port reset

[Grundgemunkey]

think its well over a year ago since last port reset ...if the game isnt been launched this year ,, its time for another reset rvr seems to be stale ,, another reset will provide a boost to game

[z4ys]

who thought the map will look like this after release Storm is coming^^

[Norfolk nChance]

I agree but think post the partial materials wipe and currency rollout first...

hmmmm….. might be waiting a long time

 

[Capn Rocko]

We just need a reason to fight for ports. Add more meaning to the ports and there will be more RvR. Resetting the map doesn't change anything it's just a temp fix for a bigger problem. 

[StaleMemes]

49 minutes ago, Capn Rocko said:

We just need a reason to fight for ports. Add more meaning to the ports and there will be more RvR. Resetting the map doesn't change anything it's just a temp fix for a bigger problem. 

Say it again for the people in the back, clan based RVR not nation based!

[speijk]

the problem arises.basicly  because nations / are to weak. to engage.

based on playerbase.

it should have remained a 4/5  nation game.

[Capn Rocko]

2 hours ago, speijk said:

the problem arises.basicly  because nations / are to weak. to engage.

based on playerbase.

it should have remained a 4/5  nation game.

Lesser # of nations would not yeild more port battles. You would still have the same clans waging war on each other. The reasons there are not many port battles: 1) because there are too many ports in the game that are completely useless 2) many clans choose to ally and not attack each other. 3) the rest of the clans got beat so many times, they gave up. 4) people create alts to gain access to important ports

We are living in a clan vs. clan game disguised as national warefare. The fact is that there are 1-3 clans per nation that participate in RvR and the rest of the nation (and alts) reap the benefits. When I was Prussian, little harbor was filled with alts who were bidding up the price of copper ingots, which was completely unfair since we were the only ones who owned it and protected it. Give clans complete control over ports (including the ability to shut out the rest of the nation/alts) combined with more desirable ports and you will see a lot more port battles. 

Port battles are designed to be "end game" content. If the end game content isn't being utilized, there there is something fundamentally wrong with the game. 

Edited September 16, 2018 by Capn Rocko

[Guest]

Theres lots of pbs tomorrow..there's lots of ultra valuble ports to fight over but most of you allow select nations to hold them uncontested and simply keep an alt in in those nations to take advantage. 

All a wipe would do is cause a land grab for a weak but the valuable ports will fall into the hands of the usual power blocs.

Little harbor is one of two copper ports in the game and it has a tiny br rating. Litterally any nation could fill that PB. But no one goes for it..

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Grundgemunkey said:

think its well over a year ago since last port reset ...if the game isnt been launched this year ,, its time for another reset rvr seems to be stale ,, another reset will provide a boost to game

How will a reset provide boost to the game other than a bunch of players will do empty host missions for just as empty PBs, and yes I count the AI as being empty.. Give me two basic cutters (and allow them in the PB ofc) and I could win a PB against the AI.

[Jean Ribault]

If there was ever a time for a port reset it would've been when the servers were merged.  And they said screw you to the Global players.  So why should we have one now.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

If there was ever a time for a port reset it would've been when the servers were merged.  And they said screw you to the Global players.  So why should we have one now.

Plenty of ports with US timers on them. Most nations use them to avoid PBs in strategic ports. 

[Jean Ribault]

Just now, Lars Kjaer said:

Plenty of ports with US timers on them. Most nations use them to avoid PBs in strategic ports. 

I won't disagree with you there.  Still was a poor decision then, and it won't change anything now.

[Guest]

Just now, Jean Ribault said:

I won't disagree with you there.  Still was a poor decision then, and it won't change anything now.

Only poor decision was to merge the servers. The timer abuse was foreseeable and indeed we have the same issue we had before the land was introduced to the PBs where the brits/us had us timers to avoid battles. The solution was to remove all timers and so we had the nightflips that basically ruined the game and forced the split servers and now.. Now we have the same issue we started out with. A nonfunctional RvR timer system that will only be aggrevated if the devs reintroduce the battleline mechanic.

[Jean Ribault]

1 minute ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Only poor decision was to merge the servers. The timer abuse was foreseeable and indeed we have the same issue we had before the land was introduced to the PBs where the brits/us had us timers to avoid battles. The solution was to remove all timers and so we had the nightflips that basically ruined the game and forced the split servers and now.. Now we have the same issue we started out with. A nonfunctional RvR timer system that will only be aggrevated if the devs reintroduce the battleline mechanic.

 

I was against the server merger.  I'm guessing the only reason they did it was to cure server numbers; well that worked, huh.  Those issues you describe could never have been cured by adding a couple hundred players.....as is evident now.  You are spot on.

[Capn Rocko]

1 minute ago, Jean Ribault said:

 

I was against the server merger.  I'm guessing the only reason they did it was to cure server numbers; well that worked, huh.  Those issues you describe could never have been cured by adding a couple hundred players.....as is evident now.  You are spot on.

I think the merge worked out fine, it just forced clans to either set timers or have a mix of EU/US players. Getting off topic here 🙄

[Jean Ribault]

4 minutes ago, Capn Rocko said:

I think the merge worked out fine, it just forced clans to either set timers or have a mix of EU/US players. Getting off topic here 🙄

 

True.   A map reset now would encourage a 2 or 3-week surge in rvr, then back to the moldy bread.  Unless something changes fundamentally with the game, the only way to defeat that cycle would be to go back to those suggestions many people have made for continual map resets, for example bimonthly or quarterly.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

 

True.   A map reset now would encourage a 2 or 3-week surge in rvr, then back to the moldy bread.  Unless something changes fundamentally with the game, the only way to defeat that cycle would be to go back to those suggestions many people have made for continual map resets, for example bimonthly or quarterly.

Except fixed resets won't create more PBs but only more AI missions in the end jading the remaining playerbase to the point where they too will leave. Who here in their right minds finds host missions interesting? or the AI bots challinging in any way?

[Raf Van Boom]

People leave because they are bored, not timers, not bots, not the map and its ports. B O R E D O M that's what.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Le Raf Boom said:

People leave because they are bored, not timers, not bots, not the map and its ports. B O R E D O M that's what.

Fighting empty PBs isn't exactly entertaining either.

[Jack Jones]

7 hours ago, speijk said:

the problem arises.basicly  because nations / are to weak. to engage.

based on playerbase.

it should have remained a 4/5  nation game.

Totally agree. 

Simple math.

Less nation's = more players/clans of that nation.

Take pirates out of RVR altogher and this will make all the 'fake pirate nationals' go and join other nations.

Nations should have been:

British

Spain

France

Holland

Portugal

Pirates = No nation or national interests.

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:

Fighting empty PBs isn't exactly entertaining either.

Then hit some ports that will be defended! Off the top of my head:

Little Harbor

Cartegena 

Puerto plata

Neuveitas

Truxillo

Cayman brac

Blondel cay

Etc, basically any rare wood ports.

[Tiedemann]

Less nation to gather the players we have and then make RvR rewarding/worth while.

[Barbancourt]

22 hours ago, speijk said:

the problem arises.basicly  because nations / are to weak. to engage.

based on playerbase.

it should have remained a 4/5  nation game.

I don't think that would make a lot of difference - the clans often don't work together, and sometimes work against each other in nation.  It sucks to be in a nation where the clans are bickering.  Too many big egos for 4/5 nations.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Barbancourt

[Sir Texas Sir]

10 hours ago, Barbancourt said:

I don't think that would make a lot of difference - the clans often don't work together, and sometimes work against each other in nation.  It sucks to be in a nation where the clans are bickering.  Too many big egos for 4/5 nations.

Your going to have the egos in any game but when you look at other games with faction RvR type play they keep it down to a low number.  Right now we have way to many nations a and most of them wasn’t even a port or even ever was in this area of the game and time it covers.  

Shrink the RvR nations to:

Dutch

France

GB

Spanish

US

That is the 5 nations that where powers or growing powers in this time period.  

Than make pirates an in game option (no chargen) that you can become that is PvP and only or give them the impossible nation rules.  If you get tired of being a pirate delete your chat or use forge papers to go back to a nation.