Population and PvP (not a rant)

[Garbad_the_Weak]

I have RvRed actively on the Rack, Blackbeard, Roberts, and the Antique, as well as CB. I've seen populations from extremely tiny (beta france) to extremely large (blackbeard rat at launch). I've seen servers with great population balance (rack, antique) and ones with terrible population balance (blackbeard) or mismatched time zones (roberts). I've seen larger nations wear down small ones by attrition/burnout (france vs brit on the rack) but I've also seen smaller nations dominate a larger one (spain/france vs france/rat on the rack).

But one thing that I think is a universal is that it's not raw numbers that matter.

In beta, spain dominated despite smaller numbers because of a more focused core. The same was true of spain on the rack, france on Antigua, etc. I note that in both of those, the winner was light the entire time, but it never FELT too light until the end (spain/france regularly had 25+ waitlists, reasonably solid coverage around the clock, etc). On the other hand, Anitque rat feels too crowded (75+ waitlists for PBs, packed zones, etc) and its only medium. I think both of these are because of high participation, not just gross population numbers.

I suppose this was the long way of saying "if a high % of people participate in pvp, it really doesn't take that many people to do well in pvp." 50-100 is more than enough. On the other hand, nats especially will give up after 3 major losses in a row. Burnout taking away a few key guilds/leaders can crush a nation overnight. A demoralizing loss or irritation against grinding zerglings can wear down a smaller nation.

With that in mind, what can we as players do to:

1. Increase pvp participation (make more people spend more time pvping),
2. Reduce burnout among smaller nations, and
3. Make people want to keep fighting even if they lose?

What do you think?

[Khayr_Ad_Din]

Originally Posted by Garbad_the_Weak I have RvRed actively on the Rack, Blackbeard, Roberts, and the Antique, as well as CB. I've seen populations from extremely tiny (beta france) to extremely large (blackbeard rat at launch). I've seen servers with great population balance (rack, antique) and ones with terrible population balance (blackbeard) or mismatched time zones (roberts). I've seen larger nations wear down small ones by attrition/burnout (france vs brit on the rack) but I've also seen smaller nations dominate a larger one (spain/france vs france/rat on the rack). But one thing that I think is a universal is that it's not raw numbers that matter. In beta, spain dominated despite smaller numbers because of a more focused core. The same was true of spain on the rack, france on Antigua, etc. I note that in both of those, the winner was light the entire time, but it never FELT too light until the end (spain/france regularly had 25+ waitlists, reasonably solid coverage around the clock, etc). On the other hand, Anitque rat feels too crowded (75+ waitlists for PBs, packed zones, etc) and its only medium. I think both of these are because of high participation, not just gross population numbers. I suppose this was the long way of saying "if a high % of people participate in pvp, it really doesn't take that many people to do well in pvp." 50-100 is more than enough. On the other hand, nats especially will give up after 3 major losses in a row. Burnout taking away a few key guilds/leaders can crush a nation overnight. A demoralizing loss or irritation against grinding zerglings can wear down a smaller nation. With that in mind, what can we as players do to: 1. Increase pvp participation (make more people spend more time pvping), 2. Reduce burnout among smaller nations, and 3. Make people want to keep fighting even if they lose? What do you think?

Tough call. I can think of things the Dev's could do. But not much as players. There was a slight discussion on Antigua about France using lower end ships exclusively (in offensive battles) to make a more competitive map (due to our constant success vs. Nationals.), but there was massive opposition from our enemies to this.

As a nation/players, we can't take it easy, otherwise we'll end up like The Old Timer's Guild (Spain, Antigua, Map 1 winners) who decided to "go easy on the other nations". They quickly quit the game due to boredom of having nothing to do.

I try to encourage people not to spend alot of time trying to get high end LSB ships. They labour and money required will burn you out, and they're not necessary (as France on Antigua has proven many times, killing LSB fleets with nothing higher than 4th rates, I believe this happened on other servers in the past as well).

[Jean Gris]

I don't think anything more can be done by the players. Most nations seem to go below a critical mass and then rapidly implode as you stated.

In my opinion, this game needs to add incentives for participating in PvP/RvR. Most every pvp game I've played has rewarded a player even when they lose. I don't mean the losing player winds some grand prize just as nice as the winner though. Most pvp systems use some sort of separate pvp experience/leveling or alternate "realm points" type thing that rewards both winners/losers. You gain exp/points just by participating.

I think PotBS needs that type of system, maybe an alternate pvp advancement system where you can buy skills/bonuses (small ones) using your pvp exp points or what have you.

At the very least, maybe a minimal MoT/MoV reward for being sunk. The same is needed for participating in a port battle, win or lose. Obviously winners should receive more of a reward. Currently even being on the winning side in a pb now can mean you gain no MoT/MoV's if you are in an unlucky group or if you are in a pb where another side is simply time griefing you. There is no incentive for badly outgunned/outlead nations to even show up to a PB which can make it boring for the dominating side.

Something like this supported with in game systems would benefit all sides. Hardcore, successful pvp'ers would get much more action if PotBS had something like this in game ... as it is now, there is no incentive to become red circle/pb fodder.

People can rant all they want about how this is "carebear" or how they can't get their jollies if the person they defeat gets some reward ... but do we want hardcore or full servers? Apparently we can't have both.

[Khayr_Ad_Din]

Originally Posted by Jean Gris In my opinion, this game needs to add incentives for participating in PvP/RvR. Most every pvp game I've played has rewarded a player even when they lose. I don't mean the losing player winds some grand prize just as nice as the winner though. Most pvp systems use some sort of separate pvp experience/leveling or alternate "realm points" type thing that rewards both winners/losers. You gain exp/points just by participating. I think PotBS needs that type of system, maybe an alternate pvp advancement system where you can buy skills/bonuses (small ones) using your pvp exp points or what have you. At the very least, maybe a minimal MoT/MoV reward for being sunk. The same is needed for participating in a port battle, win or lose. Obviously winners should receive more of a reward. Currently even being on the winning side in a pb now can mean you gain no MoT/MoV's if you are in an unlucky group or if you are in a pb where another side is simply time griefing you. There is no incentive for badly outgunned/outlead nations to even show up to a PB which can make it boring for the dominating side. Something like this supported with in game systems would benefit all sides. Hardcore, successful pvp'ers would get much more action if PotBS had something like this in game ... as it is now, there is no incentive to become red circle/pb fodder. People can rant all they want about how this is "carebear" or how they can't get their jollies if the person they defeat gets some reward ... but do we want hardcore or full servers? Apparently we can't have both.

Since we're going off on tangents (to the original topic).

Removal of all LSB boats, add player governship as the alternative econ/money sink, and i'm sure we can think of more playable econ/money sinks to go along with it.

LSB boats just lead to mass grindage in JOMT and weeks of econ labour, to be lost quickly in decisive port battles, which leads to really infuriated players (see the progression of the most recent map win on Antigua). Opposition dropped considerably after the first couple of battles where massive amounts of LSB fleets were lost.

[Demontford1]

Originally Posted by Garbad_the_Weak 3. Make people want to keep fighting even if they lose? What do you think?

As a national i find it is the time and effort required in replacing a valid pvp ship/outfittings, insurance was envisioned to correct this, but it along with other factors has led to massive inflation/empty auction houses which has meant there is now no net gain from insurance.

So as a national I would say you have a choice, OS pvp or rvr, you dont have the labour for both. Either reduce labour cost or remove bundleboats and out of the 2 options I would say the first is more workable given where we are now.

[Schneemann]

Originally Posted by Garbad_the_Weak With that in mind, what can we as players do to: 1. Increase pvp participation (make more people spend more time pvping), 2. Reduce burnout among smaller nations, and 3. Make people want to keep fighting even if they lose? What do you think?

You ask what we can do as players, so I don't refer what FLS should do about it.

1.) Starting today and facing as newbie a fleet of MoV- or Bundleboats, fitted with the best blue fittings in your first PvP encounter must be discouraging. Especially for players without a strong PvP society behind them teaching how the game goes.
Some player organized PvP events with e.g. regular ships or duels to offer newbies some practice would decrease the learning courve and would offer the possibility understand how the game works. Maybe then some more will participate.

2. Not much to do about for us. You could possibly switch nation to help, but to be honest: Who wants to leave friends, ships and outfittings behind to prevent the "enemy" form burnout?

3. Acceptíng surrenders would let people possibly stay pvping althrough they lose, but this would also mean to renounce on your reward...

[Jean Gris]

Originally Posted by Khayr_Ad_Din Since we're going off on tangents (to the original topic). Removal of all LSB boats, add player governship as the alternative econ/money sink, and i'm sure we can think of more playable econ/money sinks to go along with it. LSB boats just lead to mass grindage in JOMT and weeks of econ labour, to be lost quickly in decisive port battles, which leads to really infuriated players (see the progression of the most recent map win on Antigua). Opposition dropped considerably after the first couple of battles where massive amounts of LSB fleets were lost.

I agree with what you're saying, although maybe just get rid of the LSB's and find some other way to regulate the end game ships ala the old royal system or something.

That being said, my post was on how to keep people pvping/rvring so I think it was on topic. I just don't think there is anything more that players can do

[Ravenau deLusan]

Originally Posted by Garbad_the_Weak ... But one thing that I think is a universal is that it's not raw numbers that matter. ... With that in mind, what can we as players do to: 1. Increase pvp participation (make more people spend more time pvping), 2. Reduce burnout among smaller nations, and 3. Make people want to keep fighting even if they lose? What do you think?

I don't entirely agree with your premise that raw numbers don't matter. They actually do matter in the econ game. At least the labor hours matter for nats. Labor hours matter some for pirates, but pirates always have a decent population.

I will agree that after X point the raw numbers tend to matter less. For NvN, excluding the economy, the raw numbers matter much less. In fact, to some degree, having more players can be counter-productive.

To me the main part of the question is "What can players do about it?"

Actually, we can do a lot. However, that requires players to take the long view and forget the stupid "No crying," "War is unfair," "Play to Crush" mentality. It's a game, not a war.

1. The skirmish system would help a lot, but we players can't make that happen, so to increase PvP participation invite others to join your uber OS PvP group. Sail in smaller ships sometimes and still invite others to join you. Yeah, you may get sunk, so what? Ask people you don't know, make announcements in the chat channels, or use the individual world forums. Arrange battles with opposing nations. It's possible to have a lot of fun in a battle of Halifaxes, Otters, and La Belles. Losing the starter ships isn't a big deal for anyone so fight to win. Lastly, DO NOT discourage players from accepting port battles invites. I'd like to see every PB have 5 players on each side that hadn't been in one yet - pipe dream, I know. The rewards for winning a war aren't that great anyway.

2 & 3 are pretty much the same thing. To keep smaller nations competitive larger nations may have to sell some of their labor hours to them via products in the AH or even direct sales. Personally, I'd give anyone who lacked ammo some of my ammo just so we could fight. All these play to crush and kill the newbie guys are destroying this game for many players. Few are unlikely to ever be competitive at the highest PvP levels unless FLS does away with high death penalty. Lastly, when a port battle is decided - accept surrenders from the losing side. They keep their durability and can fight in the next battle instead of quitting.

I've seen too many MMO players to be optimistic that anything like this could ever happen, but you never know.

[Cat Swift]

Originally Posted by Garbad_the_Weak With that in mind, what can we as players do to: 1. Increase pvp participation (make more people spend more time pvping), 2. Reduce burnout among smaller nations, and 3. Make people want to keep fighting even if they lose? What do you think?

Oops deleted my response. Didnt see the "players" part.

I honestly think its the game companies responsibility to provide a fun game experience that makes you want to play (and pay).

[GB.]

Originally Posted by Garbad_the_Weak With that in mind, what can we as players do to: 1. Increase pvp participation (make more people spend more time pvping), 2. Reduce burnout among smaller nations, and 3. Make people want to keep fighting even if they lose? What do you think?

1. Tough to make PvE players PvP if they don't want to.
Yours & Rustys idea to have a free ship or no loss dp weekend would do wonders for PvP & to get players started.
2. Get the underdog tools to make allies of the two losing RvR nations.
3. Reduce the cost of ships by reducing labor by 50% & increase ah availablity by losing bundleships to some place where the sun don't shine.
At same time reduce insurance by 50% & replace with more fun repeatable missions where grouped or solo players can make cash.