Price of the Night Timers

[Gregory Rainsborough]

On 1/12/2019 at 10:01 PM, Celtiberofrog said:

The most reasonable solution would be to split the map in 2 zones. Logically West & East zone.

Each zone has a single mandatory timer window for PB's.

This will sadly split players activity regarding PB's  but it won't be worse than now.

At least we would get rid of these nasty timers.

RvR would become affordable again, players in both zones may return and grow global server population.

It's a temporary compromize that will bother players that are not in USA & Europe chosen single timer window.

In future NA could be extended with another server with Indian Ocean theater map split in 2 zones as well.

Or another idea. An American server and a Europ--- Wait a second.

[King of Crowns]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 4:06 AM, Intrepido said:

This is not national news.

We are here proposing mechanics to avoid some situations.

I proposed an ingame work around. tell me why wouldn't you do what I suggested? WO has done this before in order to get a port for you dirty euros. we had HAVOC attack North inlet for us. I forget what the cost was. I know we traded some white oak port and built their whole fleet for them and gave them lots of money and mods. 

#stopsucking.

[staun]

16 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

Just to remind everyone how 1st generation of Prussians got wiped out by GB attacking their ports (and some other nations too). Prussians lost all their core ports and almost all of them quit. Same happened to Russia losing Kidds/Bermuda ports and Poland using their core bases at Barahona and Les Cayes (even if Vazco tries to disagree with that). 

@Intrepido if rediii and HAVOC want "content" and "fun", they should attack some useless ports and just solo-flip. Instead they go for multiflips with Sweden and Denmark and attack core Prussian ports, right in the heart. I don't call that content nor fun, I call it attempt to annihilate Prussia and win the war by all means. 

Are you making a joke. Denmark? Think it have been Prussia taking danish ports. Well guess techanically if you attack a danish port and GB and Sweden flip a Prussian port, Dk would be part of a multi flip. 

[staun]

5 hours ago, King of Crowns said:

I proposed an ingame work around. tell me why wouldn't you do what I suggested? WO has done this before in order to get a port for you dirty euros. we had HAVOC attack North inlet for us. I forget what the cost was. I know we traded some white oak port and built their whole fleet for them and gave them lots of money and mods. 

#stopsucking.

I know for you, to be linked up with the EU community, is the only chance to be on a server with some live. Just lots of players left that think a EU server as we had, would be better. 

Guess ppl just don’t want to work around Night timers(for an EU player), not going to depend on the Night Crew, But prefere a system where they actually them self can take part.

[Hethwill]

CET ? EET ? WET ? What EU time ?... Oh wait I know. Your own. 😶

 

[King of Crowns]

2 hours ago, staun said:

I know for you, to be linked up with the EU community, is the only chance to be on a server with some live. Just lots of players left that think a EU server as we had, would be better. 

1. another server costs a monthy fee that the devs will have to pay to steam. and the game is on its last leg of DEV money going into it. 

2.  if your going to do this the game needs to be refunded for all USA players. and there needs to be a big warning put on the game for all usa buyers that they do not get full access to the game if they purchase it. 

3. no other game that is an open world MMO restricts playable times as your EU server did. heck they don't even allow defence timers in most MMO. 

4. another server means this game will die of 2x faster than it already is. though an argument can be made that most usa players have already gave up on the game due to @admin chasing us off to a different server once already. 

[King of Crowns]

17 hours ago, Christendom said:

Since you mentioned it..

BF took those ports off WO in US prime time.  Reverse and the crew stayed up and made a special effort to take those ports way into the early hours of their morning.  They didn't whine or complain about them on the forums.  They just did it.  Back when I was US, GB had monopoly on ports in the Bahamas set to 11-14 to dodge attacks.  We got up 2 mornings and flipped 8 of them and SNOW fell apart.  GB has plenty of players on in the evenings to go flip Prussian ports, go ask them.  You were in Russia with us.  If North and Anolytic weren't able to get at a port during their times, they had the US players in their nation do it.  

This is a game.  In particular, it's a war game.....and shit is never going to be fair.  I wish more folks had the gumption that Reverse seems to have and if he wants a port, he puts forth the effort to go and take it.  80% + of the ports on the map are set to EU times.  Even Prussia's ports were all set to EU times back when we were night flipping them (wink wink).  People are upset because they can't attack a few of them?  Go attack elsewhere on the map.  Why not go after Carta or Santa Domingo?  Real money making ports never seem to get challenged, but folks give a shit about a couple useless ports with US timers on them.        

as much as I hate Christendom I have to agree with what he says here. there are very few ports in the game that are actually during the USA timezone. you euros have 80% of the map to play on stop crying about the little hole that the USA players have in the game. you have the  rest of the sandbox. if you don't like the timers a nation has hire some one to go attack it for you. 

I will also confirm that what reverse did at kidds was very impressive. there were 6 attacks/hostility grinds on the island before ports fell to Russia. 

[staun]

7 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

About 8 Danish ships run hostility at the same time on Bahia, was it pure coincidence? Maybe Danish players don't exist anymore, hmm...

Actually 8 players. Glad to hear that. Seems like there still is a bit life in the nation. Hobe they will keep growing in numbers.

[staun]

7 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

1. another server costs a monthy fee that the devs will have to pay to steam. and the game is on its last leg of DEV money going into it. 

2.  if your going to do this the game needs to be refunded for all USA players. and there needs to be a big warning put on the game for all usa buyers that they do not get full access to the game if they purchase it. 

3. no other game that is an open world MMO restricts playable times as your EU server did. heck they don't even allow defence timers in most MMO. 

4. another server means this game will die of 2x faster than it already is. though an argument can be made that most usa players have already gave up on the game due to @admin chasing us off to a different server once already. 

1 proberbly right abouth that.

2 Think you are wrong about. They will have an US server. They can play on both PvE and what would be EU server with those restrictions. There is full acces and pretty sure they don’t have to refund money. 

3 So because nobody ells do it. Thats your argument. If we have that approce to every thing, we would still live in a cave.

4 Sometime you have to cut off a leg to survive. I know, I know it is all admins mistake. Fact it though, that lets Call it US prime time players for some reason just don’t want the game. Your numbers are again to my knowledge low, even if we are on the same server. I truely belive if we get back the EU restrictions we slowly will see an increase in EU prime time numbers. Not like ppl tryed to tell it up to the merge.

But don’t worrie, don’t think they will do it.

[King of Crowns]

5 minutes ago, staun said:

1 proberbly right abouth that.

2 Think you are wrong about. They will have an US server. They can play on both PvE and what would be EU server with those restrictions. There is full acces and pretty sure they don’t have to refund money. 

3 So because nobody ells do it. Thats your argument. If we have that approce to every thing, we would still live in a cave.

4 Sometime you have to cut off a leg to survive. I know, I know it is all admins mistake. Fact it though, that lets Call it US prime time players for some reason just don’t want the game. Your numbers are again to my knowledge low, even if we are on the same server. I truely belive if we get back the EU restrictions we slowly will see an increase in EU prime time numbers. Not like ppl tryed to tell it up to the merge.

But don’t worrie, don’t think they will do it.

2. my view of 2 is correct. the end game of naval action is RVR. if you put the EU timer restriction on the game then the usa players will not have access to the end game content of naval action.

the people will come back to the game when the game launches then it will be a  process from launch till death.  night time timers wont be a problem when the game releases and there are 1000 people on round the clock for a few months. 

the wont do it because of the money. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, King of Crowns said:

2. my view of 2 is correct. the end game of naval action is RVR. if you put the EU timer restriction on the game then the usa players will not have access to the end game content of naval action.

the people will come back to the game when the game launches then it will be a  process from launch till death.  night time timers wont be a problem when the game releases and there are 1000 people on round the clock for a few months. 

the wont do it because of the money. 

Actually it is incorrect. The game is an early access game and there is no promise that RvR is at your convenience. Secondly many MMOs has EU/SEA/US servers.. Swtor fx. has regional servers to pile players together in common timezones. The praxis is common.

[staun]

14 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

as much as I hate Christendom I have to agree with what he says here. there are very few ports in the game that are actually during the USA timezone. you euros have 80% of the map to play on stop crying about the little hole that the USA players have in the game. you have the  rest of the sandbox. if you don't like the timers a nation has hire some one to go attack it for you. 

I will also confirm that what reverse did at kidds was very impressive. there were 6 attacks/hostility grinds on the island before ports fell to Russia. 

Problem is not that you have ports on your time.  The problem with a global server is.

- Ppl use timers to dodge in a war. Look at some of the recent changes.

- We don’t wan’t to grind for Reals to pay for timers. But without timers you just end up losing them to Night/morning flips.

- We are not going to spend oure nights trying to get ports in general. Few are thats why timers are needed timers.

- No we are in general not willing to pay others to do it. Plain and simple.

I see lots of interesting things with a global server. I might also work, just not with the effect it have on RvR and therefore also the Players. But maybe in time the new players that come will like it. But I would say the player base we have had under development have rejected a global server.

[King of Crowns]

Just now, Lars Kjaer said:

Actually it is incorrect. The game is an early access game and there is no promise that RvR is at your convenience. Secondly many MMOs has EU/SEA/US servers.. Swtor fx. has regional servers to pile players together in common timezones. The praxis is common.

if there was enough numbers playing the game to justify having 3 different servers then sure. but there isn't. splitting the 800 concurrent players across 3 servers and then into 11 different nations per server means that each nation could have 8 players. sounds like a great game. 

[staun]

4 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

2. my view of 2 is correct. the end game of naval action is RVR. if you put the EU timer restriction on the game then the usa players will not have access to the end game content of naval action.

Thats why they have an Us ore a global server. Fine acces to end game. They can even play on the EU server if they want to. They just have to accept the restrictions. Same goes for an EU player. He can play on the other server if he se so fit. Just have to accept the game rules on that server.

[Hethwill]

People's decisions... are not game mechanics.  

Not wanting to do something in game is a human issue, not a game mechanics issue.

Sandbox NA offers any players the choices to select what one wants to do. A newcomer might get confused, a veteran never.

Community made diplomacy, and honouring the deals, leads to a lot less war. Say you have 50 ports in your time you can attack, but you "can't" because you honour some diplomatic deal...

I think the design team made the right choice when they made all nations enemies. Technically they transferred the decision to us, the players, if we really want to fight or not. ( i still don't believe in clanwars as a flagship for conquest albeit all anti.alt benefits )

 

 

 

 

[staun]

2 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

if there was enough numbers playing the game to justify having 3 different servers then sure. but there isn't. splitting the 800 concurrent players across 3 servers and then into 11 different nations per server means that each nation could have 8 players. sounds like a great game. 

Most likely it won’t be a 3 way split. Of the 800. 150 will proberbly be on US another 150 on PvE. So 500 wil proberbly stay on an EU server. Neither will players be split even among nations. 

[King of Crowns]

15 minutes ago, staun said:

Problem is not that you have ports on your time.  The problem with a global server is.

- Ppl use timers to dodge in a war. Look at some of the recent changes.

- We don’t wan’t to grind for Reals to pay for timers. But without timers you just end up losing them to Night/morning flips.

- We are not going to spend oure nights trying to get ports in general. Few are thats why timers are needed timers.

- No we are in general not willing to pay others to do it. Plain and simple.

I see lots of interesting things with a global server. I might also work, just not with the effect it have on RvR and therefore also the Players. But maybe in time the new players that come will like it. But I would say the player base we have had under development have rejected a global server.

for the 400 players you play with. and the 300 players that I play with like it. if you don't want to play the game in order to pay for timers that's fine. then don't own ports.

Most of the ports pay for themselves anyways since this last patch. 

if your not willing to pay other to attack ports that are outside of your timezone then you need to grind some more salt and hatred within your heart. you must wish for the utter demise of your enemy. things like watching mighty mo punch his microphone while live streaming until his hand bleeds because he lost a ship...or making one clan member so mad that he steals everything from his clan Wearhouse and uninstalls the game..... that should be your goal. your just wanting to get into a little Barbie fight with your enemy.... no wonder you asking the devs for a fresh bottle to suck on...….

I mean think of all the heartache you could cause if you took a port from a clan where their clan wearhouse is located.... they must spend hours hauling crap..... or liquidate to the port for pennies on the dollar.  its a great time. and it gives you reason to get up early or stay up late and beat their heads in during the pb. its what makes RVR worth doing. 

Edited January 15, 2019 by King of Crowns

[King of Crowns]

anyway it doesn't matter the devs have already ruled on this subject over a year ago when they said there will be one server.

our brain power would better be spent trying to think of ways to make RVR more interesting and engaging and useful. more content=better game. so think of some content. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

People's decisions... are not game mechanics.  

Not wanting to do something in game is a human issue, not a game mechanics issue.

Sandbox NA offers any players the choices to select what one wants to do. A newcomer might get confused, a veteran never.

Community made diplomacy, and honouring the deals, leads to a lot less war. Say you have 50 ports in your time you can attack, but you "can't" because you honour some diplomatic deal...

I think the design team made the right choice when they made all nations enemies. Technically they transferred the decision to us, the players, if we really want to fight or not. ( i still don't believe in clanwars as a flagship for conquest albeit all anti.alt benefits )

 

 

 

 

I would agree if it wasn't because RvR has a huge impact on other players ability to play the game. Basically atm RvR is a denial of access game, but for casual players that only has one account it is also a denial of ressources. Some ressources like trade goods should be limited - have RvR matter in an economical sense, but when it comes to ressources perceived as necessary to participate in PvP on the PvP server (teak, WO, rs for mods etc), then RvR becomes poison for the game. Add to that the ridicolous imbalance in some mods - rig refits fx, magical refits that makes masts impenetrable.

 

Solution that COULD make a global server work?:

A percentage of created trade ressources goes to the owning clans warehouse. All ressources are player created, and all necessary ressources for shipcrafting can be created everywhere.

What would make RvR matter? - access to economical venues.

 

As it is atm, the global server is not working but atm no one cares because RvR doesn't matter.

[staun]

19 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

for the 400 players you play with. and the 300 players that I play with like it. if you don't want to play the game in order to pay for timers that's fine. then don't own ports.

Most of the ports pay for themselves anyways since this last patch. 

if your not willing to pay other to attack ports that are outside of your timezone then you need to grind some more salt and hatred within your heart. you must wish for the utter demise of your enemy. things like watching mighty mo punch his microphone while live streaming until his hand bleeds because he lost a ship...or making one clan member so mad that he steals everything from his clan Wearhouse and uninstalls the game..... that should be your goal. your just wanting to get into a little Barbie fight with your enemy.... no wonder you asking the devs for a fresh bottle to suck on...….

I mean think of all the heartache you could cause if you took a port from a clan where their clan wearhouse is located.... they must spend hours hauling crap..... or liquidate to the port for pennies on the dollar.  its a great time. and it gives you reason to get up early or stay up late and beat their heads in during the pb. its what makes RVR worth doing. 

I know. I just don’t have it. So am just doing some PvP. My guess I am not the only one. But better to have a end game 100 ppl enjoy and the rest gives a hello kitty abouth. Way better than have a end game 80 % want to take part in.

Edited January 15, 2019 by staun

[Hethwill]

No one wants to lose, but everyone expects to win. Right ?

While one can have a good attitude while playing a game, one also has to practice different ways of playing and trying to win. No one needs to the a "crush all enemies before you" but one doesn't need to "cuddle them and nourish them". 

This is in a 1v1 or in a 25v25 or in a 4v1. The end is the same. Naval combat in the grand age of sail, no matter what labels you want to put it.

Say a gamer goes to play a napoleonics scenario where he has to face three armies all at once, the outcome, more often than not is a loss. But it doesn't mean necessarily it is a waste of time.

Where did the attitude of - "you got me this time sir, but let me practice a bit more and we shall meet again ! GG " - went to ? 

I mean, the guy lost but he has the willingness to learn the game more to provide a better challenge.

Same applies to the other side - salute your opponent, and carry on.

Salt and vinegar villainy is okay, plain online toxicity shuns more people than not.

Most come here for a age of sail vibe, not for some teenz my dad is better than yours. Once they get faced by that, it is easy to kickstart a reduction of interest in the War server and two things happen, they go Peace or they stop and go play some other historical game.

NA community is like a stream. At low tide the garbage in the bottom looks like something. When full with water no one notices it is there.

[Celtiberofrog]

This topic seems to also point out that War & RvR, depending on how it is managed/utilized by main active clans, build reputations.

Clans or nation's reputation can become quite sticky and certainly influence player community in terms of RvR reactions.

This is kind of natural, that's why a NA political background is a necessary support, it will help everyone to integrate player behaviors within abvious political reasons.

Today acts of war are meaningless and kind of anarchic, clan alliances or cooperations are far too foggy and generate critics to specific clans or players (justified or not).

Nation's political positions toward others are necessary to my point of view, it would help to rationalize behaviors.

Alliance system between nations is really needed though.

Only Pirates political situation should remain foggy.

 

[Celtiberofrog]

11 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

NA community is like a stream. At low tide the garbage in the bottom looks like something. When full with water no one notices it is there.

very good statement so true.

We need high tide !!

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

No one wants to lose, but everyone expects to win. Right ?

While one can have a good attitude while playing a game, one also has to practice different ways of playing and trying to win. No one needs to the a "crush all enemies before you" but one doesn't need to "cuddle them and nourish them". 

This is in a 1v1 or in a 25v25 or in a 4v1. The end is the same. Naval combat in the grand age of sail, no matter what labels you want to put it.

Say a gamer goes to play a napoleonics scenario where he has to face three armies all at once, the outcome, more often than not is a loss. But it doesn't mean necessarily it is a waste of time.

Where did the attitude of - "you got me this time sir, but let me practice a bit more and we shall meet again ! GG " - went to ? 

I mean, the guy lost but he has the willingness to learn the game more to provide a better challenge.

Same applies to the other side - salute your opponent, and carry on.

Salt and vinegar villainy is okay, plain online toxicity shuns more people than not.

Most come here for a age of sail vibe, not for some teenz my dad is better than yours. Once they get faced by that, it is easy to kickstart a reduction of interest in the War server and two things happen, they go Peace or they stop and go play some other historical game.

NA community is like a stream. At low tide the garbage in the bottom looks like something. When full with water no one notices it is there.

Whilst I agree in principle I believe the good sportsmanship goes out of the window when one side, regardless of 1v4 or 1v1, has a distinct and clear perceived advantage over the other that basically ensures the outcome of the battle before it has begun. That has nothing to do with the game being a sandbox or age of sails, but due to poor balancing and a simplistic understanding on the devs side of the econ and crafting systems in the game. And ofc a decidedly poor understanding of player psychology.

[Celtiberofrog]

47 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

I think the design team made the right choice when they made all nations enemies. Technically they transferred the decision to us, the players, if we really want to fight or not.

I do not agree with that. Or at least there should be a support in NA to show the current political position of every nations.

Otherwise this will remain a jungle.

Why having a game designed in an historical theater, today it's like having multiple pirate groups with different flags & colors, a wild tribal conflict without any coherence.