Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
DreadPirateBob

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

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, admin said:

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).

Delete building for provisions and make provisions only to be obtainable by fishing - maybe make some fishing mini game and add some skill books which improve fishing

And make fishing allowed only if you are for example atleast 10k distance from nearest port so you cant camp outside docks/under fort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, o7Captain said:

Delete building for provisions and make provisions only to be obtainable by fishing - maybe make some fishing mini game and add some skill books which improve fishing

And make fishing allowed only if you are for example atleast 10k distance from nearest port so you cant camp outside docks/under fort

so...we can't create food and provisions from farming the land, that seems incredibly lazy.

the problem I see is not that less people will have 1st rates, but rather nations/groups/clans will just wait "longer" in order to have a 25 man 1st rate fleet.

artificially limiting a resource in hopes that players just "go fight port battles" with less than max BR on what the port shows is short-sighted. limiting a resource to force less production of 1st rates doesn't stop a group from eventually getting a full fleet of 1st rates.

IF we truly wanted to limit 1st rates/lineships then there are a number of options that may not be well received:

1. You hard cap lineships for each clan/nation - and this won't go well

2. you force Port Battles to have limitations such as 2 1st rates, 3 2nds, 10 3rds - @van der Clam and a few others have proposed something like this.

3. Lower BR of ports

4. Lower the base speed of all lineships

5. lineships can only be docked or used in county capital ports and battles

6. hard cap Ship Rates on port battles - randomize it like 4th, 3rds, 5hs, and so on (similar to patrol zones).

 

There are a myriad of suggestions - both some i like and also don't like that seem better than making a "manpower" limitation in game.

 

Heck - FOCUS on Economy in the game, making it better, more fluid. The battle aspect of this game is near perfect - there is no need to continue messing with it when the rest of the MMO part of this game is decaying.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing unlimited ressources & crew is an interesting concept and would totally change the game dynamic, but at this stage post release i might be dangerous and unproductive as i fail to see how anouncing increased limitations would make players try again the game, i'm all for limiting 1st rates even more (and your proposal could work in that sense), but it also affect the newbies in basic cutter so...

 

How will that prevent the top 5 RvR/PvP clans to team-up in an empty nation (like poland) and still stomp every other nation counting zero or few good RvR/PvP clans but having to manage tons of noobs sinking a lot ?

If they are good clans alliance, they will conquer more ports so more ress access, and sunk less in 25 1st rates when facing 25 wasa, so the change will not hurt them more than the others i think, but devs must have better data than me. 

I can't see anything else than allowing alliance between the worse nation in the rvr ranking. Except maybe forcing civil war when top 3 clans are in a same nation (but how to force them to fight each others ? + game should not force you into doing stuff you disagree with, or else you will simply stop playing or trick the system, not counting that it could be bypassed by all joining a super clan.)

Edited by Baptiste Gallouédec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, admin said:

Could work

Access to 1 extra crew per 1 day in nation. Starting with 20 for trading. 
Being in United States since 1760 - Have all the manpower you want. Just arrived from Haiti - Sail the trader cutter for 20 days until the normal cutter.

Of course if you join the weak nation - no problemo - all manpower you want.

Agree, could work, but it smacks more of the stick than the carrot. It is quite risky going with the stick.

I'm sure there are possibilities of going with carrot only, more possibilities than I can conjure...

The economy needs to stay the same because reasons, but you could fiddle with marks and permits and whatever else decides how much effort it takes to click out a ship.

Off the top of my head example:

All but everyone is grinding marks, combat and vic, in order to be allowed to click out ships. These days you can grind marks without really engaging in pvp, so that makes anti-alt and anti-"exploiting" a tad difficult. The general idealized idea is that it pays off a lot more to do PvP in a small faction, I say PvP to avoid those corner-of-the-map-safe-multiplied-alt grinders you would get if you allowed PvE activities to be multiplied in small factions. If someone places an alt in a small faction and does PvP to grind stuff, does that constitute alt-leeching?

Aces High has a system a bit like this. There is no grind for anything nor an economy in Aces High, but there are a few OP vehicles available. If you PvP in a weak vehicle and succeed you get paid a lot in special points, that amount is multiplied further if you fight in a small faction or team. In addition the smaller team pays less to take out OP vehicles with said points while the steamroll team may be blocked from using those OP vehicles entirely. Works somewhat as a balancer and clearly as motivation to switch to the weak side. Switching is easy in AH as there is no meaning to anything there, there is only a cool-down measured in single digit hours. Plebs would still join the large team in order to win the war but most smart and accomplished players would pick the underdog team for more targets, more points and cheaper OP vehicles.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Could work

Access to 1 extra crew per 1 day in nation. Starting with 20 for trading. 
Being in United States since 1760 - Have all the manpower you want. Just arrived from Haiti - Sail the trader cutter for 20 days until the normal cutter.

Of course if you join the weak nation - no problemo - all manpower you want.

You would get tons of support tickets then. People would complain they didn't know it's the case. 

 

Why not limit CM and doubloon acquisition? It's the simplest way to make whole clans switch nations, and that's the goal.

 

You can't use anything based on gold, as it can be abused by alts. 

 

Another option is to limit port bonuses of the most numerous nations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same in IL-2 online wars. The more populated sides may deplete the available models very fast. ( additional numbers must actually be flown from the rear and delivered to the front AF, so it is a measure of logistics, and they can be intercepted of course ).

But there's a caveat, that would happen both in AH or IL2. What if high skilled squadrons join the bigger side. They will use the assets more efficiently and resorting less to necessary logistics of bringing reinforcements from the rear AF.

Similar to NA at the moment, where player choice accumulated skill and numbers on Team Red, while Team Blue is left with losses and logistical issues.

But then, there's no win in NA other than forcing enemies to just surrender by giving up.

What is interesting in NA is that not even combat is needed to win, as opposed to AH, IL2 or any other big scenario wargame type of game.

Just the threat of being zerged is enough to give up.

Any weird balance done must not be done by Nation but by clan, given CLAN is the base unit now.

So limits on crew, on amount of ranked ships, etc must be done by clan.

So a clan with 250 members but limited to 5 rank 1 ships of the line is at the same level as a clan of 20 members which is also entitled to 5 rank 1 ships of the line.

But this is weird, because each captain in NA is a self contained fleet, so technically one captain could have 27 rank 1 ships of the line. As opposed to AH/IL2 were each pilot is just that, a pilot one plane.

So the question remains - where do the single captain liberty ends to balance clan powers ?

Because zerg is clan power, by numbers and by resource mounting and single click ship summoning.

A clan of 20 did build ships that will last a lifetime, when used with skill for the purpose they have been built and focused on pvp, whatever format, and this since release. And we keep pumping more and more ships replacing less good ones with better ones. So I wonder what a clan of 250 can do.

It is infinite power. No stopping that sandbox liberty.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Just the threat of being zerged is enough to give up.

Heh, anyone else know why this happens to us?

Share this post


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

An easy solution could be just close some Nations down, so only new player can go there.

Maybe give a relocation pack for played warning to join another nation.

Yes, closing down nations that can be moved to would be a good, simple solution.

Justify it on the basis that the forger has run out of papers for it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jodgi said:

Heh, anyone else know why this happens to us?

"us" like in "us NA players" ?

Well... just the threat of 1 enemy vessel in one area sends dozens of players rushing to port to sit there.... let alone a entire empire bearing down on you.

It ain't loss, it is "i don't want pvp right now...."

Share this post


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

 

IF we truly wanted to limit 1st rates/lineships then there are a number of options that may not be well received:

 

We do not want to limit first rates.
We want to remove incentives to switch to a strong nation, or remove/reduce incentives to start an account for a certain new nation

The game is skill based and due to nature of life it will always be unbalanced.
The max size has equal numbers with 25 v 25 ships and the weaker side can always be reinforced by additional players.
Strong nations cannot be solved without drastic natural measures 
But even with those drastic measures some nations will be stronger (positive pvp oriented nations) as even if you have 25 v 25 in equal ships this battle can be already unbalanced due to knowledge or training. Even in pure equal games like CS CS endgame rounds can end up with pisols vs automatic rifles.

This is what pvp prospective buyers see  (lets say last week)
49qTTFo.png

Live streams are the qualifiers - they show long journeys, ganking and solo fights 7 pvp kills over 5 hour session - the game as is

  • Lets say there is a guy with the dream to be the Terror of the Seas? Which nation this pvp oriented player might join after checking the twitch?  
  • Lets say there is a guy who wants to play for a strong country which nation this player might join after checking the forum?

Which nation he might join? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

 

Just the threat of being zerged is enough to give up.

 

It's a long wargame. It does not have rounds and does not have victors

One nation is strong. FOR NOW. 
PvP players do not give the ***k. If you want more pvp you do not join russia

Zerg = more targets

Men should cry less and go ganking. Some known russian players show what they do on stream - gank them every evening in cheap ships until you learn. Then you can take on any group or clan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Admin, it is not a population problem.

 

It is all about the players. Look at russia and GB, same pop but completely different. Why? Because of the kind of players.

 

 Maybe you overestimate the importance of Russia due to MSNBC and CNN? You should watch Felix news more ;)
https://na-map.netlify.com/ I see three large countries. GB looks very strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin said:

One nation is strong. FOR NOW. 
PvP players do not give the ***k. If you want more pvp you do not join russia

 

6 minutes ago, admin said:

One nation is strong. FOR NOW. 
PvP players do not give the ***k. If you want more pvp you do not join russia

I still think a limit on nation size would move players around the map...(I get plenty of PVP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

But then, there's no win in NA other than forcing enemies to just surrender by giving up.

Surrendering players give up the game. Reason why the population sinks.

Clan power is too big in game to leave room for them as independent. 

Share this post


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

 Maybe you overestimate the importance of Russia due to MSNBC and CNN? You should watch Felix news more ;)
https://na-map.netlify.com/ I see three large countries. GB looks very strong.

You really need to play the game.

GB was only strong in 2016 and when HAVOC was there.

Ports arent really a meassure of real power. The power is on the players.

Share this post


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

Surrendering players give up the game. Reason why the population sinks.

Clan power is too big in game to leave room for them as independent. 

If left unchecked for too long, yes. Comes a time when it is too late to oppose any enemy that is also playing the game and doing the same as you. Gathering resources, pumping out ships and on top of that, actually sailing out to pvp ( gives way more xp to rank than harvesting AI ).

We all started equal. We all took different routes.

Share this post


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

Ports arent really a meassure of real power. The power is on the players.

Which cannot be controlled.  Devs can control the environment (hard caps), not the skill/number of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

6 minutes ago, admin said:

 Maybe you overestimate the importance of Russia due to MSNBC and CNN? You should watch Felix news more ;)
https://na-map.netlify.com/ I see three large countries. GB looks very strong.

Lol GB has the largest influx of newbies, and only has a few competent players, GB vets mostly change nation in the end, because they get tired of working and taking shit from lots of new players ( "why dont you defend KPR im gettimg ganked for the 6th time today all those big clans suckk buhauhauha" " we already told you multiple times to leave KPR sir" "huauaua you suck you dont help me") who dont really know how the game works but keep shouting like they know it all.

Gb is 1 big uncoordinated mess of noobs with a few struggling vets trying to get it to work.

 

Edited by Razee
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, admin said:

Men should cry less and go ganking

What is more manly? Showing emotions or bullying the weak?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, admin said:

We do not want to limit first rates.
We want to remove incentives to switch to a strong nation, or remove/reduce incentives to start an account for a certain new nation

The game is skill based and due to nature of life it will always be unbalanced.
The max size has equal numbers with 25 v 25 ships and the weaker side can always be reinforced by additional players.
Strong nations cannot be solved without drastic natural measures 
But even with those drastic measures some nations will be stronger (positive pvp oriented nations) as even if you have 25 v 25 in equal ships this battle can be already unbalanced due to knowledge or training. Even in pure equal games like CS CS endgame rounds can end up with pisols vs automatic rifles.

This is what pvp prospective buyers see  (lets say last week)
49qTTFo.png

Live streams are the qualifiers - they show long journeys, ganking and solo fights 7 pvp kills over 5 hour session - the game as is

  • Lets say there is a guy with the dream to be the Terror of the Seas? Which nation this pvp oriented player might join after checking the twitch?  
  • Lets say there is a guy who wants to play for a strong country which nation this player might join after checking the forum?

Which nation he might join? 

Ok, I apologize for going off on 1st rates when that isn't what you had intended.

So lets go to what you talk about - adding incentives for players to join smaller nations. A couple things of the top of my head

1. increase rewards for players in nations that have lower population. 

Example - 2 players sink a frigate (in their own battles, so 2 1v1s), the player in russia that sunk a frigate gets 200 xp, the player in poland that sunk a frigate gets 800 xp due to the relative population of the nations.

2. Lower BR of ports

Reasoning - It allows for more nations the option to defend their ports against the "zerg." This doesn't fix the problem of "attacking" but rather of a small nation with 10-15 guys able to fight in a port battle against a nation with 100 players. They may not win, but they get the chance to defend what they own.

3. in your example of Reverse streaming I will say that yes, prospective buyers see that as the experience they will have in the game, I'm not here to say if it's good or bad - it is up to the person as you said. I can only give my experience from watching US timezone players streaming and  don't think it's much different.

The general trend I hear is that things take too long to do, sailing, battles, economy. I know you have "speed zones" coming and that could help in some aspect, but I suppose we will see.

 

Again, what I am worried about is the poor soul who decides to PvP in numerous amounts of 5th rates suddenly find themselves with no crew because of a mechanic that is trying to "stop" zergs from getting fleets of big ships or... any ships. The issue I see is that the player wouldn't leave the nation, but probably stop playing or do other activities.

I'm all for some change to what we have now, I just urge restraint on this subject when I believe there are other aspects of Naval Action which could use some improvement first.

EDIT: I just remembered, your Force coalition proposal that had a 50/50 split between those that wanted and didn't want it would really honestly be a good first step to plugging an irritating hole for RvR oriented players that continue to play.

Edited by Teutonic
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It ain't loss

Hahahaha, you know me far too well!

35 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

it is "i don't want pvp right now...."

Ok, but then why is it I've never encountered such behaviour ever in my entire gaming "career"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, admin said:

 Maybe you overestimate the importance of Russia due to MSNBC and CNN? You should watch Felix news more ;)
https://na-map.netlify.com/ I see three large countries. GB looks very strong.

GB is not strong...The only reason that they are in the shallows is because those ports were undefended due to the low pop on the server. Most of the good players are long gone.

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...