RvR Balancing

[Taranis]

Yet again, I would suggest that RvR (Realm vs. Realm) mechanics need to have a balancing mechanism.  I would be very interested to know how many active players are in each faction - yet I can understand that the devs would not want to publish that as (1) a tool for abuse by alt players spying in, or (2) as possible demotivation to the few that play underdog factions, or even (3) as an admission to the failure of balancing the RvR.  I would like to point out that other PvP games have had that same challenge, and have looked to address it in various ways. 

Here are some suggestions:

1) I know that the AI sucks, but instead of having each nation have the same number of AI ships sailing around - why not have the number of AI warships sailing territorial waters be inversely related to the number of active players.  This coupled with a more aggressive AI, may help balance out some of the dynamics to some extent.

2) Why not have AI assault fleets that initiate PBs on the behalf of under populated nations?  As both a means of occupying and entertaining Zerg factions.

3) Why not allow players of an under populated faction benefit from supplemental AI ships in PBs?

4) Why not offer an experience/resource boost to under-populated nations?  Yes, I know that that some players farm alts and that this might attract them...  That said the alt problem is distinct from the under-population problem and needs its own solution(s).

5) Why not offer an experience and loot bonus/penalty to players that are on the under/over populated side of any PvP action?  This would help promote PvP and also address ganking.

Now, before responding - please don't confuse being part of a Zerg (if you are part of a Zerg) with skill (many seem to make that mistake these days) and please consider the health of the game.  The greatness of your victories is measured by the greatness of your foes:  25 players clubbing 2 players in a PB is not exactly anything anyone should be proud of and spells doom for both sides (the first will eventually get bored, the second will give up because it never had a chance).

Edited April 11, 2017 by Taranis

[Liq]

1 hour ago, TaranisPrime said:

Why not have AI assault fleets that initiate PBs on the behalf of under populated nations?

Because AI, excuse my language, suck. At least the way they're programmed at the moment.

[Taranis]

2 hours ago, Liquicity said:

Because AI, excuse my language, suck. At least the way they're programmed at the moment.

Yeah, we know. It's still better than nothing.

[Yar Matey]

11 hours ago, Liquicity said:

Because AI, excuse my language, suck. At least the way they're programmed at the moment.

To be fair, I did read somewhere that they are improving the AI.  

[Tiedemann]

1) I like it. Would help the new players in small nations with more friendly AI. But I still want cold hard statistics on how many active players (logged on last week) in each nation. 

2) Don't like the idea of a port battle with AIs in it. Imo the Zergs do not need more entertainment, but US time sone players might need it. So if it is intended to give the US time sone players RvR content I kinda get it, but not with the present AI's.     

3) If 2 is go then why not 3, but again not with present AI ships. They need to follow some sort of orders, have repairs and not be stupid ramming AI fleet ships.   

4-5) I would like a boost to small nations XP gain, gold earnings and resources/materials in port, but I would also take it a step further and add penalty to large nations. Just to help players migrate to other nations and actually balance the player base between the nations. But adding something like that when it is so difficult to change nation is not the way to go. So that also needs a fix.

[Taranis]

Other possible ways of balancing Zergs could also include:

• An dynamic increasing cost in gold/aggro to capture new ports
• A tax on players of a nation based on the number of national ports
• A credit system providing extra funds to players that are in an under populated nation  (call it a national sponsorship)

[Kiefer Cain]

What if 'zergs' (or any nation) had to actively use (craft, buy/trade, missions from, patrolling nearby) their ports to retain their loyalty or else the ports move into a neutral state or a state of unrest.  Activity based ownership would keep bigger nations busy keeping their interior and/or boundaries tended to, instead of just steamrolling outward.

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Kiefer Cain

[Raekur]

On 4/5/2017 at 5:59 AM, TaranisPrime said:

Other possible ways of balancing Zergs could also include:

• An dynamic increasing cost in gold/aggro to capture new ports - has possibilities to slow the expansion of a faction
• A tax on players of a nation based on the number of national ports - could hurt casual players who do not play enough to earn the gold to pay the fee.
• A credit system providing extra funds to players that are in an under populated nation  (call it a national sponsorship) - Could lead to Alts farming gold and trading via freeports.

 

7 hours ago, Kiefer Cain said:

What if 'zergs' (or any nation) had to actively use (craft, buy/trade, missions from, patrolling nearby) their ports to retain their loyalty or else the ports move into a neutral state or a state of unrest.  Activity based ownership would keep bigger nations busy keeping their interior and/or boundaries tended to, instead of just steamrolling outward.

Could be accomplishd by any port that at least one player does not have a port in will slowly revert to neutral.

 

[Hethwill]

Resource availability.

The more a area is explored by player production the faster the pool of resources gets depleted; aka. dynamic by nation population.

So necessity to move to new areas - by conquest or trade - and let the exhausted areas rest.

( obviously no meters visible, everything by "feeling" and yielded results as guide )

Also it is credible with history - silver mines in Panama got depleted, soil got exhausted by tobacco plantation and entire tracts of land simply ceased to produce anything due to sugar cane intensive plantation.

[Farrago]

And possibly new resources are discovered at a port as well. "Eureka, Silver Strike in xxxxxx!". "Population growth in xxxxxx brings new labor to the workforce!"

[Hethwill]

9 minutes ago, Farrago said:

And possibly new resources are discovered at a port as well. "Eureka, Silver Strike in xxxxxx!". "Population growth in xxxxxx brings new labor to the workforce!"

Yes. While it looks very "single player game" style I believe it can be done in a multiplayer game to provide appropriate asymmetrical balance due to overpopulation.

 

[monk33y]

Could it not be possible to hinder larger nations in the cost of re crewing a ship?

If a nation is huge. The availability of good crew would become less.

Eg. Biggest nation on server get a +500 % crew costing for top rank etc.

Don't hinder low lvls just the cream! 

[Farrago]

23 minutes ago, monk33y said:

Could it not be possible to hinder larger nations in the cost of re crewing a ship?

Yes, things like this. Demand for labor could exceed supply driving up "wages" which should not only increase crew cost, it could increase resource harvest cost. This would be especially true for a nation that expanded more than its player population justified.

While it would be wonderful if we ended up with a fully player driven economy and balancing, Devs may need to step in sometimes.

"Epidemic strikes Texas coast. Labor shortages result."

"Governor orders 1 week quarantine of Kingston. Shortage of food supplies results. Food prices soar. Smugglers attempt to profit."

"Boom in mining at xxxx results in increased demand for construction and food supplies."

Some of these things sound fake but they're the type of scenarios that could get us out on OW. 

[Remus]

On 10/04/2017 at 11:23 AM, Hethwill said:

Resource availability.

The more a area is explored by player production the faster the pool of resources gets depleted; aka. dynamic by nation population.

So necessity to move to new areas - by conquest or trade - and let the exhausted areas rest.

( obviously no meters visible, everything by "feeling" and yielded results as guide )

Also it is credible with history - silver mines in Panama got depleted, soil got exhausted by tobacco plantation and entire tracts of land simply ceased to produce anything due to sugar cane intensive plantation.

I had in mind a system where meters would be visible - you would know in advance what your output was likely to be if you opened a silver mine in this port, for example - and this would be the driver for players to choose whether to set up here or somewhere else instead. Obviously for a dynamic system the output next week won't be the same as the output this week, but I had thought of giving players some clues to guide their decision before they invested in infrastructure.

But you reckon start producing first and then find out by looking at how much you produce? Means a lot more trial and error on the part of players that I'm not entirely sure I like. Favours large clans too, who will have players in several ports reporting back yields. And of course if you include this sort of thing in an API, players like me who can read the files get an enormous advantage over those who cannot. But I'm all in favour of trying things out and seeing what they look like in game.

Don't get too carried away with reality though. With all the ships built in NA over the past couple of years I don't think any of the islands can have any wood left by now.

[Hethwill]

Indeed. We can have credible scaling based on realism though and more important given the scalability of  amount of captains in the west indies we have at the moment.

 

[Farrago]

This could really help smaller nations: i.e. Their economies are not fully developed yet in the New World so they have more idle labor to hire.

[Powderhorn]

Basically - Port conquest.  Factions taking over regions from one another.

[Taranis]

6 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

I'm sorry, but may someone explain what RvR means? I can figure out it's associated with PvP and nations, but I can't get a clear image of the meaning. Thank you in advance!

RvR = Realm versus Realm

(or in this case the conflict between the various nations)

Edited April 11, 2017 by Taranis