Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Severely unbalanced game and suggestion to minimize the problem


Recommended Posts

We are seeing that the game is unbalanced in a dangerous way with only one or very few large and powerful factions, joined by players who prefer the easy mode as opposed to a good game experience for everyone who bought the game.

If the imbalance continues to grow, it will soon be necessary to zero the game, because there cannot be combat with a single faction or two allied factions;  zeroing the game is not in anyone's interest, on the contrary, every time this has to be done, players will give up because they have to start all over again.

On the other hand, no one buys a game to serve as a punching bag.

My suggestion is very simple, implement a port maintenance fee that grows the more ports a clan / faction has, to the point of being financially unviable.

This will mean that players will have to devise more subtle and complex strategies such as controlling the most profitable geographical passages and routes, instead of pure and simple senseless violence.

I hope my suggestion is useful, as I really liked the game, but the way it is, if nothing changes, surely many people will end up losing interest.

Best regards

Murilo

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good suggestion, made several times before by multiple players. But even if implemented, currently trade produces so much tax revenue for the top nations that they probably wouldn't even feel it even if they had to pay some maintenance fees. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want factions to loose importance?

 

- Remove port bonus' or make it available for everyone regardless of port size (i.e. tie it to the crafter)

- Make port maintenance matter -> larger factions pay larger fees (as OP suggest)

- Balance mods better so no modules are required mods (Who here doesn't have a hundred master carpenters in their warehouse just in case u need a PB ship?)

- Reduce the bonus for seasoned woods or as already suggested in this thread, make LH regen dependent on faction size -> larger faction less LH regen. Personally I'm more in favour of rebalancing the seasoned woods, the issue atm is that large factions already has full PB fleets of seasoned woods (not really that hard to come by, especially the more u are to grind the privateer fleets).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the constant PBs are draining people. The christmas no PB period was quite enjoyable for just about everybody.

 

They need to redo the frequency of PBs and fix how easily hostility is exploited. Until then, essentially the factions/groups with the most players will always have the edge no matter what anybody does!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not disagreeing with alliances, i think a mechanic is needed but realistically.... how would it work? Who will set them between nations? Because right now its basically clans that are just housed within nations. Nations dont mean much outside port capture. So lets say nation Y has 10 clans, Nation U has 18. Do all of them have to agree to an alliance? 70%? 50%? what if they dont vote.. what if they refuse to vote.. what if one makes 1000 dummy clans to sway a vote

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i also think raids should  be more scattered around the whole map

there are ports who have never seen a attack from anybody

 

the center point of all the fights needs to be all over the map and not only in the center

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

Perhaps if small nations could ally it would mitigate the effect of rvr exhaustion.

I totally agree with you, but unfortunately it doesn't work. There are simply too many different interests and views, even in the smallest structure of a clan.

Of course, you can't please everyone, but many could perhaps make at least a few compromises to achieve a common goal that would ultimately benefit everyone involved.

If you give the players a diplomatic system for this, one half will be happy and use it, the other half will scold and work against it.

if you leave it up to the players themselves to regulate certain things diplomatically, it doesn't work either. because there are always troublemakers in every nation who are against any diplomatic agreement, for whatever reason.

and honestly... if a peaceful collaboration in certain things doesn't even work in the real world, why would it work in a game? sad but unfortunately the reality.

 

and the whole problem can be easily summed up with an old saying...

Not because things are difficult, we don't do them, but because we don't, they seem difficult to us.

 

Greetings and a good Wind :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 8:55 AM, Mikkel Brekhandersson said:

I totally agree with you, but unfortunately it doesn't work. There are simply too many different interests and views, even in the smallest structure of a clan.

Of course, you can't please everyone, but many could perhaps make at least a few compromises to achieve a common goal that would ultimately benefit everyone involved.

If you give the players a diplomatic system for this, one half will be happy and use it, the other half will scold and work against it.

if you leave it up to the players themselves to regulate certain things diplomatically, it doesn't work either. because there are always troublemakers in every nation who are against any diplomatic agreement, for whatever reason.

and honestly... if a peaceful collaboration in certain things doesn't even work in the real world, why would it work in a game? sad but unfortunately the reality.

Peaceful collaboration in certain things. But it works plenty of the time in certain other things. Just because we can't agree on everything doesn't mean we can't agree on anything. In-game diplomacy is already practiced; it's just that we're forced to use third-party methods of communication, and nothing is enforced by hard-coded, in-game mechanics.

Leaving decisions up to players diplomatically would work just fine. If a nation has so-called troublemakers, let them vote for what they want. If they complain when they don't get their way, f**k 'em. If they do get their way, that's democracy at work; what's the problem?

There is a broadly acceptable average of aggregate viewpoints. It can, and will, be found for each and every nation. You can never please everyone, and you should never try to; dissenters will always exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The nations are the alliance system. I would like to see the current mechanics changed so that allied clans define the nation, vs nations defining the clans. This would also simplify clans wishing to switch nations while keeping their ports and other resources, and better integrate the organic clan system with the game's nation scheme.

And since no clan can own the free towns or national capitals, this won't impact those ports at all.

Edited by GrubbyZebra
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think punishing players from more populated nations is the way to balance the game.

What smaller nations need is positive reinforcement...like maybe shorter hostility windows on their ports (scaled to size of nation/pop), the ability to fill a PB with AI reinforcements if needed, all main ports having the same development points (would decentralize production, incentivise more smaller factions).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be interesting work on labor hour generation and wallet. 

Both are under a perk so, forgive me if I'm wrong I'm not a software engineer, could be easy for dev to tune it taking into consideration the number of town for every faction and buff the poor ones and nerf the strong ones. 

For example poland players could have a huge labor hour wallet, let say 10000 and they could  generate labour's hour 4 time more faster than a normal player. 

When they conquest, lets say 5 town, the wallet dimension start to reduce as the labor hours generation 

To make a more deeply system could be interesting to keep into consideration the number of player for every nation and their crew : that is also a way to find alt used only for afk trading, or dock space or extra building to craft stuff.

Just an idea wrote in a fast way sorry for errors 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a port reset? For example, every 6 months, winning nation declared, ports are reset. Players don't lose their personal assets, except craft buildings (and doubloon costs can be altered to reflect this, perhaps even dynamically changed depending on time left of current 'round'). It might even open the possibility of releasing core nation ports from capture exempt status.

However, the biggest obstacle is Prolific Forger - because of that DLC nation populations are much less likely to fluctuate (unlike if the nation change permit was available through admiralty).

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...