Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
rediii

Thoughts about VM

Recommended Posts

This is not supposed to be a done concept for a mechanic with exact numbers how it should be. More like a analyzing of flaws and improvements on the system and discuss it a little properly

 

A thought about Victorymarks and their purpose

 

What is the goal of Victorymarks?

  • limiting 1sts

  • promoting rvr

 

What is their flaw?

  • Only top 3 nations get them, resulting in porttrades etc. and snowballing

  • if you are lord protector of 10 ports you only get 1,2,3 marks like someone who has 1. Promotes alt accounts

  • The more people you bring to portbattles the more VM “you” get (1 each PB player, promoting alts)

  • 1st rates are too strong compared to 2nd rates

 

Some questions

  • Why do 1sts need to be so OP? 

  • Why not make it a bigger effort to get a 1st and at the same time make them less OP? In the end they were more prestige things than real effective combat machines right?

  • Why not give a set amount of VM for a lord protector status? no farming anymore. Nations with many ports get a lot of VM

 

Facts:

  • 1VM = 50 PvP Marks

 

What would I suggest:

  • Make 1sts cost way more VM but also give more VM out.

  • 5 VM = 1 PvP Mark

  • New ratio for combat marks needed aswell

  • Example:

 

1 Victory = 550 VM

1 Ocean = 650 VM

1 Santi = 700 VM

 

1 Port allways gives out 100 Victory Marks each week. If 12 people are lord protector it’s 8,3 for everyone a week. Because that’s not possible everyone gets 8 Marks a week.

Every Nation has ~20 Ports for their own that means 2000 marks a week atleast.

 

Additional to that you can give the top 3 a fixed amount of VM aswell. Maybe even their whole nation.

 

Also what needs to be done is making 1sts less OP. They need a thickness that is penetrateable for even 3rd rates. So make them way more like a 2nd rate with just more guns and a bit more HP.

 

Ofcourse all these numbers can change. But what is important in my oppinion is:

  • VM connected to owning ports to kill snowball effect

  • VM connected to ports so players are not forced to use alts to get more VM

  • Less strong 1st rates so it’s not a problem if you dont have one. Atleast they should be penetrateable by 2nd and 3rds.

 

What you could also do is that 1st rates are not towable. It would be a nerf actually.

 

FAQ:

- why so many VM? Because 25 is not realy devideable by 14

- Why VM each port and not each player? Eqch player promotes alts and trading of ports. If you trade a port that generates 100VM a week its basically of 100VM a week and nothing shady like now with trading and getting all the altaccounts inside the PB

Edited by rediii
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not very savvy on the RvR meta, so I cannot comment that. But that one statement I would like to reinforce:

"Why not make it a bigger effort to get a 1st and at the same time make them less OP? In the end they were more prestige things than real effective combat machines right?"

I grew up on the narrative that the 74-gun-Ship-of-the-Line (3rd rate and Bellona) was the workhorse battleship of the era, built and deployed in series. For me, seeing a line astern of a dozen Santisimas is just... wrong.

Would it not make sense to make the 1sts (and to a lesser degree, the 2nds) more vulnerable and less tactically useful by restricting their maneuverabilty? Turn rate, speed, whatever makes sense. That way, you can use them for area denial, but you would have to protect them against grape-rakes, and could more effectively take them out of the picture with chain.

Or whatever else works to make 3rds and 4ths a thing again. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kpt Lautenschlaeger said:

I'm not very savvy on the RvR meta, so I cannot comment that. But that one statement I would like to reinforce:

"Why not make it a bigger effort to get a 1st and at the same time make them less OP? In the end they were more prestige things than real effective combat machines right?"

I grew up on the narrative that the 74-gun-Ship-of-the-Line (3rd rate and Bellona) was the workhorse battleship of the era, built and deployed in series. For me, seeing a line astern of a dozen Santisimas is just... wrong.

Would it not make sense to make the 1sts (and to a lesser degree, the 2nds) more vulnerable and less tactically useful by restricting their maneuverabilty? Turn rate, speed, whatever makes sense. That way, you can use them for area denial, but you would have to protect them against grape-rakes, and could more effectively take them out of the picture with chain.

Or whatever else works to make 3rds and 4ths a thing again. :P

BR efficiency would be the thing to make them best used in big numbers atleast in PBs.

In OW they sould be best if even 3rds can sink 1sts. So even if you would lose a fleet of 35 3rds but are able to sink 5-10 1sts they would be worth it ecowise (or should be)

Anyway for both they have to be able to penetrate 1sts, which they cant atm.

 

Giving bellonas 36 pounders could help aswell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally dislike any and all marks systems that dispense items that can give others an advantage on the water.  Marks should be for cosmetic items only.

There are so many VMs out in circulation already that the desired effects aren't happening where it's needed most.  It's fair to say that over the past couple weeks the swedes and the Russians have lost probably 2 full 1st rate fleets each and they have already been easily replaced through various means.  My clan is sitting on about 50 and that's after losing a shit load of 1sts down at carta.

The effects that the VMs are having is this.  Top nations are swimming in VMs and will always be swimming in them.  Smaller nations do not have access and to gain access they need to win major PBs.  You can't win major PBs in bellonas if the other side is using all 1sts.  With the current PVP mark meta and bullshit wasas, getting the necessary 50 pvp marks for a VM is no small feat either. 

Imagine the new player in the US nation who bought the game over the holidays.  He probably hit commodore by now and is about to grind up 1st rates.  Oh wait...can't craft one.  But he's too new to really know what he's doing in pvp, so 50 pvp marks is not really something he can obtain easily.  Lets say he goes out and gets 50 pvp marks, turns it into a VM and then goes out and loses it doing missions or helping in a PB.  It's another long uphill climb for the guy to get another.  He'll probably just say screw it and go back to world of warships.  Which in a nutshell is kinda how this game has sold over 100k copies and has less than 1000 people on daily.  

The addition of VMs is a well intended idea, but it was implemented months after a wipe when most players have already carved up the map and established themselves.  It only really hurts the casual players.  The RVR gurus will be able to get them no problem.  The rich will stay rich.  

Just get rid of them.  Back before the fine woods the ocean needed french wine to craft, which was only available in a few areas.  I thought that idea was pretty good.  Create region specific goods that are needed to create the 1st rates, making some ports matter again.  

Edited by Christendom
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Christendom, its a good idea to limit first rates with some kind of "parallel currency" (like PvP marks just more valuable) but not through map win.

 

Maybe make VMs craftable like a book of 5 rings. 2 parts spawn in 2 specific ports as ressource, 1 part drops randomly from Epic Events, 1 part is obtainable through PvP (leaderboards?) and the last part is found in bottles or smth like that.

That means you can get valueable items no matter if you do PvE, PvP, RvR, trading or if you are just cruising around the map and every part of the game is equally important.

Edited by Jon Snow lets go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Christendom said:

I personally dislike any and all marks systems that dispense items that can give others an advantage on the water.  Marks should be for cosmetic items only.

There are so many VMs out in circulation already that the desired effects aren't happening where it's needed most.  It's fair to say that over the past couple weeks the swedes and the Russians have lost probably 2 full 1st rate fleets each and they have already been easily replaced through various means.  My clan is sitting on about 50 and that's after losing a shit load of 1sts down at carta.

The effects that the VMs are having is this.  Top nations are swimming in VMs and will always be swimming in them.  Smaller nations do not have access and to gain access they need to win major PBs.  You can't win major PBs in bellonas if the other side is using all 1sts.  With the current PVP mark meta and bullshit wasas, getting the necessary 50 pvp marks for a VM is no small feet either. 

Imagine the new player in the US nation who bought the game over the holidays.  He probably hit commodore by now and is about to grind up 1st rates.  Oh wait...can't craft one.  But he's too new to really know what he's doing in pvp, so 50 pvp marks is not really something he can obtain easily.  Lets say he goes out and gets 50 pvp marks, turns it into a VM and then goes out and loses it doing missions or helping in a PB.  It's another long uphill climb for the guy to get another.  He'll probably just say screw it and go back to world of warships.  Which in a nutshell is kinda how this game has sold over 100k copies and has less than 1000 people on daily.  

The addition of VMs is a well intended idea, but it was implemented months after a wipe when most players have already carved up the map and established themselves.  It only really hurts the casual players.  The RVR gurus will be able to get them no problem.  The rich will stay rich.  

Just get rid of them.  Back before the fine woods the ocean needed french wine to craft, which was only available in a few areas.  I thought that idea was pretty good.  Create region specific goods that are needed to create the 1st rates, making some ports matter again.  

I dont see the issue you are mentioning. If you have no first rates then dont go for 4k + ports. There is a reason why prussia for example attacked 2400BR ports. You cant just simply have everything.

The issue is that 2 of the top 3 nations are allied with each other. That shouldnt happen. Losing ports should have a much bigger influrence on the weekly endresult as it has now. If x wants to trade ports with y it really should hurt the nation that loses the ports.

Fights should be promoted between top nations instead of beeing friends with each other. Maybe make port loss points proportionate ( or even exponential) to port ownership. The more you have the more you lose.

 

Edited by z4ys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment Conquest is to drive access to focus area PvP ( el toco is the most recent example ) and, as rewards for the three dominating Nations, Victory Marks which can be turned into ships-of-the-line permits, correct ?

As I see it, the purpose of Conquest we have now, is a "cannibal design". It feeds from itself and serves no greater purpose other than the individual.

Victory Marks per se are not bad, they are a form of currency, tokens that can be used for this purpose or another. Example being they could be transformed into Tokens to purchase port defences or be used to change Port status to Open ( simulating colonial councils intrigue ).

So...

What is the purpose of Conquest in the age of sail in the West Indies ?

We tried it for control of trade and production, with the historical spread of resources across the map. Was disliked due to logistics !?...

IMO permits to build ships worked perfectly, albeit the notes give fast access to action without resorting to eco. Funny how one option will interfere with the Conquest part, where eco is exactly what drives, or should drive, the conquest. Alas, if we reduce it all to a maximum, where there's no competition for trade, for resources, for access to facilities ( like a good deep water port perfectly suited to be a Naval Base ), there's nothing more than Free Ports and PvP Marks in a huge arena.

VMs must be a token to develop Ports. To change the policy of a Port. And if you think about it, all the ideas posted about port development can be, themselves, fueled by Conquest.

 

Share this post


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

I dont see the issue you are mentioning. If you have no first rates then dont go for 4k + ports. There is a reason why prussia for example attacked 2400BR ports. You cant just simply have everything.

The issue is that 2 of the top 3 nations are allied with each other. That shouldnt happen. Losing ports should have a much bigger influrence on the weekly endresult as it has now. If x wants to trade ports with y it really should hurt the nation that loses the ports.

Fights should be promoted between top nations instead of beeing friends with each other. Maybe make port loss points proportionate ( or even exponential) to port ownership. The more you have the more you lose.

 

Attack a 2400 BR port against an enemy that knows what they are doing.  Now that you cannot stack wasa's, more 1st rates will be involved I imagine.

Lets take a look at the conquest boards.

bbc630908bcceebb2448e4d7e7fb8fb0.png
https://gyazo.com/bbc630908bcceebb2448e4d7e7fb8fb0

For a nation like you or the US to make a run at the conquest board for marks you'll have to take upwards for 20+ ports WHILE keeping your current ones.  For a small nation, this is impossible and that is why VMs are a poor idea.  If you want to sail 1st rates in RVR you have to be in one of the top nations.  Which means you need to change nations and use forged papers.  Maybe that's why they will be a purchasable DLC now.  #conspiracy 

Edited by Christendom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Christendom said:

...

hmprussia is the end of the list and everyone in Prussia has 1st rates :D

And again. Why should a bottom nation go for the first place nation? isnt it wise to start with equal opponents and fight the way up through the rank? And again the mistake is that the equal opponets dont like to fight each other because its easier and better to make deals between each other.

And with the upcoming pve and pvp ship changes everyone can sail a 1st rate so the pve crowd complaining to no have access to Sols isnt valid.

Furthermore lets say even prussia gets access to VM marks it would solve anything because prussia is small and couldnt get a screening fleet like russia and sweden.

What would solve it is when a pb fleet couldnt get screened that would make nation numbers less importnat.

Edited by z4ys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, z4ys said:

hmprussia is the end of the list and everyone in Prussia has 1st rates :D

And again. Why should a bottom nation go for the first place nation? isnt it wise to start with an equal opponents and fight the way up through the rank? And again the mistake is that the equal opponets dont like to fight each other because its easier and better to make deals between each other.

You're missing the point of my post.  If a small nation WANTS to get on the conquest board for marks, they have to attack one of the top 3 nations to get further up the list.  If you attack and win against a GB port, it counts for double.  Or you'll have to take all 10 of the US ports and all 19 of the pirates to get on the list, without losing any of your own.  See my point?  

You also have vics for various reasons,  but you also PVP regularly and are good at it....others are not able to.  I seem to recall making a vic for liquicity not too long ago also.  

Point being, you're ok with the system because it works for you.  It's works for me as well.  It doesn't work for everyone, in particular the casual players.....which this game desperately needs to keep.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You're missing the point of my post.  If a small nation WANTS to get on the conquest board for marks, they have to attack one of the top 3 nations to get further up the list.  If you attack and win against a GB port, it counts for double.  Or you'll have to take all 10 of the US ports and all 19 of the pirates to get on the list, without losing any of your own.  See my point?  

You also have vics for various reasons,  but you also PVP regularly and are good at it....others are not able to.  I seem to recall making a vic for liquicity not too long ago also.  

Point being, you're ok with the system because it works for you.  It's works for me as well.  It doesn't work for everyone, in particular the casual players.....which this game desperately needs to keep.  

I am not missing your point. but you go from 0 to 100 and leaving outthe steps between ... Dont try to do everything in one day/week. It has to envolve.

The casual player will soon sail his pve vic.

Share this post


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

I personally dislike any and all marks systems that dispense items that can give others an advantage on the water.  Marks should be for cosmetic items only.

There are so many VMs out in circulation already that the desired effects aren't happening where it's needed most.  It's fair to say that over the past couple weeks the swedes and the Russians have lost probably 2 full 1st rate fleets each and they have already been easily replaced through various means.  My clan is sitting on about 50 and that's after losing a shit load of 1sts down at carta.

The effects that the VMs are having is this.  Top nations are swimming in VMs and will always be swimming in them.  Smaller nations do not have access and to gain access they need to win major PBs.  You can't win major PBs in bellonas if the other side is using all 1sts.  With the current PVP mark meta and bullshit wasas, getting the necessary 50 pvp marks for a VM is no small feat either. 

Imagine the new player in the US nation who bought the game over the holidays.  He probably hit commodore by now and is about to grind up 1st rates.  Oh wait...can't craft one.  But he's too new to really know what he's doing in pvp, so 50 pvp marks is not really something he can obtain easily.  Lets say he goes out and gets 50 pvp marks, turns it into a VM and then goes out and loses it doing missions or helping in a PB.  It's another long uphill climb for the guy to get another.  He'll probably just say screw it and go back to world of warships.  Which in a nutshell is kinda how this game has sold over 100k copies and has less than 1000 people on daily.  

The addition of VMs is a well intended idea, but it was implemented months after a wipe when most players have already carved up the map and established themselves.  It only really hurts the casual players.  The RVR gurus will be able to get them no problem.  The rich will stay rich.  

Just get rid of them.  Back before the fine woods the ocean needed french wine to craft, which was only available in a few areas.  I thought that idea was pretty good.  Create region specific goods that are needed to create the 1st rates, making some ports matter again.  

^*sigh*...... I reheeheeeheeeeeeallly hate to say it... But we're in agreement....

 

So

 

#Globalserverfailedhardsoletsalltryitalloveragain

__________________________________

Just so that somethings never change..

EDIT: Made a spelling mistake

Edited by Bearwall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as a casual player, I'm not that bothered about not having a 1st (or even 2nd) rate. I can get my RvR kicks out of screening battles and reconnaissance skirmishing, and leave the decisive port battle to the hardcoreistas. 

What does bother me somewhat is that, in these battles, the smaller lineships (3rd and 4th) don't really have a raison d'être: they aren't 'ard enuff to go toe-to-toe with the big ships, and they aren't nimble enough to run chaining interference. So I'm stuck with frigates for now, which will probably lose its appeal at some point. 

  • Like 1

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

×