Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

After some time testing in the testbed server I want to share some thoughts about marks and permits.

I really think that it is good to have limits to some ships, and that will promote variety on port battles, however I believe the permits requirements are a bit over the top.

 

Lets begin talking about if its logical to price with 15 pvp marks ships like the constitution, the endymion and the indefatigable. I mean, the endymion is not of the same class of a constitution and between the indefatigable and the constitution, the logical choice is the constitution (more crew, firepower, turn rate, speed, better sailing capabilities). So I would balance that a bit, like:

12 pvp marks constitution, 10 pvp marks indefatigable, 6 pvp marks endymion. 

 

No converter between pve-pvp-conquests marks:

-A good way to remove those players who are more into economics and crafting in the PVP server. We need them, more than ever, in the new player driven economy.

-The best way to destroy hope of recovery after a the loss of one PB fleet.

 

Let me set an scenario to ilustrate my point:

0. War between two small nations like sweden vs denmark, each one only have the RvR playerbase for one PB fleet.

1. Each one have been capable to raise a PB of 12 agamenons and 13 constitutions.

2. In one PB, the swedish lost around a 45% of their fleet (redii and sveno were on vacation). A decisive victory for the danish. The danish get conquers marks, the swedish nothing.

3. Next PB, the swedish are in great disadvantage in firepower because they couldnt replace their losses. Another victory for the danish, they get conquests marks. The swedish, nothing again.

4. Next PB, no attendance by the swedish.

5. Peace deals have to be made. End of the war, end of the fun.

 

Admin would say that there are shallow water ports to get easy conquests marks..., and then, I´ll say, there is no shalllow water ports on the Antilles, neither near them.

 

 

Now, your thoughts.

 

Edited by Intrepido
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the cost and effort needed to acquire PvE marks, then PvP, then whatever next is far too high. It won't only discourage the finest crafters it will deter a sincere investment in these wonderful ships so many have spent so much time in behind the scene graphic construction. I know the other side is - collaborative effort will make more ships possible but the point is the time, and mark investment is way to high; considering the 1 dura limit now I sincerely doubt quality crafting will survive. Why risk a good ship when a cheap shop- bought will suffice? 

 

 

Edited by Buba Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Intrepido's post 100%. Right now permits and blueprints are too expensive, a 33% reduction in price and keeping the conversions on the pvp servers would ease the pain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem is see with the coquest marks it might be to easy to dey them to the enemy. If you only get them for winning a PB that is defended, the defender would only defend if the have the upper hand, why loss ships and give the enemy marks? Only pick fight with enemy that you know you can win against and so on. There needs to be some way to get coquest marks with out PB.

So how about you can get them from breaking up captured line ships? Hm why would you break those up in the first place? Well you might cap a few 2/3rds that have the wrong build for what you want in a PB. If you can break them up and get some of the Coquest marks that where payed for them back you have a chance to buy the bp or buy a new permit for the ship you want/need.

Same goes for caped ship that need permits (conni, endy, indy) you might cap on that has the wrong build (on way to check that in battle atm) or you only captured it for the guns (same with sols here), now if you would break it up and get some of the PvP marks back (plus a few more parts then now) you can get the permit for the ship you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Intrepido said:

2. In one PB, the swedish lost around a 45% of their fleet (redii and sveno were on vacation). A decisive victory for the danish. The danish get conquers marks, the swedish nothing.

Will not happen! :D 

Apart from that i think generally it's a good thing. You will see much more variety in portbattles like this and indefatigables is comparable to a constitution.

Carronades have a huge DPS and a indefatigable broadside to broadside, touching the hull of each other, a indefatigable would realy destroy a constitution. He wouldnt stand a chance and the topdeck wouldnt even able to hit the indefatigable i think. So if the indef is slightly faster than the consti because of not so many hull repairs or different wood the consti wouldnt stand a chance.

The endy is a special ship however, that's more of a supporter to finish people long range because it's turnrate is close to the earths curve. We have to see how good she is because you do more damage and have less thickness now.

however a problem is the snowball effect. Think about lineship battles. If one side gets a big loose they will probably not recover from that na dhave to rely on winning the OW fights all the time (countering the hostilitymakers) which is still possible.

A conversion to conquest marks has to stay though.

Also i would like to suggest a diplomacy system with a truce option described here:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we need alternative way to obtain permits not only in PB. In my opinion in new  "Port raid system" will be good for this. Players should have chance for ship permit drop as a reward.

For example:

4th rate port

55% for Endymion

45% for Indefatigable

40% for Consti

30% for Waffen

20% for Inger

10% for Agamemnon

Regional capital port

55% for 3rd rate

45% for Bellona

40% for Pavel

35% for Bucentaure

30% for Victory

20% for Santi

10% for Ocean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the high price for permits.  Blueprints are a bit expensive but it doesn't bother me too much.  However the ability convert PVE marks and ability to sell/put contracts for PVE, PVP and CONQUEST marks should definitely be kept (I'm not sure if the converter is scheduled to be axed or not).  Lots of players pve grind to rank up (I know I did) and being able to sell PVE or PVP marks to crafters or RvR clans (who will hopefully burning though lots of marks and ships) would be a good way to earn money.  Plus making crafting 100% PVP and RVR dependent is to my mind a problem.  I think it's better if there are multiple ways of doing things even in of one way is clearly better so as to accommodate for different play styles and skill levels.  I don't think PVE conversion and selling discourages PvP either, I mean it's  250 PVE marks to make an Agamemnon and 1250 PVE marks to make a 1st rate (ignoring the 8750 PVE marks for the BP).  PVE conversions are only ever going to supplementary to PVP and PBs with those kind of numbers.

 

Re: Redii

I don't think snowballing is necessarily bad.  Losing a battle and a war can be frustrating but it does need to happen every now and then otherwise it gets stale and alliances become entrenched.  As long we're not dicks about it (and I'm confident, on the EU server at least, that's achievable) the high cost of SOLs will probably make wars a bit more final and thus make inter-faction diplomacy a bit more necessary and alliances more flexible.  Which to my mind is a plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These ship permits give these ships so much value that we shouldnt change it too fast. On the live server i didnt care if i loose a 1st or 2nd rate. At the testserver i would think about sailing in a 4th rate into dangerous waters and that's just perfect.

Prewipe ships got build each day - at some point everyplayer has everything and nothing more to achieve which takes fun away after some time and at that point you only had portbattles. Now you can do much more things and value your ships much more. Seeing a big lineship fleet will be a quite impressive thing and that's how that should play out in my oppinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Senhor Lenhador said:

Re: Redii

I don't think snowballing is necessarily bad.  Losing a battle and a war can be frustrating but it does need to happen every now and then otherwise it gets stale and alliances become entrenched.  As long we're not dicks about it (and I'm confident, on the EU server at least, that's achievable) the high cost of SOLs will probably make wars a bit more final and thus make inter-faction diplomacy a bit more necessary and alliances more flexible.  Which to my mind is a plus.

The problem is that many nations don't know when to stop. Sooner or later this will be felt on the EU and Global server too and that's too late.

The thing is that you win a war with this snowball effect, maybe take some more regions because you can and want to expand. At this point the playerbase of the enemy nation gets destructed and this is something which should be avoided.

(Looking at the dutch territory of pvp1 now - which were beaten when 7up left the nation and that was months ago. After that someone made it further and took a strong hul region and 2 regions more. i don't care and don't know the reasons for that but this has to be avoided)

Edited by rediii
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I dont think that PB ships will that rare after all. Of course, the first weeks will be special, since everything is reset.
But once a nation has aquired their first BluePrint, for example a Victory, they will be able to pump them out by using LH contracts just like before. PvP marks shouldn't be nearly as painful as conquest marks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

Honestly, I dont think that PB ships will that rare after all. Of course, the first weeks will be special, since everything is reset.
But once a nation has aquired their first BluePrint, for example a Victory, they will be able to pump them out by using LH contracts just like before. PvP marks shouldn't be nearly as painful as conquest marks.

Each time you craft a Victory you need several permits as a crafting requirement (like planks). Those permits are only available if you win and damage ships in PB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Each time you craft a Victory you need several permits as a crafting requirement (like planks). Those permits are only available if you win and damage ships in PB.

I thought permits required PvP marks and 'only' the BP conquest marks?
In the pirate shop, a pirate frigate permit costs 5 pvp marks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

I thought permits required PvP marks and 'only' the BP conquest marks?
In the pirate shop, a pirate frigate permit costs 5 pvp marks

Nationals works different. An aga, bellona, 3rd, pavel, bucen, victory, ocean, santisima requires conquests marks.

Conquests marks when you buy the BP and when you craft.

Connie, endy, indy, pirate frigate only pvp marks.

Edited by Intrepido
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to rediii. Don't think anything that isn't prevented by game mechanics and is an advantage for one side in a competitive setting will not be taken advantage of because people aren't "**cks".

You will be disappointed.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why looser should also get a participation Reward. Lets' say looser will only get 2 PvP marks 2 PvE marks + -50% less gold  vs 10 PvP 10 PvE + 100% gold reward for those who won. This is a simple way how to make people come back to Port Battles. 

Edited by Ned Low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to me the conversion between different marks should be kept, finding a reasonable ratio to make Conquest > PvP > PVE

Share this post


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

according to me the conversion between different marks should be kept, finding a reasonable ratio to make Conquest > PvP > PVE

100:10:1 ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bart Smith said:

100:10:1 ?

 

that's fine. But also 100:15:1 could work

Edited by victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On rewarding in PB in general: players have to be rewarded for their contribution (damage done / ships sunk), with winners getting an additional subtle bonus (module, paint, etc but not super/duper marks). Sinking enemy ships is already reward in itself and smth that hurt the opponent (certainly in test bed setting)

In vew of the above, do we really conquest marks? Why not just award PvP marks in PB, just as in an OW PvP? Say, winners get x3 multiplier and losers x2 multiplier to PvP marks they gained. Also to avoid potential "snow ball" effect resulting in receiving side being discouraged to go into PB.

Edited by Stilgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 8:04 AM, Cornelis Tromp said:

I agree with @Intrepido's post 100%. Right now permits and blueprints are too expensive, a 33% reduction in price and keeping the conversions on the pvp servers would ease the pain.

so you think  the people that play on pve server should still pay the high price when  the [Moderation: do not use dismissive adjective when referring to other captains] on pvp get lower  yeah right

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...