Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
rediii

What to do in a low population nation

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, admin said:

Smaller nation RVR community should provide a clear and defined proposal on the BR changes. And define the metrics for success for this change (not i will like it more) but game metrics. Reviews, online numbers, national port battles success rates (we track pb results) - what will happen as a result of this proposal.

We will implement. 

Not just - devs - please lower BR.

As a member of the smallest nation in the game currently, (Poland) and pre wipe one of the smallest, Prussia, (I was in it before the carebears flocked to us when we had two ports, I know we grew dont blame me) give me data on people who were online each day over the summer of 2018 and I can guarantee you I can show that smaller port BR will mean more players. GUARANTEE, purely because I remember the time when Prussia had to fight 4 PBs in one day, never before had I had to do so much PVP and seen so many players in one area before. Then AHOY/ALOHA was active, now we all just sit around throwing stones and getting banned from the forums 2/3 times a month because there is 0 motivation for us to play the game, so we come here instead. If you can give me that I can show you, then maybe you can bother to change something that will keep us ingame rather than on the forums. Less hassle for you if you patch it when you think about it. Babe ūüėė¬†@admin

We have nowhere near the resources about the game that you do, so why not share some and let us help you... or not and we can keep moaning in your ear and you can keep getting annoyed about it. 

No, I'm not bragging about Prussia, just the only example I can vividly remember. 

Edited by AleXa <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MassimoSud said:

Some adjustments that could improve fun for both large nations and small ones: 1. dynamic PB BR, updated weekly, influenced by the taxes generated and the number of ppl's docks;  more tax and more players = higher BR.  Big and small nations / clans all happy.  2. Different border management: secondary ports must be conquered, then the capitals.  More content for everyone, small and large.  3. Different management of open ports: leave a minor port open in each county, so that more pvp is generated and faster.  These ports will become very important because they will become the new Free Towns, here there will be great battles because these ports will generate taxes and have many ppl docks.  To stimulate PBs in these ports, it is necessary to guarantee an extra income in reals, justifying it by saying that leaving a port open requires greater risks and therefore a greater return must be guaranteed.

This is a great idea mate, really good.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Um, care to elaborate on what you consider "abuse" or "exploitation?" I feel like you don't really understand the implications.

think he is pointing towards that if you let a friendly clan in an "enemy" nation gets access to the port and its resources, they could abuse it, for example if in the middle of dutch area a random alt clan gets the access to the port that nation can attack anyone around there (since they are only friendly towards the clan) aswell as defend the port from any hostility, while in this case the dutch wouldnt be able to do anything because 1. they wouldnt be able to recapture the port and 2. the port is clan owned so its not up to their decision what to do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, z4ys said:

Back then this system was flawed as well otherwise it wouldn't have changed.

Admin asked for the clear and structured proposal in a new thread and not one by rule of thumb.

 

[not quote related]

But whenever the question is asked "but how it should change" no real answers are given. The only thing NA player do is negative bomb the reviews.

I think you are exaggerating the reaction of the players. The biggest negative reaction in the history of the game was pre-release (when admin announced the loss of XP after the wipe) which could be blamed on the expectation of the players and bad communication.

I have seen people who were in support of Admin become persona non grata very quickly because they were not singing to the right tune. But it didn't stop those players to propose fixes or new features.

Just look at some of the departed members who created topics:

https://forum.game-labs.net/profile/25582-banished-privateer/content/?type=forums_topic&change_section=1

https://forum.game-labs.net/profile/23326-christendom/content/?type=forums_topic&change_section=1

https://forum.game-labs.net/profile/16008-louis-garneray/content/?type=forums_topic&change_section=1 (except last one... all content was removed)

I think the negative bomb reviews happen usually after such an event when no understanding is possible and communication is dead.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Imo, pirates and impossible nations (arent they impossible?) shouldnt have any kind of coalition.

 

 

When they came out the first thing I thought was, "Cool they are testing new pirate mechanics."  Sadly they weren't and pirates since got another thing removed from them. I would love to have pirates have impossible status but maybe have one shallow port as it's capital (rum Cove could perm be pirates).   Give them back the join either side, but treat them as Red team no matter side or nation they fight on.  So any one can sink them without tribunal.  I mean they are pirates after all.  Pirates should be a thorn in the side for the Nationals. 

To me the Impossible nations should been the privateers that are in the waters and some times helping other nations, not super powers (as Russia is right now).  If one of them gets to powerful all of the core nations that have central governments (capitals) should be fighting against these nations to keep them in check (just as they should against the pirates).   But hay that just my opion and I'll honestly go back to pirates if it ever got actually mechanics to make them not a nation and something hard core.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I posted this on another thread but I think this is a good start

For player retention you should look to missions that award XP on top of the Battle XP, new players get stuck in a slump that is the grind. Battle XP is rewarded on DMG, assists and kills but sometimes when sailing as a group (this game is better with friends and/or clanmates and new players should find clans via a in game clan board) new players are still learning the ships and honing their in battle skill's. So maybe adding missions that players can claim to go do as a group or solo to cut the grind down a bit. This is a solution that can benefit the community as a whole. 

BTW I have 400 hours in game since release and I'm still grinding to Max LVL, I'm at 700 ATM, to be fair I'm not always in battle, trade missions to make money and craft ships takes up most of the time. 

Just a thought to consider

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MassimoSud said:

Some adjustments that could improve fun for both large nations and small ones: 1. dynamic PB BR, updated weekly, influenced by the taxes generated and the number of ppl's docks;  more tax and more players = higher BR.  Big and small nations / clans all happy.  2. Different border management: secondary ports must be conquered, then the capitals.  More content for everyone, small and large.  3. Different management of open ports: leave a minor port open in each county, so that more pvp is generated and faster.  These ports will become very important because they will become the new Free Towns, here there will be great battles because these ports will generate taxes and have many ppl docks.  To stimulate PBs in these ports, it is necessary to guarantee an extra income in reals, justifying it by saying that leaving a port open requires greater risks and therefore a greater return must be guaranteed.

@admin 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 8:36 PM, admin said:

Sorry guys
But 90% of players leave without leveling up to a frigate.
We are not going to prioritize RVR until that leak is reduced. 

That is why next stage is immersive Privateer protection of capitals (included limited protection of shroud cay) and updated new player experience. RVR alliances etc are lesser priority. Players who have interest in long term health of the game will understand us, players who don't want to understand it and only think me me me - will be temporarily ignored. 
 

90% ???? OMFG

Thx for acting anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 8:40 PM, admin said:

 

Annoying players of large nations is content for smaller factions. Just like loki, just like ganking, just like revenge fleet. You do not like it but its content for them.
NPC attacks are easily defendable if you know what you are doing and no-one is interfering.
Smaller nations can ruin large nation day if they help NPCs.

We give them a chance.
If smaller nations ignore this chance and do nothing - its their fault. 

So already dead nations have to react... I get some doubts

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So already dead nations have to react... I get some doubts

you heard it here, pve port battles are our fault if we do nothing ;) (i'm kidding admin)

Edited by Teutonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 6:36 PM, admin said:

Sorry guys
But 90% of players leave without leveling up to a frigate.
We are not going to prioritize RVR until that leak is reduced. 

That is why next stage is immersive Privateer protection of capitals (included limited protection of shroud cay) and updated new player experience. RVR alliances etc are lesser priority. Players who have interest in long term health of the game will understand us, players who don't want to understand it and only think me me me - will be temporarily ignored. 
 

What is the difference between the Privateer protection of Capitals and the safe waters around capitals? Limited protectionof shroud cay mean also a npc patroling around other national docks?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 6:36 PM, admin said:

Sorry guys
But 90% of players leave without leveling up to a frigate.
We are not going to prioritize RVR until that leak is reduced. 

What happened to "this game is not for everyone" ; the whole "dark souls mindset" etc. ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Liq said:

What happened to "this game is not for everyone" ; the whole "dark souls mindset" etc. ?

That was during Alpha and Beta maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 4:47 PM, Sir Texas Sir said:

What admin proposed was close to historic factions.

US, Spain, French

Dutch, Dane, Swedes

Prussia, poland

GB 

Russia (might been part of Poland/Prussia)

Pirates

In my view pirates should never be part of an alliance.  Same maybe for the impossible nations. Devs could always Change factions as needed if one gets to powerful or weak.

It should be close to historical alliances, but it should also balance the game more. GB on it's own struggles to get a full pb fleet. Prussia/Poland would struggle as well. Dutch, Dane, Sweden would be too overpowered.
I know Britain has a high player percentage but players joining RvR is like less than half.

Share this post


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

It should be close to historical alliances, but it should also balance the game more. GB on it's own struggles to get a full pb fleet. Prussia/Poland would struggle as well. Dutch, Dane, Sweden would be too overpowered.
I know Britain has a high player percentage but players joining RvR is like less than half.

GB has the population, but it's not a population of PvP/RvR players that work together.  They made this game more for the PvP/RvR guys when they are honestly a minority.  Some folks like PvP, just don't want to do it 24/7 as some die hards are about the game.    Those where the proposed alliances when the server was first live so it could change and again I don't think Dutch, Dane, Swede would be any more powerfull than Russia currently which has the majority of the players.

Historic was thrown out the window when they brought three nations that never had power in this region.  I'm going to be honest and prob finally make my review of the game and that is going to be my biggest complaint is they let there bias kill the game by bringing in nations that never was any thing in this region.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

GB has the population, but it's not a population of PvP/RvR players that work together. 

Are you in GB organising the Port Battles or is it me? I think I might be me. And I also think I know more about the willingness of RvR participation in GB nation :)

 

EDIT: The Dutch nation has nearly the same amount of players. Still crying that they don't have the players. I think you might know my point.

Edited by Shocktrooper Basteyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know BR changes is unlikely, but I will put my suggestion here anyway.

1. Defender can set the BR just like setting a timer, the BR can fluctuate between 75% - 100% of the full BR, depending on defender's preference. For example a for a 20000 BR port, defender can chose from a drop down box of 15000, 17500 and 20000.

2. For smaller port, same thing defender can chose from 7500, 8750, 10000. And not only this, defender can choose the maximum rate limit as well, they can choose from a drop down box of maximum 1st rate, 2nd rate or 3rd rate.

Why do I wish to change to BR this way? I think the euro time zone for this game is still very much alive, and I think nowadays most bigger nations can field 20000 BR without issue, and we should keep it. But for smaller nations, as well as US time zone as a whole, I think they need to some help to make RVR viable. US buyers of the game makes up a significant portion of the sales, I think they should not be left to rot.

And the reason for the rate limit for smaller ports, is that a big portion of the current players active playing the game are the ones that can not crew 1st rate yet. Some can crew Frigates, some can crew Wasa. I think we should involve them in PB, not just screening where they may not even get a fight. Right now the meta for 10000 BR ports are 10x 1st rate/christian plus a few extra wasa and le requin. Unless the rate is restricted, 1st rate is still running the show in 10000 BR port battles. But if we restrict the rate to, say, 3rd rate, we can have 20+ new players in wasa joining each side. Wouldn't that be fun. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resource trading is dead, crafting items for crafting XP is dead, my clan is dead (used to have about a dozen+ on Teamspeak at any one time, now all but one rage-quit), my previous "port-bonus" shipyard is dead (that cost me plenty!)

Players who enjoyed trading, but also wanted to do some PvP...gone.

Players who enjoyed crafting for XP & selling for profit, but also wanted some PvP...gone

People who enjoyed ship-building & selling (without relying on the whims of clan politics to get "port bonuses" needed for competitive ships), but also wanted some PvP...gone

This game is heading in the wrong direction. Players are gone because some of the play options they enjoyed are gone. Duh!

PvP should mean warships fighting large and small engagements- that's obvious. But it should also offer multiple play-styles. The Leaderboard shouldn't be the end-all of the PvP server.

Stop the arcade tricks (wind wormholes, Loki). Simplify. Get back to basics. Offer lots of play-styles and choices. New players will find something they like. Lessen the weeks-long grind it takes to get a ship & mods, only to lose it in 15 min vs. a veteran player sailing a port-bonus "supership" with millions in mods, then having to grind all over again. Make it a level playing field. Every player should be able to build a competitive ship & win some fights within a reasonable time. Not all players are retired, or students, with 40 hours/week to play.

Want to boost # of players? Get back to basics. Give us play-style options.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

[..], crafting items for crafting XP is dead, my clan is dead (used to have about a dozen+ on Teamspeak at any one time, now all but one rage-quit), my previous "port-bonus" shipyard is dead (that cost me plenty!)

Players who enjoyed trading, but also wanted to do some PvP...gone.

Players who enjoyed crafting for XP & selling for profit, but also wanted some PvP...gone

People who enjoyed ship-building & selling (without relying on the whims of clan politics to get "port bonuses" needed for competitive ships), but also wanted some PvP...gone

[...] Players are gone because some of the play options they enjoyed are gone. Duh!

PvP should mean warships fighting large and small engagements- that's obvious. But it should also offer multiple play-styles. The Leaderboard shouldn't be the end-all of the PvP server.

[...]

agree

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...