Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Capt Aerobane

RvR, Solo Players, Ports and Pirates.

Recommended Posts

As I see it there is a big problem dividing the player base and degrading gameplay quality for all involved, especially those involved in RvR. That problem is the conflict of interest between solo players and clan members. We want to make ports and RVR meaningful. However any advantage or benefit given to a clan member for owning a port inherently gives them an advantage of a solo player who can’t capture ports, and in our current system clan members and solo players play alongside each other in direct competition. My solution is to stop beating around the bush and separate solos/non-clan players and clan players while still allowing cooperation between them.

While I recognize that RvR is somewhat on hold while the UI and other mechanics are worked out, it is important to continue civil discussions of what a good system is and if we don’t put out our suggestions/desires we can’t complain if we don’t get what we want. Also spoilers are confusing, privateers is kinda hidden inside pirates.

Even if changes aren’t going to happen in the short term, we need to talk and find decide what changes we want when they do start happening.

I also recognize that there have been a lot of threads on this subject but considering the size and complexity of this suggestion I feel deserves its own topic, and considering how it includes pirates, privateers, clans, and big changes to RvR, ports, open world AI, etc it doesn’t quite fit with those topics either. It carries similar elements to topics proposed by numerous other people, including Banished Privateers merchant ships, and I know Christendom has campaigned for giving clans a lot more control over their ports.

Basically, this is an idea or model designed to work as a compromise that improves gameplay for all players making for more interesting RvR and, as opposed to the very one-sided suggestions frequently thrown around, introduce gameplay styles/niches that fit solo players as well. At the very least, this is an interesting thought experiment. It would make alts basically useless, or at least easy to catch and stop, it would give clans a real reason to take/protect ports, and it would make inter clan relationships more important as they will depend on each other. Aside from that it would give solo players more interesting stuff to do and add pirates as a more realistic portrayal into the game.

Not to mention no more derpy ass “flipping”

Here we go. First of all, separate players into separate character types.

National players (all in clans) They fight for their clan and to a lesser extent the nation, clans have total control over their ports (to be explained.) This also encompasses traders (vital to clans)

Pirates: Ditch “pirate nation” it offers no unique game-play. New more realistic pirates, semi perma death, extreme risk extreme freedom. Infamy based progression system, reward for nationals for sinking a pirate is tied to their infamy + rewards posted by clans. (clans can see who is raiding their shipping and damaging their town (to be explained)

Privateers (pirate who has taken letter of marque from a nation or national who has no clan. Privateers have no official clan affiliation, but cooperate and work with clans to help one or more nations and contribute to RvR in ways to be explained below)

Rework towns, clans, RVR, and open world AI.

Basically, because non-clan affiliated players have a niche (privateering and piracy) clans can get total control over their captured towns. This control includes entry rights, IE what clans or privateers are allowed entry. It also includes who can use clan amenities like repairing, the port’s market, docking ships, placing contracts, and docking fees as Christendom suggested. They can also decide who can build or craft ships there, importantly whether privateers can enter. Also of note there could be two types of entry allowance/denial. Players/clans could be permanently whitelisted or given temporary entry permits. For instance, if a clan tasked a trader from another clan with bringing in a shipment of goods but they aren’t comfortable giving that clan permanent access, they offer him a temporary whitelist. Another option would be replacing the “enter X” button with a “request entry to X” button. If a player is whitelisted, they enter like normal. If not, clan officers would receive a request and can grant, ignore, or openly deny said request. (possible different officer positions with different tasks such as economy, port security, merchant defense, admiral, etc.)

They also control economic factors for their ports. Ports don’t just sit there, they are integral to open world trading and they are reliant on it. They provide their clan with income, but this income is not fixed nor guaranteed. A clan’s income comes from trade with other clans, or taxes on that trade. The best example I can think of on the spot is mount and blade “prosperity.”  All ports consume basic supplies like food supplies, iron, woods, etc. However, ports also have special needs and abilities just like currently. Mines, forests, farmland, or industrial capability, special industries, etc. They also need all the resources to supply and operate those industries. These demands must be fulfilled by traders, AI or player. Towns could automatically generate and send AI ships to supply the town, by purchasing those goods from towns that produce them and clans can micro manage this to the extent they want. These ships would replace current open world AI, which is just there for boring, no risk grinding as is. Resources like food supplies and iron will be available nearby and can be done with AI with high success, but more rare resources like gunpowder or rare wood types require long trading runs during which and AI would be almost certain to be intercepted by pirates, privateers, or hostile clans/nations. An AI supply ship would, upon being hailed in the OW, reveal its starting point and destination, allowing clans and privateers to target their attacks to weaken enemy ports. These missions would be done by player traders, often with clan escorts. Ports could supply themselves with some food supplies by fishing, (interesting way to add fishing vessels to the game) but these fishing fleets would be vulnerable if unprotected. (another thing for pirates to do besides raiding merchants and possibly smuggling contraband)

 The fights to protect and attack shipping would lead to pvp. In many cases it may be more important to ensure the escape of the merchant vessel or secure its demise than to keep your ship. Captains will be less likely to flee these battles, and if they do this will still  be a victory for the attacking clan even if they sink no enemy players: They got the enemy shipping and weakened their infrastructure. Clans would be able to make trade deals with other clans to ensure steady supply of resources and prevent backstabbing and scumbaggery. (If a nearby clan was bribed by “foreign interest groups” to suddenly pull the plug on resources for a different clan without any warning it could seriously screw over that clan. Mutually agreed upon trade agreements that can’t be backed out of without warning would stabilize trade and increase prosperity (kinda like in real life.)

Town prosperity, income, and defensive strength would be tied to these economic factors, and taxes. A town that gets 100% of supplies it needs while safely selling 100% of its produce with a low tax rate will have a high prosperity (1 to 100 or whatever scale is used).  

Ports with higher prosperity:

·          Provide higher income to the clan

 

(yes, owning a port would actually be a good thing. Mindblowing! Some towns would earn more profits, like Cartagena or any of the towns that produce valuable trade items. Their shipping would also be a more appetizing target for privateers and pirates however, so a powerful clan would have to denote a fair amount of resources and manpower to defending it. Smaller weaker clans can still thrive by alliances and by taking smaller ports (which are still profitable unlike now) One clan couldn’t control half the map. Clans would also have to focus their ports in one area, so they can overlap trade routes and protect multiple port’s shipping with the same effort. This would focus clans on regional superiority smooth out the OW with less outstanding ports. It would also shift the focus to defending and taking key ports, not just grabbing all they can, and shoving small clans out of the way. If they did so, they would be unable adequately protect these ports and the ports’ health would suffer leaving them vulnerable. Small clans would take less valuable ports that they have a comparative advantage in defending, but would still offer good income for the smaller clan.

            Are harder to take.

 

They would have a smaller port battle window, and tougher PB requirements. Clans set their port battle window, and at max prosperity it would be small. Like basically nonexistent. As prosperity lowers, the window for hostility widens, up to 24 hours for a 0-prosperity town (almost impossible to achieve that low prosperity but just and example. In reality a town would never drop below 50% prosperity if the mechanics are balanced right.)


Rich towns would also have tougher PB requirements to take. A prosperous town that has had its merchant shipping well looked after by a caring, determined clan will require attackers to rack up a lot more capture points to win the PB than the defenders, and a very weak town would have equal or attacker favored win conditions. Also of note, a clan could increase the built in tower defenses or possibly even add gunboat garrisons (interesting idea) that would make it safer both during port battles and when players are attacked near the port.

Basically a town must be whittled down before it can be taken. If a clan wants to take a hostile nation’s port they will have to plan in advance and start attacking said port’s shipping. No octaflips in the middle of the night. The single fastest way to weaken a town would be a total blockade, completely cutting off the town from trade. This would be hard but doable and could weaken a port very quickly if the blockade was not broken (blockade running could be fun and very profitable). Clan wars would involve actual warfare. IE a enduring conflict that encourages real, lasting clan alliances and treaties to help weaken key enemy infrastructure and protect their own, while making every port valuable.  Not just as a source of income but as a source of resources for the other ports. You can’t supply your town from enemy ports… unless you get pirate smugglers to sneak in and grab goods perhaps or raid enemy shipping to capture goods? Possibly another role for solo pirate players.

The current open world AI really wouldn’t be missed.

 

Right now, its only use is grinding, but grinding OW ai is honestly really boring as it stands, and we have the PVE server for those who want to do so. It is literally what its called: Grinding. Lets keep repetitive grinding to F2P mmos! If captains want to level up on AI, it can be done via better missions taken from the nation’s capital, epic events, or by attacking enemy shipping, with real consequences and risks. Capital safe zones could be reduced, but also stricter. No entry by hostiles period, only a zone for new players to get to terms with their ships or level up. Only the capital and maybe 2 other ports would be safe zoned, and these ports would not sell any town prosperity/clan related supplies (only ships, repair items, upgrades etc.). In fact I think that once a member is in a clan or a privateer they also shouldn’t be able to enter the safe zone, so they can’t exploit it to hide merchant ships or avoid being attacked. A national player would be required to join a clan or become a privateer soon after completing the tutorial. Remember, solo players can go privateer or, if they want more challenging gameplay more oriented towards just surviving, they can go for outright piracy. Remember this in the context that I am by and large a solo player, I wouldn’t screw myself over.

 

Totally rework pirates and add privateers.

What I, a largely solo player, would be most excited about!

Pirates as is are just another nation… one of 11? 10? A lot. Anyway, they are nothing unique. This at the same time as there are two problems: Lack of gameplay niches for solo players and complete lack of representation of actual pirates: outlaws and privateers which were important at that time. So important that controlling them was a key reason for the construction of the US navy’s six original frigates including the famous USS constitution. In fact, the charter to build these frigates included a clause immedidately scrapping the ships’ construction should the threat of piracy be eliminated through a peace treaty with the barbary states. (If Wikipedia is to be believed)

Here is how pirates could work.

 

Pirates would be total outlaws, while privateers would be nationally affiliated outlaws.

First pirates. Pirates would be an extremely challenging gameplay style, and not just because of pvp. Pirate gameplay would, as is accurate, be more about survival for most players than about having an impact on the OW. As a result, pirate mechanics would be very different. Pirates would have no ports, and no alliances being able to attack each other at will if they wanted. However, some clans may decide allow pirates into their port and there is nothing stopping a group of pirates working together, which would be their best chance of taking down a large merchant. While this would decrease the prosperity for obvious reasons, the clan would earn income from repairing pirate ships and selling them goods, and most importantly by facilitating pirate hiring of crew. Pirates would have hideouts and staches. A hideout would allow pirates to repair their ship and the only continuity for a pirate after dying would be what they had laid a way in staches. After a pirate dies they start from scratch with a basic ship, crew, and cannons + some repair equipment. Any pirate can make a hideout, and they can make it anywhere. (but they would want to put it somewhere well hidden. Hideouts would be hidden from everyone but their owner pirate in the OW, and staches would be completely hidden from everyone in the OW. To enter a hideout or interact with a stache a pirate would sail close to it in the OW and right click on where they knew it was, there would be a 2 min cooldown, if they clicked on the right spot they would be able to interact with it (with their ship still in the OW) and repair, refit/add guns, replenish or upgrade crew, or whatever. If a pirate forgot where they put their stache? Tough luck man. If someone else finds it? Should have been better hidden. Same for hideouts. While the pirate is in the instance interacting with the hideout, a they would still be in the open world so anyone sailing by could see them, see the name of the pirate inside, and attack him then destroy the hideout or looting the stache, or if they are clever they could memorize its location and come back later to snatch it up. Remember, pirates are for hard mode, survival-oriented players.

Pirate levelling

 

Pirate levelling would be based on infamy, but there wouldn’t be much levelling. Pirate power would be very fluid. Pirates would have the option of refitting merchant vessels they capture to add more guns. This would mean turning LGVs into LGV refits, (not likely to happen often because deep water vessels would be tough to hide) traders brigs into brigs, etc. Also letting them add tons and tons of small caliber guns would be good, but probably difficult coding wise? Letting a pirate bold enough to do so cram an obscene amount of 2, 4, and 6 pound cannons onto a captured Indiaman and go full Blackbeard for a few glorious days before being hunted down would be awesome. Pirate crew would have bonuses and penalties fitting their historic counterparts and giving them advantages against merchant shipping, for instance letting them cram more crew onto ships without morale penalties, or penalties manning 12lb or larger cannons. The real “levelling” of pirates would be trying to sink/capture enough merchant shipping to get to the top of the infamy leaderboards and start getting clans to put bounties on their head.

Pirate repairs

 

Pirate repairs could work as following: Pirates can either repair in ports that allow pirates, in hideouts, or in the OW/battle. To get OW repairs, pirates would have to cannibalize ships they captured for materials, destroying them. (pirates could either sink, swap ship, or scrap ships they capture, giving infamy, a new ship, or repairs respectively.) Pirates could also recover any lost crew after a battle to complete their complement by forcing sailors who surrendered from their victim to join their crew.

False flags and smuggling.

 

Pirates could use false flags. A pirate would select a nation, clan, origin, destination, and ship (destination/origin explained above) (obv would want to be realistic there, a pirate on a snow claiming to be an Indiaman wouldn’t fool anyone with a spyglass) they would then, when hailed in the OW, show up as this. They could use this to hide from hunters and surprise merchants, or sneak into ports and even buy off the market place. However, if they show up to a port and request entry claiming to be a clan, nation, or player that isn’t whitelisted to enter the port, the port owners would be immediately notified of an attempted smuggler, forcing the pirate to flee. Ports adamant about preventing smuggling and protecting their monopolies could set up stringent entry requirements: Only entry by PMing the entry officer and getting a temporary whitelist. While a pirate could claim to be someone in the OW, they can’t fake a private message. It would also make alts basically useless unless they were able to completely infiltrate a clan, and even then logs and basic clan accounting would catch them. Instead of no-skill boring alts, we would have pirate smugglers that can be countered and require skill/risk.

Secondly, if a ship came very close to them and hailed them again they would have to show their true colors. AI sail in straight lines too, so pretending to be something other than a pirate would be tough: but awesome if pulled off. An interesting strat to counter the fact that OW AI are slower than players would be to carry a large amount of one heavy item in the hold, slowing the pirate down to AI speeds and destroying this weight when they want to show their true colors and attack giving them normal speed.

Privateers.

 

There would be two paths to becoming a privateer: Either start your character as a national and don’t pick a clan, instead choosing to become a privateer and receive a letter of marque from your nation, OR, as a pirate secure a letter of marque from a nation. For a pirate to do this, they would have to garner significant infamy and not have sank any vessels of the nation they want a letter of marque from in the past X amount of days. Upon doing so they would lose their perma death status and take on many aspects of a national. The pirate route would have several advantages: A pirate could secure marques from multiple nations, and change nations by dropping/taking letters. They could also revert to piracy if they wanted to but doing so and returning to perma death would be very risky.

Privateers could help clans by working as mercenaries. They could protect shipping, attack enemy shipping, hunt pirates, and even help with port battles and large PVP battles. In exchange, they would be able to buy/repair ships from the national capital or clans who whitelist them. They would have to form relationships with at one clan or port to get access to repairs and ships near the combat areas, but clans would benefit from allowing privateers and they could still safely prevent them from abusing the market by only granting them ship, repair, and resupply amenities.

Edited by Capt Aerobane
I have no clue how to make the privateers section not get stuck in the pirates, spoilers are confusing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privateers are hidden inside "false flags and smuggling" because I don't quite understand how spoilers work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets talk basics first, as you mentioned solo players in the topic

Regarding SOLO PVP vs Quality of life

  • To increase all solo pvp all quality of life features must be removed
  • All quality of life features (outposts, fast travel, tows) remove player from the map
  • All quality of life features allow you to increase the size of the group faster
  • Example
    • Without quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga but player is in la navasse, he sails solo to la tortuga and is attacked by a solo hunter
      • solo hunter happy, player maybe also happy
    • With quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga, player tows his ship from la navasse, teleports to outpost, 25 of them sail to a channel and sink a solo hunter.
      • large group happy

The dilemma is simple.
To increase solo pvp quality of life must be dumped and players should accept that they live in a region and it takes time to travel to another. Alternatively if quality of life is key then solo players should be explained that there is no solo pvp.

"Solo hunter" meaning can easily be replaced by a @small group@, as quality of life allows fast creation of large fleets that will always win against a small group.

Verdict
Quality of life features (tow, teleports) only favor the largest group (larger nation). All features that speed up travel increase the potential size of the group.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can we  acknowledge that solo pvp can't be facilitated in a game like this? Reduce requirement of Fleet Practice to 2 people and solo PVPers should be satisfied.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

So can we  acknowledge that solo pvp can't be facilitated in a game like this? Reduce requirement of Fleet Practice to 2 people and solo PVPers should be satisfied.

We used to have a "duel room" before. If solo PvP according to admin cannot be achieved, then we can as well have the duel room back in the game. Many players love dueling.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Lets talk basics first, as you mentioned solo players in the topic

Regarding SOLO PVP vs Quality of life

  • To increase all solo pvp all quality of life features must be removed
  • All quality of life features (outposts, fast travel, tows) remove player from the map
  • All quality of life features allow you to increase the size of the group faster
  • Example
    • Without quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga but player is in la navasse, he sails solo to la tortuga and is attacked by a solo hunter
      • solo hunter happy, player maybe also happy
    • With quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga, player tows his ship from la navasse, teleports to outpost, 25 of them sail to a channel and sink a solo hunter.
      • large group happy

The dilemma is simple.
To increase solo pvp quality of life must be dumped and players should accept that they live in a region and it takes time to travel to another. Alternatively if quality of life is key then solo players should be explained that there is no solo pvp.

"Solo hunter" meaning can easily be replaced by a @small group@, as quality of life allows fast creation of large fleets that will always win against a small group.

Verdict
Quality of life features (tow, teleports) only favor the largest group (larger nation). All features that speed up travel increase the potential size of the group.

I completely agree, quality of life will always make it harder on the solo player, but my suggestion could reduce the dilemma by not making it worthwhile for clans to organize a 20 man fleet to crush a small group. In my suggestion those 20 players would have other things to do, like protecting and attacking enemy merchant shipping, or securing the area around their ports. People gank because they can, but also because there isn't much else to do. If the enemy has their timers up, and you have yours, all clans can really do is go around looking for fights, and if they have to fight against a small group that is more fun for them than a real fight. That's why we see big groups sitting outside enemy capitals, they are desperate for pvp.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I completely agree, quality of life will always make it harder on the solo player, but my suggestion could reduce the dilemma by not making it worthwhile for clans to organize a 20 man fleet to crush a small group. In my suggestion those 20 players would have other things to do, like protecting and attacking enemy merchant shipping, or securing the area around their ports. People gank because they can, but also because there isn't much else to do. If the enemy has their timers up, and you have yours, all clans can really do is go around looking for fights, and if they have to fight against a small group that is more fun for them than a real fight. That's why we see big groups sitting outside enemy capitals, they are desperate for pvp.

With time we just learnt to ignore groups that want to ruin gameplay for others. 
The trade off is known and it is possible to tune travel options by removal or making them costly. I am personally fine with living in a certain part of the world, if I know it helps traffic (more targets) and its ok if another part of the world cannot be reached today. 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

Lets talk basics first, as you mentioned solo players in the topic

Regarding SOLO PVP vs Quality of life

  • To increase all solo pvp all quality of life features must be removed
  • All quality of life features (outposts, fast travel, tows) remove player from the map
  • All quality of life features allow you to increase the size of the group faster
  • Example
    • Without quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga but player is in la navasse, he sails solo to la tortuga and is attacked by a solo hunter
      • solo hunter happy, player maybe also happy
    • With quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga, player tows his ship from la navasse, teleports to outpost, 25 of them sail to a channel and sink a solo hunter.
      • large group happy

The dilemma is simple.
To increase solo pvp quality of life must be dumped and players should accept that they live in a region and it takes time to travel to another. Alternatively if quality of life is key then solo players should be explained that there is no solo pvp.

Solo hunter can easily be replaced by a small group, as quality of life allows fast creation of large fleets that will always win against a small group.

Solo PvP players can complain because of:

1. In patrol zones, there is no BR limit to enemy´s reinforcements.

2. Their hunting paradise, the capitals, are not longer an easy place to hunt. Reason: reinforcements.

So in order to solve 2:

While ports around capitals should be safe for new/casuals players and to nation recovery, the regions WITHOUT reinforcements should be encouraged to use because of big bonuses to crafting (+35% chances of getting a purple/orange ship), trading, labor hours, ressources and gold (extra gold to missions in risky places). That way you will see more players in those areas taking advantage of them.

You will make happy PVP players and RVR players (they will have to defend those ports) in one shot.

Edited by Intrepido
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Lets talk basics first, as you mentioned solo players in the topic

Regarding SOLO PVP vs Quality of life

  • To increase all solo pvp all quality of life features must be removed
  • All quality of life features (outposts, fast travel, tows) remove player from the map
  • All quality of life features allow you to increase the size of the group faster
  • Example
    • Without quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga but player is in la navasse, he sails solo to la tortuga and is attacked by a solo hunter
      • solo hunter happy, player maybe also happy
    • With quality of life feature: players friends gather at tortuga, player tows his ship from la navasse, teleports to outpost, 25 of them sail to a channel and sink a solo hunter.
      • large group happy

The dilemma is simple.
To increase solo pvp quality of life must be dumped and players should accept that they live in a region and it takes time to travel to another. Alternatively if quality of life is key then solo players should be explained that there is no solo pvp.

Solo hunter can easily be replaced by a small group, as quality of life allows fast creation of large fleets that will always win against a small group.

Sorry I really don't agree that solo PvP can only work if the Quality of Life (QoL) improvements are removed. Forcing players to do something hardly ever works - we saw that before the QoL stuff was implemented, we didn't have loads of solo players sailing around long distance and solo pvp, people just didn't want to travel.

How about a carrot approach rather than the stick? Patrol areas are a good start but a couple ideas:

  • 'Solo' friendly areas with 1.5BR limits etc - creating the atmosphere of a public event similar to other mmos.
  • New hauling missions (similar to EvE) where the goods are provided by the port and need to be taken somewhere else - preferably through/to pvp areas.
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

With time we just learnt to ignore groups that want to ruin gameplay for others. 
The trade off is known and it is possible to tune travel options by removal or making them costly. I am personally fine with living in a certain part of the world, if I know it helps traffic (more targets) and its ok if another part of the world cannot be reached today. 

 

I think that tows, teleports and all of that increase PvP opportunities and adds more quality of life. Both things can go together in pair. Combat News and other information I receive, they tell me where the action is, where I should be looking for PvP. Therefore, I teleport there and go search, instead of spending 2 weeks in one area waiting for prey... We've tested that, admin. If I hunt around La Habana for 2 weeks, local players will learn quickly how to avoid me, will start bringing heavy escorts or bait me or organize revenge fleets or change their location... It takes usually 3-5 days of constant PvP in one area for the defender to develop their security or move out. Often they send information to clans or nation chat "don't sail", "don't undock" with logic: If we do nothing for 1-2h, he will go home. This sadly works... Don't give content to the solo player/hunter, he will had back to the port.

One of the most important steps for the anti-ganking mechanics was signaling perk. It was even great for the solo hunters. It went through weird stages and rules and was dumped after all testing, sadly... That quality of life big/medium fleets destroying small groups you should call it by name, instead of fancy naming. It's ganking and it's what most of the players hate. Ganking is hated more than solo hunters. You promote ganking with the current game mechanics, that's sad.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin

I play Solo since a few weeks.

I deletet my RA and changed Nation before the Reedemebles were removed.

I did startet with a few Ships and 3 millions of budget from my other Character to set up Outposts and stuff.

First thing i did was to move to Shroud Cay, make some missons to get a bit more crew and unlock some Slots. After that i was going to other freetowns and build up outposts. 

It is fine for me to sail there build a outpost buy a Shop ship. And explore the world even if i loose a ship. Only thing i noticed i run fast out of money. But this is a other problem.

I did collected around 75 PvP marks over that time with sometimes 2h a day or every 2nd day. I sail along the coasts and like the unexpected what will i see what will happen to me.

If someone likes to be not part of RvR like me it is okay to play solo.

I got a 2nd Char in my Pirat-Clan to do some trading stuff only with fleetperks. If i had no 2nd Char i coud do it with my Main.  

I woud welcome it if the Pirats will be in the futur more like the impossible Nations for the start to make them a bit more pirat like. But at all i dont like the Nationthinking for the Pirats. So if Pirats went over to a impossible Nation there will be some room for Portugal or a other Naval Nation.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sry that i dont edit my ppst above. 

What comes in my mind is when you lose a battle or do damage to a player what is allready recently killed you only reseve xp and no money for done damage. I think there shoud be something like the patrolmissions for ow hunting. If you have done damage in a OW PvP you shoud reseve something for the risk you have taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality of Life is a way to fuse Distance ( and time to perform ) and Danger ( outside own choice ) and Time ( planning cruises ).

In a sense it is all condensed to promote fast access to combat.

Tilting the balance of QOL vs solo ROE is complicated in a sense that reverberates through the entire spectrum of solo/group/eco/pvp/duel/moba/sim miscellaneous groups we have.

Less QOL means more logistics means timescale extends ten fold. Despite the shortcoming of fast access to action, also give way to more prolonged campaigns, weeks of raiding, etc. It is a double edge.

More QOL, means total free reign of engagement wherever the forces want, with whatever force they can at any given moment. Despite the negatives of the weakest forces being swamped by concentration of effort, the big positive is exactly that fast access to battle.

Reducing all to a full QOL + ROE scenario, to fit balance of force will be a odd result ( especially given the nature of instances ).

I am all for anything and played all styles and I much rather lose the QOL than having a locked ROE to please faceoff arena instances.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't say anything definite about these big picture questions, but I was there when we had almost no teleports. I remember the TS chatter: "Oh, you're fighting south of Jamaica? I'm on cool down at Plymouth. I'm logging, cya!"

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I won't say anything definite about these big picture questions, but I was there when we had almost no teleports. I remember the TS chatter: "Oh, you're fighting south of Jamaica? I'm on cool down at Plymouth. I'm logging, cya!"

yes
hence the dilemma
its impossible to make solo pvp widely available with quality of life features 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are losing track of the pint from my OP. I don't think game mechanics have to choose between making a good game for solo players, clan members, and pvp enthusiasts.

Clans are the main culprits for ganking, but my OP gives lots of ways to motivate them to do other things. If they only travel in gank fleets, they wouldn't be able to cover enough ground to protect all their merchant shipping. And if they don't care about ports and just gank, they will garner a negative reputation and the community can reject them, denying them ports and amenities. 

Solo players can enjoy piracy and privateering, and clans won't be able to totally gank them. If they send their gank fleet to troll one guy escorting a ship, they won't be able to achieve other objectives. PvP enthusiasts can be satisfied with better patrol zone BR and ROE, and with more lenient fleet practice requirements.

my op also deals with pirates and gives people more to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have to balance solo vs group with quality of life, it's impossible due to above stated reasons. But quality of life is not the only way to handle stuff like this. Other changes that would make life more fun for those with few friends could include scaling pvp mark rewards with the fairness of the battle. If you have 4x BR of enemy, you get 1/4 the pvp marks or even less. Maybe square it. You have 2x BR you get 1/4, you have 4x the BR you get 1/16th the marks

Edited by Capt Aerobane

Share this post


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

yes
hence the dilemma
its impossible to make solo pvp widely available with quality of life features 

Or maybe it's easy?

Frigates meet Frigates in the event zone, they can fight each other without having to worry about fleets spawning in half an hour later.

Problem solved.

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Liq said:

Frigates meet Frigates in the event zone, they can fight each other without having to worry about fleets spawning in half an hour later.

Where can I sign up for this? :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Where can I sign up for this? :P

dont-ask-me-about-in-a-relationship.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue here is game population.

Solo pvp dies when the player numbers dwindle.  You simply can't expect folks to be in most corners of the map and therefor forcing players to hunt outside capitals, which for the most part are not friendly to solo players. To fix this issue we need to get players back into the game and to do that, we need to fix the casual aspect of Naval Action and make it interesting for players who have quit.  

Make missions more dynamic and interesting.  More variety.  Escorts, Search and Destroy, Trade missions, Bounty missions.

A far more intricate crafting system.  1 level 50 crafter should not be able to make every ship and cannon in the game.  Introduce skills trees and specializations of a sort.  Make the role of a "crafter" actually mean something.

Economy.  Simply put, we have none.  Most ports generate zero income.  No incentive to craft outside safe zones.  We need a functioning one that keeps people interested.  Same as above, being a trader is simply what someone does on an alt these days.

-------------

Give people a reason to return to the game and stick around.  FIX THE GAME SO CASUAL PLAYERS WANT TO PLAY IT.  Once population numbers increase, solo PVP will magically fix itself.  And by solo PVP I'm not talking about ganking around hot spots or capitals, but a lone frigate out there hunting traders in corners of the map. 

 

Edited by Christendom
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunting in patrol area is like hunting in a fenced part of a forest with released prey only for that purpose and therefore boring.

"Book your hunting trip sail to xy 100% wild players around."

Glad some people enjoy it but it shouldn't be the only way.

Edited by z4ys
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But couldn't quality of life features exist alongside reasons to sail?

As others have suggested: encourage shipbuilding and resource gathering outside then zone. Encourage manufacturing of mods inside the zone using resources only available outside. Transport contracts. PvP zones created by trade interdiction missions in a certain area. The mission is to sink all foreign AI and player traders. Or sink enemy combatant missions. But you can still TP to your ports and have your tow option. Ports should have needs and Im not talking about gold.

If there are more roles to fulfill besides just show up at next hostility or PB, I think you'll see players step up to fill them with their own niche style of play. The game could attract and hold others beyond those who just want to go churn PVP marks for their personal benefit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

With time we just learnt to ignore groups that want to ruin gameplay for others. 
The trade off is known and it is possible to tune travel options by removal or making them costly. I am personally fine with living in a certain part of the world, if I know it helps traffic (more targets) and its ok if another part of the world cannot be reached today. 

 

Some quality of life options wouldn't be needed if the ports didn't have so many unbalanced strategic ressources either.. Like Cartagena tar. The biggest issue for both PvP, RvR and solo players is the imbalance of mods/upgrades. The hard caps are simply too large..

Turning speed: 25%

Sail hp: 30%

Hull thickness: 30%

Gun reload: 30%

Gun dispersion: 40%

Speed: 15.5 kn.

Some ressources should be playercrafted and available in more locations as well then - teak, white oak for example. Some upgrades should be available in all 7 corners of the map - Panama region, Gulf region, Antilles region, Jamaica/cuba region, Haiti region, Cumana region and US east coast region - to promote regional wars rather than the serverwide war we have atm.. 

And the reinforcementzones should be limited to 1 port (capital ports) to promote more travelling and they wouldn't be needed as much anyway since the raiders would have to sail pretty far in order to raid. If they were removed it would enable commerce raiding again - which were the foundation of the era we are actually trying to emulate.

If the ships were better balanced, If ressources were more commonly available, IF the mods were more readily achievable - then quality of life options (some of them) could be forgone like tow, reinforcementzones etc. (I really think the teleport to national OP should be kept).. And pop points would increase since you didn't need to be part of a large clan to be successfull..

AND I really believe RNG should be dropped entirely - Books should be available for combat marks and/or PvP marks (for rare books preferably the latter). Why force ppl to PvE if they don't want to? - Why force someone else to PvP if he doesn't want to (exception is traders since econ warfare has a direct impact on RvR capability - now more so than ever before since everyone need gold to pay maintenance hours).

  • Like 4

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

×