Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
rediii

Limiting VM and 1sts differently

Recommended Posts

So atm only the top 3 nations in conquest get CM. It creates competition but its also a bit snowbally.

I would suggest to give:

4VM for 1st place

3VM for 2nd

2VM for 3rd

1VM for the rest

Every week. It creates competition but doesnt exclude any nation from rvr or makes a comeback hard as now.

I dont have the VM cost for 1sts in my mind atm but maybe costs for a permit have to be reworked then aswell

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Alter goals if you cant afford 1st rates. Raid nations that own 1st rates capture them use them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, z4ys said:

No. Alter goals if you cant afford 1st rates. Raid nations that own 1st rates capture them use them.

But but most use shitty LO 1st rates. I don't wanna use them :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But but most use shitty LO 1st rates. I don't wanna use them :(

You cant be picky when you have nothing :D The system like now creates at least a pvp tension.

Just can speak out of prussias pov. We cant craft ships  we cant craft guns but we are happy because we can pvp.

Edited by z4ys
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So atm only the top 3 nations in conquest get CM. It creates competition but its also a bit snowbally.

I would suggest to give:

4VM for 1st place

3VM for 2nd

2VM for 3rd

1VM for the rest

Every week. It creates competition but doesnt exclude any nation from rvr or makes a comeback hard as now.

I dont have the VM cost for 1sts in my mind atm but maybe costs for a permit have to be reworked then aswell

If memory serves Victory marks can only be converted into pvp marks and not the other way round. If you could convert your pvp scalps into Victory marks, then surely every nation would have the ability to craft any ship they may need ? ( appologies if the marks already convert this way, cant recall :) )

right now, pvp marks are the currency , gold is becoming devalued and the must have upgrades are shooting up in price because of the increased gold supply

 

I'd also look at port costs and consider raising them significantly to drain some of the gold from the system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vizzini said:

If memory serves Victory marks can only be converted into pvp marks and not the other way round. If you could convert your pvp scalps into Victory marks, then surely every nation would have the ability to craft any ship they may need ? ( appologies if the marks already convert this way, cant recall :) )

right now, pvp marks are the currency , gold is becoming devalued and the must have upgrades are shooting up in price because of the increased gold supply

 

I'd also look at port costs and consider raising them significantly to drain some of the gold from the system

vm are converatable to combat marks (pve marky basicly)

Ports are worth nothing already except to get vm. Dont raise the costs it makes no sense

With making everything possible with pvp marks you stop rvr motivation again 

Edited by rediii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4VM for the first place is a lot.

My proposal:

1st place: 3VM

2nd: 2VM

3rd: 1VM

Rest: 30 pvp marks. This will allow small nations to choose between a wasa (a must have ship in PB), upgrades for the PB ships or either wait to collect more pvp marks for a first rate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

4VM for the first place is a lot.

My proposal:

1st place: 3VM

2nd: 2VM

3rd: 1VM

Rest: 30 pvp marks. This will allow small nations to choose between a wasa (a must have ship in PB), upgrades for the PB ships or either wait to collect more pvp marks for a first rate.

can you convert pvpm to vm?

4 Is pretty much I agree. You could also just up the required vm for a permit to counter that and keep it roughly as it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prizes should be 3 to 1 VMs per Conquering clan ( goes to clan warehouse ) for the first three nations. Not per player.

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There shouldnt be a reward for nations who do nothing.

 

I like the basic idea behind victory marks: reward active nations and limit 1st rates as they should be rare and valuable.

But there need to be other possiblities to get victory marks as rewards than just winning the map and owning the most ports, because small nations like Poland can never compete for that. Best way I can think of to do this is to do temporary PvP events at random locations for like 3 days and the top 10 get 1 mark each.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rediii said:

can you convert pvpm to vm?

4 Is pretty much I agree. You could also just up the required vm for a permit to counter that and keep it roughly as it is now.

Quote

Victory marks can be bought for PvP marks to promote both RVR and PVP activites

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Prizes should be 3 to 1 VMs per Conquering clan ( goes to clan warehouse ) for the first three nations. Not per player.

 

 

 

i like that tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

There shouldnt be a reward for nations who do nothing.

 

I like the basic idea behind victory marks: reward active nations and limit 1st rates as they should be rare and valuable.

But there need to be other possiblities to get victory marks as rewards than just winning the map and owning the most ports, because small nations like Poland can never compete for that. Best way I can think of to do this is to do temporary PvP events at random locations for like 3 days and the top 10 get 1 mark each.

The is a random pvp event. Try US east coast. Rio Seco is open 23h/7.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

But u cant get a victory mark there.

Sink enough players and convert pvp mark to vm.

Edited by z4ys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, z4ys said:

No. Alter goals if you cant afford 1st rates. Raid nations that own 1st rates capture them use them.

With 4 marks you can afford more 1st rates, so you will have and advantage anyway.

The only ones that are going to loose something are the ones that sell their VMs on the market.

Share this post


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

I'd also look at port costs and consider raising them significantly to drain some of the gold from the system

Ha, if anything it should be lowered to create an incentive to own a port. There is none as it stands.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ha, if anything it should be lowered to create an incentive to own a port. There is none as it stands.

I think cost is there to limit the capability of one major faction to take (and keep) all the map

Edited by victor

Share this post


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

I think cost is there to limit the capability of one major faction to take all the map

If this is intended it doesnt work. Own cartagena and you can have as many ports as you want. Also many ports generate more than they cost like nassau for example

Share this post


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

If this is intended it doesnt work. Own cartagena and you can have as many ports as you want. Also many ports generate more than they cost like nassau for example

I think instead that it is working as intended.

Look at the RvR rank and count the ports of the first four nations. I never saw such a balance in RvR.

But since you are telling in other threads that Sweden has been beaten by the changes in RvR, it's quite easy to understand that you preferred (with your reasons, of course) a scenario in which one big faction shares the map with another big faction. The cost of upkeep of the ports is aimed exactly to avoid this.

Edited by victor

Share this post


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

I think instead that it is working as intended.

Look at the RvR rank and count the ports of the first four nations. I never saw such a balance.

But since you are telling that Sweden has been beaten by the changes in RvR it's easy to understand that you preferred (with your reasons, of course) a scenario in which one big faction shares the map with another big faction.

No its not, the balance is coming from players and not because ports cost something.

Not at one point sweden dropped a port or decided against taking one because the port costs money and I doubt anyone else did it

Share this post


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

No its not, the balance is coming from players and not because ports cost something.

Not at one point sweden dropped a port or decided against taking one because the port costs money and I doubt anyone else did it

So why complaining about the cost of ports if it's actually so easy keeping them up?

Well Mate, I tried to but I hardly understand your reasoning. I actually begin thinking that - since when Sweden does not dominate the RvR - everything in the game is just wrong for you.

Edited by victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

25 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Hell, it's easy to pay for the ports once you are so wealthy. For new folks and small clans though it's a significant burden.

If it's a question of money any clan can own a port. Just need to trade some or do some pve missions with your clan mate and it's done.

What's the hardest is to take it when it's own by an active clan/nation.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×