Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

About -KM-

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

683 profile views
  1. Hej Tittar gärna in någon dag och säger hej. I NA och många andra spel brukar jag försöka hitta internationella grupper (eller starta). Jag behöver hålla igång engelskan och också kul att träffa folk från andra länder som jag aldrig skule stött på annars. Ni håller ju dock på med en hel del roligt inte bara i NA och det finns nog få så seriösa spelföreningar i svedala. Men som sagt kikar gärna in på er TS någon dag och säger hej mvh KM
  2. If the gold gain now is "to much" or to little might depend on what you sail.... someone in a smaller ship would probably get more like 3-4k to maybe 6k/battle now. Not 20k. For the new players this gold gain might be just what they need. For them it will take quite long time to replace a ship if lost in battle. However for the people playing bigger ships (Bell and upwards, it might be a tad much) so maybe gold is fine but ship prices for higher tier ships need to be higher (and repair cost/guns etc for those ships but without changing the price and repair cost of lower tier ships) In sea trials it tok much longer to get from lynx to brig than from Bellona to Santisima.... Maybe that si the case here since gold is based on damage. You get to much gold in comparison to cost in the big ships, but maybe not in the smaller ones...
  3. It does NOT break everything to not make PVP a huge net loss even if winning 50% of the battles. Take a look at the majority of MMO s out there with PVP. Most of them, the vast majority in fact ghave a pure net gain from PVP. That is zero loss from death in PVP and an XP gain, sometimes rewards in form of items as well. And that is without breaking the economy at all. Take a look at GW2. It is NOT an arena game. It has a huge PVP in form of World Vs World where the only loss from death is re-spawn timer. ..Arch age (open PVP everywhere -re spawn timer only) Perfect World (open PvP) etc etc I would like you to develop on your assumption that a net gain from PVP means a broken economy.... Yes I you would give a player a good reward (net gain) from suicide runs that could lead to unwanted player behavior. Bur right now the issue is not that. The issue is that the Net gain from Winning is so much smaller than the loss from loosing that you will go broke in a few fights even if you win more than 50% of the engagements. If people do loose a fight and sink they should loose gold (you sink the enemy but the repair cost is higher than the gold from damagee). I agree. But right now you could actually loose gold even if you win the fight, and if you sink one time you will have to win about 7-9 times before you made up for the loss. (and that is if you actually manage to capture the enemy ship and not only sink it) As long as there is a net loss from suicide runs nothing will break just because the overall net gain is positive from PvP.
  4. This.... If loosing PVP Loss: -1 dura (for a Trinc that is -12k gold) -6k repair bill, gold gain 146g + 152xp If Winning (and in best case you manage to capture enemy ship not sink it) + lets say 300 gold and 300 xp + 6k gold from selling captured ship That means Net gain for the community from PVP will be some -12k gold, each time a player kills another player in PVP. ..taken this a bit further. If players would only play PVP the community as a whole would be sailing in a Lynx becasue they would not be able to afford anything else. Net gain (that is potential win - potential loss from PVP must be positive to have an insentive to play PvP) regards KM
  5. I know this forum should be free of .. ehrmm what u just did regarding swedes.. Clan stuff left for Tavern.. but I m just a bit tired to hear about how bad the Swedes are in player behavior and how TDA is rly the good guys so.....You guys did mostly the same thing the Rakers did (Maybe not you in person, but TDA players), justifying it by saying it was punishment for the Rakers (just that you did not rly hit the rakers at all but ganked everyone outside Gustavia for several days in a row.. mostly new players that had nothing to do with grieving.. Sweden had most organized players the first few days, so everyone complained about the Swedes ganking... now US got more players and GB got more players so people are complaining about you guys ganking.. people will allways think the biggest and strongest group is a pain in the ass... and qq in the forum will mostly be about the players from just the strongest guilds/nations however it happens to be. It is a PVP game so shall we leave out "This or that nation or group got bad rep so serves them right.... or, or this and that guild got that reputation so try to work on that.. as a solution " and instead stick to the subject of if the current game mechanic and balance of battle and reinforcements is good or not? regards KM
  6. No need to have more players to do math. If the gold cost of getting sunk by another player is higher than the gold gain of sinking another player than the net gain from PVP is negative and thus people will have to "farm" bot s to afford to play PvP. Every enemy player ship i sink or capture means the loss of 1 dura for someone. For example: My net gold gain from sinking or capturing +2k. Gold loss for the player i captured it from -4k for replacing lost durability. Net loss for the community from PvP -2k. Simple as that. It does not matter if there is 2 people in the game or 100000000. Meaning that in order to play PvP you HAVE TO play a lot of PvE in between or only engage in PvP where you are close to 100% sure you will win (ganking), of course the people getting ganked will loose, and loose more than you gain (and thus the net loss will still be negative from PvP)
  7. The more i read on the forums (and I read a lot), the more I play the game, the more i get convinced we need ship insurance for a balanced cost. The post in open world section -why people don't fight is spot on. We have to ask ourselves. Do we want NA to be a PVE game with PVP elements or a PvP game with PvE elements. As it stands not it is the first of the two for one simple reason... the economy. Most people will follow the money in MMO. That is do what gives most gold and if they do not need gold, xp. If you look at the prices now.. this is from the top of my head but a rough estimate and I use the Trinc as an example. I think the new price for a trinc is around 60k. Loosing one durability will therefore cost around 12k. Selling a captured trinc will net you about 6k. The damage you deal will net you a comparable very low gold income. Have a net profit from playing PvE with those numbers is very much possible. However by playing PvP it is not. Only if you choose to only engage in very unfair PvP match ups it is possible to have a ratio of 2 captured enemy player trincs for every time you go down yourself. Most of the time people will go down rather than getting cought as well netting even less gold. It is quite simple. If the net cost for replacing one dura is higher than the gold gain for sinking a ship in PvP the community as a whole will loose money playing PvP (even if a few individuals might not) forcing players to "farm" PvE to afford PvP. My suggestion is ship insurance. The cost of that insurgence could be roughly equal to the gold gain from damage to a player owned ship equal to the damage needed to sink the insured ship. That way at least net gold income from PvP would for the community as a whole not be negative. Psychology wise a player is also less afraid to loose the ship if that only means he have to pay some 4k gold or so to replace the insurance than if he loose one durability that in the long run means he will have to "trash" the ship. What about resources then, the need to replace ships? Well first of all we do not have that yet in game. Second. It would make more sense if repair kits were bought in port than magically appearing in each battle. The repair kits and repairs of ship in harbor could cost both gold and resources. That and of course building new ships/ modules. The gold from damage against AI should be significantly lower than damage against real players. To buy an insurance for the ship playing VS AI it should roughly be the current numbers. That is capture 2 ships to replace the cost of loosing one dura.. or sink 4 or 5 maybe. At the current state of ingame economy it is just way to profitable to play PVE compared to the almost certain net loss of playing PvP. regards KM
  8. the cost of replacing a lost ship is to high vs income right now.. meaning the problem with people not daring to fight (afraid to loose their ship and no means to buy a new one) will increase... The fleets to hire is to expensive as well.. with the low income no-one will be able to afford it
  9. I do not like restrictions to battles, sry I just don't. Then we could as well just have sea trials. Better would be a combination of the planned implementation of guard duty and AI reinforcements. I do think that the strength of those be it real players who signed up for guard (preferably) or AI (less desired) should depend strongly on vicinity to friendly ports. That would solve so many problems. New players would just have to keep quite close to friendly ports to get a good protection. Close to friendly port you could get that protection even without having hired guards. The futher away you are from a friendly port the less "free" assist you would get. Solving the problem of someone transporting valuable goods in a lynx.... Also making it more dangerous to sail through enemy territory. It would also solve the problem om enemy nations camping capitals of other nations. They would be further away from their home base thus not getting any support (there could be a limit of distance even for hired guards) while the "defending" players get a lot of assist from both friendly real players signed up for navy or guard duty and AI reinforcements. It would still keep the freedom. Anyone can go anywhere and attack anyone BUT.. with a consequence and risk... I also think that in the open world it is important to create events that draw players into big PVP battles. Mainly opposing goals with great rewards drawing people from different nations into clash. regards KM
  10. I d much rather see a system where the battles are filled up with AI to even it out with respect to vicinity to ports owned by the own nation. Lets say Close to "home ports" the AI will fill out up to a 2:1 ratio. that is so that the players in friendly waters gets a big advantage and ganking close to nation ports is risky business. Somewhat close could be 1:1 ratio, somewhat distant could be a 1:2 ratio and very distant no AI reinforcements. That would of course also mean the nations with few ports would indeed be more "hardcore" than the ones with many...and also provide a more protected are for new players but still result in big battles nearby starting towns. regards KM
  11. Please do not make this thread into an argument about certain groups action but keep it to the question of if a certain behavior. Personally I do not see the problem if a lone SOL or Bel get ganked by 5-6 ships. SOLs without a fleet is not a good idea to sail and should be very risky to sail alone.... (there are a lot of groups from different nations who would say a lone BEll is a fair target for gank) I think the problem here is not the ganking itself (With ganking I mean for example 5 frigates finding a lone SoL who is sailing to join up with a bigger fleet) not 5 frigates camping some poor dude in a brig outside his only port.. sinking him over and over... that is grieving The problem is that the PvP is 99% ganking. If you sail with a group of people.. lets say 5. Everything slightly smaller-.. 2-3 frigates you will attack.... everything really small (brigs, a lone cerb etc) you will ignore (I hope) and everything a lot bigger you will run from (7-8 frigates) Now .. Hopefully if you find 5 other frigates you will fight, right?.. but what are the ods? So the question is how to give people incentive to fight when it is 5vs8 or 3vs5 ..... and how to make it less profitable when it is 5v1 Also how to make 5v5 happen more often... Now don't take me literary when it comes to numbers and frigates.. It could be any number and any ship it is more about relative strength.. regards KM
  12. Maybe it could be possible to implement dynamic events. Mainly Missions to defend or capture a port in open world. To guard a certain trade route etc that will draw people from two different nations there in open world to the same spot but with opposing goals. The rewards from partaking in those dynamic events could be exotic mods, higher XP gain and gold etc. I think trusting in player mentality is trusting in something that has not worked yet in one single game out there. you have to make incentives in the game mechanics that draw players into a playing style that fits with your vision rather than just hope they will do so by some loyalty or honor. Look for different kind of game mechanics that draws a lot of player of opposing factions into big battles, guard duty is one thing.. but there is so many more events that could be made possible with the same goal. That would also ad interesting content in the game. Also make the reward from partaking in those vents so that if you win 50% and loose your ship in 50% of the fights you will have a small net gain. Right now part taking in PVP If you " win" 50% of the time and loose your ship 50% of the time you do a huge net-loss in gold unless u manage to not only sink but to actually capture several enemy ships. That is indeed possible to do, but much less so in a fair fight. Hence right there are the ones (the people who play a lot of hours) who already got most of what they wanted in form of gold and ships (more than they need) and the only thing they need now is more xp and the fun of PVP. There is no downside for them because they got 500k + gold all the modules etc. Loss of gold doesa not matter much for them. Then we got the ones with less time on their hands who do not have enough gold to replace the ship if they would loose it without having to spend a few hours in between "farming" against PvE ships. For them currently the risk of PvP is far greater than the reward unless the battle is an almost sure win. I think game mechanics must be so that even for the casual player with less time on thier hand the net gain of PvP (if winning 50%+ of the fights) must be positive (not only in xp) regards KM
  13. Just one suggestion to ad to the list 1. Navy missions. Would be nice content to have in the game. Navy missions could be PvP oriented. Let the player "borrow" a ship from the nations navy for the duration of the mission. The mission itself will grant xp and gold. The navy mission can for example include fights between nations where players are matched in balanced match-ups. Would maybe not solve but help with two things. More PVP options, also for the people who are afraid to loose their ship. With a borrowed ship you can have a bonus if you do not loose the navy ship but not loosing any f your own if u go down. It would also give people with less time on their hands the possibility to sail larger ships even if they do not have time to "grind" for one. I think some people avoid PvP also because they "can not afford to" loose the ship at the point. I have been short on time due to a lot of IRL stuff lately. I found myself avoiding PvP at one point. That is when I was down to 2 dura on my trinc. I did not want to risk the modules so I tried to stay away from PvP until i captured a few AI:s and found a new Trinc.... Simply becuase if I had lost my tric at the point I would not have had money enough to buy a new one.... Navy missions could also solve this. That is a means to earn gold in PvP even if you lost your own ship or can not afford to loose it at the time. regards KM
  14. A mission does not need to be only instanced. It could for example be to guard a gold transport from port A to B in open world and keep it alive to the destination whatever happens on the way there. I do not think it is good if the hardcore players can sail around in an SOL at all times either. There should be a high upkeep cost on SOL. If done right SOL s will only, even by hardcore player that owns them, be taken out for major guild battles, simply because the maintenance cost could be set to high to just sail around with it unless you are sure you are going to run into something really big. That is you could make it so that the net gain in resources etc will be negative sailing a SOL unless you get into a real big battle/capture a port or similar with it. That way the "hardcore" players will also choose smaller ships except for the real big encounters. Think about this. Would EVE be a better or worse game if all could own a capital ship with 2h of gameplay every week?
  • Create New...