Player Imbalance

[Geoffroi Bonfils]

Didn't see this topic in a search so started one. The first step in solving a problem is admitting the problem exists. In every MMO PvP game I've played where there is 'capturable' assets almost every time it was the team/faction/guild with the most players that wins, period. Trying to do the rock/paper/scissors balancing act doesn't usually work, zerg numbers will win out if not in the battle instance then in the number of time zones covered and online endurance such groups have over smaller, even more skilled, opponents. I would like the Devs to please acknowledge the problem exists, then seriously craft a plan to deal with the problem because it's a game killer in every other game it has gone ignored. Remember gentlemen, this is a game, not a simulation, game balance and entertainment is more important then historical authenticity.

 

One possible solution, although I don't know how successful it would be in this game, is locking/unlocking factions that outnumber other factions by a preset ratio (I've seen this done in other games when the moderators could see players dogpiling into one faction/race/class/etc). This prevents Zergism but at the expense of player satisfaction if the Zerging faction/race/class/etc was very popular, which should tip the developers off they've created an obviously overpowered facet in the game. I understand that a lot of Naval Action nation selection is along language lines which will make player balancing a significant challenge. Oh, and wiping the map will not fix the problem because the problem is a root systemic one and with time we'll get the same map we have now.

 

Another issue, that is tangent to the player imbalance issue, is that very important assets (production buildings) are forced to be in National Ports and thus very vulnerable to loss. This is where I'm at a loss as to why Game Labs would chose such a game mechanic when other successful games know that when the inevitable happens there will be extreme customer dissatisfaction at the loss of expensive assets (expensive in both time and game currency). It is currently possible to drive a nation completely out of crafting which in my opinion seems obvious. The trite answer of "trade" is not a reasonable solution, reworking production buildings is the reasonable solution. I understand the devs wish to 'force' players into conflict, which leads to great PvP, but coupled with the player imbalance mentioned above it tends to have the blowback effect of people choosing to not play the game (already I'm seeing a 10-20% reduction in online numbers in the last two weeks).

 

In closing I'd like to say that players are extremely poor at policing their own behavior, even if it's ultimately going to destroy a game. Humans don't like challenges, they prefer easy grossly onesided victories. We all have this trait, it lurks in that dark part of our soul that never admits it in public, even to ourselves. We say we want even odds, but when you look at actions taken in games it tells a far different story. I would truly like the Devs to take my suggestion seriously.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Geoffroi Bonfils

[Skully]

Locking factions means you can not play with your friends. So that is certainly not the solution.

[Balsafer]

Has a faction lost all there ports yet? 

[Geoffroi Bonfils]

Has a faction lost all there ports yet? 

Almost, it depends on what Britain/USA/Pirate does in the next 24 hours (I think Spain has like 10 ports left and has lost some key resources to be able to continue crafting)

[Illusive Tabby]

Has a faction lost all there ports yet? 

Spain on PVP2. Possible Sweden as well.

[Bommel]

Has a faction lost all there ports yet? 

 

pvp1:  http://vps9712.ervers.com/map/pvp1/

pvp2:  http://vps9712.ervers.com/map/pvp2/

[Nalyd]

Has a faction lost all there ports yet? 

 

On PVP1, Sweden did. Spain almost with only 4 ports left IIRC. Then come France which lost all the west indies in a matter of a week and was stuck with a couple of city in the gulf of Paria. 

 

Player imbalance is not an issue in itself, unless one faction happen to have a critically low playerbase, . It's how player imbalance is translated in the game and how it interacts with the mechanics that bring issues.

If you want to avoid that, the very basic 101 is that each player must take something from a general "pool of power" which is identical for every faction. What you don't want is each player adding power to that pool.

 

A good start is "the cost of crew" that the devs want to add to the game.

basically, each nation have X crew in total divided by the number of players in the said faction.

the more you are in your faction, the less crew you'll have per player, and vice versa.

So virtually both nation are identical in term of crew power, because the less populated faction counterbalance this by having players "worth" more.

 

Another good concept would be to slow down the number of Port battles happening in a short span of time.

If we have a faction with 200 players against a faction with only 50 players, you realize that the latter can only manage 2 fight happening at the same time while the first can fight for 8 ports at the same time.

Therefore you end up with the lesser faction getting wipe into oblivion due to sheer number in a matter of days until they are left with only 2 ports they can actually try to defend.

If you limit the creation of an assault fleet against the same nation to 2 at the same time, they could then be able to fight on equal terms against each others for every port battle.

 

Now here is an example of a bad mechanic : The labor hours.

Each player produce in average, roughly 42 labor per hours.

For every additional player in your faction, you virtually increase the quantity of ship a faction can make per day.

Therefore, where a big nation could produce around 20 santisima a day, a lesser one might only be able to make 3 santisima per day. And in a war of attrition, the first would obviously win.

 

TL;DR : In conclusion, if you want a balanced game. Being in the biggest faction shouldn't by default grant you any extra advantages over a smaller faction except for having more people to talk to. Choosing the "easy side" should be restrictive but still allowed if you really want to for diverse reasons, while the smaller factions should allow more flexibility and possibility for their players.

 

If you want a good example of how it should be done, look at the Strategic part of the game "Heroes&Generals". Now if you are cool with having some factions being objectively stronger than others by design, then it's a totally different discussion. 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Nalyd

[Bach]

If you want to help non-Zerg players to survive along with zergs you have to make the play area so large that they can move away from the Zerg and the Zerg can't control areas that big.

The game map is fairly large as it is. However it has almost zero Nuetral territory for a group wishing to build up away from a Zerg can use. Also, once a Zerg rolls through an area that area remains in the zergs control with zero effort to maintain it. This allows zergs to steamroll zones without needing to stop and secure the captured territory.

A simple change. If ports are not used or visited regularly by the conquering nation then they should simply revert to Nuetral or the original owner. This would make Zerging more land than you can use pointless. It will also free up land for players to move into that might want a place to build up again after being Zerged. In any event, if the Spanish over ran Nassau in 1725 and simply packed up and continued on to Cuba? I'm pretty sure the port would return back to being a pirate haven again in short order. The current game situation where we don't need occupying forces and the populace just magically becomes loyal conquered citizens isn't all that realistic anyway.

[Quineloe]

Has a faction lost all there ports yet? 

Spain has lost all ports once, Sweden has now lost all ports twice.

[eriks]

If you make scaling a nation exponentially more expensive rather than linearly more expensive then balance will probably take care of itself.

[Ellis]

I believe this problem is slightly addressed with the crew changes that will be coming. As posted by admin (can't find the post on phone) a smaller nation is able to field more crew per captain than a larger one, giving them an advantage.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Ellis

[Random]

I believe this problem is slightly addressed with the crew changes that will be coming. As posted by admin (can't find the post on phone) a smaller nation is able to field more crew per captain than a larger one, giving them an advantage.

I think this is a good start, but I would also like to see limitations on resource and harbor buildings in ports as this would not only equalize national resource pools, but also provide balance in economies and ship building capabilities. After all, how much sense does it make to have unlimited number of shipyards and mines/forests in one city, where do they all physically fit within the limited confines of a particular land area?

[Bach]

I believe this problem is slightly addressed with the crew changes that will be coming. As posted by admin (can't find the post on phone) a smaller nation is able to field more crew per captain than a larger one, giving them an advantage.

I've been reviewing that crew change for this very effect. However, I believe it will fail as a method of Zerg control. In most games a Zerg consists of a horde of second rate or inferior gear swarming an enemy. In NA the zergs can use top of the line gear in a swarm. Though the crew cost may change this the cost only comes into play when the last dura is lost. Now a traditional inferior gear Zerg tends to take losses constantly. However, a top end gear Zerg almost never takes many losses. The end result will most likely be that in NA the high tech Zerg will suffer minimal crew loss. Meanwhile their victims will have decimated crews for attempting to stand up to the Zerg in lesser numbers of high tech gear. So it's going to punish those rolled over more than the Zerg.

[Hethwill]

There is the human factor controlling the machine here. It is not a simple equation of numbers and point and click.

 

If anything the zerg will work with timers, but we still have to test the new big thing we chose, War&Peace and associated PB mechanics ( and raids !!! )

[Sven Silberbart]

Polulation of Players in a Nation should lead to a maximum amount of ports the nation can have at the same time.

 

Lets say..

 

..Nation of 100 Players: Max 30 Ports

..Nation of 200 Players: Max 60 Ports

..Nation of 400 Players: Max 120 Ports

..and so on

 

If the Ports have a fix amount of resources per day, like Teak Wood or Crew, then everything is fine.

 

Such system don't allow big nations steamroll other nations when they come to their limit of ports.

[Ned Loe]

Nation jumping will be heavily penalized info based on Devs posts from past. One nation for life.

[Geoffroi Bonfils]

I had been thinking that another way to handle this would be making starting nation ports cost an ever increasing amount of money not to revolt if captured, the monetary increase would increase with each server maintenance and therefor eventually revolt as the cost to keep them under heel would become prohibitive. Another thought was making an option of "raiding" a port so that if the port battle was victorious you would get better loot but ownership wouldn't change hands. Still, yet another idea, was that clans would bid on flags and each flag would become exponentially more expensive, which with the law of diminishing returns steam roll port conquest becomes quickly prohibitive. Just some ideas, don't know how many have already been tried.

[Quineloe]

Nation jumping will be heavily penalized info based on Devs posts from past. One nation for life.

 

That's interesting, given tying exp to the steam id and not the character is a huge step in the opposite direction.

Switching nations now only requires transferring your assets, which is a bit of a pain with ships, but if you're already set up in a free town with your warehouse that part is super trivial.