Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Hugh Latham

RvR imbalance

Recommended Posts

I haven't thought this out, but perhaps the idea can be developed in discussion here.

Make port maintenance costs proportional to the number of ports owned by a nation. This will put some feedback pressure on disproportionate populations without placing actual limits on population size.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Wont solve much.

The big nations drops all the small ports and keeps the capital. 

This way they lock entire regions without any penalties.

 

Balance will only be achieved when nations will be able to cooperate inside port battles and use eachothers ports.

What you have now is not different of what you had in the early 2016 with the brits. As a consequence, the community asked for diplomacy tools that help them to bring a bit more balanced server.

Unfortunately the feature was later removed completely without giving it a second shot.

hmm i disagree, people can then use these neutral ports to hunt from, for instance from Tumbado to El Rancho there are no outposts although the russians are doing ALOT of trading in that area, it will generate natural freetowns actually.

Edited by erelkivtuadrater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game will always struggle with RVR numbers as long as there are 11 nations and sub 1000 players.  This is just a simple fact.  During the fine woods patches the game was able to support multiple 25v25 battles due to the alliance system.  The dilution of players has only gotten worse since then.  

Nothing else has worked.  Period

The 2 solutions to RVR imbalance are drastically reducing the number of nations or bringing back alliances.  Admin is opposed to the former, so alliances ARE the only way forward.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The 2 solutions to RVR imbalance are drastically reducing the number of nations or bringing back alliances.  Admin is opposed to the former, so alliances ARE the only way forward.

Actually there is another solution - introducing new method of RVR in addition to PB - proper commerce raiding, that was historically weapon of the weak against rulers of the seas

Edited by Malcolm3
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Malcolm3 said:

Actually there is another solution - introducing new method of RVR in addition to PB - proper commerce raiding, that was historically weapon of the weak against rulers of the seas

your statement regarding which party uses economical warfare is wrong. But the idea of economical warfare in the game is not such a bad idea.

Edited by RKY

Share this post


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

your statement regarding which party uses economical warfare is wrong.

Really? Historically French and also Americans used their guerre de course because of weaker navy (and Germans with their U-boats also). That's just one of methods to hamper using the sea lanes for the enemy - don't mess it with blockade, that is the weapon of the strong side usually (and also economical).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malcolm3 said:

Actually there is another solution - introducing new method of RVR in addition to PB - proper commerce raiding, that was historically weapon of the weak against rulers of the seas

Nice idea Malcolm.  Gives lower level players, or those in bad time zones, skin in the RvR game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

We are talking here about RvR, not about some trader hunting that rarely hurts the rvr capabilities of nations with players with multiple alt accounts.

Sorry just commented on the answer without reading the thread title. Guess we need some kind of way to go behind the lines by pulling hostility missions vs neutral ports then :)

Edited by erelkivtuadrater

Share this post


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

Wont solve much.

The big nations drops all the small ports and keeps the capital. 

This way they lock entire regions without any penalties.

 

If the suggestion of forcing a nation to take 50% of minor ports in a region before being allowed to attack the capital were to be implemented (which has been suggested multiple times by several people) then that might help alleviate this particular potential issue. 

Edited by Never

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...