Night flips...ad nauseam

[Kloothommel]

Just now, Christendom said:

If they kick us out, you'll always be welcome in our new clan...."PVP1".

 

I just might...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

 

I just really don't see the problem and the need for all the crying and quitting. These are pixel ports and pixel ships.

IF it is nothing more then you won't mind the server gets PB timelocked.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Christendom said:

I agree with you, but also agree that not every battle is going to be fully contested 100% of the time.  Sometimes they're too early or too late.  Life happens.  The regions SHOULDN'T be that important.  That's really the key to everything both sides have been complaining about right?  One region shouldn't be important enough to make people quite or freak out on the forums.  In the old lord protector system resources were spread out and regions bonuses didn't exist.  If a region got taken it was no big deal.  If the regions were currently less significant than they are no one would give a shit about losing a port or 2 at night during the week.  

Not just or have you not been paying attention? - For most non-US players it takes time, effort and cooperation to run hostility in a port - especially if it's being contested. If the PB do get set it takes time, effort and skill to actually take that port. The nightflippers can do all this with no constest and no opposition - undoing hard work with easy PvE isn't my thought of a fair game mechanic.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Christendom said:

I agree with you, but also agree that not every battle is going to be fully contested 100% of the time.  Sometimes they're too early or too late.  Life happens.  The regions SHOULDN'T be that important.  That's really the key to everything both sides have been complaining about right?  One region shouldn't be important enough to make people quite or freak out on the forums.  In the old lord protector system resources were spread out and regions bonuses didn't exist.  If a region got taken it was no big deal.  If the regions were currently less significant than they are no one would give a shit about losing a port or 2 at night during the week.  

If its not going to be fully contested by both sides for timezone reasons rather than in-game reasons, then the mechanics oughta strive towards making it equally badly contested, which is why I was looking into a system of each nation nominating their primetime and when facing a nation with a different timezone the median of the two is when the PB is set - making it somewhat bad for both sides with nightflip conditions for one side and workflip conditions for the other (regardless of whether its EUvsUS, USvsAUS or AUSvsEU). Essentially a cripple fight of two underpowered fleets.

But as with pretty much every system, it works fine in a 1v1 scenario, gets real wonky when alliances get involved and becomes ripe for unintended exploitation, so meh.

And no, I wholeheartedly disagree that eroding the importance of regions even more is the solution. Just because we have a flat tyre doesn't mean that we should accept just sitting in the car and making engine noises instead of actually driving. To quote myself from another thread.

Quote

Apparently the only way to resolve that is to make it equally pointless for everyone by hollowing out the conquest system. Might as well trash it all and just set up a lobby system instead, which is a goddamn shame because practically every exciting event that I've experienced in the past year has stemmed from the sheer importance of ports for resource or strategic purposes.

Off the top of my head for us Swedes:

The Road Town Incident (Diplomatic/Strategic)

Pirates capturing Marigot (Strategic)

Dodgy peacetime for Basse-Terre (Resource/Diplomatic)

Capturing Saint George (Resource/Diplomatic/Strategic)

Springboard via Bahia Escocesa (Strategic)

Denying Macao (Strategic)

Denying Saint John's (Strategic)

Can't think of any exciting OW encounter that even merits being compared to the awesome events stemming from these port contentions. Now a whole lot of of the strategic purposes of ports is null and void with our infinite-range conquest system, and capital waters have lost alot of their importance as well - with only resource/crafting importance remaining, which seems to be next up to be dismantled.

---

As for the current proposal, 3-4 regions each, in the case of our Alliance, would mean 12-16 regions under this kind of protection, which would easily encompass each and every currently owned strong hull and silver-producing region, and then one or two regions around each capital.

We need to avoid - not invite - stagnation, which is what we'll get if we set up obstacles for everything that matters and instead fight over the things that don't. The issue isn't so much the importance of regions as it is the inability to do anything about it - people are fine with being conquered if outnumbered, and fine with being conquered if the opposing players are simply better - but not when neither of those apply and it's instead completely determined by out-of-game reasons.

Feels like we're on the same path with RvR as we are with the alliance system, and we all know how stale and boring that currently is.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Guest

[Jorge]

4 hours ago, Christendom said:

So no.  Not 25.  Keep attacking early.  

You're too troll to be the spokesman for a faction. So when you have 50 screening boats the thing is fine and we do not know how to enter the pb, but if our support hoy your PB fleet and you can not enter 2 boats to complete the 25 is wrong .... come now angry and do not breathe .....

[Lord Vicious]

7 hours ago, Wraith said:

 

So why should you preclude us from going after whatever port we want during your evenings? What's stopping you from flipping them back whenever you want (assuming your skill and ability so far outstrips ours, as you and LV claim)? If that's truly the case, then don't stay up late or wake up early if you don't want to. Let the pubbies have their fun and come back and take them whenever you like.  You should be thanking us since that's just more content for you. And you should let us have ours, prejudice free, and quit trying to relegate us to the back of the bus.

I say ? 1 year 3 months  since this game have been launch for EA and you still not  have a firstrate victory 25 on 25.

I call it stats/facts          not say/or opinion.

 

i am not even sure if USA can manage to rally 25 usa in first tbh, i saw that only once i think and it went 14-0 for the spain

Edited March 7, 2017 by Lord Vicious

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Wraith said:

 

Did you see complaints about losing Orinoco because 'the wind wasn't fair'? Did you see complaints about losing the strong hull port in Dutch waters? As I mentioned in the post above, the distinction lies in whether it happens for in-game or out-of-game reasons. And as I also mentioned meaningful conquest has been the driver for a whole lot of fun in the past year, it is the removal of that which will turn this into the meaningless lobby-level experience where nothing really matters outside of the scoreboard that you accuse me of wanting. While taking steps towards making it so with your proposal, no less.

Do you see me saying that its all fine and dandy because we're doing something similar? Nope, instead of being partial and one-sided I'm still calling it out for the shitty gameplay it is instead of promoting it. Shit content is still shit.

And the funny thing is, if we had a lack of fights we actually >would< start fighting one another instead of being sedentary, which is what gives weight to LVs claim that you'd rather avoid it (which is rare considering how much crap he spouts). And as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise for the sake of argument, its an alliance vs alliance war first where nations are secondary, and your alliance is perfectly able to mount a defense at EU hours should they want to.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Guest

[Crowley]

Port battles are hello kittying wank anyway. I still enjoy reading the forums to witness all the bullshit salt. Locking the server to certain times isn't going to do anything but cripple US-based players. But then, the only reason that is even asked for by certain filth in the eastern alliance is because they know it'd give them an insurmountable advantage. 

 

But sure guys. Claim otherwise. Everyone knows where things stand.

Alliances aren't going to change, and people will still fight for pointless dots on the map. Everyone despises their opponents, as is expected and required.

I do agree with the point there should be other things to do content-wise in NA, because RvR is stale and outright boring after the odd couple hundred port battles. Even with the new system. Raids would be nice, but I don't expect them to be released until next year. 

Tl;dr majority of people involved in RvR only do so to spite the enemy, be whoever they are. Otherwise they'd quit entirely, and focus on playing other games.

[Nielsnnk]

not very good? ok

 

[Celtiberofrog]

One solution to keep a ONE GLOBAL SERVER (which should reduce night or work flips effects):

 

1. Real time player number in the server is the main monitored value  

2. The above "real time player number" value generates a percentage (%) ratio applied automaticaly on PB's.

3. The PB number of ships/players depends on that (%) 

 

The effect is:

a] PB occuring during low population server will be faught by a limited number of ships/players. (applied % would proportionaly generate 5V5, or 8V8 etc...)

b] PB occuring during high population server will be faught by a maximum number of ships/players (25V25)

 

So today's night/work flips would require a much lower effort and be fairer for defenders.

This mechanic can work indefinately, in a low population server or tomorow in a large population server, and it drastically reduces prime time difference effects. 

 That mechanic would tend towards fairness.