Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
DreadPirateBob

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

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, admin said:


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.

Insert video of Reverse beating 12 players single-handedly here.... 

Skill, yes...  but also gold 5/5, full port bonuses, unlimited cartegenas/art of.../gunnery ency./Northern Masters/Elite etc.....

#balancethefrankenships  #effingmods

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Skill, yes...  but also gold 5/5, full port bonuses, unlimited cartegenas/art of.../gunnery ency./Northern Masters/Elite etc.....

#balancethefrankenships  #effingmods

And he got that by doing what? ? Are you suggesting he got the port bonuses and 5/5 ships by alt farming?

Share this post


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

Make that foreign clans could ally.

 

1 hour ago, vazco said:

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. 

I don't think the best option is to limit a nation's rewards just because they're zergs, imho. As much as it sucks facing zergs and as much as zergwagoneers suck, the entire nation doesn't deserve a reward limit; but rather limit how much that reward can buy. Manpower Limiter would do this, but it makes no sense considering they have all the ports of population for manpower.

What if zerg nation's ports would revolt to Neutral if they get too big? Say after 5 days, that a nation with zerg population would have their highest value capital ports revolt. If that nation retakes the port, then it will revolt in 2 days. Tie these ports to Manpower. This would makes a Manpower Limiter seem more sensible.

38 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

  • 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? 

Yes, I think almost the entire population wants to limit 1st rates (even all ships of the line) for Port Battles....maybe not in OW. But Port Battles need a BR limiter per ship rate, imo.

For 25k BR ports set the max BR for each rate at 3500. This would allow only the following:

  • 3-4 1st rates = 3 L'O, or 3 Santi, or 4 Vics
  • 5-6 2nd rates = 5 Bucs, or 6 St P (highest BR ship to lowest BR ship in this rate)
  • 7-8 3rd rates = 7 Bells, or 8 Wasa (highest BR ship to lowest BR ship in this rate)
  • 8-11 4th rates = 8 Leops, or 11 Ingers (highest BR ship to lowest BR ship in this rate)
  • etc

For 20k BR port set the max BR per rate to only 3000....etc. Perhaps, something like this could be a "Manpower Limiter" for high populated nations. Let low pop nation have maybe 4000 BR per ship rate...giving low pop ships 1 more ship of each rate. This would make a big variety in ships at PBs and would "act" like a Manpower Limiter.

And these hypothetical players you mention should be able to join any nation. But if he decides to join a high populated nation, then he will feel the limiter in Port Battles only and not in OW.

Share this post


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

And he got that by doing what? ? Are you suggesting he got the port bonuses and 5/5 ships by alt farming?

No, i'm suggesting that the gear gap in the game is too wide.  Nothing else.

We have all seen the images of what the top players have for gear and upgrades in their warehouses.  Stacks and stacks of all the best gear.  All obtained fully within the rules and with great skill.

Its certainly not his fault he has it and uses it.  

My point is: Just like PvP, players in RvR will only continue trying is there is a "reasonable chance" at success, it would seem.  It would appear that its easier to A) flip to an easier nation (which is what many do) or (for those with really big egos), b) stop playing (and chime in with the" I told you so"s on the forums)....

 

I love the game.  I really do.  I'm at over 5000 hours now (don't tell the admiral).  And as someone who prefers small ship privateering and has lived out of Freetowns exclusively before, I have little fear of losing all my ports.  

But as we have seen, PLAYERS CANNOT BE COUNTED ON TO BALANCE GAME MECHANICS.  And as we were discussing on the ROVER Discord, this has been a real eye-opener for me, as someone who has never played MMO's previously. 

I don't envy your position, Mr. Admin...  because it would appear that it is IMPOSSIBLE to please every type of player that plays Naval Action.

The ship combat is incredible.  The models and damage have given me, like I said, over 5000 hours of enjoyment and fun.

The problem really is us.  We want more than what you offered.  Probably because we have seen what you are able to do with half the game, the ship combat.  We want an economy, OW and political environment that is as good as that ship combat.

But honestly,  you never promised that.  And I'm not sure we deserve it.  Every good idea that has been attempted for is has been ruined, at least in part, by us, the players.

Resource balance/alliances/OW RoE.....  so many good ideas left in the past because of human nature.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is hardly suffering because it is based on RVR only, and RVR turns to nothing (one way battles, or battles vs IA). 

The other probl is the absence over any other activity than RVR. Patrol zones do not work, most of players refusing to go to there, too ganky and invaded by a single nation. New players remain being sitting ducks in capital areas, while veterans fight around their crafting ports, some players being specialized in farming their pathetic admiralty built 6th rates from their overoptimized Wasas (and game rules encourage this behaviour, don't blame players to do what they are pushed to do), PVE is repetitive, crafting do not exist anymore, trading is limited to these "transport missions" whose first target is to give easy afk targets to gankers.

RVR is dead, because one nation wins the map. Game over. No other nation can recover because of the deadly port bonuses. 

@Hethwill, I don't agree with your analysis. That's a fact that one nation wins. 

Other players must go out. There is no more room for them. RVR is impossible for them. Other activities do not exist anymore. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mascarino said:

You are asking that to a russian?

Begone! We don't enjoy even hints of xenophobia around here.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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

Me neither. But then i was never into mmo's but more into sims and wargames so yep, there's that.

I'll be crucified in the yard arms but i'll blame the mmo mindset.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Aquillas said:

@Hethwill, I don't agree with your analysis. That's a fact that one nation wins. 

I know.

I'm easy to read. I like hardcore games with asymmetric warfare and purpose built assets.

One "stupid" example comes to mind.

Why play a Waterloo battle over and over and over and over again ? We already know the result, right ?

But then there's that delight of... what if i do something different.

And there we are, playing it again.

Maybe, just maybe, try to attack before the ground is dry ?

Same thing, maybe try to attack your NA enemies clans instead of waiting for some divine intervention.

You already know the result right ? So nothing to lose anyway.

Enter pvp and have fun. That's all there is to a game, any game really.

 

Question remains.

We all have full docks of ships. For what purpose ? What service do they serve except being there, rotting ?

Aren't they supposed to sail against enemies ?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Me neither. But then i was never into mmo's but more into sims and wargames so yep, there's that.

I'll be crucified in the yard arms but i'll blame the mmo mindset.

 

heh, arright, you can go ahead and call it "the mmo mindset".  I'm done teasing... for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Thonys said:

Balance:

can the admin also get rid of the low cost  medium guns (the drop )?  give newbies 15.000 reals to start to fit the ship .

the gap between longs and carronades - and mediums,   is just to big.

and unnecessary actually . (it's almost free iron and coal)

can something be done about the huge pile of mediums . (the free drop)

Why? Availability of medium cannons allows players to get back out onto the water. If AI is not dropping cannons, players will either be dependent on other players selling them at probably jacked up prices or have to go without cannons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gilles de Rais said:

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 😆

 

This would actually be an awesome mechanic.   And it's the normal mode of any Age of Sail game

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mascarino said:

 If there was any hint of xenophobia, was against you. I don't like "show emotions" pussies like you.

#banhammertime

Share this post


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

Question remains.

We all have full docks of ships. For what purpose ? What service do they serve except being there, rotting ?

Aren't they supposed to sail against enemies ?

Ah, the exact same reason why we lock our cars at the corner store, we don’t like losing things of worth!

By game design, things hard to obtain are assigned worth.

The polar is “sustainability”, if ships and mods were easy to replace players would deploy.   

By the way, following this thread, everybody is overthinking PBs, manpower? sound like more rules to fix more bad rules, and the bad one here is 25k/20k BRs, the fix is to reduce them to pre-release levels, to levels where all (smaller) clans and nations can resource the battle, it could be as simple as that.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mascarino said:

If there was any hint of xenophobia, was against you.

qkyi1VZ.gif

23 minutes ago, Mascarino said:

I don't like "show emotions" pussies like you.

CJyVZNF.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLDR version: The key to putting the brakes on unlimited nation/clan growth is not artificial limits, but add complexity to the game play required to dominate the world. No hardcaps on nations, just make them face the challenges of building an empire.

I'm not concerned about a Zerg. If there's one thing I've learned from my years in this game is that what appears to be status quo eventually changes. And for those of us who play regularly, a few real life weeks may seem like a long time but remembering back, look at the number of powerful clans and/or nations who have either suffered massive setbacks, changed their role or focus, or even disbanded or quit.

Being the most powerful depends on many factors but ultimately the most important is leadership and that leader(s) being joined with the right team at the right time. Throw real life events into the mix: Leaders playing less, real life personalities conflict, the loss of a specific resource or fleet at the wrong time, well... I salute those who can keep it together for long periods of real life time.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of the more artificial options to limit faction size. I'd much rather see more a simulation of the real life challenges that large nation states face. @admin's idea of labor costs is good. The more developed an economy, the higher the labor cost. I'd add that developed ports should have greater import/export needs. "Scarce" resource variations have been tried and found wanting. However if the resources were available somewhere on the map but need to be traded and moved, it would spur OW activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your game 'work' to game fun balance is out of whack. It's simply too much 'work' to play the game and the main reason why the population is slowing dipping. Port battles are still 25 v 25, the amount of effort to equip 25 players is ridiculous, even if you can find those 25 players.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Question remains.

We all have full docks of ships. For what purpose ? What service do they serve except being there, rotting ?

Aren't they supposed to sail against enemies ?

1eda4b8a45b8e584209fc420629e3fee.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 9:35 AM, admin said:

Russian aggression too high was already discussed in the early 2018

 

In terms of population imbalance. 

The only way to control overpopulation by natural means is to remove unlimited resources out of the air and go all in on the forest spawns (increasing their number). 
As a result

  • Nations with limited numbers will have all types of woods and resources cheap. Everyone will have best ships
  • Nations with lots of players will not have all resources - and will have to overpay and haul more (or build secondary bases for production - spreading their investments thin)

Lets say 1000 of oak per nation per day (or week) and thats it. No more oak for nation. This will solve all overpopulation issues. 

And no going back on that - eventually players will get used to it and accept it as a given. More people = less GDP ;)

(PVE server wont have this problem as oak will be also available from admiralty)

 

WOW style - queues wont work, pop caps wont work as player who bought the game wants to play for the flag of his choice.
Maybe additional cost should be introduced for nation switch, like 10 mln reals + 25000 doubloons, as some people report that in the long term - nation change item is too cheap compared to other games (wow makes you pay EUR for every switch), as it is causing long term imbalance and reduces value of nation choice and permanence. Causing more imbalance

I would prefer to see something like MWO does with merc units.  If you join a high pop nation you get -20 credits/xp while working for that nation.  If your join a low pop nation you can tget up to 30% bonus xp/credits per battle.   You can do something like that for forge papers and nations. If it's the top nation (go off port owener ships and not just pop, but several things should be usded) than you gain less xp/credit per battle than say the lowest.  We can use Russian and Poland.  Russian players level up slower cause they are high pop nation, while Poland players get a boost to xp/credits cause it's a low pop  nation.   The other thing is I would honestly lock out the top nation from forge papers....new players is one thing but shouldn't allow for zerg switch to nations or like POTBS allowed you to only do this for a set time after a map reset.   

88DyX6h.jpg

On 9/3/2019 at 9:56 AM, Teutonic said:

Quote "JUST. DO. IT"

For the alliance coalitions that you wanted to do.

 

it effective lowers nation count to 5(6 with pirates) and suddenly everyone can stay in their nation, but have multiple people to play with for RvR. If folks hate the fact that they can't "sink" scrubs in nations that suddenly they are friendly with then they can just go to a different coalition. multiple groups have done it already anyway.

 

I'm all for a Faction that makes it only 5-6 factions and we have nations in each faction.  This allows Devs to add new nations if they want in the future and control factions cause if one gets to powerfull they can split them up for a while.  Say we have a Spain, French, US zerg power house that no one can defeat.  At a set time they change that faction and have them split up or maybe have US join with GB or Spain just goes independent (they are the true alliance power house) than a few months down the road the faction joins back as one again.   It will spice things up and allow the devs to balance the game on their terms which is better than when players try it and we get the problems we had on  EU and Global of the two blocks.  West vs East or the US/GB/DUTCH vs Pirates and all small nations which where hello kittyed cause no one could have alliances with pirates.

14 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.

I honestly think forge papers should have a cost in game that is according towards your rank/level.  The lower your rank the less you pay, but don't make it insane where some players can't ever afford it.  I like the 1 million for large and zero for small part, but the others look like to much detail/code to mess with.

12 hours ago, Intrepido said:

We are talking here about RvR.

An alt can play actively in PVP but doesnt come to help in RvR, hurting the nation as it consumes a ressource (crew) that is required for defending the nation.

 

Still, I believe alliances is the way to go. In the past (2016) the british zerg was somehow stopped by the alliance system. Despite the server was divided in 2 blocks, none of them had the hegemony over the other. 

Unlike other systems, diplomacy never had any significant  tweak, it was just completely removed. That was a huge mistake.

I really wanted to see how the Faction system would work as I think it would of been better than the voted alliance system.  Having the Devs pick what nations work with each other.  You don't like that French, Spain, US are in an alliance, than just use your forge paper and move to another nation.  The 5 faction thing also allows them to add new nations later if they want as they just tag that natio to one of the factions.  Factions make up can change every few months if the devs want to keep a balance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. That is correct.

Hence forget logic in games :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

One nation is strong. FOR NOW

This time it's different. 

Port bonuses and investments, expensive 1st rates, large Russian rvr fleet and lowering population changes the standard situation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This time it's different. 

Port bonuses and investments, expensive 1st rates, large Russian rvr fleet and lowering population changes the standard situation. 

I dont think admin will ever understand it. 

He didnt get my comparison between the playerbases of Russia and Brits so it is almost pointless to discuss rvr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wraith said:

Ooooh let's be honest there. The reason you lost a good chunk of the shallows is that BL4CK was either too busy sinking AI on some other part of the map or just plain ignorant on capping circles, with @koltes having too much pride to listen to people who knew what they were doing...  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bro you still here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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? 

I dont know other players but I buy games because they look cool and fun, not because of streamers (they are players like me, with their own pov) or a forum (with thousands of posts so you will have a hard time reaching a conclusion).

New players will join the nation they have heard most in History classes or sail for their country. 

But this player will soon realize that there are some nations dominating others and then he might want to switch (because people like to win). Here is the issue, as right now the game doesnt provide useful tools for minor nations to hold their ground against a big one. So this player feels the impotence and either switches either quits.

In the old days of 2016, the development of the diplomacy system was the most voted feature by the community. In those early days, the british had to be countered. But small nations on their own could do only little damage to such show of numbers and strenght. 

However when small nations began to work together GB couldnt steamroll anymore. That system brought way more balance to rvr that it was credited for.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Farrago said:

TLDR version: The key to putting the brakes on unlimited nation/clan growth is not artificial limits, but add complexity to the game play required to dominate the world. No hardcaps on nations, just make them face the challenges of building an empire.

I'm not concerned about a Zerg. If there's one thing I've learned from my years in this game is that what appears to be status quo eventually changes. And for those of us who play regularly, a few real life weeks may seem like a long time but remembering back, look at the number of powerful clans and/or nations who have either suffered massive setbacks, changed their role or focus, or even disbanded or quit.

Being the most powerful depends on many factors but ultimately the most important is leadership and that leader(s) being joined with the right team at the right time. Throw real life events into the mix: Leaders playing less, real life personalities conflict, the loss of a specific resource or fleet at the wrong time, well... I salute those who can keep it together for long periods of real life time.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of the more artificial options to limit faction size. I'd much rather see more a simulation of the real life challenges that large nation states face. @admin's idea of labor costs is good. The more developed an economy, the higher the labor cost. I'd add that developed ports should have greater import/export needs. "Scarce" resource variations have been tried and found wanting. However if the resources were available somewhere on the map but need to be traded and moved, it would spur OW activity.

no real need to make the game more complex its already a pain in the butt to even get new players situated to the intense rank grind, and ship xp this the constant ganking and slaughters. small clans are already in bad shape if the larger clans dont have them allied. we really do need to tailor the game towards retaining new players rather then retaining the vets, economy will sort itself out over time. it is a player economy after all. yea we have big factions with russia being the more experienced and britian being most new players, zergs will happen u will never see a perfectly balanced player base because that doesnt even exist in reality. like canada will never be as great as russia. no country will have the population of china. its unrealistic to constrain players on what nation their part of. or can be apart of. 

the game needs to be stimulating to new players but also have the complexity and simplicity to keep those players playing. many changes can stimulate this but nothing so drastic as complete changes in how the game operates. this type of feature of labor costs would of been better tested out prior to release rather then implemented without testing.

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...