Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'conquest'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General discussions
  • Age of Steel historical discussions
    • General discussions
    • Blohm+Voss
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Warehouses and Docks's Topics
  • Clan [ppp] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Categories

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • Warehouses and Docks's Events

Found 33 results

  1. I have seen a lot of statements coming past in which we put PvP over PvE to show hostility. Even going so far as to remove PvE completely. Yet we when facing PvP to show hostility, we do not engage aka act out our hostility. That in itself is not a real problem, we can just count command of the sea to show hostility. you can't do that - due to no-shows or lower online in that nation And no shows or lower online are a reality and they lead to my earlier statement "no fun" on which we can all agree I think. So here we stand. At an impasse and out of ideas. So how would we want to show our hostility? (Yeah, yeah, I know the obvious "fun" way, but it must involve ships and cannons. )
  2. Volunteers for His Majesty’s Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy Ahoy Captains! To all who consider setting sail under the flag of Denmark-Norway. Our Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy requests you sign up with us. [RDNN] - The Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy, a company of brave sailors flying the white cross, is recruiting. We want all able captains and friendly sea creatures to join our ranks. When you join you will find we are a social group and you will find brothers in arms as well as good friends. Our clan is very Port Battle and PvP-oriented, and we arrange Port Battles and PvP events every single day. With tactics, communication and good spirits we always bring a good fight to any opponent. Having fought continuously in wars since the beginning of Early Access our players have deep knowledge of the combat mechanics. Our experience comes from never resting behind friendly lines, always seeking combat and glory. We always help our friends out and our captains are expected not to leave anyone behind. RDNN is always to be found at the front lines, always looking for good PvP and to help protect our nation’s borders. We have a cooperative playstyle and work closely with other clans playing for Denmark-Norway, spanning multiple nationalities and languages. Where others struggle with language barriers, we succeed. Our cooperative spirit ensures that together with our allies we form one of the most accomplished fleets in these Caribbean waters. If you think RDNN might be a group that fits your playstyle, don’t hesitate to contact myself or one of our other recruitment officers in-game or here on the forum. You can come on our TeamSpeak to learn more about us and sail with us to make up your mind. If you come from another nation, we will help you out with the transfer of ships and goods. We also do clan mergers. We are an international clan with members from all over the world and English is our primary language for communication. Members of RDNN are required to use TeamSpeak when participating in group events where orders and coordination are necessary components. We respect that players are different in their desire to communicate, and we do not strictly require that you talk a lot, so long as you are able to listen when instructions are given. Players seeking to join the ranks of RDNN are expected to be team-players, good-spirited and able to listen to orders when needed. You are expected to be gallant in victory as well as in defeat. We have a ship building system to provide all our members with ships and outfitting for Port Battles, and every member is expected to contribute with materials and labour hours. We have multiple level 50 crafters in our clan, holding every blueprint, so our members have opportunity to have built every ship they wish to set sail in. To join RDNN as a full member it is necessary to be of rank Kaptain (250 crew) or above. Special considerations can be made for players who prove their dedication or show particular aptitude. All sailors of all ranks are welcomed to join our TeamSpeak and play together with us until they are accepted into our clan. We will help you with learning the game mechanics, increasing your rank, finding fights and acquiring a fitting vessel. Applicants should come to our Teamspeak and contact an RDNN officer: ts3server://na.danmarknorge.org Written requests can be submitted in our forum: danmarknorge.org/forum/ We look forward to sailing by your side. May the winds blow in your favour. On behalf of His Majesty King Christian VII
  3. By whatever means I have to my availability I would vanquish my foes of the map.
  4. Patch will be deployed today to live servers. Changes to conquest Conquest changes significantly but we want to keep the details about the change vague. Conquest marks as a reward for damage port battles are removed - so don't be upset when you don't get conquest marks in today's battle that will happen after maintenance. Conquest marks will be distributed differently from now on. Certain regions significance increased for conquest. All regions give 1 conquest marks. Some give more. Capitals of the regions your governments demand to bring under control of your nations and will provide additional benefits for them: Santo Domingo Cartagena de Indias San Juan Port Au Prince San Iago Morgan bluff Vera Cruz Campeche Nouvelle Orleans Bridge town Road Town National governments and Brethren of the coast councils will consider current state of the map status quo and will only provide conquest marks for the increase of the land and its control. Other changes PvE to PVP mark conversion improved on the PVE server to provide for the above mentioned change. Additional UI bugs fixed Stability of the bug reporter improved Mystical bug bringing 6th rates into 7th rates missions is still being searched for. We can't reproduce it so please send us more reports from inside the missions while you run away from that rattlesnake
  5. Currently Conquest Marks are a hotly debated topic. If we go and change it to a system where it awards CM to all the players in that nation based on the number of regions controlled and the importance of those regions. For example each player in a nation will get 1 CM for ever 3 regions they control, Capitals will give 2pts instead of automatically. So no nation can ever drop below 2CM per day. Some regions will award 2pts based on value, like New Orleans would be one, Nassau another. Lastly Trade Manifests should make a return but as Trader Marks, they are awarded to players who deliver war supplies to regions to either raise or lower the hostility in that region, you will get 1 TM per 5% hostility you gain from war supplies. You will most likely have to make these war supplies instead of buying them on the Admiralty/Den, as it wouldnt be cost effective, but you could if you wanted to blow 200PVE marks just to get 5 PVP marks. (it is 50 war supplies for 200PVE marks right? and they will only raise the hostility up 25% with 50 supplies correct?) This way the players who want to be traders, or gun runners or even smugglers can feel like they are involved in the RVR of their nation without getting into fights. This is just a suggestion and I think it would be a good addition to the game without rewriting the entire RVR system. You have a good baseline for the system but it needs tweeking and I feel this would be the best fit for all.
  6. What percentage does hostility in regions go down by per maintenance?
  7. Such is a Lord - An idea

    If anyone hasn't seen @admin's post this morning, here it is. Seems like a pretty good idea, but perhaps needs more fleshing out. Had an idea about how to build upon it. Offer captains who have an outpost in the area a pension as well. Call it a coast guard protection fleet money. This would give captains a reason to be in the new areas and make it so it's in their interest to keep it. This would also help smooth over hurt feelings about not getting into the PBs by giving folks unable to make it a stake in the operation as well. Another bonus is it would force people to push further out from the capital areas. The further out your outposts or closer to the action, the higher the pension. An example. Port battle participants get 2 marks a week. Players with outposts get 1 every other week. Obvious cons - players will simply open up an outpost and do nothing with it just to accrue points. Unavoidable, but given the expense of outposts now and the limited amount of slots, this should help deter. Parking alts. Unavoidable. Put a cap on the number of outposts that can accrue. The main problem I see with @admin's such is a lord idea is unfortunately there are only so many battles and so many slots. With a population of 1100+ on EU, a vast majority of the players who want to get into the battles to get marks simply wont. This will help the balance a bit, but still let players who attend the battles to get a trickle down effect. Thoughts?
  8. Dear captains! If you participated in port battles previously or if you have port battles today please make sure that you use your conquest marks before tomorrow's maintenance. A significant change is coming in a tomorrow patch. Prices for blueprints will remain the same, but prices for permits will go up due to changes in how conquest marks are going to be distributed. TLDR If you have conquest marks - or will earn them today in port battles until maintenance tomorrow (2nd of June) - spend these marks on permits! spread the information in the nation or/and in global chat.
  9. 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!)
  10. 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?
  11. After some time testing in the testbed server I want to share some thoughts about marks and permits. I really think that it is good to have limits to some ships, and that will promote variety on port battles, however I believe the permits requirements are a bit over the top. Lets begin talking about if its logical to price with 15 pvp marks ships like the constitution, the endymion and the indefatigable. I mean, the endymion is not of the same class of a constitution and between the indefatigable and the constitution, the logical choice is the constitution (more crew, firepower, turn rate, speed, better sailing capabilities). So I would balance that a bit, like: 12 pvp marks constitution, 10 pvp marks indefatigable, 6 pvp marks endymion. No converter between pve-pvp-conquests marks: -A good way to remove those players who are more into economics and crafting in the PVP server. We need them, more than ever, in the new player driven economy. -The best way to destroy hope of recovery after a the loss of one PB fleet. Let me set an scenario to ilustrate my point: 0. War between two small nations like sweden vs denmark, each one only have the RvR playerbase for one PB fleet. 1. Each one have been capable to raise a PB of 12 agamenons and 13 constitutions. 2. In one PB, the swedish lost around a 45% of their fleet (redii and sveno were on vacation). A decisive victory for the danish. The danish get conquers marks, the swedish nothing. 3. Next PB, the swedish are in great disadvantage in firepower because they couldnt replace their losses. Another victory for the danish, they get conquests marks. The swedish, nothing again. 4. Next PB, no attendance by the swedish. 5. Peace deals have to be made. End of the war, end of the fun. Admin would say that there are shallow water ports to get easy conquests marks..., and then, I´ll say, there is no shalllow water ports on the Antilles, neither near them. Now, your thoughts.
  12. Flags or Hostility

    As one of the admins posted in another thread : " the conquest is still being discussed/reworked. Current ideas are 1) return conquest flag - sell it for pvp marks and create PB on purchase removing all exploits potential 2) change (bring back) hostility missions to only generate for regional capitals and be open all the time (allow missions to generate only for nearest 2 enemy regions - to create some form of frontlines " These are the only possibilities to achieve sustainable conquest in the game. Why? 1 .FLAGS: Pos : Surprise, unpredictability, Conquest around the map(FOR THOSE WHO LIKE IT)Gather players,purchase flag and go. If you want to throw away the PVP marks,by not showing up in a PB, thats your problem/nations, and most important thing(NATIONS NUMBERS DO NOT MATTER), forces players to sail the f..k out Neg : Conquest around the map(SOME MIGHT NOT LIKE IT), Abuse through alt accounts,(who is this guy who bought the flag, wtf is going on) Abuse through multiple flag buys(although this is the only way of confusing enemy and forcing him to sail out)--imo this could be prevented by 72 hours cooldown on regions to avoid player attrition,and buying simultaneously ONLY 3 flags. 2. HOSTILITY : Pos : Idea of FRONTLINE, PvP self explanatory due the presence of friends and foes,(which are considered as such:) ) focus on certain areas. Neg: Blockbuilding(again),danger of "forever trying to rise hostility" ,NATIONS NUMBERS MATTER,unability to operate "mapwide",absence of surprise and unpredictability leads to static, in long terms boring conquest. Myself prefer FLAGS because of the named positive aspects. I would like to dicuss with my fellows in clan, and other clans in nation which areas are needed,and we can decide on our own where to go. Dynamic conquest does not force me to focus on regions which are useless,have no resources,but because of the game mechanics HAVE to be taken.Blue,red or yellow dots on the map DO NOT MATTER, silver,gold and refits do.:) With a given cooldown of AT LEAST 96 hours, it is worth for a nation to make an effort,conquer the region,AND gather resources in case of being defeated after cooldown by previous owner. Player attrition is not given, because the conquest can be organized by anyone,anywhere,for whatever the reasons.Take part or don`t. I hope one day there will be some sort of campaign for each nation.That is what i would like to see Thank you for reading.
  13. Hostility or Flags?

    Due to the new announcement of the changes in the RvR conquest mechanics I really need to know if it is true that the community really wants the old conquest system.
  14. Region Conquest changes

    I think the current Region conquest needs to changed and testing Raids is urgently needed NOW to keep numbers up before the wipe. So, keeping the idea of Raids as laid out by admin, and hostility generation to create a PB, but with the follow changes: 1, Regions have kind of ruined the variation of PB locations (in combination with Resource locations). I think it should be possible to generate hostility in a Region, and then hostility generators vote which non capital port in the region to attack. If you control 50% of ports in a region (as number of ports in regions vary), then Region capital PB is now generated. Change these be to 26 hours, instead of 2 days. 2. Conquest can be too fast, this should slow it down. It will also allow for enemies to have a port in a region for a period of time, without totally taking it over. PB's Region capitals should therefor have some extra benefits, like ships for sale, more resources and materials. ?? 3. Conquest should be about the next region over. It should be easier to raise hostility in an adjacent region to your own, and the distance from capital should also count. Flags were good that way, as the attack had to be launched from a friendly port, which makes realistic sense. It should also be hard to create PB in a region close to the enemy capital, not impossible but the % increase should be tied into how loyal the region population is (if you were to think of it that way). So 100% loyal in capital (full reduction of hostility generation %, 3-4 times harder than now?) and a decreasing number, effected by distance, Raid successes, PvP/AI kills, making PB hostility creation easier. 4. Voting is an important part of this, so as to allow those who generate PBs to decide the target, and then to also decide who enters the PB. A majority vote to kick someone from the 25 should be possible, as this will avoid the frequent occasions when 1 or 2 ALTs or randomers who will ruin the chances of and attacker or defender joined. This is similar to Bobzillas RvR thread suggestion, but I do think it should be possible for people in the PB fleet to decide who they fight with. It should be pre battle instance. It would be really beneficial to see the hostility points the people trying to join have, as people will agree if someone has the points and the ship, they should get in ahead of someone who has not been around to attack/defend. 5. Alliance/Groups. One way I think Alliances in open world might work would be to allow attackers and defenders to create a PB group, based on hostility generation in defence or attack. A "Group" of 25 should be possible to create in OW, so if someone gets tagged or disconnected, a new person can be invited to the PB group. This could also be extended to inviting someone from another nation to join that group and be treated as that nation whike in that group, even if Alliance as a nation is not in force. This could allow Pirates to sell there skills to people who are willing to pay for there services. Creating screening groups of 25 would also be good, as the same could also be done. These groups could then be also rewarded with loot (but no ships, paint or BPs). It should be possible to Tow loot to an Outpost, like you can with a ship. Im sure they are similar to other peoples suggestions, but I just wanted to share mine as I wouild like to see the above happen. Feedback and comments/tweaks welcome!
  15. 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 )!
  16. New Pirate Mechanics

    Seen a few of these posts but thought I might as well have a go The aim of these ideas is to make the pirates a unique 'hardcore' pvp faction with interesting mechanics but also limited economic and military strength compared to the nations. These should also keep a nice balance of power between the industrial and pvp players in the nations. Pirates Economy One economy building per player 25% tax for all trades between pirates and other nations, including player to AI and player to player (bribes, mistrust etc) Production/ships Largest ship produced by pirates will be 5th rates Cannot purchase ships from other nations, any ships larger than a 5th rate will have to be captured (1 dura) Conquest Pirates will be unable to participate in the current conquest mechanics Nations will be unable to launch a port battle/flag against pirate ports New 'control' system describing the difficulties nations had at the time keeping the peace in their colonies Each national port/region will have a base 'control' score (CS) which will naturally decay over time. Local merchants (AI) will create hauling missions for national players to take goods to any ports that need it (similar to the current missions) to increase the CS for that region. If the CS for the region goes too low the nation then has 24 hours to increase the CS above the base score or the region will flip to the pirates. To recover a pirate port (any) nation can send goods near the port to reduce the pirate CS. If the CS goes low enough and stays below the base CS for 24 hours the port will flip to the nation that delivered the most goods. Pirate CS is increased by pirates transporting their own goods to the ports or by capturing/sinking enemy (player) trade ships in the region. These mechanics should create a situation where pirates become strongest on the borders or quiet areas of the national empires. Finding opportunities where nations are fighting each other and playing them off against each other. Small groups of pirates will be able to harass areas and capture a region or two by raiding ports and shipping trying to supply those ports – but find it extremely hard to hold onto those regions when an organised fleet of traders and warships try to take them back. (If technically possible) Pardons could be purchased by a pirate player at any free port which will allow them to join one of the nations for a fixed time (7/14/28 days). The cost of these pardons would depend on the rank and fame of the captain (see Zooloo's fame system for ideas) meaning a famous Curse would find it stupidly expensive. At the end of the time frame the captain would revert back to a pirate (with xp and fame penalties) and lose any of the advantages of being a national captain – 5 dura ships etc. Any comments welcome
  17. Nightlfips and stacking PB

    Since the last pastch the differents nation are suffering of 2 behaviors First one is stacking of port battle. A nation is attack on multiple area on the same time to not allow the nation ot defend Second problem are the nightflip. The last patch introduce no solution for that when it was one of the most hating things for most of us. I would like to suggest the Pobt ssolution. I know the rvr may seems to be copy to potbs but if they used it it was because it was probably the best to do so First: The PB are on fix hours every 30 minutes. If a stack is token, the next pb is on hour after. It prevent stacking of pb on the same nation Second: PB are shedulded for 12 hour. You can flip a port outside of thie window but the pb is on 46h if in the window, if not, it's take the "better slot" the one in middle of the window. Or you can't make unrest while outside window
  18. The value of an area

    Dear Devs, I was thinking about the new port/areasystem when the following idea crossed my mind: Right now, we have a lot of specelised ports which are a disputed area. When history told us something, than it is the fact, that a town or a land which is disputed can not get any affluence. But in peace, every town can gain wealth. Thus, I would like to ask if you can make the haul after a portbattle be addicted to the time where the ports was in peace. So: the more the area was under the peacefull control of a nation, the more value you can get if you conquere the area. Of course that would also mean, that the zones which constandly switch between the nations give you less after getting captured. This could change the "focus" on areas and get more zones involved into the fighting. (Like the area around Victoria/Nouvelle Orleans) Hope you like it! Twig
  19. Hey Developers and Community, We have been thinking the last weeks about the current PB system and the proposed 7 Day cooldown on captured ports. This post is rather long and elaborate, but please hear us out. Historically Naval Powers first needed to "win" a seazone. This works to our knowledge by an attack-fleet with supplies and ground forces stationed in a strategic port with infrastructure. Frigates, Brigs and even Sloops are the communication and scouting ships. Also they tried to break and harass enemy trading and supplies routes. When hostile forces were discovered invading and interfering in an area, usually major battles on open sea would follow to establish naval superiority over that area, or sea region/zone. If the invading navy won these battles and established a military advantage, this would open up the land installations, ports and territories in that area for invasion and conquest, often by the establishing of blockades of big harbours. Currently in Naval Action, ports change hands in a rapid pace. Nations can attack one day on one front, and then leave it undefended - or defended only by an impossible timer - the next day while they concentrate on another flank. This way lots of ports change hands uncontested one day, and then back the next day. It is a race not of winning PvP battles, but about who is able to bring flags and organise the capture of the most undefended ports. So, who is the fastest nations at defeating AI defences? Only when invading another nation’s immediate home waters, next to their capital, can you expect some PvP over those ports. Though even then it is much easier for the invaded nation to let the invader capture a lot of ports, and then take multiple flags from the capital the next days and because of the short distance capture the ports before the enemy even has time to sail there and defend. Moreover it leads to forces sitting and waiting to defend in a geographically important port, for an attack that never happens, often by a fake flag, while the enemy captures all surrounding ports without defence. This is not the way to good PvP and big battles in Naval Action. Even if this game grew to player numbers where nations beside Great Britain and Pirates could field enough forces to defend multiple ports simultaneously, it would only mean half or more of the forces would be waiting in futility for a battle that never happened. Players eventually tire of this. PvP and big (or small) battles between combat ships should be the goal of this game, a lot more than real time strategy and the clamour for holding the most ports. Yet if the strategy element is implemented correctly, it would facilitate PvP. The timers that were implemented do not alone work to ensure defended port battles. Probably 70% of ports which change hands every day in this game are undefended. So we wish to offer a suggestion for how to ensure more PvP and more meaningful port captures in this game. Based on the historical idea of maps divided into strategical regions to be controlled by a nation seeking naval superiority and to support conquest: The idea behind our suggestion comes from looking at a German U-boat coordinating system for the Atlantic. Working from the coordinate map as an example, we can think of the navigation zones as map regions to control: As you can see the map is divided into square regions named with letters (CC, CD, CE etc.), and each region is divided into 9 smaller squares. If you think of this in terms of conquest rather than navigation, to control the region you have to control the 9 zones. So what if we copied this idea onto the Naval Action map? -Some sort of grid system like the German one could be added onto the Naval Action map. -The size of each region should be carefully considered, and it could possibly vary from region to region. Let’s say somewhere between 3 and 7 ports in each region. Each region should have one regional capital - because it makes sense and to have somewhere for the controlling nation to store ships of the line in preparation to defend. This is just an example to illustrate: -Say a nation wants to conquer a region. They first need to establish naval superiority in this region. This is done by a show of force between the fleets of the nations contesting the area. Sort of a Trafalgar battle in open sea. The invading nation buys a flag, or in some other manner announces 24 hours ahead that they intend to invade. To add another layer to this, the opportunity to buy this flag could be only achieved by accomplishing certain missions in advance, like raiding trade routes, scouting, and fighting open world PvP in the area in question in advance. Once these prerequisites has been fulfilled, the invader can buy a flag, which announces to the current possessor, and the entire server, that they are moving into that area. 24 hours later, both sides can have their fleets ready, and somewhere in the middle of the contested region there is a generated event (with crossed swords above the sea) that both forces need to enter within the timeframe to initiate the battle. Say these crosses appear and are open for 2 hours, and in those 2 hours the forces have to enter. By the end of those 2 hours, or at an assigned time, the battle starts. The fact that the battle happens in the middle of the region held by the defender gives the invading forces a disadvantage, as they can be picked off and intercepted on their way to the battle. -In this open water Trafalgar style epic battle, where both nations have had the time to organise 25 players for the battle, every size of ship is allowed (except if some regions are made entirely shallow water, i.e in the cays, in the Bahamas, etc), including 1st rates. -If the defending nation wins this big battle for superiority, then the invader has to withdraw their forces for a while. The defender has established their naval superiority and the region cannot be invaded by the same enemy nation for a set number of days. Say 7 days. After this period, the enemy may again start doing missions in the area, which if successful opens up the opportunity to buy a flag for the region. -If the attacker wins, they have established naval superiority in the area and destroyed the enemy fleet. But they have not yet conquered the entire region in question. The ports in this region are now open for the invader to raid, assault, blockade and/or conquer. This opportunity is held for as long as the naval superiority is held by the invader. This could also be set to 7 days. So over the next 7 days the invading nation has to attempt to conquer all of the ports in that region. These ports would be shallow ports and deep ports like now, with 6th rates and 4th rates maximum in the Port Battles respectively. By capturing these ports the supply lines to the regional capital is cut off and it is weakened sufficiently to be assaulted. In the fight for the regional capital all ship sizes would again be allowed. -While the conquest goes on, the ports in the region are marked as contested from when they are captured by the invader. This still gives the nation holding them some time to evacuate their assets from those ports before warships and production is locked down. If the attacker captures all ports within the region after establishing naval superiority, including the regional capital as the last one, the region switches ownership to the new nation. Possibly there would be a mechanic that for 7 days after being captured it cannot be assaulted again, either by the nation that lost it nor any other nation. -If the attacker does not manage to capture all ports within 7 days, their conquest has failed, the region and any contested ports are reset to the defending nation, and the offensive nation has to establish again a new invasion from scratch. This would be realistic and historical, as the supply lines of the nation on the offensive would be stretched, and supplies would not last long enough for a nation to keep the conquest going if they were denied a decisive victory for long enough. Further details to consider implementing with this system are: That the attacker, when the “Trafalgar-battle” is done and naval superiority is established, can set the attack timer for the ports in the region. Meaning there are defence timers like today except they are set by the attacker, letting the defending nation know in which timeframe their ports in the contested region will be under assault. That when a nation has successfully conquered a region, all players of that nation gets an active bonus for some days, like increased XP gain by some percentage, better prices from production building/NPCs/etc in the conquered region, very cheap prices on a resource produced in that region, simply a visual bonus like a flag on their ship, or something else. It could also be considered that a nation fighting to defend a region could have some very slight bonus to the morale of their men due to being closer to their supply lines and so on. Tl;dr -Divide map into regions/sea zones -Trafalgar style epic battle to initiate conquest of a region -Capture all other ports in a region to allow assault on regional capital -If regional capital isn’t captured within 7 days from start of conquest, defender keeps the region. Thank you for reading, and thank for this fantastic game! PVP1, Danish Kontreadmirals Bartas11 [VIE] Anolytic [RDNN]
  20. UPDATE: The official map has been published by the devs with a few changes from the data I had. Go here to find out how the map will look after the wipe: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16468-important-final-map-player-action-required-for-both-pve-and-pvp-servers/ And to find the ownership of each individual port, go here: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/16468-important-final-map-player-action-required-for-both-pve-and-pvp-servers/?p=312498 Salut Captains, The September Patch is looking to bring significant changes to this game. It should be a huge patch, and contains many different updates, mostly relating to the map we use. In that regard the teasers and bits of information we’ve been given so far may leave some feeling it is a bit lacking. The patch isn’t ready yet, and devs might not have decided all that is going to be implemented. However we have already been given quite a lot of information. Still I read a lot of questions and hear a lot of rumours about what is coming that could be dispelled simply by people reading all the information. But the information is spread across multiple topics and multiple pages of those topics. Devs will obviously provide us more information as well as patch notes around when the patch will be clear, but in the meantime I thought that I will post the information that I have already sorted myself from the answers they have provided. My main interest is the general layout and implications of the new Conquest system and map wipe. The noob-zone in the Bahamas interests me less. The official information that I am basing myself on, can be found here: September Port Changes Plans for conquest mechanics Free Towns Rookie regions Again, devs will continue giving us more information as things get closer, but if you’re very worried about your outposts already, or you didn’t quite understand the maps they have shared, then this topic can hopefully aid you. The Map You can find the current iteration of the map the devs use here: Older public versions you can see [url=http://imgur.com/a/ryp86'>here, here and here. I made a map legend to go with the maps: Map symbols: Orange lines: Region outlines Red circle: Capital Orange star: Regional Capital (1st rate port battle) Yellow pixel: Port location Yellow line: Port entrance with direction of inlet Blue circle: Shallow water port White line(on blue circle): inlet to shallow water port White circle: Freetown Green line underneath name: New Ports Striketrough text: Pacific ports not open until release Map letters: (Indicates historical ownership only) N: Neutral P: Pirate D: Danish S: Spanish W: Swedish UP: Dutch B: British F: French US: United States I: Indian/Native USC: US Capital SC: Spanish Capital DC: Danish Capital WC: Swedish Capital UPC: Dutch Capital FC: French Capital BC: British Capital B - PC: Pirate Capital, historically British B - NC: Neutral Capital, historically British UPRC: Dutch Regional Capital SRC: Spanish Regional Capital FRC: French Regional Capital BRC: British Regional Capital (N)-W: Historically Neutral, Swedish noobs’ capital (N)-UP: Historically Neutral, Dutch noobs’ capital ( -D: Historically British, Danish noobs’ capital ( -B: Historically British, British noobs’ capital (N)-F: Historically Neutral, French noobs’ capital (N)-S: Historically Neutral, Spanish noobs’ capital ( -US: Historically British, US noobs’ capital ( -P: Historically British, Pirates noobs’ capital I also added a map legend onto the map most recently shared by the devs: All the new ports are marked there with a green line underneath their name, and because a lot of people have made the mistake, Free Town is written next to every Free Town on the map. Some background information about the map: About the port wipe The information that we have so far, is that the September patch will introduce a new system of dividing the map into regions. Ownership of ports will also be reset, and whatever ports you own now will not matter to the map after the reset. In essence the map will be reset to how it was after last wipe, so if you look at the PvE server you will get an idea of how ports will be distributed. However, as the regions system means only one nation can own a region, it’s not as clear cut as that. The division into regions will mean that some ports that were historically belonging to one nation will now belong to another or be neutral. The map is based on the territories of nations approximately between 1780 and 1800. According to the developers Historical nations did not care about artificial regions invented today, and several nations may have owned ports in the same region on the map. If that is the case, according to the devs, the region will be all neutral ports in the beginning. There is however some ambiguity here. With Pitt’s Town as an example, that is the current Neutral faction Capital (made redundant by the removal of playable neutral faction). Pitt’s Town is said to become of another nation after the wipe. But according to the map, apart from British ports, there were also neutral and pirate ports in the region now named Crooked. By the strictest interpretation of the devs, Pitt’s Town will remain neutral, just not a capital. But as it has been stated to switch nationality the best guess is that it will become British. The question then becomes if Pitt’s Town is an exception, or if only «nations» mixed historical ownership counts. So if Denmark and Sweden shared a region, it will become Neutral, but if Dutch and Neutral shared a region, then that does not count as mixed and the region becomes Dutch. But what of Pirates? Do they count as a nation in this regard or not? And what if a nation is dominantly owned by one nation, but a single port was owned by another, like the Bovendwinds Region which is dominated by Dutch ports, but has a single French port. Does it become Dutch, or Neutral? I have not yet found an answer to this, but I have used the information available to make some calls about regions that are definitively going to fall to one nation, regions that will presumably fall to one nation, and those that are highly unsure. I will share my data below: The green background indicates the rookie regions. The first column lists the number of ports each region has. The second lists the name of the region. Three is the historical ownership(s) according to the devs’ maps. Four the ownership by the strictest interpretation of «mixed ownership». Five lists the current freetowns and their regions. Column six lists the new freetowns and their regions. The Region Capitals column lists the regional capital of each region. The "Maj. Owner» column lists the faction that historically was dominant owner in a region on the dev map by owning most ports and/or the regional capital. Under «New Ports» all the new ports that have been currently added to the map is listed. By the most liberal interpretation of «mixed ownership» the nation listed as «major owner» should spawn as possessor of a region. Where the nation is listed in cursive there is mixed ownership between two «nations». C means it is a capital region, and an asterix means the region is a capital with mixed ownership and thus mixed ownership will have to be ignored. Some more statistics: Number of ports: 378 Number of regions: 75 Number of Freetowns: 31 (formerly 33) New Ports: 14 By the most liberal interpretation, this will be the division of regions between nations: US: 3 Pirate: 4 Neutral: 4 French: 8 British: 18 Sweden: 1 Danmark: 1 Dutch: 2 Spain: 34 By the strictest interpretation of «mixed ownership», these are the regions per nation: Brit: 7 Spain: 13 US: 3 Dutch: 1 Sweden: 1 Danmark: 1 France: 6 Pirates: 1 I have also made a more visual representation of region ownership, to help decide where your ships might be safe and how nations will be positions when the new conquest system kicks off. The regions that are more or less guaranteed have been coloured according to their nation on this map: On the next map I have coloured almost all the regions according to what nation has the most claim to it on the historical map. The map is coloured based on the principle that what made Crooked a national region is a rule and not an exception. Sharing ports with pirates, Neutrals or indians does not make them mixed ownership and thus neutral. Rookie Zone The devs are going to establish a rookie zone in the Bahamas. You will be able to get most information available so far by reading the official OP here: Rookie regions - new player experience What happens in October Obviously we do not know that much yet. However: In the October patch we should expect a reset of the resources distribution which will affect production buildings. NOTE: I started writing up this and making the maps before today's announcements from devs. Some mistakes may be lingering from when I tried to adapt the text to account for the information changes. I will try to add more information to this topic as I discover it and as it is shared by developers. EDIT:UPDATED according to:
  21. "Invisible Alliances"-bug

    F11 report submitted 15:13 UTC Today's server reset marked the end of a round of voting. From what I can see according to the Politics tab, none of the voting from last round went through. The History dropdown only shows from this round that two Votes failed to go through. It does not show the votes that went through. Danmark-Norge had an alliance with France that expired this round, so both factions voted to renew that alliance. Our alliance is now expired according to the politics tab, but not renewed. It does not either say in History that it did not go through. However, Danmark-Norge players still have access to French Nation chat. When I check the Conquest tab I also still cannot see timers for French ports or buy flags against France. Afaik (though I haven't had time to sail out and check) we still cannot attack French vessels at sea. From this I conclude that the alliance vote did go through, but the Politics screen is bugged so it is invisible there. The system works correctly, but the Alliance screen is bugged. This has one graver consequence however. All random players of Danmark-Norge look at the politics tab and see that we have no alliance with France. In fact according to it we are enemies. They want to be allied with France, hence they vote for a new alliance with France. If the system worked properly they should not be able to vote to renew an alliance that was renewed just last round of voting (at least that is how it worked last time). The problem is that Danmark-Norge has an expiring alliance with Sweden running out next turn. Our vote for alliance with France will be nullified by the system anyway, and it would be in Danmark-Norge's interest and within the majority's intention to renew the alliance with Sweden this turn (assuming - based on earlier votes - that if France wasn't possible to vote for, as it shouldn't be, most players' next choice would be Sweden). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bug report for devs: Action: Danmark-Norge (mutually) voted for France as Ally last round. Voted for GB as War last round. What happened: France is showing as enemy in Politics screen, and voting for France as ally again is possible. Also, war with Great Britain is listed as expiring in 0 days. What should have happened: France should be listed as Ally (expiring in 9 days). France should not be possible to vote as Ally again this round. France should not be listed as Enemy. Great Britain should not be possible to vote as War target this round. Great Britain - War should not be listed as expiring in 0 days. History dropdown should be updated. ------------------------------------------------------------ Apart from fixing the bug, what is needed?: Reset all votes submitted so far this round, so that players can deliver their votes again with the right information and the proper limitations.
  22. I am not one to argue for the nerfing of pirates, nor to demand that they are made “no longer a nation”. I don’t argue against either of these positions either. I don’t have an opinion either way, and I’m not particularly invested in the outcome. I am sure that whatever the developers come up with for the pirates, with input and correctives from the testing community, will eventually serve its purpose. However, I have been contemplating a lot on the implementation and the implications of the regional conquest system, and I got to thinking about how the pirate faction will fit into this, both strategically and in terms of gameplay. And I wish to offer my thoughts and suggestions. So, I think there have been multiple posts by devs, arguing that historical pirates did own ports, and that the devs want them to be able to do this in the game. I have no objections to this. Regardless I think it will be interesting to have pirates be able to own ports, and should they be limited, basically, to open waters only, that would be a significant drawback to the faction. They should be able to attack ports at least, be it in the future only to raid ports or to capture them. Yet now that the regional conquest system is beginning to take form, I wonder how the pirates should fit into this. Did pirates ever really conquer an entire map area with infrastructure and a capital city - i.e a region? (I haven’t read enough about it to say either way, feel free to enlighten me) Suggestion for Pirate conquest So how about if pirates were not able to conquer regions the same way as every other nation will be able to? How about if pirates were left the only faction that would still be able, after the new system, to conquer individual ports (quite similar to the current conquest system) - rather than regions? What if pirates were able to raise hostility/conquest meter in a region just like any other nation, but where other nations then have to attempt to capture every port of that region, or lose it in its entirety, pirates would have to choose one port of that region and assault that one (the owning nation could be left to guess until the last minute which specific port would actually be assaulted)? If pirates won the assault, that individual port would then be owned by the pirates, despite being part of a region held by another faction. The pirate port would be immune from reconquest by the owner of the region for the same length of time that regions will be immune (if even) from reconquest by nations after changing hands, or possibly twice as long. After that the owner of the region would have to raise hostility outside that particular port to open it up for reconquest. Pirates would be able to hold more than one port of a region, but only by raising hostility once - and taking a port - and then raising hostility again to take another port (and so on). Pirates holding a port in your region would mean extensive raiding of trade and resources in the region, and result in a percentage loss to trade income and resource production in the entire region for the nation that owns it. Pirates conquering a port of a region, would make a good base for them to raid the resources and raze the infrastructure of that region, probably also weakening it severely in case a neighbouring faction then decided to invade that region. Pirate conquest would be completely unrestricted by proximity and distance. Pirates, from Mortimer Town, could raid Tampico in the Gulf of Mexico, Tulum in the Yucatan, or Lagunillas in the Lago de Maracaibo, and own ports in each of the four corners of the map. Pirates could conquer deep into national territories. No economic zone or PvE-area of a nation would be safe from invasion and conquest by pirates. ----------------------------------- I believe this proposal could work to make pirates something distinct and different from nations, while maintaining them as an interesting faction. It could make pirates truly the joker of the map, while avoiding that they would be just another nation competing for dominance of the map and with an advantage in both strategy and numbers over many of the nations.
  23. So this is my suggestion for port battles / flags. It is grounded on the belief that the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it should cost you and the more notice should be granted to the defender. Point 1: The further the port you want to capture is from your Nations front lines the more the flag costs. For example, buying a flag to capture an enemy port immediately next to your front line might cost 250,000 gold. The flag for the next enemy port (further into enemy territory) might cost 500,000. The flag for the third enemy port might cost 1,000,000, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increasing cost of waging war further from your empire (think supply lines, sail time, crew wages, provisions etc.), and reduces the effectiveness of “steam rolling” through enemy ports, as it will cost you significantly more the further you go. Of course, once you successfully capture the first enemy port, your Nations battle lines have extended, so what was the second port (which would of cost 500,000) is now the first port, and thus costs just 250,000. Point 2: Notification timers should be set to represent a “nation’s intelligence”. Think of all the small ships / fishing boats / outposts etc. dotted around a Nation which would warn of an impending attack by your enemy. Tying in with Point 1, the notification timers should be set depending on the distance from frontlines. For example, the attacking nation buys a flag to capture the defenders most remote port (i.e. the one immediately adjacent to the attacker). The defenders get 30 minutes notice to prepare a defence. If the attackers chose to buy a flag to attack the defenders next port (i.e. the second one from the attacker), the defenders get 60 minutes to prepare a defence. The third port might provide 120 minutes warning, etc. Such a mechanism realistically represents the increased warning a Nation would have, generated by its citizens, of an enemy fleet sailing deeper into their territory. This will concentrate fighting on the front lines, and provide stability to a Nations core ports. This should help with Nations losing huge swathes of their territory due to ninja attacks when the server population is low. Point 3: Sneak attacks should be possible, by decreasing the warning given to the defender. This would be achieved by paying more for the conquest flag. For example, the attacking nation wants to capture the defenders second port. Point 1 and 2 implies this would cost 500,000 and the defender would be given 60 minutes notice. The attacker however buys a “sneak attack flag” which costs double (1,000,000) but reduces the defenders notice to 30 minutes. Such a mechanism realistically represents the additional expense of preparing a sneak attack, such as the planning, bribery, waiting for the opportune moment, chasing down witnesses, etc. Point 4: All of this could of course be supplemented by a "cooldown" on port re-capture. The 7 day suggestion currently circulating seems too long - maybe 2 days, in combination with these other points, would represent a good balance. Example: The attacker wants to capture three ports on their front line. They opt to buy a normal flag for the first port – 250,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They also buy a “sneak attack” flag for the second port – 1,000,000 gold and 30 minutes notice. They opt to buy a normal flag for the third port – 1,000,000 gold and 120 minutes notice. Assuming they are successful at capturing ports 1, 2 and 3 then the following day, what would have been the defenders ports 4, 5, 6 are now reclassified as 1, 2, 3 and the process can begin again. Of course the attacker could opt to also try and capture ports 4, 5, 6 on the first day, but the (exponentially?) increasing cost would bankrupt most players and the (exponentially?) increasing warning notice would give the defending nation time to mobilise their defence. Conclusion: I hope the point I am making is clear enough – the further you try to reach into enemy territory the more it will cost you and the more notice is granted to the defender. Of course the numbers are just suggestions and open to discussion. Cpt. Ed - Great Britain.
  24. This is how you capture British ports. We would have used just one Pavel, but having someone to talk to on TS is a lot better to pass the time. And 2 pavels cuts the capture time by half. Both of our Le Grosse Ventres supposedly got compass wood, so the flag more than paid for itself. It is the sincere wish of the Danish-Norwegian nation that today's patch gets rid of the trolling early morning timers. This is the time-zone of Denmark-Norway: For months now the British have zerged us with multiple flags by day and then put timers between 00 and 06 server time against us to avoid defending. It is frustrating having to look for players to stay up all night to capture empty British ports. We would have liked to do like the French and the Dutch do and post pictures of sunken fleets, but alas, ever since the battle for Aves brits have been unwilling to fight except for when they have our fleet split in half by having their Swedish puppets attack us in the east. P.S. This guide to capturing British ports will probably, and hopefully, be outdated by the time the server and patch comes online today. Though Babay's video of the capture of Aves might still be instructional to anyone seeking to capture a British regional capital. P.P.S. Nice to have National News back.
  25. This collection of suggestions refers to: ---- Nations must be shaken by the fear of dissidents and rebellions ---- The lenient and somewhat social status of Nations might be shaken by groups not wanting to go along with the flow, as we have seen before and will see in the future. The options at the moment is to change nation or to go free mode with the black flag without any problems to the original nation except the loss of a member. What if that actually hits hard in the established flow of a nation ? These suggestions make sense after a map wipe given the necessity for neutral ports and initial nations expansion. >>>> As we have it, all Ports, after conquered, are assigned a Lord Protector. Nice and dandy. Suggestion #1 - For healthy distribution of power amongst a Nation's clans and organizations >>> any player status as Lord Protector to a maximum of 3 ports. Now that we have established various interests across the realm, with ports being under the protection of different Lords, we can move onwards. Suggestion #2 - Lord Protectors themselves can only craft flags against other Nations from their own Protected ports. Exception for Flags aimed at Neutral Ports, these can be crafted from anywhere. This will enable a more diverse and elastic expansion while relying on a solid social and community driven Nation. A Naval Action Nation must work together and not be reliant on one or two big clans or two or three Lords only. Eventually the Nation will expand, wars will be fought and treaties will be signed. Council meetings, consortiums, accords, meetings of lords, and all that stuff that some people love. >>>> But... what IF one group completely condemns a resolution and really wants to rebel ( basically changing nation ) ? What then ? Suggestion #3 - Loss of a port due to rebellious Lords Port will change to Neutral when a Lord Protector changes nation resulting also on a return to default state of Conquest regarding the Port. ______________​______ Think the game as a whole without concerns for this or that nation nor considering your own interests. Read, connect, think and improve. Let's discuss.
×