Impact of RvR on game assets of other players

[Snoopy]

Greetingses

The introduction of Port Investments meant that one of the intended components and motivators of RvR is loss.
We can see how this riles up the masses with the mini-EVE 'writes-itself' movie script playing out at San Juan at the moment, so in that sense it has worked - but should it?

In my view, I feel that the negative impact of (potential) loss of access to crafting bonuses/assets outweighs the positives. It's great entertainment for the RvR crowd like myself but in essence there are too many people negatively affected by it who did not opt in.
Even just threatening the French crafting base had a lasting impact on that nation's playerbase.
Denmark has no crafting port now and even with new investments in another port will no longer be able to build ships of the same quality.

This is allright for people like myself who have decided to be part of RvR and accept the risk, I/we can deal with this. But running roughshod over the game assets of other players and their time invested in the game is damaging, losing access to a level 3 shipyard incurs a pretty hefty regrind and I just don't see the upside of this.

Imposing negative outcomes for players who had no part in what happened should simply not be in the hand of other players.

I do not have a silver bullet here. Some changes to reduce drama could be:

• friends list mechanic no longer controls access to port features, all nationals have access
• allow investments to be made in all captured ports by everyone in the nation. 
• only the conquering clan can 'open up' the investment slots with an initial deposit (and thus gets to decide how the port is to be developed, preventing troll investments)
• All conquerable ports are 55pt regardless of BR
• Unconquerable ports get no access to investments but will start with a fixed port bonus layout pattern
  Example: Fort Royal: 4/4/4/3/2 Saint-Pierre: 4/2/3/4/4 Marin: 2/3/4/4/4 etc
  At the moment some nations have fewer starting ports (including zero), perhaps justifying their difficulty rating.

Under my proposals you still need to get out in the OW for wood types other than fir/oak but the loss of wood investments is far easier to stomach, and even fully developed crafting ports can now be replaced.
Picking the right bonus for the job should be part of player skill not content gating like now where at least half of the server does not have direct access to full bonus ships.
Ports are now interchangeable which means RvR can now switch to a higher gear without always having to tread carefully in order to avoid screwing other players over.

[Angus MacDuff]

@Snoopy, I like your OP for the most part because I agree with anything that puts more ships out in OW.  I do have an issue with the concept that all nationals have access to port bonuses and can contribute to investments (even with the owning clan opening up their choices).  I would rather that the friends list has no effect on bonuses (as you suggested), but that instead of allowing open investment, a national player must pay a fee (a hefty fee) to the owners, and then they may craft there with all the advantages.  The owning clan deserve to profit from their work in taking and holding the port, and I have never been a fan of the ability to remove someone from the friends list, after they have built their own infrastructure.

[Snoopy]

12 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

@Snoopy, I like your OP for the most part because I agree with anything that puts more ships out in OW.  I do have an issue with the concept that all nationals have access to port bonuses and can contribute to investments (even with the owning clan opening up their choices).  I would rather that the friends list has no effect on bonuses (as you suggested), but that instead of allowing open investment, a national player must pay a fee (a hefty fee) to the owners, and then they may craft there with all the advantages.  The owning clan deserve to profit from their work in taking and holding the port, and I have never been a fan of the ability to remove someone from the friends list, after they have built their own infrastructure.

A fee is fine with me, although this is perhaps a doublication of effort with the port tax mechanic, the clan still gets to collect this and could adjust it. The important bit to me would be that clans should not be able to prevent payment nor deny crafting as is the case with the friends list.

[erelkivtuadrater]

Think a good addition to the subject is that when a Clan drops a port, the next reset the port stays in the Nation, but without a "Governor". The Ai sees this and sets up a battle for the port, if not fought and won over the port turns Neutral (loss to ai). Dont know about this though, but the port could be a free for all battleground, the clan with the most participants in the battle when the battle is over and wins, gets the new ownership of the port. This would make it more of a hassle for alts to try and grief other nationals, since you would require to be in the same clan (suspicious behavior), and at the same time new players can join without really making it a problem if they can pull it off anyway. '

Know it can be a problem with alts, but i imagine it is better then ninja dropping it to other countries

[Botq]

3 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Losses wont be easier to stomach until ALL buildings, building upgrades and port investments have a lower cost. 

 

Which was the cost of HAVOC moving to Sweden? Something like 1000 combat marks, 450.000 doubloons and 35 millions of reals. Come on.

 

 

 

Thats not much

[Never]

3 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Losses wont be easier to stomach until ALL buildings, building upgrades and port investments have a lower cost. 

 

Which was the cost of HAVOC moving to Sweden? Something like 1000 combat marks, 450.000 doubloons and 35 millions of reals. Come on.

 

 

 

For an average clan it's probably a lot, but if it is a dedicated clan with 20 to 30 members then it's very manageable. I think it translates into about 30 first rates (with no upgrades). So if it's 20 members, each member would be losing 1.5 first rates. Looking at it like that I think it's not that much. 

I suppose how expensive it is depends heavily on server pop, but should prices be adjusted as the pop goes up or down? I don't know. 

[Never]

1 minute ago, Intrepido said:

How many clans do they usually have such pop and such dedicated players?

Id guess it is a minority.

If the server had many of those clans RvR wont be so unbalanced.

 

 

Yeah, that' why I said it depends on server pop, but I don't think this game was thought for clans of 5 to 10 players.  If switching nation was made much cheaper aren't we risking clans hoping from nation to nation? Is that really something desirable? 

[Never]

2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Better than quit after losing a port?

And if investments costs were reduced they might think about rebuilding. Right now, very few clans in dk have decided to rebuild.

Should a nation that can't even defend one crafting port even have it? or should such a nation even exist? I think there's multiple issues mixed in that other than just costs.

[Never]

3 minutes ago, Bryan Von Gyldenloeve said:

Ofc it should have a port it is the risk they take. At least as long they exits as nation. I hear you Call out for real war game mechanic. Total destruktion of nations, untill only one are left?

 

4 hours ago, Snoopy said:

 

• Unconquerable ports get no access to investments but will start with a fixed port bonus layout pattern
  Example: Fort Royal: 4/4/4/3/2 Saint-Pierre: 4/2/3/4/4 Marin: 2/3/4/4/4 etc
  At the moment some nations have fewer starting ports (including zero), perhaps justifying their difficulty rating.

 

I would say this is a good solution for such nations, but with lower port bonuses than those.

[Snoopy]

1 hour ago, Never said:

 

I would say this is a good solution for such nations, but with lower port bonuses than those.

My intent was to provide an unconquerable base for a nation to fall back on, which is why I believe the need to have the full amount of bonuses is there (mind you the actual layout might still end up not being efficient or meta or FoM, you might for example end up with full bonuses for masts on sols).

Even small things like missing out on 1 or 2 port upgrade unlocks that have practically no impact can weigh on morale. The nation needs to be able to stay in 'we can manage' mode rather than 'we need to rebuild from scratch' because that is when you lose players.

Every time a nation has been 'destroyed' we have lost players. I would like to minimize the times this happens.

[Angus MacDuff]

20 hours ago, Snoopy said:

My intent was to provide an unconquerable base for a nation to fall back on, which is why I believe the need to have the full amount of bonuses is there

It's a question of perception.  If you feel that you cannot compete because player A can craft a ship with full port bonuses and you cannot, then you will lose interest in playing.  The reality may be that it is not a big difference, but that perception of inferiority will kill your morale.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Angus MacDuff