vazco
-
Posts
1,919 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by vazco
-
-
Anticipating a comment from someone that "NA Legends will fix it all":
In NA you can create something that you can't in NA Legends. A sense of purpose, ability to fight for your clan and nation, artificial world where you can have your role and can be known by your enemies and friends, gain and loss mechanic. NA Legends can be only about grind or clan fights. It's still great, however NA can be so much more. NA Legends won't fix things for me personally, and NA seems to have much bigger potential.-
1
-
-
Ok, I saw your response after writing mine. The problem is that with a new patch you give rabbits tools to avoid wolves completely. It's ok, as long as they turn to wolves after some time, and they have a chance to fight with other wolves without being rabbits 80% of the time to afford being a wolf.
This is just an inperfect analogy. Your game is not an ecological system. It's best parts are fights wolves-on-wolves or rabbits(cooperating)-on-bots. In my opinion you should really promote both, and make both of them viable paths.
With a new patch, you can be a happy rabbit, or a starving wolf who has to grind as rabbit to find other wolves to fight with, with other wolves being inaccessible, as they hunt for upgrades and books as rabbits.
-
12 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:
The current problem I find wolf vs wolf is the risk and the very little reward if I win.
In terms of game profits, that's very true. In the same time, those are the most interesting battles, which you remember. Hunting sheep is tedious and boring.
In my opinion it's a bad incentive design.
Admin, I'm repeating this in a few of my posts, as I feel not being understood by you. It seems to me that you try to say we should focus on PvP, regardless of incentives. I would really appreciate if you confirm that you see PvP incentives are preventing meaningful PvP right now.
All the rest can be created by players once good incentives and tools to generate fun encounters are there.
-
4 minutes ago, mikawa said:
What if we introduce special Zones (lets say Swedes against Danes -> this zone is located somewhere between Chirstiansted and Gustavia) where ships within this zone cannot be attacked by another player. Instead they are waiting for other ships to sail into this zone until a certain BR is reached on both sides, then the battle starts. And I don't mean 1st rated battles, but samller ones (neat 3 vs 3 frigate battles for example, or 4 vs 3 depending on the BR they bring in). Maybe this could be helpful with the hostility / unbalanced pvp problem ... ?!?
This would work if it was a player-created battle. It could give interesting encounters.
It shouldn't be simply a zone, as combat is an event. You need numbers on both sides to start it.
This is what raids could be. You set a target port, pay for battle, and defenders and attackers have a time to group up. If you win, you get some prize. Battles could be on the sea, not necessarily in the port.
-
1
-
-
If you just remove access to sheep from wolves (which next patch does), without fixing the system, wolves will leave and you won't have any group interacting on the server any more. You could go single-player mode then.
PvP encounters are the best part of your game. You should promote them, not limit them, as it's the only way to hook players for longer, and it's the only way for a player-created content and stories. All players should at some point drift to PvP. In order for them to drift, they need incentives there.
-
6 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
Just keep it simple. (...)
The only complexity you have to take care for is alt farming, that's why I proposed a system I did. If you don't address it, PvE grinding will turn into alt grinding, or inter-nation fake battles, which is even worse.
8 minutes ago, admin said:Your opinion is valuable and you were one of the players who asked for some real fixes of revenge ganks - you got them. Did you start to pvp more?
Or maybe all those changes destroy the supply of targets and because wolves don't eat wolves you have nobody to play with once average players dissapear?Again, please create an incentive system for wolves to be able to eat wolves, and things will start to work. Right now wolves are forced to eat bots to go anywhere, while everyone is chasing or escaping everyone else. It's all about incentives! Just make fun battles proffitable.
Yes, you're right - giving wolves better access to remaining sheep is a bad idea and won't lead anywhere.
-
17 minutes ago, Skully said:
It is funny that folks cried alt damage farming and forgot about the implications.
As long as it is a Zero-sum game (unless we need money sink/faucet) I don't see any trouble. Ergo the rewards never exceed the value sunk.
I'll quote myself from a post above:
23 minutes ago, vazco said:-
inflicting a damage in battle, even if you don't sink a ship, could give XP. There are options to secure it from exploits, eg:
- you get XP/marks only when you sink or loose a ship to boarding, based on damage you made, up to 150% of XP that someone would get from sinking you.
-
give rewards for capturing a ship
- to balance it, if your ship is captured, capturer will spend eg. first 1000 XP and gold/combat marks that he gets on a new ship to re-purpose the ship, without getting any rewards
-
1
-
inflicting a damage in battle, even if you don't sink a ship, could give XP. There are options to secure it from exploits, eg:
-
10 hours ago, admin said:
why don't pvp players pvp each other? We tell them where they are exactly for that. But they group up for some reason and gank missions. Asking to move them out of green zone
That's because you create a world of incentives for PvP players to grind missions. If PvP was as rewarding as PvE (including risk calculation), it would solve the issue. This is all that we're asking for for a long time. We have high risk, it should give high reward - to give similar profits as mission grinding in the end.
Because rewards are low, now PvP players lower risk as well, trying to hunt defenceless traders and noob players that do missions close to capital. I think this wasn't the original goal you had.
Examples for fixing rewards for PvP:
-
inflicting a damage in battle, even if you don't sink a ship, could give XP. There are options to secure it from exploits, eg:
- you get XP/marks only when you sink or loose ship, based on damage you made, up to 150% of XP that someone would get from sinking you.
-
give rewards for capturing a ship
- to balance it, if your ship is captured, capturer will spend eg. first 1000 XP and gold/combat marks that he gets on a new ship to re-purpose the ship, without getting any rewards
-
introduce different types of PvP missions with a pre-set configuration and goals, which require players from both sides to join first, and which increase variety and give unique rewards (eg. after doing X damage in those battles you could get an unique paint)
- you could use such missions for PvE as well, just due to low risk, they should give lower rewards in PvE
- those missions should be player-launched, not arbitrary like treasure fleet
- increased rewards for PvP by 5-10x, and secure them from exploits (again, can be done in a few different ways - eg. block getting XP for fighting non-casualty battles)
-
4
-
inflicting a damage in battle, even if you don't sink a ship, could give XP. There are options to secure it from exploits, eg:
-
The main issue that I see is that PvP will be harder to get due to additional protection, while it won't give enough rewards to be profitable. 2x XP and gold is definitely much too little. PvP will die out... We need much better incentives to PvP, best for those kind of fights that are interesting (that is, not chasing/running, but actually fighting).
I'm not sure if in this idea hostile clans from the same nation would be able to attack each other ports. Is this a case? If not, it won't change situation a lot, as clans will just talk about how they divide ports within nation, just like it was happening with Victory marks. I'm not sure if it's good or bad, just similar.
Remaining changes are interesting.
ps. some ideas for better incentives for PvP (just as examples):
- inflicting a damage in battle, even if you don't sink a ship, could give XP (there are options to secure it from exploits, eg. by differentiating XP based on your enemy's renown)
- increased rewards for PvP by 10x, and secure them from exploits (again, can be done in a few different ways)
- introduce different types of PvP missions, which require players from both sides to join and which increase variety and give unique rewards (eg. after 10 such battles you could get an unique paint)
-
1
-
...or if you don't want to risk, hire someone with experience that would define goals well and propose solutions for you
it's worth it -
Dear devs, I would just ask you for one thing. If you're copying solutions from other games, either copy them 1 to 1, or instead of copying as much solution as possible, actually analyze what goals that solution is answering. Copy goals, not the solution itself. Copying solution simply won't work. We'll just loose time...
If you copy goals well and propose your own best solutions, relevant to Naval Action experience and based on knowledge that you received in the last 2 years, it might actually work.-
1
-
-
I guess noone remembers what was a main issue with a flag system. It was boredom. Once people found winning strategies, the most powerful one was setting fake flag every day for 3-5 days before doing a real attack, and then using a few flags set for meaningful ports, so that enemy didn't know what to defend. The issue made NA a Naval Inaction game. If you plan to go back to an old flag system, at least counter it by not allowing a strategy of boring your enemy to death. This game won't be successful if this becomes a new meta.
Please don't repeat your own mistakes without even trying to address them...
-
2
-
-
1. Fix PvP issue of being completely unrewarding. More detailed list of issues available below:
2. fix point 1
3. look at point 2
Just increasing rewards for PvP by x0.5 or x5 won't work. Reward system has to be smarter, giving greater rewards and preventing alt abuse at the same time.
-
@admin by request of JustOne I paste his message below:
=============
Before the crash of the server i've entered the mission with my buddy. Before the start of the battle i've settled the sail and my friend did not. Server crashed. After we relogged, my ship was sinking, without repairs that I had on board, surrounded by enemies. Because of a game error i've lost an expensive ship (white oak/white oak Consti with expensive upgrades). Is this possible to get the refund in the game?
Screenshot before being sunk:
https://scr.hu/J39jka
I've sent 3 F11 reports as well.
Regards,
JustOne
============= -
On 22.06.2017 at 6:14 PM, Baptiste Gallouédec said:
Maybe we could make a kind of flagship system limiting the top class accepted on deepwater harbour to 5 per side of each port battle. I think this would be more interesting and dynamic than the well known 25 agga vs 25 same agga, or 25 ocean vs 25 ocean.
Lineship battles would accept 5 first rate ships max, actual 4th rate pb would accept 5 third rate maybe, you could even add a frigate level PB with five 4th rate.
I think this is a great system that you propose. Unfortunately it was proposed a few times already and wasn't implemented. I don't have high hopes for it appearing this time...
I think it would add a lot of variety though, make game more fun, and lineships even more epic and meaningful in port battles.
-
1
-
-
A few things are wrong:
1. lineships are not best for grinding PvE. 1st rates give you the same amount of gold as 4th rate for sinking. As it is, Endymion or Aga are the best for grinding now.
2. lineships are not best for screening, as they're slow and extremely expensive
3. lineships that mean a lot for everyone are great, it adds epicness to the game. Long time ago sinking enemy fleet was more important than getting a port. Now we're getting back to this. It gives a lot of depth to the game, and multiple new strategies are available. We had huge naval battles over eg. someone capturing Bucentaur in OW.
4. I never saw 1st rates being used for PvP, they were only for RvR even when they were as cheap that everyone could afford them.
5. many people don't like sailing lineships, as you can see in this thread. I for one don't need one as well, I prefer 4'th rates or lower.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Neoknight_87 said:
is there any info how long it will take?
Telling from experience - it will take as long as it needs to take. Even once you fix the issue, you have to make sure that it will not reappear and that data is not corrupt. You have to find a reason of an issue before re-launching the server. This takes time and you never know how much time really, until you're done. Fixing server on Sunday is an additional complexity.
I would advice you to assume it won't be fixed today, and maybe be pleasantly surprised.
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, admin said:
we originally had a neutral nation and thinking of bringing it back
only pirates could attack neutrals, but neutrals could enter any city.
We think it is a great option to replace pve server with.
This means trading will be monopolized by people with alt accounts, and any clan would have at least a few alts to trade.
-
It would be great if skirmishers would have an option to turn off their default retreat mode. Skirmishers armed with short-range colts are simply useless othwerwise, as they have to be constantly micro-managed to fire.
-
4
-
-
Once I uninstalled video drivers, game started to work fine. After I installed them again, it still works well.
-
2
-
-
Last patch didn't help, both in OpenGL and in standard mode results are the same. I think I installed new video drivers, and after that game started crashing. Tomorrow I will re-install them and check. I think nothing else changed in my configuration.
-
I've tried launch options and DX9, it didn't work. DxDiag is in an attachment.
-
Maybe this will be useful - when I launch game in OpenGL mode, I get a crash. I upload crash report below.
Thank you for trying to help so quick
-
Below is an original content of the folder. Right now when I delete content of LocalLow and from Windows/Prefetch, new options.bin is not even generated. The result is always that the game won't launch.
Forthcoming patch final discussion.
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted · Edited by vazco
You're right about the fact that risk is not a problem. The problem is that PvP is not profitable. Even testbed looses with PvE missions, as they give you meaningful rewards and some sense of purpose.
Currently wolf-on-wolf PvP is next to impossible outside of PB, as even groups run from you. It's also unprofitable and requires too much PvE grind. Current PvP is focused on hunting traders and weaker players, and running from stronger or even groups. That's because fighting an even enemy has high risk and low reward. New patch will remove such PvP. It's ok, as it only hurts new players and it's not fun.
Please however bring us an option to have fun battles, with no running/chasing and no PvE grinding to get to them, and with a sense of purpose. The only way to do this is to make it profitable for people to fight in PvP when numbers are even, instead of running. This can be done by RoE (probably hard to do), player-started battle events, or any other means. It should be however possible to fight an engaging PvP within 30-60 minutes after you login to the server.
Organized battles - small and large - are the best part of your game. New people get hooked when they participate in such battle, either with a commander or with a group of people that tell them how to act. Those that do only PvE usually leave once they get their rank up, or once they grow bored with fighting bots. Because of this, I think the newest patch doesn't address the main issue, even if it's the step into the right direction.