Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

 

The sever population is high, RVR is fun. But RVR can cut morale, fun and population of a nation, that lost couple of ports and battles. It is also not fun at all to fight empty Portbattles.

My question is:

How to make RVR fun for both sides?

I write this, because british players threat in forums, that their nation will depopulate, when they being attacked further.

In the end of the discussion i want to summarize the suggestions and write them in this post.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue I see is that it can't just be fixed with 1 change. This is what I, and many others, believe needs to happen.

1. 3rd rates should become "Standard ship" for all things RvR. 

a couple things need to happen for this to "work."

A. BR on ports has to be reduced, simple. If you don't reduce BR on ports then you'll be stuck with "we need 1st rates or we don't fight." With Santo domingo, it's clear that we are already there, any nation that does not have a 20-25 man 1st rate fleet is not equipped to fight RvR now. Players have warned this was going to happen. 

B. Thickness in general has to be reduced straight up. there should be no ship that has a base thickness higher than 70, and even then it may still be too high.

 

2. all Lineships should be more even in stats. 

A little more difficult than just nerfing or buffing stats. There needs to be a general trend that 1st and 2nd rates are great powerful ships, but should be inefficient for both BR and Economy. A 1st and 2nd rates can be kings and leaders of a fleet, but 3rd rates should be able to take damage and dish it back. What has to be changed is "bigger is always better in every way." This goes back to BR limits and even more so the hard limit of 25 players on each side. 

So if we even want to believe and try to find a place for smaller ships in the RvR experience and for it not to be dominated by just 1st rates, then we need to allow for mechanics that create incentives to bring 2nds, 3rds and 4ths to a lineship party.

Edited by Teutonic
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have ships crafted in different designs for different purposes, i would propose that ships of the line with full 2 deck gun batteriets have their own hp pool range, frigates their own and schooners, brigs etc their own. 

Penetration value @admin has said is realistic, but what does that matter if the thickness can be increased by over 20% from base stat. HMS Victory has a hull thickness of 60 cm at the waterline which is the thickest spot, same as connie has 55cm at waterline. 

If one value is realistic OT doesent help if 20 other value as manually set 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

So if we even want to believe and try to find a place for smaller ships in the RvR experience and for it not to be dominated by just 1st rates, then we need to allow for mechanics that create incentives to bring 2nds, 3rds and 4ths to a lineship party.

I'll post the suggestion yet again. Two battle ratings for each port battle. First BR would apply to all 3rd Rate ships and below for ship composition allowed for the port battle; the second BR would apply to 1st and 2nd Rate ship composition allowed for the port battle. The BR for both would insure that there would never be more than five ships of the line allowed into the port battle. The majority would consist of 3rd Rates and below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding one more thing, a blue ship vs a gold ship have completely different possibilities, the mods and knowledge books are unbalanced and i think its time to test if upgrades and books should affect the BR on ships, say you have the base br of the ship and based on what mods you have on it the BR can increased by up to 150 more if you run just the best mods. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wyy said:

 

You have ships crafted in different designs for different purposes, i would propose that ships of the line with full 2 deck gun batteriets have their own hp pool range, frigates their own and schooners, brigs etc their own. 

Penetration value @admin has said is realistic, but what does that matter if the thickness can be increased by over 20% from base stat. HMS Victory has a hull thickness of 60 cm at the waterline which is the thickest spot, same as connie has 55cm at waterline. 

If one value is realistic OT doesent help if 20 other value as manually set 

 

Yes.

the more I fight other ships and people, the more I feel Thickness is the biggest problem in the game at this moment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Poryv said:

I write this, because british players threat in forums, that their nation will depopulate, when they being attacked further.

I have been a GB player from when I started Jan 2018 until release and was very active in RvR and organisation thereof. Let me tell you, those that are still in GB will stay in GB even if they lose a couple of ports. We had worse times when our RvR fleet imploded and the Spano-Russian coalition kicked our butts for a while. We still fought, even held the Caymans for a while against far superior numbers and economy (there where no GB ports with rare woods at the time). GB may have to get used to no longer holding as much territory but I would not write them off just yet.

 

5 hours ago, Koveras said:

Players leave when they experience situations that they believe is giving one side an unfair advantage. Port bonus' is giving the nations that has 55p ports an unfair advantage. Modules are giving some players an unfair advantage. 

Honestly, the difference between 55 point ports and 45 point ports is marginal at best. Yes the Russians have a slight advantage there but that pales in comparison to their massive economy and the percentage of RvR-ready players. They did not win Bluefields because of port boni, they won because they could field a full PB fleet of 1st rates while GB was still trying to recover from losing most of theirs at Salamanca a few days prior.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that is exactly the point. There is literally no way GB alone can ever beat Russia if they continue to be aggressive. So then you have to have alies, but there is no mechanic in the game to do that. The imbalance is already set in stone with one side always able to do things faster and better than the other. Russia can now kerb stomp every other nation out of the game if they choose to

Edited by woodenfish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Numbers only make it hard to get inside offensive PBs. Once that obstacle is overcome it is a matter of skill and fleet composition. And GB does have a decent chance against REDS there. Both have fought each other before both lost some both won some. We'll see^^

GB and VP helped DK screen against Russia recently. I'm sure we can figure something out :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Tom Farseer said:

Numbers only make it hard to get inside offensive PBs. Once that obstacle is overcome it is a matter of skill and fleet composition. And GB does have a decent chance against REDS there. Both have fought each other before both lost some both won some. We'll see^^

GB and VP helped DK screen against Russia recently. I'm sure we can figure something out :ph34r:

In a one off battle you might be right, but in a war Russia will always win for exactly the reason they took Bluefields. They can always recover quicker. It's baked into the game now and that's the point. There is nothing that balances you getting bigger and more powerful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tom Farseer said:

I have been a GB player from when I started Jan 2018 until release and was very active in RvR and organisation thereof. Let me tell you, those that are still in GB will stay in GB even if they lose a couple of ports. We had worse times when our RvR fleet imploded and the Spano-Russian coalition kicked our butts for a while. We still fought, even held the Caymans for a while against far superior numbers and economy (there where no GB ports with rare woods at the time). GB may have to get used to no longer holding as much territory but I would not write them off just yet.

The difference with the game now is the port bonuses, if you lose your upgraded ports it is almost impossible to recover. Previously even if you did not have ready access to rare woods you could still obtain some by using alts, capturing from traders or sealed bottles, it did not matter where you built ships as long as you got the woods and books you could be competitive. But now if you lose your upgraded port, too much investment is required to start over in a port that probably has less points for upgrade and even if you succeed in fully upgrading a 25 point port your ships will still be inferior to ships built in a 55 point port.

There are people who will always remain in GB no matter what the situation, but they will be unable to be competitive in RvR as is the situation with some low population nations at the moment.

The whole port bonus implementation is flawed because the port points are fixed and thus to rule the map all you have to do is control all the 45 and 55 point ports. There should be some way that a nation can increase the port points so that they can choose to make any port a 55 point port. There have been so many suggestions of ways to implement port upgrades but they have ignored them for this simplified version that will drive players from the game.

Port bonuses has led to a situation where rather than generating RvR for the control of these ports it has become a case of nations holding back on their RvR for fear of destroying a nation and in the long run getting less RvR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the perfect situation would be that people that dont have 1st and 2nd rate can should have the chance to pump out 3rd rates at a rate which if the nations with only 1st and 2nd rates would eventually struggle to replace them and also prefer the 3rd rates. But this are stuff that was needed to be tested before the game got released.............................. @admin

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the max BR of 20000 should be limited to a dozen of ports in the map.

We need the BR to be reduced (I don't think this is big development job)

Also, the county capital to be captured first is an error. If we want a front-war, the capturable ports should be the two or three closest ports, county capital or not (and ability to use free ports as a hostility raising base possible only if your nation has no owned port).

And as written before once more, self balancing mechanisms are an absolute necessity.

2 hours ago, Liberalism said:

Take for example Europe Universalis 4, the game has dozens of mechanics balancing getting big and powerful fast.

  • overextension
  • aggresive expansion
  • coalitions
  • unrest/rebels/different cultures
  • corruption
  • autonomy
  • fabricating claims 
  • casus belli
  • coring/claiming territory 
  • war score limit (can't take everything usually)
  • peace time

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...