PvP XP and gold -rewards balance

[Anolytic]

The rewards for PvP on the testbed are too low relative to PvE. 

After a port battle yesterday on the testbed server these were my rewards:

The second entry is from attacking an AI fleet where I killed an Ingermanland and probably got an assist sinking an Essex. From this I got 300 XP. The last entry is from the port battle where I got 2 assists on 1st rates. I got less XP from this PvP-battle than from the PvE. 

 

The guy who hawked all the kills in the battle from our side also got very low rewards. I don't remember the exact amounts. ( @balticsailor )

 

These reward levels don't add up to me. With this, PvP is heavily discouraged rather than encouraged. PvE will bring much higher rewards to someone who is grinding, at a fraction of the risk. Anyone intent on ranking up will have to do so by grinding PvE however hard it is to find. 

 

Fair enough, maybe, that you only get rewards for ships that sink, but then you have to actually get some reward for sinking ships. If this is not a bug, both money and XP rewards for sinking player ships should be significantly buffed it seems to me.

[Jarlath Morrow]

I agree, I have earned more money sinking Brigs than you got from that second battle. I just earned more than 13k gold killing a Mercury to get Snow XP.

Before someone on the dev team tries to quick fix this by halving the PvE rewards - the rewards should probably be buffed! =)

[Anolytic]

PvE-rewards could probably be doubled, but PvP-rewards should be higher for an assist on a player ship than the PvE-reward for getting a kill on the same rate. i.e getting an assist on a player connie should give more XP/gold than getting the kill on an NPC connie.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Just a heads up click on those and expand them next time.  It will give us more detail of what went on.  I was getting way more than that killing 5/6th rates on OW.   Though I'll admit I was using a 4th rate.  What ships where ya'll in to cause remember the rewards are weighted by your BR too.  If you in something way bigger your going to get less rewards.  If you killed a 4th rate with a 5th rate you will get bigger rewards than if you killed a 6th rate with that same 5th rate.

 

Though I do agree the rewards need to be changes. You need to get XP off your damage.  The credits and Marks I can say stay with the assist and kills, but xp should be rewarded no mater if you sink something or not.   

 

Oh and this was exactly what I was complaining back when every one was running around in 6/7th rates and saying it was ok.  Yes in low tiers I think it's balanced right.  Mid tier it's not enough and I haven't played any SOl's to know what they would be like.     If you got 9K credits for 2 asssit in a SOL PB that is just insanely to low.  Wouldn't even pay for your crew lost for the most part and what every you had to replace like repairs.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Sir Texas Sir

[TheLoneWolf]

Did you get any conquest marks for the pb?

[Anolytic]

7 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

[...]What ships where ya'll in to cause remember the rewards are weighted by your BR too.  If you in something way bigger your going to get less rewards.  If you killed a 4th rate with a 5th rate you will get bigger rewards than if you killed a 6th rate with that same 5th rate.

[...]

If you got 9K credits for 2 asssit in a SOL PB that is just insanely to low.  Wouldn't even pay for your crew lost for the most part and what every you had to replace like repairs.

In the PvE-battle we were 3 1st rates against 1 Ingermanland and 1 Essex.

In the Port Battle we were 7 Victories and 2 frigates against 9 Victories if I remember correctly.

We didn't get any conquest marks since we didn't capture the port. Only PvP-marks. We could have won the battle if not for dual-boxing and me overcommitting in an attempt to protect someone's side and getting stuck in between the enemy line and a big fort. I did go out with a boom though, and knocked the masts off 2 Vics and half the crew off a third one.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Yah that first one should been the low one by the sounds of it, cause there was a big BR diffrence between ya'll and the AI.  The second one BR was closer and it was a first rate so you should of gotten way more.  Just doesn't sound right at all.  They need to take a look at this or we will never level up or gain ship knowledge either.  Which seams that is what they are trying to do slow the grind down for every one.  I hate to be a casual player tyring to rank up anything with those numbers.  I was getting about 20-25K credits and around 300-500 xp killing those 5/6th rates in my Aggy with a Connine in fleet and it was normally 2 vs 5 in most of the fights as I was trying to find big fleets on the OW to hit.

Speaking of which I spent a good part around Atwood/Pitts and couldn't find hardly any fleets.  How the hell are we suppose to get agro and flip a port.  Most of the ones I did find weren't british ships but other nations too.  The few fleets I was finding where over in Atwood waters and didn't count for that region as they where ships heading back and forth from like Kidds or something.

[Jarlath Morrow]

So conquest marks for the victors only? Interesting.

Sounds like it was quite the battle! A big, memorable PvP battle should definitely give good rewards, not just good memories.

 

[balticsailor]

I did get 928xp and 9 PvP marks for 3 kills on Victorys (with 25% 26% and 27% of the damaged done to them). I know that the reward is splitt between all players getting a assit on that ships. But for a PvP fight where we had equial Ships and less Br in total it feels a very low reward for a 1h 45min fight. For a killing small AI-Fleet you get defiantly more for less effort and risk.

[Stilgar]

Currently PVP and conquest marks have same value on test bed. Hopefully it will stay like that after wipe. In my view, PB is just another PVP, so why reward should be 10-20 times higher (in marks) as compared to PVP? Also, rewarding winner only will not help in encouraging the receiving side to fight back. Importantly, sinking/capturing the enemy ships is a significant reward in itself, even more so in coming version.

As for XP and gold reward for PVE vs PVP, I agree that PvP is associated with bigger risks and should be rewarded accordingly (multiplier to improve the reward? special bonuses, like modules, paints?). At the same time, BR difference should be taken into account. If a group killed a lonely ship or trader, that is not exactly a challenge.

[Corona Lisa]

On 17.4.2017 at 11:31 PM, admin said:

You get 3x xp from pvp (for now)

On 17.4.2017 at 11:41 PM, admin said:

extra rewards dont motivate pvp players (the thrill of the kill does). also the higher pvp reward is the easier it is to farm xp even with the recently killed status.

 

When you have to compensate your PvP fights with PvE grind it gives you the feeling that you are a garbage player and too bad to do PvP. Thats not exactly motivating and encouraging.

The average player should be able to self sustain through PvP and not be forced to do PvE or trading. Pushing players towards something they dont like is not good.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Jon Snow lets go

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Jarlath Morrow said:

So conquest marks for the victors only? Interesting.

Sounds like it was quite the battle! A big, memorable PvP battle should definitely give good rewards, not just good memories.

 

Actually you only get if you did any assit or kills and won.  So say you where in the back of the pack and didn't get any damge or hardly any but your team wins. YOU GET NOTHING.  Say I send you over to circle C to cap it and no one goes to stop you and the fight ends.  YOU GET NOTHING.

[Remus]

32 minutes ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

 

When you have to compensate your PvP fights with PvE grind it gives you the feeling that you are a garbage player and too bad to do PvP. Thats not exactly motivating and encouraging.

The average player should be able to self sustain through PvP and not be forced to do PvE or trading. Pushing players towards something they dont like is not good.

The 'average' player will lose as much as he wins. If he has a succession of losses - perhaps merely two on the trot - he may have to return to PvE to grind some gold. I think this would be a reasonable state of affairs.

But this isn't where we are. Right now you can mostly win in PvP and still have to grind PvE when you lose. This is what is wrong.

[Sir Texas Sir]

One of our new guys in clan did some PvP with us the other night. He's only a Raider I think or had just made it after the fight.   It blew his mind when we caught a Bellona and sunk it and than  Bucc how much XP he got over PvE.  It's not like that on testbed.  It's funny we find a lot of guys that get into PvP didn't know how much more xp and credits you make from PvP kills over PvE.  Most of them find out when they get into there first reall Port Battles and live or PvP fights where all they did is help and shot sails.

[Christoph]

We need more Gold and more xp after a pvp battle/pb battle 

Winner x10 

Loser x5

After the pb... We need the option exit to friendly port.  Nobody wants to fight again. 

 

[Fellvred]

9 hours ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

 

When you have to compensate your PvP fights with PvE grind it gives you the feeling that you are a garbage player and too bad to do PvP. Thats not exactly motivating and encouraging.

The average player should be able to self sustain through PvP and not be forced to do PvE or trading. Pushing players towards something they dont like is not good.

Completely agree - there needs to be a system where an average player can continually pvp in small ships (6th rates?) and cover any losses through gold received in pvp itself. If that players wants to build up gold through trading/pve and use 3/4th/5th rates thats fine as well. Better players may be able to stay in 4th/5th rates etc.

Perhaps increase the gold received in pvp but have an upkeep system for the ships. Such as having gunpowder/shot as a usuable resource which is used up when guns are fired. Larger guns will use much more gunpowder so the larger ships will have much higher upkeep to send in to battle? When the gunpowder/shot is used up reload time is increased 100-200%, similar to Ultimate General guns

[Remus]

One outcome of the paucity of rewards is PvP Marks becoming readily available on the market, as players will need to supplement the gold from combat.

I had reckoned PvP marks would sell for about 100k, but I now reckon it'll be more like 25k. I doubt it'll be much less as players simply won't bother selling if the income isn't enough to replace lost ships, but even 25k makes them far more valuable than the gold from combat, looking at the screenshots at the top of this thread.

PvE Marks will be deflated similarly. I had reckoned 5k each but it'll probably be closer to 2k, depending how many players want perk respecs, which is surely going to be their biggest use. This puts the PvE to PvP mark ratio at close on the 10:1 they are now in the Admiralty. It may be even worse than that if lots of players want respecs.

[Tiedemann]

I belive that if we get the kill on a player ship and do all the damage to that our self (reward is % based on how much dmg we do), we get around the same amount of gold that the player bought the ship for in the shop (AI price). This is to prevent alt gold farming and makes sense to me. The issue might be that the rewards are all based on prices of AI ships sold in ports, and the cost for AI ships is and has always been to low.
So if the devs have based the rewards ingame for killing ships on the fact that Rennome cost 60.000 gold, Suprise 80.000 and Connie 200.000, all rewards for higher rated ships will be to low. If you double all the AI ship prices we have on test bed, then we might get somewhere.

Right now I do not think PvP is rewarding enough to bother, considering the risk involved. Sure we could and will most likely all go out in big groups with fast ships to reduce the risk, and then only gank other players. I fear this outcome, because for me the ganking is just to boring in the long run.
On test bed we are given full xp ranks, ships and 1M gold on start up as redemable. Wipes are frequent and then we get new redemables. So the aggressiv PvP play style you see there, is not comparable with what it would be if we all started at zero.

This is a hip shot from and not though thru at all. It's kinda based on what we are all used to from PvE and then with a 10x for OW PvP and 12.5x for PB. It is what you get if you solo kill a ship, if you get help it is % based, so you have to share the gold and xp.

	PvE			PvP OW		PvP PB
	Kill gold	Kill XP	Mark	Kill gold	Kill XP	Kill gold	Kill XP
1. rate	100 000	1 000	10	1 000 000	10 000	1 500 000	12 500
2. rate	75 000	750	8	750 000	7 500	1 125 000	9 375
3. rate	65 000	650	7	650 000	6 500	975 000	8 125
4. rate	50 000	500	5	500 000	5 000	750 000	6 250
5. rate	30 000	300	3	300 000	3 000	450 000	3 750
6. rate	15 000	150	2	150 000	1 500	225 000	1 875
7. rate	7 500	75	1	75 000	750	112 500	938

This is what I would want for bothering trying to hunt someone down and then successfully killing him/her. If I'm supposed to risk my trinc that has cannons worth more than 250.000 gold, I need to be able to make more than 250.000 gold.  

[Hethwill]

Good analysis.

But isn't a heavy ship "planned" as a long term investment ? Meaning it will be able, if the captain is able, to cover its investment ? What is the life expectancy of a built ship ?

If it is a NPC ship and looking at those numbers it pays itself in 2 to 5 PvP OW battles if we consider 4th rate and above.

As I see it if the ONE single OW PvP covers my built ship, technically I can buy 5 NPC ships and do 25x times the return investment and keep the snowball rolling. After all, in OW PvP, quantity is a quality on its own whatever skill or perks of gimmicks

[NavalActionPlayer]

13 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

[snip]

 You need to get XP off your damage.  The credits and Marks I can say stay with the assist and kills, but xp should be rewarded no mater if you sink something or not.   

Oh and this was exactly what I was complaining back when every one was running around in 6/7th rates and saying it was ok.  Yes in low tiers I think it's balanced right.  Mid tier it's not enough and I haven't played any SOl's to know what they would be like.     If you got 9K credits for 2 asssit in a SOL PB that is just insanely to low.  Wouldn't even pay for your crew lost for the most part and what every you had to replace like repairs.

This - not just Tex but a LOT of us have been saying much the same thing.

If you win and if you kill something you should get xp, if you damage something you get xp. Gold and Marks - you get them. If it's PVP you get more than PVE. This needs a buff upwards.

If you lose but kill or damage something then you should still get some xp (and in my view some gold too) but less than if you win. Maybe 10% of what the winner gets but at least we'd get something...more for PVP than PVE as with winners.

The current 'lose and you get nothing' model, no matter how well you fought, how outnumbered you were, how many ships you sunk or damaged, does nothing to encourage players to risk anything. Hell, it does not even encourage taking a risk against the NPCs.

Edited May 21, 2017 by NavalActionPlayer

[Jarlath Morrow]

40 minutes ago, The Red Duke said:

But isn't a heavy ship "planned" as a long term investment ? Meaning it will be able, if the captain is able, to cover its investment ? What is the life expectancy of a built ship ?

If you go by some of the guys I played with back when I was a new captain, the life expectancy of a new ship is about as long as it takes to sail up to the mission AI and get boarded.

[NavalActionPlayer]

9 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Actually you only get if you did any assit or kills and won.  So say you where in the back of the pack and didn't get any damge or hardly any but your team wins. YOU GET NOTHING.  Say I send you over to circle C to cap it and no one goes to stop you and the fight ends.  YOU GET NOTHING.

This too