RVR (port battles and territory control) feedback

[Guest]

clan policies e.g. adding friendly clans across factions could solve some of it i think.

[Njord]

54 minutes ago, rediii said:

Prussia dominated pirates for months now. That was/is no problem aswell.

Well, yeah despite pirates having significant numbers advantage. I would say it is more of a organization problem on the pirate nation than a RvR balance issue. A small organized group beating a zerg of low skilled players. Prussians couldn't even take Samana from the swedes for a long time... This is not exactly what a dominant RvR nation that suppresses all other nations looks like.

54 minutes ago, rediii said:

Sweden dominated the whole map for over a year or so.

Yeah, do we really need this again? Especially with RvR becoming more important. If RvR comes down to whatever nation having most organized RvR players owning the map, where is the point in that?

54 minutes ago, rediii said:

Its playermade stuff and dynamicly changes.

Yeah, like it was with swedes when most other nations didn't even give a F about RvR anymore and swedes were moaning about empty PBs. That's some nice dynamic change.

54 minutes ago, rediii said:

any mechanics in eve that make small coorps stronger/get better rewards or something?

Never played EvE and I don't know how it is relevant to NA. Since it is a game that takes place in space, I guess the map is also much larger than in NA, where even smaller groups find space somewhere and there probably aren't only a handful of very important resource ports for the whole player base.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Sovereign

[Molder169]

21 minutes ago, Galt said:

The French and pirates took too much land, imo.

Actually the Train that originally rolled over the U.S. coastline was prussian, then french sometime last year. A few clans even tried to join the US to try and help them, but they would rather bicker and argue and hold senate meetings and talk instead of playing the game. During that time before WO came in and wiped the U.S., i practically begged for us to attack spain, but their 'leadership' wouldn't budge on the U.S./Spanish alliance for anything, even though they never came to a single port battle.
 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Molder169

[Anolytic]

Let's not start complaining right away when a nations - in this case brits - are finally taking some initiative and doing something. This is to the benefit of everyone. Things are happening in RvR, I can feel the enthusiasm spreading among a segment of the population already. The schedule is right there on the map whenever there's a PB. Everyone can go there and seek to join in on the fun. It's like a patrol zone without the patrol ROE.

Let's not call zerg at first sight of an organised RvR unit. After months in a row of a demotivated and feckless playerbase literally any gathering of players is going to look like a zerg to some players. Some people are even calling Russia zerg even though we are outnumbered anywhere we go, and struggle to fill anything more than 5k BR.

[Njord]

6 minutes ago, rediii said:

So instead of a dominant team becoming bored

Are you implying it is proper and viable game design to not only allow but basically promote a faction to snowball so hard that the only thing that stops them shitting over the rest of the playerbase is... them getting bored of it?

9 minutes ago, rediii said:

discourage becoming big?

If by "becoming big" you literally mean becoming a zerg and only winning due to sheer numbers, then yeah it wouldn't hurt to give the underdog nations a reason to eat shit and be the underdog nation. High risk = high reward compared to low risk = low reward and balance are somewhat important in MMOs.

13 minutes ago, rediii said:

There were some nice (too short because of not motivated players) wars btw. in recent times it was swe vs russia mostly though.

Well, my question is not about the current situation or GB in particular. It is about the future of RvR and what we have learned from the past.

 

14 minutes ago, rediii said:

Sorry but all these limitations dont fit into a sandbox.

Firstly that is only your opinion and duly noted but ultimately for the developers of the game to decide. Secondly there is no limitations, it would be incentives to fight the zerg instead of every tosser joining them until they "get bored".

19 minutes ago, rediii said:

You are basicly in a panic because GB created some portbattles today. Tomorrow you will see the biggest pvp/RvR action for some time now and it wont be prussia that will do the heavy lifting here.

Prussia is getting their payback now for all the dirty work they do with timers, spies and whining while going against weak nations and punching them down again and again. Russia isn't better here btw (dutch + guibara)

You got me. Panicking over pixel ports is one of my favourite pastimes. In all seriousness tho, I play a couple of nations and prussia is just one of them.

What I really panic about is admin pushing RvR importance while GB probably having most players and leading in RvR without competition is still being joined by clans that switch there from other nations. On release GB and Pirates will most likely get another influx of new players.

So I was wondering what admin thinks or plans to do about the zerging. More players does not only mean more captains for PBs, screening and logistics, it also means more resources / currency, which further boosts the economical warfare power of zerg nations.

[Njord]

48 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

Let's not call zerg at first sight of an organised RvR unit.

Nothing wrong with calling it what it is... it is not a demeaning insult or anything. The term "zerg" derived from the game "Starcraft" , where the zerg are a playable race. Their winning strategy is overwhelming the enemy with vastly superior numbers, while being controlled by the "Overmind" ( good ol' rediii  ) that organises them.

Also this topic isn't about GB in particular but the general problem. I simply menitoned it, because I see where the current situation could lead, depending on what the RvR changes will bring and thus it is relevant. We need better diplomacy tools, like @Wyy mentioned, at the bare minimum. 

 

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 hour ago, Banished Privateer said:

Fake news, we were enjoying Christmas with our families  Only reason Guibara was attacked was because FENIX owned it. Even other pirate clans like WTF helped Russians take it. No one in pirate nation liked FENIX. 

We knew the dislike (even if I have still to know the reason) and leaving Pirate nation was discussed repeatly: totally alone FENIX clan (as in the case being Pirates) was (number wise) unable to be active in RvR.

So we did definately the right thing leaving Pirates: no sense being in a nation you cant trust in any way, even to not help attackers of national ports.

1 hour ago, Banished Privateer said:

[... omissis...]

Yordi with his boys moved out to pirates from Spain. Spain got wrecked by GB, Russians and pirates.

[... omissis...]

At the time main reason to move was having found another nice italian group [VINO]: FENIX is the merge of VIXIT+VINO. The question was about where to move and it was simpler to join Pirate.

Spain morale was broken by Penzacola battles at the climax of French-Spanish War ("Lovers' War"). By the way a war started due to the silly (my opinion and facts thereafter) JAGS (and 7UP) decision to protect USA against French. The rest was a very fast collapse.

 

So in the end, as pointed by @rediii, it's a cycle for some nations (the ingame historically strongest). Russia was dominating for sometime, then the throne was back to Sweden left on his own. Then there were strong (number wise for sure) France and then Spain turn to beat around, then after FR-SP war the collapse of the latter and the weakening of the first.

British Empire expanded with HAVOC then stopped... and in general almost all RvR stopped.
GB has big numbers, still not really organized... and plenty enemies.

These MMOs very often ends rebalancing by themselves: a too big nation (population wise) will leave PvPers missing targets... so some will move to keep hunting, changing again the power balance.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari

[Vernon Merrill]

I, for one, would love to see a strong GB...,

less back room dealing and more head to head pew pew....

[Christendom]

Frankly I think the 3 “main” powers, GB / France / Spain, should be big and powerful  in the Caribbean as it was IRL.  Let’s not forget what position GB was in prior to havoc switching over.  A strong GB with smaller nations constantly pecking at them feels right IMO.  

where this game fails is how it caters to the Zerg and allows stream rolling via the snowball effect.  This is a mechanics / ROE issue.  Triple flips suck and the game should perhaps not allow them. 

 

FYI. FENIX was disliked because they came over and started whining that evening pirate clans made peace with Prussia before they came over.  FENIX wanted to do what they did in Spain, have other clans do the heavy lifting for them and take ports they wanted, and in our case..night flip them.  They came over, whined and accomplished nothing.  They had the numbers and organization to attack other nations, but decided that joining in lopsided patrol zone battles was more their speed.  

Adios

Edited January 6, 2019 by Christendom

[Batman]

If no rvr happens, people complain about no rvr happening.

If rvr happens, people complain about zergs.

 

[Acid burn]

3 hours ago, Christendom said:

Frankly I think the 3 “main” powers, GB / France / Spain, should be big and powerful  in the Caribbean as it was IRL.  Let’s not forget what position GB was in prior to havoc switching over.  A strong GB with smaller nations constantly pecking at them feels right IMO.  

where this game fails is how it caters to the Zerg and allows stream rolling via the snowball effect.  This is a mechanics / ROE issue.  Triple flips suck and the game should perhaps not allow them. 

 

FYI. FENIX was disliked because they came over and started whining that evening pirate clans made peace with Prussia before they came over.  FENIX wanted to do what they did in Spain, have other clans do the heavy lifting for them and take ports they wanted, and in our case..night flip them.  They came over, whined and accomplished nothing.  They had the numbers and organization to attack other nations, but decided that joining in lopsided patrol zone battles was more their speed.  

Adios

 

loose sand thats what pirates are cristendom, a bit flexibility would have been nice.. and as far as bannished goes with he's acuisations, you deserve bannished what is comming to u. evry inch of it.

[staun]

39 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

It makes me chuckle that RvR is quiet for weeks or months and the "silence before storm" always ends up with multiflip. Pretty much after all "dead RvR" periods we end up with 5, 7 or 9 ports flipped at the same time. 

Well who among us can say they havent captured a port on a multiflip?

Think it is a question on this being a war game and not gentlemen game. In the end it is the result thats count, not how it was done.

[staun]

1 minute ago, Banished Privateer said:

Well, question if rediii wants to win or wants content. I think he always advertised for the first if I am not mistaken? Winning and steamrolling in NA is easy. 

Lets him answer that him self. Just seams to recall some Prussians take part in multiflip on Sweden together with the Russians. Everybody says content, but the truth is ppl just want to win.

[staun]

Just now, Banished Privateer said:

Yep, that was answer to Swedish multiflip on Prussia (Little Harbour). I don't recall Prussians multiflipping GB doe. Action = reaction, Brits claim that multilfip is caused by Prussian Nassau attack (lol). 

Fact is everybody does it. Thats the game. Ore you will personally garanty that you from now on will take part in no multiflip and do your outmost to keep the nation you are in out of any multiflip.

[staun]

Just now, Banished Privateer said:

As I said, we do it only to nations that did the same to us. Multiflipping is a tactic of the weak, easy way to win. Best way to kill fire is with fire it seems. Question is if there will be any other fire left. 

But since everybody can find a time they where multiflipped it can keep going on. One have to say no to multiflip and take the first step. Since you are agsinst it, why not be the first to say no. Make a clean start today and say after today you only use multiflips if anybody does it again. Let it be you that take the first step and see if you can other follow you on a path without multiflips.

[Slim McSauce]

why are multi flips a problem again? It takes just as many people to attack as it does to defend and your attacking at the defenders time so what exactly is the problem?

[Batman]

7 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

why are multi flips a problem again?

The problem is that nobody likes to be on the receving end of a multiflip, but will happily take part in a multiflip as long as they're on the achieving side.

 

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Batman said:

The problem is that nobody likes to be on the receving end of a multiflip, but will happily take part in a multiflip as long as they're on the achieving side.

so it's like the gank that everybody defends but no one likes, got it.

[van der Clam]

I'm still confused as to why defenders are allowed to set the time when attackers are allowed to attack. I don't think historically (nor in any other game ever made) that defenders could tell the attackers, "No, no, our base is safe during this time, you will have to come back at a later time when we are ready and prepared and active."
And I'm confused as to how hostility works at all. Why does it get reset? Why is there a time window? Why isn't it 24/7?
I do understand the cooldown tho for gameplay.

[staun]

6 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

so it's like the gank that everybody defends but no one likes, got it.

Actually I don’t mind ganks. I still have fun fighting 3-4 guys.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, staun said:

Actually I don’t mind ganks. I still have fun fighting 3-4 guys.

depends what they are, BR tells the real story.

[staun]

Just now, Slim McSauce said:

depends what they are, BR tells the real story.

Nope I really dont mind. As long as I just have a fun fight. 

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, staun said:

Nope I really dont mind. As long as I just have a fun fight. 

how can say you're against multiflips/rvr gank and in the next breath say you're okay with pvp ganks, it makes no sense.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[van der Clam]

7 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Because not all players play in the same time zone.

Timed windows are a good compromise (this has been tested over and over again, let's not rehash the "Night Flip" debates again). 🙄

No one likes to fight empty port battles anyway or stay/get up at all hours to play a game.

So are these "zerg flips" full of people in all port battles? When Russia took the ball sack in one morning, as far as I knew, only 2 ports were defended. Seems like zerg flips are the same as night flips.
Either way, hostility should not have a time window and should be open 24/7 and not reset except for after a week or so.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Wraith said:

They're completely different game mechanics. Why can't one's tolerance vary between them?

because it's a principle, and it lacks congruence to say you do not want anyone to multiflip a nation's ports but on the same token say you're okay with getting ganked in pvp. Which one is it? RvR is pvp too, and vise versa.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Slim McSauce