RVR (port battles and territory control) feedback

[Capn Rocko]

If only the devs listened to @Babble more... section 12 of the roadmap (12.b in particular) would add a lot of depth that the game is missing imo 

 

 

[staun]

4 minutes ago, Capn Rocko said:

I dont think that my suggestion is the "fix-all" for RvR but this was one of my major complaints when I was active in RvR activities. And to be fair, my suggestion of alt-limiting only affects 10% of the ports in the game, there is still the other 90% of ports that do not have valuable resources (maybe that will change with the trade system gets patched). 

Generally speaking, I just want to see more incentive to take part in RvR activities. Worthless ports, alt thieves, expensive ships, low population, ect. are all limiting factors of RvR activity. If you fix some of the limitations and add more incentives (like the RvR missions) its makes sense to me that more players will get involved in RvR. There are hundreds of ports in the game.. let the top dogs fight over the 10-20 valuable ports, that still gives plenty of room for everyone to participate (as long as there is incentive to fight for the other 90%)

Just not thinking thats what is going to happen. But we will see. As said my guess is the few will have what is important, the rest just quit trying. The top will be annoyed about it and get more and more aggressive. Like take ports very close to Capitol. We all know what then happens. 

Do think OW will be affected by it. Ppl allready stay in port when they see a player go hunting. What do you think will happen when they know the enemy is on a top ship, with best wood and upgrades and they have to sail in second hand ships.

[z4ys]

14 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

@admin

Today, according to steamcharts, we have reached the hightest peak since one registered in april 2018.

 

 

Prussia had so many players online that I haven't seen in months.

Why - because of the fear of loss and not because everything is safe.

Edited January 6, 2019 by z4ys

[Vernon Merrill]

But wait....  I thought Nobody could afford to do RvR because of "extreme doubloon poverty"....??

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

Make rvr rewarding (cosmetic chests...), tweak some of the current BR (buc, third rate), buff a bit the unused ships, give ports a meaning, allow small nations to be also competitive through clan alliances, decrease the painful grind required for rvr (which is mostly time based and not skill based), introduce raids as economic warfare (flag system could work here as raids doesnt flip the port).

 

Was playing with an ExCeL document where vic had 1200br, buc 1150br, Pavel had 950 and bellona had 500, 3rd 400 and Wasa 425, aga on 350,  i can say that the broadside weight in some of those fleet combos varied, would certainly make 2-3 3rd rates more preferable than a single 1st rate

Edited January 7, 2019 by Guest

[Licinio Chiavari]

10 hours ago, Abram Svensson said:

You always connect it with gear, but when 3 noobs fight 1 veteran they mostly lose to the lack of experience and game knowledge.

Yes and nay.

Skill can overcome some odds. Gear others.

Skill+gear even more.

Skill+Gear+Unlimited repairs pushes the "beatable odds" off the roof.

Because I can be the best player ever but if my ship is damaged and slowed and I need to kite upwind to repair and protecting weak side from superior forces, I will do it better on a ship well geared and so, for example, still decently fast respect to my enemies. Coupled, may be, with faster and better repairs.

If I have a single repair per battle, I will in the end succumb to a superior force... Or run.

On the contrary in NA I can repair my ship from 0 to 100% more than once in a single full timer battle.

 

Sidenote: skilled captain on a super ship with unlimited repairs can win, surviving and killing versus impossible odds, like 4-6+ v1 while facing mediocre/casual players.

Still the same one could be in danger when facing simply two seasoned pvper with 2 decent ships.

NA problem indeed is the gap between veterans (not best of best) and random casuals.

This gap is the problem: because it could (and did) pushed away from this game plenty players. And even the most beautiful game in the world will be a dead game without players.

And I think limiting repairs would reduce this gap.

[Hethwill]

Developer's Feedback topic.

Caribbean News type of Posts are not lost, and show a picture of rvr, but for the sake of "agnostic" feedback of the mechanics they have been cleaned out.

Let's keep it more clear.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Pavel is not so good to have 950, it should be closer to Bellona.

Buc and victory should have a higher difference than 50. 

Overally I believe you made first rates BR a bit high. 

Nah the Pavel would be ok, wouldnt it been for the insane roll it would be used more could balance it to be only ship together with Inger to carry poods, 2nd rates wasnt that different from   1st rates. Bellona could go up to 550 but a 1st rate should be atleast as valuable as 2x 3rd rates.

examples of 10k br pb.

Broadside weight pd 7x l'ocean + 1x st. Pavel: 12864

Bellona x21: 22512

Edited January 7, 2019 by Guest

[Thonys]

18 hours ago, Lord Gud said:

The problem I see here is everyone would rather argue than to give feedback/suggestions to improve RvR.

i agree, 

the main issue on the subject is that :

the nation change DLC works as

a catalyst to the zerg, what disrupts the balance in RVR. that particular DLC should only be a name changer.(my feedback) so it holds people in a position where it has more value to the RVR game.

All the trouble started when the nation change DLC became in practise.

it does not mean i am against it , but when changing a nation, the restriction must be that you start from the beginning and not as a full-blown high-rank captain with 30 ships.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Thonys

[Hethwill]

1 minute ago, Thonys said:

All the trouble started when the nation change DLC became in practise.

No. Was already a reality with "turn Pirate by attacking a friendly".

Is not a mechanics issue, is a player challenge issue.

[Thonys]

13 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

No. Was already a reality with "turn Pirate by attacking a friendly".

Is not a mechanics issue, is a player challenge issue.

yes but that is a punishment what people do not want to be... (only if deliberate, and you can only be a pirate and not for example a danish [you have no choice ] )

that particular mechanic works fine.

DLC nation changer does not in my eyes,it has flaws on RVR and captain abbility to become a direct full member of a other nation

ask yourself why is there no DLC for a lower seaman to become a rear admiral in the blink of an eye when entering a (start) nation?....... that happens exactly when using the nation change DLC right.

(its a plain wrong mechanic)

i say it again only name change is valid for that DLC

if you change nation you only have one ship, some provisions, and your money.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Thonys

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, rediii said:

Pavel is very bad compared to Buc

HP, Speed, Broadside(only 24 carros)

Bow breaking and heel

 

The ship doesn't fit in OW because its outclassed and not in portbattles because its very inefficient BR wise

yeah i know, thats why if russian ships actually were the ones that could use russian guns, same as french guns could use up to 36pd cannons even french 3rd had 36pd on main gundeck it could balance stuff. The bow breaking mechanic doesent work as intended anyway (HMS victory steel bow spirit), the roll and hull shape on many ships make them unfavorable because people blast off inn full sails etc, instead of fighting in battle sails as ships actually did.

[Celtiberofrog]

RvR should be associated with Nation's diplomacy, diplomacy system is the heart of RvR. Clans activity should be driven and rewarded by national interest (the whole faction/clans interest). RvR must be understandable in a glance by every players categories, today it's impossible to understand the goal of each clan. Main nation goals & interest must be clearly understood. (clans policy independance is counterproductive).

 

The RvR map should start with only 5 nations (as Chris suggested), GB, USA, France, Spain & Pirates, (Providing with a more central geographical territories for USA). Any clan who feels powerfull enough could get the possibility to "start" as new nation (Russia, Prusia, Sweden, Danemark, Poland or Netherland), but with a very high cost.  Those new nations will get diplomacy restriction, only act as allies but not able to declare war to other nations, undirect diplomatic actions. Allies should be able to join PB's. Alliance, when clicked, must be given for only 1 nation at a time and has a duration of 4 weeks.  

 

Optional:

Dev could implement "national missions" that can drop (only for 5 main nations), these missions come along with "great national rewards" when achieved. In that way, Dev could kind of influence the RvR stream through those missions whenever they know it is necessary (depending on unbalanced player population in different factions). Factions who own some national mission could activate them or not. Activating these type of missions will be allowed by the owner only if it can be validated by 10 clans who pay for "war effort" a huge tax to admiralty.   

[Hethwill]

1 minute ago, Thonys said:

DLC nation changer does not in my eyes,it has flaws on RVR and captain abbility to become a direct full member of a other nation

Keeps Rank, that's all. Pushing assets to free ports was already done before.

Look, it is first and foremost a player challenge issue, not a mechanics. Making it more comfortable changed little. A big chunk of playerbase did leave to pirates from all nations once said nations were losing wars or internal national affairs became too complicated to endure. Also majority of the exodus to the black ( and those that didn't want to do it and simply stopped sailing ) happened during Regional Conquest, when 1 port battle would conquer 5 - 7 ports.

Still DLC or no DLC will change nothing on the willingness of players to embrace challenges.

Some do, some don't.

While the big fleet action is a grand thing in the game - decisive action - the road to engagement and resounding results on the world are still, in my opinion, lacking.

Is it logistics ? Is it the lack of 18th century "rules of war" to govern when a war is won or lost ? What makes the conquest of Nassau more important than "trafalgar" fleet engagement at Plymouth ?

Alas we are playing a game, and simulation of a nation having to rebuild a navy after a trafalgar may well not be what many expect. They expect quick access to RvR content.

But in truth, by quick access to RvR content they forget their own actions will setback their enemies, as expected. So it is a egotistic game, right ?

I want my conquest to matter, but please don't make me suffer with enemy conquest versus RvR all the time ( aka. big fleet action ) but then we fall into the same trap of - rvr is meaningless of the late months.

It is a gordian knot and devs asking for feedback.

[Thonys]

5 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

 

 

Still DLC or no DLC will change nothing on the willingness of players to embrace challenges.

Some do, some don't.

 

I want my conquest to matter, but please don't make me suffer with enemy conquest versus RvR all the time ( aka. big fleet action ) but then we fall into the same trap of - rvr is meaningless of the late months.

 

3

you say some ,but i can tell you it is almost everybody following the zerg .

if you want something to matter well in my eyes you start all over .....and now you have to make up a big decision to leaf all behind and start all over what makes the game a gradual strength to the zerg nation and not a full blow instant powerhouse ( a good example is rediii clan who comes with 35 members and take over the RVR balance  in a weak nation)

[Hethwill]

Just now, Thonys said:

you say some ,but i can tell you it is almost everybody following the zerg .

if you want something to matter well in my eyes you start all over .....and now you have to make up a big decision to leaf all behind and start all over what makes the game a gradual strength to the zerg nation and not a full blow instant powerhouse ( a good example is rediii clan who comes with 35 members and take over the RVR balance  in a weak nation)

Yes. DLC or not, they will. Was done before without it and with simply restarting characters.

[Thonys]

8 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Yes. DLC or not, they will. Was done before without it and with simply restarting characters.

and the world was good.

(but ATM that is not the case , we have that catalyst who is disrupting the balance )

[Hethwill]

No way back. It is granted, by purchase agreement, that I can switch nation every 30 days, and that I can also change name every 30 days.

Additional later clauses may apply if game development allows DLC to be improved, but e-assets commercial law definitely not my area.

 

[Thonys]

4 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

No way back. It is granted, by purchase agreement, that I can switch nation every 30 days, and that I can also change name every 30 days.

Additional later clauses may apply, but e-assets commercial law definitely not my area.

 

my recommendation to development would be to apply additional restriction on that DLC 

(you can start in a new nation with only a basic cutter and the lowest rank )  > called traitor of the nation.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Thonys

[Hethwill]

Just now, Thonys said:

my recommendation to development would be to apply additional restriction on that DLC 

(you can start in a new nation with only a basic cutter) 

How does that improve RvR ? ( the thread subject )

[Thonys]

1 minute ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

How does that improve RvR ? ( the thread subject )

its called balance 

the biggest improvement you can have.

[Hethwill]

3 minutes ago, Thonys said:

its called balance 

the biggest improvement you can have.

How ? Explain.

Meaning, how keeping someone in a nation they don't want to be in helps balance ? Suppose they simply stop playing as opposed to stay in the nation -or- maybe they then take the challenge as opposed to simply quit.

Player challenge, not mechanics.

But please, explain your idea of how it balances things for a better RvR. Is a interesting approach.

[Thonys]

14 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

How ? Explain.

Meaning, how keeping someone in a nation they don't want to be in helps balance ? Suppose they simply stop playing as opposed to stay in the nation -or- maybe they then take the challenge as opposed to simply quit.

Player challenge, not mechanics.

But please, explain your idea of how it balances things for a better RvR. Is a interesting approach.

i can't speak for all the quitters

you play the game or you don't. you like it or you don't.

i don't quit the nation because it is weak, or because i have to follow the leader to the zerg.

a changing nation has consequences to the entire game population and entire balance in RVR 

development has to deal with a balanced game in a healthy RVR environment. for starters it is to remove the catalyst to unbalance the RVR , after that its up to the individual captain to sail his beloved nation. if the captain wants to change nation beginning from the bottom up is a challenge on its own.

and this will gradually seek his way in the power of a nation. 

but not an instant powerhouse created by (certain)individuals.

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Thonys

[Hethwill]

Yes, we got that. But how it improves the RvR ?

Let's see cycle...

- player joins game, player names character, player chooses nation

- after 30 days player feels the nation is not really cool, wants to change

- player changes nation and something happens ( like going back to zero )

- player tries again and eventually still is not happy with decision and after 30 days tryout wants to try another nation

- player changes nation and something happens ( like you describe )

...

How does this improve RvR ?

[Thonys]

15 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Yes, we got that. But how it improves the RvR ?

Let's see cycle...

- player joins game, player names character, player chooses nation

- after 30 days player feels the nation is not really cool, wants to change

- player changes nation and something happens ( like going back to zero )

- player tries again and eventually still is not happy with decision and after 30 days tryout wants to try another nation

- player changes nation and something happens ( like you describe )

...

How does this improve RvR ?

what you describe is an individual player.

my main issue is not the individual player but complete clans who make a change to a powerhouse nation.

after 30 days a beginning player is not a rear general and can easily make a nation change decision even with a basic cutter, he doesn't mind that change at all. (at least i wouldn't mind ) my main concern is the instant powerhouse changes to disrupt a complete game, instantly what makes people leaving the game as a game you can not compete against. thats one of the reasons why people take their hands of the game.   

if you play a ball game and you have a score 0-10 you give up, or fight to the bitter end to hold what you have. or...are you going to play for the other side(instantly)

 

(ps.i would kick  in the balls)(and that is not my opponent]

Edited January 7, 2019 by Thonys