Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Hotfix for patch 9.96

Recommended Posts

All right!. New version with lots of new thing to try! (and complain, like all my Golden Indiaman and Golden Bellonas are now Purple).

 

Nothing about your ship changed except for the color.  The change in color is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rube Goldberg port battle mechanics get ever more silly. Now tell us nobody should point this out because it is all Alpha

We don't understand your sarcasm since you once falsely accused us that we only favor Russian forums, and give everything to Russians first.

Maybe you can decipher your constructive feedback so we don't waste time here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of issues, one is that the moderator says that 10000 points are needed to set a PB, when according to the math, it was 12500.  I got 150 points for a kill, and it set the hostility to 1.2%, 150/.012=12,500.  

Another is that it seems really logical to base the points awarded according to the BR of the target, it's silly to get the same points for sinking a cutter or Constitution.  Thirdly, I don't understand the logic behind no points for destroying a trader fleet.   

 

As a few have pointed out, awarding more points for PVP combat might seem logical, but it makes it impossible for some of the far flung Spanish holdings to be captured.    It seems pretty bizarre that the best defense for an area is just to not be there, which is what the current system encourages.  This system is just screaming to be exploited.

 

Lastly, why in the world have we changed the weight of fish meat?  It's totally illogical for dressed fish to weigh twice as much as the fish do. 

Edited by oldcrankyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't understand your sarcasm since you once falsely accused us that we only favor Russian forums, and give everything to Russians first.

Maybe you can decipher your constructive feedback so we don't waste time here.

 

It must be an allusion to that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

possible to flip with organized unopposed effort in 4 hours.

That was what I was afraid of... You are aiming for something,IMO, Thats its broken. If you let a region reach 100% in just 4h you are again giving a huge advantages to those nations that play in an different timezone from most of the players. The same issue of the flag system but, I think, much bigger.

Edited by CeltiberoCaesar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of issues, one is that the moderator says that 10000 points are needed to set a PB, when according to the math, it was 12500.  I got 150 points for a kill, and it set the hostility to 1.2%, 150/.012=12,500.  

Another is that it seems really logical to base the points awarded according to the BR of the target, it's silly to get the same points for sinking a cutter or Constitution.  Thirdly, I don't understand the logic behind no points for destroying a trader fleet.   

 

As a few have pointed out, awarding more points for PVP combat might seem logical, but it makes it impossible for some of the far flung Spanish holdings to be captured.  Another big problem is that a couple of the factions who will remain nameless are using alt accounts to generate PVP combat.   It seems pretty bizarre that the best defense for an area is just to not be there, which is what the current system encourages.

 

Lastly, why in the world have we changed the weight of fish meat?  It's totally illogical for dressed fish to weigh twice as much as the fish do. 

Thanks man

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16986-alts-for-port-battles-activities-ban-warning/

That was what I was afraid of... You are aiming for something,IMO, Thats its broken. If you let a region reach 100% in just 4h you are again giving a huge advantages to those nations that play in an different timezone from most of the players. The same issue of the flag system but, I think, much bigger.

Full fleet of 25 ships farming non stop for 4 hours i would not say its fast. But lets see - system is new and like many other things that are just born.. could be generating some ****. Its better than assault flag now anyway. As cannot be abused by an insta buy and place and still requires some effort and involves risk. 

Also remember about the lord protectors - we kept that option open in patch notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sesion of playing 4 hours NA is more usual than we would admitt. Only 25 players? Very easy to gather.

So as result, we are getting back to the days of losing ports while EU players are sleeping.

PVE activities will determine the outcome in a PVP server. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was what I was afraid of... You are aiming for something,IMO, Thats its broken. If you let a region reach 100% in just 4h you are again giving a huge advantages to those nations that play in an different timezone from most of the players. The same issue of the flag system but, I think, much bigger.

This is the #2 reason for two servers. The timezone.

Thanks man

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16986-alts-for-port-battles-activities-ban-warning/

Full fleet of 25 ships farming non stop for 4 hours i would not say its fast. But lets see - system is new and like many other things that are just born.. could be generating some ****. Its better than assault flag now anyway. As cannot be abused by an insta buy and place and still requires some effort and involves risk.

Also remember about the lord protectors - we kept that option open in patch notes.

Exactly. If players refuse to defend themselves then they get what they deserve.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full fleet of 25 ships farming non stop for 4 hours i would not say its fast. But lets see - system is new and like many other things that are just born.. could be generating some ****. Its better than assault flag now anyway. As cannot be abused by an insta buy and place and still requires some effort and involves risk. 

Also remember about the lord protectors - we kept that option open in patch notes.

I'm not concern about how do you do the system or how successful are you implementing it. What concern me is what are you aiming at... "4 hours farming is not fast" is what scare me... 4h is REALLY fast. If you let any nation create a PB in less than 24, you don't give any chance the defenders, Americans and Asians won't find any resistance and they will get all the map since no one will be capable to fight against that. 

Edited by CeltiberoCaesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

revert to pre patch IMHO.      

 

No.  Keep all changes, tweak/adjust.. rinse, repeat, and don't listen to whiney Spanish types who are salty because they have so many ports they can't adequately defend them. ;)  Thanks for all the work so far!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What IF the hostility level had to be sustained, escalation hostility leading to major confrontation, always above 50% during the 48 hours leading to the PB ?

I really like this idea myself. I like the idea of PBs being something of an "occasion," AND a national effort, AND a longer investment. I think Hethwill's idea has a lot of merit.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sesion of playing 4 hours NA is more usual than we would admitt. Only 25 players? Very easy to gather.

So as result, we are getting back to the days of losing ports while EU players are sleeping.

PVE activities will determine the outcome in a PVP server. Sad.

 

On PvP1? Sure it is easy to get 25 players on a nation to grind. On PvP2? No way in hell will you see 25 people on at once with the nations that aren't Pirate, US, or Britiain. I am a supporter of the new aggression system in place for Ports, I can't say that enough, but at least currently the situation between PvP1 and PvP2 is vastly different in how the aggression works for people. PvP2 as a server just does not have enough players to create aggression like PvP1, So the initial patch aggression gain was "about" the right gain for the small naitons. the hotfix, before the Admin corrected the numbers, was a death sentence in terms of trying to create a port battle for the small/low pop nations.

 

The updated numbers that Admin posted will likely fix my worries, but I understand that PvP1 may still have an issue with it.

 

I think the largest issue here is that since there is such a large difference in pop numbers on the servers, that 1 iteration is good for one, bad for the other at this moment and so someone is going to always be unhappy.

Edited by Teutonic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to Fix it Put a mark on the Map(so every1 can see it) were a hostile mission is taken place you will get pvp then even on PVP2 or high light a square still have to search for it

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking the devs to code in different rules for different pop servers is a little much, don't you think?

Yeah... Just merge them and be done with it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On PvP1? Sure it is easy to get 25 players on a nation to grind. On PvP2? No way in hell will you see 25 people on at once with the nations that aren't Pirate, US, or Britiain. I am a supporter of the new aggression system in place for Ports, I can't say that enough, but at least currently the situation between PvP1 and PvP2 is vastly different in how the aggression works for people. PvP2 as a server just does not have enough players to create aggression like PvP1, So the initial patch aggression gain was "about" the right gain for the small naitons. the hotfix, before the Admin corrected the numbers, was a death sentence in terms of trying to create a port battle for the small/low pop nations.

 

The updated numbers that Admin posted will likely fix my worries, but I understand that PvP1 may still have an issue with it.

 

I think the largest issue here is that since there is such a large difference in pop numbers on the servers, that 1 iteration is good for one, bad for the other at this moment and so someone is going to always be unhappy.

 

It`s yours problem that you have so low population. Asking devs to do something about it is pretty selfish imo.

 

There should be one server from the begining. No idea why there is 2nd pvp server. Pve ... ok i can understand. Hardly but can. But pvp? Pointless in this stage of game.

Idc if its pvp1 or 2. Servers should be merged eot.

Edited by Leku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adapt a feature to a low populated MMO is like buying a hamburger being vegan, it has no sense. Is MASIVE multiplayer online, if you dont have MASIVE amount of players then the game is dead. If PVP2 can gather 25 players to do PVE then that server is just dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to evoke PvP tug-o-wars instead of unopposed PvE grindfests, what if hostility generation was faster/slower based on current server population online at the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to Fix it Put a mark on the Map(so every1 can see it) were a hostile mission is taken place you will get pvp then even on PVP2 or high light a square still have to search for it

Make that port that is getting the agro in that area turn red on the map so you know around where the misisons are being done.  Wouldn't want an exact pin point dot, but the agro warning at say 50% to give a heads up you need to get over there and do something if you wan to stop it.

 

 

Prime time port battle slots for each server prob will fix the problem of off prime time port battles.  Can make a pretty good size window.  This could force the off hour players that back to the servers that are in the proper time zone they want to do port battles for or they just have to get up at odd hours.   Though they need to allow transfers both ways for this to work properly.   We keep hearing one way but not back the other.  I'm sorry if we go to one server and it's in EU I'm out of this game.  Until it can handle the ping and game lag of large battles even on the better server you get major lag in big battles.  I won't play on a server that is 4 times worse.  If there is to be one server it needs to be at a location that has the best over all ping for all players.

This is the #2 reason for two servers. The timezone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why ?

- because PB are pvp ? Conquest is pvp ?

- because PvP-ers protect PvE-ers from player enemies ?

- because PvP is harder than PvE ?

- because PvP-ers are more interested in Conquest/diplomacy... ?

I think that it'd be better for the game to have all NA players, including PvE-ers, feel involved in War/Conquest/Diplomacy and weigh in on those decisions.

 

So a balanced ratio is needed.

 

(That doesn't mean I'm in favour of a 1/1 ratio though.  :))

I agree. Don't let the PvE players be left out. AI fleets and traders would become more important and players would also have to protect them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s yours problem that you have so low population. Asking devs to do something about it is pretty selfish imo.

 

There should be one server from the begining. No idea why there is 2nd pvp server. Pve ... ok i can understand. Hardly but can. But pvp? Pointless in this stage of game.

Idc if its pvp1 or 2. Servers should be merged eot.

I think there were 3 PvP servers because there were also a few thousend active players. Those days are history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Points will be changed to 200 per pvp kill and 100 per pve kill. 

Daily hostility drop will be reduced."

 

So I am glad you are tinkering to get the balnace...but this maths makes no sense. It is now easier to generate hostility that it was on the first day !

 

The balance needs to be...enough PvE to flip, so that defenders have to defend.

 

So day 1 : Which was too easy, 20/10 for Kills assist times 2 for SOL and times 0.5 for PvE...proved to be too much, equated to 160 points (ish) for a Rear Admiral hostility

Day 2 : 20/10 for Kills assist times 2 for SOL and times 0.05 for PvE...proved to be too much, equated to 16 points (ish) for a Rear Admiral hostility...so thats way to hard

Day 3 : 200/100 for Kills assist times 2 for SOL and times 0.05 for PvE...equats to 160 points (ish) for a Rear Admiral hostility and way way more for PvP than day 1

Edited by Jeheil
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×