Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
rediii

The most complete Thread of RvR suggestions for NA in the Internet

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, admin said:

battle rating will be adapted withing 2-3 days

Also
We will start work on the feature that will allow nations to skip the screening and go into attacking port battles straight from the ports (item will be required - which can be gained by pvp/ow pve). 
 

 

*tinfoil hat on*

The best way to defend Maracaibo from russians taking it is to screen the channel..oh suddenly now the russians can skip the screen and hit Maracaibo directly. Why does this change coincidentally come now when the russians have finally pushed right up to Maracaibo. The timing is suspicious.

*tinfoil hat off*

Its not a terrible change. Too many nations can barely field 25 players to fill a pb. So forget about screening an offensive pb fleet. Now you dont need 50 guys to hit a bigger nation. So thats a bonus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing the screening system from the game may be a big mistake. It's not the Port Battle problem, in my opinion. In most cases, screening was more interesting and saturated than port battles. And there you can and should bring new players.


POBS gaming mechanics was not perfect, to put it mildly. Many important battles could be easily spoiled by the arrival of low-level players on bad ships. And then the confrontation for the port was predetermined in 95% of cases. Most likely it will be in our game as well. Who will determine the composition of players for the port battle? What kind of game mechanism? Or is it the decision of Admiral Battle? There are a lot of questions.


Now players choose who goes to war on the port battle and on what ship. Those players who go to defend the UB fleet go at their own risk. And get their fan from this kind of game.
Strong nations in the game were formed by the choice of each of the players. Nobody prevented any nation from becoming stronger at the beginning of the game. And now we have three strong nations. Is it fair? I think so, it was the decision and the will of each player who chose this or that nation. Why artificially limit the choice of a player?


BR port battles, my opinion, should be based on trading, construction and generally the activity of players in the port. The more wealth in the city, the more protection is needed. The more protective fortifications are built. Protection of interests of less powerful nations (at the moment) = "game crutch". It's like equating Britain's capabilities with those of the Ottoman Empire. 
Perhaps, if the game had a battle with the capture of the fortress of the port, the situation would have been completely different. But it won't happen, maybe never (only the developers can give an answer).


Do I need to remove screening from the game? Very, very controversial decision of the developers, in my opinion. Although here you need to look at the implementation of game mechanics.

(Sorry, Translated with Translator)

(Дубль на русском:

Удаление системы скрининга в игре возможно станет большой ошибкой. Не в нем проблемы Портовых битв, на мой взгляд. В большинстве случаев скрининг был более интереснее и насыщеннее, чем портовая битва. И там можно и нужно приводить новых игроков.
Игровая механика POBS была не идеальной, мягко говоря. Многие важные битвы можно было легко испортить приходом низкоуровневых игроков на плохих кораблях. И тогда противостояние за порт было предрешено в 95% случаев. Скорее всего это будет и в нашей игре. Кто будет определять состав игроков на портовую битву? Каким игровым механизмом? Или это решение "Адмирала" битвы? Вопросов много.
Сейчас игроки выбирают, кто идет воевать на портовой битве и на каком корабле. Те игроки, что идут защищать флот ПБ, идут на свой страх и риск. И получают свой фан от такого вида игры.
Сильные нации в игре сформировались по выбору каждого из игроков. Никто не мешал любой из нации стать более сильной в начале игры. И сейчас у нас три сильные нации. Справедливо? Я считаю да, это было решение и воля каждого игрока, выбравшего ту или иную нацию. Зачем искусственно ограничивать выбор игрока?
BR портовых битв, мое мнение, должен исходить из торговой, строительной и вообще активности игроков в данном порту. Чем больше богатств в городе, тем больше нужна защита. Тем сильнее возводят защитные фортификации. Защита интересов менее сильных наций (на данный момент) = "игровой костыль". Все равно, что приравнять возможности Британии с Османской империй, в те времена. 
Возможно, если в игре были бы бои с захватом крепости порта, то ситуация вообще была бы совершенно другой. Но этого не будет, возможно никогда (ответ только разработчики могут дать).
Нужно ли убирать скрининг из игры? Очень, очень спорное решение разработчиков, на мой взгляд. Хотя тут нужно смотреть на реализацию игровой механики.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, huliotkd said:

SCREENING: the main problem with screening is that as it is now it doesn't give any reward to players in screening battle.  fast solution (1 programmer...cause you are developing too many games at same time) is to bring back the Area of the old Reinforcement Zone (not capital area): inside the old Reinforcement Zone , now on called Screening Area (SA)( they will appear only 15 min before PB start), can be started  screening battles (dedicated istance or same OW battle istance but with rewards) where every participant receive same reward of PB fleet (Vic mark and some of the resources used for killed crafted ship when looted, like doublons mod and MEDALS!!...yeah, you need medal for permit...so if you sink a crafted ship you can find some medals used to craft it).

I really like this idea!!!

It might need some more thinking about how the details should be like (rewards, timeframe, expanse of the area, best possible roe for such an occasion), but it surely would make screening more attractive!

The possible rewards for screening, plus @rediiis idea of a narrower BR-tag-difference could lead to more screening battles that are decent fights instead of kiting feasts.

Edited by Navalus Magnus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another fine thing for nice screening battles - sorry @admin, -   would be the possibility of setting temporary friendships between clans from different nations (imo):

Officers of clans could be enabled to set a number of clans of other nations as „friendly“ for a time period linked to certain portbattles once a day.

It would allow players of other nations to participate in screening battles - i don‘t know if portbattles should be open for them too, - and get thier share of rewards for it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Why not create a new type of battlegroup? One that cannot be tagged or tag and is you're only able to start it in the port where the mission was pulled, has a timer on it. Seems easy enough to do.

Instead of making them entirely untaggable for the entire journey (Because then, what IS the point of making them sail instead of letting them teleport) you could just make then untaggable within a certain distance of the port battle.   So screening isn't entirely eliminated, but the defenders have to cover a much wider area of sea.   Get the radius right and it adds a layer to the port battle strategy game, instead of subtracting one - the attackers try to plan a course that gets them into the area unobserved while the  defenders try to anticipate and counter.  In war the smaller power CAN defeat the larger one... but has to do so with a healthy measure of guile and cunning, and a healthy dose of good luck.   This solution would give smaller nations a chance, but still require them to be smart and take a risk.

If a large nation is confident - they don't have to go from the hostility port in the 'port battle group' to enjoy this protection, but a smaller nation can take advantage if they want to.  

 

Teleporting into port battles from across the map because you found another idiotic rune is not a good idea.  But if you need a compromise idea - once a port battle is set, allow both sides to enter the port and make an outpost there...  but do NOT allow any ships towed in or out - the port is blockaded.   This way the attackers have 24 hours to make their approach...   but there's still risk in doing so and determined defenders have an opportunity to camp and catch the PB ships coming in.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@adminPlease make NA2 port ownership this way:

Port ownership should be set more indirect. We should have some kind of „domination“ value in ports that decides which nation owns the port. Every port should have a populations of people of all nations. The nation with the highest population owns the port. Population and domination should be changeable by special factors like victorious PB, sinking ships near a port, the nationality of the surrounding ports and maybe other stuff. So one PB may not change the port ownership but raise the domination value which - with continuos action - might lead to a change in ownership. With a system like that we could get rid of the static frontlines because ports that are surrounded by  own ports should have a much higher domination of the own nation.

Edited by Sneakyfinger

Share this post


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

Its not an excuse at all. We are aware of it.
But with one programmer we can only work on one thing at a time, and its not alliances - Our development plans were announced long time ago and they do not include alliances as main priority. We will finish that plan first and then we will consider other options. New player experience, fixes of trading and ship balance, improved trading and crew and officers and improvements in progression systems are considered more important than alliance

Emphasis added.

My heart skipped a little beat of joy reading this. I don’t even like to trade but think that making trade (and crafting) interesting, even necessary for continued clan/nation success is key for long term expanded growth of our game’s population. It would provide a roll for new players or those who don’t wish to fight constantly (or every time they log on), would stimulate OW traffic, and require a “Zerg” to consider their economic health or development as well as their military. All this equals a richer — a better — game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Chieftain said:

Screening is by far generally more FUN than the actual PB! It gives the oppertunity  for novice players and smaller clans to engage in large fleet battles. Yes it's sometimes a mess and crap ships are used,but it mobilises the nation and players have fleet pvp FUN. I don't understand what planet you guys are on ...! Yet another nail in the coffin of Naval Arcade..Sad times

Speaking for the few remaining casual players...I have participated in FAR MORE screening fleets than Port Battles and find them more fun. Sometimes other nations help weaker nations by contributing their own screening fleets to the scenario. That's fun!  Often I do not have time or availability to be present for an entire PB, so can just be in on a portion of screening. That's fun! And now my clan is virtually inactive, so it will be unlikely to be included on the friendly clan list. So without screening fleet action, I will have fewer chances to be in big battle. Less fun, sadly...

The proposed change is a big thumbs down for me, and I don't hardly ever complain. 

If it has to go this way, devs, can you please make the friendly clan list much larger, so us tiny clan folk can still get into the PB's? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

If it has to go this way, devs, can you please make the friendly clan list much larger, so us tiny clan folk can still get into the PB's? 

to be fair, currently friendly clan list now has a maximum of 30

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screening fleets is only one part of why small nations can't do PBs; removing screens does not solve the problem. All it does it streamline PBs for large nations, most of the time when I was in a small nation that could barely fill a PB fleet it wasn't the screen that was the concern but the response from the larger nation after we attacked that kept our nation from going on the offensive. What happens when a small nation attacks a large one and doesn't win the PB? what if they lose all their fleet? The larger nation can now attack multiple ports from that small nation at once with ease. 


Removing screens is like treating a symptom of the disease but still ignoring the actual root cause of the problem, nation's power unbalance. If you want to solve the problem you don't treat the symptoms only, you address the main issue. The decision to remove screens seems shortsighted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this game was in full release?

That means no big updates or changing how the game works?

Loki Runes need to be taken out.

PB's need to go back to the old system, where you have to destroy the towers first before engaging.

All the changes are stripping out the essence of the game..

Just my honest opinion

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

to be fair, currently friendly clan list now has a maximum of 30

well let me know when you have filled up your whole clan list with 30 active clans and we can discuss the relevance that into this discussion :)

Share this post


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

Why not create a new type of battlegroup? One that cannot be tagged or tag and is you're only able to start it in the port where the mission was pulled, has a timer on it. Seems easy enough to do.

Yeah great.. safe trading group. Take a mission, haul goods, abandon mission. Good idea. 

ps. Please no proposals where devs will spend 2 weeks making a feature, then spend 3 months every potential exploit or abuse ruining this or other features.

  • Like 10

Share this post


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

Yeah great.. safe trading group. Take a mission, haul goods, abandon mission. Good idea. 

ps. Please no proposals where devs will spend 2 weeks making a feature, then spend 3 months every potential exploit or abuse ruining this or other features.

Only permit it to be pulled by one person from the clan flipping the port. Bam, done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

Yes nice content suiciding with 3 full fleets of trash ships into your opponent to deny the PB.

back then ships were easy to churn out and didnt require massive time sinks. Which allowed fleet battles to be common in ow and screening

Edited by Oli Garchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My british coalition tried to attack a Russian port today, we had 24 ships facing 21 of thiers. Come to find out they were just the screening fleet.. our screen was about 10 2/3rd rates.

Yeah we need to try this new way out.

ps. any person opposing this is probably a Christiandom alt.

Edited by Chromey

Share this post


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

Only permit it to be pulled by one person from the clan flipping the port. Bam, done.

What if they click the button at the same time? Who codes these exceptions
What if one disconnects when taking the item? Who codes these exceptions
What if there is an alt and one takes the this permit first before the important port battle?
What if someone occasionally destroys the permit? 
Where they are pulling it from? From clan - where from clan? Warehouse? Who puts it there? What if there is no space.. etc etc etc.. 
New UI?
Then new localization for this item
Connections of new battlegroups to all rulesets 
Permit checking of all combinations and variations.. 

Bam Bam.. hours hours of coding. Stealing this time from other features (which are more important). J

Just like 2017 2016 again where we wasted all the time above on RVR and ROE trying to improve it while being bombarded by comments like - developers are doing nothing. 

If you feature proposal requires 10 other features and limitations to be coded to work properly + maybe needs occasional tribunals for trolling - its probably not a solution at all.. Simplest solutions are hardest to design. When proposing you should think of all things above.

Even if coded with all the limitations etc. your permit thingy still allows risk free trading.
Take a permit (pulled by one person) - create a port battle fleet (that cannot be attacked as you proposed) - Bam, trade safely with 25 indiamans, ignore the port battle. 
 

 

Nope.. I would better work on other things. Which will work and will bring specific benefits to users and me. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear admin, I'd suggest less rules in general. Let all ship types allowed in port-battles. Remove br-rules in open world. Keep the screening but make ship-br dynamic by ship-quality. Rvr veterans like anolytic or rediii can figure out port-brs that do not lead to 1st rate mono fleets. But true clusterhello kittys that naval-battles have been! Fun for all with everything afloat should be the motto. A true sandbox! Regards, gene

Share this post


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


If you feature proposal requires 10 other features and limitations to be coded to work properly + maybe needs occasional tribunals for trolling - its probably not a solution at all..

Nation A attacker

Nation B defender

If no attacker joined yet then if

    battle is in Radius X of the port then if

         (Battle started by defender) AND (BR higher than half the PB BR) then

             increase PB window by battle time

if multiple battles happen at the same time take start from first to end of last big battle and add this time to PB window

 

You are welcome.

Edited by Jon Snow lets go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 12:41 AM, admin said:

We have changed our mind on screening as integral part of gameplay. Most often than not screening means tagging and running in speed fitted wasas. Even port battles are fun and uneven screening is not. We are going to remove everything that interferes with joy of the even port battle or provide alternative routes to this port battle..This will increase  chances for BOTH sides and WILL benefit the small side because small side will actually reach the battle and can try to win it despite 150 screeners. 

Player driven alliances and factions are outside of the scope of the current discussion and there is no point to discuss them as no work will start on them for 2 reasons.

  • We have a small team with only one programmer and there are other more exciting things to work on. 
  • Working on player driven alliances is futule. If players (driven players who want balanced nations) wanted 3 balanced nations they would have already switched to 3 nations and created 3 large blocks constantly fighting each other. The fact there are no such blocks shows that player driven factions will not happen because players do not really want them. Because again - if they wanted them we would have already seen 3 large blocks fighting each other (with the rest of nations having a minor status). Maybe this already happened, and we do have 3 large blocks and more minor nations - like in real wargame? If this already happened why should we change it?


If alliances happen those will be forced alliances decided by kings and parliaments of European nations.

 

Another idea is to have dynamic difficulty warning on player creation which will indicate clearly the minor nation / major nation status (most new players will choose major nation anyway). 
And even stronger impact, locking the nation switch to major nation using forged papers (or making it expensive = bigger nation = more expensive documents). 

Screening is good game content. Removing it to improve on some other aspects is at least questionable. Screening battles are a lot of fun. There are asymmetric battles which are not so fun. But actually asymmetric screening was always good fun, because it was not just a random gank, but there was a purpose to it. Quite often I tagged a fleet to delay it. My job then was to survive long enough to give my loss a meaning. Holding the battle for 30 minutes before sinking gave me a sense of achievement. There was a higher purpose to it. And I loved it. Quite often I was on the other side and was tagged by inferior fleet delaying me. Well, then there's two options, get out asap and continue your previous mission, or accept this battle and have fun. Usually, I chose the latter. 

I have no idea who complained about asymmetric screening battles. There were many complaints about asymmetric war in general, but screening was addressed rarely as part of the problem. Many proposals have been made to improve the situation, but none about taking out the screening from the port battle. I really wonder about your decision making and prioritization. 

Share this post


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

What if they click the button at the same time? Who codes these exceptions
What if one disconnects when taking the item? Who codes these exceptions
What if there is an alt and one takes the this permit first before the important port battle?
What if someone occasionally destroys the permit? 
Where they are pulling it from? From clan - where from clan? Warehouse? Who puts it there? What if there is no space.. etc etc etc.. 
New UI?
Then new localization for this item
Connections of new battlegroups to all rulesets 
Permit checking of all combinations and variations.. 

Bam Bam.. hours hours of coding. Stealing this time from other features (which are more important). J

Just like 2017 2016 again where we wasted all the time above on RVR and ROE trying to improve it while being bombarded by comments like - developers are doing nothing. 

If you feature proposal requires 10 other features and limitations to be coded to work properly + maybe needs occasional tribunals for trolling - its probably not a solution at all.. Simplest solutions are hardest to design. When proposing you should think of all things above.

Even if coded with all the limitations etc. your permit thingy still allows risk free trading.
Take a permit (pulled by one person) - create a port battle fleet (that cannot be attacked as you proposed) - Bam, trade safely with 25 indiamans, ignore the port battle. 
 

 

Nope.. I would better work on other things. Which will work and will bring specific benefits to users and me. 

Just make sure big fleets are more equal by BR standards with the taggingmechanic we have already please. Just make the difference of BR more even for big fleets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliances are needed! Make them non-player driven. That's fine! 

But the long-term goal should be to implement a fluid allegiance system that allows players to fight for another nation. Why should a Dutch adventurer not fight for the British? Well, if that means he fights against the Dutch at some point, well then he's an enemy of the any Dutch captain from then on. Why not?

What is needed for this is a new item "letters of marque" (LOM) that could be available in the admiralty or in free towns or whatever. Using a LOM would give your character allegiance to that nation. You'd be allowed to participate in OW battles for that nation and become a friendly player for that nation (not "enemy player"). Now the funny thing is, players have more than one allegiance, their nation of birth and the nation they have a letter of marque for. You could even have several LOMs for different nations. There could be situations where a player could chose to join either side of the battle, but violate an allegiance. Well, ok, if you face the consequences! If you fight against a nation, your allegiance is removed. This could also happen with your allegiance to your nation of birth. No allegiance left? Then I guess you just became a true pirate. Voila, you have a fluid system of allegiances, massive chaos and many battles. No more players locked in a nation, no more locked alliances. 

Add war/peace and alliances on top and players will start struggling with their allegiances. You'll get a very fluid system automatically. Players would need to chose what LOM to obtain if they want to fight this or that battle. Port owning clans are in trouble, because they need to be loyal to their nation. Other clans are just mercenaries often switching nations. Everyone can play as he likes. True open world, more realistic (historic) human behaviour patterns: you need to chose your play style and chose your allegiances accordingly to become a renegade, a pirate, a privateer, a trader or a naval officer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 10:33 AM, Bryan Von Gyldenloeve said:

Well think thats not going to happend either. Pretty sure admin a bit bad said it would be a bad buisness desicion. Plus they wanted to have the nations that was in the Caribbean to be there.

then way are poland, preussia an russia in the game?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal opinion:

1. I like the idea of direct PB. i like it because most of my time in NA was in Poland, and there is no chance for low pop nation to get thru screening of russians, dutch or brits.

2. PB BR change should be only a one part of PB stagnacy, there should be also class limits to PB. For large 50 points ports i.e. 3 first rates, 4 second rates, 10 3rd rates. Maybe even a bit random to make meta PB layouts a bit different every time. If we just lower BR to 10k we still will have 6 -7 first rates and some cover to cap the points.

3. I know that this direct PB thingy will be hellish to implement, but maybe an admirality 100 doublons item for joining a PB would make it work.Of course i see many possible exploits, like joining PB by trolling alts, but its better then current state of PB.

4. Player raids. I was dreaming about low scale PvP PB feature, but i was badly dissapointed by current Player raid mechanics. We need some way to make it PvP, not PvE. PvP raids would also mean some way to spend all those victory marks. If someone dont defend their port investment in PvP raid, then make him pay for it.

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...