Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
DreadPirateBob

Russia captures Roseau: the devs have to act aggressively to deal with the population balance

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, admin said:

nice idea
1,000,000 DB cost to switch to OP nation, 0 to small nation
Its like buying a passport. Some nations will have a free passport (if you sneak in) and some nations will have it very expensive due to strict immigration policy.

Additional idea to naturally control expansions is to have national manpower.
Crew right now comes from air. And i think it should not.

More manpower = more cost and food required to maintain
If your nation has 50% of players only ship you can get (due to lack of free manpower) is the frigate or you have to ask someone to lend you 800 sailors (who each eat 1 ton of provision per game month and needs 1 gold db salary per month).
To provide some protection 100 crew is free for all, but all crew above comes from national manpower

  • if you nation has 10 players and 10000 manpower they can sail 10 first rates
  • If you nation has 500 players - you have bigger manpower - but not 50 bigger. Enough Field 10-20 first rates the rest will have to sail in frigates. Crew becomes a resource like guns (but will be expendable) making large countries vulnerable in case of fast manpower loss.

This will also give incentives for  skilled players to move to smaller nations because large nations will lose more manpower in general due to wide variety of skill levels.

This could become a natural balancing force.

Problem: Nobody will want the noobs! Bei sure big Clans will do their best to evict noobs and bad players ... this can end in a very toxic Community ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Sorry but no.

 

Alliance system is the way to go

really? just wondering, how would an alliance force me to reinstall the game and do anything for my "beloved" allies at some useless port at the end of the map...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkwood said:

really? just wondering, how would an alliance force me to reinstall the game and do anything for my "beloved" allies at some useless port at the end of the map...

Not everyone is like you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Not everyone is like you.

Alliance won´t bring players back, which are not playing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin said:

Additional idea to naturally control expansions is to have national manpower.

Why not just limit the number of ports per nation.  You can only own 1/11th of the map.  That way, if RVR options are dead in one nation, clans will move to another.  Very dynamic situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin said:

If manpower is a way to go - Alts cant significantly affect the manpower - usage affects manpower.
If alt actively plays, gains rank, and is in the OW being a target only then he is using the manpower, but then he is just a player.  Passive population does not expend the manpower, active population is using it. 

You can base it off number of “flag officers” as well...  Start the throttling of manpower once a certain nation gets far more “flag captains/commodores/rear admirals/admirals”...

You can’t have all chiefs and no Indians.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin said:

Additional idea to naturally control expansions is to have national manpower.
Crew right now comes from air. And i think it should not.

More manpower = more cost and food required to maintain
If your nation has 50% of players only ship you can get (due to lack of free manpower) is the frigate or you have to ask someone to lend you 800 sailors (who each eat 1 ton of provision per game month and needs 1 gold db salary per month).
To provide some protection 100 crew is free for all, but all crew above comes from national manpower

  • if you nation has 10 players and 10000 manpower they can sail 10 first rates
  • If you nation has 500 players - you have bigger manpower - but not 50 bigger. Enough Field 10-20 first rates the rest will have to sail in frigates. Crew becomes a resource like guns (but will be expendable) making large countries vulnerable in case of fast manpower loss.

This will also give incentives for  skilled players to move to smaller nations because large nations will lose more manpower in general due to wide variety of skill levels.

This could become a natural balancing force.

Interesting idea 🙂

I would give every port a certain amount free hireable crewmen for a maintenance cycle, the capitols more, the smaller ports less. All captains who hire men, are using this global pool first. If this amount is depleted, everybody can only hire a certain amount of men per ingame day: At a 55pts port it could be 55, at a 15pts port only 15 for example. If you have the patience, you still can crew your first rate, but the captain of the Privateer would have fought 2-3 battles in this time. Nations with less population are at advantage because they have more unemployed seaman (maybe even elite ones?), in the higher populated nations (with bigger navies) the press gangs have a hard time to find enough men.

I would also limit wood and mine efficency in this way: The more mines a nation has in one port, the less output every mine as until a minimum of 20% (30% for captains of the owning clan) of the highest possible output. A certain number of mines should be possible with high output, every mine/wood above this limit would reduce efficency of all.

If you want, you even can use crew for mines and buildings, which count also against the limits and can be reduced by port battles and raids (because they flee or are killed).

Share this post


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

If manpower is a way to go - Alts cant significantly affect the manpower - usage affects manpower.
If alt actively plays, gains rank, and is in the OW being a target only then he is using the manpower, but then he is just a player.  Passive population does not expend the manpower, active population is using it. 

We all know they will find a way to abuse it. I Imagine 10 Oceans surrendering at a quiet place to 3 Basic Cutters (with fleet perk 😀) just to cost the enemy 11k Crew ... Prefered 2 hours before Importamt battle

1 hour ago, rediii said:

You could calculate it only using top 10 clans

This may be a solution, will also prevent noobs for accusation of wasting Crew ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gilles de Rais said:

We all know they will find a way to abuse it. I Imagine 10 Oceans surrendering at a quiet place to 3 Basic Cutters (with fleet perk 😀) just to cost the enemy 11k Crew ... Prefered 2 hours before Importamt battle

All of the intelligent, complex solutions will have the ability to be abused.  That is why the KISS principle should be used and a simple hard limit be emplaced.  That'll probably get abused as well, but at least it was simple and straight-forward.  Alts are part of the game and we can't program around them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest. Only the top 10 clans matter in all nations. The whole situation of a nation is shown on this.

GB might have 17% of the playing population or even more, yet they have a very small participation and centralization which is shown in top 10 leaderboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

All of the intelligent, complex solutions will have the ability to be abused.  That is why the KISS principle should be used and a simple hard limit be emplaced.  That'll probably get abused as well, but at least it was simple and straight-forward.  Alts are part of the game and we can't program around them.

KISS is good 😀

Personally i would prefere alliances changing every 3-6 weeks choosed Not by Players but by algorithm with random Elements. 

So for ex. atm algorithm could choose that Rus + Vp are in war with the rest of the nations ... or maybe other combinations. Maybe smallest 3 nations can decide by Poll what Side to join.

Of course war opponents (whole Alliances) should be almost even (max 60:40). 

Between the wars a period of peace may be a good Idea ... 1-2 weeks without rvr will give people and nations a rest and increase the desire to fight.

During peace diplomatic News and rumors can be given in forum or Game: "King of sweden insults emperor of russia" or "GB-Amiral visited US and promised everlasting friendship" 

Dont forget: it was european politics that diceded over carribean war's 😆

 

Edited by Gilles de Rais

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, Hawkwood said:

really? just wondering, how would an alliance force me to reinstall the game and do anything for my "beloved" allies at some useless port at the end of the map...

I m also not coming back.

Bad patch is coming. To much pve on pvp server soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Why not just limit the number of ports per nation.  You can only own 1/11th of the map.  That way, if RVR options are dead in one nation, clans will move to another.  Very dynamic situation.

This would not work as you anticipate. Not everyone can afford to move nation and moving nation comes at a big cost in lost investment and reinvestment costs. What is more likely to happen is that nations would reach their cap on ports and then stagnate and people would get bored and leave the game, or with the current RvR mechanics they would drop non-capital ports and just go round capturing capital ports yet still leaving non-capital ports inaccessible to other nations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Archaos said:

or with the current RvR mechanics they would drop non-capital ports and just go round capturing capital ports yet still leaving non-capital ports inaccessible to other nations.

Yeah, the Capitol Ports are an issue.  Perhaps a hard cap on the number of capitol Ports.  I'm not sure that i agree with you that people would quit rather than switch.  This game generates dedicated players and the thought of the Zerg being removed might even bring some back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sven Silberbart said:

Oh, they would...at least me 🙂

Is that so? Means that by now, without having a game mechanic, you weren´t able to talk to other nations/clans and fight a particular enemy? Lol....

An alliance can not force me to play..or anyone else. if you think a simple alliance can improve the game...good luck then.

Edited by Hawkwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny,

  1. ppl build a strong nation.
  2. strong nation invites more ppl to become a zerg nation.
  3. zerg nation destroys everyone.
  4. rest of nations complain.
  5. zerg nation says it's not their fault, it's the devs fault.
  6. zerg nation keeps recruiting and destroying.
  7. half the ppl jump on the zergwagon.
  8. zerg nation thinks it's funny to keep recruiting to make a point to the devs that the game is "broken".
  9. zerg nation spams "the game is broken, it's not our fault for imbalanced game".
  10. devs introduce something to hinder the zerg nation in attempts to balance game.
  11. zerg nation cries about being hindered.

#thisactuallyhappenedfolks

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Staunberg said:

How will this effect ppl will to risk a ship in OW PvP and the PZ if ppl know a lose will have an effect on the Nations ability defend them self in RvR? What are your thoughts abouth that issue?

You shouldn't worry about losing ships in PvP, RvR or PZ. This right here tells me that you only PvE and fight in OW only when you have and outnumbering force. Just wow!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@van der Clam so what do you think ? Any solution needed or not?

I do not care about zerg nation. We are British, Zerg or not, every nation is hostile against us, and will come together as one against us. So nothing has changed really.

But if this is a problem, of course it is about the Developers, they are the gods who decide what will come next, an earthquake or tornado ? They have all the responsibilty as this is their design.

I can only say DLCs made the game a bit worse, like the forged papers. This is caribbean, there should be heavy price to be paid in the GAME WORLD, to change identity.

In fact same goes with DLC ships, espeacialy Ratvissan, you can harm others and make them suffer but your loss does not have a big price in the game world.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, van der Clam said:

Funny,

  1. ppl build a strong nation.
  2. strong nation invites more ppl to become a zerg nation.
  3. zerg nation destroys everyone.
  4. rest of nations complain.
  5. zerg nation says it's not their fault, it's the devs fault.
  6. zerg nation keeps recruiting and destroying.
  7. half the ppl jump on the zergwagon.
  8. zerg nation thinks it's funny to keep recruiting to make a point to the devs that the game is "broken".
  9. zerg nation spams "the game is broken, it's not our fault for imbalanced game".
  10. devs introduce something to hinder the zerg nation in attempts to balance game.
  11. zerg nation cries about being hindered.

#thisactuallyhappenedfolks

#accurate #humansareicky

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:

@van der Clam so what do you think ? Any solution needed or not?

I do not care about zerg nation. We are British, Zerg or not, every nation is hostile against us, and will come together as one against us. So nothing has changed really.

But if this is a problem, of course it is about the Developers, they are the gods who decide what will come next, an earthquake or tornado ? They have all the responsibilty as this is their design.

I can only say DLCs made the game a bit worse, like the forged papers. This is caribbean, there should be heavy price to be paid in the GAME WORLD, to change identity.

In fact same goes with DLC ships, espeacialy Ratvissan, you can harm others and make them suffer but your loss does not have a big price in the game world.

 

Yes a solution is needed, and I did not like the idea of Forged Papers DLC, but understood the need for it. People could control zergs IF those who bought it and jumped on the zergwagon would use it again to change nation again. But most ppl in a game refuse to do so. So, I think something needs to be done, but I'm not certain a Manpower design is the right way to go. How could a zerg nation who owns all the ports suffer from manpower? They literally have all the ports and so have all the population.

I have no solution for this issue (alliances would be nice provided alts don't hello kitty it up again), hence why I feel players should take responsibility for their own actions. But, if players won''t change nation, and the devs want to issue Manpower and this makes the zerg suffer, then it's the player's fault for jumping on the zergwagon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a particularly active player in terms of PvP, I do it in patrols and shallows with the occasional roam - but if I PvP'd everyday - wouldn't limiting manpower essentially limit PvP due to a shortage of "crew?" 

What would be the contributing factors to allow someone to throw 5th rates around the map everyday like breadcrumbs but make lineship/1st rate users no be able to use their ships often.

I just hope the incentive creates players to use 5th rates over lineships more often - but I think forcing the limitation could have some unintended consequences...

Share this post


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

What would be the contributing factors to allow someone to throw 5th rates around the map everyday like breadcrumbs but make lineship/1st rate users no be able to use their ships often.

That's a concern.  What does a player do who loves sailing his heavy ship?  If he hasn't enough crew, does he go out in a 5th rate or log off? (#KISS)

Edited by Angus MacDuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution:

Center of map - free ports (or pve based nations), (like eve online), some protection from gang, few resources
Rest of the map - a lot of resources, RoE as it is now. *Clans* claim for ports, no more nations, just clans and aliances. Standing.

Yes, it requires a lot of programming, but it revives the politic and RvR. Intrigue, betrayal, the price of a promise - burning sea.
But is not "nation" port now, it's OUR port. No docking rights for everyone, friends only.

The limitation of port resources is a very sensible idea that will give a great deal of dynamism to the global map. The main question is how to keep the balance so that the need to upgrade many ports has not turned into an endless grind.

BTW, free ports deep inside nation territory it's a bad idea from the very beginning, it makes no sense to have any borders and border wars there.

IMHO. Yeah, I'm a dreamer and idealist, I know.

Share this post


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...