Forthcoming patch final discussion.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, EliteDelta said:

Here's where I'm confused. You can't be night flipped unless you choose to set a timer outside your prime time. 

Yes some enemies could set timers in timezones that are inconvenient for you, but just choose other targets?

Also, we will be getting much more clearly defined borders, as admin said hostility missions can't be set across the map, you need to be in a nearby port to set one. 

 

The US/AUS clans wont be able to attack you, and you wont be able to attack them, without getting up early/staying up late. However, most clans are EU, so they will set times that you can attack. 

That is where you are wrong - the clan system will allow allies and all the british speaking clans will have a natural affinity for each other - culturally and linguistic - I don't believe you can't realize that. We have tested the system and it failed. IF GLOBAL WAS SUCH A GOOD IDEA THEN PPL WOULD PICK GLOBAL. - It's been weighed, it's been measured and it is found wanting.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Intrepido said:

Guys you seem that you have the brain still on holidays.

It is very easy.

You set a good timer for your clan. The port gets flipped by a clan from a different timezone. That day your clan and friends cant go to the PB because X.

So to recover that port you will have to make an insane effort because the timers are set while you are working\sleeping\...

Sorry but this is a bullshit.

And it has already been discussed endlessly. Apparently some ppl need to have simple stuff repeated. Repeatedly.

[Skully]

9 hours ago, admin said:

Clans will be able purchase trading outpost in the city increasing the volume of trading resources sold or bought in the town

• under consideration - clans will be able to set the time they can be attacked on (like the old lord protector role) but this will cost money this time.

How about, a Clan can set a PB timer in one port only? Other same Clan ports owned will have no timer, because

On 7/10/2016 at 2:31 PM, Skully said:

It is a known exploit to set ports to anything other than no-timer. Since all of you here are of good sportsmanship, I expect it won't happen again. 

[BallsOfSteel]

9 minutes ago, Skully said:

I fixed it for you. AUS & US will essentially be blocked and EU will complain to AUS they can't attack anything.

Sounds good to me

[Captain Lust]

8 hours ago, Peter Goldman said:

Most of the players run from fair and even fights. They want to have superiority and then they want to fight. That's a huge issue that's inside the heads of players. NO RISK AT ALL.

Well, pretty much this and i can't even blame them looking at the current risk vs reward when comparing pvp to pve... but it was always like this even with multi duras. Cowards will play like cowards no matter how cheap or expandable their ships are. It's not about losing the ship, it's losing the fight that they can't handle... There isn't even enough pvp to be had to lose ships faster than you can afford building / buying them, unless you don't know what you're doing and then that is the problem and not the ships. 

But yeah i don't know why pvp can't get higher rewards to encourage it more ( also skillbooks / upgrades like pve would be nice ), it seems only logical? Nobody can argue how much more rewarding ( not in terms of fun but time/gold,xp,upgrades etc. ) and risk-free pve is over pvp...  the ship knowledge alone on higher rates is impossible to max out before 2022 only with pvp.

[Sir Texas Sir]

27 minutes ago, EliteDelta said:

@Bearwall

I'm not seeing the negatives of lord protectors... Maybe I'm missing something?

• EU Clan - Has two options:
  • Sets timer in their prime time to be able to fill the PB.
  • Sets the timer outside the prime time with an allied US/AUS clan to defend the port.
• US/AUS Clan - Has two options:
  • Sets the timer in their prime time.
  • Sets the timer outside the prime time with allied EU clans to defend it.

This doesn't seem so bad... If you're the attacker, maybe sometimes you'll have to attack outside your prime time, but if you win you can change the port to your time zone.

Also, if an EU clan sets US/AUS timers without enough players in that timezone to defend it, they wont last long...

I'd love to hear your specific issues with this system. 

We kinda saw this on the old flag system, but what folks did was set off times thinking a port will be safe.  Well all we had to do is show up with Mortar Brig and maybe a few escorts and take that port in off times.   The same with defense was to show up and just stop that mortar brig and a few escorts.  It was nice to put the port times in our prime times slots and our clan did so for both US and AUS prime times cause our clan is made up of mix players.  If you can't defend a port in your own prime time than you prob have to many or don't need them any way.   Though with this new system a small clan can take a port and keep that port as there very own and than they can add some friend clans to help them with others.  You get up to 15 friendly clans and if you have US prime time clans and AUS prime clans but none in EU time you can set your slots during those times.  If you have only EU players and not other support in other time zones you set all your ports to EU time slots.   Than if we want to take them as US players we have to plan that port battle for the weekend mid day if we want to take it.   Just like they would have to during our prime times.

 

18 minutes ago, Skully said:

Aren't the winners, the ones who provide @Jeheil with a good story? In my mind that is good content.

And here I invoke the beloved virtue of @admin, Aequitas. For the game to be fair, all good activities must be rewarded. Even getting a ship sunk.

Even though he's some times a bit one sided I love his videos.  

We really need xp for damage back.  Keep Kill's/Assit for the gold and marks, but reward folks for the damage they do in a fight no matter the out come will make a lot of folks happy about the grind along with other changes.

 

[victor]

Overall good changes.

One thing: if free town are capturable this will hit traders heavily (in the sense that free towns now spawn trading exotic goods that are hardly found in other places). Thus, I would say that they should stay as they are now (uncapturable and neutral), otherwise a faction could "conquer" the trade routes and this - lacking an alliance system - will be another huge hit for smaller nations.

And, please, do not set aggressive IA too much "powerful/fast/aggressive". I mean: at least let traders be able to escape from a IA ganking fleet (the player ones are quite enough).

Edited August 22, 2017 by victor

[Sir Texas Sir]

18 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Guys you seem that you have the brain still on holidays.

It is very easy.

You set a good timer for your clan. The port gets flipped by a clan from a different timezone. That day your clan and friends cant go to the PB because X.

So to recover that port you will have to make an insane effort because the timers are set while you are working\sleeping\...

Sorry but this is a bullshit.

How did you loose the port if it was in your prime time and not theirs?   Maybe cause they have multi players that can play in different time zones.  Maybe you need to recruit more players than.  I been in port battles all time zones and that is me, but other players can do it too.  Sorry if you lost that port it's your own fault for not properly defending it.  Better luck next time, should of had a better defense fleet since it was in your prime time when you lost it.  Now it's in their prime time and they can properly defend it sounds like.   

[Rebrall]

15 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

That is where you are wrong - the clan system will allow allies and all the british speaking clans will have a natural affinity for each other - culturally and linguistic - I don't believe you can't realize that. We have tested the system and it failed. IF GLOBAL WAS SUCH A GOOD IDEA THEN PPL WOULD PICK GLOBAL. - It's been weighed, it's been measured and it is found wanting.

you seemed to avoid my question about how is the EU server going?

FYI you lost more players then global recently,

the game as a whole right now is hurting and bleeding players and being stubborn about new mechanics that are possibly revamped old ones,

And going on about old issues yes they were a learning curve but you have to make mistakes to improve 

@Bearwall @Intrepido see bleow

 

1 minute ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

We kinda saw this on the old flag system, but what folks did was set off times thinking a port will be safe.  Well all we had to do is show up with Mortar Brig and maybe a few escorts and take that port in off times.   The same with defense was to show up and just stop that mortar brig and a few escorts.  It was nice to put the port times in our prime times slots and our clan did so for both US and AUS prime times cause our clan is made up of mix players.  If you can't defend a port in your own prime time than you prob have to many or don't need them any way.   Though with this new system a small clan can take a port and keep that port as there very own and than they can add some friend clans to help them with others.  You get up to 15 friendly clans and if you have US prime time clans and AUS prime clans but none in EU time you can set your slots during those times.  If you have only EU players and not other support in other time zones you set all your ports to EU time slots.   Than if we want to take them as US players we have to plan that port battle for the weekend mid day if we want to take it.   Just like they would have to during our prime times.

 

all i want is a good mix of players all together there is such a huge opportunity with a merge and some of our TZ inter link so there is again huge opportunity for really good live server and if we do ever reach the dizzy heights of 20k plus players then branch the servers to regions and thank you @Sir Texas Sir

 

[Captain Lust]

8 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Dont forget some changes for the repair system, please. I beg you, dont forget it.

Unlimited repairs are the reason i don't even bother looking for pvp anymore. It's unrealistic, turns battles into a cheesy repair fest and prolongs battles unnecessarily and the best part is when i run out of repairs ( which is the case most of the times because i wouldn't want to overload ) i have to find new ones, often meaning sailing all the way back to my nations ports - yeah sounds super FUN. Also concerning all the whining about expensive ships - the repairs are whats really expensive considering you pay / use them even if you're winning ( so every battle that isnt ganking ) . It's just absolute useless rubbish. One repair for each (sail,hull,crew) was way better.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Captain Lust

[victor]

4 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

How did you loose the port if it was in your prime time and not theirs?   Maybe cause they have multi players that can play in different time zones.  Maybe you need to recruit more players than.  I been in port battles all time zones and that is me, but other players can do it too.  Sorry if you lost that port it's your own fault for not properly defending it.  Better luck next time, should of had a better defense fleet since it was in your prime time when you lost it.  Now it's in their prime time and they can properly defend it sounds like.   

No man. It will just not work. Simply. We tried in the past.

Recruit who? With this shrinked playerbase.

I hope no merge will be done, or RvR experience of the mayority of players will be destroyed by the needs of a vocal minority (but hey ... that's how it actually happens now in the USA, isn't it?). 

[King of Crowns]

9 hours ago, admin said:

Sweden very very very hard (only 1 uncapturable port)

except not. because its impossible to kill them in the open world. they are no more than 3 mins away from a friendly fortress.

[Skully]

10 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

10 hours ago, admin said:

Sweden very very very hard (only 1 uncapturable port)

except not. because its impossible to kill them in the open world. they are no more than 3 mins away from a friendly fortress

Stop hunting them within 3 minutes of their uncapturable port.

[King of Crowns]

Just now, Skully said:

Stop hunting them within 3 minutes of their uncapturable port.

that's the only place you can find them. because they have no reason to leave that area. all they need is right there bud.

[Skully]

2 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

that's the only place you can find them. because they have no reason to leave that area. all they need is right there bud.

Hence take away their hiding place.

1 hour ago, Skully said:

I still think the fall of a Capital is the best game move.

 

[Skully]

10 hours ago, admin said:

Clans will be able purchase trading outpost in the city increasing the volume of trading resources sold or bought in the town

Will the trading outpost interact with the market?

You know I like economics. 

[vazco]

10 hours ago, admin said:

why don't pvp players pvp each other? We tell them where they are exactly for that. But they group up for some reason and gank missions. Asking to move them out of green zone

That's because you create a world of incentives for PvP players to grind missions. If PvP was as rewarding as PvE (including risk calculation), it would solve the issue. This is all that we're asking for for a long time. We have high risk, it should give high reward - to give similar profits as mission grinding in the end.

Because rewards are low, now PvP players lower risk as well, trying to hunt defenceless traders and noob players that do missions close to capital. I think this wasn't the original goal you had.

 

Examples for fixing rewards for PvP:

• inflicting a damage in battle, even if you don't sink a ship, could give XP. There are options to secure it from exploits, eg:
  • you get XP/marks only when you sink or loose ship, based on damage you made, up to 150% of XP that someone would get from sinking you.
• give rewards for capturing a ship
  • to balance it, if your ship is captured, capturer will spend eg. first 1000 XP and gold/combat marks that he gets on a new ship to re-purpose the ship, without getting any rewards
• introduce different types of PvP missions with a pre-set configuration and goals, which require players from both sides to join first, and which increase variety and give unique rewards (eg. after doing X damage in those battles you could get an unique paint)
  • you could use such missions for PvE as well, just due to low risk, they should give lower rewards in PvE
  • those missions should be player-launched, not arbitrary like treasure fleet
• increased rewards for PvP by 5-10x, and secure them from exploits (again, can be done in a few different ways - eg. block getting XP for fighting non-casualty battles)

Edited August 22, 2017 by vazco

[Skully]

42 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

We really need xp for damage back.  Keep Kill's/Assit for the gold and marks, but reward folks for the damage they do in a fight no matter the out come will make a lot of folks happy about the grind along with other changes.

It is funny that folks cried alt damage farming and forgot about the implications. 

As long as it is a Zero-sum game (unless we need money sink/faucet) I don't see any trouble. Ergo the rewards never exceed the value sunk.

[mikawa]

4 minutes ago, Skully said:

It is funny that folks cried alt damage farming and forgot about the implications.

What if we get no gold and no XP (means that XP is given for the sailing time on the ship but not for combat)?

We could get just "loot" (marks & mats & upgrades) that has to be divided between the winner participants. Alt fighting is then quite useless ...

[vazco]

17 minutes ago, Skully said:

It is funny that folks cried alt damage farming and forgot about the implications. 

As long as it is a Zero-sum game (unless we need money sink/faucet) I don't see any trouble. Ergo the rewards never exceed the value sunk.

I'll quote myself from a post above:

23 minutes ago, vazco said:

• inflicting a damage in battle, even if you don't sink a ship, could give XP. There are options to secure it from exploits, eg:
  • you get XP/marks only when you sink or loose a ship to boarding, based on damage you made, up to 150% of XP that someone would get from sinking you.
• give rewards for capturing a ship
  • to balance it, if your ship is captured, capturer will spend eg. first 1000 XP and gold/combat marks that he gets on a new ship to re-purpose the ship, without getting any rewards

Edited August 22, 2017 by vazco

[Sir Texas Sir]

28 minutes ago, vazco said:

That's because you create a world of incentives for PvP players to grind missions. If PvP was as rewarding as PvE (including risk calculation), it would solve the issue. This is all that we're asking for for a long time. We have high risk, it should give high reward - to give similar profits as mission grinding in the end.

Because rewards are low, now PvP players lower risk as well, trying to hunt defenceless traders and noob players that do missions close to capital. I think this wasn't the original goal you had.

 

Examples for fixing rewards for PvP:

• inflicting a damage in battle, even if you don't sink a ship, could give XP. There are options to secure it from exploits, eg:
  • you get XP/marks only when you sink or loose ship, based on damage you made, up to 150% of XP that someone would get from sinking you.
• give rewards for capturing a ship
  • to balance it, if your ship is captured, capturer will spend eg. first 1000 XP and gold/combat marks that he gets on a new ship to re-purpose the ship, without getting any rewards
• introduce different types of PvP missions with a pre-set configuration and goals, which require players from both sides to join first, and which increase variety and give unique rewards (eg. after doing X damage in those battles you could get an unique paint)
  • you could use such missions for PvE as well, just due to low risk, they should give lower rewards in PvE
  • those missions should be player-launched, not arbitrary like treasure fleet
• increased rewards for PvP by 5-10x, and secure them from exploits (again, can be done in a few different ways - eg. block getting XP for fighting non-casualty battles)

Just keep it simple.  Marks/Gold you get for your Assit (half reward for BR difference) and Kills (full reward depending on BR difference multiplayer) for PvE and Than PvP gets the x3-5 (I prefer 5 myself for high risk high reward).  Than reward XP for any damage done in the battle so that low lovel ships that help with demasting and sail shots can still get some reward. Than give a Assit and Kill bonus to xp.  They could also add in things like mast, crew shock and other things to give slight bonus to xp for the fight.  You should be rewarded XP even if a ship if captured.  That is your reward instead of the marks and gold.  While every one will still get xp for the fight, but no Marks are Gold cause you keep the ship.  This will help a lot with the grind that folks are complaining about.  That and make travel XP and missions xp go towards ship knowledge learning.  I'm sorry I have no used for these XP any more cause I'm maxed level.  That or let them become redeemable we can put on any ships we want.

22 minutes ago, Skully said:

It is funny that folks cried alt damage farming and forgot about the implications. 

As long as it is a Zero-sum game (unless we need money sink/faucet) I don't see any trouble. Ergo the rewards never exceed the value sunk.

This was pretty much fixed when they raised the cost of ships and the rewards for gold wasn't even a small fraction of what ships cost. Not to mention the best thing to stop alt farming is the fact we have the one hour recently kill cool down and the even more recent COMBATNEWS channel.  

14 minutes ago, mikawa said:

What if we get no gold and no XP (means that XP is given for the sailing time on the ship but not for combat)?

We could get just "loot" (marks & mats & upgrades) that has to be divided between the winner participants. Alt fighting is then quite useless ...

I'm sorry a ship and crew learns things as they do both sailing and fighting so they should get rewarded for both.  The loot drop right now is pretty sad compared to other games and you get zero loot drop from PvP.  All the while PvP drops the best loot out there.  The best loot should be rewards for good RvR/PvP that can by bought by though players or as a random drop by PvE.   Even better if they bring the AI Privatter and maybe some name elite ships to the game these ships can have higher rewards than normal chance on the OW ships.

Alt farming currently is very useless any way.  Not to mention if they just get strict on folks that get caught you will see a lot less of it.   I can go out and run a few fleet missions solo  and get way more rewards in an hour than I could trying to farm an alt all day.

[admin]

4 hours ago, TommyShelby said:

Maybe the number of people that do pvp daily has fallen drastically over the last year or so. 

Just maybe have the PvP'ers gotten tired of changes turning NA's focus from PvP, to Trading, Crafting and PvE?

Just a thought.

Maybe the number of people who could convert to pvp has fallen drastically due to the design paradigms we have been creating with the active community here?

• Insta- closed battles (favor pvp hunters and not average players)
• No reinforcements (favor pvp hunters and not average players)
• Removal of revenge gank due to invisibility and speed buff (favor pvp hunters and not average players)
• Removal of resource transport (favor pvp hunters and not average players)
• Many other features that were pushed in to just place average players in line for easy consumption by pvp hunters 

Now we are getting requests to remove missions from capitals (to let pvp hunters find target easier). 
Your opinion is valuable and you were one of the players who asked for some real fixes of revenge ganks - you got them. Did you start to pvp more?

Or maybe all those changes destroy the supply of targets and because wolves don't eat wolves you have nobody to play with once average players dissapear?

[admin]

2 minutes ago, Borch said:

 

- Get hostility done only through PvP with no hostility decay (only defenders lowering it by wins). Missions wont work. People will just drag AI away from spawn point in first 5 mins of combat.

 

reinforcements in missions are positional. So if you send in a scout to find out their location, so you can enter where they are, or even ahead of them. 

[vazco]

6 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Just keep it simple.  (...)

The only complexity you have to take care for is alt farming, that's why I proposed a system I did. If you don't address it, PvE grinding will turn into alt grinding, or inter-nation fake battles, which is even worse.

 

8 minutes ago, admin said:

Your opinion is valuable and you were one of the players who asked for some real fixes of revenge ganks - you got them. Did you start to pvp more?

Or maybe all those changes destroy the supply of targets and because wolves don't eat wolves you have nobody to play with once average players dissapear?

Again, please create an incentive system for wolves to be able to eat wolves, and things will start to work. Right now wolves are forced to eat bots to go anywhere, while everyone is chasing or escaping everyone else. It's all about incentives! Just make fun battles proffitable.

Yes, you're right - giving wolves better access to remaining sheep is a bad idea and won't lead anywhere. 

[z4ys]

12 minutes ago, admin said:

Maybe the number of people who could convert to pvp has fallen drastically due to the design paradigms we have been creating with the active community here?

• Insta- closed battles (favor pvp hunters and not average players)
• No reinforcements (favor pvp hunters and not average players)
• Removal of revenge gank due to invisibility and speed buff (favor pvp hunters and not average players)
• Removal of resource transport (favor pvp hunters and not average players)
• Many other features that were pushed in to just place average players in line for easy consumption by pvp hungers 

Now we are getting requests to remove missions from capitals (to let pvp hunters find target easier). 
Your opinion is valuable and you were one of the players who asked for some real fixes of revenge ganks - you got them. Did you start to pvp more?

Or maybe all those changes destroy the supply of targets and because wolves don't eat wolves you have nobody to play with once average players dissapear?

Like you said for vets the game is to easy. There are to many possibilities to deny a fight. For a new player the game is to challenging.

So again how this patch want to fix that mismatch. Still cant see your solution.

For me it looks like just a small workaround to keep vets busy for a month till everything goes the same way as before just with a higher patch number.

Edited August 22, 2017 by z4ys