PVP1 - Diplomacy Summit (Sat 1/28 15:00 GMT)

[Twan]

49 minutes ago, PIerrick de Badas said:

 

Thanks for sharing plerrick, listening now

[Jeheil]

A chat amongst the many nations of Naval Action to discuss the games future and how we can all have fun (or at least righteous disdain).

 

 

[Kloothommel]

I'm really happy about the tone of the talk and the progress made. I got a sense of the mutual drive to make this game great (again?).

Let's hope it has results at the end we can all live with!

 

[Guest]

As expected.. No permanent solution to the nightflips.. I'm gonna look forward to see how many are gonna gloat over the sealclubbing tonight.. And I'm really gonna love all the crying (on all sides) when the devs are gonna reintroduce lord protector and the PB timers.. No one loved the lord protector system but one can't deny that it's currently the best of the worst solutions - and everyone knows its strong sides/bad sides..

[Kloothommel]

2 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

As expected.. No permanent solution to the nightflips.. I'm gonna look forward to see how many are gonna gloat over the sealclubbing tonight.. And I'm really gonna love all the crying (on all sides) when the devs are gonna reintroduce lord protector and the PB timers.. No one loved the lord protector system but one can't deny that it's currently the best of the worst solutions - and everyone knows its strong sides/bad sides..

I'm not saying it is all fixed. It need more talks to fix it. But it's a good first step. (not yet done listening)

Nightflips will get adressed in one way or the other. The difference is seeing this game as a job or as a game.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Kloothommel

[Kloothommel]

A quick reaction on the remarks Kierrip makes at 1:55:00 (ish).

This bit is where the hard core of nations (in the EU primetime) suffers attrition. People stop caring about getting up in (their) night. just like US based players are tired of taking days off/going home early during (their) day. The issues are comparable and practically the same. And it's something we should try to avoid at all costs. (in my opinion).

We should try to find a good, durable solution for this.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

A quick reaction on the remarks Kierrip makes at 1:55:00 (ish).

This bit is where the hard core of nations (in the EU primetime) suffers attrition. People stop caring about getting up in (their) night. just like US based players are tired of taking days off/going home early during (their) day. The issues are comparable and practically the same. And it's something we should try to avoid at all costs. (in my opinion).

We should try to find a good, durable solution for this.

I liked the idea about the server split - US players on one server (let's call it PvP2 US) and EU players on another server (let's call it PvP1EU)

[Kloothommel]

Just now, Bearwall said:

I liked the idea about the server split - US players on one server (let's call it PvP2 US) and EU players on another server (let's call it PvP1EU)

So did I. But that is the long term solution maybe. I think it might work for most but maybe it's not right for now. And if you give incentive (across timezones) for people to join a nation we could get a more balanced system. But if that doesn't happen (in a sufficient way) we still have this imbalance. And then split servers might be a neccessity.

[van der Clam]

nice work mates...suggestions made below

Edited January 29, 2017 by van der Decken

[Kloothommel]

Reaction on the discussion at 2:25:000 (ish).

I think it's not just a question of organisation. But also of how hardcore people want to play this game. Winning at all costs vs having a good relaxing time.

What you basically get is semi casual gameplay vs hardcore gameplay (and interpretation). I think this part of the discussion also need to be highlighted in the next meeting. idea?

[TommyShelby]

My observation of Night/Day flips: 

The problem of Night/Day flips seem to stem from the lack of players. Currently we have say, 500 people on during primetime. This numbers drops to about 100 when worst. 

Based on this, if we had 1000 people online during primetime then the number would drop to say, 200. 
If we had 2000 people online during primetime then we can assume the number would drop to 400. 

With 100 ´people online it is hard for there to be any kind of balance. 2 nations might have, say, 30 people online (60 in total), the other 40 are spread out over the other nations. 
With 200 people online there is good chance that more nations will have 25 people online wanting to do RvR. 
With 400 people online, well, then we can almost be sure that all nations will have 25 players online wanting to do RvR.

My guess is the US/GB would probably still have the highest amount of US based players but there is a high chance the other nations will have enough to compete with these 2 nations. 

So based on the above, i think we must try, as a community, to keep the game somewhat balanced during US Prime Time. If that means that we need to switch up the alliances (EG, US and GB must be in different alliances for now), then so be it.
We all want this game to succeed but if we kill off the population before release then we are also going to kill the game. 
Furthermore, mixing up alliances helps build good relations between nations. I think we all remember how we, in school, were put in different groups with different people most of the time. 
So not only can we perhaps make the game more fun for the US playerbase, but we can also have a chance at "bonding" across nations.
We are playing a game and i believe it will benefit everyone if we can be "Friends" but still "Enemies". 

I know there is alot of bad blood between some nations/players but i urge you to put aside the "bad blood". For the good of the game. 

Cheers. 
Tommy.

[Nikodemus]

Do we have a list of people involved in the meeting?

 

[Kloothommel]

4 minutes ago, Nikodemus said:

Do we have a list of people involved in the meeting?

 

This, and a small summary on what points were decided on that will be discussed.

Like the 5 points, the problems you all agreed on are problems etc.

[Jeheil]

Summation of Discussions of the EU PvP Diplomacy Parley (28th of January)

I have tried to write up a summary that once knocked about by the participants I will publish and invite a comment from the Dev's/Community Liason mobs

This represents the position of a bunch of national representatives, these representatives were from each nation (upto 3) and we had all nations bar Spain and the Pirates there.

Although representatives, they do not necessarily represent all the views of the nation, it is a well intended discussion with the primary goal of reducing toxicity between gamers while providing the Dev's with a consolidated position and set of ideas :

RoE around Port Battles

Problem Statement :

Screening is poorly presented in the game and current RoE means a smaller nation can have its primary fleet to easily drawn into battle

Recommendation :

Make a new set of Rules of Engagement (RoE) around a PB ( a bit like we have a PvP zone for the events) in here, change the tagging circle and BR rules to make it harder to pull a fleet of 25 PB ships.

Better Screening 'tag' management

Problem Statement :

Currently one nobbie can instigate a tag wrecking a nations defences and this is very vulnerable to exploiting alts

Recommendation :

The notion of a screen commander(s) who in the zone can dictate/accept tags or something similar achieving same outcome.

Incentivise Players (especially new to join 'smaller' nations) but DONT block access to a nation

Problem Statement :

Smaller nations stuggle to attract new players, nations that are much weaker number wise struggle for RvR

Recommendation :

When selecting your nation, provide incentives (+gold%, +xp%) for joining the little guys

Port Battle mechanics (Night Flipping)

Problem Statement :

If the French attack the US in French primetime or vice versa, it means folks aligned to that nation have to be awake at daft o clock

Recommendation :

Firstly as Dev's please state if your goal is to create server(s) that are to be played on by people in different geo-timezones ( a global server) or if your intention is to have a server per 'primary TZ' US/EU/Oceanic. Because this changes everything.

Assuming a global/multi TZ server then :

1) Perhaps consider a combination of systems marrying old flag with new hostility mechanics. So we still get 24/48 hours notice on a PB, but when it is 'set' it then takes place within a 'time (perhaps 4 hour window)'. If captured, that time can be moved 'in increments' (perhaps one timeslot per 3 days owned or some such assuming a 2 day cooldown), the time can be moderated by a Lord Protector

Alternative : Port Battles run 4-6 times over a 24 hour period. The final outcome is the aggregate. Perhaps higher frequency in core TZ's.

If you participated, firstly thanks and please reply to say you feel this is representative of your views.

Captains at the assembly were :

• Jeheil (Moderator)
• Thomas Pain (US)
• JAG (Dutch)
• Donjuan Dimarco (Dutch)
• Kierrip (French)
• Takatounikey (France)
• Havelock (Swede)
• Anolytic (Dane)
• Aegir (Swede)
• Augustus Charles TooManyNames Hobart-Hampden (Brits)
• Chijohnoak (US and Convenor)
• Christendom (US)
• Eric (French)
• Graf Bernadotte / Rainer (Swede)
• M4LL3 (annoyingly reasonable Dane)
• North Viking (Dane)
• Rabman (US)
• Slaught (Brit)
• sruPL (Brit)
• Surathani (Dutch)

Edited January 29, 2017 by Jeheil

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

Reaction on the discussion at 2:25:000 (ish).

I think it's not just a question of organisation. But also of how hardcore people want to play this game. Winning at all costs vs having a good relaxing time.

What you basically get is semi casual gameplay vs hardcore gameplay (and interpretation). I think this part of the discussion also need to be highlighted in the next meeting. idea?

I reckon the best way to appease both sides is to expand on the trafalgar/large/small battles (making them lossless, group entry for nation v nation fights, ranked matches where you lose your ship, tournaments, land used for those instances e.t.c.) so that casual/semi-casual/relaxing players can get their quick action fix and large-scale port battles, opening up room to make the OW experience more of an unforgiving sandbox since people now have an alternative instead of having to rely on OW/PBs to get them good entertaining fights.

For those players the OW could basically be the way to just get bigger and better ships, rather than the grindy "do 1000x battles for coins" of other games.

Essentially 2 games in 1 instead of having a singular mediocre compromise between the two that neither kind of player likes.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Guest

[Christendom]

1 hour ago, Kloothommel said:

So did I. But that is the long term solution maybe. I think it might work for most but maybe it's not right for now. And if you give incentive (across timezones) for people to join a nation we could get a more balanced system. But if that doesn't happen (in a sufficient way) we still have this imbalance. And then split servers might be a neccessity.

 

If NA had 4 thousand players, i'd agree with you guys.  But it doesn't even have 1000 spread over 3 servers.  For testing purposes and for the sake of the players still committed to play the Alpha/Beta/Whatever this is, we need more population.  Should the game ever launch, splitting up into 2 servers is the logical way to go.

[Kloothommel]

30 minutes ago, Christendom said:

If NA had 4 thousand players, i'd agree with you guys.  But it doesn't even have 1000 spread over 3 servers.  For testing purposes and for the sake of the players still committed to play the Alpha/Beta/Whatever this is, we need more population.  Should the game ever launch, splitting up into 2 servers is the logical way to go.

I can genuinely say I agree 1000% with that statement. That's why I stated it was a long term solution.

I'm just really scratching my head what could be the best solution for now.

 

One step i would like to suggest is take a step back from the hardcore "playing" of the game and go back to exploring the game. Let go more of the us vs them (don't get me wrong, rivalry is good when applied in moderation). Honorable opponent instead of hated enemy.

Play port battles for fun and get people to experience it. See what different people think about the actual PB's. Maybe agree to NOT screen from time to time so we can have a nice 25vs25 pb to try tactics and explore it more. Or agree to screen like mad to try tactics for breaking the screening. Kind of downtuning the wargame game (not off, but a bit less hardcore?).

I wonder what you think about this feeling.

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by Kloothommel

[Kpt Lautenschlaeger]

Still listening to the recording. First off, I doff my cocked hat to whoever organised the conference and to all who contributed to make this a constructive conversation. Those sort of people keep a community going. 

A somewhat unreflected thought on the timezone/server conundrum: might it make sense to merge servers and offer a physical separation of timezones? I.e. there is but one server, where the Caribbean is the playground for Old Worlders, whereas the Pacific seaboard (which would need to be coded, admittedly)  is for our American fellow captains. Players would still have the option to open ports in either theatre. However, the Devs could hardcode incentives such as port battle time windows to make the Caribbean Europe-friendly, and the Pacific more of a Trans-Atlantic thang.

[Christendom]

20 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

I can genuinely say I agree 1000% with that statement. That's why I stated it was a long term solution.

I'm just really scratching my head what could be the best solution for now.

 

One step i would like to suggest is take a step back from the hardcore "playing" of the game and go back to exploring the game. Let go more of the us vs them (don't get me wrong, rivalry is good when applied in moderation). Honorable opponent instead of hated enemy.

Play port battles for fun and get people to experience it. See what different people think about the actual PB's. Maybe agree to NOT screen from time to time so we can have a nice 25vs25 pb. Or agree to screen like mad to try tactics for breaking the screening. Kind of downtuning the wargame game (not off, but a bit less hardcore?).

I wonder what you think about this feeling.

 

7

Just from a personal standpoint, I'm getting tired of grinding ports...sometimes multiple ports a day.  Multiple planning sessions a week, moving materials and outposts.  It's getting old.  I'd be happy with a couple port battles a week.  It might be a good time for everyone to scale back the RVR a bit.    

[Alvar Fañez de Minaya]

20 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Just from a personal standpoint, I'm getting tired of grinding ports...sometimes multiple ports a day.  Multiple planning sessions a week, moving materials and outposts.  It's getting old.  I'd be happy with a couple port battles a week.  It might be a good time for everyone to scale back the RVR a bit.    

Maybe some simulated battles to fill the port battles? ... Events organized between the nations .......... You can gain rights to enter the port battle if you enter and you win these previous battles  .....

You heat a zone, and jump some battles on different times...... during four or five days we fight these battles......... And then, depending the result of these battles, port battle.

This open a lot of posibilities to find how decide timer of the port batlles, also give sure pvp between port battles.......

Edit: Sample.... Jump 4 battles in US/AUS/EU timers along 4 days.......... Depending how contested have been these for battles, battle port in timer where most people fight in these days.......

Edited January 29, 2017 by Alvar Fanez de Minaya

[Kloothommel]

19 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Just from a personal standpoint, I'm getting tired of grinding ports...sometimes multiple ports a day.  Multiple planning sessions a week, moving materials and outposts.  It's getting old.  I'd be happy with a couple port battles a week.  It might be a good time for everyone to scale back the RVR a bit.    

Indeed. I'd rather have a couple of good fun battles than be swarmed by a dozen bad ones.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Kloothommel

[van der Clam]

Suggestion on server merge:

• 1 server would be ideal until the need returns for more servers only if.....
• the server is better managed
• in a neutral location allowing the best possible ping for each world region (i.e. Greenland, Bermuda, Canaries, West Coast US)

Suggestion on RoE:

• Have a circle around active port battles where the following RoE takes place.
• Screening fleet can tag only same amount of BR + or - 10%(?) BR.
• The closest ships in the small circle would be pulled in based on above.
• Any other ships in the small or large tag circles would be prompted with a popup asking if they want to join or not.

Suggestion on PB/hostility (24 hr is good):

• Use same hostility system to trigger a full day of PBs.
• Each port in the region would be fought over; 1 port every few hours.
• So, we raise hostility against a region. Reaching 100% triggers one of the region's ports for PB within 4 hours (or the next day 24hrs away). Every 4 hours another port in that region triggers for open PB. If the majority of those ports are won by the attacker, only then is the region's capital triggered for PB 24 hours from then.

Example in steps toward PB flip:

1. Dutch raise Basse-Terre to 100% against France.
2. 4 hours later the PB for Aves pops. Dutch win.
3. 4 hours later the PB for Deshaies pops. Dutch win.
4. 4 hours later the PB for Terre-de-Bas pops. France wins.
5. 4 (or 24) hours later the Regional Capital PB pops at Basse-Terre. Dutch wins, wins the region.

Example in steps if majority not won by attacker:

1. Dutch Raise Basse-Terre to 100% against France.
2. 4 hours later the PB for Aves pops. Dutch win.
3. 4 hours later the PB for Deshaies pops. France wins.
4. 4 hours later the PB for Terre-de-Bas pops. France wins.
5. No more PBs pop because France won the majority of PBs for this region.
    

Now say we want to completely get rid of building hostility, there could be 3 options for PBs to be created:

1. Either by player vote in-game and we go through the steps above minus the hostility building (step1), or
2. An invisible Admiralty in-game automatically selects the regions for us to capture and we follow steps above (minus step1), or
3. The Admiralty pops up a poll of the top 3 regions and we vote which one to attack first and follow steps above (minus step1).

Just a thought...discusss :)

[Anne Wildcat]

Ok, here are my thoughts for trying to balance nations. It's an idea, probably not a good one, and needs the Devs to do more coding.

How about when a new player starts, they don't select their nation, but start as nuetral.  They start out in the rookie zone in a neutral capital (not Pitts but make one of the rookie zone ports neutral). As neutral, they can only attack pirates.  They start with missions to sail to the different rookie zone national capitals & meet a rep from each one. The rep will tell nation stats such as large pop vs low pop, most active times, number of ports, allied with, etc. When the player chooses which nation to join, they become a privateer for that nation, and before they can completely join they have to do so many battles against that nation's enemies. The more popular the nation, the more that has to be done to join that nation. Once they completed their tasks they need to sail to the nation capital, not the rookie one, to get their citizenship. They will not have access to nation chat, just global or maybe even a new player chat, until they become the national. I'm not sure how pirates would fit in. 

Edited January 29, 2017 by Anne Wildcat

[Crowley]

Reminds me somewhat of the Sid Meier's Pirates loyalty system.

[van der Clam]

27 minutes ago, rediii said:

you guys are searching again for solutions which get us portbattles at shit times because even slight drifts with the porttimers will lead to battles at night or at worktime.

You have to see permament working mechanics which can scale for the actual number of players which are playing the game later.

 

The only working solution which is possible in every scenario and provide content for every timezone are servers with serverwide porttimers. I don't care that you say now the pop can't handle this split because solutions should allways cover a wider timeframe and not only for some weeks/months in a shitty way. I realy hope dev's don't listen to this talk and actually implement this shift mechanic because it will make players leave the game again and dev's have to develop a new system after this shift system.

Consider my suggestions that when attacking a region, all ports will be fought over at 4 (or 5 hours) apart. This would provide PBs throughout the day for the one region and whichever nation wins the majority of PBs determines whether the Regional Capital PB pops or not.

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by van der Decken