Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
NethrosDefectus

Swap AI reinforcements for battles that do not close to the defender

Recommended Posts

I propose that protected zones stay but the instead of being able to call in AI to reinforcements that the battle should stay open to the defending side. This would allow nations to defend their capitals but would also encourage more open world PvP. At the moment there is no risk to sitting outside a nations capital and just waiting for a player to start a fight with a AI ship and jumping them. As a result large groups of ships just shit outside areas like Mortimer Town and KPR leaving the rest of the ocean almost empty. 

I'd also recommend having events at regular intervals around the map (say every 3 hours or so) with a guaranteed high value book/upgrade such copper plating or Art of Proper cargo. This would encourage more players to be in the same area at the time.

Edited by NethrosDefectus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battles stay open longer doesn't save the defender. It would be a Hit and run from the attacker because the late joiners would spawn far away from the Action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stepp636 said:

Battles stay open longer doesn't save the defender. It would be a Hit and run from the attacker because the late joiners would spawn far away from the Action.

Have them spawn on the defender like the AI do?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps PVP server should do a vote.. on what they want. my suggestion.. is simple restrict safezones to a specific rank (eg post captain) all ranks above would have completed tutorial by then and be used to game mechanics and therefore should not be protected by AI reinforced safezone of multiple 1st rates. second rule is captains above post captain that are attacked in CAPITAL AREA (so the inner safezone) there battles remain open indefinately for more players to join as word of the attack spreads throughout the nation. the attacker cannot be reinforced in this instance but the defender can.

the reason behind this idea is to allow players incentive to use other coastlines of the map and not remain restricted in the protected zones. the current issue is too many players including veterans remain in the safezone to completely avoid PVP why should this be a mechanic on a PVP server? players complain to me about there low ranks being sunk , the problem is that the veterans are amongst the new players so they are caught in the firing line.

 

one thing is clear.. server pop has made this problem worse and players are encouraged to remain in protected areas which only reduces content and makes pvp hunting silly taask as if you are pvping alone.. be expected to always fighr 10+ players.. is this the direction naval action wants to take in its pvp content?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

perhaps PVP server should do a vote.. on what they want. my suggestion.. is simple restrict safezones to a specific rank (eg post captain) all ranks above would have completed tutorial by then and be used to game mechanics and therefore should not be protected by AI reinforced safezone of multiple 1st rates. second rule is captains above post captain that are attacked in CAPITAL AREA (so the inner safezone) there battles remain open indefinately for more players to join as word of the attack spreads throughout the nation. the attacker cannot be reinforced in this instance but the defender can.

the reason behind this idea is to allow players incentive to use other coastlines of the map and not remain restricted in the protected zones. the current issue is too many players including veterans remain in the safezone to completely avoid PVP why should this be a mechanic on a PVP server? players complain to me about there low ranks being sunk , the problem is that the veterans are amongst the new players so they are caught in the firing line.

 

one thing is clear.. server pop has made this problem worse and players are encouraged to remain in protected areas which only reduces content and makes pvp hunting silly taask as if you are pvping alone.. be expected to always fighr 10+ players.. is this the direction naval action wants to take in its pvp content?

more players + incentives to leave safezones would do good for pvp content. Biggest things for more players are tutorial, UI and localization tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NethrosDefectus said:

 At the moment there is no risk to sitting outside a nations capital

Ehm can you explain? Enemy nations capital?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raxius said:

one thing is clear.. server pop has made this problem worse and players are encouraged to remain in protected areas which only reduces content and makes pvp hunting silly taask as if you are pvping alone.. be expected to always fighr 10+ players.. is this the direction naval action wants to take in its pvp content?

 

Well, again i write that the bigger problem is that the current system promotes ganking as that is a easier and more risk free way of gaining PvP marks, Yes 5 people splitting 10 PvP marks from killing 1 player is going to be less then 1 player getting all 10 for himself but the risk vs reward is not worth it.

The good PvP players dont need to gank but can alone attack bigger or more opponents and get a higher reward but most prefer to hunt in groups as that is more fun and gives a higher chance of actually getting a reward.

There is also little incentive to stay and fight if you are outnumbered as you do not get any PvP marks for doing damage but only if you kill/assist a enemy player. Hence most tend to hunt in packs as that is easier to get PvP action and the reward for it or avoid it all together if you see groups of enemy players.

Also, most forumposters seem to want to promote more PvP by removing safety for other players because that is good for themself but not necessarily for the server in large.

I am still waiting for my Traders Marks to appear and the fun and nifty rewards that I can buy with only them, to counter the advantages PvP rewards have provided for players with PvP marks to buy them. For example a 6% speed increase in OW only. Or better sails/rigs that allows traders to increase speed with full cargo but slower when unloaded...

The current system that makes a loaded ship slower is realistic, but the problem is that no sane person loads a non trader to the same degree giving traders a huge disadvantage. Despite the fact that most Non traders was packed with water, ammo, food etc when leaving port to be able to stay out for long periods of time. Increase the weight for repairs, seeing as spare masts would be large and bulky in a non trading vessel.

Or shallows near land that trading ships can sail over in OW and in battle but not the fast big warships allowing traders to be able to run to hide in shallows near land while in battle and OW. It was a valid tactic to avoid being captured.

Its silly that a small Traders snow can go as close to the shore as a 1st rate like the Santisima.

Limit all ammo types or put a timer on how often you can bring balls from the holds like you have a timer on repairing your other ship essentials

If you make it so its more balanced more players will venture out of the safe zones and thus increase the PvP activity in OW. Try proposing changes that do that instead of limiting what we have now...

Edited by Niagara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big part of the arguments raised in this thread are in contrast with the consideration that the reason of "big" safezones - at least now - is not only to protect players themselves but also to create a protected area that allows "easy" faction to develop a self-sustainable economy and crafting system.

On the other hand, removing safe zones with the actual PVP mark system will just lead to and explosion of pack-ganking outside the capital city of populated factions. Wiith the exception of let's say 10 well known PVPers that hunt alone (and that TBH do not complain much about safe zones) , all the rest of the crew that roams around and in safe waters - and wants to reduce or eliminate safe zones - are PACK GANKERS that sail in groups outside capitals just to farm easy PVP marks.

I am basically with Redii when he says that the game needs good incentives (a.k.a. new content) to leave safe zones, rather then the elimination or reduction of the said zones.

Let's suppose in example that kills of NPCs (both fleet and missions) outside safe zones  have a 100% rate (or a very high rate) of dropping rare items/books/materials while missions in safe zones have just a 10% or even zero rate. This would be an incentive for high level players to go outside, while lowbies will have no problem in remaining in the safe zones.

But let's try to go even further and imagine that only in  missions or NPC kills outside safe zone you have also a chance (to be determined in percentage) of dropping a pvp mark. This way a player that usually  just prefers safe PVE in safe zones may be willing to take a risk in terms of PVP in order to have access to PVP mark rewards. The principle that applies here is that also the prey that risks his ship to non consensual PVP should deserve a (of course lower than the hunter) PVP reward. 

Edited by victor
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Let's suppose in example that kills of NPCs (both fleet and missions) outside safe zones  have a 100% rate (or a very high rate) of dropping rare items/books/materials while missions in safe zones have just a 10% or even zero rate. This would be an incentive for high level players to go outside, while lowbies will have no problem in remaining in the safe zones.

But let's try to go even further and imagine that only in  missions or NPC kills outside safe zone you have also a chance (to be determined in percentage) of dropping a pvp mark. This way a player that usually  just prefers safe PVE in safe zones may be willing to take a risk in terms of PVP in order to have access to PVP mark rewards. The principle that applies here is that also the prey that risks his ship to non consensual PVP should deserve a (of course lower than the hunter) PVP reward. 

The first would help a lot, and should be done ASAP.  The second... *Shrugs*  I could go either way on it.  Also of note - look at the list of trade goods at the bottom of this first post.  These are all inside the safe zones, let alone those that are only 30 seconds sail outside of safe zones, which are (due to initial invulnerability timer and tagging timer) effectively a part of the safe zones as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if a trader/smuggler escapes a warship (in a battleinstance) ... should he be awarded with a pvp-mark? After all, from the traderperspective, escaping the raider is a win ...

It would be a change and perhaps the uber-pvp'ers can stop calling traders that can get away from them noobs? Or perhaps the raider simply loses some of his pvp-marks if he fails to sink or capture a tradeship? After all, the shame of such a failure must cost something?

And why exactly would you differentiate between a smuggler and a trader? The smuggler is already taking the higher risk?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if a trader/smuggler escapes a warship (in a battleinstance) ... should he be awarded with a pvp-mark? After all, from the traderperspective, escaping the raider is a win ...

It would be a change and perhaps the uber-pvp'ers can stop calling traders that can get away from them noobs? Or perhaps the raider simply loses some of his pvp-marks if he fails to sink or capture a tradeship? After all, the shame of such a failure must cost something?

And why exactly would you differentiate between a smuggler and a trader? The smuggler is already taking the higher risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eyesore said:

So, if a trader/smuggler escapes a warship (in a battleinstance) ... should he be awarded with a pvp-mark? After all, from the traderperspective, escaping the raider is a win ...

While that would be an interesting mechanic, it's too open to exploiting.  Marks are only awarded when ships are destroyed.

Share this post


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

While that would be an interesting mechanic, it's too open to exploiting.  Marks are only awarded when ships are destroyed.

True, that's why I suggested that the attacking raider could lose pvp-marks if he manages to let the trader escape.

Share this post


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

 

I am basically with Redii when he says that the game needs good incentives (a.k.a. new content) to leave safe zones, rather then the elimination or reduction of the said zones.

 

we discussed it with some veteran players and mods recently.
The problem with full loot and human psychology is this:

No incentive will force you out of the safe zone, because in case of a loss you lose everything
Whatever the reward you lose 100%. So staying in the safe zone is 100x more profitable even if you increase rewards 10000x. 
Combined with general human fear of loss and exaggeration of loss probability (people prefer not to win 100 fearing loss of 50). 

Risk averse players will not leave it with ANY incentive. Risk driven players (who love risk) will never understand them.


As a result. We either have players in the safe zone, or we have them outside of the game.
We hope some of players who enjoy the safe zone convert to pvp and conquest. 

Because of all mentioned above - we have no plans to do changes to safezones. Eve online has them and kills you if you attack in safe zones; we have it too. Reinforcement will only allow suicide ganking. All opportunities to attack in safe zones with clever ways will be eventually removed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

Also of note - look at the list of trade goods at the bottom of this first post.  These are all inside the safe zones, let alone those that are only 30 seconds sail outside of safe zones, which are (due to initial invulnerability timer and tagging timer) effectively a part of the safe zones as well.

You keep mentioning this as if it has a big effect on the game, but the availability of those trade goods within the green zone does nothing to enhance trading. I challenged you in that post to show me which of those trade goods could be traded for a profit without leaving the green zone and you did not respond, yet you still keep using the availability of these trade goods within the green zone as a reason why the green zone should be reduced or moved. So I ask you again to tell me how the availability of these trade goods within the green zone makes things easier for a trader when to make profit on them they have to sail out of the green zone and usually some fair distance to make profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, admin said:

No incentive will force you out of the safe zone, because in case of a loss you lose everything
Whatever the reward you lose 100%. So staying in the safe zone is 100x more profitable even if you increase rewards 10000x. 
Combined with general human fear of loss and exaggeration of loss probability (people prefer not to win 100 fearing loss of 50). 

Risk averse players will not leave it with ANY incentive. Risk driven players (who love risk) will never understand them.

Just because it is hard to incentivize players to leave the safe zone doesn't mean all attempts should be abandoned, however.  Not all people are equally risk averse, or we would never have anyone setting sail.

As such, you should think to decrease the profitability of safe zones, and increase the profitability of areas outside of them.  Such as removing all loot drops excepting repairs from within safe zones.

Share this post


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

You keep mentioning this as if it has a big effect on the game, but the availability of those trade goods within the green zone does nothing to enhance trading. I challenged you in that post to show me which of those trade goods could be traded for a profit without leaving the green zone and you did not respond, yet you still keep using the availability of these trade goods within the green zone as a reason why the green zone should be reduced or moved. So I ask you again to tell me how the availability of these trade goods within the green zone makes things easier for a trader when to make profit on them they have to sail out of the green zone and usually some fair distance to make profits.

British:

Caguairan Log
Coal
Teak Log

Danes:

Coal

Dutch:

Coal
Grietje van Dijk

French:

Coal
Live Oak Logs

Pirates:

Coal

Spanish:

Almeria Saltpeter
Caguairan Log
Coal
Extra Labor
Mahogany Log
Pino Ocote Log
Sabicu Log

Swedes:

Coal

United States:

Coal
Live Oak Log
White Oak Logs

 

NB:  I might be missing some other important trade goods that are required for making modules, as I cannot recall the requirements for all modules off hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve mentioned this before I suspect it’s still live but why is it if I chase a French ship into the capital protection area of for example the Dutch capital, Why can I not attack it?

Isn’t it supposed to protect the Dutch ships only? Or am I missing something?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, admin said:

we discussed it with some veteran players and mods recently.
The problem with full loot and human psychology is this:

No incentive will force you out of the safe zone, because in case of a loss you lose everything
Whatever the reward you lose 100%. So staying in the safe zone is 100x more profitable even if you increase rewards 10000x. 
Combined with general human fear of loss and exaggeration of loss probability (people prefer not to win 100 fearing loss of 50). 

Risk averse players will not leave it with ANY incentive. Risk driven players (who love risk) will never understand them.


As a result. We either have players in the safe zone, or we have them outside of the game.
We hope some of players who enjoy the safe zone convert to pvp and conquest. 

Because of all mentioned above - we have no plans to do changes to safezones. Eve online has them and kills you if you attack in safe zones; we have it too. Reinforcement will only allow suicide ganking. All opportunities to attack in safe zones with clever ways will be eventually removed. 

I'm fine with safe zones, but neverhteless I would go out in warships to catch IA fleets and missions (and not only with traders as I do now) if I had the chance to get some good rewards.

Maybe I'm not human, who knows. :ph34r:

Edited by victor

Share this post


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

One measure I suggested is:

- removal of PvP marks for legal traders - reward is the cargo

- maintain PvP marks for smuggler traders

and bring back the any one can attack you while you have smuggler flag on, including your own nation.  That will drop a lot of players from using it all the time.  It all ready forces pirates to join there side if you attack some one with a smuggler flag.  So they should be treated like pirates when they have the flag on, being able to be attacked by every one including same nation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

British:

Caguairan Log
Coal
Teak Log

Danes:

Coal

Dutch:

Coal
Grietje van Dijk

French:

Coal
Live Oak Logs

Pirates:

Coal

Spanish:

Almeria Saltpeter
Caguairan Log
Coal
Extra Labor
Mahogany Log
Pino Ocote Log
Sabicu Log

Swedes:

Coal

United States:

Coal
Live Oak Log
White Oak Logs

 

NB:  I might be missing some other important trade goods that are required for making modules, as I cannot recall the requirements for all modules off hand.

Coal makes not profit mate and it's not a trade good: there is coal in every safe zone since it's a basic material for crafting ships and cannons.

As far as wood are concerned, the only "real" woods to trade (and use) are live oak, white oak and teak. Rest stays unsold in IA shops

Edited by victor

Share this post


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

and bring back the any one can attack you while you have smuggler flag on, including your own nation.  That will drop a lot of players from using it all the time.  It all ready forces pirates to join there side if you attack some one with a smuggler flag.  So they should be treated like pirates when they have the flag on, being able to be attacked by every one including same nation.

Then add also a button in your UI that kills automatically all the traders in OS and gets you the marks. So there will be no traders at all in the sea, since that seems to be your goal.

Share this post


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

British:

Caguairan Log
Coal
Teak Log

Danes:

Coal

Dutch:

Coal
Grietje van Dijk

French:

Coal
Live Oak Logs

Pirates:

Coal

Spanish:

Almeria Saltpeter
Caguairan Log
Coal
Extra Labor
Mahogany Log
Pino Ocote Log
Sabicu Log

Swedes:

Coal

United States:

Coal
Live Oak Log
White Oak Logs

 

NB:  I might be missing some other important trade goods that are required for making modules, as I cannot recall the requirements for all modules off hand.

You have amended the list from your original post. The goods you post now are Crafting Goods not Trade Goods. The reason they need crafting goods to be readily available within the safe zone is to allow a nation the ability to rebuild if they are reduced to just the unconquerable ports. Even then there is very little profit if any to be made on these goods without using labour hours to craft something with them.

You obviously do not do a lot of trading as not many independent traders carry these goods to sell for profit as the margins are too small and with the tax on buying and selling most are loss makers. Trade goods are items like Textile Machinery, Lancashire Iron, Assam Tea etc. that are not required for crafting but can be sold direct to NPC for profit. There are none of these as far as I know that you can make profit on by trading only within the safe zone. Traders who trade in these trade goods regularly leave the safe zones and spend most of their time in OW, the only advantage the safe zone gives them is that the hunters cannot sit right outside the port waiting for them which gives them some chance to leave the safe zone at a point of their choosing and makes the hunters have to work a bit to find them.

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

×