Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'port battles'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Support
    • Tribunal - Трибунал
    • Forum and website problems and improvements
  • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • National news
    • Guilds, Clans and Trading companies
  • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Developer news and announcements
    • Patch notes
    • Gameplay Help Q&A
    • Guides
    • Suggestions
    • Combat mechanics discussions
    • Open world discussions
    • Economy, Trading and Crafting
    • General discussions
  • Naval Action: Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
    • Tavern
  • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (en français)
    • Naval Action - German language
    • Naval Action - Spanish language
    • Naval Action - Polish language
    • Naval Action - Українська мова
    • Naval Action - Italian language
  • Naval Action (Русский язык)
    • Новости
    • Обсуждение проекта
    • Предложения и идеи по игре
    • Морские тесты
    • Кланы и Гильдии
    • История
    • Таверна
    • Сайт и Форум. Проблемы и предложения.
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General games discussions


  • Game Friv 4 School
  • Mad things going on
  • Duels (1v1)
  • semenax1's Blog
  • Bernhart's Blog
  • John Dundas Cochrane's Blog
  • The adventures of W. Laurence
  • kusumetrade's Blog
  • fastbug blog
  • tai game co tuong mien phi
  • Log Book
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • Captaine Arnaud Arpes' Log
  • Remir's Blog
  • Real Armada Española
  • Core Blackthorn's Blog
  • Saltback's Blog
  • British Privateer
  • Game App Development
  • Game App Development
  • Brogsitter's logbook
  • maturin's Blog
  • Antonio_Pigafetta's Blog
  • Ingemar Ulfgard's Blog
  • News Sports Blog
  • Saffronsofindia
  • Cpt Blackthorne's Blog
  • linksbobet88's Blog
  • Tube Nations Game Givaway
  • English Nation Gunners Blog
  • Commodore Clay
  • From the Conny's Deck
  • About Madden NFL 17
  • Travel between Outposts
  • Blurring reality as artist’s 3D model tricks
  • Download Only file APK for Android
  • Testing stuff


There are no results to display.


  • Community Calendar

Found 40 results

  1. In tradition I wish to bring this back for Global as for players who come on the forums and check out the situations on the servers, or new players wanting to see the lay of the land. I will keep this unbiased, and unless a player from that nation wants to update their clan or nation's diplomatic stance, it will remain unchanged from the beginning. I will make it clear, this is not a "Rumor says" political post. Post your Port Battle Screenshots here as well! We all love looking at triumphs and conflict together, as well as telling the story of some epic clashes between nations or clans. Format will be as follows: War -- All nations start off as at war by default OW Conflict -- OW conflict is strictly OW PvP, Ports aren't the primary purpose of the nations contention, rather sinking your opponents ships is all the clan/nation cares about. Neutral -- Trade agreements, NAPs, NIPs, Port Agreements, or other limited agreements will define this slot. Alliance -- If an official post is made between 2 or nations it will be officially updated - an Alliance is only made when the majority of clans within a nation are in agreement. Clans Agreements - If a Clan wishes to have agreements be made public, they may do so, otherwise nothing is official. If any information is incorrect, Please inform me, I wish to make this post as accurate as possible. I ask that we keep this thread clean :). I will attempt to update this Thread daily. Politics/Diplomacy United States of America Verenigde-Provincien : Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: War Verenigde-Provincien United States: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: OW Conflict Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: War Pirates: Neutral Espana Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral United States: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Neutral France Verenigde-Provincien: OW Conflict Espana: Neutral United States: Neutral Great Britain: War Denmark-Norge: Neutral (NAP) Sverige: OW Conflict Pirates: OW Conflict Great Britain Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral (NAP) Espana: Neutral France: War United States: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral (NAP) Sverige: Neutral (NAP) Pirates: War Denmark-Norge Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral (Ceasefire) Great Britain: Neutral (NAP) United States: Neutral Sverige: Alliance Pirates: Alliance Sverige Verenigde-Provincien: War Espana: Neutral France: OW Conflict Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Alliance United States: War Pirates: Neutral Pirates Verenigde-Provincien : Neutral Espana: Neutral France: OW Conflict Great Britain: War Denmark-Norge: Alliance (only BLACK/CCCP as it's a clan thing) Sverige: Neutral United States: War
  2. tl;dr: Putting a port into 100% contention causes problems for that team regardless of how the port battle turns out. Random thought of the day: If you build 100% contention on a port, this is a "raid" and lasts 48 hours. While in a raid state, the county generates no trade goods, will not buy trade goods (or only pays "1" for them) and player buildings produce labor hours at 50% rate. I was just thinking that while contention often generates PvP, a smart team that was confident in their port battle fleet could simply ignore contention grinds. Let the contention happen, show up for the port battle, done. Costs them less time, less risk, no counter-grind and they win. I think this is such a huge risk that when people realize what I have just said, nobody will grind ports anymore unless they were really sure they could win the port battle. It would be a tremendous waste of time to grind contention, get no PvP out of it and not be able to win the port battle. You accomplished literally nothing in that case. So let 100% contention mean something: It means the county is screwed up for 48 hours. Better go out there and fight those contention grinders!
  3. I know it's late in the game development wise but perhaps this suggestion would be of some use. The PvP events weren't really that wonderful in my opinion. However, those mechanics could be applied to general RvR with a slight twist. Instead of one instanced battle to determine a region through a PB, how about making each region a point scoring zone for several days. The highest point scorer wins. Points would be scored by obviously sinking other players. However the trick is motivate people to be in this zone. How passive points are scored. Once a player enters the contested region, they'll score points over time based on BR. ((Perhaps this will be in the form of a "patrol" button that takes 10 minutes on the sea to light up and resets on docking)) Maybe tied to "days at sea" so that dock hopping isn't encouraged. The points over time caps at some BR level (possibly based on region size?) for each nation. The problem with this idea might be calls back and forth to the server and updates to map points sort of how contention takes a while to update each players map. Shallow areas on OW allow safety for shallow ship BR point generation from larger ships. Obviously battles near forts help defense as typical. No npc generation of points, only player controlled though patrolling the zone or sinking ships of the opposing nation. The one nation with most points after X days wins the region. Example: Region Dominia has been flipped. I patrol solo in my 100BR ship. Once I'm in the region, i score 1 point per 15 minutes in the zone. My friends join making our total BR 2150 BR but the cap is 1000BR so only 10 points are scored per 15 minutes. Then the enemy fleet arrives and battles ensues with each side losing 1000BR worth in ships. That scores 1000 points for each side. Three days later the contested area ends and the enemy wins 23,540 points to 21,550 points. Pros: No more hiding in instances. Screening is basically counted in points. No need to fear of a PB fleet being tagged. Multiday event-style allows more participants. Contested regions become hot zones for pvp. Even other nations might join in although no points are scored. Cons: Strain on calls to and from server and UI updayes. Larger nations may still have the advantage. (Although they'd risk more BR sinking thus more points might be scored by better smaller teams). Some people like arena style combat. Maybe this puts less people on OW and more into NA Legends. Discuss but please leave drama at the door.
  4. Political situation PVP 2 US (Inter Clan) Information is from players (Inter clan), updated weekly and daily if needed. This is the same sort of format as the EU political Situation thread. The Diplomacy part presents the attitude of the nation's major clans towards other nations. Verenigde Provinciën: Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Alliance Verenigde-Provincien: Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: War United States: Alliance Major clans: DWIC1-6 - Dutch West Indische Compagnie NPV- Nederlandse Protectoraat Vloot SMS - Reichsflotte Danmark-Norge: Espana: Neutral France: Alliance Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Sverige: Alliance United States: War Major clans: CCCP - CN - SORT - Pirates: Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral United States: War Major clans: CBP - BLACK - Black Flag BLANC - French PvP1 players BLOOD - Blood of Black HYDRA - SOB - Sons of Black TFG - Great Britain: Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Verenigde-Provincien: Alliance Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: War United States: Alliance Major Clans: AGW - CKA -Canadian Kicks Ass- Cordova BCS - British Commonwealth Sailors BRA - ELITE - ?- Norfolk nChance MINE - Sweden: Espana: Alliance France: Alliance Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Alliance Sverige: Neutral United States: War Major clans: RISE - ISN - SS - USA: Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Alliance Verenigde-Provincien: Alliance Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: War United States: Major clans: ACDC - ASP - BSR - DD - Detroit Demolition IGG - NPG - No Pants Guys MARS - France: Espana: Alliance France: Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Alliance Sverige: Alliance United States: War Major clans: SD - SINK - Sink or Swim Spain: Espana: France: Alliance Great Britain: Neutral Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: Alliance United States: War Major clans: note: If anything is wrong please reply or PM! Major clan= edit* no restrictions* *** Mods can we have this replace the current sticky post of the same topic. It's out dated and the old player that started it is no longer active so it's not getting updated. With that and I know Blackthorn/Decken had a clan one like this he was doing, if folks can post there clan info I'll go through this list and update the info. For clan info please send me a PM instead of posting it with your clan info that you want to post. Numbers can be optional but if you want to give current active numbers it might help with new players that want to join one clan over another. The main thing is to let folks know who the players and makers are for each nation.***
  5. Idea for NEW Nation Mechanic

    IDEA FOR NEW NATION MECHANIC This system would address the following issues: 1. Would provide a good starting point for new players to run missions, explore the map and trade where there would be less PVP ganking, as only pirates would be a threat. Would then have option of entering the PB RvR world later if they wished through 'privateer-naturalisation route'. 2. Ends the utterly daft and unrealistic situation of Pirates as a nation sailing in fleets of SOL's and threatening the Ports of large powers. (Which imo is currently ruining the entire Pirate experience atm). Pirates would now have to behave like Pirates and would be heavily outgunned at National Hubs having to make use of 'Hit and Run 'tactics . Being a Pirate would be HARD (The big pirate clans need to just just go and join a nation like everyone else if they want to RVR/PB/sail 1st Rates) 3. Would make Free Ports (and Safe Ports*) far more interesting hubs of trade and commerce 4. Would create some interesting dynamics with regard to the use of 'Privateers' in RvR skirmish and hostility raising 5. Would make 'Pirates' a real threat but (probably) less numerous and spread more evenly across the map 6. Would allow players to explore different aspects of the game and would provide more 'fluidity' in nation Balance of power 7. Would rid need for 'forged papers' and players would now never be in a 'dead end' with regard to their playing careers 8. Allows players the option of a Merchant/Trading Profession without national constraints 9. Would also open the possibility of 'WANTED' Bounty Hunting Rewards (killing Pirates) 10. Has more 'historical accuracy' than current system displays IDEA: Every Player begins as an 'Independent Free Trader'. NOT a member of any nation More Free Ports added to Map and they would be in 2 Categories: 'Free Ports' and 'Safe Ports' The only difference being that 'Safe Ports have a protection area around them (as national ports do currently). INDEPENDENT (FREE) TRADER This would be the starting default setting for the beginning player. They: - Can ONLY sail, fleet or build 5th - 7th Rates!!!! - Do NOT have National Ports - CANNOT take part in Port Battles - CAN dock at ANY Port but must pay a tariff (except at Free/Safeports) (dont pay if smuggler flags enabled) - CAN build outposts and Buildings at Safe Ports or Free Ports - CAN teleport from Free/Safe Port to Free/Safe Port (*except below) - CANNOT attack other players (*except Pirates see below) - CANNOT be attacked by other players (*except Pirates see below) (or if smuggler flags enabled) This provides a safe(er) envronment in which new players can learn the game, trade, explore the map and be (relatively) safe from pvp gank, while they decide how they wish to play the game. The player then essentially has 4 Options: 1. Remain an Independent Free Trader 2. Become a 'Privateer' for any 'adopted' nation (NOT simultaneously) 3. Become a Privateer for an adopted nation and THEN 'Naturalize' and become a National 4. Become a Pirate (Players will have the ability to revert back to any of these states, but at a heavy price, see Below) PRIVATEER: AT ANY TIME Independent Free Traders can sail to a Nation Capital and acquire (buy) a 'Letter of Marque' (Ref 'Kotles' idea June 2) for that Nation. When activated the Player is a 'Privateer' for that nation and: - Can ONLY sail, fleet or build 5th - 7th Rates - CAN dock at (adopted) National Ports (no tariff) and Free/Safe ports - CAN NO LONGER dock at any Port (except as smuggler in trade ship in usual way) - CAN be attacked by any players of other (warring?) nations - CAN attack players of other (warring?) nations (not 'Independent free traders') - Can build outposts and Buildings at Free/Safe ports - CANNOT build outposts or buildings at the (adopted) National Ports (yet) - CAN teleport from Safe/Free port to Safe/Free port (but NOT national Ports (yet) - Can raise hostility and skirmish during PB's (although not enter the PB itself) (Becoming a) NATIONAL: After a certain amount of experience is gained while a Privateer for an adopted Nation the player then has the option to become 'naturalized' and become a member of the nation in the normal (current) way. (Thus unlocking 4th-1st Rates, Port Battles, Teleporting between and building Outposts and Buildings in National Ports) Then able to Build Outposts at National Ports but loses ALL Outposts and Buildings at Free/Safe ports and the ability to teleport between them. A Naturalised Player can revert back to Independent Free Trader at any time (after 1 week) BUT will lose any Outpost or Buildings in the National Ports (and then loses PB and 4th-1st Rate Sailing ability) OR: Player can remain a National Privateer OR: Become a 'Pirate' PIRATE: Independent Free Traders can 'hoist the Jolly Roger' and become 'Pirates' Once Jolly Roger is hoisted the player becomes a Pirate and loses any Outposts or Buildings at Safe Ports and ability Teleport to them (But retains Outposts and Buildings and ability to teleport between Free Ports) - Can ONLY sail, fleet or build 5th - 7th Rates!!!! - Do NOT have National Ports - CANNOT take part in Port Battles - CAN build outposts and Buildings at Free Ports (NOT Safe Ports) - CAN teleport from Free Port to Free Port (NOT Safe Ports) - CAN only dock at freeports (NOT Safe Ports) (unless smuggler tags in Trader in usual way) - CAN be attacked by any players - CAN attack any players (including Independent Free Traders) Pirates also have the option to get in a Trader Ship and Activate 'Smuggler Flags' and Sail to a National Capital. where they can 'Make Reparations'. Upon paying a (large?) sum of gold the Player loses all Buildings and Outposts and becomes a Privateer for that nation (from where (after 1 week) they can then revert back to Independent Free Trader) I cannot see any obvious alt (or otherwise) exploits of this (yet!!!) Obviously things can be tweaked Please Comment (constructively): Cheers
  6. Just because you're paranoid ...

    We got the hostility at Vera Cruz to 100% at about midnight Pacific Time last night (3 hours before server down time) --- I WAS THERE. But - of course - instead of "flipping" to set a port battle for the next night at 10 PM Pacific Time (as we had been told it would) the "game" decided to apparently glitch out and not flip .... So that after server down time when SKMARSH came on and noticed the hostility was at 91% .... ---- WTF? I mean WTF? You owe me a night's sleep because of course the Aussies came along and "flipped" it so it is set for 4:09 AM Pacific Time. ---- (Mutters to self: and they wonder why I'm cranky) Server 2 (Global)
  7. Conquest Marks

    After today's events and hearing players complain about the lack of conquest marks from winning a pb I think a set number of conquest marks should be given out to each player on the winning side of a pb. This would eliminate "rigged" port battles. Just in case you don't know what happened today: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/20465-cap-francois-battle-today/&
  8. The Port Battle Blockade Idea

    Admin & Ink, The Port Battle Better Local Impact Mechanic Idea Port Battle Idea that tries to reflect the local impact prior and post battle. I don't even think it would take much extra coding, but would focus all players of any Nation on a single battle. In the time of war down the ages either at the theater point or along the armies march the local prices of goods and services rocketed and labor shortages rampant. This then just as quickly collapses post battle even with a new over lord. I will assume in the future (however the Port Battle is triggered) we will still have a two to three day build up window prior to battle on whatever server. Imagine Timeline Events Port Battle is triggered - 46 hours or count down timer starts. The Local Port will instantly feel the effects of an imminent clash. In the Port UI under the Shop Tab. All AI Bid & Ask Prices will increase by 25%. The bid quantity demanded increased by 25%. The Ask amount for sale will decrease by 25%. This reflects the local shops having shelves emptied and prices sky rocket. Any PC contract offers below the new bid would be completed at the contract offer price. In the Ships tab, all AI Ships for sale will see their prices increase by 25%. The amount of AI ships available will decrease by 25%. The mission tab under Delivery missions. Contracts with Goods to deliver to the Port that’s completed within the Port Battle window will see that trader receive a 25% Gold bonus. The Craft Tab, all crafting from Iron Ingots to a complete Victory build will suffer a 25% increase in Labor Hours needed. Again, this reflects chronic man power shortages common in these situations. Server Restart… 24 hours Server Restart, the actual day of the Port Battle. Replace 25% with 50% as above. This is the Panic escalation by the local community. Port Battle Takes place and ends. Server Restart, sees all prices return to normal values prior to the trigger. Outcome Expected…. I think if you see the PB trigger and want to off load resources or materials at an inflated price you’d load up the LGV or Indiaman and go for it. If it’s an enemy port Smuggler tag (mechanic) needed etc. If you’re the attacker, you can guess over the next two days a lot of Player Trade ships (with full cargo) are going to try and enter the port. In fact, if you are a Ganker or just the opportunist well its worth a look… This reflects the Blockade of the Port. So, it’s not just a Port Battle anymore but prior to it a load of smaller skirmishes. The Timer was 3 days instead of 2 well it would be more tempting to run the blockade. This is a lot more interesting than Night Flipping right ….? Anyway, it’s just an idea over a bottle of red. If you think its rubbish let me know, and if you’ve a better idea likewise… Thanks for reading, Norfolk nChance. changed the name to make it less cluncky
  9. TRUE PIRATE LIFE - Ideas for a more historical PIRATE system A] PIRATES never had provinces and well-visible port towns in real life - PIRATES had hiding places. So, after the wipe, the areas and ports for PIRATES could be NEUTRAL ports, which everybody could use, but in which ONLY PIRATES could build BUILDINGS - not every BUILDING perhaps - maybe special PIRATE-typical BUILDINGS. I call them NEUTRAL/ PIRATE PORTS in the further. Once a NEUTRAL/PIRATE PORT would be used by a high enough number of PIRATES, it would become VISIBLE - now it's colour would change from NEUTRAL to PIRATE PORT. From this point on, the port would be known to all NATIONS, and could be port-battled. PIRATES would have PORT BATTLES this way. If the NATIONS suddeeded in the PORT BATTLE, all PIRATE WAREHOUSES and docked ships would be lost for them, and the port would change to a NEUTRAL / PIRATE PORT again, until the whole repeated. If the PIRATES succeeded in the PORT BATTLE, they would have the chance to either move all their goods to another, yet "secret" NEUTRAL / PIRATE PORT - or they could stay and try to defend this PIRATE PORT against further attacks. But maybe PIRATES should never have more than 3 - 5 such visible PIRATE PORTS, to keep it historically close enough. PIRATES should NOT be able to conquer a whole region / province. But maybe they should be able to PORT-BATTLE single ports, and thereby turn them into NEUTRAL / PIRATE PORTS? These could be used like described above, until re-conquered by NATIONS. B] It may be hard for PIRATES to make any prey. But it is not good for NAVAL ACTION to have fake and very bad tricks going on to help the PIRATES survive. After all, PIRATE life was, what it was - they were hunted, and they were mostly operating single, and they were hiding a lot. PIRATE life maybe only for the best among the NAVAL ACTION players. It IS hard to survive as a PIRATE - and it SHOULD be. All NATIONS definitely had stronger forces, and many more ships. Let the PIRATES make the best of it. THEN they can be proud of being true PIRATES. What is an EXTREMELY UNSATISFYING SITUATION is, that PIRATES can hide in MISSIONS, and stay in BATTLE SCREENS as long as they want. They only have to kill the newbie, who is training in that MISSION, and then they can stay inside. Via TeamSpeak they can communicate with one ship outside the MISSION, and hop out if there is any prey - or just to run home. They might as well have 'wormholes' - "beam me up, Scotty!" We all know, this is so BADLY UNREALISTIC, that it should be eliminated. Even the PIRATES themselves know and feel, that this is EXTREME CHEATING. And even if the same tricks could be used by NATIONS - it remains something VERY UNREALISTIC. So please - remove that; it only annoys hundreds of players. I really hope that the devs do read our proposals, and that they may consider these thought, which I have developed after talking to many other players of NAVAL ACTION.
  10. I am sorry, but this is going to be a rather long post. However, I feel that for you to understand my suggestions I need to lay out those problems which I perceive and am trying to address, and I need to explain what assumptions I am making in addressing them. Let’s start at the beginning: There once was a little boy…Ok, maybe not that far back…Try again. Anyhow... RvR is my primary playstyle. I am a (de-facto) clan leader, diplomat, and occasional port-battle commander. So it is only natural that the conquest mechanics are among my chief concerns about this game, and it is the mechanic on which I try to come up with solutions to the problems that are discovered during testing. I have previously on several occasions offered thoughts and suggestions to that effect, most notably the following suggestion for regional conquest, which was the brainchild of a former clanmate and fellow danish captain, @Bartas11, and which I was given the opportunity to formulate in English and help develop: It is upon this idea, which has since been partially implemented, that I intend to expand and further develop below. But first: What conclusions can we draw from testing a few variations of RvR mechanics for the past year and a half? I will try to offer some suggestion as to what conclusions I have drawn, based on my own experiences, and talking to fellow players, clan-members, and RvR-players of other factions in-game. Players want conquest to be a daily activity: Most RvR-players that I talk to want conquest to be an accessible, low threshold, frequent occurrence in the game. A lot of the players who had been playing day in and day out since January of last year, left when conquest became dependent on days of grinding, hours of sailing to the other side of the map for some special region or resource far from ones own frontlines, and long (46h) preparation times. Many I know, missed the spontaneity of gathering 20-30 players sometime between 6 and 10 in the evening, buying a flag, and going for a port nearby, with all that it included: arguing about which port, anticipating enemy defences, screening with the flag, planting it, fighting and then sailing home-or never even getting there because while we were wasting time the enemy bought a flag for one of our regions and we decided to defend that instead. Now we have to plan our gaming 2 days ahead and try to get enough people together at the right spot and at the right time. It’s not spontaneous, it doesn’t feel player driven. It feels like a chore the game gives you, rather than an opportunity that you grab. A lot of players left, I believe because there was simply too much work, too much PvE-grinding, too much planning, and too much waiting around for each time you want to do something. Players want conquest to be flexible: On top of that, players-in my experience-want conquest to have a constant ebb and flow. Win and loose. That regions change hands, rather than stay static. It doesn’t have to be either, that regions change hands all the time, but that battles are won and lost with a little more variety. When the outcome is determined beforehand by wether you are defender or attacker, it looses some of its appeal. With the new system, attacking a port is a chore, and victory is a slim chance in most cases. Defenders only need to find a decent defence tactic for a port and stick to it, and the attacker has no chance. Add screening, getting delayed into the fight, and spawning far, far away, and you might end up doing a ton of work and not even getting a fight out of it. Port Battles have been well stocked with players on both sides for the past months, but still half the time port battles were over before the forces were even able to engage each other in the instance. We may have gotten rid of empty port battles, but I’m not sure we made port battles more fun. In my opinion, despite it’s flaws, it was much more fun when the map changed colours from day to day, and you lost one port (or three) one day, and regained it (and 5 more) the next day. There were more undefended Port Battles, more zerging, and more pointless pixel colours, but there was more action. Not all of those things were good, but ideally we could keep the positives and throw out the negatives. I’ll get back to how. But to be clear, to its credit, the 46 hour preparation time makes port battles slightly more fair now, at least once screening will be fixed and easy teleports removed. Players want RvR to be meaningful, but not a zero sum game: We as players, want to feel that we achieve something. That when we win we get rewarded and that we win *something*. When we win a port battle, we want to win the region/port. We are willing to work hard to see pixels change colour. It is in the nature of a RvR game. We also want to see the enemy suffer. But for most of us, who at one time or another have been on both sides of the win/loss, we don’t want that loss to be too great. We don’t want our enemy to quit because loosing is too punishing, and we know that one day the shoe might be on the other foot and we are the ones to loose. Ideally you want your enemy to loose to you one day, chalk it up to bad luck, and be back the next day ready to try again with the same spirit. If loosing is too punishing, many players don’t bother to continue playing until they get enough experience to be able to win. Players don’t want defenders to be able to wait out the battle by simply kiting and running till the battle is over: Before we got land in port battles, one of the main complaints about port battles was that since the attacker needed to kill the defenders, while the defenders only needed the battle to be over, a viable tactic for defenders was trying to run the entire match and kite the enemy to prevent them from being able to catch up and engage a battle. You could defend, simply by drawing out the time and avoid a fight. Since the circles we got with land in Port Battles, this particular thing is no longer an issue. How can we address these requirements?: Players want daily conquest activity: Ideally the promised raids could be the daily, large-group, RvR-tied, clan-centered/organised activity that RvR-players can do and enjoy every evening, on short notice and spontaneous organisation. It needs to be tied in with RvR-as working towards port battles somehow, so that it is not just an inconsequential activity that players have to weigh their time doing against doing activities that would gain RvR. If we get raids, that work, but with no tie-in with Port Battles, then raids will either be DOA, or kill RvR. We need a balance. Players want conquest to be flexible: With the flags and individual port capture, RvR was too flexible. Frontlines were shifting back and forth every day, but too many ports would change hands each day, and it was all about taking more ports in a night than the opponent could take back the next day. Way too many ports were exchanged without any opposition. There was a lot of sitting around shooting towers, and not enough shooting each other. The new system, however, has made conquest too inflexible, yet at the same time too fleeting. First, winning as an attacker is hardly possible due to the mechanics and the port defences. Second, if you win a battle, through a stroke of luck or moment of brilliant inspiration, that single battle makes a whole region of several ports change hands. It makes little sense to me that a single battle should make as much as 7 ports change nation in an evening. It also makes little sense to me that attacking should be so punishingly hard and unforgiving that it is demotivating. And if you mess up one evening and loose a port, that port will be almost impossible to get back. Players want RvR to be meaningful, but not a zero-sum game: You need to get rewarded for conquest, but conquest also needs to be reversible. If you loose an important region, you should be able to get it back if you just put enough effort into it. A defeated nation needs to be able to get back on their feet. You also want it to take more than just one single battle to win or loose a region. Conquesting a region should take several days, but you want it to involve action every one of those days. The grind to get port battles, and the 46 hour wait, are both toxic. Yet without preparation time you will have more empty port battles and difficulty for the defender to be where they need to be. To the point of making it meaningless. Players don’t want defenders to be able to wait out the battle by simply kiting and running: The capture point circle system that we got with land in port battles fixed this. Yet I never liked the 3 circles. It took port battles from being about sinking each other to being about artificial points and number of ships. Most of all I strongly dislike that there is now very little viability in fighting when outnumbered. If you didn’t get 25 people together, or one ship dropped out (or god-forbid was blocked out by a devious exploiting alt) you are now at a huge disadvantage, whatever the skill comparison. This might improve with the structure system making ships sink quicker, but with the unlimited repairs it might just as well magnify the problem tenfold. Instead of the 3 circles and the capture points, I wanted the old single circle of the tower maps just to be reduced in size and tweaked just enough to make kiting less viable as you would run into the edge of the circle sooner, and with land in port battles added to that, the number of directions you could run in would be severely lessened as well. Instead of loosing armour after 5 minutes by going outside the circle, and instead of the circle shrinking, you would get a penalty of some sort for staying outside the circle too long, even loosing by having a certain percentage of your fleet outside the circle for a given number of minutes. I think that with land in port battles and a slightly lesser radius on the port battle circle, we remove or reduce the issue of kiting defenders. I have 2 proposals for reworking the conquest system below. I believe that with the current mechanics that are already in the game, neither of these proposals will require prohibitive amounts of work to implement, and that both will constitute significant improvements over the current conquest system which we have. I leave judgement of the latter to my fellow testers and to the devs. Conquest system A: Raids, the new Port battles Make raids the new «port battles». Make raids the activity that clans and organised groups, but also just unorganized spontanous gatherings of players, can do every night, in and out, spontaneous and with little preparation. Specifically, raids need to be viable gameplay for groups of 15/20+ players working together. Give it meaning and make tactics a part of it, not just a blob of cheap ships shooting at another. To allow smaller groups to do raids as well, you can assign different tier raids to different ports, so some can be attacked with small groups of 6 players, while others require 20 players to work together. Bring back the old flag system for raids. 1 hour to plant the flag, and the flag can only be bought in a national port, and allied ports if and when alliances are brought back. We can bring back 2 hour defence timers for raids, or we can have open, 24-hour timers (for EU-server limited to within conquest window). A limited number of raids can be organised each day, but the limit could be something like 6 raids, or even more. You could conceivably organise within a nation to raid every port in an enemy nation’s region at the same time. In order to counter abuse, zerging and exploits, make raids prohibitively costly, and give diminishing returns for consecutive raids directed at the same region. Meaning that flags are purchased for PvP marks in addition to gold/war supplies to craft the flag. Since all or most ports in a region can be raided, buying the flag for one with an alt to block it, means nothing since all the other ports in the region can be attacked instead. Other exploits are also less viable to players, since no regions actually change hands directly from raids. Exploiting the flag system will be prohibitively expensive and gain you almost nothing. A successful raid limits owning nation’s production in that port for one day and gives raiding party produced resources as loot to bring home with traders. Say that production is halved in the specific port for one day by a successful raid, or by 75%, or maybe even halted completely. To prevent spamming and zerging the same region day after day by attackers, implement diminishing returns. A port/region that was recently raided needs time to recover before it will pay anything to successful raiders again. They can raid it again and again, but they won’t receive any rewards. To limit the off-hour raids to avoid defenders, scale rewards during the day relative to defending nation’s active population (or server population as a whole to make it simpler). Much higher reward for raiding in prime time could encourage raiding when there are enemies around to defend. Also, with the flag system, defenders have up to an hour warning to get to the port to defend against the raid or even intercept the raiders. The most likely defenders against a raid will be those players who have an outpost there because they have production there, so that they can go to a national port when they see that a raiding flag is bought, and teleport to their outpost to defend. Other players with outposts in the same region can teleport to their outpost and sail there to defend. Thus better rewards and better defences in a port the more people own production buildings there. Raids will be variable, have a decent chance of success, therefore being motivating, and yet a good chance that defence will involve players and not just AI. If raids are successfully implemented to be the go-to activity for larger scale group play and satisfy RvR and port battle fleets, then we can make the actual port battles even rarer than they are today. Keep port battles mostly as they are today (with improvements), with 46 hour preparation (or rather 22 hours if I had my wish), and increase the time between them. Make them weekly or bi-weekly for each nation for instance. That a nation can manage to set up and go through up to 2 port battles per week. Maybe only during weekends. Regions change hands rarely, and the map and conquest is fairly stable. The tides of war and conquest are slow, but not stagnant. Conquest system B: The removal of Port Battles (this is my preference) After thinking long and hard on how to improve conquest mechanics, the following is what I came up with. This proposal is not dependent on the implementation or progress of development of the raid mechanics that we are waiting for. Yet raids could easily be tied in with this mechanic to contribute towards RvR, or implemented alongside it without affecting RvR. In developing this idea, I tried to rethink my position on RvR completely, and pay some heed to those players who say that «port battles» in their setup are detrimental to the game and to the open world gameplay. They are a remnant of this game’s past. Some even say that conquest should be removed from the game. I love port battles, and I know a lot of players who play this game mostly or only because of them. So the removal of RvR is to me not an option. Yet we as RvR players could perhaps do well to scrap our current ideas about RvR and look at it with fresh eyes to come up with a system that is more integrated with the Open World and the rest of Naval Action gameplay. In developing this idea, I also relied heavily on my previous conquest mechanic suggestion, written in cooperation with @Bartas11, back before we had regions in the game. It is on his idea of Open World «Trafalgar» battles and controlling sea zones that I base my new approach. We now have in-game the regions that we suggested. We don’t however have the multi-stage conquest of a region. There is one Port battle, and then the region either changes hands or doesn’t. I’m proposing that we scrap «Port Battles». Why do I say this, being an admitted port-battle player first and foremost myself? And why do I say that when devs have spent so much effort and time giving us land in port battles and towers and the capture point mechanics? We waited so long for these features to be developed before the port-wipe, and we spent so much time refining them. Well. I’m not saying we should scrap the land in port battles features completely. These ports, towers and so on should be used for the upcoming raid mechanics. Here is my proposal for conquest mechanics port battles are scrapped: -When you wish to capture a region, you buy a flag in any nationally owned port. This flag is crafted with X amount of Conquest marks, X amounts of Gold and X amounts of War supplies - war supplies being the main ingredient. For instance 5 conquest marks, 200k gold and 50 war supplies. -This flag lasts for 5 hours from the time it is crafted and you buy it for a specific region. Say that you want to attack Santo Domingo region. You would craft the flag in Ponce or Areceibo probably, if coming from the east. -When you craft the flag, you need to form a group. This group can hold up to 25 players, and to avoid abuse the group has to have 20 players in it before you can properly craft the flag. -Upon crafting the flag, a message is sent to the entire server, alerting of the fact. Just like previously with the flag system. -The crafting of the flag also spawns a circle in the open world at the region capital of the region that is under attack. This circle has its focal point on the capital city. The radius of the circle is roughly equal to the viewing distance in OW in clear weather. -Whoever crafts the flag, becomes the flag-bearer (flag-carrier). -The flag can be transferred between players in port(?). -If the flag-bearer logs off from the game for more than 5 minutes, the flag disappears and the group is dissolved. -The composition of the group can be changed by adding or removing players from the group. But the group can not have more than 25 members in it. -The point now, is for the flag-carrier and his group to bring the flag and themselves to the region they are attacking. -The attackers are now to get their fleet to the OW circle outside the region capital. They need to be inside the circle. Once inside that circle, if the flagcarrier leaves it, the flag expires immediately. Thus you cannot hover at the edge of the circle and go in and out of it like people do in the PvP-events. -Conquest depends on a «meter». That meter rises for every hour that the aggressors' flag stays inside the circle. -In order to flip a region’s ownership the attacking faction has to have the flag inside the region for a cumulative 12 or 24 hours (number to be determined by testing). Meaning conquest will not happen in one day, but may take several days or even weeks to generate enough points towards the meter. With a 5 hour flag expiry, you can maximum contribute 5 hours minus travel time towards conquest in one day. But then you would have to sit inside the circle for an entire five hours consecutively and the enemy would have 5 hours to mobilise a defence. -While the goal of the attacker will be to stay inside the circle for as long as possible to generate points towards the conquest of the region, the owners of the region that are under attack will have the goal to try and chase or force the attackers out of the area, or sink the attacking fleet. -Once an alert is out to the server that a nation crafted a flag against a region, the current owner of the region will have to mobilise a defensive fleet of their own to sail there and defeat the intruders. Once there, they will observe the invading fleet and engage it in a large open world battle. The position of the invaders in OW will determine the spot of the battle, and it could happen close to shore or at the farthest end of the circle far from any land. Forts will not really be a factor, unless the invader sails all the way up to a town, but why would they? There were no forts at Trafalgar either. -When in battle instance, the timer still counts towards conquest for the invaders. If they stay one hour in battle, that is one hour towards conquest just like if they sat in OW. To avoid that invaders just tag a small fleet or single ship to hide in battle instance from defenders, anyone belonging to the group carrying the flag cannot do a tag on any other ship, player or npc, while inside the conquest circle. In other words, invaders cannot initiate a battle while inside the circle. -The defenders however will have to attack the invaders in order to halt their conquest. To avoid that invaders use alts or trick noobs into engaging a fight with them that allows them to hide in battle instance, the new BR rules should apply. Only a comparable force can engage the invaders. If they have 25 Victories, only a force of 20+ 1st rates or so can drag them into battle. -Once the defenders engage the invaders, making a battle of 25 vs 25 players, the following can happen: The battle stays open for the entire duration of the fight incase either or both sides do not have 25 players initially. However either side can have a maximum of 25 players enter. Neither side can get a 26th or 27th ship in even if there are less than 50 ships total in the instance. The battle may have 3 outcomes. Invader wins, defender wins, or a draw. The invader wins by getting to 2 times the BR of the defender (just like old times). The defender wins by either getting to 2 times the BR of the invader, or by sinking the invader’s flagcarrier. A battle ends in a draw if by the end of 90 minutes neither side has gained 2 times the BR and the flag is still afloat. If the battle ends in a draw, then the time that was spent inside the battle is added to the conquest meter in favour of the invader. If the invader wins the battle, then they get 2 times or 3 times the number of points. So they get credited for twice or three times the time they spent inside the battle. If the defender wins, that sets back the clock for the invader by about the same amount of time as they would have moved forward if they won. To explain this better I will use points: You need 24 points (for instance) to flip a region. For every full hour spent inside the region with the flag, you get 1 point. If the defender engages and you defeat them, you get maybe 4 points from the battle, if the battle is a draw you get 1 point from the time you spent inside the battle, but no bonus. If the invader looses the battle they are subtracted 4 points. There is a bonus to the defender for sinking the flagcarrier, which subtracts another 1 point in that case. -If the defender sinks the flag 3 times before the invader can flip the port, then the conquest is reset and a cooldown of a few day is applied before the flag can be crafted again for that region. -The flag for any one specific region can only be crafted once per day per nation. -More than one nation can have conquest going against the same region simultaneously. They will then be competing about getting 24 points first. -If the defender does not have players near the region when you first attack it. There is a chance that they might not get there the first day to engage the invaders, if invaders turn around and go home after sitting in the circle for 2 hours unopposed. However, the owning nation then knows that the region is under attack, and a flag will most likely be crafted the subsequent days, and must therefore station ships in the region and an outpost to be able to respond in time the next day. -If attackers do not face resistance the first day of conquest, they are guaranteed to face it the next day, as defenders set up base there to be ready. Defences will be gradually increasing as the conquest progresses and defending nation sends more players there. -How to avoid that either side just kites to get a draw? Well. If the defender does not engage and try to sink the flagcarrier, then they will be helping the invader who then gets points for staying in the region by surviving the battle. -To avoid that the invader tries kiting the defenders to draw out the battle, the following mechanic applies: The ship of the player carrying the flag will get a 25% HP bonus as long as he is carrying the flag. However, in battle instances that are initiated inside the circle, the flagcarrying ship will also have a 15 or 20 percent reduction in top speed. If the invading fleet tries to kite the defenders they will therefore be leaving behind their flagcarrier, leaving him exposed to be sunk by the defenders and winning the defenders the battle. -Looting the hold of a sunk flagcarrier yields some war supplies which the defenders can take back home to their own port and use to craft flags themselves. -Players in the invading party, the group formed by the flagcarrier, cannot initiate tags of their own as long as they are inside the circle, but they can also not be dragged into separate battles unless they are too far away from the flagcarrier (the diameter of the ROE large tagging circle). They are bound to the flag-carrier. They cannot be dragged into separate battles, either by allied screeners or enemy screeners. The invading fleet cannot be separated into multiple instances. -To avoid that the defending fleet accidentally drag some of their screeners instead of their big ships into battle against the invading fleet, putting them at a disadvantage BR-wise, defenders should possibly also be able to make 25-player conquest groups that prioritise them into the same battle as players from their own group doing a tag. -Players will be encouraged to take part in screening. Players who show up in the circle to screen, but are not part of the invading force’s conquest group or the defenders’ engagement with the invading fleet will get larger rewards from any PvP they do while the flag and the circle is still active. Any battles that do not involve the flag-carrying fleet will not however count either positively or negatively towards the conquest points to flip the port. -The invaders can get reinforcements and exchange members of the conquest group while inside the circle. -Once the invasion is over for the evening, either because flag expires after 5 hours, or because the invading fleet sails out of the circle, the flag disappears and the effects that apply with it disappears as well, like flagcarrier having more HP or giving off war supplies when looted. -An invasion fleet can be intercepted and engaged before they enter the circle. If the flag carrier is sunk, the invasion is ended for that day before it even started. -The flag has to be crafted over again each day to continue the assault. Thus, the longer it takes to finish capture the region, the more expensive the invasion will be. -Each nation can have up to 3 invasions going on at the same time against different regions. -Not buying a flag for a region one day, does not reset progress on that conquest. A conquest can be halted to focus on another or on a defence. -Flags should not be so expensive that they cannot be bought each day. But they should be expensive enough to feel costly. -Most regions that are invaded, will in most cases eventually flip. Unless the defender sinks the invading fleet’s flag 3 times, the conquest can go on for a long time if slowed down by defenders. But eventually they will probably reach 24 points. That way a small and hard pressed nation can always eventually regain important territory that they lost. No regions are unassailable or impossible to a determined attacker. However a skilled defender will still be rewarded by the invader being forced to spend more resources and time on the conquest, and the previous owner can try to take the region back again after a couple of days cooldown. Advantages of this system: Brings action to OW. Counteracts the segregation between OW and port battles which has happened. Forces RvR-players into OW. To conquer regions you have to spend time in OW. Brings spontaneity back to RvR. Prolongs the conquest of a region. Means that several battles will have to be fought to conquer a region, not just one. Increases variety in RvR battles. Screening is relevant but not OP. No kiting. Gives defenders warning and time to respond to invasions. Battles are no longer set to start at (example) 18:23 and you have to be there at that time. RvR-battles start when both the attacker and defender are present. Removes PvE-grind from RvR. Involves trading and crafting with RvR (for making war supplies) Regions will always be changing hands, but much more slowly and less abruptly. We will have a frontline conquest system limited by sailing distances as you will always have to sail out from a port that you own with the flag. However there is a possibility for conquest over longer distances than an hour for instance, but it will be more costly and more time-consuming as the time you spend sailing there takes away from the time that you have to sit in the region to gain points towards conquest. You could also adapt the above by having most regions be attackable by 3-hour flags (leaving 1 hour travel + 2 hour camping/fighting), while some special regions were accessible with longer lasting and more expensive flags. That would force front-lines more, but still allow jumping the map to certain hubs. There would be no advantage to not showing up and avoiding PvP. Defenders would have to defend, if not the first day, then the second day. I believe this system will suit those players who used to camp their fleets outside capitals - typically - KPR, to bait players into coming out and attacking them. Now these fleets can get involved in RvR. One of the advantages I see of this system is that it leans in favour of the attackers, but still balances. Realistically someone would only invade a region if they had a significant force and a good chance of conquering. In this system, unless the defender repeatedly beats back the invader and sinks the flag (or win the battle, if being able to sink the flag to win would be too easy), a determined attacker will always eventually flip the region. This makes for a dynamic RvR world where regions change hands every week. You will loose regions and have to take them back, rather than just sit on what you have and fend off attackers. The system forces nations to act aggressively in RvR. Otherwise, in the current RvR-system which very much punishes invasion attempts with total loss, nations that start out with much territory are incentivised by the system to not act aggressively, and only defend as many as possible of the regions they start with, at much less risk than those nations that have to go out and attack something. Because defenders would still affect how fast a region would switch hands, this dynamic conquest system would let nations conquer territory no matter their RvR-fleets' relative skill, but would favour as the most successful and expanding ones the nations that have more skilled fleets and therefore more effectively can halt and slow down enemies attacking their regions, while quickly completing their own conquests. A nation would expand not by always winning offensive and defensive conquest, but by being twice as fast at capturing their neighbour's territory as their neighbour was at capturing theirs. Sorry for the long post (5 400 words!)
  11. The future of Conquest

    Considering that the game that we have now pretty much revolves around RvR, and devs have made statements previously to the effect that they want to force (push) every player into RvR-involvement (cf. discarded land ownership idea, resource wars etc), I feel like remarkably little has been said on the matter of RvR in connection with this particular much anticipated wipe and patch. How does RvR fit into the new direction of the game? Will Conquest even remain? Or are Port Battles-being relatively fair battles normally-about to be phased out and put into the coming Arena game instead as they don't fit the current direction? Will hostility generation remain, even though missions and PvE are getting cut, making it on testbed practically impossible to generate port battles in some areas? Or will we get a new flag-system or other system where we spend gold and/or Marks to create port battles? Is the goal for port battles, which is the content that many of us primarily log in to take part in, to still be a daily occurrence, or will it be a lot rarer, requiring us to grind for a long time between each Port battle to set up the next one? In most other aspects of the game, devs are saying that balance, easy access and fairness are no longer priorities. The world is a harsh place, the open ocean was doubly so. But for RvR to be viable, some semblance of balance needs to be maintained. Sailing and the partial removal of teleports actually promotes this balance. By making it harder to concentrate forces, and making defence an effort more equal to attack. As long as no-one holds to the illusion that territories should ever be equally sized for small nations as for large. However, the removal of compensation for losses and the increased effort to build ships threatens this balance. If one nation builds a strong fleet, and is able to sink part of the other nation’s fleet in a Port Battle with minor losses themselves. The defeated nation will get no compensation or marks that they can use to rebuild their fleet or regain their loss, and the next day the first nation can attack again before the enemy can grind to replace their ships. A lot of territory could change hands before the defenders are able to rebuild their fleet. How will this be sorted and balanced to prevent nations from being stomped at and kept from ever rebuilding? With resource production being all player-driven, and territories being key to production access, the efforts and results of RvR-players will have very considerable impact on the gameplay and competitiveness of non-RvR PvP-players, crafters, traders and PvE-ers alike. This could force more and more players to switch to the larger nations with more possibilities, or give up and stop playing altogether. How will the number of nations we have in-game today be maintained and kept viable?
  12. So, here's an odd idea I had. Premise: the gripe with port battles vis-a-vis nightflips and so on does not look like it will be resolved in the near future (for reasons that have been discussed in boatloads of other threads, so let's not rehash this here). It appears to me that the root causes people get so emotionally worked up are that, currently, the culmination and decisive point for conquering a region is happening at one point in time, in a very narrow time-frame (two hours for the battle, more like two minutes for the join window). Thus individual captains are upset when they themselves cannot take part in the decisive engagement, and nations as a whole are aggrieved as ports can change hands because of awkward timing rather than combat success (whether with malice aforethought or not, that’s not my point here). The hostility generation on the other hand, is less problematic: for one thing, it happens around the clock, so everyone can have a go; and its separate engagements are not individually decisive, so adrenaline levels are lower. So – thought experiment – what if we turn this on its head? The port battle opens conquest, rather than closing it: there is no pre-requisite for declaring a Target Region, merely an advance warning window (48 hrs or so); a limit to the number of Target Regions a nation can declare in parallel; and the requirement to declare an Attacking Region. Then the opening PB happens after 48ish hours. Defender wins PB: nothing happens. Attacker wins PB: the region is now open for conquest. Think: the port defences have been broken, and a beach-head has been established. Now we have different kinds of missions to generate Superiority (rather than Hostility). These missions run parallel, for a period of time. PvP engagements in Target Region: to gain/refute control of the sea-lanes. (Superiority accrues like the scores in the Admirality Events) Player convoys: running trader ships with War Supplies from Attacking Region to Target Region. Similar to War Supplies now. AI convoys: both Attackers and Defenders are notified in Missions tab that: Fleet of [trading vessels] will leave Attacking Region Capital for Defending Region Capital on [date and time]. If those AI ships make it to the Attacking Region’s capital, attacker scores Superiority, if they are taken or sunk, Defender scores. Nail mission: both Attackers and Defenders are notified in Missions tab that: [AI Fighting Vessel] carrying important personage will leave Attacking Region for Defending Region on [date and time]. If this AI ship makes it to the Attacking Region’s capital, attacker scores Superiority, if it is taken, Defender scores. Minor Port battles: open the non-capital ports for port battles, the outcome of which will contribute Superiority [randomtaskkk's idea] Smugglers: smuggling contraband into or out of the Target Region contributes Superiority for the attacker [Wraith's idea] After a period of time (2 days maybe?), conquest operations cease, and Superiority scores are tallied. If the Attacker wins, the region changes hands. So, in a nutshell we go from “distributed Hostility opens decisive single port battle” to “single port battle enables distributed Superiority engagements, which will decide conquest”. Worth thinking about, or utter balderdash? Discuss (in a civilised manner, please )!
  13. Heyho, I leave this here, but I think wraith solution might be the better one. You'll find it here:
  14. I would suggest reintroducing the warbombing or flags as well as port battle timers. The reason why is that the current mechanic isn't working as intended and I doubt that a meaningfull solution can be created on basis of the current mechanics. Atm the bombs have merely changed from warsupplies to a combination of warsupplies and hostility missions.. The tactic: Make missions in the target area - enough to produce 50% hostility. Don't leave battlescreen before the warsupplies have been dropped. The points for hostility creation doesn't count before you leave battlescreen and thereby you avoid those nasty ppl who wants to prevent your hostility creation.. The dutch have done it twice now and even though I relish the chance to sink them in PB it doesn't change the fact that it's a bit cowardly and above all - against the intended purpose of hostility missions. As far as I know there's no real way to count hostility points created in battle instance before battle ends and therefore this mechanic can be used again and again. I applaud btw the dutch for finding this gap in the mechanic and I will greet them in appropriate fashion from my weatherdeck cannons So as I don't recon there's much chance to fix this I'd recommend either returning to flagsystem (I'd be a bit dissappointed) or reintroducing warsupplies as a means to bump hostility to 100% as well as hostility missions.. Above all I think the defending side should be able to decide the window in which the PB can be created - a return to port timers that is. I know some aussies and US players will find it difficult, but the majority of the playerbase cannot - and should not - be forced to stay up at wee hours in the night to fight PBs at the attackers leisure.
  15. RIP small nations

    Well, that patch just ruined a lot for smaller nations in size. Anybody who feels the same?
  16. Am I missing an obvious clock on my screen? How does one tell the server time? Is it Zulu GMT? I'm having trouble figuring out how late I have to stay up to get in on a PVP.
  17. Captains We would like to share the features we are working on. Features are to be delivered in the next content patch. During this early access we have found that some features that are realistic (and demanded by players for testing) are later found out to be less fun than the previous implementation. Early access is the only time to test all ideas and cut them if they are not fun. So hang on there - we will be fast and ruthless in cutting things that don't work. Feature list that will get in Land in port battles. This is an experimental feature and might make port battles better or might actually make it worse. Port battles will be run in the harbor of the regional capital of that region. Instead of tower and BR difference requirements, there will be 3 objectives. Controlling objectives gives your side points. If you played conquest mode in Battlefiled 3 you will understand how it works. 3 objectives will be at certain distance from each other sometimes forcing fleets to split up and coordinate. Faster, lighter ships importance will increase. Potential griefing and kiting will be completely eliminated. You won't care if your opponent is kiting you - capture and control 2 objectives and you will eventually win. The only drawback found in testing is this - land changes combat completely and in some cases will slow them down depending on the harbor. Some harbors will be very hard to capture due to their natural composition. Port entry will change and both attackers and defenders will spawn based on their OW position. We don't know about the wind yet but maybe the wind should be taken from the OW forcing attackers to carefully choose the time for attack. Global events PVE challenge. New lobby event focused exclusively on killing NPC ships. Players will have limited time to sink as many opponents as they can (on a pre-selected ship). Event will run weeky (or for several days) depending on the testing results. Top 10 players will be rewarded by ship redeemables, upgrades, rare materials and paint customizations. Ship which can be used in events will change every event. PVP challenge. Open world map events focused exclusively on sinking players. A special area will be designated for PVP events and will run 3 times per day for Far East, EU and US prime times for several hours. Kills (victories) will be counted for players fighting in that zone. Players who gain leaderboard positions in their respective time zones will be rewarded by ship redeemables, upgrades, rare materials and /or paint customizations. Proposed initial locations for pvp challenge: shallow - Bahamas sand bank above Cuba (2 free towns north and south), deep water - hispaniola channel (3 free towns north south and west). Crew damage changes It is not logical that all crew can be killed by ball or grape (for some of the sailors are on the masts and yards). We have returned the old sea trials thresholds of 30 and 10%. After you kill 70% of enemy crew it will be harder and harder to inflict more casualties. After losses reach 90% crew damage becomes impossible. The cannonball damage is still under review. Brace is added for testing. Brace allows you to give a take cover command to your crew that will act a s crew shock severely limiting crew casualties, but blocking some of the actions you could do while you are on brace. Brace will stop reload, affect firing ability, stop repairs and water pumping and rudder usage. You will still be able to use yards. Possible features (might not make it) Admiralty store. New currency will be added and will be granted for PvP victories and successful port attack or defense. In its basic implementation players will be able to use this currency to buy rare materials and upgrades. Other changes We think that fine woods and ship crafting in general forced players to fight less and sail and craft more. The changes we implemented last patch were based on player proposals and we all thought that they will make the crafting more challenging and provide more options for conquest goals. Testing shown that might have just sucked out all time from PVP and increased the risk levels forcing some players to sail safer. ROE changes. We believe that the final ROE should be a combination of the old roe and new 2 circles system. But with adjustments. Social perk will return for testing in another form - allowing entry to the weaker side until the battle is balanced. NEW Fires will finally damage sails ETA - End of November. Discuss
  18. Da BungeeLemming scheinbar im Urlaub ist, übernehme ich das mal für unsere Deutschen: original: Kapitäne, Wir möchten gerne die Funktionalitäten an welchen wir arbeiten vorstellen. Diese werden im kommenden Content-Patch enthalten sein. Während der EarlyAccess-Phase haben wir herausgefunden dass einige Funktionalitäten welche zwar realistisch waren ( und auch von Spielern gefordert) in der Umsetzung weniger gut funktioniert und den Spielspaß getrübt haben. Early Access ist aber die einzige Möglichkeit alle Ideen zu testen und wieder zu streichen wenn sie keinen Spaß machen. Also lasst die Köpfe nicht hängen - wir werden nicht-funktionierende Dinge schnell und erbarmungslos streichen. Folgende Funktionen werden kommen: Land in port battles. Expermentelles feature und wird PBs entweder besser oder schlechter machten PBs werden im jeweiligen Hafen des "regional capitals"der Region stattfinden Statt der Türme und BR-Unterschied gibt es 3 "objectives". "objectives" zu kontrollieren gibt der eigenen Seite Punkte. Ähnlich zum Conquest-Mode in Battlefield 3 Die 3 "objectives" werden eine gewisse Entfernung zueinander haben und die Flotte ggf. zwingen sich aufzuteilen und zu koordinieren. Die Bedeutung von schnelleren, leichtere Schiffen wird wachsen. "griefing" und "kiting" wird verhindert sein. Es wird nicht mehr relevant sein ob ein Gegner kitet - kontrolliere 2 "objectives" und gewinne. Ein Nachteil welchen wir beim Testen feststellten - Land verändert den Kampf ungemein und wird in manchen Häfen verlangsamt. Einige Häfen werden extrem schwer einzunehmen sein, gegeben durch die natürliche Umgebung des Hafenbeckens. Der Eintritt zum BP wird geändert - sowohl Angreifer als auch Verteidiger werden auf Grundlage der OW Position spawnen. Beim Wind sind wir uns noch nicht sicher, ob dieser auch aus der OW übernommen wird, um den Zeitpunkt des Angriffs kritisch zu gestalten. Globale Events PVE challenge. Ein neues Lobby event ausschließlich zum Vernichten von NPC Schiffen. Spieler werden begrenzt Zeit haben, um (auf einem vorher festgelegten Schiff) so viele Gegner wie möglich zu versenken. Das Event wird wöchentlich oder über einige Tage laufen - abhängig von den Testergebnissen. Top10 Spieler erhalten als Belohnung ship redeemables, upgrades, seltene Materialien and paint customizations. Die fesgelegten Schiffe werden sich jedes Event ändern. PVP challenge. Event für die OWM auschließlich darauf ausgelegt feindliche Spieler zu versenken. Eine spezielles Gebiet wird festgelegt an welchem das Event 3 mal täglich abgehalten wird um alle Zeitzonen abzudecken (Far East, EU and US prime time). Kills innerhalb der Zone werden gezählt. Spieler welche es auf die vorderen Plätze schaffen werden mit ship redeemables, upgrades, seltene Materialien and paint customizations belohnt. Vorgesehene Gebiete: shallow - Bahamas Sandbank über Cuba (2 free towns nord and süd), deep water - Hispaniola Kanal (3 free towns north süd and west) Crew damage Änderungen Die gesamte crew eines Schiffes über Ball- oder Grapeshot zu vernichten ist nicht logisch. Wir haben daher die Begrenzungen der alten "sea trials" von 30 und 10% wiederhergestellt. Nachdem 70% der Crew getötet sind wird es zunehmend schwieriger weitere Verluste zuzufügen. Sobald 90% erreicht sind wird Crewschaden unmöglich. Ballshot-Schaden ist noch nicht entschieden. "Brace" wird testweise eingeführt. Es erlaubt der Crew zu befehlen in Deckung zu gehen um Verluste gering zu halten, wird aber manche Aktionen begrenzen. "Brace" wird das Nachladen stoppen, die Feuerfähigkeit der Crew einschränken, Reparaturen stoppen sowie Ruder- und Pumpenbedienung unterbinden. Die Takelage ("yards") wird beweglich bleiben. Mögliche Änderungen (Eventuell nicht enthalten) Admiralty store. Eine neue Währung wird eingeführt und dient als Belohnung für PvP Siege und BP Angriff/Verteidigung. Anfangs werden Spieler damit seltene Materialen und Upgrades erstehen können. Weitere Änderungen Wir haben festgestelllt dass "fine woods" und Crafting im Allgemeinen Spieler dazu zwingen weniger zu kämpfen und dafür mehr zu segeln und zu craften. Die Grundlage der Änderungen basierten auf Vorschlägen aus der Community und waren angedacht Crafting und Eroberungen anspruchsvoller zu gestalten. Das Testen hat jedoch ergeben dass es schlicht jedwede Zeit für sich in Anspruch nimmt, welche eigentlich für PvP genutz wurde und viele Spieler dazu zwang vorsichtiger zu segeln. ROE Änderungen. Wir glauben dass der entgültige Entwurf von ROE eine Kombination aus dem alten ROE-System und dem neuen 2-Kreise-ROE System sein sollte. Allerdings mit Anpassungen Wir werden den "social perk" testweise in anderer Form zurückbringen - um der schwächeren Seite Nachschub zu ermöglichen bis die Schlacht ausgeglichen ist. NEU Feuer wird endlich Segel beschädigen ETA - Ende November. Weitere Bekanntmachungen der Devs bezüglich des kommenden Patch:
  19. Why not remove the fight over ports altogether? Maybe its the ports and claiming land that is the whole misere in this game? We should fight over the sea instead. Make the ports fixed but not the sea... Split the map up in zones of control. Make each nation able to plant an amount of battle flags each night. When battles are won, the nation have honor points. When enough points is recieved something happens... The sea changes colour, the leading nation has some bars over their flags - whatever. A lot of discussion about ROE and Port Battles have been too complicated for too long. You need to simplify things and take the perspective of the player: 1. You log in. 2. Take a look on nation chat - "whats going on tonight?" 3. Sail around to find nothing of importance.. 4. Log off. 5. Drops the game when 1-4 has been done for x amount of times. After the log in, the player need some VERY CLEAR TOOLS to lead them toward the action. WHERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON? HOW CAN I FIND A BATTLE? PvP needs to be FUN and addictive. 1vs5 is no fun. PLaying for hours with no PvP is no fun etc... Rethink the OW and make battles happen from the players perspective. Make the map into a minigame where nations fight over like 10 areas or maybe even less... Each area or zone gives some bonusses or honor or something.
  20. PIRATEN-PORTS - PIRATEN-PROVINZEN - PIRATEN-PORT-BATTLES A] PIRATEN hatten nie sichtbar Piraten-Städte oder gar Provinzen - Piraten hatten Verstecke. Vielleicht sollten also die jetzigen Piraten-Häfen umgewandelt werden in NEUTRALE PORTS, die von allen NATIONEN genutzt werden können - in denen aber PIRATEN (und nur sie) auch BUILDINGS errichten könnten. Vielleicht nicht alle, die die NATIONS haben können - aber ein paar PIRATEN-spezifische Gebäude wären doch toll. Wäre ein solcher Port lange genug von einer größeren (zu bestimmenden) Anzahl von PIRATEN bewohnt, würde er sichtbar. Oder vielleicht müßte er durch NATIONEN durch PIRATEN-JÄGER aufgeklärt werden? Wenn er sichtbar wird, andert sich in der MAP die Farbe zu PIRATE PORT, und nun könnte er per PORT BATTLE von den NATIONEN angegriffen werden. So könnten auch die PIRATEN PORT BATTLES haben. Wenn die NATIONEN die PORT BATTLE gewinnen, verfällt aller PIRATEN-Besitz im Port - Waren, Gebäude, Schiffe; und der Port wird wieder NEUTRAL - aber auch wieder (siehe oben) für Piraten nutzbar. Gewinnen die PIRATEN die PORT BATTLE, hätten sie die Chance, ihren ganzen Besitz woanders hin zu bringen, oder sie könnten den Port versuchen weiterhin zu halten. Sie sollten aber vielleicht - aus historischen Gründen - nie mehr als 3 - 5 solcher "offen sichtbaren" Ports haben können. PIRATEN sollten nie in der Lage sein, ganze Provinzen zu erobern. Vielleicht könnten sie aber in die Lage versetzt werden, einzelne Ports in NEUTRALE Häfen (siehe oben) umzuwandeln - wiederum durch PORT BATTLES. B] Es magsicherlich hart sein für PIRATEN, Beute zu machen und zu überleben. Aber es schadet NAVAL ACTION, wenn versucht wird, ihnen Vorteile zu verschaffen durch völlig unrealistische, miese Tricks. Das PIRATEN-Leben war nun mal, wie es war - rauh und hart. Sie wurden von allen Nationen gejagt, sie operierten in kleinen Gruppen oder allein, und sie mußten sich oft verstecken. Das PIRATEN-Leben ist vielleicht nur etwas für die Besten der NAVAL ACTION-Spieler. Es IST schwer zu überleben, und das SOLLTE ES AUCH SEIN. Denn alle NATIONEN hatten stärkere Kräfte, und viel mehr Schiffe. Warum denn die PIRATEN genause machen wie jede NATION schon ist - warum nicht ein ganz anderes Spielkonzept für sie? Laßt doch die PIRATEN trotz alledem das Beste daraus machen. DANN können sie stolz darauf sein, PIRAT zu sein. Es ist für viele, viele Spieler EXTREM unbefriedigend, daß PIRATEN sich in MISSIONS und BATTLE SCREENS verstecken. So hab ich schon MISSIONS gesehen, in die sie mit 15 Schiffen eingetreten sind - der Neuling da drin hat keine Chance! - und in denen sie sich dann verborgen halten. Wenn ihnen von draussen jemand über TeamSpeak sagt, daß da Beute kommt, dann kommen sie alle rausgehopst. "Beam me up, Scotty!" Da könnten die Devs doch auch gleich 'Wurmlöcher' oder 'Parallel-Universen' einführen. Selbst die PIRATEN müssen sich dabei schlecht fühlen, mit solchen unrealistischen, dreckigen Tricks zu kämpfen. Und selbst, wenn auch alle NATIONEN dieselben Tricks verfügbar haben - sie bleiben doch schmutzige Tricks, die hunderte von Spielern einfach nur zum Kotzen finden, und die das sonst so gute Spiel ruinieren. Ich hoffe sehr, daß die Devs dies lesen und in Betracht ziehen. Ich habe das nach vielen Gesprächen mit vielen Spielern ausgedacht, und Ideen von manchem anderen sind darin enthalten.
  21. So Guys, this idea doesnt come from me, i stumbled upon in the forums, but think it is time to advertise it here because it may solve many problems with Hostility Generation Solution for broken Hostility system: ---> UNREST system !!! ---> When Ships / a fleet is in enemy waters, it generates "UNREST" (Hostility) over time !!! The more and bigger the ships are, the longer they manage to stay, the more ships they sink, the nearer to Port they are ---> the more hostility is generated !!! ---> Unrest (Hostility) is ONLY generated when the ships are in the Open World near the contested Port or fighting in a Battle !!! If they just log off in enemy waters or wait in Battle Screen, etc. ---> NOTHING gets generated !!! ---> The defender has time to rally ships to combat them, know where they are and can try to drive them away !!! We would get what was intended with the Hostility system: ---> PvP !!! Only ONE premise has to get changed: ---> Make EVERY port attackable, so the area in which the enemy fleet can generate hostility is limited and they can be found easily !!! maybe's changes: ---> to conquer a whole region, you have to begin with smaller ports, giving you a beachhead in the region ---> the moment, an enemy has conquered ONE Port, the regional Bonus isnt available to any of them: nor the defender and the attacker ---> only if a country owns EVERY port in the region, they get the regional bonus !!! This way, we will get massive PvP and fairly generated Hostility !! And Traders are affecting Hostilty also when delivering Cargo to those Ports !! /discuss
  22. Request for comments about Best Practices in Order of Battle and Maneuver in Port Battle (PB). Specifically: Screening fleet participantswhat should those sailing the lower rated ships do? what should they avoid? Main battle participantswhat should those sailing the higher rated ships do? what should they avoid? Formations and ManeuversShould players expect to see organized maneuvers? Or is 'Melee' combat the rule in PB's? Do Players sail as part of Squadrons or independently? Is a PB "Commodore" selected? Or is it just a bunch of individuals competing for 'their shot'? The concept of port battles seems to be clear. Looking to hear from experienced players about Order of Battle, Chain of Command and Maneuver. And please, let's save the opinions about and requests for changing the mechanics of Port Battles for another thread ... and discuss the methods of the system we have today. ~ HK ~
  23. Why should we do this? The upcoming changes in the port battle mechanic will force people to participate in OW PvP to start a port battle by raising hostility levels at the port you want to attack. For more Information about the upcoming changes see the links below: (http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13596-such-is-a-lord-simple-politics-and-alliances-part-1-heavily-moderated/ http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/ That leads to the question: How are these changes are going to affect player behaviour? At the moment we are facing a big problem. A lot of people are complaining that battles are not reaching anywhere near the full potential of what naval action battles can be due to one side always being able to field much larger numbers than the other making battles simply about who has more online and bigger numbers than skill, tactics and strategy to win battles. Most battles are so called ganks. People fear to leave the result screen because of revenge fleets. People think that to do any pvp you have to be in the biggest nations and clans to have a fair chance at Open World PvP and Port Battles (Port Battles still stay 25vs25). We are not in kindergarten, not everyone can be a winner. But with this proposal we want to help all Naval Action players, solo players, casuals, groups, small and big nations to get the most satisfaction out of open world PvP that is possible to offer to everyone. Naval Action has one of the most unique combat systems that has ever existed in any game, with this proposal we can truly get the most out of it and overall add a lot more enjoyment to the game and PvP. As the title mentioned this is our proposal to change group size and open OW battle size to a maximum of 6 players per side. What are the benefits: Smaller clans and smaller groups can be effective in PB screening/RvR and OW PvP Ganking Fleet size reduced even smaller nations can face bigger nations Bigger clans and nations will have to hunt and sail around in smaller group Makes Port battles unique in groupsize Handles Timezone problems, because it’s easier to have such a group size even it is not a Prime time Removes the much hated Revenge Fleets Battles will no longer be about who has more players online, it will be shifted to skill, strategy and overall superior tactics Helps causal players to find enjoyable PvP You will no longer need to search for a even fun matched PvP, every battle will deliver a new exciting epic battle experience List of cons Large Clans will no longer be able to take a 25 ship fleet into every battle (no swarm tactics) Large Nations will no longer be able to dominate open world PvP with superior numbers & large revenge fleets 25 ship fleets are no longer effective on OW PvP Proposal 1: How a battle join mechanic could work Attacking side: A system to start OW battles could word like the mission enter system. When sailing in a group the attacker can press “attack as group” or “attack”. Attacking as group will pull all group members in range into the battle instance. Group members which are not in range will not get pulled into battle. Open slots can be joined by players who are not part of the group and in 2min range of the battle. Attack will just pull the attacker into the instance. That leads to 5 open attacker slots which can be used by other player who are not belonging to the group. Defending side: When attacked all group members in range will join the battle. If there is no group, a group which is not full or not everyone in range. Then only the defender or all group members in range get pulled into the battle instance. Open slots can be joined by players who are not in group but can reach the battle instance in 2 min. AI fleet: If a player has an AI fleet every ship take a battle slot. Therefore AI ships reduce the maximum amount of group size. Proposal 2: How a battle Join mechanic could work If more than 6 people are in the battle circle. then first the people who are in the group with the attacker and defender gets pulled. If there are less than 6 people in the group and more ships in the circle then pull in the biggest player ship. Example 10 swedish ships(group 1(st pavel 2 ingers consti)) group 2( consti 4 frigates)) and group 1 attacks 6 pirates(6 constis). First the st pav 2 ingers and consti get pulled in because they are all in the same group, second the consti and one of the frigates gets pulled in due to the highest br in the battle circle. And finally what about PVE? Attacking ships in OW work after the same system mentioned in the proposals above. But creating a PVE battle requires that the PVE attacker or one of his/her group mates in range is not being targeted by an enemy player. Epic events will once joined by a player open a Battle Symbol in OW like the Port battle icon which then can be joined by everyone. Designed by Seawolf, SeaHyena and Z4ys
  24. Suggestions for a Unique Pirate Faction

    Hello everyone, I wanted to pose a couple suggestions on ways to create a firm distinction between the Pirate "faction" and those of traditional nations. This is not meant as an exhaustive list, but should provide suitable fodder for discussion, and one that I hope the developers of Naval Action will consider if not in whole, then at least in part. First off, I find it highly annoying when someone posits that the game, or some facet thereof, is "broken". However, I think many would agree that the implementation of piracy as nothing more than another national interest is ahistorical, to say the least (brief historical attempts at a pirate "free state" notwithstanding). So, in light of that, I have considered ways that would make for the pirate faction to be very different from the national factions, yet still rewarding and interesting for the players who fly the black flag. I wish to offer as a disclaimer that I have not played as a pirate, but I have tried to be as objective as possible. 1) Pirates should not have ownership of ports, with the exception of a capital port, which, like any other cannot be captured. Instead, pirates should operate under a permanent "smuggler flag" and be able to enter any national port except a national capital. This means that pirates will not be able to capture ports, but a mechanism should be in place so that they could still "raid" a national port which would result in the same reward system as a current port battle, so as not to prevent pirate players from being able to receive port battle-type rewards. However, even in the event of a victory, they would not gain possession of the port - they would simply be doing it for the "loot", a much more traditional pirate motivation than control of territory. I would also suggest as an option that pirates be only able to set up an outpost in a free port - while they could enter national ports as smugglers, they could not have outposts there. This last is something I suggest as a consideration, as I am myself of two minds about the issue. 2) I have elsewhere suggested that in lieu of marine upgrades being the only way for a ship to have marines, that all national men of war should have a minimum number of marines as part of the normal complement. This number might be slightly increased by the marine upgrade, but the upgrade should affect RNG quality (perhaps in a constant percentage of close range ship to ship musket fire, or failing that, in a morale of other buff for boarding actions). However, as a pirate would generally not have access to national marines, pirate ships would not have this addition. Two factors would therefore change: first, that any ship to ship musket fire that might be introduced would have a much lower RNG for a pirate vessel firing on another - their sailors might be very good, but they would generally not be well trained (or well armed) for musket fire. Conversely, in actual boarding, particularly when attacking, a pirate crew would have a higher morale and RNG for damage given that boarding an enemy ship is exactly what a pirate crew would be trained to do. Thank you, and I offer this to the community for feed back.
  25. 24 hour Port Battles

    TL;DR: Make Port Battles last for 24 hours. Get rid of port timers. This way people can PVP whenever they want, and all time zones get a fair shot. All players will be able to participate. Port battles become a truly national endeavor which require the time, effort, and resources of all its players! -Make the ports vulnerable to attack any time of the day. No more port timers. -Once a port siege is declared, the battle room opens and remains open for 24 hours. Possibly make the announcement when flag is purchased, and then open the battle when servers are up from maintenance. The battle could last until the servers go down, at which time the developers can check the score and set the new ownership. Not quite 24 hours, but whatever works best for the development team. -Allow defenders to use crafting hours and resources to repair the forts. Forts now occupy objective zones, if the attackers successfully destroy the towers and occupy the objective zone, they will produce victory points overtime until they are contested once again. Once an objective area is being contested, or a fort is repaired, the attackers no longer gain points in the objective area. Defenders will not gain points over the objective area while attackers are present. -Grant no access to the port under contest. Neither the defenders nor the attackers may enter. Participants must sail from the nearest friendly or free port. Blockading/scouting is highly encouraged, perhaps somehow rewarded. -Players can enter the battle room as often as they want to. Each time they die, they may sail back to the port to enter again if they wish. -Players gain their loot, exp, and gold for each successful participation within the port battle. The more victory points they earn within the span of that life, the more lucrative their rewards will be. Surviving the battle and gaining more points is encouraged over zerging by offering higher quality loot items. *A player that gains 1000 points in one life could receive and exceptional upgrade. *A player that gains 100 points over the course of 10 lives, could receive 10 basic upgrades. -Make the flag prices based on the type of port (if a regional capital, deep, or shallow) and multiplied by the number of ports that nation owns. Nations with few ports will have cheaper flags. Nations with lots of ports will have more expensive flags. -Have some sort of tournament point system which award players for doing things in the port battle such as... *Sinking ships *Holding objective areas *Destroying towers *Repairing towers -The player who purchases the flag will automatically receive a certain number of victory points for financing the operation. However; the highest performing player on the team (the MVP) will be granted lord protector status. You may buy the flag and have the advantage so long as you participate and do well in your own battle. But if another player is more dedicated than you to that port, they will usurp you and be the lord protector of that port. This will grant them the voting rights and land ownership status along with whatever other privileges the administrators develop. This also stops players from simply paying for the flags and then letting their nation do all the work. If you want to be a lord, you must play! -Defenders win by default, the towers holding the objective area will automatically win any port that isn't contested by the attackers. They do so by generating points over time while "holding the objective uncontested". Attackers must show up and establish dominance of the objective area and accrue points to beat what the towers have established in order to qualify the port as a win for the offensive side. This prevents a nation from declaring 100 ports under attack and making the defenders have to respond to each one. The defenders will only have to respond to the ports that are actually under attack and they will win all the others by default unless the attackers respond. The current scores of each battle should be displayed so players may check and see where they are needed most. -After the 24 hours (or upon server maintenance), the nation with the most points overall will win control of the port. The 24 hour time limit gives each time zone a fair shot at participating. -The battle can be persistent in nature, or it can be split up into several battle instances with each one counting as a round towards the total fight. I would, personally, prefer the "persistent" battle model. -Nations may have multiple battles at the same time. The more battles they have, the more thinly their forces will be displaced. The more territory they take, the more exposed and vulnerable their territory will become. The port battle system will, intrinsically, establish an ebb and flow of control based on the population and participation of each nation. It will not be practical or economical for one nation to dominate all others. They will have too many open fronts, too many open battles, and too many defensive operations to possibly continue their press into enemy territory. Alliances will become crucial. -Place a cool down period on each port, after the victor is decided, before it may be placed under siege again. Admin suggested 7 days or longer. I agree with that time suggestion. -This accomplishes several of the Administrator's objectives for port battles *Port conquest will be slowed down. *7 day cool down for port captures. *Losing or capturing a port should be a national effort. *Losing or capturing a port should be a big event. This will, of course, be a MASSIVE fundamental change to the way territory is fought over and how the game is played. It has many pitfalls and balancing issues, I cannot possibly think of them all. I would like to discuss the ones you discover at length! I ask that you keep an open mind and provide constructive feedback with an objective eye towards making it fair for everyone. After reading this post, please vote how you feel. Also comment below for any changes you wish to discuss.