Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
NethrosDefectus

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, victor said:

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.

Why would there be no traders?   If you want high rewards of smuggling than you need to take the risk.  Than again all the time I played Pirates I ran with smuggler as it didn't matter.  They get treated as a pirate if another nation tag them so why shouldn't they be treated as pirates by there own nation too?  All it does is mean that you have to be careful in your own waters encase the authorities catch you smuggling just like you have to be careful in any other waters.  You don't plan to smuggle then turn off the flag.

Share this post


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

You have amended the list from your original post.

I copied and pasted, deleting what I figured was "junk."  It is not my concern if you were too lazy to actually read through the list for yourself.

These are resources that make "nice" things but not "necessary" things.  Without them, nations can still, entirely within their protection zones, craft oak and fir vessels and medium cannons to go on it.  Everything else should actually involve some modicum of risk.

Share this post


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

Why would there be no traders?   If you want high rewards of smuggling than you need to take the risk.  Than again all the time I played Pirates I ran with smuggler as it didn't matter.  They get treated as a pirate if another nation tag them so why shouldn't they be treated as pirates by there own nation too?  All it does is mean that you have to be careful in your own waters encase the authorities catch you smuggling just like you have to be careful in any other waters.  You don't plan to smuggle then turn off the flag.

Because the legendary "high rewards of smuggling" - in your scenario - will not compensate the higher risk, and then traders will get back grinding missions in safe zones. 

Share this post


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

I copied and pasted, deleting what I figured was "junk."  It is not my concern if you were too lazy to actually read through the list for yourself.

These are resources that make "nice" things but not "necessary" things.  Without them, nations can still, entirely within their protection zones, craft oak and fir vessels and medium cannons to go on it.  Everything else should actually involve some modicum of risk.

Be is probably talking about buying and selling from/to AI and making money with it because thats what people think is fun somehow.

Personally I like to buy and sell from players more

Share this post


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

 

These are resources that make "nice" things but not "necessary" things.  Without them, nations can still, entirely within their protection zones, craft oak and fir vessels and medium cannons to go on it.  Everything else should actually involve some modicum of risk.

FYI coal is needed to craft any ship and cannon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 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. 

@admin I understand what you are saying and I agree that players will stay inside the safe zone no matter how bad the rewards are nerfed. However, I believe (correct me if im wrong) that the goal has been to focus PvP at the center of the map. This is very hard to do with safe zones at Mortimer Town and KPR.

I would like to suggest removing the reinforcement zones for Mortimer Town entirely. Pirate nation should be difficult to play and should not be the life for everyone, not to mention, this would open up a lot of PvP in the center of the map.

If I could be more bold, I would like to suggest removing the safe zone at KPR since Belize is already has a reinforcement zone. But I understand this is unlikely to happen  

Share this post


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

Because the legendary "high rewards of smuggling" - in your scenario - will not compensate the higher risk, and then traders will get back grinding missions in safe zones. 

I still don't see how allowing every one to attack them would change this?  They all ready can be attacked by every one expcept there own nation.  Which if they are smuggling they prob aren't in there own waters so why would it matter if you add one more nation that can attack you.  Smuggling in most nations was very illegal, that is why in game your treated as a pirate when your tagged with the flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 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. 

@admin I understand what you are saying and I agree that players will stay inside the safe zone no matter how bad the rewards are nerfed. However, I believe (correct me if im wrong) that the goal has been to focus PvP at the center of the map. This is very hard to do with safe zones at Mortimer Town and KPR.

I would like to suggest removing the reinforcement zones for Mortimer Town entirely. Pirate nation should be difficult to play and should not be the life for everyone, not to mention, this would open up a lot of PvP in the center of the map.

If I could be more bold, I would like to suggest removing the safe zone at KPR since Belize is already has a reinforcement zone. But I understand this is unlikely to happen  

Share this post


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

FYI coal is needed to craft any ship and cannon.

Charcoal is different from coal.  Charcoal is made from oak logs.  The only use for coal, last time I checked, was for making carronades and long cannons.

Share this post


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

I copied and pasted, deleting what I figured was "junk."  It is not my concern if you were too lazy to actually read through the list for yourself.

These are resources that make "nice" things but not "necessary" things.  Without them, nations can still, entirely within their protection zones, craft oak and fir vessels and medium cannons to go on it.  Everything else should actually involve some modicum of risk.

Then please give me an example of how much profit can be made from the items you mention that can be made without leaving the safe zone.

As far as I can see you posted an original list trying to make a point and when challenged on it you went quiet, then you posted again in this thread and when challenged again you change from trade goods to craft goods to still try and keep your point valid. But the simple fact remains that you are talking about profit from crafting and not trading. So please do not try and say that traders have it easy due to the safe zones.

Traders of trade goods probably take the biggest risks in the game, they load up a slow ship with cargo that is worth millions which slows them down further so that even a 1st rate could catch them and then they sail out usually on a run that is on average 40+ minutes, knowing that if they are intercepted they have little to no chance of survival even when faced by the smallest of vessels.

Share this post


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

Charcoal is different from coal.  Charcoal is made from oak logs.  The only use for coal, last time I checked, was for making carronades and long cannons.

OMG ... charcoal is not used in crafting anymore. And this happened a long ago. Now you use only coal for everything: long, mediums, carros, iron ingots and so on.

So - please - before talking about crafting resources at least ask to an actual crafter some information. You will avoid speaking nonsense.

Edited by victor

Share this post


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

Well, that was a silly and pointless change.  The point remains that the woods, at the very least, need to be moved out.

Of course mate. When you are wrong, things become silly and pointless.

As far as the wood are concerned, you can move them out safe zones ... and no one will care.

As I told you, just teak, white oak and live oak really are worth trading. So following your proposal would be actually a pointless change.

 

Edited by victor

Share this post


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

Except three factions have them in safe zones.  And the idea that the other woods are pointless/useless... well, some people just don't appreciate the finer things in life.

I am Spanish, I am a dedicated ship crafter and trader with a whole fleet of different trading ships, I have been playing as a crafter/trader in spanish faction since a couple of years (and still do it) but ... I never traded nor have been trading in woods different from teak/live oak and white oak.

You are not a trader and still you are pretending to know better than a trader what a trader is likely to trade, just to be able to use your assumption as a basis to modify trading mechanics. 

But truth is that you just want to get rid of safe zones - or to put also basic resources like coal out of the safe zones - just to farm PVP marks more easily. Fighting a trading ship .... what a challenge mate! 

Edited by victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conversation has deviated somewhat from my original suggestion and turned into more bickering than debating. Seeing as @admin has already given a definitive answer, might I suggest the topic be closed to further replies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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. 

You don't have to base only on incentives of eg. getting more marks and gold. Eg. rare woods and upgrade crafting resources could be available only outside of free zones. You could leave eg. only fir and oak in a free zone, and move all other resources somewhere else, best into a single highly populated area.

This way it's your choice - you can either have some small risk and leave a zone to get those resources, or pay to another player who will get those resources for you. It's much smaller barrier than eg. preventing people from getting any rare resources and upgrade craftable goods because they're in a wrong nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 5:24 AM, 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 ...

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?

As someone mentioned, the first idea is unfortunately too exploitable. But it would be perfect if they ever implement Trade Marks. Escape earns a trade mark.

I don't think the raider losing a PVP mark for an unsuccessful chase is a good idea. That would discourage risk taking and solo action and encourage ganking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.01.2018 at 1:51 PM, admin said:

No incentive will force you out of the safe zone, because in case of a loss you lose everything

No, you are wrong. It's not all or nothing. Safe zones exist exactly to allow players to build their wealth. In case of somebody owning 2 ships, loosing 1 doesn't means loosing everything. If someone do loose 1 however, he can relatively easy rebuild it in safe zone. Incentives will lure out bored people who are wealthy enough and bored of playing safely. Not bringing any incentives will on the other hand will do more harm than help the game. I can bet all my money that people would sail outside for paints only and there is much more incentives you could bring to the table.

Please, start discussing important matters like that with all players instead PvP'ers and mods only.

Quoting my old post for ideas. Ofc few are outdated since then.

On 26.09.2017 at 10:31 AM, Borch said:

Safe zone need to stay with the same rules all the time.

- shrink it a bit

- allow only max PC missions inside

- do not limit money rewards inside but increase drop chance of rare items outside (including refit items from combat)

- make trade more profitable outside

- make cities outside spawn small amount of different caliber of cannons outside safe zones (best randomly)

- rare building woods spawn only outside safe zones (leaving maybe oak and fir inside?)

- buildings and OP's should be cheaper outside safe zones

- increase no. of OP's or make cities outside safe zone to produce more goods ( I mean 1 city can produce 4-5 resources - capitols?)

- make dual/triple(?) building (like fir forrest can gather also lignum vitae - iron ore, coal, silver or gold) do not allow dual mats to spawn in the same town inside safe zone, outside only

- 1 ship knowlege slot awarded only for PvP

- bring raiding to the game

- bring mission chains to the game (advanced with bigger rewards outside safe zones)

- implement PvP, RvR,  achievements in the game (outside ofc), PvE/trade anywhere - rewarding minor upgrades

- paints drop only outside or mats can be obtained only outside

- pvp ranks?

 

Dane and Swedish safe zones need to spread respectively more west and south-east or north-east with combat mission spawning only in those directions ( if its going to stay in the game). Middle map safe zones needs to be moved a side. Each nation should have only 1 safe zone and best 4(?) towns in it.

Too many capitols around Danemark/Sweden/France. Move one somewhere else?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.1.2018 at 10:48 AM, NethrosDefectus said:

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.

Or just drop the whole nonsense of PVE exclusive stuff on PvP server? What use is it for anyone sitting in green zone hitting on bots in the faint hope of important books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jodgi said:

Or just drop the whole nonsense of PVE exclusive stuff on PvP server? What use is it for anyone sitting in green zone hitting on bots in the faint hope of important books?

68732727.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12. Januar 2018 at 2:51 PM, 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. 

Just one point: 

The incentives are not for the risk averse players, they are for the players who accept risk for reward (the most i think). If there are no incentives/higher payout why the hell should i do my PvE outside a safezone? I would just be an idiot ... 

You mentioned Eve Online: Payout in Null- Sec is much higher than in High-Sec ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 8:51 AM, 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. 

 

So according to you the problem appears to be the players, I'm sure the game would be better without 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

×