Patrol Zone Fix: Ship Durability + Team Sizes

[Slim McSauce]

3 hours ago, Tenet said:

Do you have any specific reasons?5th rates in shallow patrols are already a thing - welcome to 2019 Meta. Surprise (5th rate) is a shallow ship now, and a top choice in PZ. 

Surprise has a more shallow draft than the brig I believe. That's why it and the Cerberus are shallow water ships.

[huliotkd]

14 hours ago, Tenet said:

When you Sink in Patrol Zone, you get back to port in your ship, keeping everything you have, and durability gets reduced by 1 - you only lose the ship permanently on the last sinking.

is it a joke? it isn't funny....

[Hethwill]

Suggestions are always good, just a word of caution - not everyone perceives the "problem" or even the existence of "the problem"; which is the very start of the suggestion. ( and then evolves into "how can you not see it!" and argumentation of how to one isn't a issue and to the other is the major issue... and the suggestion gets lost. )

It might be a individual issue with the PZ but definitely not a general thing for everyone. As with everything, it can always be improved by any means the developers see necessary.

What is fact is - Those that like the PZ go there. Those that don't like it never go there.

[Tenet]

3 hours ago, Mascarino said:

I'll tell you why. If people start getting durabilities only in PZ, of course all will prefer play only in PZ and abandon open world, it's a matter of costs. NA Legends didn't work because people prefer OW engagements, if they implement your idea, the game will lose alot of players. 

Your logical structure seems weak. I will dissect it. 

You claim that A: More durability of ships in PZ will make it preferable to OW, and will make people abandon OW during the two days that Nassau and Deadman's patrols occur in the open world. You claim this is so because "it's a matter of costs" and players will choose PvP activity where the cost of entry is smallest. 

You also claim that B: NA Legends didn't work because people prefer OW engagements, which means that if A is implemented, and if A is popular, than the more popular game will now somehow lose "a lot" of players. 

The refutation is obvious: A does not imply what you say it does, because people PvP for more reasons than just "cost of ship". Your argument B is also too convoluted - how can something be Popular and lead to Population Decline at the same time?! Naval Action Legends was clearly Unpopular according to Admin - so you performed a False Analogy. It is also false because PZ Durability is clearly NOT like NA Legends. Anyone familiar with the details of NA Legends implementation will know exactly why this was a pointless comparison - matchmaking, progression, ship composition, mechanics, etc, are all entirely different.

To summarize:

You do not really care about PZ popularity. Like Teutonic and others earlier, you really are just worried about OW PvP being unpopular, and having little reasons for participation. You feel like OW PvP is so unpopular, that the only way to get people to play it is to destroy any competing activity in the game. This is why anything that improves PZ is a threat that you must eliminate - even if that means making false comparisons and illogical arguments. 

I think that you are wrong in both your assessment of my PZ idea, and your assessment for the reasons people OW pvp, and the popularity of all these activities. 

1. If OW PvP is so unpopular that it has to be forced, perhaps you should work on your foreplay - add incentives and mechanics that reduce the friction and increase the pleasure. Start a thread with suggestions, or wait for me to do it for you.

2. PZ Durability can indeed be "too good" of a buff even if it has minimal effect on OW pvp. That could have been a valid argument, and since it could have been said, I should respond. I edited the OP to reduce the multiplier to 3x from 5x, because I believe that the actual lives used will be N-1 anyway, as people will cling more to the last one with a good ship. I think giving each ship in PZ 2-3 more opportunities to re-engage will be just good enough to promote more fighting on those days, but not so good as to entice people to participate just for economical reasons. 

The real reason PZ is popular is not just economics, but the higher quality of fights already evident compared to OW. When you go to a Nassau or Deadman's PZ (provided you have 9 friends and gear) both fight probability, and probability of it being a good bloody brawl and not a long dry chase, increases significantly. How to improve OW PvP in these metrics is a separate topic.  

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Tenet

[Farrago]

I disagree with the increase duarabilty for the patrol zone. You are already rewarded with extra combat medals (and XP bonuses?) for all activity in the patrol zone. THAT is the payment for participating there with its increased danger.

[Tenet]

8 hours ago, Farrago said:

I disagree with the increase duarabilty for the patrol zone. You are already rewarded with extra combat medals (and XP bonuses?) for all activity in the patrol zone. THAT is the payment for participating there with its increased danger.

I appreciate the explanation. Do you think the rewards matter when the damage numbers required to reach meaningful rewards are the same as for line ships? 5th rates in Shallows don't output such numbers. People typically quit at 20k or 70k damage level, in the same amount of time that a line ship can reach 200k+. 

[Farrago]

44 minutes ago, Tenet said:

I appreciate the explanation. Do you think the rewards matter when the damage numbers required to reach meaningful rewards are the same as for line ships? 5th rates in Shallows don't output such numbers. People typically quit at 20k or 70k damage level, in the same amount of time that a line ship can reach 200k+. 

Honestly if they are going to have PVP bonus areas I think the awards should be insane. Definitely lower reward level requirements for shallows. Also increase the bonus rate for damage dealt to players.