Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Intrepido

Thinking out loud: "Caribbean server" new RVR mechanics

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

 

  • Defence timers will come back: clans will set the 2-3 hour defense timer that will be used to set up port battles
  • Defence timers will cost 100k per day, clans can choose to not setup the defence timers if they choose to do so.
  • Next day port battles will be partially abandoned. Majority of port battles will start the same day from the hostility generation.
    • If you raise hostility before the defense timer port battle will start during the defense timer (which sometimes mean immediately)
      • you raise hostility at 2pm UTC 
      • defense timer is at 4-6pm UTC
      • Port battle will start today at 4pm UTC
        • if you raise hostility to 100 from 4 to 6 port battle will start immediately
    • if you raise hostility after the defense timer port battle will start the next day during the defense timer
      • you raise hostility at 8pm UTC
      • defense timer is at 4-6pm UTC
      • port battle will start at 4pm UTC the next day

 

 

My review:

-During defense timers the RVR players are going to be sitting doing nothing expecting to any sign of hostility being raised. BAD

-Hostility will be hard to track due to number of ports and server updates on hostility %. BAD

-Easy to set several ports at the same time while the enemy is not online. SAD

-Costs of the defense timers will make think twice the expansionism. GOOD but at the same time BAD because it could decrease number of good PB.

-Instant PB and lack of warning: No defense fleet prepared, desperate attempts of holding the port at all costs (even if its includes shitty gameplay), players will be forced to log in during PB defense timers (feeling NA as a job). BAD but some players wont care because they live here.

-PB defense timers: For most communities with only one primetime, ports are going to be protected by impossible timers. Limiting content and strategies. RVR will be less interesting and full of drama on forums. BAD but some players will enjoy it.

 

Now, your review.

 

 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everything is my way. That is a good sign that others can play their way too. Damn, I love multiplayer games :) 

S

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

My review:

-During defense timers the RVR players are going to be sitting doing nothing expecting to any sign of hostility being raised. BAD Agree this could be a bad point of the possible instabattles.

-Hostility will be hard to track due to number of ports and server updates on hostility %. BAD Agree, again a problem created by instabattles possibility

-Easy to set several ports at the same time while the enemy is not online. SAD You set your ports to your prime time when you can defend, there must be some enemies on same prime time as you. Not all PB's outside your primetime will be at the worst time, there will be some that are just outside your time that with a bit of effort you could get enough people online to do them. Its too easy to look at extremes rather than the middle ground.

-Costs of the defense timers will make think twice the expansionism. GOOD but at the same time BAD because it could decrease number of good PB. If there are empty ports people will go for them, with an increased population hopefully there will be more battles.

-Instant PB and lack of warning: No defense fleet prepared, desperate attempts of holding the port at all costs (even if its includes shitty gameplay), players will be forced to log in during PB defense timers (feeling NA as a job). BAD but some players wont care because they live here. Agree, another possible downside of instabattles.

-PB defense timers: For most communities with only one primetime, ports are going to be protected by impossible timers. Limiting content and strategies. RVR will be less interesting and full of drama on forums. BAD but some players will enjoy it. If all the people currently on the EU server remain on their current PB timers, how would the number of battles be any different? Maybe the number of ports on those timers may change due to Global players taking ports and putting them on different timers. As has been proved previously people can turn out at unsocial hours to participate in a PB, with this system the attackers are the ones that have to do it, and they do it at their choosing while the defenders only have to show up at times they set. So no one is forced to treat it as a job or turn out at unsociable hours affecting their real life.

 

Now, your review.

 

 

My thoughts in Red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going outside of your primetime and attacking a port during the owning clan's prime time... Great as long as the owner fights.

Setting your defense window for your primetime. .. awesome, you want to take my port you do it on MY time, and vice versa

Have the full game, RVR included available around the clock... excellent!  

Looking forward to how this turns out, ready to test this out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

My review:

-During defense timers the RVR players are going to be sitting doing nothing expecting to any sign of hostility being raised. BAD

-Hostility will be hard to track due to number of ports and server updates on hostility %. BAD

-Easy to set several ports at the same time while the enemy is not online. SAD

-Costs of the defense timers will make think twice the expansionism. GOOD but at the same time BAD because it could decrease number of good PB.

-Instant PB and lack of warning: No defense fleet prepared, desperate attempts of holding the port at all costs (even if its includes shitty gameplay), players will be forced to log in during PB defense timers (feeling NA as a job). BAD but some players wont care because they live here.

-PB defense timers: For most communities with only one primetime, ports are going to be protected by impossible timers. Limiting content and strategies. RVR will be less interesting and full of drama on forums. BAD but some players will enjoy it.

 

Now, your review.

 

 

We dont know how its implemented exactly - maybe u get a message if hostility is raised, maybe the pb dont start so instand. Maybe it is good that ports are more expensive - more diversity in port holders - maybe... we will see. In an MMO there shouldnt be a greater group with only one primetime. work together with clans in same nation in other timezones ... 

Edited by CTC_ClanLeader
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CTC_ClanLeader said:

We dont know how its implemented exactly - maybe u get a message if hostility is raised, maybe the pb dont start so instand. Maybe it is good that ports are more expensive - more diversity in port holders - maybe... we will see. In an MMO there is shouldnt be a greater group with only one primetime. work together with clans in same nation in other timezones ... 

Global server and EU server have proven that only some nations gets players from all primetimes.

Edited by Intrepido
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Atreides said:

Going outside of your primetime and attacking a port during the owning clan's prime time... Great as long as the owner fights.

Setting your defense window for your primetime. .. awesome, you want to take my port you do it on MY time, and vice versa

Have the full game, RVR included available around the clock... excellent!  

Looking forward to how this turns out, ready to test this out.

You dont remember, but it was tested the same before. It was called lord protector system.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Global server and EU server have proven that only some nations gets players from all primetimes.

... so what, than make that nations attractive to players from other timezones - look at the french nation they are allready recruiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CTC_ClanLeader said:

... so what, than make that nations attractive to players from other timezones - look at the french nation they are allready recruiting.

And you know how it will go after transfer carebear nightdefense alliance will strike. Again. Not pessimistic, just burdened with experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Aussies take the effort to attack a port at 3am our time, then we set the port window for OUR primetime.  If a Euro clan takes the effort to come take it back then THAT clan sets the window.  Fair for everyone, not ideal for anyone... but that's the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep the guys that asked for instant portbattle will soon be upset if they were really interested in defended portbattles. Will be good for a week or two but soon they are burned out because they have to be around every day so in the near future it will be just flipping empty ports again.

If it is a feature for win without fight lobby - well done.

Still no notification which is the most requested feature in RvR.

No meaning of ports except a handful.

I believe more players are nice but implemention of new RvR mechanics are still poor.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Atreides said:

If the Aussies take the effort to attack a port at 3am our time, then we set the port window for OUR primetime.  If a Euro clan takes the effort to come take it back then THAT clan sets the window.  Fair for everyone, not ideal for anyone... but that's the game.

Flaw wih your logic:

Side A: Clan in Aussie TZ with nation ally in EU tz

Side B: Clan in EU tz with only EU clans in nation.

Side A takes port via Eu ally, places it on AUS tz. Side B cannot attack due to work/school/sleep. Port become untakable for any players with reasonable life schedules. 

 

It just doesn't work.

Edited by Cornelis Tromp
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like a problem for team B to work on, not a reason to throw blocks in front of team A.  Team B should really try to make friends outside of it's timezone, if they don't... their own fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Atreides said:

That sounds like a problem for team B to work on, not a reason to throw blocks in front of team A.  Team B should really try to make friends outside of it's timezone, if they don't... their own fault.

And that mentality almost killed PVP EU the first time around. Not because people didn't try to make friends, it was because the other TZ didn't want to to unfriend others. And then the nightflipping begins. PVP Carribean will get the same fate as global, and then the NA players blame the devs. My prediction at least. Give it a couple of months.\

We all know why PVP Global ended. It was because most don't want to make new friends/join new nations. ( @Christendom, I said most! <3)

Edited by Cornelis Tromp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be a significant warning for a nation when a hostility mission for one of their ports has started.  The current system is very bad for this.  A proper warning system is all I'd like to see to give this a fair shot.

Doubling maintenance for ports does not sound like a great idea, most ports are already a 80-90k money hole and this just promotes more PVE to pay for your ports.  Ports already are getting abandoned regularly (most PBs over a week are player vs neutral....) because of this.

I do not understand why admin is so adamant about promoting PVE gold grind in this is alleged PVP game.
I really do not understand why PVE gold grind has such a strong focus in a PVP game.
I'd write that again, but I ran out of ideas to word it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Quineloe said:

There needs to be a significant warning for a nation when a hostility mission for one of their ports has started.  The current system is very bad for this.  A proper warning system is all I'd like to see to give this a fair shot.

Doubling maintenance for ports does not sound like a great idea, most ports are already a 80-90k money hole and this just promotes more PVE to pay for your ports.  Ports already are getting abandoned regularly (most PBs over a week are player vs neutral....) because of this.

I do not understand why admin is so adamant about promoting PVE gold grind in this is alleged PVP game.
I really do not understand why PVE gold grind has such a strong focus in a PVP game.
I'd write that again, but I ran out of ideas to word it.

Lot of ports arent worth to hold in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Quineloe said:

There needs to be a significant warning for a nation when a hostility mission for one of their ports has started.  The current system is very bad for this.  A proper warning system is all I'd like to see to give this a fair shot.

Doubling maintenance for ports does not sound like a great idea, most ports are already a 80-90k money hole and this just promotes more PVE to pay for your ports.  Ports already are getting abandoned regularly (most PBs over a week are player vs neutral....) because of this.

I do not understand why admin is so adamant about promoting PVE gold grind in this is alleged PVP game.
I really do not understand why PVE gold grind has such a strong focus in a PVP game.
I'd write that again, but I ran out of ideas to word it.

You have to ask yourself why are as you say so many port battles through the week fought against neutral ports rather than owned ones? Why are people capturing these ports that are money sinks rather than fighting for the profitable owned ports?

Doubling the maintenance will hopefully stop people from going for empty unprofitable ports and make them concentrate on profitable defended ports, giving you more worthwhile port battles.

I do not think it is making it a PvE grind for anyone other than people who want to PvE. A single person can easily make over 1 million a day so that could support 10 ports with a defence timer, or 5 ports with total port cost. I am sure most average clans can do this without any problems and in fact as was suggested earlier, maybe the maintenance cost should increase the more ports a clan owns to stop a super clan taking over most of the map.

When money was hard to get I may have agreed with you, but currently money is easy to make and we need a money sink to take some out of circulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Quineloe said:

There needs to be a significant warning for a nation when a hostility mission for one of their ports has started.  The current system is very bad for this.  A proper warning system is all I'd like to see to give this a fair shot.

Doubling maintenance for ports does not sound like a great idea, most ports are already a 80-90k money hole and this just promotes more PVE to pay for your ports.  Ports already are getting abandoned regularly (most PBs over a week are player vs neutral....) because of this.

I do not understand why admin is so adamant about promoting PVE gold grind in this is alleged PVP game.
I really do not understand why PVE gold grind has such a strong focus in a PVP game.
I'd write that again, but I ran out of ideas to word it.

You have to ask yourself why are as you say so many port battles through the week fought against neutral ports rather than owned ones? Why are people capturing these ports that are money sinks rather than fighting for the profitable owned ports?

Doubling the maintenance will hopefully stop people from going for empty unprofitable ports and make them concentrate on profitable defended ports, giving you more worthwhile port battles.

I do not think it is making it a PvE grind for anyone other than people who want to PvE. A single person can easily make over 1 million a day so that could support 10 ports with a defence timer, or 5 ports with total port cost. I am sure most average clans can do this without any problems and in fact as was suggested earlier, maybe the maintenance cost should increase the more ports a clan owns to stop a super clan taking over most of the map.

When money was hard to get I may have agreed with you, but currently money is easy to make and we need a money sink to take some out of circulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CTC_ClanLeader said:

Lot of ports arent worth to hold in the first place.

If we have vast areas of neutral ports between nations, we have no RVR at all.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Archaos said:

 

Doubling the maintenance will hopefully stop people from going for empty unprofitable ports and make them concentrate on profitable defended ports, giving you more worthwhile port battles.

That's a fallacy. There may be at best the same number of port battles as there are today, but I expect a large number of neutral ports on the map to result in less RVR. Why go after a defended port, when you can just farm some NPCs for the same result?

Think back when most of the map was neutral. For weeks, all PBs were on the neutral ports. No one attacked another nation as long as there were neutrals to conquer.  Right now, whenever a port goes neutral, someone will attack it.  Once all neutrals are gone, all hostility activities cease.

 A single person can easily make over 1 million a day so that could support 10 ports with a defence timer, or 5 ports with total port cost.

Someone *can* do that. No one will grind a million every day forever just to do that. That's when the game becomes a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Quineloe said:

If we have vast areas of neutral ports between nations, we have no RVR at all.


 

My main concern will be when one clan conquer one of your ports and set their defense timer when you are at work or sleeping. Or maybe that clan gives that port to another nation with a different primetime for making you impossible to recover it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Pay ports with pvp marks..... :ph34r:

Not a bad idea, but it forces people to PVP and IF you force people they will object to being forced to do something, even if they might like it.

But the players and Developers need to understand that this game has more then one type of player enjoying this game.

You have the PVP oriented player who thrives for the hunt and chase and suffering of others :)

The PVE oriented player who likes to interact with the AI and does not want to engage in PVP in any way.

The PVP/PVE hybrid who likes to both PVP and PVE depending on mood/time state of the moon etc...

The trader who likes to buy and sell or help to find materials to build ships for himself or friends / Clan or just random players

The Shipbuilder who gets a kick out of building and providing ships to other players or for himself.

And more types or combos etc...

 

Creating and sustaining a sandbox environment that manages too suit and cater to all styles is hard if even possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any clan can exist without holding ports :) ... you want your clan to have ports ? Then PvP.

Anything wrong ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×