Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
rediii

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

Recommended Posts

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

But why not keep it as it is now @admin. You your self have said nothing wrong with ppl stacking up in 2-3 nations. 
Focus on what you said was most important, not to lose new players. Just change the discrioption when choose where to start. 
Top 3 nation: You can expect full game play experience.

Top 4-5. Opertunities is there but, for a new guy we will recomend a top 3 nation.

Top 6- Don’t go there unless you know somebody.

As you said nothing wrong stacking ppl up in a few nations. 

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
2 minutes ago, Reorx Redbeard said:

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

Good buisness desicion, sell more copies in those nations.

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
On 11/8/2019 at 1:06 AM, admin said:

 

NPC Portbattle were supposed to go live with capturing today.    Is this live now? Or does this change come with PB BR change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 5:46 PM, admin said:

My mistake
As port BRs will change next week based on player feedback and posts (for pvp and pve). NPC composition of raiders will also change (number of ships)
Testing stage (all ports attacked) will be prolongued for another week. And safety will be switched off next monday on 11th Novermber

 

1 hour ago, rediii said:

NPC Portbattle were supposed to go live with capturing today.    Is this live now? Or does this change come with PB BR change?

did BR change yet? otherwise i guess it's delayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, z4ys said:

 

did BR change yet? otherwise i guess it's delayed

Doesn't look like it got changed on Felix's map

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it seems my post in the feedback and discussions forum was off-topic.....    asking the same question here.  

@admin so with the adjustments to BR that are upcoming has there been any thought into (I might have missed it) putting hard rate limits on ports like we used to have.  For example the 4th rate only battles (or third rates plz plz plz) we used to have.  It seems that no matter what the BR, bigger ships will continually be used in port battles and constantly seeing 1st rates is a little stale.  Also not very realistic.  Lower rates, mainly 3rds, were the workhorses of line fights.  4th rate battles back prior to the BR fights always seemed far more dynamic and bloody.  Bringing back real shallow battles 6/7th rates would be a crowd pleaser as well.

This would also allow players to have a lower "upfront" cost to participate in PBs which I think is one of the more significant limiting factors in RVR.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mouth of Sauron said:

@admin no response?

i feel they can do 3 things to make it work.

1. Bump br up with 2nd and 3rd rates since they are equipped with 42's/heaviest armament possible so it would be 4:1 scale on say 3rd rate vs 1st rate santi?

2. Dynamic br, have a base br on all ships. Say Santisima has 900 BR today with no mods/upgrades/armaments, when you put on anything thats not tied to the ship (other then cannons) you increase BR of the ship, so adding 42pd longs adds 42 more br or go with 36pd that adds 36br etc. Gold quality means more upgrades = more br on the ship.

3. Nerf pen on cannons >=24 so the battles arent on 500m + distance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 10:11 PM, 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). 
 

Anyone can answer to me what hashappened to this change? It should have gone live 2 weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got redirected here from another thread but I'd say the changes in conquests proposed by some community fellows here would have made many of my peps to try again the game.

Those twenty five 1st rate fleets in port conquest made my peps quit, remove them, sir!

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...