Capt. Rice Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 So there are tons of options the devs. can take when it come to conquest. An right now Port battles are a very touchy subject. This Suggestion will focus on the the expansion part of the map rather then Port battles it's self. So here goes my suggestion. Keep in mind im not telling every one how it should be but just and ideal of what it could be. Lets start off by saying that open world is big and vast. With a map this size players can spread out and not even see another player for days. This can even be longer for lower pop severs. One of the main aspects of the game is PVP battles. To have a healthy pvp sever you need a healthy pvp population which can be contributed by a many of factors ranging from the rank of a player to overall econ of a nation. But the bottom line is player base and population. With out players looking pvp there will be no pvp. So back to the topic of the map. Since the map is so big, any given amount of players can be at any given place. which makes pvp lacking in some regards. Having a well know area where the enemy players will be or most likely will be, can help people find pvp. So if you know where the enemy fronts are you can easily go looking for a fight. So i suggest that the map should be like this. (Not fully finished this just and example) When you look at the map you see line between ports. and for this demonstration lets say i am playing the Spanish nation. The lines will represent the links between each port. ---------------- (green line) = ports are lined to ones nation port. Ports that are connected by this color can be captured unless its a free port. ---------------- (blue line) = neutral ports links. You will need to capture these port if you want them. ----------------(Orange Line)= Contested links. These link means that these are the enemies nation links. if an enemy link is connected to one of you ports the enemy can attack you port. With this suggestion it will make conquest more direct. It will also present clear boarders between nation and will focus players when taking ports.This in turn will make players who are focused on pvp/conquest be more present at said Fronts. This can also give a sense of security for players to move away from the center of their nation outwards as it would take a nation to capture ports systematically. More can be added to this concept. Like supply missions to bring x supplies to a port to bolster it. Certain ports can add nation buffs. Having so many ports can cause a nation economy to hurt. if allowed to get that way. There are so many possibilities from this. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Roberts Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 This is a really good idea! Also I swear I have seen this before in another game.. can't put my finger on it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maturin Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Age of Sail, not Age of Rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kei Esper Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 This is a really good idea! Also I swear I have seen this before in another game.. can't put my finger on it though. Heroes and Generals? think they have a Domination map like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Roberts Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Heroes and Generals? think they have a Domination map like this. Yeah I think so, maybe planetside 2 also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vykorie Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 this would help smaller nations, maybe add trade lanes aswell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Rice Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 Age of Sail, not Age of Rail. this doesn't mean that there cant be more then one route . this would help funnel players to their nations front instead of being all erratic. this also doesnt mean you cant go to another nations area and attack them in open waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrakkenSmacken Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I like the idea, but doesn't this somewhat naturally exist with the travel times and purchased flag window limits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Rice Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 I like the idea, but doesn't this somewhat naturally exist with the travel times and purchased flag window limits? in way it does but this model makes its to where you can only capture ports linked from the port you got the flag. this would make you capture ports sequentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamz Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) Planetside 1: Launched with no lattice. Added a lattice later to promote more PvP and less "empty base capturing". Planetside 2: Launched with a Risk-style loose lattice of bordering locales. Switched to a lattice because the Risk-style system was still too loose and did not promote PvP enough while encouraging too much "empty base capturing". Battleground Europe (aka World World 2 Online) Launched with no lattice. Switched to a sophisticated lattice system involving army movements and reinforcement concepts because there was too much "empty base capturing" and therefore too much "sit in the empty base and wait for enemies" gameplay. Every game designer starts off thinking "players should have lots of freedom. Sandboxes are great!" Every game designer is proven wrong. Players are mostly idiots. Edited March 23, 2016 by Slamz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrakkenSmacken Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 in way it does but this model makes its to where you can only capture ports linked from the port you got the flag. this would make you capture ports sequentially. Another thing this type of system would do is allow the devs to create resource specific ports in strategic locations for conquest and natural competition between nations. If two nations only had one iron or stone port to fight over, they would fight there because they had to, or fight at a similar port on another boarder with a different nation. It would also allow the devs to plan the Free ports around being outlets and relief for losing these fights, so as to help manage the loss of key production without crippling a nation entirely. Add in AI traders that carry what the local ports produce, and you have a second outlet and constant skirmishes along a fairly consistent "front". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Rice Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 Another thing this type of system would do is allow the devs to create resource specific ports in strategic locations for conquest and natural competition between nations. If two nations only had one iron or stone port to fight over, they would fight there because they had to, or fight at a similar port on another boarder with a different nation. It would also allow the devs to plan the Free ports around being outlets and relief for losing these fights, so as to help manage the loss of key production without crippling a nation entirely. Add in AI traders that carry what the local ports produce, and you have a second outlet and constant skirmishes along a fairly consistent "front". Yes this what they could add. as this model allows for ports to have their bonuses beside just goods. For exp. one port could give a national buff of 5% to iron production building. the options are many for this. Planetside 1: Launched with no lattice. Added a lattice later to promote more PvP and less "empty base capturing". Planetside 2: Launched with a Risk-style loose lattice of bordering locales. Switched to a lattice because the Risk-style system was still too loose and did not promote PvP enough while encouraging too much "empty base capturing". Battleground Europe (aka World World 2 Online) Launched with no lattice. Switched to a sophisticated lattice system involving army movements and reinforcement concepts because there was too much "empty base capturing" and therefore too much "sit in the empty base and wait for enemies" gameplay. Every game designer starts off thinking "players should have lots of freedom. Sandboxes are great!" Every game designer is proven wrong. Players are mostly idiots. Yea a lattice system does promote more pvp but this doesn't mean you have to stay at the front lines...you could go behind enemy line an disrupt trade or what ever you like this just makes conquest more funneled instead of all over the place. which doesn't hurt any one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrakkenSmacken Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Yes this what they could add. as this model allows for ports to have their bonuses beside just goods. For exp. one port could give a national buff of 5% to iron production building. the options are many for this. Sooo many options. Right now an Iron mine is an Iron mine but they could add a source quality and provide low quality production (Less per upgrade, higher cost, more labor) close to home in easy to control areas to prevent complete starvation, and high quality (more production, less cost, less labor) in contested areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Rice Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) Sooo many options. Right now an Iron mine is an Iron mine but they could add a source quality and provide low quality production (Less per upgrade, higher cost, more labor) close to home in easy to control areas to prevent complete starvation, and high quality (more production, less cost, less labor) in contested areas. yes give a reward for leaving the comforts of home.... Edited March 23, 2016 by Capt. Rice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptEdwardKenway Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 The idea itself is not bad. It would also solve the problem with the port timers. But I would also like some kind of port battle mechanics like potbs. Don't know maybe some kind of combination of both. Like the first 2-3 ports of the border can be attacked but you have to prepare the attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Rice Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share Posted March 24, 2016 The idea itself is not bad. It would also solve the problem with the port timers. But I would also like some kind of port battle mechanics like potbs. Don't know maybe some kind of combination of both. Like the first 2-3 ports of the border can be attacked but you have to prepare the attacks. Yea i thought maybe port battles have to be prepped before taking them so people know. but thats pb mechanics and this is for map conquest over all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heibges Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I like the idea in concept. Like Heroes & Generals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now