Slow death on the Burning Sea, Part 2

[Wintersdark]

While I don't agree with many of your proposed solutions, I think your spot on with most of the issues. The conversation has drifted too far to really get into them, so it's for the best to leave 'em at that. Well considered, and a good read, regardless!

[Vetarnias]

Originally Posted by Mr Moose

dont know if anyones mentioned this but i dont like this idea on bit because of this

As quoted from Logicstrike, France Naval Officer part of Le Cult on the Kidd server.

Thread "why win the map"

"-if you are going to say for marks of citations, I'll say they are useless. Infact first map win gives loosers as much citations + 20% loot etc. like having your own gold farmer near you giving you db for free every time you kill a ship.
-if you going to say for e-peen growth, i'd say i have my e-peen grown to enourmous sizes already.

Give me a reason to play this game as RvR game.

French on kidd server will win the map tomorow and we are not considering on doing it again, because it is too much work and useless. Instead we are going to capture all deep natural harbours and sit on it. Does that sound mean? yes, but there is no realy any point in winning the map for us.

Basically, if we are successful at sitting on enemy ports for long time, we'll accidently force enemy players to reroll or to quit the game."

Lose DWH and then

GG?

Found the thread. The situation was pathetic even then: Take DWP's and sit on them, thereby stifling the enemy's shipbuilding abilities. Very, very smart, and incredibly short-sighted.

As for underdog tools, all they have given is a reason to lose the map; what was missing all along was a reason to win it. And on top of that, what the resets do is to make sure that even though you take over a port from the enemy, you don't add it to your war production efforts, because (1) apart from tax and perhaps reputation, nothing changes, and (2) you'll give it back anyway.

As someone succinctly put it a while ago.

Originally Posted by Garbad_the_Weak

Its a RvR game where losing is better than winning.

Its a PvP game where most people do everything they can to avoid PvP.

Its a game where NOs need FTer escorts to protect them from fleets of rats.

Its an economic game where your financial success is intentionally gated by grind.

Its a game where you don't want to complete missions because the NPCs are worth more than the mission rewards.

Death penalty too high; reasons for potential death completely insignificant.

Unless the devs bring about significant changes (not that 1.4 garbage), I'm afraid my own time here is coming to a close, another month at most. This game has potential, but the more the devs avoid these forums, and the more I read about cosmetic changes that do nothing to solve the game's problems, the more I think this is a lost cause and that we're all being taken for patsies.

[Black-Duke]

Originally Posted by kazamx

Even he i sickmoaning

PvP is cheap as I showed in my last thread. The problem is people want to hold onto their MOVs MOTs and don't even acknowledge their true value. if I get 15,000db for sinking a ship in marks then thats 15,000db in cash, all I need do is sell them on the AH.

FAIL, due to the fact that after selling MoVs and EVERY player on the server has the NEEDED items those MoVs give, there will be no more DEMAND for MOVs. Therefore NO NEED to Kill for MoVs. No demand on the AH for MoVs will lover the price to 200 each. Therefore if you sink a guy you get maximum 1000 dbls where as you sink you loose 50K. Risk vs Reward NO THERE.

SO WHY PVP, for the giggles, as many have pointed out its BETTER TO LOSE A MAP then win it... is that the spirit of a game, teach us to lose instead of the I would like to WIN? Then you are spot on WELCOME TO POTBS

[Broom]

Originally Posted by Black-Duke

FAIL, due to the fact that after selling MoVs and EVERY player on the server has the NEEDED items those MoVs give, there will be no more DEMAND for MOVs. Therefore NO NEED to Kill for MoVs. No demand on the AH for MoVs will lover the price to 200 each. Therefore if you sink a guy you get maximum 1000 dbls where as you sink you loose 50K. Risk vs Reward NO THERE.

SO WHY PVP, for the giggles, as many have pointed out its BETTER TO LOSE A MAP then win it... is that the spirit of a game, teach us to lose instead of the I would like to WIN? Then you are spot on WELCOME TO POTBS

Added to that, people always make the same mistake. Yes, if you win more than lose, the MoVs and MoTs can actually net you a profit. That's a big if. In my experience, this theory works great for experienced high level players who spend a lot of time pvping. It does nothing, however, for casual players and those who lose more than they win (typically lower level and less experienced players).

I've been a PVPer for a long time. I also lead a guild that's at best 15% PVP, the rest are PVE. Most of both categories have by now left, only a handful remain. For the PVE people, there was no endgame, just drudgery. Losing ports hurt badly, the constant lack of money wore them down (no, not every FT is rich, especially not the casual ones), having ports in contention cut them off from mission objectives, the constant NPC agro timesink broke their last remaining will to play. Thanks for nerfing the agent's spyglas, by the way, FLS, that cost me at least 3 people.

For the PVPers, the problem was and is the constant need to grind: grind to get ports to contention, grind to replace ships and outfittings, the ridiculous grind for the big rated ships - I'm firmly in the camp of those who want all bundle boats gone from the game -, grind for rep to get that farm mission and lord knows what else they'll come up with. And don't even get me started on the whole PB system. Or the 'rewards' for map victory.

All in all, there's too much sheer work involved. And no, implementing PVP and PVE servers would not change that.

Linna

[Garrett_In_Ohio]

"Here's how I would do it: Two real-life friends (might even work for complete strangers) start the game, one French, one British. They stick to fallbacks, turn their PvP flags on, then sail to some place where they will pretty much be alone (Tampico maybe, or Bermuda), then attack one another, making sure each loses every time. Or, more simple than that even, just stick to fallbacks and post yourself smack in the middle of a red circle and wait for the ganksquads to do the rest. If I have been ganked in a fallback, anybody can. Or else find one of the cheapest ships on the market and actually attack ganksquads."

This is absurd of course. Fall back ships battling each other back and forth ad nausem.

Do the math on this. It takes 350,000 XPs to get to LvL 50!

I proposed 100 * ship level. OK, 500 xps per defeat (lvl 5 ships). You would have to get killed 750 times to get that much XPs. You are better off finding something else to do with your time. Also, if even that was a problem, make it so fallbacks don't get the XP bonus, isn't that how it works with killing people any way. Problem solved and a non-issue. I think you are just looking for a red herring to try to shoot down a good idea.

[MrOsterman]

Originally Posted by Garrett_In_Ohio

I proposed 100 * ship level. OK, 500 xps per defeat (lvl 5 ships). You would have to get killed 750 times to get that much XPs. You are better off finding something else to do with your time. Also, if even that was a problem, make is so fallbacks don't get the XP bonus, isn't that how it works with killing people any way. Problem solved and a non-issue. I think you are just looking for a red herring to try to shoot down a good idea.

No.... remember that as you level your fall back improves, doesn't it? I think that the fall back is usually 10 levels behind you or something, so let's assume that around level 20 we're looking at driving a level 10 ship. That's 1,000 xp per sinkage, for no risk and if you're both working out of the same port, 1/4th of the time it takes to sink a ship that gives maybe a couple hundred XP.

Very good strategy if you ask me.

Mr. O

[Garrett_In_Ohio]

Originally Posted by MrOsterman

No.... remember that as you level your fall back improves, doesn't it? I think that the fall back is usually 10 levels behind you or something, so let's assume that around level 20 we're looking at driving a level 10 ship. That's 1,000 xp per sinkage, for no risk and if you're both working out of the same port, 1/4th of the time it takes to sink a ship that gives maybe a couple hundred XP.

Very good strategy if you ask me.

Mr. O

Except you ignored "make it so fallbacks don't get the XP bonus, isn't that how it works with killing people any way". How does your exploit work if you do that?

[MrOsterman]

Originally Posted by Garrett_In_Ohio

Except you ignored "make is so fallbacks don't get the XP bonus, isn't that how it works with killing people any way". How does your exploit work if you do that?

Yes, and that is the additional (I think it was added later) condition that makes it less exploitable (granting that just about anythign is open to exploit, but for now I can't think of it off hand). Personally with that exception I'm not opposed to your proposal though frankly it'll never see the light of day. PVE is meant to be the means to level, PVP is the thing we do to win maps. I can't imagine them allowing PVP to be a means to level, but let's hope.

Mr. O

[Garrett_In_Ohio]

Originally Posted by MrOsterman

Yes, and that is the additional (I think it was added later) condition that makes it less exploitable (granting that just about anythign is open to exploit, but for now I can't think of it off hand).

Yes, after you mentioned that I added rthat condition. See sometimes you have to massage ideas a bit to get them perfect.

Originally Posted by MrOsterman

Personally with that exception I'm not opposed to your proposal though frankly it'll never see the light of day.

Ain't that the truth.

Originally Posted by MrOsterman

PVE is meant to be the means to level, PVP is the thing we do to win maps. I can't imagine them allowing PVP to be a means to level, but let's hope.

Mr. O

Well, PvP is drying up, and people wonder why. I myself have been PvP'ing for weeks now and my level gain is dead in the water. I have gotten a few victories but mostly losses. The few wins/ganks I have been involved in (I can count them one one hand) I have only netted me XPs I could have gotten trolling the OS for NPCs in 15 minutes. On the flipside I have lost an incredible amount of ships though so someone has gotten some MoVs off me. But the biggest loss isn't the ships, or the frustration, or the expensive mods or the humiliation, it is the huge investment in time with nothing to show for it that makes me ask why I keep coming back for more of the same.

If FLS's intention was to keep lowbies out of the PvP arena, they sure have done a good job at that!


Now, some people will probably say "well, if you don't like the game, why don't you just quit". A typical attitude. The fact is, I do like the game even for what it is and certainly for what it could be (fun, challenging and MEANINGFUL PvP for everyone). If I didn't like the game, even with all it's huge flaws that everyone is debating right now, I wouldn't even post a word. I would have closed up shop long ago and forgot about it completely as if this was just a bad dream that never happened.

[Iron Duke]

To summarize the issues in this thread:

- NvN has a 'Who Cares?" feel to it and the current underdog tools can actually give a disincentive to victory
- The current Port Battle risk vs. reward ratio is unbalanced: NvN is not compelling, the rewards or penalties for winning or losing are minimal to economic game, and cost/risk of loss a durability point is not worth it
- 'PvP for PvP sake' is not an 'end game' for most players and even 'hard core' PvPers would like PvP to more readily available, cost effective, more accessible to 'casual' players
- PvE players resent being 'forced' in PvP and do not enjoy 'one sided' contests

I agree that additional rewards (monetary and experience) for PvP (and port battles) need to be added immediately. No one should have to dread the mind-numbing grinding that accompanies the loss of (non-LSB or writ) ship. More rewards that allow players to participate in PvP cost effectively is definitely needed because it is the best part of the game. But I want to address a different issue....

To me, there is one overriding theme: everyone wants a way to have their game play style be viable or 'mean something' and everyone wants contribute to success in 'The Big Picture'. More importantly, if the 'Big Picture' is compelling enough, the losses incurred, the inconveniences caused, and (gasp!) changes is game play style required might be bearable, maybe even enjoyable. If everyone and all game styles can be seen is some way contributing, the game is more fun for all. And right now, it is not.

The trick is balancing the contribution for the different styles and careers, allowing a co-existence of these game styles through game mechanics, and, if possible, create a system of interaction (or co-dependency) that promotes cooperation. And most importantly, allows pirates to be pirates!

So, I want to share some 'small steps' on how to resolve for each within current game design:

Nation vs. Nation:
- Set a map timer (e.g. countdown from 12 weeks). A race against the clock builds a sense of urgency. Poor strategies, bad losses do not cripple a Nation or pirates indefinitely.
- Remove pirates from 'traditional' NvN. If no one wins the map, pirates win. Anarchy, chaos, conflict are a pirates best friend! Hegemony by any one nation is their worst enemy...
- At start of new 'map', all pirate ports have 'red circles'. Nations must first work on clearing most important shipping lanes and ports of pirates. Maybe even cooperate against the 'common enemy', before getting on to beating each other brains in...

Port Battles:
- 'To the winner goes the spoils'. Winners 'roll' on port battle 'loot table' that gives doubloons, raw materials, manufactured goods, etc. that represent of what is in the resources of the city, production in place, and/or warehoused goods. Bigger cities, bigger loot, bigger ships! And not just the players at the port battle - everyone!
- Victory 'shutters' production site to other Nationals and eliminates all stored labor. If port is recaptured, production can be restarted but at a premium (e.g. 10x of maintenance cost). A loss of a port is more than an minor inconvenience, but a major hole in the economy.
- Pirate ports remain in pirate control (with a 'red circle') until reclaimed. Economic activity impacted as above to all Nationals.

Contention:
- 'Everyone has a role to play.' Freetraders get advantages in 'unrest' bundles. Privateers drive contention by sinking PvE merchants. Naval officers can always 'join' battles to protect merchants and 'priority seating' at Port Battles.

- Only PvP drives contention after 5,000 points.

- From 5,000 to 7,000 contention points, Nationals sinks Pirates and enemy Privateers to lower contention. National Privateers sink enemy Privateers and Freetraders to gain contention.

- From 7,000 to 10,000 contention points, same rules apply (PvP only).


PvP and 'The Big Picture':

This idea is driven by game mechanics. 'War without end' might be fine for some, but not a basis to build a on-line community - unless you are a 'bloodthirsty' pirate! Combined with other changes, it places PvP more into context with other aspects of the game (i.e. NvN, PB, and Contention). I posted this idea in another thread and it was well received so I wanted to give it a wider audience and get comments...

The mismatch on level or levels fighting seems to be the biggest complaint from PvEers (6 vs 1 matches or level 50s sinking low levels) about PvP. The counter is usually that low levels can still impact the RvR game with unrest bundles, materials, etc. And you have to let pirates be pirates, right?

The perceived high cost of PvP to PvEers is the cost of ships. But pirates need to take better ships to be viable...

Unfortunately many players do not obey the 'law of the sea'. Historically, pirates (and 'sanctioned' pirates or privateers) were terrorists that did not want armed resistance in any way. The potential of even minimal loss of life (pirates wanted easy money, rum, and women and to stay alive long enough to enjoy) and scarcity and cost of materials to refit (let alone opportunity cost of not practicing piracy!) made no sense. To encourage merchants to surrender without a fight, pirates practiced a two-pronged strategy: mercy to ships who complied and disproportionate retaliation to those who did not. Surrender immediately and live or resist and die to last man, woman or child.

This is not the 'real world' (you cannot die) and there is no refit cost (damage is repaired cost free after a fight). So you need game mechanics to simulate.

Some suggestions for game mechanics:

1. Players stopped in the 'red circle' cannot be sunk if all cargo is surrendered - this is requirement for any 'National'. If a National sunk another ship (other than a pirate) that had surrendered, the captain has committed an act of piracy...

2. Pirates who stop someone in the 'red circle' after cargo is surrendered, can 'commandeer' a ship if anyone in the 'pirate' group is in a lower level ship than the one captured. If it is an upgrade you can keep it!

This would stop the 'ganking' - I define 'ganking' as low level ships sunk with overwhelming odds for no gameplay reason whatsoever expect for griefing - without removing the risk of high-level Nationals that chose to sail a top line ship into a 'red circle' and get caught by a pirate.

If these suggestions do not go far enogh to let 'pirates be pirates', then I would add:

3. Pirates who sink a National after surrender of cargo and no upgrade available are now committing 'crimes against humanity' and maybe violated the articles of the Brethern of the Coast. Net effect:

- Permamently PvP flagged (maybe pay large bribe to have removed)
- Repairs are not automatically 'fixed' until in port and cost money
- Access only to pirate ports
- Place a bounty on their head in game that can be collected at any national port

There might be a thrill for a group of uber-PvPers that would watch the bounty on their head grow as they were hunted from one end of the earth to the other by Nationals and pirates, but the risk would be there as well because they 'played' outside the rules of the civilized society...