Forthcoming patch final discussion.

[vazco]

The main issue that I see is that PvP will be harder to get due to additional protection, while it won't give enough rewards to be profitable. 2x XP and gold is definitely much too little. PvP will die out... We need much better incentives to PvP, best for those kind of fights that are interesting (that is, not chasing/running, but actually fighting).

I'm not sure if in this idea hostile clans from the same nation would be able to attack each other ports. Is this a case? If not, it won't change situation a lot, as clans will just talk about how they divide ports within nation, just like it was happening with Victory marks. I'm not sure if it's good or bad, just similar.
 

Remaining changes are interesting.

 

 

ps. some ideas for better incentives for PvP (just as examples):

• inflicting a damage in battle, even if you don't sink a ship, could give XP (there are options to secure it from exploits, eg. by differentiating XP based on your enemy's renown)
• increased rewards for PvP by 10x, and secure them from exploits (again, can be done in a few different ways)
• introduce different types of PvP missions, which require players from both sides to join and which increase variety and give unique rewards (eg. after 10 such battles you could get an unique paint)

Edited August 21, 2017 by vazco

[admin]

3 minutes ago, vazco said:

The main issue that I see is that PvP will be harder to get due to additional protection, while it won't give enough rewards to be profitable. 2x XP and gold is definitely much too little. PvP will die out... We need much better incentives to PvP, best for those kind of fights that are interesting (that is, not chasing/running, but actually fighting).

why don't pvp players pvp each other? We tell them where they are exactly for that. But they group up for some reason and gank missions. Asking to move them out of green zone

[IndianaGeoff]

Not seeing this solve the new player problem.

The New Player problem is progression.  Yes, reducing hunting of newbs will help.  But the problem is the lack of intermediate steps before RVR.  Now they have to guess the right clan if they want to progress.

There needs to be national activities that are very hard (RvR), medium (old flag system) and easy (random pvp pack hunting).  Not saying any of those are easy per se, but the barrier to entry is lower.  Get rid of the grind.  Almost all of it except levels for fighting and crafting and grinding for mats to build ships.  Better captains will beat people on a equal ship.  The new guy does not stand a chance when he is under experienced, lower fleeted (if he has one) and is facing a fully maxed ship with vastly better upgrades. 

Make a workable trade mission system that actually encourages people to go out and smuggle.  That will encourage exploration.  Stop the sail all the way across the world with 3 trips in a traders brig to double your money after investing 200k in the trade goods.  One trip in a lynx from one corner to the other should be worth 300k and minimal investment.  Do the same in a LGV and it should be worth a million or more.  If I am willing to sail a LGV for 3 or 4 hours through hostile waters, make it worth it.  Granted a player should only get those a couple times a week.  Also create missions for the goods you have in hand.  If I cap a 100 units of Norwegian Beaver Musk, let me go into a port, find a mission for that and encourage met so sail to an enemy port for healthy bonus.  Again, not a that often, maybe once or twice a day, but make it worth.

BTW, It happened again.  A  new guy I helped out a couple weeks ago is not logging in anymore.  4th or 5th one in a row. Do something.

[z4ys]

1 minute ago, admin said:

You were brainwashed by haters mate.

2000 unique logins. 75 unique players in combat news channel. Even if there are 200 alts. what are the rest 1000 players doing? Definitely not pvp. 

Pve = gives more gold/h ; more xp/h ; easy accessible ; less risk (on paper); more marks/h

Thats why I said pvp unfirendly.

What is the averge onlinetime of the 2000 or 1000 players?

[Liq]

I think at this point it's safe to say that if you're mainly intetested of having a reliable source of TRUE pvp, as in somewhat fair and equalish battles (and  not 5v1 roflstomps), you will probably be more successful by playing NA Arena.

NA sandbox will now with these changes, hyper NPC fleet reinforcements and Forever open battles, try to please the RvR audience. I've come to the conclusion that it was a good idea to split the game in two sub games. Pleasing both in one version lead to non-pvers leaving because of getting attacked, and then the pvpera leave because they couldnt find any more targets. Snake biting its own tail.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Liquicity

[Sir Texas Sir]

6 minutes ago, admin said:

You were brainwashed by haters mate. Alts infestations were invented by players to explain their inability to win port battles. There are alts for sure but the problem is drastically overrated.

2000 unique logins. 75 unique players in combat news channel. Even if there are 200 alts. what are the rest 1700 players doing? Definitely not pvp. 

This is point on, 100 players should be able to out play 25 players with alts.   It's all about being organized and working as a team.  Folks with alts just do what others can do with a little team work and organization.   I'll use an example today's Savannah port battle on GLOBAL.  It was 24 Pirates defending against 25 US.   I'll let folks in on a secret....that wasn't 24 pirates they where playing.  They lost to an even smaller number of guys with a few of use dual boxing to fill in the numbers. I won't say how many, but it wasn't 24 players in that fight.   So when I use to say 15-20 all the time is what keeps beating them I'm not joking. Back in the flags day I have had two chars in two different port battles before back on the old flag system.  It makes our 15-20 guys look more like 50 guys when we do this.  Again this is nothing more than organization and team work.  Many of us have refused to dual box port battles like that any more as it burned us out but it was the only way to fight against the largest nations in the same alliance that refused to fight each other.

So far the info looks good and I think it will be a nice change, the only problem I'm seeing is the Neutral Town thing will prob be over done as every one will just make the port neutral so they can use it like the old alliance system or something.  Maybe can we think about the Land Grant system that got shot down for this system so that those that went to the port battle can buy buildings in ports cheaper than those that don't incase we set ports to neutral or something. 

Oh and please don't put a range on hostility missions as that keeps smaller nations from heading out on there own or setting up far away beach fronts of control.

[Prater]

5 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

I think at this point it's safe to say that if you're mainly intetested of having a reliable source of TRUE pvp, as in somewhat fair and equalish battles (and  not 5v1 roflstomps), you will probably be more successful by playing NA Arena.

NA sandbox will now with these changes, hyper NPC fleet reinforcements and Forever open battles, try to please the RvR audience. I've come to the conclusion that it was a good idea to split the game in two sub games. Pleasing both in one version lead to non-pvers leaving because of getting attacked, and then the pvpera leave because they couldnt find any more targets. Snake biting its own tail.

They only said hostility missions will be open 1.5 hours, not all fights.

[IndianaGeoff]

1 minute ago, Liquicity said:

I think at this point it's safe to say that if you're mainly intetested of having a reliable source of TRUE pvp, as in somewhat fair and equalish battles (and  not 5v1 roflstomps), you will probably be more successful by playing NA Arena.

NA sandbox will now with these changes, hyper NPC fleet reinforcements and Forever open battles, try to please the RvR audience. I've come to the conclusion that it was a good idea to split the game in two sub games. Pleasing both in one version lead to non-pvers leaving because kf getting attacked, and then the pvpera leave because they couldnt find any more targets. Snake biting its own tail.

I disagree.  You can move PvE newbs to PvP over time.  But they need to taste it first.  My first taste was running with other nationals in a flag run.  I was in a cheap snow and got sunk after the battle.  But I learned and did something useful and got better.

[Stilgar]

I thought in the original clan conquest discussion the idea was to concentrate capturable ports around center of the map. That was a good idea, but it is not clear if this is still the plan.

Furthermore, what's the ratio between capturable and non-capturable ports? With current population we'd unlikely need too many capturable ports, to keep some competition.

Finally, please make sure nations get (clusters of) non-capturable towns in different parts of the map, so the clans have some choice in setting their "kingdoms" in part of the map of their choice. Nations were for too long confined to certain part of the map.

 

[elite92]

9 minutes ago, admin said:

why don't pvp players pvp each other?

infinite repairs? dont u see that in last months after wipe battle lasts everytime 1h+?

it's true, legends is coming but meanwhile PvP players are losing hours and hours of they life chasing ships that runs and repairs , runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, ecc

[Sir Texas Sir]

1 minute ago, elite92 said:

infinite repairs? dont u see that in last months after wipe battle lasts everytime 1h+?

it's true, legends is coming but meanwhile PvP players are losing hours and hours of they life chasing ships that runs and repairs , runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, runs and repairs, ecc

While I agree the demasting right after patch was way to easy, but it needs to be back to pre-patch levels, but part of the reason every one was demasting ships was cause with Repairs and the speed meta it was the only way to catch these speed demons is to get them demasted very quick upon start of the battle or they will just out run you and out repair you.  Specially with Surprise and there super laser accurate stern guns they can keep multy ships at bay chasing them while folks tend to miss half there shots on the bow guns even if they have more combine.  I think the laser accuracy needs to be removed from the stern guns with the current in game system it's not needed any more.

[JobaSet]

26 minutes ago, admin said:

You were brainwashed by haters mate. Alts infestations were invented by players to explain their inability to win port battles. There are alts for sure but the problem is drastically overrated.

2000 unique logins. 75 unique players in combat news channel. Even if there are 200 alts. what are the rest 1700 players doing? Definitely not pvp. 

I wish you would Say stuff like this more often

[fox2run]

17 minutes ago, admin said:

why don't pvp players pvp each other? We tell them where they are exactly for that. But they group up for some reason and gank missions. Asking to move them out of green zone

I was a pvper. But the hours required to build ships was too much. And I disliked being in a clan full of teens. So I stopped playing the game. But that was back in the old days of course when a lot of players was online... I liked the multi dura system. If I lost a ship it wasnt the end of the world. Now it is. So if you make it cheaper and more forgivable to play, I might play again. 

[IndianaGeoff]

1 minute ago, Peter Goldman said:

Why PvE players are not playing on PvE server? Just a simple question.

Because there is a balance between risk and frustration.

[IndianaGeoff]

2 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Apparently, there is lots of frustration by PvE players on PvP server about PvP. I am totally lost. A Huge majority (more than 90%) is not doing any PvP activity on PvP server? Something is wrong.

Because it is a sandbox game and many (me included) like to accomplish goals with the risk of pvp.  I also participate in group pvp at times.  But as I said, the balance has to be there.  I don't go out and hunt traders or easy kills.  That has little appeal for me.

[The Ghost of Sir Edward]

Give the game PVE content that will support players who are out in remote areas. If captains have something to do while waiting to see another player they'll be moe likely to have a postive experience and stay.

[Bart Smith]

9 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Apparently, there is lots of frustration by PvE players on PvP server about PvP. I am totally lost. A Huge majority (more than 90%) is not doing any PvP activity on PvP server? Something is wrong.

This is quite normal - vets are having fun - those who get sunked few times just back to PvE or eco. Solution? Do not sunk noobs and do not camp capitals - but to do so we need better rewards from pew pew and lure more guys to try pvp

[Anne Wildcat]

4 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Apparently, there is lots of frustration by PvE players on PvP server about PvP. I am totally lost. A Huge majority (more than 90%) is not doing any PvP activity on PvP server? Something is wrong.

For one thing I wish repairs were for sale by the NPC, for higher than craft cost.  Got into two PVP fights today on Global off the US coast (I'm French) and now I'm out of rig repairs. I need to now sail around looking for resources to make repairs or spend time hitting NPCs (🤢) And hope to get repairs.  

 

Sorry for being off topic. 

[Helbent]

1 hour ago, admin said:

• Hostility and map rework
  • All ports will be split into capturable and non-capturable - the amount of ports will represent gameplay difficulty on these original difficulty levels
    • Spain easy
    • Britain easy
    • USA easy
    • France medium
    • Netherlands medium
    • Pirates hard 
    • Denmark hard (only 3 uncapturable ports)
    • Sweden very very very hard (only 1 uncapturable port)

 

 

Do you have a map of what this actually looks like? 

[Anne Wildcat]

"

• We can set mission distance from the port so nations expand their territory gradually (not jumping directly into the backyards of their enemies). 

"

 

I like that, always thought wars should be fought on fronts. 

[IndianaGeoff]

10 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Most of the players run from fair and even fights. They want to have superiority and then they want to fight. That's a huge issue that's inside the heads of players. NO RISK AT ALL.

I never saw this as a game of fair fights.  I see it as a strategic game of getting into a fight in your favor.

Not unlike a lot of war games, you win by bringing more power to one point than the other side.

As far as unfair fights... then why do people take traders in war ships?   That is the essence of unfair.

[Doug Maoz]

1 hour ago, admin said:

• Economy tuning
  • Number of trips required for crafting will be drastically reduced
  • Ship prices will be adapted to better suit older costs that included durabilities
  • Combat marks permits and skill book prices will be adapted but some ships will remain rare and expensive
  • Trading resources placement will be improved and demand and supply volumes adapted for new system

Woohoo for cheaper ships! I'm sure this will bring out more people if ships are more easily replaced.

1 hour ago, admin said:

• Hostility and map rework
  • All ports will be split into capturable and non-capturable - the amount of ports will represent gameplay difficulty on these original difficulty levels
    • Spain easy
    • Britain easy
    • USA easy
    • France medium
    • Netherlands medium
    • Pirates hard 
    • Denmark hard (only 3 uncapturable ports)
    • Sweden very very very hard (only 1 uncapturable port)
  • Conquest will remain national - but will be ran by clans
    • Clans gain hostility for the nation
    • But rights to entry to port battle is decided only by clan who has highest hostility points for that port (only that clan and his allied clans will be able to enter) 
  • War supplies will be abandoned
  • Regions will be split into individual towns. Nations will conquer individual cities. 
    • Because regions will be removed from hostility (but will remain for historical purposes)
    • We can set mission distance from the port so nations expand their territory gradually (not jumping directly into the backyards of their enemies). 
  • All capturable ports will be set as neutral during map reset (we could set them as historical national, but we wanted to give players an option to move resources out if they happened to move there). 
  • Neutral towns will have NPC defenses in port battle if they are attacked
  • Because we will no longer need hostility related bots all OW bots can set into traders and occasional combat privateers who will attack players and enter battles from time to time (as before)

Cool ideas! I'm eager to try them out. I'm glad to see different nations have different difficulty based on unconquerable ports; I saw many brits start in an "easy" nation and quickly quit when they saw they were one-ported and could not do much. Now those difficulties mean something to a new player despite map conditions!

1 hour ago, admin said:

Regions will be split into individual towns. Nations will conquer individual cities. 

• Because regions will be removed from hostility (but will remain for historical purposes)
• Hostility will now be raised using hostility missions or pvp or pvp in missions, (that will come back)
  • Missions will only spawn in a certain radius near the town
  • These missions will be open for all 1.5 hours so both defenders and attackers can react and come to the rescue
• We can set mission distance from the port so nations expand their territory gradually (not jumping directly into the backyards of their enemies). 

Does this mean all missions are going back to hostility missions, and thus all missions are open for the full hour and a half?

Also, are there any plans to change after-battle protections for AI OW fleet engagements? I'd like to see the super-speed and invis removed from those...

[Koltes]

1 hour ago, admin said:

• • Clans will be able purchase trading outpost in the city increasing the volume of trading resources sold or bought in the town
    • 1. under consideration - clans will be able to set reinforcement level for their city
    • 2. under consideration - clans will be able to set the time they can be attacked on (like the old lord protector role) but this will cost money this time.
  • Clans will have to pay maintenance for cities they control
    • Maintenance will automatically be paid 
    • 3. Maintenance will be calculated based on the city tax level but will not be lower than X (for example 500k per day)

 

I like EVERYTHING! It is 100% an improvement on the current and what we have been asking for a long time! THANK YOU!
But do have a suggestion on the above.
1. Reinforcement - should be AI entering PB to make up for the lack of numbers. This can be set by the clan - press button and reinforcements arrive.
2. Please do NOT make 2 hours timers when ports can be attacked. Instead allow to set 6 hours when ports CANT be attacked, thus allowing clan to protect 6 hours when they are most vulnerable due to lack of number of players online. This way they cant lock other clans from attacking due to bad time zone (there is still 18 hours our of 24 when they can be attacked).
3. Maintenance should be paid monthly by the leader or officers of the clan. Just like in EVE. Please dont do it automatically. When if they still have warehouse in there, but decided to abandon the port? The port will take money automatically. Also please don't make it unaffordable. 

Extending clan importance is just awesome! But we will also need additional tools for the diplomacy. Because now its more clan vs clan rather than nation vs nation we need simple in-game standings set by clan leadership that players of the clan will be able to see when they interact with other players.

I proposed a spyglass method some time ago. It would be an awesome and so SO welcoming addition to the current UI rework.

[MerimAh]

not bad

[IndianaGeoff]

3 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Traders were never meant for fighting, thus fair fights. When we talk about fair, we talk only about warships. Situation:

Surprise vs Surprise, one player wants to run. He will always get away with 4 stern chasers vs 2 bow chasers, and crazy sniper accuracy of stern chasers. One of these players won't take on that fight? 50/50, too big risk? Players complain about risk and want to gank. Players complain about ganking because it's unfair. We have a circle that's closed and we keep circling. Players don't want to fight the odds or fair fights and players don't want to be ganked, but they get ganked and complain about ganking.

Yes, that is why one takes a surprise, it is supreme at getting away.  Not so good at other things.  You don't get every fight you want.  And running is a much a part of naval warfare as fighting.

Just look at your post.  You are OK with ganking largely helpless traders but mad when a ship has superior disengage.