Permit pricing as balancing the nations

[OjK]

So there were many ideas how to stop people from zerging.
None of them usually worked.

So I have an idea of how to incentive players to switch and play in smaller nations, and discourage from joining the largest ones.

Admirality Prices should be scaling with the amount of players in the Nation!

For example, L'Ocean permit, which originally cost 30 CMs, should be costing f.e. 100 CMs for the biggest nations, and just 5 for the smallest ones.
All based on weekly player numbers:

Proposed distribution:
There is 11 nations, so on average every nation should have 9% of playerbase - if that's the case - regular price of 30 CM should be applied.
If it's more or less, squared value should be applied.

if population is around 18% - 2x the average size, squared value -> 4x, so final price for the L'Ocean permit would be 120 CMs
if population is around 15% - 1,66x the average size, squared value -> 2,75x, so final price for L'Ocean permit would be 82 CMs
if population is around 12% - 1,33x the average size, squared value -> 1,77x, so final price for L'Ocean permit would be 53 CMs

if population is around 9% - 1x the average size, basic value of 30 CMs

if population is around 6% - 0,66x the average size, squared value -> 0,44x, so final price for L'Ocean permit would be 13 CMs
if population is around 3% or less - 0,33x the average size, squared value -> 0,11x, so final price would be 3 CMs

 

Of course, that would require to either make Permits not tradable, or each Permit should be "marked" as a nation wide. F.e. "British L'Ocean Permit" so it can be used only by same nation.
Otherwise, alts, again, will blew whole idea.

Also, if that would be applied, all currently not used permits should be refunded with 30 CMs, so stacking up Permits while they are cheap won't be the case.

Edited July 2, 2019 by OjK

[Teutonic]

could base it on ports owned instead.

it's hard to gauge nation population for a player - but it's easy to see how many ports you have

[OjK]

2 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

could base it on ports owned instead.

it's hard to gauge nation population for a player - but it's easy to see how many ports you have

Could do as well. 

Either by it summarized Port Upgrade values or by just amount of capturable ports.

[woodenfish]

#getreadyforthealtinflux

[OjK]

Just now, woodenfish said:

#getreadyforthealtinflux

That's why @Teutonic idea is even better. The dead alt doesn't matter on amount of ports controlled by nation.

[woodenfish]

No. It makes the problem worse. It means everyone with an alt can get cheap permits and those without one can't. At least with a population measure the more alts the less benefit...but the basic problem is why it will not happen I guess.

Edited July 2, 2019 by woodenfish
Typing Dutch in English

[Severus Snape]

4 minutes ago, woodenfish said:

No. It makes the problem worse. It means everyone with an alt can get cheap permits and those without one can't. At least with a population measure the more alts the less benefit...but the basic problem is why it will not happen I guess.

they still have to sail those permits out of the ports.  You could also make it so permits purchased off the admiralty cannot be traded.  

[OjK]

@woodenfish @Wraith

You didn't read it all did You?

I clearly said, that it have to go with either making permits non-tradable, or assigned to the nation they were bought.

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, OjK said:

I clearly said, that it have to go with either making permits non-tradable, or assigned to the nation they were bought.

I cant trade my L'Ocean from my alt.  No problem, I will surrender the L'Ocean to my alt's Lynx.  Don't get me wrong...I think it's a great idea, but there are ways to exploit it which would certainly be used. Just do a flat out balance based on county capitols.  hard cap.

[OjK]

2 minutes ago, Spikes said:

I suppose, but then you just make the ship and trade it to yourself...granted it is much harder for an alt to do that, but still possible.

Yeah, but if they craft the ship on their alt, it won't have the port bonuses, right?

So not really a point to do so.

@Angus MacDuff - same!

Edited July 2, 2019 by OjK

[woodenfish]

@OjK you are right!, but so is @Spikes

[Angus MacDuff]

8 minutes ago, OjK said:

Yeah, but if they craft the ship on their alt, it won't have the port bonuses, right?

So not really a point to do so.

@Angus MacDuff - same!

But they can craft on their cheaper option and surrender it to their overly expensive option

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, Spikes said:

Maybe not right now, but say Poland for example has very few ports. Once they get their crafting up with the bonuses, it will be super cheap to have an alt there and pump out cheap permits/ships.

Not sure if there's really a good way to counter the zerg.

Once a nation owns 10% of the county capitols on the map, they will no longer have hostility missions available to them and may not capture any ports.  What will an RVR clan from a zerg nation do?  Change nations.  no Zerg.

[Sella]

Can be circumnavigated by alts maybe? 

[vazco]

Very good idea, unfortunately with two breaking issues:

• exponential value is too big and would break nations. Linear, or even logarythmic could already do the trick
• there's a simple walkaround - move your alt to a small nation, craft there, and cap ships with your main account

It's much easier to vary CM acquisition by player numbers, harder to cheat.

Still, small nations shouldn't be rewarded. It's zerg nations who should be penalized. This way it's much more fault-proof. It's also good to have well spread distribution of small, medium and large nations. Having only 9% ones isn't great for a few reasons.

[vazco]

Increasing cost of 45-55 point port tax, based on number of owned high-point ports, is also a good idea.

Edited July 2, 2019 by vazco

[Farrago]

The bigger the empire or port, the greater the needs. Require goods to be imported to maintain ports and keep them running at full capacity = more role for traders, corsairs, spurs economy, and doesn’t just cause more money grind. It also would introduce economic warfare.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Never have it a physical item to encourage players to join one faction over others.  What POTBS did was gave loosing faction a boost to XP/credits every time the map reset.  We made sure that the other big nation (GB on Roberts) was never the bottom nation (normally France) so they wouldn't get that boost.   The wininng nation got a reward but didn't get any xp/credit boost.  

Mechwarrior online had a system for merc companies to encourage joining smaller factions.   You can measly see the factions % and depending how big the faction was you either took a -20% hit to xp/credits for big factions or gained 20% bonus for small factions.   We could do something like that to encourage folks to be in smaller factions.  Though it would prob just main folks would put alts in them just to level up.   I actually like this system better than something that might effect in game prices on things like permits and buildings and such. 

 

[Vinnie]

Brill idea

[van der Clam]

12 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I cant trade my L'Ocean from my alt.  No problem, I will surrender the L'Ocean to my alt's Lynx.  Don't get me wrong...I think it's a great idea, but there are ways to exploit it which would certainly be used. Just do a flat out balance based on county capitols.  hard cap.

If Combat News would report what ship each player was in, it would be an easy log to destroy those accounts exploiting in such a manner. Combat News reports it. Players see the news post. Players then report to Devs. Devs review the battle. Devs then smash down the banhammer...perma-ban.

[OjK]

18 hours ago, vazco said:

Still, small nations shouldn't be rewarded. It's zerg nations who should be penalized. This way it's much more fault-proof. It's also good to have well spread distribution of small, medium and large nations. Having only 9% ones isn't great for a few reasons.

This however would require an alt to be in the friendlisted clan, right?

Now this is not that easy to achieve with ever growing security in all the nations.

[vazco]

39 minutes ago, OjK said:

This however would require an alt to be in the friendlisted clan, right?

I'm not sure if I understand.

If you're commenting my idea, alts can't influence it. Example:

Distribution could be something like:

• 20% players - 100% CM's
• 25% players - 90% CM's
• 30% players - 70% CM's
• 35% players - 50% CM's

You're in Russia. You would receive 30 base CM's from a completed mission. Since your nation has 30% players, you receive 20 CM's.

You're in Commonwealth/Sweden/France/Spain, or any nation below 20% of users. You would receive 30 base CM's from a completed mission. Since you're a small nation (not many people logged in through last week), you receive full amunt - 30 CM's.

[derekticus]

Because the game has so many Alts, what @admin should be tracking is not "How many Russians logon per day / week" or "How many Dutch logon per day / week" but rather "How many Player hours are spent as Russians per day / week" and "How many Player hours are spent as Dutch per day / week."

This way, if I have 3 Alts and use each one at least once per day / week, but play 4 hours as a Russian and 1 hour each as Dutch and British:  Rather than counting Population as "1 Russian, 1 Dutch and 1 Brit", count it as "4 Russian, 1 Dutch and 1 Brit."

In this way you will glean a much more realistic view of the National population situation.