randomtaskkk

Just look at EVE Online - Clones and do something similar. At the end of the day EVE is what NA *could* be. 30,000 online players in spaceSHIPS. For example, each player can have 2 / 3 / 4 / whatever other number of 'captains' in the game. When a player first starts the game, they have one captain who spawns at the default outpost in the capital. The player has to sail to other 'unknown' ports in order to 'discover' them. Once discovered the port will allow the player to build an outpost. If it is also a national / allied port the the player can also 'buy' another captain and station him at the outpost. The player now has his 'active' captain (from the capital outpost) which he is currently sailing, and a 'non active' captain which is at the new outpost. Now the player has two captains at two outposts - his first captain based in the captial, and his second captain at his new outpost. The player will be free to teleport between either of his captains, BUT the player needs to 'leave' each captain at a port where has an outpost, before teleporting - for instance, sail back to and leave his first captain at the capital, before he can teleport to his second captain in his outpost. The player can only teleport to 'captains', NOT teleport to outposts. Each 'captain' has to be left in a port with an outpost which is in national or allied ports. I think this is good because: Teleporting is limited to only areas where a player has sailed to and discovered Teleporting is limited to only areas where a player wants to be based (e.g. has created outposts) Less teleporting = more traffic in OW; but still allowing teleporting to player chosen areas Each captain can train different ship specialties - e.g. the player's first captain might only sail 1st rates and become proficient in those, while his second captain might only sail 5th rates and become proficient in those - more variety of game play, more enjoyment. No teleporting to freetowns for ganking (captains have to be left in national / allied waters).

*lightbulb* Love this idea. Much more inclusive of the whole player base to determine overall RVR performance of a nation. This needs to be implemented since yesterday! I seriously think it is the best suggestion on the forum right now. I'll actually be disappointed if this doesn't make it into the game. Potential addition: Region opens for conquest by attacker successfully capturing the region capital via PB as per your suggestion. If attacker wins, the remaining ports in the region also open for separate PBs. Winning these give a bonus to the increase in superiority. Successful defense decreases the superiority. Note: the attacker doesn't need to capture them all to win the region. Even if the defender defends them all the attacker could still win the region by gaining enough superiority by other means, and likewise even if the attacker captures them all the defender could still keep the region by getting enough superiority by other means. Benefit - more PB's for more people, another way to gain / lose superiority.

Yeah fully agree with that as well. Higher quality cannons could be able to take slightly more damage in battle before breaking; but only a certain % should be able to be fixed by repairing in battle. Remainder would require port repair as you suggest (or even purchasing new cannons from shop??).

+1 for more cannon control per deck / side. +1 for changing horizontal ship and cannon information on UI to vertical. Would also love to see different qualities of cannons being available - along the same lines as qualities of ships. Better grades could give (quite small) bonuses to accuracy.

Gents, Attacker initiates battle as per current mechanics or similar. Pull circle pulls anyone within radius (not too fussed about what the radius actually is). Radius should be invisible so it takes some skill to get a decent tag and not pull things you don't definitely want to fight. Pull should include all ships in the pull circle regardless of AI / player / nations. When battle starts, the initial pulled ships are as per their OW location. Teams should be set as per politics (you are teamed with Allies, fighting enemies, can fight or avoid neutrals as you see fit). On battle start, server checks for any ship which can see the battle (you could even calculate crow's nest height vs. earth curvature for a really accurate version) and these ships are able to sail to and join the battle. Any ships wishing to join the battle not already pulled sail to the edge of the pull circle. They can join whenever they want, as long as they were in visual range when it started. Note - this isn't necessarily in game draw distance - but the actual "real life" range over ocean they could see. Storms / bad weather affect the visual range (you can ambush people in storms with less chance of them getting reinforcement). If you weren't in visual range (how would you know the battle is happening?), or in port (how would you get your ship ready and sailing in the few hours the battle lasts?), you can't join the battle. When someone who was in visual range, but not pulled initially, gets to the edge of the pull circle, they click cross swords to join. Their position when joining the battle is based on what direction they were relative to the attacker when the battle commenced. When spawning into battle, the server calculates the average "middle point" of all ships in battle. Player joining spawns at 750 metres (or any other number) away from this point on the heading noted above. As it's only an average position, they may be closer to some ships than others, depending how tight the battle formations are. Its not ideal, but I'm not sure what else can be done and this seems fairly logical and in keeping with a semi-accurate ROE within game limitations.

Just one thought. If the screening action influences the port battle, it will make it very hard for small nations to ever counter aggression from a larger nation. For example, a small nation might be able to win a 25 v 25 battle vs. a larger nation purely by being better sailors, regardless of whether screening has been effective or not. However, if screening kills or whatever affect the PB outcome, the large nation is much more likely to win - they (with superior numbers) can simply blockade the port and gank anyone remotely close to it. Depending on how severe the blockade / ganking is, the small nation might end up entering a PB, completely out-sailing the large nation, but end up still loosing the PB due to kills etc. during screening. I think this would be pretty demoralising. Note I have absolutely no issue with screening being rewarded in some other way, just I really don't think it should be in any way linked to the outcome of the PB. I say this coming from GB by the way, so don't think I'm only looking out after my own interests by suggesting small nations get a chance

So this is my suggestion for port battles / flags. It is grounded on the belief that the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it should cost you and the more notice should be granted to the defender. Point 1: The further the port you want to capture is from your Nations front lines the more the flag costs. For example, buying a flag to capture an enemy port immediately next to your front line might cost 250,000 gold. The flag for the next enemy port (further into enemy territory) might cost 500,000. The flag for the third enemy port might cost 1,000,000, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increasing cost of waging war further from your empire (think supply lines, sail time, crew wages, provisions etc.), and reduces the effectiveness of “steam rolling” through enemy ports, as it will cost you significantly more the further you go. Of course, once you successfully capture the first enemy port, your Nations battle lines have extended, so what was the second port (which would of cost 500,000) is now the first port, and thus costs just 250,000. Point 2: Notification timers should be set to represent a “nation’s intelligence”. Think of all the small ships / fishing boats / outposts etc. dotted around a Nation which would warn of an impending attack by your enemy. Tying in with Point 1, the notification timers should be set depending on the distance from frontlines. For example, the attacking nation buys a flag to capture the defenders most remote port (i.e. the one immediately adjacent to the attacker). The defenders get 30 minutes notice to prepare a defence. If the attackers chose to buy a flag to attack the defenders next port (i.e. the second one from the attacker), the defenders get 60 minutes to prepare a defence. The third port might provide 120 minutes warning, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increased warning a Nation would have, generated by its citizens, of an enemy fleet sailing deeper into their territory. This will concentrate fighting on the front lines, and provide stability to a Nations core ports. This should help with Nations losing huge swathes of their territory due to ninja attacks when the server population is low. Point 3: Sneak attacks should be possible, by decreasing the warning given to the defender. This would be achieved by paying more for the conquest flag. For example, the attacking nation wants to capture the defenders second port. Point 1 and 2 implies this would cost 500,000 and the defender would be given 60 minutes notice. The attacker however buys a “sneak attack flag” which costs double (1,000,000) but reduces the defenders notice to 30 minutes. Such a mechanism realistically represents the additional expense of preparing a sneak attack, such as the planning, bribery, waiting for the opportune moment, chasing down witnesses, etc. Point 4: All of this could of course be supplemented by a "cooldown" on port re-capture. The 7 day suggestion currently circulating seems too long - maybe 2 days, in combination with these other points, would represent a good balance. Example: The attacker wants to capture three ports on their front line. They opt to buy a normal flag for the first port – 250,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They also buy a “sneak attack” flag for the second port – 1,000,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They opt to buy a normal flag for the third port – 1,000,000 gold and 120 minutes notice. Assuming they are successful at capturing ports 1, 2 and 3 then the following day, what would have been the defenders ports 4, 5, 6 are now reclassified as 1, 2, 3 and the process can begin again. Of course the attacker could opt to also try and capture ports 4, 5, 6 on the first day, but the (exponentially?) increasing cost would bankrupt most players and the (exponentially?) increasing warning notice would give the defending nation time to mobilise their defence. Conclusion: I hope the point I am making is clear enough – the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it will cost you and the more notice is granted to the defender. Of course the numbers are just suggestions and open to discussion. Cpt. Ed - Great Britain.

Pirate mechanics are very simple in my opinion. You can turn pirate by attacking your own nation or allies. A few "pirate only" ports dotted around the map (or in historically accurate locations?). Pirates can't capture nations ports. Pirates can raid enemy ports for resources that might be on sale there etc. Pirates can sail any ship they can capture. Pirates can only craft up to 4th rate. Pirates can attack anything without penalty. Pirates can switch back to a nation by carrying out a number of orders (letters of marque) by sinking their desired nations enemies. If you switch (to pirate or back from pirate), all you can take is the ship you are in and whatever is in it's hold. All other ships / items / buildings are forfeit and lost. Cpt. Ed - Great Britain.

So this is my suggestion for port battles / flags. It is grounded on the belief that the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it should cost you and the more notice should be granted to the defender. Point 1: The further the port you want to capture is from your Nations front lines the more the flag costs. For example, buying a flag to capture an enemy port immediately next to your front line might cost 250,000 gold. The flag for the next enemy port (further into enemy territory) might cost 500,000. The flag for the third enemy port might cost 1,000,000, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increasing cost of waging war further from your empire (think supply lines, sail time, crew wages, provisions etc.), and reduces the effectiveness of “steam rolling” through enemy ports, as it will cost you significantly more the further you go. Of course, once you successfully capture the first enemy port, your Nations battle lines have extended, so what was the second port (which would of cost 500,000) is now the first port, and thus costs just 250,000. Point 2: Notification timers should be set to represent a “nation’s intelligence”. Think of all the small ships / fishing boats / outposts etc. dotted around a Nation which would warn of an impending attack by your enemy. Tying in with Point 1, the notification timers should be set depending on the distance from frontlines. For example, the attacking nation buys a flag to capture the defenders most remote port (i.e. the one immediately adjacent to the attacker). The defenders get 30 minutes notice to prepare a defence. If the attackers chose to buy a flag to attack the defenders next port (i.e. the second one from the attacker), the defenders get 60 minutes to prepare a defence. The third port might provide 120 minutes warning, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increased warning a Nation would have, generated by its citizens, of an enemy fleet sailing deeper into their territory. This will concentrate fighting on the front lines, and provide stability to a Nations core ports. This should help with Nations losing huge swathes of their territory due to ninja attacks when the server population is low. Point 3: Sneak attacks should be possible, by decreasing the warning given to the defender. This would be achieved by paying more for the conquest flag. For example, the attacking nation wants to capture the defenders second port. Point 1 and 2 implies this would cost 500,000 and the defender would be given 60 minutes notice. The attacker however buys a “sneak attack flag” which costs double (1,000,000) but reduces the defenders notice to 30 minutes. Such a mechanism realistically represents the additional expense of preparing a sneak attack, such as the planning, bribery, waiting for the opportune moment, chasing down witnesses, etc. Point 4: All of this could of course be supplemented by a "cooldown" on port re-capture. The 7 day suggestion currently circulating seems too long - maybe 2 days, in combination with these other points, would represent a good balance. Example: The attacker wants to capture three ports on their front line. They opt to buy a normal flag for the first port – 250,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They also buy a “sneak attack” flag for the second port – 1,000,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They opt to buy a normal flag for the third port – 1,000,000 gold and 120 minutes notice. Assuming they are successful at capturing ports 1, 2 and 3 then the following day, what would have been the defenders ports 4, 5, 6 are now reclassified as 1, 2, 3 and the process can begin again. Of course the attacker could opt to also try and capture ports 4, 5, 6 on the first day, but the (exponentially?) increasing cost would bankrupt most players and the (exponentially?) increasing warning notice would give the defending nation time to mobilise their defence. Conclusion: I hope the point I am making is clear enough – the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it will cost you and the more notice is granted to the defender. Of course the numbers are just suggestions and open to discussion. Cpt. Ed - Great Britain.