teh direction of ever more Byzantine rules and mechanics and ever more localised and divided player groups simply to deny an issue created by the fact that the devs have hinged the entire game around a bad concept.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Ratline

[Powderhorn]

I'd be OK with losing port battles for favor of one server, but I just don't see that happening.  Too many people are more interested in the large fleet actions, and conquest lets people "win."

[Challenge]

They'd get the "we're better" feeling from the arena with leader boards and "team" standings, as well.

[Ratline]

1 hour ago, Powderhorn said:

I'd be OK with losing port battles for favor of one server, but I just don't see that happening.  Too many people are more interested in the large fleet actions, and conquest lets people "win."

I don't see it happening either, but as I say removing PB does not mean removing conquest or large fleet actions. I love the idea of blockades etc being a part of the game, unlike now. It'd also negate all the sitting in port waiting for port battles to happen stuff. Enemy is blockading your regional capital then you put together a viable fleet and sail out to break the blockade... there's your 'port battle' right there, except now it has a meaningful relationship to what is happening on the OW.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Ratline

[Kloothommel]

1 hour ago, Challenge said:

They'd get the "we're better" feeling from the arena with leader boards and "team" standings, as well.

But that has no consequence. PB can have big impact on the functioning of nations, diplomacy and the eb and flow of the server. Numbers in a league do not. PB is pvp with meaning, not just open water skirmishes.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Cornelis Tromp

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Ratline said:

And yet this is exactly what the current system demands. Look, I don't really expect them to remove PB, they're way too invested in the concept,so I'm being slightly facetious but I do think they're pretty bad. The fact that they're having to come up with ever more elaborate and gamey arena rules for them is clearly an indicator of this imo.

Personally I've always argued that territorial control based on ships in the water (in OW) + kills for attackers vs kills for defenders would be simpler, lead to more and better pvp and would result in way less bullshit gamey cheesing. The only way to take territory would to be out and exposed to attack, the only way to defend would be to fight. All in OW, no stupid win circles. It would encourage real world tactics such as blockades, defensive patrols etc. Not just a couple of fleets grinding npc like true pve pros.

 

Yeah, you'd still have time zone issues but since everything wouldn't be compacted down to a couple of hours hardcore grinding and a 90min port battle it would be less of an issue. One server would then clearly be the better solution. We're currently heading in teh direction of ever more Byzantine rules and mechanics and ever more localised and divided player groups simply to deny an issue created by the fact that the devs have hinged the entire game around a bad concept.

 

38 minutes ago, Ratline said:

I don't see it happening either, but as I say removing PB does not mean removing conquest or large fleet actions. I love the idea of blockades etc being a part of the game, unlike now. It'd also negate all the sitting in port waiting for port battles to happen stuff. Enemy is blockading your regional capital then you put together a viable fleet and sail out to break the blockade... there's your 'port battle' right there, except now it has a meaningful relationship to what is happening on the OW.

Isn't that virtually the same as the upcoming changes to the hostility system? Now that hostility missions are removed and only OW fleets can be engaged, the PvE fights is the blockade/raiding component and fleets cant be tucked in a corner PvE-racing against another fleet anymore. So if you like that, there you have it, your entire RvR defense can be done without setting foot inside a PB.

I guess the main difference that you're suggesting would be what the devs have tinkered with in the past - making hostility generation a multi-day ordeal to bring all timezones into it. Which they now discard so that it doesn't become "PvE grind at X hour countered by PvE grind at Y hour" that you also seem to despise, in favour of having to defend your region immediately to get actual PvP. Which brings us back to direct competition, removing something without offering a replacement, and not resolving timezone issues.

On 5/8/2017 at 4:52 PM, admin said:

Assuming you are a defender.
If you want a PB you don't show up
If you don't a PB you must show up and get the hostility down using OW bots or PVP.  

Hostility from missions will be removed soon (in one of the next hot fixes). The only way to get hostility down will be luck (if some enemy fleet sails into that port) or PVP.  War supplies as a defensive measure are under consideration as they still allow alts to do things with them. 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Guest

[Challenge]

According to the devs' statement of the original concept, this was supposed to be a ship to ship combat game. The whole conquest thing was an "also added" that made less and less real pvp ship combat happen. It also (but this i my opinion) drove the game to the point where folks using only really big boats with tactics that were stagnant before 1850. As one of the pirates said: SoL will get shredded by faster, lighter ships fighting a melee style of combat. I've listened, read and watched the YouTubes... none of what I see is very impressive from a tactical standpoint. It's the same battle over and over and over and over and over...

There was a reason there weren't massive changes of ownership in the Caribbean during the age of sail. A few were taken and fewer held -- it was just too expensive an undertaking.

Port battles and "conquest" will eventually -- and fairly quickly is the game's life, I believe -- end up with one side owning everything or so near to it it won't matter. And that really will kill the game.