Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

A complete fix to RVR


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

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

You can only have a 25x25 (PvP) battle (or any number), if both sides are in the same timeslot. Fundamental issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Exactly. So why limit PBs to a single hour of the day? Another reason why the system we have is flawed.

Yes, as opposed to why favor sides who can field 24/7 as opposed to a more casual 25 PB fleet that wants to stick to one timeslot, like BLACK or true casual Clans?

Edited by Skully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Skully said:

Yes, as opposed to why favor sides who can field 24/7 as opposed to a more casual 25 PB fleet that wants to stick to one timeslot, like BLACK or true casual Clans?

The server never drops down to 0. There will ALWAYS a smaller group of people who can field. A small group of light frigates sinking is hardly comparable to multiple fleets getting sunk during the day when the most population is on

Edited by Slim Jimmerson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

A small group of light frigates sinking is hardly comparable to multiple fleets getting sunk during the day when the most population is on

So you have 2 or 3 grand battles during your day and then during your night the Horde arrives.

More commonly called a nightflip by those who don't want to understand that the sun always shines somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Skully said:

So you have 2 or 3 grand battles during your day and then during your night the Horde arrives.

More commonly called a nightflip by those who don't want to understand that the sun always shines somewhere.

How many PBs do we see at 3 am EST on global? Why would there be a horde of players, at the time when there is the least players?

The nightflip is an inherent problem to single PBs. If the war for a port last 3 full days, there is no singular battle that will immediately flip the port in the middle of the night that can't be recovered from the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

How many PBs do we see at 3 am EST on global?

As many as we need.

If a port conflict lasts 24 hours and all effort is aggregated, then the one who sails with the Horde is the one who wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skully said:

As many as we need.

If a port conflict lasts 24 hours and all effort is aggregated, then the one who sails with the Horde is the one who wins.

Um..................I Just..... err.

You do realize....that's your own post....from a year ago...... on the European server >.>>>>>>

Edited by Slim Jimmerson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

You do realize....that's your own post....from a year ago...... on the European server >.>>>>>>

Yeah, lets not learn from past mistakes. Lets do them ago shall we?

Crock, the Horde went rampage again... on Global.

And you are conveniently trying to circumvent the point of 10-12 also having PBs, likely more than other timeslots.

We are just a bit more "efficient".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Skully said:

Yeah, lets not learn from past mistakes. Lets do them ago shall we?

Crock, the Horde went rampage again... on Global.

And you are conveniently trying to circumvent the point of 10-12 also having PBs, likely more than other timeslots.

We are just a bit more "efficient".

Wowie. You sure are right. It is MUCH more efficient for a nation to attack another outside of prime time when the other nation hardly has any ships out to contribute to tonnage. 

That sub 400 br gained from that huge horde absolutely crushing those 3 traders and 2 frigates will SURELY not be negated by the next days massive battle with the 20k BR fleets going after each other.

/bigfatS

Edited by Slim Jimmerson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another option would be to create buyable Port Invasion flags. Port Invasion flags would have a lifespan of 24 hours from their time of creation until they were required to reach the port specifically designated for the invasion. Once the flag reached the target a 10k zone of control would be activated around the port for a period of two hours. During this time the attacker must transport and land a number of Infantry units into this zone of control. Infantry units would be craftable and specifically created ,for and only during, the lifespan of the Port Invasion flag.  These Infantry would delivered (or landed) to a designated circle within the zone of control and would only be landable within the zone of control if the attacking fleet had a BR of 2:1 or better over the defending ships within the zone. Once a favorable BR ratio has been established within the zone, each ship transporting infantry would be required to come to a full stop for 3 minutes in order to land their infantry units. Only one infantry unit could be landed at a time from each ship (this would simulate the required landing time for an amphibious assault). Infantry units would have a weight of 510 allowing them to be carried by most 5th rates and up, but trade ships could also be given a role due to their ability to carrying more cargo. Each port in the OW would be given a defending infantry garrison size based on the importance of the port. Any attacking infantry would need to be perhaps four times larger than this number in order to assume a successful attack and the conquest of the port. An attack against a standard port might require 20 of these Infantry units, while an attack against a regional capital would require 40. If during the 2 hour Port Invasion Window the required number of infantry units is not landed then the port is successfully defended and the invasion fails.

In order to counter the Invasion the defender would need to preventing the embarked infantry from landing by either sinking the ships transporting them, by disrupting the attacking fleet so that only a partial landing is made or by preventing any landing at all by maintaining a favorable BR ratio against the attacking fleet within the port invasion zone of control. Within the zone of control it would be the attacking fleet's function to either sink the enemies ships or force them to withdraw thereby allowing a favorable BR ratio, which would then enable the landing of the infantry and the conquest of the port.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Old Pretender said:

Another option would be to create buyable Port Invasion flags. Port Invasion flags would have a lifespan of 24 hours from their time of creation until they were required to reach the port specifically designated for the invasion. Once the flag reached the target a 10k zone of control would be activated around the port for a period of two hours. During this time the attacker must transport and land a number of Infantry units into this zone of control. Infantry units would be craftable and specifically created ,for and only during, the lifespan of the Port Invasion flag.  These Infantry would delivered (or landed) to a designated circle within the zone of control and would only be landable within the zone of control if the attacking fleet had a BR of 2:1 or better over the defending ships within the zone. Once a favorable BR ratio has been established within the zone, each ship transporting infantry would be required to come to a full stop for 3 minutes in order to land their infantry units. Only one infantry unit could be landed at a time from each ship (this would simulate the required landing time for an amphibious assault). Infantry units would have a weight of 510 allowing them to be carried by most 5th rates and up, but trade ships could also be given a role due to their ability to carrying more cargo. Each port in the OW would be given a defending infantry garrison size based on the importance of the port. Any attacking infantry would need to be perhaps four times larger than this number in order to assume a successful attack and the conquest of the port. An attack against a standard port might require 20 of these Infantry units, while an attack against a regional capital would require 40. If during the 2 hour Port Invasion Window the required number of infantry units is not landed then the port is successfully defended and the invasion fails.

In order to counter the Invasion the defender would need to preventing the embarked infantry from landing by either sinking the ships transporting them, by disrupting the attacking fleet so that only a partial landing is made or by preventing any landing at all by maintaining a favorable BR ratio against the attacking fleet within the port invasion zone of control. Within the zone of control it would be the attacking fleet's function to either sink the enemies ships or force them to withdraw thereby allowing a favorable BR ratio, which would then enable the landing of the infantry and the conquest of the port.

This is a neat idea that could work just as well, or well together for more options.

Mostly what kills RVR is the stupidly limiting factors of it. A strickly RVR player is basically already playing Naval Action Legends.

Any way to unchain the entirety of RVR from a single battle and put it into multiple is good. And the easiest way is to do it is region OW PVP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Note: I copied and edited  this from another thread of mine because I thought it would fit in here.*

About the entire RvR, wouldn't it be fun if an AI simply decides who is at war with whom, based upon some calculations of measurement on one side and a good luck of dice rolling on the other? If situations flipped every month, players would have to re-adjust, therefore keeping the element of freshness and surprise alive. Former allies would be your enemies next month.

Two big clans dominating the map? Let the AI set them off against each other. A nation too small to go up against a big one? Let the AI set up an alliance of smaller nations and isolate the big one. Make nation flipping an option that is always available to players. If the AI sees changes in nation size and strength, roll the dice and set them off randomly against each other again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jean de la Rochelle said:

*Note: I copied and edited  this from another thread of mine because I thought it would fit in here.*

About the entire RvR, wouldn't it be fun if an AI simply decides who is at war with whom, based upon some calculations of measurement on one side and a good luck of dice rolling on the other? If situations flipped every month, players would have to re-adjust, therefore keeping the element of freshness and surprise alive. Former allies would be your enemies next month.

Two big clans dominating the map? Let the AI set them off against each other. A nation too small to go up against a big one? Let the AI set up an alliance of smaller nations and isolate the big one. Make nation flipping an option that is always available to players. If the AI sees changes in nation size and strength, roll the dice and set them off randomly against each other again.

I'm a firm believer that 8 nations is too much splitting of players. The smallest 4 nations should get 1 alliance each, or just combine sweden/denmark/dutch. into one nation, since realistically speaking those nations will always have way less population than the power nations of Britain, USA, France and Pirates. Having to compensate for that is cumbersome to the game development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2017 at 3:15 PM, admin said:

Tonnage wars will not work due to non attendance counter. 
 

what about a mix of tonnage and presence?

i would imagine the area in front of a port as a single big control point, backed by one single instance. attackers could choose to enter the instance any time from any point of the perimeter, defenders any time from anywhere in the area. all would be placed accordingly. number of players in the instance would have a cap for technical limitations, with a minimum of slots guarranteed for each side. maybe some queue system could be handy.

end of the day, total attacker presence time along with tonnage sunk compute the winner. attacker presence could have a bonus if left unchallenged.

yes, zergs would win but isn't it so in life? time for politics!

also, fifth columnists. players would have to spot them and deal with them. they exist in real life too.

but it could be also a massive long brawl :)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, znôrt said:

what about a mix of tonnage and presence?

i would imagine the area in front of a port as a single big control point, backed by one single instance. attackers could choose to enter the instance any time from any point of the perimeter, defenders any time from anywhere in the area. all would be placed accordingly. number of players in the instance would have a cap for technical limitations, with a minimum of slots guarranteed for each side. maybe some queue system could be handy.

end of the day, total attacker presence time along with tonnage sunk compute the winner. attacker presence could have a bonus if left unchallenged.

yes, zergs would win but isn't it so in life? time for politics!

also, fifth columnists. players would have to spot them and deal with them. they exist in real life too.

but it could be also a massive long brawl :)

 

 

Really any one of these solutions would fix the main issue of RVR. Putting all of them together would make RVR the kingpin of every PVP action in the game and probably a main seller for the game.

I would log in every single day just to see the progress of all my nation's port wars.   And anytime I want I could x up, join a fleet and go help the cause.

instead i'm logging in, seeing no RVR participation, hardly anyone PVPing because there is no natural funnel to bring two nations in the same area against each other, and logging off.

If we could just implement this sort of war style RVR, you wouldn't see so many people leaving in between patches, waiting for the big "rvr fix"

trying to work off what we have currently is polishing a turd, we'll never hit gold that way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OlFson said:

Nope, for SRSLY I was leading battles for quite a while. But I still remember Rainbowdash etc . :P

0/

I rolled with Trevez' outfit, then with MADMEN when trev went pro (like, literally), then burned out completely from clanwars. Didn't touch wot for months, came here, stayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Slim Jimmerson said:

Really any one of these solutions would fix the main issue of RVR. Putting all of them together would make RVR the kingpin of every PVP action in the game and probably a main seller for the game.

I would log in every single day just to see the progress of all my nation's port wars.   And anytime I want I could x up, join a fleet and go help the cause.

instead i'm logging in, seeing no RVR participation, hardly anyone PVPing because there is no natural funnel to bring two nations in the same area against each other, and logging off.

If we could just implement this sort of war style RVR, you wouldn't see so many people leaving in between patches, waiting for the big "rvr fix"

trying to work off what we have currently is polishing a turd, we'll never hit gold that way.

 

If RvR = multiplayer, then I agree

If RvR=clan controlled game, then I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fox2run said:

If RvR = multiplayer, then I agree

If RvR=clan controlled game, then I disagree.

I don't mind the idea of clans controlling ports, if every clan gets a fair shot and it not "whoever sets the hostilities first gets the PB. It'd be whoever actually contributes the most tonnage/soldiers landed/blockade points gets the rights to the port. It adds depth to the game.

But with the system devs are going to do next, it seems instead of fixing the fundamental issues, they're trying to work around it by making RVR a completely clan v clan event instead of nation v nation. That way they can keep everything small and limited. It improves current RVR but it doesn't fix anything. It'll be the same few clans dominating 25v25, rolling the map, and everyone disregards RVR again because nothing's really changed.

Edited by Slim Jimmerson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2017 at 9:15 AM, admin said:

Tonnage wars will not work due to non attendance counter. 
 

Tons = tokens.

Tokens = port ownership.

Doesn't matter where you got the token. You can use it on any enemy port. Go hunt the enemy where they are then apply the tokens where you want.

Tokens can account for up to 25% contention per day. This is the only way to generate contention.

Can be countered by an equal number of tokens, up to 25% per day.

"Port battles" replaced by "token wars". Might seem less exciting but going out hunting beats sitting in empty port battles.


Token payout is on an exponential scale: sinking a single Victory is worth way more than its equivalent weight in 7th rates. This is to discourage "farming" of cheap ships. The real wins will come from sinking high rated ships. (Players could try to counter this by only going out in weak ships but "good luck with that". Sinking weak ships for low tokens is still worth more than not sinking anyone because your ship sucks and theirs doesn't.)

 

It's actually kind of odd that "PvP tokens" have never been a part of RvR.

You let us craft war supplies in the east end of nowhere and then capture a port with them but we can't do the same with PvP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Slamz said:

You let us craft war supplies in the east end of nowhere and then capture a port with them but we can't do the same with PvP?

On 8/21/2017 at 11:20 PM, admin said:

War supplies will be abandoned

You have to flipping be there. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2017 at 5:13 PM, Slamz said:

Tons = tokens.

Tokens = port ownership.

Doesn't matter where you got the token. You can use it on any enemy port. Go hunt the enemy where they are then apply the tokens where you want.

Tokens can account for up to 25% contention per day. This is the only way to generate contention.

Can be countered by an equal number of tokens, up to 25% per day.

"Port battles" replaced by "token wars". Might seem less exciting but going out hunting beats sitting in empty port battles.


Token payout is on an exponential scale: sinking a single Victory is worth way more than its equivalent weight in 7th rates. This is to discourage "farming" of cheap ships. The real wins will come from sinking high rated ships. (Players could try to counter this by only going out in weak ships but "good luck with that". Sinking weak ships for low tokens is still worth more than not sinking anyone because your ship sucks and theirs doesn't.)

 

It's actually kind of odd that "PvP tokens" have never been a part of RvR.

You let us craft war supplies in the east end of nowhere and then capture a port with them but we can't do the same with PvP?

Your token idea, although has a silly name, is a good one. Token wars and Tonnage wars are essentially the same thing (tonnage war sounds cooler :p, token wars reminds me of those old windows live games where you had to put the token into the virtual slot machine to get x amount of play)

On 8/29/2017 at 5:22 PM, Skully said:

You have to flipping be there. ^_^

There was already a fix for non attendance in the original suggestion., and plenty more after.

 

Edited by Slim Jimmerson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...