Modest suggestion to solve some RvR problems (politics included)

[victor]

Since the will of the devs seems to be:

 

1) after the wipe, all ports will be neutral, except capital cities

 

2) no attack will be allowed in waters in front of capital cities

 

Why not - after the wipe - set a sort of small safe "homeland area" around each capital: let's say six port (including capitals) which produce all the resources and are unconquerable with the "no attack" in front water new rule applied. In other words: after the wipe all the ports will be neutral except the ones of such a "home safe area" for each faction.

 

And here is the political side of the thread: in case devs will not accept such a change (and - in any case - before the wipe) why do not major factions (in PVP 1 EU) try to start discussing a sort of multilateral treaty on it? (ok, pirates may object that they are pirate and so I would understand if the would not agree, but national factions could do it, since it is in their mutual interest).

 

This way each faction will have its (little) "own area" (a sort of safe noob and carebears farm) and the rest of the map will be there for RvR and savage PVP.

 

What do you think about that?

 

PS: this is a serious proposal submitted by a player to (devs and) faction diplomats, since - in my opinion - it could be a good compromise for solving a lot of the problems on the table of balancing RVR (so - please - try to reduce faction role playing at the minimum, at least in this topic)

Edited March 21, 2016 by victor

[OMG Lord Lucifer]

I believe having a group of six-ports next to each capital that produce all needed resources to make ships is a good idea.

 

I disagree with any "safe" or "carebear" zones.  If you join a PVP server, expect to PVP in all areas.  People already shy away from PVP far too much.

[Porpoise]

Just no. You are killing sandbox with protective rules. A nation needs only 4 ports to fully satisfy it's needs and there is no need to own multiple ports at the moment.

When all ports will be set to neutral, the most populated nations will take huge advantage of it at the start.

I think we need new PB mechanics which brings less, but much more intense fights for ports. There must be economical motivation to get the port, because now you have no advantage in having them. The whole RvR system needs to be reworked. Now I consider it being something like demo.

[sveno]

I do like the idea of a uncapturable core area, that would make a steamroll like Sweden and Spain has experienced not as catastrophic as they were for their playerbase.

 

The idea of a savezone is problematic, that could be miss-used by high level players. Together with a level cap (ie. Captain) that would make more sense.

Edited March 21, 2016 by sveno

[John Quilliam]

Just no. You are killing sandbox with protective rules. A nation needs only 4 ports to fully satisfy it's needs and there is no need to own multiple ports at the moment.

When all ports will be set to neutral, the most populated nations will take huge advantage of it at the start.

I think we need new PB mechanics which brings less, but much more intense fights for ports. There must be economical motivation to get the port, because now you have no advantage in having them. The whole RvR system needs to be reworked. Now I consider it being something like demo.

 

All games introduce at some point an area were new players cannot be steam rolled or ganked doing midships and ensign missions. You should be aware that the higher the Missions the further out they are are so you will not lose your PVP.

 

Large established gaming companies like Wargaming for example has introduced methods that will not scare potential new players and profit away letting Experienced Highly skilled players noob bash to increase there own ego and stats.

 

Such games that does not offer such a system die very quickly and I like the suggestion the op has made! 

[OMG Lord Lucifer]

All games introduce at some point an area were new players cannot be steam rolled or ganked doing midships and ensign missions. You should be aware that the higher the Missions the further out they are are so you will not lose your PVP.

 

Large established gaming companies like Wargaming for example has introduced methods that will not scare potential new players and profit away letting Experienced Highly skilled players noob bash to increase there own ego and stats.

 

Such games that does not offer such a system die very quickly and I like the suggestion the op has made! 

 Yes, you can farm xp in the PVE servers, and then move with your levels to PVP. PVE is already the "safe zone"

[Bougainville]

I'm all for having a noobzone.

 

In Europe. Where it belongs.

[victor]

Just no. You are killing sandbox with protective rules. A nation needs only 4 ports to fully satisfy it's needs and there is no need to own multiple ports at the moment.

When all ports will be set to neutral, the most populated nations will take huge advantage of it at the start.

I think we need new PB mechanics which brings less, but much more intense fights for ports. There must be economical motivation to get the port, because now you have no advantage in having them. The whole RvR system needs to be reworked. Now I consider it being something like demo.

 

EVE online - which has such a safe zone called "empire" - seems to be the prototype of the sandbox MMORPG and is still alive and kicking (and there you can find a blazing RvR - for the conquest of resources in "0.0 sectors" as well as a lot of skirmish pvp all around the low security sectors.

Edited March 21, 2016 by victor

[OMG Lord Lucifer]

EVE online - which has such a safe zone called "empire" - seems to be the prototype of the sandbox MMORPG and is still alive and kicking (and there you can find a blazing RvR - in "0.0 sectors" and skirmish pvp all around the low security sectors.

 

... and again: "High-Sec" areas are B.S. "Carebear" zones.  If you are on a PVP server, you should have no safe zones.  (reinforcements should also be removed, or require substantial gold to summon, but I will save that for another thread)

[victor]

... and again: "High-Sec" areas are B.S. "Carebear" zones.  If you are on a PVP server, you should have no safe zones.  (reinforcements should also be removed, or require substantial gold to summon, but I will save that for another thread)

 

At the end of the story the most important thing would be the six unconquerable port with resources, I added the proposal of the other feature since it seems the devs are putting a safe area in the sea of each capital city (so it would have made sense extending it in the area of all "unconquerable" city). But, in my priority list, the "no conquest area" comes first, while the "no PVP area" is just an optional feature.

Edited March 21, 2016 by victor

[Stix]

There is no such thing as faction diplomats, every player is free to do as he or she wishes.

[OMG Lord Lucifer]

At the end of the story the most important thing would be the six unconquerable port with resources, I added the proposal of the other feature since it seems the devs are putting a safe area in the sea of each capital city (so it would have made sense extending it in the area of all "unconquerable" city). But, in my priority list, the "no conquest area" comes first, while the "no PVP area" is just an optional feature.

 

I agree with the closest 6 ports to a capital all containing the resources required to make any ship, but they should be conquerable just like the rest of them.  Maybe add an additional 2 port defense towers to them, and the BR difference moved from 2:1 to 3:1 to win the battle (only for the side of the capital they are nearest), and a BR requirement of 1.5:1 instead of 2:1 to take it back, to give the intended owner of that port an advantage.

Edited March 21, 2016 by OMG Lord Lucifer

[Fletch]

There is enough Freeport's to allow anyone to survive. The rest should be up for grabs. Capital and the water right outside it should be safe to stop people greifing noobs. My opinion.

[Porpoise]

EVE online - which has such a safe zone called "empire" - seems to be the prototype of the sandbox MMORPG and is still alive and kicking (and there you can find a blazing RvR - for the conquest of resources in "0.0 sectors" as well as a lot of skirmish pvp all around the low security sectors.

 

Empire has far to anything being called safe zone. I played EvE for 8 years and I know what I am talking about. There are wars, ganks and much less predictable environment than in 0 or low. This system can not work here. Probably only tagging into the battle near capital should be disabled.

This environment is not that complex as in eve. And EVE is not an open world. There are 7000 instances called systems with own rules.

 

But I would like to see many of the EVE mechanics to be implemented - like 1 ship - 1 life etc.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Porpoise

[The Spud]

Instead of the attack random ports right now, we should work out a system for each nation that gives an order in wich ports can be capped. For instance for the brits, you would have to cap tiburon first before you could attack morant, as Tiburon is the closest port to Morant. Before you could cap tiburon you would need to cap jeremie OR la cayes. In return you could make the timeframe to cap a port bigger. This would give frontline ports that are at high risk of being taken, and will be harder to take.

 

Because to me it seems kinda strange that a nation could cap a port right smack in the middle of enemy territory. This just doesn't make sence. 

Alternatively to not make it boring as hell outside the frontline ports, you could be blocking a port. You wouldn't need to buy a flag or anything. You could just sail up to the enemy port, when close enough you could choose to block that port. The timer is set at lets say 30 minutes, after that the battle starts, if the battle is lost you lose acces to that port for a day (until restart). Or say you need at least a BR of 1000 or something.

 

There is so much that can be done in this game.

[victor]

Empire has far to anything being called safe zone. I played EvE for 8 years and I know what I am talking about. There are wars, ganks and much less predictable environment than in 0 or low. This system can not work here. Probably only tagging into the battle near capital should be disabled.

This environment is not that complex as in eve. And EVE is not an open world. There are 7000 instances called systems with own rules.

 

But I would like to see many of the EVE mechanics to be implemented - like 1 ship - 1 life etc.

 

If you are telling that High sec is less safe than low sec and 0.0, it seems that I've been playing (for more than 10 years) a different game. But we are not talking about eve here.

[victor]

Instead of the attack random ports right now, we should work out a system for each nation that gives an order in wich ports can be capped. For instance for the brits, you would have to cap tiburon first before you could attack morant, as Tiburon is the closest port to Morant. Before you could cap tiburon you would need to cap jeremie OR la cayes. In return you could make the timeframe to cap a port bigger. This would give frontline ports that are at high risk of being taken, and will be harder to take.

 

Because to me it seems kinda strange that a nation could cap a port right smack in the middle of enemy territory. This just doesn't make sence. 

Alternatively to not make it boring as hell outside the frontline ports, you could be blocking a port. You wouldn't need to buy a flag or anything. You could just sail up to the enemy port, when close enough you could choose to block that port. The timer is set at lets say 30 minutes, after that the battle starts, if the battle is lost you lose acces to that port for a day (until restart). Or say you need at least a BR of 1000 or something.

 

There is so much that can be done in this game.

 

This could be a solution too, but would not solve the issue of low populated nations which is to grant a small territory to develop a self-sustainable economy system. And, what's more important, is something that could not be achieved also with a diplomatic agreement ingame (which is the reason why I posted my suggestion in this section of the forum).

Edited March 21, 2016 by victor

[marecek05]

Sorry to interject, but shouldn't this be in Suggestions/open world section of the forums?

 

This forum is for bile spewing name calling, role-play pretending posts.

[victor]

Sorry to interject, but shouldn't this be in Suggestions/open world section of the forums?

 

This forum is for bile spewing name calling, role-play pretending posts.

 

Thanks for your comment. It was expected.

 

But the answer is ... no, since - as you can read in the OP - the proposal is also aimed to the chiefs of the factions that could achieve the result with an agreement beteween them

Edited March 21, 2016 by victor

[The Spud]

This could be a solution too, but would not solve the issue of low populated nations which is to grant a small territory to develop a self-sustainable economy system. And, what's more important, is something that could not be achieved also with a diplomatic agreement ingame (which is the reason why I posted my suggestion in this section of the forum).

 

We only need more insentive for new players to join the smaller nations. Give players choosing one of the three lowest populated nations a free ship, or extra money or XP or something. So we have a bit of an evened out playing field.

[victor]

We only need more insentive for new players to join the smaller nations. Give players choosing one of the three lowest populated nations a free ship, or extra money or XP or something. So we have a bit of an evened out playing field.

 

I repeat: this is something that only Dev can make (and we are not discussing this in this section), while "my" solution could be adopted also by factions with an agreement and so I would like to see some comment in this sense.

Edited March 21, 2016 by victor

[marecek05]

Thanks for your comment. It was expected.

 

But the answer is ... no, since - as you can read in the OP - the proposal is also aimed to the chiefs of the factions that could achieve the result with an agreement beteween them

 

Apart from US and Danes, I have seen every nation to have the rogue clan that decides to do what it feels like. The agreement without the devs' support is not enough.

[Charles Caldwell]

Since the will of the devs seems to be:

 

1) after the wipe, all ports will be neutral, except capital cities

 

2) no attack will be allowed in waters in front of capital cities

 

Why not - after the wipe - set a sort of small safe "homeland area" around each capital: let's say six port (including capitals) which produce all the resources and are unconquerable with the "no attack" in front water new rule applied. In other words: after the wipe all the ports will be neutral except the ones of such a "home safe area" for each faction.

 

And here is the political side of the thread: in case devs will not accept such a change (and - in any case - before the wipe) why do not major factions (in PVP 1 EU) try to start discussing a sort of multilateral treaty on it? (ok, pirates may object that they are pirate and so I would understand if the would not agree, but national factions could do it, since it is in their mutual interest).

 

This way each faction will have its (little) "own area" (a sort of safe noob and carebears farm) and the rest of the map will be there for RvR and savage PVP.

 

What do you think about that?

 

PS: this is a serious proposal submitted by a player to (devs and) faction diplomats, since - in my opinion - it could be a good compromise for solving a lot of the problems on the table of balancing RVR (so - please - try to reduce faction role playing at the minimum, at least in this topic)

 

I welcome all suggestions, but without a game mechanic.... trying to get all factions agreeing anything will be difficult. Currently we cant even agree on the colour of Black!

[Mighty Bouff]

I think the biggest change I'd like to make is slow down the capture rate of ports. I've been turning over a few ideas (not all meant to be done together, just various ideas):

 

1) We captured a port doesn't flip at the next DT but the one after that, this gives players more of a chance to recapture it

 

2) Recapture. Once a port has been captured and is in contested mode the faction that lost the port may buy a flag and attempt to recapture it. There is no window for this (ie can be attacked anytime before the original capture completes) but only one flag may be bought.

 

3) 2 Battles per town. When you initially buy the flag you have a PB as per the current mechanics. There are no towers in this battle but the circle and BR system from current port battle are in. If the attackers win this battle then thew game will generate a new battle (which works like out current PB) between 22 - 26 hours in the future. If that is won then the port flips at the next DT as per usual. Obviously this would need tuning with neutral ports as they wouldn't show up to the first battle.

[victor]

I welcome all suggestions, but without a game mechanic.... trying to get all factions agreeing anything will be difficult. Currently we cant even agree on the colour of Black!

 

Well, in this case I do not know: such an agreement could really be in the interest of all factions (and maybe the struggle would be deciding the ports of the "safe area" for each nation).