Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Christendom

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, TommyShelby said:

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.

And when the US/Brits/Dutch make 6 PBs in the night? According to your estimates (which I believe is highly speculative, I suffer from insomnia from time to time and rarely meet fellow faction captains in the wee hours of the day) we would need 150 ppl just to fill the PBs - let alone screen for them.. And this would mean a downtime server population of around 400 players (as a minimum) and a total server pop in primetime of around 2000.. And that's accepting for the arguments sake that our down time pop is around 40% of the US/Brit/Dutch alliance.. Which it isn't anywhere close at..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

A server merge wouldn't change the depopulation issue.. The problem dates back to before the PB mechanic as it is now and is by far a larger issue than the nightflips - one we have perhaps been blinded to by our general toxcity towards one another.. A server merge won't make the game more enjoyable and as LV has annoyingly pointed out - there's not even 1% that keeps playing this after the initial buzz wears off..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.    

Here we agree.. The grinding of PvE is insanely dull and it's not improved by the ridicolously bad bots.. My offer to sink you in OW still stands you know :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alvar Fanez de Minaya said:

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 4arrow-10x10.png days.......... Depending how contested have been these for battles, battle port in timer where most people fight in these days.......

But we would have a ninja problem in the PB I'd wager.. Like the idea of staged fights tho - And we could use the PvP areas so there's a reward instantly (well as soon as the events close) to the winners..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, van der Decken said:

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 :)

I don't like the idea of a server merge (in case anyone didn't already know) as I find it's just a treatment for an underlying symptom and not a genuine solution to current depopulation.. BUT - If we did do a server-merge I really don't think we should concern ourselves with the location of the server.. atm there's two locations - US and Europe. To move servers or hire servers in the atlantic would a) raise ping for our asian or aussie friends (and apparently this is a "global" server) and secondly be prohibitively expensive as servers on the islands of Bermuda and Greenland are extremely costly compared to Iceland, mainland US and continental Europe. Moving servers to Australia wouldn't be advisable either - I do like you Jeheil but the streaming from the summit was a chore to get through at times.. Aussie internet?? I once said I'd love to sink you in OW but atm I'd just wonder if I'm that good or you just lagged too much..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

A server merge wouldn't change the depopulation issue.. The problem dates back to before the PB mechanic as it is now and is by far a larger issue than the nightflips - one we have perhaps been blinded to by our general toxcity towards one another.. A server merge won't make the game more enjoyable and as LV has annoyingly pointed out - there's not even 1% that keeps playing this after the initial buzz wears off..

 

It won't change the depopulation issue at all, only the devs can fix that by actually providing decent patches.  What server merge would do would keep the existing population of 6-700 people afloat until HOPEFULLY the game gets fixed.  I mean let's face it, at this point just about everyone who is going to quit has done so already and for the most part, the guys who are determined to stick it out remain.  Those of us who are left have already adapted to the new systems, we may not like it but we stick around because of the potential we see in NA.  The only thing that would stop us now is if we slowly die away from a lack of things to do.  More players = more things to do, in the short term anyway.

It's a band-aid and not a very good one...but that's basic all we have left.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rediii said:

This has the same effect as the system we have now. With a lack of US playerbase you have no chance to defend. Also you have to be clear what happens with equal number port regions.

Maybe we need 50% or more of the smaller ports of the region.
Regions with 2 small ports and 1 Capital, if each nation won one each, then the Capital would be the tie breaker.
Regions with 3 small ports and 1 Capital, the attacking nation would have to win at least 2 of the 3 to trip the Capital port.
etcetc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours 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.

We are loosing players inces months or one year due of nightflip.

It has never been adress but player didn't use them again.

After caracas loose, the dirty pact use again this nasty card to be able to get few more ports...

As soon as the alliance win something, the ennemy use everything they had to counter that. We suffer the same thing in panama, yucatan, haiti etc.

Players will not solve the solution, they will use any tactics they can to win and if there is a large consensus in any nation to play fair 10 captain wanted to play unfair can ruin it.

It's why game mechanism has to be used.

 

Now splitting the server in two server is for France the best solution. The guy living in America are facing empty PB when Eurpean has to awake up in middle of the night to defend.
UE player attack american player when they are at work not allowing them to defend.

It's neither fun for the one facing the american than for the amercian themsel. And governor or this kind of fake features that will have to be rediscute in few monts when people will be blocked by window in the middle of the night are not a long term solution.
 

The easiest solution is to set up 2 server like on potbs. 12 windows Pb per server. People choose on wich server to play. It will stop people leaving the game because they feel useless and think others are cheating. noone is cheting.We all use what the game offer to us. But people leave... and they leave because nightlfip is something they can't tolerate.
Some would say that with 500 player on primetime, splitting the community is going to be bad but american are not playing while our primetime, as they said, they are on work so we will not see a big drop of population in primetime and with the time the pop will grow again...

 

Better cut your hand now that put a small bandage now and been forced to cut your all arm tomorrow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, van der Decken said:
  • 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.

UE player will not be happy because on all this pb the one occuring at night will be auto win for thoses who are allies with US. It's excatly the same thing as now exept we could defend some port but finnaly US-player alliance will have 2 auto win PB forcing the other side to win all the others one. SO it's just changing the problem but it's still unfaire and not fixing the real problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admins post in the russian forum (google translate)

Quote

enter stupidly time zones in the Caribbean
(Because past vote on division on the European server, the euro and US server US time is ended with anything)

for example - Antilles is Uzbekistan and Central Europe
Hispaniola, Puerto Rico Western Europe
Cuba and Florida - the East Coast and the US Centers
Mexico - a pacific and asia

 

and in these ports such zones and do whatever you want - you can take only 6 to 11 pm this zone = the rest of the raid

I can be wrong here since google translate sucks with russian language, but to me this sounds like they think about splitting the map into timezones. Each of those "timezone-areas" can only be attacked at the local prime time (from 6pm to 11pm).

It probably means that DN-SW-FR-SP has no chance to ever get a live oak region, but at least we can have some meaningful RvR again. US on the other hand can take all the regions in their prime time and then play PvE only because there is nothing else to do. Maybe then they realise being allied with all other US players doesnt make any sense.

I like it.

Edited by JonSnowLetsGo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JonSnowLetsGo said:

Maybe then they realise being allied with all other US players doesnt make any sense.

I like it.

You mean to be a real American make no sense because even they join Sweden  they can't participate in RvR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, z4ys said:

You mean to be a real American make no sense because even they join Sweden  they can't participate in RvR.

Why not? They can set up their own PBs at their timezone and play there just like everyone else.

Edited by JonSnowLetsGo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JonSnowLetsGo said:

Admins post in the russian forum (google translate)

I can be wrong here since google translate sucks with russian language, but to me this sounds like they think about splitting the map into timezones. Each of those "timezone-areas" can only be attacked at the local prime time (from 6pm to 11pm).

It probably means that DN-SW-FR-SP has no chance to ever get a live oak region, but at least we can have some meaningful RvR again. US on the other hand can take all the regions in their prime time and then play PvE only because there is nothing else to do. Maybe then they realise being allied with all other US players doesnt make any sense.

I like it.

The problem I find with this solution - and many others that splits PBs or events into three blocks for each timezone to participate - is that it always operates on a "fair" split 1/3 each with equal weighing of each. What is the US and AUS population across the entire server anyways? Because it sure as hell isn't even close to 33% US, 33% AUS and 33% EU, so then what's the logic in apportioning say 33% of the map to each one? There has to be some form of weighing for it to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Work flips I can't participate in.  So I understand night flips a lot.  But it is only a game so meh.  

I really think that the admiralty should determine port battle times at random.  Or as suggested 24 or 48 hours portbattles with victory points. 

It is EA and we are testing this and ironing out any issues.  

Cant wait for the next patch   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, van der Decken said:

Maybe we need 50% or more of the smaller ports of the region.
Regions with 2 small ports and 1 Capital, if each nation won one each, then the Capital would be the tie breaker.
Regions with 3 small ports and 1 Capital, the attacking nation would have to win at least 2 of the 3 to trip the Capital port.
etcetc

There's no difference in winning 2 or 3 empty ports than winning 1 empty port.. It doesn't require skill to win empty ports - only US based players to attack in EU TZ.. The system proposed would be as bad as - or worse - than the current mechanic as we doesn't have a ready solution for nightflips. The other proposed "solution" of a server-merge would only aggrevate the issue as most on the PvP2US server would have a greater affinity towards the US/Brits..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aegir said:

The problem I find with this solution - and many others that splits PBs or events into three blocks for each timezone to participate - is that it always operates on a "fair" split 1/3 each with equal weighing of each. What is the US and AUS population across the entire server anyways? Because it sure as hell isn't even close to 33% US, 33% AUS and 33% EU, so then what's the logic in apportioning say 33% of the map to each one? There has to be some form of weighing for it to make sense.

Yeah thats true, but doesnt really matter because the map is big enough anyways.

This way at least each timezone has its region to play.

Edited by JonSnowLetsGo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PIerrick de Badas said:

We are loosing players inces months or one year due of nightflip.

It has never been adress but player didn't use them again.

After caracas loose, the dirty pact use again this nasty card to be able to get few more ports...

As soon as the alliance win something, the ennemy use everything they had to counter that. We suffer the same thing in panama, yucatan, haiti etc.

Players will not solve the solution, they will use any tactics they can to win and if there is a large consensus in any nation to play fair 10 captain wanted to play unfair can ruin it.

It's why game mechanism has to be used.

 

Now splitting the server in two server is for France the best solution. The guy living in America are facing empty PB when Eurpean has to awake up in middle of the night to defend.
UE player attack american player when they are at work not allowing them to defend.

It's neither fun for the one facing the american than for the amercian themsel. And governor or this kind of fake features that will have to be rediscute in few monts when people will be blocked by window in the middle of the night are not a long term solution.
 

The easiest solution is to set up 2 server like on potbs. 12 windows Pb per server. People choose on wich server to play. It will stop people leaving the game because they feel useless and think others are cheating. noone is cheting.We all use what the game offer to us. But people leave... and they leave because nightlfip is something they can't tolerate.
Some would say that with 500 player on primetime, splitting the community is going to be bad but american are not playing while our primetime, as they said, they are on work so we will not see a big drop of population in primetime and with the time the pop will grow again...

 

Better cut your hand now that put a small bandage now and been forced to cut your all arm tomorrow.

 

The multiple ports were already planned well before the dutch lost caracas.  The US has been doing consistent night flips for what, a month?  If anything server population has gone up, albeit slowly.  Explain how the population went from a consistent 700-800 at the start of the fine woods patch to it's current 500 range on night flips that started a month ago?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PIerrick de Badas said:

UE player will not be happy because on all this pb the one occuring at night will be auto win for thoses who are allies with US. It's excatly the same thing as now exept we could defend some port but finnaly US-player alliance will have 2 auto win PB forcing the other side to win all the others one. SO it's just changing the problem but it's still unfaire and not fixing the real problem

You are ignoring that If the port battles pop at intervals, that means they are popping up throughout the entire 24 hour period. Yes, some PBs will not be a good time for you, AND some will not be good for your enemy. If this is a multinational server with players in all time zones, you cannot expect every PB to be at a good time for only you. Consider the below being dependent on 24 hours divided by how many ports the region has.

Apply this to any time zone (3hrs 25 mins apart for 7 ports) Puerto Plata:
20:00 - Hostility reaches 100%
23:25 - 1st PB Monti Christi pops
02:50 - 2nd PB Samana pops
06:15 - 3rd PB Macao pops
09:40 - 4th PB La Isabela pops
01:05 - 5th PB Bahia Escocesa pops
04:30 - 6th PB Rincon pops
07:55 - Puerto Plata pops

Apply to any time zone (8hrs apart for 3 ports) St Lucie:
20:00 - Hostility reaches 100%
04:00 - 1st PB La Mousette pops
12:00 - 2nd PB Vieux Fort pops
08:00 - St Lucie pops

There will be ones good at your time, but not for the enemy; and ones good for the enemy, and not at your time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a crazy option,

would all nations changing their alliance structure change help the server in the short term? I am listening to the meeting and it was never brought up.

EDIT: to clarify, I only listened to Jeheil's recording

Edited by Teutonic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nightflips are not the issue they where happening all the time the difference is that 2 months ago denmark have enought nerds on as everyone else for defend a port from 15 USa, now it does not, and that have nothing to do with nighflips.

 

The issue is that beside PB, there is nothing else to do in this game , and right now  The pop is not enought for allow nations to be able to defend in a different timezone since they struggle to have 1 fleet in their prime.

 

420 ppl at saturday 24.00 Eu time. Thats the issue      when a sandbox  go under the minimum population amount for keep the rvr activity going on it go snowball down. pretty quick.

The moment 1 nation fail to bring 25 to defend is death sentence in the current pb system.  And this is whats going on now and no stupid agreement or meeting between nations will fix it.   First becouse 1 rogue clan is enought for f-uck up everything Second becouse  no agreement ever lasted  more then a week. and Third becouse this is not about agreements between players but game mechanics. Only the devs can fix it. 

Edited by Lord Vicious
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...