Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Night flips opinion

Poll   

312 members have voted

  1. 1. Nightflips are a problem?

    • Yes - game will be better without nightflips
      150
    • No - night flips are a natural part of a sandbox game
      162


Recommended Posts

Guest
8 hours ago, Johny Reb said:

That is a difficult question to answer with a definitive number, so I answer by saying enough players to reliably count on one 25 man PB fleet during our off hours. I imagine if we had that then we would be able to field 3 during our prime time.

Before I go any further with you answer me this question.... Do you think the solution is to force North and South American players onto the other server even though many of them have been around this server and group of players for years?

So if the US can field 1 PB fleet, and the GB US players can field 1, and all of PvP2 combined can field 1 PB (probably more I'd venture), doesn't that mean that we already have about enough players to pull it off as it is? And that's at the current all-time low, at release that oughta be piece a cake then.

---

Regional servers seem to be far more feasible than any global server propositions that we've tried, so at the moment, yeah.

Defender-set timers didn't work, attacker-set timers didn't work, the hostility system was intended to trigger through PvP when both sides had significant players on - didn't work. And the only time that it ever worked was when we had smaller local conflicts around Q1-Q2 2016, whereas PBs take place across the entire map now more than ever before, so that wont work either. High population distribution hasn't worked. Same timezones making sure to prioritize fighting eachother hasn't worked. How much more proof do we need that it's irresolvable?

But sure, everyone's kneejerk reaction is to feel kicked off or feel forced to join another server - if it makes people happy we could migrate PvP1 to a US host and kick all the pesky europeans to their own server instead. Hell, maybe even keep PvP1 as a 'global server' and instead just open up a new EU-enforced server for those who prefer it, is that also stepping on people's toes?

The vast majority of players that we already interact with are naturally the ones from nearby timezones, which wouldn't change, so I don't quite see how overhelmingly different that would be - not to mention when supplemented by fresh blood, and the numerous players who have taken a break until the game is released. Many of the guys I used to know that decided to take a break until release did so precisely because of the kind of high-strain gameplay that having these off-hour PBs demands from you.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aegir said:

So if the US can field 1 PB fleet, and the GB US players can field 1, and all of PvP2 combined can field 1 PB (probably more I'd venture), doesn't that mean that we already have about enough players to pull it off as it is? And that's at the current all-time low, at release that oughta be piece a cake then.

I'm gonna leave the above alone until there are some answers to below.

Regional servers seem to be far more feasible than any global server propositions that we've tried, so at the moment, yeah.

Defender-set timers didn't work, attacker-set timers didn't work, the hostility system was intended to trigger through PvP when both sides had significant players on - didn't work. And the only time that it ever worked was when we had smaller local conflicts around Q1-Q2 2016, whereas PBs take place across the entire map now more than ever before, so that wont work either. High population distribution hasn't worked. Same timezones making sure to prioritize fighting eachother hasn't worked. How much more proof do we need that it's irresolvable?

But sure, everyone's kneejerk reaction is to feel kicked off or feel forced to join another server - if it makes people happy we could migrate PvP1 to a US host and kick all the pesky europeans to their own server instead. Hell, maybe even keep PvP1 as a 'global server' and instead just open up a new EU-enforced server for those who prefer it, is that also stepping on people's toes?- Well making a server a "global server" misses the point that we don't have the population for two servers much less one. Its not really the being kicked off that is bothering me. If the devs made the decision to segregate like that I would be disappointed but I'd accept it. What grates me is the sense that some feel it is "their' server and the NA and Aussies somehow don't belong on "their" server. I am especially bothered by it because I have been in the game longer than probably everyone in this thread and have been interacting with some of the guys on this server for 2 years now. Now, I don't claim ownership of anything in this game but if we were gonna go down that road, I feel I would be firing with some high caliber ammunition.

The vast majority of players that we already interact with are naturally the ones from nearby timezones, which wouldn't change, so I don't quite see how overhelmingly different that would be - not to mention when supplemented by fresh blood, and the numerous players who have taken a break until the game is released. Many of the guys I used to know that decided to take a break until release did so precisely because of the kind of high-strain gameplay that having these off-hour PBs demands from you.-I agree but it is not the case with me and almost the entirety of the vets in the US on pvp1. There is a saying we use in the US for people that take a break because they have to stay up late from time to time. "Cry me a river".

You say a lot of things have failed but I don't see how they have. At least not all of them. Why didn't the defenders set timers not work? No defender had to worry about night flips which this is all about. I made a point earlier which you countered by saying there was a difference between attacking vs defending when it came to fun. The only way you could argue that this failed is if you didn't like having to set up an alarm to make an attack. So you only consider it a failure because you want to defend AND attack at your convenience. If thats the case then this talk isn't about "night-flips" and how hard it is for you to defend and how unenjoyable that is. I don't know how you limit its success to Q1 and Q2. It always worked well for us.

Why would map wide PBs change how timers work? Again i think you are not talking about defending. You NEVER want to have to wake up and work for a win.

High population distribution??? When have we had that to say that it hasn't worked? In Q1 when there was upwards of 2000 people online and a waiting que, the complaint wasn't about night flipping as much as it was about a nations inability to set timers on their original ports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kloothommel said:

It's called testing. Nothing is set in stone, neither is playing on the same server.

yep and one other way to test it is to merge the two servers since we don't have enough pop for either one. Oh the tears if that happens. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it will. I think out of the blue maintenance will be shifted and PB times locked.

Edited by Kloothommel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the goal is to have good fights then you can't to play against guys who are sleeping in your prime time. When you are risking hard earned ports the problem agravates. When the other half of the world is sleeping in my primetime, the community is divided anyway. In this particular case from PvP1 server, the US and Aussies have other people who defends their ports while they are sleeping, but this is not true for all factions. By the way, The solution is not recruit more sudamericans, or work in better diplomatics.

This is not a hate post against anyone and I am not involved or biased in RvR, but as I see it, we need two servers with limitations in the time of attacks. Not limit the access for the other server guys, only limit the timers for port battles. Taking a look at the ping and timer in that server, everyone can decide where they play.

If the problem is the guys who want to play where they have friends since long time ago, no problem. Devs can to move PvP1 EU server to America and  PvP2 US to Europa, then europeans can to move his assets to the new server and begin again. But in this case would be dump all people in both servers playing with 300 ping...

This is the only thing we had no tryed, the other systems failed for one or another reason. All people have good points, but the sad fact is while one guy play, the other side of the world sleeps because the Earth is round. And another fact is if this game wouldn't works well with 300 ping, we wouldn't had this problem and old discussion anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think on a global server (PvP1) there cannot be something called 'nightflips' as sometime it's night for someone. However if you know a vast majority of a nation is in one timezone and use that knowledge for griefing, it is disgraceful and whoever is involved is pathetic. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/12/2016 at 10:37 PM, Aegir said:

The Brits self-admittedly had a ~60/20/20 Euro/Aus/US split, while the ports were spread out closer to 20/40/40, because having to actually defend the ports you own is more work than just making sure that no one wants to attack in the first place.

Is there any reason to expect that to not become the norm again? 80% of offensive PBs eventually taking place at US/Aussie primetimes while the euro players only sit and defend? After a full year of this no one is going to take your word that it wont happen. As bad as it was, at least it was better to be able to choose not to attack at 2am than to have to defend at 2am.

No offense but if you were referring to the fact that quite a few of the British ports were in aus time then i honestly dont see why? The thing is those ports were taken by a Australian clan so naturally they set the timers to what they could defend. If it was a eu clan the times would be eu based etc. Also if i recall correctly it was the Spanish that originally started that war even though they knew the port timers were unfavorable to them. But thats off topic  so in terms of this whole problem is it really fair that one or two regions in the world are cut out of rvr or is the main problem down to the fact that quite a bit of the player base left due to various reasons and items not bing fixed/added/changed to make naval action a better game. In my options if the devs were to find out why players left and are hardly coming back and fix some of these issues im pretty sure you would have a increase in players that would contest more battles over all of the timezones.

P.s ignore any grammar mistakes as im on my phone at work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comes down to design principles and we need these moreso than the opinions on a 66% built game running on a what 20% intended size.

Now I am not being glib, this is key to the right answer.

Question : What are (for design) the expected 'low' and 'high' averages for server pop when designing the game (not for test or EA but for when ya go 'live' to full production).

So for example if it was 150 (Oceanic TZ), 250 (US TZ) to 600 (as it is now on Euro PvP1) then with 8 nations there is not a broad enough spread to support night flipping.

(btw I would also argue the current number of ports, size of map, trade missions, pvp events and economy does not work with these numbers).

If however it is 500 (Oceanic), 800 (US) and 1500 (EU) as an average load, then night flipping NO problem.

If however it is 150 (Oceanic TZ), 250 (US TZ) to 1500 (EU) you probably need NO night flipping and REGIONAL servers (God help us in Straya...but tough wombat poop tbh)

Question : How do you intend to incentivise someone NOT from Sweden to play under the Swedish flag. If the answer is 'we dont', then, sorry Sweden you are gunna get beaten up bad. In all TZ's coz of the %age of Swedes vs the %age of Brits etc. So with historical factions you need to somehow make people wanna play for the 'weak' (historical) nations.

Question : Do you fundamentally (from an infrastructure cost, software management, payment management, community management and support perspective) want to have servers that are geo-located to local (isolated) playerbases (US, Oceanic, Euro). The markets in all 3 are viable, however Asia may not be as excited about sailing a French ship (mind you they seem happy driving an Russian tank so ya know).

Edited by Jeheil
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2017 at 1:04 AM, Anne Wildcat said:

I think on a global server (PvP1) there cannot be something called 'nightflips' as sometime it's night for someone. However if you know a vast majority of a nation is in one timezone and use that knowledge for griefing, it is disgraceful and whoever is involved is pathetic. 

Can I add, that since the new port battles, we 'Aussies' have been involved in 'creating' ONLY two port battles. One coz we woz so excited and want to see what it was like...and we got killed before we got in by Spanish screeners and the other was sort of by accident coz hostility raises so quick....and we got our arse handed to us by a combined Spanish/Swede/Dane fleet at 1pm on what was their weekday). So we were pathetic only in our execution of Naval abilities and not in our gamer play...which I think is errrrr....aaaaa....a good thing :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2016 at 5:52 AM, Wind said:

Add brackets. 

(Time A -Time B = 100% Rate) (Time C - Time D = 50% Rate)

Time zone 1 - Time zone 2 Hostility accumulation is at 100% rate.

Time Zone 3 - Time Zone 4 Hostility Accumulation is slowed down by X% (-50%).

or

 Simply put attach flip rate to population numbers, if let's say population drops then Hostility gain rate goes to -50%. or vise versa. Or population numbers drop then Hostility gains go up. 

It might work if you tune it right. 

1000 people online can push hostility @ 100% rate, while 300 people online will be able to push it at 50%. 

Also, add negative effects to Night Flips and make it unpopular, but keep them as an option. 

Another option, we chatted about way way at the beginning when new hostility was just an itch, was that split TZ's into lets say 3 (nominal).

Oceanic, US, EU

Based on dynamic average player population you can CREATE x port battles in any given TZ.

So if player pop is below 200 in Oceanic (on average) then say ZERO port battles can be generated.

If its 201- 500 then say 1

If its 501-1,000 then say 2

That way it moderates accordingly. Now see my previous post on, (no offence Sweden), why would anyone who is NOT a Swede play for Sweden, they are small and will be beaten up. Where is the incentive ?

Edited by Jeheil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jeheil said:

That way it moderates accordingly. Now see my previous post on, (no offence Sweden), why would anyone who is NOT a Swede play for Sweden, they are small and will be beaten up. Where is the incentive ?

I like playing the underdog ;) If there wouldnt be polish clan in dutch ( like dutchies in naval games also ) i would be swede, because dutch would be my 2nd choice and dane 3rd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But are there enough errrrrr...hardcore...errrr weirdo's like you to give a nation like Sweden decent coverage, in core they are as good as anyone (with allied screens, helping to screen etc)...outside of core...they need more folks like yerslef.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jeheil said:

But are there enough errrrrr...hardcore...errrr weirdo's like you to give a nation like Sweden decent coverage, in core they are as good as anyone (with allied screens, helping to screen etc)...outside of core...they need more folks like yerslef.

Atm every nation lack numbers. Well maybe brits dont ( compared to rest ), but simply we have too low playerbase :ph34r:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

After the Dutch-Swedish war in which the Swedes made heavy use of timers to counteract the Dutch numerical advantage (which was very strenuous for the Swedes and very annoying for the Dutch), we pretty much vowed not to resort to any such high-strain gameplay given how detrimental it was for everyone involved, even for the 'hardcore weirdos'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

introduce bonuses for low pop nations and (maybe) a negative for realy realy high pop nations.

 

New players should see on the select nation thing which nation gets bonuses and which nation dont. the low pop nations should experience a experience and (maybe) a gold boost in battles so new players have a incentive to join low pop nations.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes, but I still don't know why this is an issue? The devs have said time and time again they want PB's to be "a national effort", then put in poor game mechanics that favors only one two hour time slot to cap it! How is one two hour port battle a national effort?  Whats so hard with setting a port battle to start after the next server reset 48 hours after 100% hostility,  then having the first port battle out of 11 start 2 hours after that reset and run one every 2 hours for a 24 hour time frame. The most port battles won, wins the port, i.e. 6 wins. If no one shows up for one of the PB's then auto win for defenders. Would make allies come into play to cover the time your nation is low pop and vise versa for their time. And 11 port battles would then become a "national effort"!

 

And this would also eliminate the need for two servers. One big old server for us all to shoot each other in!

Edited by Isink A Lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel this needs to be a multi pronged approach. 

  1. At the character creation screen, call out nations with the lowest weekly average population. This is to encourage new players to balance the population. 
  2. Within the PBs, buff the nation with the lower total on line population. It doesn't have to be large but a small buff to the ships (rate of fire, speed)  or the cap rate. 
  3. Allow pirates to join PBs on either side after a time (15-20 minutes after the first players on both side joins) . This would effectively allow pirates to join any PB. 
  4. Change the political roe. 
  • Change to a 3 state system, allied, neutral, at war. 
  • Allied, can not attack each other, can lower hostility for allied nations and join allied nations PBs. Joining a PB for a allied nation would get you additional loot/cash. 
  • Natural, can be attacked or attack other neutral nations, can not create PBs against neutral nations, can join PBs for or against neutral nations as long as it does not violate allied or at war rules. Neutral nations can only join PBs after a set time (15-20 minutes after the first players on both side joins) to allow the defending / attacking nations priority. Joining a PB for a neutral nation would get you additional loot/cash. 
  • At war, can attack be attacked, raise hostility and create PBs, can only join against at war or neutral nations PBs. 

The point of the changes is to encourage players to help defend/attack nations that may not be able to defend/attack themselves. As well as allowing any player join any PB that is not full. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Daguse said:

 

  1. At the character creation screen, call out nations with the lowest weekly average population. This is to encourage new players to balance the population. 

 

 

Knowing humans the biggest share will join the factions with biggest numbers active.

The concept is good to explore but it has to be something different, like number of regions controlled for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Knowing humans the biggest share will join the factions with biggest numbers active.

The concept is good to explore but it has to be something different, like number of regions controlled for example.

Valid point and maybe that or simply a "recruiting reinforcements" next to that nation would help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game mechanics allow players to setup port battles. The game mechancis allow players to set up port battles in a time that is usefull for them. This is a international server, nobody signed up for a 24/7 naval action shift. So aslong as the mechanics allow it that other continents can setup port battles in these times, we have to accept how it is. You just cant demand or cry everytime this happens. We do not live in a world where only Europeans have a say. Better adapt now or start a life today filled with tears.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a worldwide game, with players from all over the world. Excluding timezones because people crying that port battles are not in their timezones is nothing but puerile whinging. The root of this problem isn't about what time port battles are held, but nations not having a spread population. This of course, is simply down to the low population of Naval Action.

I can't propose a fix for this, and even if I could come up with the perfect solution, it would fall on deaf ears.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2017 at 11:49 AM, Hethwill said:

Knowing humans the biggest share will join the factions with biggest numbers active.

The concept is good to explore but it has to be something different, like number of regions controlled for example.

Give incintives like on MWO for the merc units.  It can be any where from a -30 to 20% to you xp/credit earned depending which House you join and help.   This would work great for Privateers if they went that route with pirates. I really think they should change the name of the from Pirate to Priavteer and than you have those with no contracts will be outlaws and they will be the true pirates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

"One" server, one gaming table, one community.

If that nightfight campaign continues a very small table will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not have multi-part port battles?

say in 3 timezones, 8 hours apart.

Then set up some formula to use the total points vs participation to find the victor?

 

this way you are guaranteed participation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...