A complete fix to RVR

[Slim McSauce]

11 minutes ago, Raekur said:

You split my statement in half and thus may not have understood what I was presenting. My idea is that the battle should conclude in 72 hours regardless of any ships being sunk. If the only ship sunk is a cutter (thus the 60% is not reached but it would push the percent to maybe 51 or 52) then the victory should still be granted. This prevents stalemates from occurring due to one side not showing up. I see that later there was mention of AI ships counting as a smaller percent but I still feel that whoever is ahead at the end of the 72 hours should still take the prize. The only concern I have in this case is mass assault tactics where multiple ports are attacked at the same time and small raids to get the percentage moved is done. This could allow multiple ports to be captured if the defenders do nothing. Granted something like that could easily occur in RL with a larger force attacking a smaller one and thus extra units could be sent so secondary targets. It mostly depends on how much of a blitz attack you want to permit. 

 

I believe this is the reason for including Ai ships at a smaller percentage.

The reason for 60% is to simulate the defenders advantage. The forts and towers are still active but its not enough for the defender.

This number can be adjusted. a limit can be placed on how many *contested* ports a nation can create to prevent mass port sweeps

One way is make the closer to capital the port is, the higher % is required to capture, so a nations main area will require 70-75% to capture, which also helps the problem of large nations wiping out smaller ones

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[jodgi]

Hey, @OlFson! Did you play tanks with the [IDEAL] guys? 

[Raekur]

Just now, Slim Jimmerson said:

see

So out of the entire suggestion, this being the most glaring issue from admin... Does this mean this solution could be implemented without major fault? Or atleast up for consideration?

I think the largest issue will be determining how to actually get this to work without an instance to separate the port battle from open world. To do this in an open world setting the battles need to be attributed to one specific port or another. This will be an issue in areas where the ports are fairly close together (since we are now operating with the idea of individual ports instead of regions). 

[Slim McSauce]

1 hour ago, Raekur said:

I think the largest issue will be determining how to actually get this to work without an instance to separate the port battle from open world. To do this in an open world setting the battles need to be attributed to one specific port or another. This will be an issue in areas where the ports are fairly close together (since we are now operating with the idea of individual ports instead of regions). 

Circles around the individual ports to determine the contested areas. There will be an issue with overlapping circles, but this can be fixed by setting the contested port to take priority over a port that isn't in the contested state. And any hostilities go to the port with the most hostilities already. (no shared % between ports in any circumstance)

The instance is just the normal battle instance form OW tagging. The circles will be pretty tight around the ports, but any defender will never be to far away from the port to where they cant sail back and take cover under the forts. Which is basically the same thing as the PB instance.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[admin]

20 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

 

So out of the entire suggestion, this being the most glaring issue from admin... Does this mean this solution could be implemented without major fault? Or atleast up for consideration?

Pareto principle. 20% of things cause 80% of problems. The problems that we are facing and fixing are not RVR related and in some cases RVR is the source of the problems with the game (fixing them does not fix the issues with the game)

In addition to that take tonnage wars for example. How is your proposal different from what we have now? 
One side has to sink players and AI (tonnage or br points or hostility points). Another side has to counter that. Whats the difference between your proposal (sink ai and players) with the current system (sink ai and players)

And where is the resolution? And where is the time saving? So instead of the get the port to 100% and arrive and win the port battle the next day. I now have to commit to 3 days of tonnage wars 24/7 to win the PB. 

[Bart Smith]

19 hours ago, Peter Goldman said:

 

I suggested blockade aka enemy presence in territorial waters for hostility generation. Fleet with higher BR would gain hostility, PvP kills as huge impact on hostility. If no one counters port blockade, port is flipped for PB (scheduled next day giving time for preperation).

Suggested those since 2014...just not happening. Enemy presence in area may gain hostility very slowly, sinking npc slow and sinking players could give a boost to hostility. Combine those three and lot of action for everybody in certain area.

[Slim McSauce]

9 minutes ago, admin said:

Pareto principle. 20% of things cause 80% of problems. The problems that we are facing and fixing are not RVR related and in some cases RVR is the source of the problems with the game (fixing them does not fix the issues with the game)

In addition to that take tonnage wars for example. How is your proposal different from what we have now? 
One side has to sink players and AI (tonnage or br points or hostility points). Another side has to counter that. Whats the difference between your proposal (sink ai and players with the current system (sink ai and players)

Because this removes the limited element of the single PB action that's limited to 25 direct players per nation, and a 1 hour time window where a PB takes place, and turns it into essentially multiple PBs, with no restricting time window, where the entire nation can directly contribute with the conquest of a port.

A full server in NA hold 2000 people? If PBs stay limited to 25 people a side then at max 1-2% of players will ever be involved in RVR, which is vastly underwhelming considering the importance of it.

That and PBs simply don't carry the same sense of grand epicness that OW PVP does. People don't care about RVR anymore because its rinse and repeat every time. Raise hostility, the elite 25 with decked out 1st rates go to the port, duke it out with their elite 25v25 all the while the rest of the hundreds of people in nation can only sit and wait. 

It makes no sense that OW PVP is larger scale, more strategic, and grander than RVR which literally decides the map.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Slim McSauce]

3 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

With the new system you can have unlimited number of port battles each day, almost like with old flag system. About 100 RvR ports? Not sure how man we will get, but that my bet. 2500/50=50.

We need only 50 Port Battles one day to fit 2500 players in Port Battles. That's just a simulation.

ok so say 2 nations are at war. 

In order to allow everyone to be involved in Nation v Nation conquest, 7 port battles need to be hostility grinded and set at the same time in order to get these to nations at full scale war.

Does this sound like a reasonable way to do RVR? Why not just allow everyone to fight for a single port instead of all chaotically  scattering to take individual ports?

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Slim McSauce]

43 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

First, "hostility grinding" in any form rejects majority of the players leaving 5% of game population in PBs. Most "Hostility Fleets" are like 5-15 players and suddenly 30-40 players want to go into PB. Either flag system or simple port blockade without need to spend 2-8 hours on grind and PvE and kiting. I would love to see chaotic fights, dynamic changes on map, action, RvR happening each day in all parts of map. What youre trying to do is force whole nation o spend 24h to contest 1 port.

That's wrong, hostility grinding is all inclusive and allows anyone to join. And 5 people grinding hostility would take too long and could easily be destroyed.

The way we have it now, 25-50 people are in the hostility fleet because its efficient and OW pvp is non restrictive, and only 25 people are allowed in the PB itself.

I'm all for chaotic fight, but not chaotic map changes. There is nothing worse seeing the ugly mess of ports scattered around the map that would be the result of 7 port battles being set a day. Which btw would take WAYY longer to grind hostilites for than a single port.

The majority of fighting in my system would not be with AI, it would be the slugfest of multiple national fleets crashing into each over a weeks time. A much more exciting, realistic, expansive, and inclusive way of RVR rather than forcing every nation to split up into 25 player clans and having them all working for their own ports in order to get a piece of RVR pie. Making the idea of a "nation" redundant.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Slim McSauce]

11 minutes ago, rediii said:

your system will not work because as soon as one side has enough tonnage sunk they will just go away and win.

Also you will not see big ships anymore since you have the most success in small ships. Run if its equal or you have no chance. else just gank.

bad system sorry

AI will count towards the percentage as well, and attacker ticket bleed will prevent attackers doing what you said. 

And if a defender decides to field 25 1st rates 25 frigates will not be efficient enough to win over the required %. So large ships will remain just as valuable, If not more so since ships must be sunk in order to get tonnage, so one nation doesn't get the power snowball of a bunch of captured first rates over a won port

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Slim McSauce]

24 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Just no. The more you try to fix flaws of your system, the more you are forced to add PvE factor. No, thanks.

The only major PVE factor is hostilities, there is no concern you've brought that breaks down the system enough to where PVE is used more than PVP. If a defender decides a no show and the attackers grind out the AI to reach the 60%, then how is that worse than attackers showing up to an empty PB? Which by the way happens all the time now because lots of people have decided the RVR isn't fun or important enough to engage in, and have chose to exclusively do OW PVP.                           My system being a combination of both.

Again, no major flaws have been shown that are near as busted as current RVR mechanics.

All these small ones are easily fixable with simple provided solutions, with the bonus of being overall a much more exciting, large scale, inclusive, nation driven way to do RVR that scales well, and is timeless in its approach and variety of battles you will encounter with the different starting locations, winds, player and ship compositions that everyone will be able to experience multiple times over

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Yes its actually almost the exact same thing, the difference is that both sides start at 50% and its a PVP oriented tug of war to to get to 60% (or for defenders to keep it above 41%)

AI counts towards the tonnage but at a fraction of player ships, just enough so its enough to get 60% if no defenders show, but not enough for it to be used as a main approach to the capture.

Hostilities as we know it will still exist to set the conquest of a port.

Well, then the best feedback you would ever get is to just look at what we get with hostility.

From what I've seen/heard, it's largely been -

- Still requires considerable organization. Your average joe is just asking to get ganked if he tries to do his part and raise contention somewhere spontaneously. If nothing is organized, nothing happens.

- Most who do it show up in 25x lineships, either Victory fleets or 2-3rd rates, or get their frigates stomped when the enemy shows up in 25x lineships. Back to "content just for 25 players".

- "Just enough PvE to eventually get a port into contention" is a dreary PvE-grinding affair, with many regions sporting so few AI fleets that people spend several hours sailing back and forth, back and forth, just to catch a pittance of fleets that show up and struggling to pull it off before the day's end - even if no enemies bother to show up.

- PvE vs PvP fits when it's a mix of PvE and PvP. In lineships, those can be one and the same, but not for frigates, so it really sucks to show up in one or the other and get screwed over depending on which you went for. Defenders, on the other hand, can be purely PvP-focused.

Take it with a grain of salt though, the PvE-grinding nature of the hostility system has been so boring that I haven't participated in it for quite some time now. And I haven't heard any positive remarks about having to do it either - if people aren't keen on doing it to set up PBs, I don't see how they would be if that was the actual "fight" in itself.

What's it been like on the global server? Sounds as though most sizeable OW engagements have taken place around the immediate area of scheduled PBs rather than during the hostility build-up.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Guest

[Slim McSauce]

1 hour ago, Aegir said:

 

- Still requires considerable organization. Your average joe is just asking to get ganked if he tries to do his part and raise contention somewhere spontaneously. If nothing is organized, nothing happens.

As it should be, if you aren't organizing with your nation and joining a fleet you're gonna get ganked.

- Most who do it show up in 25x lineships, either Victory fleets or 2-3rd rates, or get their frigates stomped when the enemy shows up in 25x lineships. Back to "content just for 25 players".

That's a matter of tactics, there's no guarantee that the mixed SOL will lose, and there is no guarantee that a decisive outcome will come out of the battle. If the nations are big enough there will probably be more than 1 OW fleet per side, so you can't rely on a single 25 fleet who can get repeatedly dragged attacked with no support.

- "Just enough PvE to eventually get a port into contention" is a dreary PvE-grinding affair, with many regions sporting so few AI fleets that people spend several hours sailing back and forth, back and forth, just to catch a pittance of fleets that show up and struggling to pull it off before the day's end - even if no enemies bother to show up.

if you're talking about the hostility grinding, I agree, there are better ways to do it. But what we have right now isn't fundamentally broken in any way. Perhaps a blockade + AI attacking balanced by the passive hostility drain we have currently would be the right way. Same thing with  tonnage war but there is some balancing numbers that'll have to go in to that, which isn't that difficult to sort.

- PvE vs PvP fits when it's a mix of PvE and PvP. In lineships, those can be one and the same, but not for frigates, so it really sucks to show up in one or the other and get screwed over depending on which you went for. Defenders, on the other hand, can be purely PvP-focused.

If you're talking about hostilities, you pretty much explained the situation now. Defenders to get that advantage. But again its chopped up to tactics. If you expect that move from the defender you can bring your PVP frigates, you can bring a support fleet to take care of them, or if your group is organized a bunch of PVE ships with good coordination has the advantage over the fast light ships when the objective is to sink.

Take it with a grain of salt though, the PvE-grinding nature of the hostility system has been so boring that I haven't participated in it for quite some time now. And I haven't heard any positive remarks about having to do it either - if people aren't keen on doing it to set up PBs, I don't see how they would be if that was the actual "fight" in itself.

You aren't fighting AI in the tonnage war. What people universally love is OW PVP. This system is basically basically OW PVP for a port except there is more emphasis on actually winning and winning efficiently since more is on the line then just your ships

What's it been like on the global server? Sounds as though most sizeable OW engagements have taken place around the immediate area of scheduled PBs rather than during the hostility build-up.

All but 1 clan on global actively partakes in RVR. There have been some given ports, and lots of empty PBs.

Most people have dropped RVR for the reasons I mention, its just too limiting, and has no real affect besides dots on the map. Hostilities are rarely fought over because its so quick to raise hostility if you have a fleet of 25 working on it. 

Its funny really. The most action that happens for RVR on global is picking off ships after the PB is over. No one wants to go fight the PB instance because its so one dimensional, its no different than a 25v25 OW pvp engagement, except you lose a lot of the depth from a regular OW fight and you're restricted by the rules inside the PB

OW PVP is where the action is on global. The fact that nearly the entire server has collectively dropped RVR as a part of the game speaks to how unsavory it is in its current state. There is absolutely no other way to do RVR that retains all the benefits of my system.

 

I challenge the community and the devs to come up with a better solution for RVR that allows,

1. Full nation involvement

2. Unrestricted time windows

3. Multiple battles

4. Multiple approaches on par with the freedom and strategy of OW PVP

5.100% scalablility to server population

and can be implemented within the next 3 patch cycles.

Because the current mechanics are fundamentally flawed, and without those 5 points, players will never get a true sense of large scale national conquest. And RVR will be dropped for funner, larger, unrestricted OW pvp like it is now.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Skully]

55 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

OW PVP is where the action is on global.

Please stick to facts. RvR is what got us into PvP. And I called an end to RvR.

6 hours ago, admin said:

Pareto principle. 20% of things cause 80% of problems. The problems that we are facing and fixing are not RVR related and in some cases RVR is the source of the problems with the game (fixing them does not fix the issues with the game)

@admin, would you mind telling us what you think the real problems are please?

[Slim McSauce]

2 minutes ago, Skully said:

Please stick to facts. RvR is what got us into PvP. And I called an end to RvR.

@admin, would you mind telling us what you think the real problems are please?

The server is literally dead right now, what's your point? 2 weeks ago 150+ ships were sunk around mort. No RVR was involved in that and it was the  single biggest PVP action taken place on Global since the wipe. More than all PB battles combined in the period of 2 only weeks

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Skully]

On 8/22/2017 at 10:16 PM, admin said:

Does it mean that risk free pvp has zero retention?

4 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

The server is literally dead right now, what's your point? 2 weeks ago 150+ ships were sunk around mort. No RVR was involved in that and it was the  single biggest PVP action ever taken on place on Global since the wipe. More than all PB battles combined in the period of 2 weeks

I think we can add aimless PvP to the list of zero retention as well then. Ergo RvR (players) drive the game.

[Slim McSauce]

7 minutes ago, Skully said:

I think we can add aimless PvP to the list of zero retention as well then. Ergo RvR (players) drive the game.

Uhh, I'm sorry but that couldn't be more wrong. After the siege of mort, nearly every French port was taken in revenge, not a single one of the ports were defended so no french fleets were sunk as a result.

To the majority on global, those 150+ ships sunk and capped at mort was THE victory of the server. Real results as apposed to dots on the map.

RVR is so niche literally only 3 clans on global care about it. Everyone else was PVPing out of free towns while empty ports were being taken at no cost to them

So to say that RVR players drive the game, no. You're a minute fraction of the playerbase, by design, compounded by the fact that hardly anyone finds it engaging enough to be a part of that fraction.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Skully]

1 hour ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

The fact that nearly the entire server has collectively dropped RVR as a part of the game speaks to how unsavory it is in its current state.

True.

1 hour ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

OW PVP is where the action is on global.

False.

1 hour ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

What people universally love is OW PVP.

False.

1 hour ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

This system is basically basically OW PVP for a port except there is more emphasis on actually winning and winning efficiently since more is on the line then just your ships

False.

7 hours ago, admin said:

Tonnage wars will not work due to non attendance counter. 

True. Now AI is taken at 100% and we have ground to a halt. So read what admin says and take it into account properly.

1 hour ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

There is absolutely no other way to do RVR that retains all the benefits of my system.

True & False & False & False & !True = False.

The only thing that remains standing is the search for a fix. But I first would like to hear from @admin what he thinks are the real problems.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Skully

[Slim McSauce]

Instead of going off what I just said you falsified everything I said prior without giving any reasons whatsoever. 

If you can't be civil, constructive, and give proper feedback, then your comments are not needed.

This is a suggestion for IMPROVING a part of the game that is, in your own agreement, dying in its current state.                                                                                                 Not a thread for you to Correct the Record on the events of Global. Leave the shitposting to national news

Edited August 25, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[vazco]

19 hours ago, Bart Smith said:

Suggested those since 2014...just not happening. Enemy presence in area may gain hostility very slowly, sinking npc slow and sinking players could give a boost to hostility. Combine those three and lot of action for everybody in certain area.

Another option - mix current system with a flag system, however instead of flags, allow nations to buy PvP missions that raise hostility. Everyone has X time to join a mission, just like old flags. If a mission is won or enemy doesn't show up, hostility is increased. Require 2-3 such missions to flip hostility, and player-generated content is ready, fixing not only RvR, but main issue - lack of action.

If missions were varied in cost, ship types and goals, they could attract groups of various sizes and create cool PvP encounters easily.

[Skully]

9 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

give proper feedback

If you wish to ignore feedback from @admin,

10 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

OW PVP is where the action is on global.

base your arguments on false facts,

10 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

There is absolutely no other way to do RVR that retains all the benefits of my system.

have the arrogance to claim the solution,

9 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

So to say that RVR players drive the game, no. You're a minute fraction of the playerbase

but assert you are not the expert, but rather I am.

9 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

shitposting

I'll leave that judgement to everyone else.

[Slim McSauce]

1 hour ago, Skully said:

 

If you wish to ignore feedback from @admin,

you're actually daft if you think I straight up ignored the admins comments

base your arguments on false facts,

wtf is a false fact? How can a fact be false? What level of irony are you on?

have the arrogance to claim the solution,

You've contributed nothing to the progress of the solution, yet you have the imperiousness to claim mine as false without any reasons of your own

but assert you are not the expert, but rather I am.

Wow....just wow.

I'll leave that judgement to everyone else.

You should use your own judgement of what not to post before spouting inanities

Edited August 26, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Skully]

18 hours ago, admin said:

I now have to commit to 3 days of

arguing before you accept your proposal doesn't cover that concern (and others)?

But, it did give me an idea which may or may not be to @admin's liking.

Picture 11 timeslots on a single port/region (TBD). In each timeslot folks can score hostility points, preferably through PvP. The Flag can be bought if your side is top scorer over the previous 11 or 12 (TBD) timeslots. Grand PB now, if you did the work yesterday (and nobody opposed you somehow).

Would that work as a basis? If so, then we can address the fundamental issue in RvR.

[Slim McSauce]

12 minutes ago, Skully said:

arguing before you accept your proposal doesn't cover that concern (and others)?

But, it did give me an idea which may or may not be to @admin's liking.

Picture 11 timeslots on a single port/region (TBD). In each timeslot folks can score hostility points, preferably through PvP. The Flag can be bought if your side is top scorer over the previous 11 or 12 (TBD) timeslots. Grand PB now, if you did the work yesterday (and nobody opposed you somehow).

Would that work as a basis? If so, then we can address the fundamental issue in RvR.

I'm not gonna go through the vagueness and tell you why that suggestion doesn't fix fundamental issues, or how having 12 time slots to grind hostilities doesn't correlate, in any way shape orform  to a larger, more attractive singular port battle that only 25 people on each side can join. I'm not gonna insult your intelligence.

What I will ask you, is if you think you have the solution, put it in your own suggestion. There is not enough room in this thread for 2 vastly different, large expanding suggestions to fixing the way RVR works.

Thank you.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Slim McSauce]

18 hours ago, admin said:

And where is the resolution? And where is the time saving? So instead of the get the port to 100% and arrive and win the port battle the next day. I now have to commit to 3 days of tonnage wars 24/7 to win the PB. 

You say that like 3 days of straight fleet PVP is boring, or cumbersome to players, when taking ports is a high stakes event

Its not about saving time and letting ports flip in 2 days. Its about unrestricting port battles to an hour and making them not a mind numbingly underwhelming, single battle system that  is suppose to decide the most important factor in the game. And turning it into a real war like event, not an extra limited OW battle that no one cares about

If PBs were fun, people wouldn't want a a quick port flip. And people would show up for those PBs instead of dropping RVR, and doing exclusively OW pvp which in their words is more fun and rewarding, and have even moved servers to get more of it.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson