Suggestion concerning Regions

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

Now this might change slightly with the content coming after the ship wipe but felt that I should make a suggestion anyways. The current situation with regions is you set up one port battle and the winner of that port battle gets access of multiple ports and regional bonus. This limits port battle pvp also creates too significant of a gain/loss in a single battle. 

My suggestion is to revert back to port battles being able to be set up at individual ports. But now with a region system in place rather than a single battle gives a faction access to a regional bonus a faction would have to take control of the majority or all the ports of that region. For example lets say France is attacking a Danish 5 port region that has strong hull bonus. The French to gain the strong hull bonus would have to set up and win 3 port battles controling the majority of the region. The Danes would in return still have access to the 2 ports they still control in that region but do not have the regional crafting bonus.

This will reduce the gains and losses in a single port battle, longer "campaigns" for a region, and an increase variety in port battles.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Davos Seasworth

[Taranis]

I kind of agree.  i think that the low population on the servers has not highlighted the problem of flipping multiple ports at once, issue.  If we had the populations we had in March 2016 - i think regions would be flipping at an incredibly fast pace.

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

5 minutes ago, TaranisPrime said:

I kind of agree.  i think that the low population on the servers has not highlighted the problem of flipping multiple ports at once, issue.  If we had the populations we had in March 2016 - i think regions would be flipping at an incredibly fast pace.

Agreed. When PvP2 hit a pop of 200 again last month we had about 3-5 regions flip in the first week. Granted it slowed down but even that much of a regional flip is quiet a big change cause that is about 15-25 ports changing factions.

[Wesreidau]

I'd think the capital alone is enough to provide the regional bonuses. The economic map can be adjusted to make the other ports the primary resource producers.

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

21 hours ago, Rickard said:

some time ago i posted this topic about a long lost idea how regional conquest could enhance conquest, what now if we put both these ideas together ! a system like that would make conquest and PVP more frequent and create a complex system instead of the bold ones we have had for some time (The Flag system and new regional conquest and hostillity system wich was just a dummed down version of the original requested one stated below).

what do you think??

 

 

1st : make all ports capturable/attackable in a region

2nd : raise hostillity by attacking npc shipping (medium to high impact on hostility) and players (high impact on hostillity) missions could also be used to raise hosstility(low impact on hostillity).

countering hostillity could be done by delivering warsupplies to the region or sinking the players. warsupplies will not be used to raise hostility in a enemy region, why you ask well its just not realistic nor is there any logic behind it ( if you bring warsupplies to a enemy town from a nation you are at war with, the inhabbitants arent just going to rebel against the nation because you gave them weapons and ammunition, the inhabbitants would probebly just confiscate the warsupplies and you would be put on trial or hanged )

3rd : a regional attack is planned and a date is picked.this could be 48 hours or more. 

4th : the regional attack commenses, you will have to get through three defence lines so to speak to capture the region

       1-  win a naval battle for supremacy of the regional waters

           (this would be a normal sea battle,it should not be close to the shore and it would however be open much longer to let your enemys join the  fight and have                                 a Epic 25 Vs 25 battle)

       2-  attack,win and capture all shallow and normal deepwater ports

           (after your nation has established naval supremacy over the regional waters you are clear to attack all ports, except the regional capital these attacks would                                be carried out like normal port battles ,the attacking nation would have 2 or 3 days to capture all the ports)

       3- attack ,win and capture the regional capital 

           (if your nation has won the naval battle(s) and captured all other ports in the region the regional capital now becomes available to attack, your nation has 2                                  days (48 hours) to attack the port. if your nation is not able to capture the port after 48 hours your nation will be able to attack the regional capital after 1 or 2                                days, (because you did win the naval battle for control of the regional waters) if your attack failed again and you were unable to capture the regional capital                                  in 24 hours your campaign to capture the region failed)

 if you captured the regional capital the region will now be fully under your control and it becomes part of your nation if not you lose all holdings in the region and you will be able to attack the region again after 7 or 14 days.

now let me just say that this system is a idea and could be altered ,but i think that a regional conquest system like this would anhance how you capture regions.

ofcourse the little thinks like how many time you will get to capure all ports or the regional capital could be changed.

Like what you are putting down. Although much of both of our ideas will need to change once the new port system is released. My one suggestion with your idea is to shorten the process a bit but I like what you have going.

[Koltes]

On 3/16/2017 at 6:03 AM, Davos Seasworth said:

Now this might change slightly with the content coming after the ship wipe but felt that I should make a suggestion anyways. The current situation with regions is you set up one port battle and the winner of that port battle gets access of multiple ports and regional bonus. This limits port battle pvp also creates too significant of a gain/loss in a single battle. 

My suggestion is to revert back to port battles being able to be set up at individual ports. But now with a region system in place rather than a single battle gives a faction access to a regional bonus a faction would have to take control of the majority or all the ports of that region. For example lets say France is attacking a Danish 5 port region that has strong hull bonus. The French to gain the strong hull bonus would have to set up and win 3 port battles controling the majority of the region. The Danes would in return still have access to the 2 ports they still control in that region but do not have the regional crafting bonus.

This will reduce the gains and losses in a single port battle, longer "campaigns" for a region, and an increase variety in port battles.

I have posted some time ago that attack on the region needs to be instant like we had with flag system, but a lenghty process where we have to fight in each port of the region in order to take the reagion.

Each region has 5 ports. Depending where the region is i it has specific ports.

SoL Capital. 3 shallows x7 ships limit (all those can be fought at the same time so you still have 21 people fighting just in different ports), 1 deep and 1 SoL capital. When you took 3 shallows it gives access to the deep (4th rate - 15 ships maximum). After taking that you get access to 1st rate 25vs25

Deep capital. 3 shallows x7 each. Then 5th rate x15 max. And deep capital 25vs25 4th rate.

Shallow capital. 3 6th rate x7 each. Next x15 6th rate PB, then capital 25vs25

 

Because you have to take all 3 shallows in order to get access to next port defenders have a good chance to fill in at least 1 PB despite "instant" attacks thus defending the region.

If PB is lost on attackers side they have to wait for 6 hours before repeating the attack. This buys defenders some time.

There you have it. PB flexibility. Instant attacks for PVP lovers. PVP only conquest. A lenthy conquest. Night flips issue sorted. Instant action etc etc

Actual PVP fights for a region might take a week, but all PVP

Edited March 19, 2017 by koltes

[Norfolk nChance]

 

Koltes

Mike the Mongrel said something similar to me a while back and I like this concept a lot.

 

All you guys know the mechanics what works what doesn't far better than I, but I'd like to add one suggestion if I may. We are talking multiple PBs over a longer staged time and in concept with a more realistic approach you are actually besieging a region. This as a far wider impact on the area than just the military defenders...

 

So which ever idea you take... say a five day (24hr UTC Cycle) Regional Battle. Hostile mechanic triggers instantly all ai Bids and offers increase 25% across all the region. All ai products including ships, the amounts available to buy will reduce by 25%. Production Building Output will drop 25%. The Crafting of products will take a similar hit in length of time. Ships 25% more labor hours need etc....This then will continue to roll up every 24hr cycle. Second day 35%, third day 50%, fourth day 75% and fifth day 100%....

The defender, if they win the first PB keeps the inflated rise at 25%, lose the second it goes to 35%. You get the idea. The defender not winning inflicts hyper inflation on the besieged region. Other mechanics could be worked in with incoming Trade ships ai or not reducing inflation successfully docked within the region. The attackers not only need to win the PB... they need to screen continually... a regional blockade.... something like the hostility grind mechanic...

 

This would mean you'd need screeners as well as the actual attack. It would encourage PvP, smuggling (selling overpriced goods).

The coding shouldn't think be impossible to do...

 

just a thought. Worst idea ever, let me know...

 

Norfolk nChance.

 

 

 

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

5 hours ago, koltes said:

I have posted some time ago that attack on the region needs to be instant like we had with flag system, but a lenghty process where we have to fight in each port of the region in order to take the reagion.

What do you mean by instant? Like trigger the port battle to occur that exact moment or being able to set up a port battle quickly for a later time instant? I never dabbled with port battles till the hostility system was out.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Davos Seasworth

[Koltes]

5 hours ago, Davos Seasworth said:

What do you mean by instant? Like trigger the port battle to occur that exact moment or being able to set up a port battle quickly for a later time instant? I never dabbled with port battles till the hostility system was out.

I had posted a conquest system that was tied to politics. Clan politics. Where clans can own land and make one region with its capital their clan capital or base of operations.

Clan A decides to attack Clan B.

No matter how war is declared the region conquest is the same. 5 ports in each region. First 3 are small ports 7 ships each maximim and can be attacked simultaneously. Taking all small ports opens PB for medium port which is 15 slots. Another 1 hour timer is given. Taking medium port opens access to capital. This time 24 hour timer. All PB initiated by the attacking clan, e.g. taking 3 small ports does not automatically trigger medium port. Attackers must set time for PB (even if its the next say), but min 1 hour is given. Same is for the capital. Min 24 hour is given, but could be set any time after that.

Before ANY conquest can be started the war must be declared. This is done by declaring war from politics screen.

1. Leader or officer of clan A simply declares war from politics screen. All clan A and B players receives notifications. Hostilities starts 24 hours from wardec. When war started (after 24 hours) clan A can attack clan's B region instantly (instead of the flag they just select a region and select attack much like we select missions). The PB will start in 1 hour after its been selected for "attack";

2. By entering the region with a fleet of enough BR there should be a pop up notification that clan A entered clan B such region waters with a military force. Once fleet is in the region they can enter Roadstead screen from where attackers organise their fleets for PB (small ports of 7 each has to be still taken first). From that screen clan sets the PB timer while minimum 1 hour is given (instead of attacking from missions screen);

 

There are also Raids. Same PB mechanic (small ports first, then med etc etc), but do not require to have active Wardec to initiate. They also do not grant the attacking clan the region if it is victorious, but allows to confiscate clan B assets from their players contracts, buy and sell orders, incoming deliveries, 2% of players wealth etc (warehouse is a safe place). Once port is taken its raid is started and continues for 24 hours (confiscation of goods and wealth doesnt happen instantly).

I have it more detailed, but too long to write here.

You've got an idea

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

7 minutes ago, koltes said:

I had posted a conquest system that was tied to politics. Clan politics. Where clans can own land and make one region with its capital their clan capital or base of operations.

Clan A decides to attack Clan B.

No matter how war is declared the region conquest is the same. 5 ports in each region. First 3 are small ports 7 ships each maximim and can be attacked simultaneously. Taking all small ports opens PB for medium port which is 15 slots. Another 1 hour timer is given. Taking medium port opens access to capital. This time 24 hour timer. All PB initiated by the attacking clan, e.g. taking 3 small ports does not automatically trigger medium port. Attackers must set time for PB (even if its the next say), but min 1 hour is given. Same is for the capital. Min 24 hour is given, but could be set any time after that.

Before ANY conquest can be started the war must be declared. This is done by declaring war from politics screen.

1. Leader or officer of clan A simply declares war from politics screen. All clan A and B players receives notifications. Hostilities starts 24 hours from wardec. When war started (after 24 hours) clan A can attack clan's B region instantly (instead of the flag they just select a region and select attack much like we select missions). The PB will start in 1 hour after its been selected for "attack";

2. By entering the region with a fleet of enough BR there should be a pop up notification that clan A entered clan B such region waters with a military force. Once fleet is in the region they can enter Roadstead screen from where attackers organise their fleets for PB (small ports of 7 each has to be still taken first). From that screen clan sets the PB timer while minimum 1 hour is given (instead of attacking from missions screen);

 

There are also Raids. Same PB mechanic (small ports first, then med etc etc), but do not require to have active Wardec to initiate. They also do not grant the attacking clan the region if it is victorious, but allows to confiscate clan B assets from their players contracts, buy and sell orders, incoming deliveries, 2% of players wealth etc (warehouse is a safe place). Once port is taken its raid is started and continues for 24 hours (confiscation of goods and wealth doesnt happen instantly).

I have it more detailed, but too long to write here.

You've got an idea

Not a huge fan of "clan" centric port battles. It might work for pirates, not stating that because you are a pirate, simply because I feel pirates should be more clan oriented and nationals more faction oriented. Played enough games where things become clan oriented and it got messy internally. I do believe the politics need to go though. With the limitations of having only seven nationals it creates static alliances and has probably reinforced old feelings. Before politics the map was pretty fluid and clans had to actually talk eachother rather hold information.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Davos Seasworth

[Koltes]

Nah mate. Politics is a separate issue. Look at the conquest alone. This post was about the conquest, raid and PB mechanics.

As for politics... Look around you. So much hate between nations. It cause nothing more but hate so much so that we start loosing players because of that. I think that nation politics needs to be storyline driven. Take "absolute" conquest as we know off players hands. When clan A takes a free to cap territory it become their nation territory. This is how nations grow. But if one clan has a problem with another clan they sort it without dragging 1/2 of the server player base into it. Anyways, this is a wrong thread to discuss this. Also im not 100% ready for this. My clan mechanics are done about 95%. Need to balance few things before Im ready to expose them to critics 

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by koltes

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

25 minutes ago, koltes said:

Nah mate. Politics is a separate issue. Look at the conquest alone. This post was about the conquest, raid and PB mechanics.

As for politics... Look around you. So much hate between nations. It cause nothing more but hate so much so that we start loosing players because of that. I think that nation politics needs to be storyline driven. Take "absolute" conquest as we know off players hands. When clan A takes a free to cap territory it become their nation territory. This is how nations grow. But if one clan has a problem with another clan they sort it without dragging 1/2 of the server player base into it. Anyways, this is a wrong thread to discuss this. Also im not 100% ready for this. My clan mechanics are done about 95%. Need to balance few things before Im ready to expose them to critics 

 

First off, thank you for revealing your clan focus proposal. I would like to state that only reason I mentioned politics is because currently clans, regions, and factions are so intertwined. Absolute conquest will always be on individuals mind. I do believe giving some importance to clans will be beneficial. However giving too much importance to clans especially in nats will hurt more than rather help. Might as well make everyone a pirate if a clan has more power than the nat. Now "npc events" or storyline I do think is a great idea and have supported the idea for a while. I just do not think however it should be such a controlling factor. It will make the game lose the beauty of being a mmo sandbox. 

Additional note: now I do believe clans should be able to control regions within their nation and to have some sort of benefit for that control. Nothing big enough however to cause a civil war or hurt the casual community.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Davos Seasworth

[Koltes]

1 hour ago, Davos Seasworth said:

I do believe giving some importance to clans will be beneficial. However giving too much importance to clans especially in nats will hurt more than rather help.

Yes that's right, but what you are missing is that today we already have this issue with Nation politics. We have plenty of examples how one large clan is able to control nation politics and be so dominant in national affairs that it affects all other clans in the entire nation. Some of those clans, though not wanting to be part of the hostilities are dragged into someones hate driven wars. Tell me this isn't so.

 

1 hour ago, Davos Seasworth said:

Now "npc events" or storyline I do think is a great idea and have supported the idea for a while. I just do not think however it should be such a controlling factor. It will make the game lose the beauty of being a mmo sandbox.

NA is not a sandbox game. This is important to understand. It is an Open Wold game, but not a sandbox.
Now it looks like you think that Nation Politics driven by storyline will be absolute and if the game said that Danes and GB are at peace then you have to hold hands even though day before you were at war. No this is not how I propose this to be.

The game setting that I propose is anyone can attack anybody. Nation relationships will be game storyline driven "official" political positions, but the game has no control over your actions as a player and if you wish to attack a player from another allied nation you should be able to do so. However, you just committed a crime and now flagged as a criminal towards both of those nations, triggering game consequences etc etc. Does not stop you to act as you pleased, but if you break the "law" you will get game driven consequences.

Clan A may declare war on Clan B even if both are from allied nations, which means they can attack each other without penalties for set period of time (say a week). The wardec represents all the bribery and under the table deals so authorities look the other way. This enables hostile activities even towards "friendly" clans.
This is also fits historical life in West Indies of the era. Despite official political standings there were lots of hostilities initiated by local authorities and institutes or even privately owned organisations.

What does this all mean? Instead of 8 hardwired nations with artificial RoE mechanics and game simply preventing you from attacking other players if they are from allied nation I proposed what is practically a much broader mini nations politics where each clan is in charge of their own political relationships with other clans. 

What you get with Clan Politics is:
1. As many political sides as there are clans on the server (not just 8 nations). Even with current server population we have over 30 clans;
2. Complete freedom to act;
3. No clan can affect another clan's politics;
4. Clans can act independently from their nation;
5. Small clans become more important in such politics

 

2 hours ago, Davos Seasworth said:

Additional note: now I do believe clans should be able to control regions within their nation and to have some sort of benefit for that control. Nothing big enough however to cause a civil war or hurt the casual community.

In this system nations will have non-capturable permanent zones around capitals and some permanent low influence zones (3 or 4) around Caribbean, from where they can conduct operations. All other lands are free-to-capture by clans. Clan can only have one clan Base of Operations (the HQ) and it's their home land. This is where  they get best bonuses for crafting, production, trading etc. They can still own other regions, but more they own harder it is to protect and cost more to maintain.

Thus, small size clans that cant afford to have regions will leave in permanent lands that provide basic means for growth or may have 1 captured region as their HQ.
Small to Med size clans will be able to afford to have a HQ region and 1 or max 2 extra regions.
Large size clans could have 2-3 extra regions and clans of super power could have 3-4 (5 including HQ) - super power clans is 200+ active players (when the game will be released, which means no one will be able to afford to control 5 regions today).

Also, once the region is captured by a clan it become available to use by other clans as well, thus gives a benefit to clans from same nation.
Civil Wars have happened in history and should be part of the game, however not directly pushing players towards those actions. If there will be a rogue/bully clan attacking other clans from the same nation then FREE TO ATTACK ANYBODY will enable people to seek allies and help from the entire server and deal with the rogue clan.

The game then will actually promote healthy environment and remove super power ability from single community like it is now.

[Norfolk nChance]

Koltes,

 

Yes, this is badly needed. The current NPC Nation overlay restricts the Open World gameplay. NA is at best a "light" sandbox but a sandbox all the same. 

The only caveat or devils advocate with the idea is down the road of the super clan dominance that may occur like in EvE with Goons etc mopping up smaller clans.

 

Love the idea

 

Norfolk 

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

How about this, because I do agree with Norfolk that there are some issues with the idea of clans being the focus rather than nations when it comes to global. 

How about rather than external clan vs. clan it would be internal battling for control of regions. For example Clan A and B are part of GB. Clan B controls Belize but clan A wants the benefits of controlling Belize. So clan A would set up a port battle and fight clan B for it. Or possibly buy it out from under them. 

Otherwise with what you have proposed I feel that especially in the limited population we do have that only a few clans will dominate, and it will inevitably kill PvP on the server with one clan taking control of the server. 

When I am stating sandbox, I am basing it on the multiple definitions that state that free roam, open world, and sandbox are the exact same thing. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Davos Seasworth

[Koltes]

7 hours ago, Davos Seasworth said:

How about rather than external clan vs. clan it would be internal battling for control of regions. For example Clan A and B are part of GB. Clan B controls Belize but clan A wants the benefits of controlling Belize. So clan A would set up a port battle and fight clan B for it. Or possibly buy it out from under them. 

Thats exactly right. If clan A wants region of clan B and they are in the same nation they can still fight by declaring war and take that by force. Thats the idea.

Or they can buy them out.

Or they can simply use that region amongs other players and clans of that nation and their current nation allies.

When clan owns the region it ALSO become their nation region. Clan A from GB owns Belize. All clans or players from the same nation can set outposts, production or use shipyard in that region. More so, after taking a region they need to work on their Region Prosperity level that increases regions defenses, level buldings, shipyard erc and other players or clans could actually assist in growing that region.

 

7 hours ago, Davos Seasworth said:

When I am stating sandbox, I am basing it on the multiple definitions that state that free roam, open world, and sandbox are the exact same thing. 

Sandbox and Open World are two separate definitions and have no relation with each other, so you cant say sandbox meaning open world or vise versa. Open World is a game setting. Sandbox is a type of game play.

Open World - is free roaming, non scripted game setting. Its a world full of content and you live in that world and game does not guide you. Its your choice who to be and how to play the game. Because of that choice its sometimes mixed with sandbox. EVE Online is a classic example of Open World and not a sandbox title.

Sandbox - no restrictions, whatsoever. This especially applies to your character. Its like this, wanna sail that 1st rate day one (as long as you have it), grab it and sail and there will be no penalty. There is are no skills. Restrictions comes in the form of possetion (if you dont have it you obviously cant use it) and you own personal game skill as a player. There is no character progression. There are no crafting timers or labor hours that controls (slows down) production. Because of such its impossible to make an open world with multilevel global economy such as Caribbean setting while having a sandbox title. Classic title of Open World Sandbox (no economy game) is StarCitizen. There is no skills. Grab that rifle or ship and off you go day one.

In NA we have ranks (those stops you from sailing ships), we have labor hours (restricts you from crafting), PB have to start with timer (you cant just go and attack a port, ROE mechanics have circles and timers which are also restrictions, BR limits preventing you from attacking much larger ships or fleet, and even officer perks are a limitation because you cant have all of them. All that definitely beyond any doubt make NA a non sandbox title... which is good in my opinion.

Between Scripted or Open World game setting NA is Open World. Between Progressive or Sandbox gameplay it is Progressive.

Half of the issue amongst players is that they confuse these two titles and make pointless arguments thinking they are talking about one thing while calling it the other, which makes little sense to those who they are having a conversation with.

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

18 hours ago, koltes said:

Thats exactly right. If clan A wants region of clan B and they are in the same nation they can still fight by declaring war and take that by force. Thats the idea.

Or they can buy them out.

Or they can simply use that region amongs other players and clans of that nation and their current nation allies.

When clan owns the region it ALSO become their nation region. Clan A from GB owns Belize. All clans or players from the same nation can set outposts, production or use shipyard in that region. More so, after taking a region they need to work on their Region Prosperity level that increases regions defenses, level buldings, shipyard erc and other players or clans could actually assist in growing that region.

 

See I can easily get behind a clan vs. clan regional control system if it was internal factions. If it also included external factions then I cannot support it. When doing clans vs. clans past faction lines I feel that this would become a completely different game with many issues, some of which Norfolk stated. During a port battle where our opponents ran away we were just talking about defenses. Throwing ideas around. One I tossed around is a faction can purchase a port and get slight benefits but will have to maintain it. They can also build defenses and choose from a selection of predetermined locations on where to place these defenses. Upgrade them and train the gunnery crews.

 

When I get back home I think I will add these ideas to OP. Create a collective of them on this page. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Davos Seasworth