Switching functions of Port Battles and Hostility generation

[Kpt Lautenschlaeger]

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 )!

Edited March 8, 2017 by Kpt Lautenschlaeger
update follwoing dicussion contribution

[Hethwill]

Anything from this old one that you can salvage and incorporate ?

 

[Kpt Lautenschlaeger]

Thanks for the link, Hethwill. I definitely like the idea of Smuggling into the Target Region raising Superiority for the attacker.

[randomtaskkk]

*lightbulb*

Love this idea. Much more inclusive of the whole player base to determine overall RVR performance of a nation.

This needs to be implemented since yesterday!

I seriously think it is the best suggestion on the forum right now. I'll actually be disappointed if this doesn't make it into the game.

 

Potential addition:

Region opens for conquest by attacker successfully capturing the region capital via PB as per your suggestion.

If attacker wins, the remaining ports in the region also open for separate PBs. Winning these give a bonus to the increase in superiority. Successful defense decreases the superiority. Note: the attacker doesn't need to capture them all to win the region. Even if the defender defends them all the attacker could still win the region by gaining enough superiority by other means, and likewise even if the attacker captures them all the defender could still keep the region by getting enough superiority by other means.

Benefit - more PB's for more people, another way to gain / lose superiority.

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by randomtaskkk

[OlFson]

Best one I have read so far.

[Corona Lisa]

Problem is that its hard to make this 2nd phase after the PB  not just an activity of who brings more ships/players. Thats why I think PBs are a good finale for the fight around a region. Its big, its fair.

Also I dont understand how swapping the order of hostility grind and PB will change anything in regards of nightflips.

[Tac]

15 minutes ago, rediii said:

same outcome. US players get superiority for free in their time. EU alliance has to fight for their superiority and has no chance because they are less. (what you describe has a huge impact with many players vs less players)

 

Just get us the old flagmechanic back. I want pvp every night again and not planned pvp on certain days at a certain time because you grinded it with boring pve

Yay! Back to a fun game becoming even more of a 2nd job every night.

Cant wait for those ever so exciting French ghost flags every night.

sorry but I'm mentally scarred waiting for non existent flags.

@Burnoutandquit.

[Tac]

42 minutes ago, Wraith said:

As opposed to grinding PvE and waiting two days? Or having the only RvR content happen outside your time zone causing you to choose between sleep, work, or a hobby?

Of course not sat in pamapatar for 2 hours EVERY night for a month for nothing, I do mean nothing , let me reiterate doing nothing. 

Well that was immeasureably more fun.pretty much why most of the people I played with , well stopped. 

Tbh though , whatever .the OW is where I find my playground these days so fill your boots with flags.

[Tac]

6 minutes ago, rediii said:

Why didnt you attack something and waited instead?

Pampatar was a bastion back in the day we couldn't afford to lose it, so we attack somewhere else we lost pampatar, were you not around in them days rediii? I find that hard to believe.

Trust me I didn t sit there for fun, or lack of strategic competence.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Tac

[Christendom]

1 hour ago, rediii said:

same outcome. US players get superiority for free in their time. EU alliance has to fight for their superiority and has no chance because they are less. (what you describe has a huge impact with many players vs less players)

 

Just get us the old flagmechanic back. I want pvp every night again and not planned pvp on certain days at a certain time because you grinded it with boring pve

Yep.  Bring back the flags.  It was the only "unfair" system that was fair for everyone.  If the US want's to pull a Swede flag we're either getting up early or missing work.  If the Swedes want to pull a US flag they're up very late.  There need's to be a penalty though to pulling false flags.  This system also ensures that you need to work your way to enemy territory in what would would be a multiple day/week long campaign.  AKA the US players can't just go sail down to Dane territory and flip ports.   

It would also be very nice to not have the primary focus of this game be about 99% RVR.  

[Hethwill]

Dutch-French wars... the Swedish-Dutch war ( and the fixed timers drama )... and then the power-gamer Black thursdays... yeah...

[Tac]

9 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Dutch-French wars... the Swedish-Dutch war ( and the fixed timers drama )... and then the power-gamer Black thursdays... yeah...

You old romantic.

[Kpt Lautenschlaeger]

Arrrgh, so much feedback. Thanks guys. 

I am integrating the ideas of Hethwil and randomtaskkk into my opening post, to keep this tracked in one place.

I agree that we have two other factors which affect this discussion: an imbalance in (1) player numbers and (2) time zone coverage between the two alliances. I don’t know how to fix that. My point being: given this imbalance, would my proposal (or any of the others mentioned) improve the situation compared to our status quo? To relate this to JonSnowLetsGo`s and redii`s comments: I believe spreading the decisive mechanic around the clock for a couple of days, rather than pinning it to a discrete point in time, would give the off-timezone alliance more chance to react. I think it may alleviate the nightflip problem, it certainly cannot cure it entirely.

As for a reversion to the flag system, I admit I have insufficient experience of it to evaluate these comments and relate them to the initial idea. Before my time as a ship-of-the-line captain, really.

Anyhoo, as evidenced by the bring-back-the-flags advocates and Wraith’s posts, there is a fair number of alternative suggestions floating around and morphing as they do. I would like to ask for a favour (kindly, politely and in a very squeaky-mouse-don't-stomp-on-me voice ): let’s keep this thread for criticising (and maybe developing or killing) the original idea. I’m happy to open and maintain another thread - maybe with a poll - for collecting links to the different suggestions and debating the merits/flaws of one versus the other. Does that make sense to the community?

[Hethwill]

I like an idea with solid ground to work with. Hence take advantage of all others that came before to work your idea further.

So, keep working on it. Great ideas are never lost.