[RvR] Nations that become too powerful

[HarryButpain]

Look at the requirements to make a niagara. You don't need that ship at all to survive this game. What you need to survive and have a fair chance in NA, however, should be accessible to everyone (winners, losers, big or small nations). 

Not accessible to everyone should be 'bells and whistles' ships, modules, and maybe even an additional type of ammo or cannon that you can only obtain through the accumulation of victory marks et cetera (just get creative) but still isn't necessarily better than the stuff that everyone in NA can obtain. Such rewards could even have crass drawbacks that make them worse in some situations where 'normal' items are actually better. People wanna get creative with their ship builds.. 

I, therefore, think only thing devs have to do is to look at 'ship paint' and expand on that. 

It is, however, nonsensical to expect weaker or smaller nations to fight increasingly greater odds, what devs do when they reward winners or bigger nations with flat out better stuff. 

For the last time, you need counterbalances to keep strong nations in check. 

After PB either all players of a nation or participants of PB will be able to make bids to auction off the conquered harbour (kinda like ebay). If nobody bids the port will remain in the hands of the original owner. At the beginning of the game or after a server wipe regions in possession of a nation will have no owner (governor), once people start RvR and ports change ownership this will change. People can, however, sail to a given region and make bids regardless. 

What I would like, for example, are weekly fees owners of regions have to pay so that a nation or empire can maintain its size. Region/Harbour owners, however, get taxes from all business that is being made in their region and can use their/his income to make their/his region 'better'. Like build better defenses or create buildings to lower labor hours for everybody in the entire region et cetera. 

The more regions a nation owns, the higher the weekly fees. If an owner doesn't pay fees the region will go back to the original owner (or maybe even the pirates (the port wouldn't require an immediate auction to get an owner but bids are possible just like after a server wipe) or 'neutral white flag nation'). 

Owning all the regions in the game shouldn't be financially possible or at least not reasonable as long as every single player of a server isn't sailing for the same nation, but every region should have unique bonuses at the same time that make you wanna capture them. Like bonuses that make ships 'different', for example, besides available resources, wood types or bonuses that help a player economically. Let's say one region makes all crafted ships in that particular region or harbour faster and one makes sails tougher, for example. The point is that regardless of modules or wood type et cetera there can still be surprises in pvp when ships made in different regions fight each other. Add on top of that wood types, modules, and skill books to make ships become very different from each other. It's is up to the devs to find a geographical balance for regions and their individual benefits, ship buffs, or whatever you wanna add to make regions more interesting.

A way to force ppl out of their capital is to add 'periods of exhaustion' to a region. Like when every single player of a nation builds ships and gains his resources in the capital's region, the region will be very soon exhausted. Trees will be cut and gold veins be drained.. At this point players will have to wait or pay very high production costs for some time until the particular region has recuperated. Players are expected to leave and spread over the many different regions their nation controls. There needs to be an extra town tab of course that inform players about the port's general situation (e.g., economically, level of exhaustion in relation to players that alrdy build there et cetera). 

If a nation has more regions than the playerbase is able to finance or use for that particular matter, the nation's amount of regions will shrink to the size adequate to the playerbase's financial and numerical capabilities.

Edited July 30, 2017 by HarryButpain

[Vizzini]

It's up to the other nations to get organized , not much else needed

[HarryButpain]

yes, currently NA's RvR mechanics rely entirely on human behaviour and 'good sense', I wonder how that will turn out, especially with alliances in mind.. 

[Batman]

Sweden is a dead nation?

[Batman]

1 hour ago, rediii said:

pirates. denmark is attacking pirates today

You took three regions from that dead nation the moment SORRY disappeared. Talk about attacking dead nations? Shhhshh back were you came from.

[Anolytic]

1 hour ago, rediii said:

pirates. denmark is attacking pirates today

Hmm. Seems we overestimated Sweden's intelligence gathering. Baracoa is not an attack, it's a trade. The details leaked a week ago. I guess nobody even wants to talk to the Swedes after you went around and tried to threaten everybody to your side.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Anolytic

[Batman]

Just now, rediii said:

We dont realy work with spys unlike you. We want to battle it out.  

Thats why you wanted devs to check to Port Battles against sweden created within hostility window.

[Skully]

More politics in here than I would expect. 

3 hours ago, HarryButpain said:

A way to force ppl out of their capital is to add 'periods of exhaustion' to a region. Like when every single player of a nation builds ships and gains his resources in the capital's region, the region will be very soon exhausted. Trees will be cut and gold veins be drained.. At this point players will have to wait or pay very high production costs for some time until the particular region has recuperated. Players are expected to leave and spread over the many different regions their nation controls. 

Isn't this counter to the intent? A small Nation is more afflicted by region exhaustion as opposed a large one.

Creating a shortage of resources only benefits the hardcore, not the casual.

[Batman]

21 minutes ago, rediii said:

Because we wrote that devs will change the text.

You, Sir, are the hero of Naval Action.

[Hethwill]

Large populations do deplete resources faster than the lower populated.

This can be a slight thing to think about if we ever see cross nation trade locked ( trade by surrendering ships and goods if you really have to do it ).

[Rebel Witch]

the most crippling aspect of this games mmo mechanic is its RVR. If it does not change then this game will die just like pirates of the burning sea , not long after its released. the RVR is also a headache the devs cannot figure out how to balance.

the solution is simple. go to an EVE Online mechanic where you have a high sec with the npc nations that are kind of starter or for player rebuilding, but most important is RVR is between player made nations on 90% of the map, players duke it out for their own nations. that means players take over the ports and they are theirs not some npc country. such kind of rvr encourages more player involvement and ownership of RVR.

the current npc country RVR is a failed mechanic that the devs cant figure out how to balance, its crippling the games development. why the devs wont even try a player ownership of ports style RVR is either because they cant due to coding or they have it all figured out and just plan to make the game great at launch, or they are just new to MMO's and have no idea how flawed their RVR is for long term play.

[Slim McSauce]

16 minutes ago, Rebel Witch said:

the most crippling aspect of this games mmo mechanic is its RVR. If it does not change then this game will die just like pirates of the burning sea , not long after its released. the RVR is also a headache the devs cannot figure out how to balance.

the solution is simple. go to an EVE Online mechanic where you have a high sec with the npc nations that are kind of starter or for player rebuilding, but most important is RVR is between player made nations on 90% of the map, players duke it out for their own nations. that means players take over the ports and they are theirs not some npc country. such kind of rvr encourages more player involvement and ownership of RVR.

the current npc country RVR is a failed mechanic that the devs cant figure out how to balance, its crippling the games development. why the devs wont even try a player ownership of ports style RVR is either because they cant due to coding or they have it all figured out and just plan to make the game great at launch, or they are just new to MMO's and have no idea how flawed their RVR is for long term play.

this

[HarryButpain]

1 hour ago, Skully said:

More politics in here than I would expect. 

Isn't this counter to the intent? A small Nation is more afflicted by region exhaustion as opposed a large one.

Creating a shortage of resources only benefits the hardcore, not the casual.

Yes, I'm generally thinking in terms of a 'dynamic weighing scale'. In other words or in the case of RvR, the stronger you are, the harder it is to maintain your strenght or dominance. This could also work to make ganking less interesting. If the game would 'think' and adjust to the ever changing nature of a player driven game dynamically, rewards would be way less in an unfair fight than in a fair fight, thus would encourage players to seek more even challenges. Ganks should turn more into clans training their noob players instead of a reasonable source of income for everybody: 

On 7/18/2017 at 7:21 PM, HarryButpain said:

Game should calculate number of cannons (including class/weight) in battle + ship class + caused dmg on both sides and give rewards accordingly.. If a fight has an equal amount of cannons, the winner gets a decent reward as long as enough dmg on both sides was caused. If not, the reward will be nerfed like when only one side causes dmg. If you win against a greater number of cannons the reward will be even better as long as an obvious amount of dmg on both sides was caused. 

• You kill merchants or warships without cannons for cargo and not for XP/gold reward. Very low XP/gold rewards. No cargo = bummer.
• If you cap a ship, XP/gold reward is drastically nerfed compared to combat where you sink the enemy. Reward here is primarily ship + cargo. 
• Surrender option from now on only possible until the 'allowed to jump out' clock activates for the first time.

This will make players seek fair fights and known exploits economically unreasonable.

Devs will come up with a list of 'normal' battle results. Any 'unusual' battle results according to the established parameters of the described reward system will be automatically send to game-labs for further obeservation.

To go back to the idea of a 'dynamic weighing scale', the game should adjust to the amount of existing players on a server and their allegiance. If everybody on a server sails for let's say the pirates, as an extreme example, but the pirates own only the region of mortimer town, then the game should adjust to that fact and extend production periods before mortimer town's region becomes exhausted. If the pirates, however, or whatever nation you wanna use in this example, is in control of countless of regions and every player of this nation still stubbornly refuses to leave the nation's capital region, then this region will naturally face the resource exhaustion period faster than when your nation only holds one sole region. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by HarryButpain

[HarryButpain]

27 minutes ago, Rebel Witch said:

the current npc country RVR is a failed mechanic that the devs cant figure out how to balance, its crippling the games development. why the devs wont even try a player ownership of ports style RVR is either because they cant due to coding or they have it all figured out and just plan to make the game great at launch, or they are just new to MMO's and have no idea how flawed their RVR is for long term play.

completely agree!

[CaptVonGunn]

10 hours ago, Rebel Witch said:

 

the solution is simple. go to an EVE Online mechanic where you have a high sec with the npc nations that are kind of starter or for player rebuilding, but most important is RVR is between player made nations on 90% of the map, players duke it out for their own nations. that means players take over the ports and they are theirs not some npc country. such kind of rvr encourages more player involvement and ownership of RVR.

Which is why I suggested the Med. With the ability to Basically fast sail from an exit point in Europe to 1 of maybe a 1/2 dozen exit points at ports (Free Towns )in the Main game area.. So PvEers could do their thing and deliver stuff to the front. But it would still need to be sold at the FT or transferred to friends that would have to sail it to the destinations.. just an idea

 

     I guess last year they were talking about using the West coast  of  from California down to like Peru.. for PVE on same server.. 

[Skully]

19 hours ago, Rebel Witch said:

the RVR is also a headache the devs cannot figure out how to balance.

Admin needs to realize that a sandbox warfare game will never have a fair balance. At that point this can also be put forward as an expectation to any new player.

As for safe zones:

The mechanics need to provide good goals and better trade-offs.

Why would a PvP player go to an enemy capital?
The investment of going there has the greatest odds of getting into some sort of fight.

Bring back avatar TP to every asset and you'll see them going over the map going after veterans, instead of puppies.

Why would a RvR player go to an enemy capital?
Wear down the enemy. There is no need to capture regions, because there is nothing to win.

Make one-porting a goal and ultimately let the capital fall. Let the RvR player go for the full work-out. And if it happens, let it happen.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Skully

[Slim McSauce]

3 hours ago, Skully said:

Admin needs to realize that a sandbox warfare game will never have a fair balance. At that point this can also be put forward as an expectation to any new player.

As for safe zones:

 

 

 

The mechanics need to provide good goals and better trade-offs.

Why would a PvP player go to an enemy capital?
The investment of going there has the greatest odds of getting into some sort of fight.

Bring back avatar TP to every asset and you'll see them going over the map going after veterans, instead of puppies.

Why would a RvR player go to an enemy capital?
Wear down the enemy. There is no need to capture regions, because there is nothing to win.

Make one-porting a goal and ultimately let the capital fall. Let the RvR player go for the full work-out. And if it happens, let it happen.

The RVR mechanics are too busted to make that in anyway fun for either sides

Edited July 30, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Skully]

2 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

The RVR mechanics are too busted to make that in anyway fun for either sides

Do you consider losing fun?

Given that this is a competitive game, somebody has to lose. What conditions of losing would you concede to as being fun?