Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Update on the port battle set up


Recommended Posts

Maybe in real life yes, there was no time compression there and i suppose it was lost in the middle of the seas, isolated, you wasn't able to be near an enemy city in just a very few minutes from such neural town like in our game and tp there when you want and get your warship, but we all know how the free towns are and will be used when the changes to PB will come ...

 

PS : and they were probably used to dock for one or few days, refill ship provisions, or repair after a trip and bad weather, not like they are now, not used as advanced naval bases full of warships ready to go at war in a blink in the middle of enemy waters ^^  

You say these things like the new potential uses are bad.

 

I think that with the new proposed mechanics, of port battles taking a protracted period of time to wind up, that having this wind up start anywhere are good things.

 

Let's nations wind up more than one area, and then focus on the one that really matters to them.  Also a good way to make a large country attempt to fight a two front war.

 

It adds a depth of strategy that pounding on well defined lines just doesn't allow for.  

 

For example. I am currently observing for the second time, an fractured front for the Pirates.  One group broke off from the main and started a new group well to the south. This left the area around mort (again) less defended and the US and the Brits have made some very significant gains in that area.  Without free towns to base in, the only place that a nation behind the 8 ball could hope to fight would be near their capital, rather than striking out in a new area and forcing the larger powers to consider splitting their efforts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the use of it is bad, it is already bad in the current state of the game without those new mechanics ! Where in the world did you saw a Nation able to magically spawn large fleets of warships right in the middle of the enemies waters and sail less than 5 minutes to get into battles on the heavy populated waters of the attacked Nation  ? 

 

 

If one Nation wants to do such things they have to sail from them closet own National port or from an allied port once diplomacy will be done, they won't use magic tricks to spawn and store ships or also like now have to possibility to produce ships in free towns, safely in the middle of a Nation controlled territory, they will have to sail them fleets or privateers from them ports and maybe have time to be spotted by the attacked Nation on them way, then the defending Nation maybe will have time to prepare a correct answer, preparing a counter-attack fleet it if they get spotted on the way. Will be far more interesting too from my point of view. 

 

Free towns were put in game only to allow trading between players of different Nations, now we have smuggler flags and soon diplomacy that will allow to do all this easily with allied Nations without the need of free towns, trading war materials at large scale with enemies Nations will not be possible like now with alt accounts buying ships in a National market at cheap prices to sell them to an enemy Nation where supply for ships cost a lot more and is more sparse, it will be like it should be, no trading of such things with enemies, smugglers only will still be able to do some stuff with raw materials and parts, at the risk of being attacked by the players of the Nation they go visit while wearing the smuggler flag, again as it should be, and for 1st class ships the fake battles with surrender will still be a thing possible to trade ships but without ship teleport it will be de facto limited compared to how it was until now.

 

 

As for opening multiples fronts using free towns, that's where the game is completely broken already, a Nation not having any port in a large vicinity is able to do operations in the middle of another Nation most frequented waters, without the need to ever conquest ports and get a port near by so the sailing time to get on the operation waters isn't too long, and also no risks of having you starting operation port getting attacked and potentially captured with all the stuff stored there ...

 

How is this logical when one entire Nation can stay at 1h30 sailing time from your closest city and able to perform large scaled operations there without having to sail more than 5-10 minutes or sometimes less from a free town ?? What's the point of owning territories in this game is you get rat holes everywhere inside you "National" waters allowing this ?

 

 

 The game have port conquests mechanics and this only ( or borrowing some dock slots on allied Nations once diplomacy is done ) should allow one Nation to attack another from them closet ports, or sail long time to get to the operations area, not start operations from a magical spawn point placed right in the middle of an enemy territory.

 

Want to get some fight ? Get closer first, then do your operations from there. 

Want to open a second front ? Get a port on this second front you want to open and start from there, don't use magic free towns to spawn right there. 

 

All this will favor a way more dynamic development of conquests, will push Nations to get close by and expose themselves to counter attacks before launching operations that could lead to a PB and will produce way more strategy depth than using free towns spawn points that make no sense at all in this game.

 

 

With current proposed dynamic and free towns a Nation and them potential allies will be able to have them closet National ports almost 1h30 sailing real time away and perform a lot of hostilities from a magical free town spawn point until they raise the hostility to 100% and get a possibility of PB and a new port in another Nation territory ... while having them own closest territory at the other side of the map at many sailing hours from there ? Really ? Is this how you see conquests and territory expansion in game ? 

It ain't at all the idea i have of this, certainly not using free towns and spawning by the some kind of holy spirit in the middle of a Nation owned territory to cause troubles there ...

 

Free towns with smugglers and diplomacy plus those new PB mechanics will have no more reasons to exist anymore in game and absolutely need to be removed. 

 

 

PS : And also free towns allowing ships production without even the need to bring yourself the materials there or buy them around as smuggler, just using the deliveries system from another free town to deliver all materials needed into the free town placed in the middle of the enemies waters, no blockade possible, costly but ships productions not suffering any kind of downside ... great stuff really ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I missed the part where it says that the battle time would be chosen randomly.  The way I read it is that the battle started 48 hrs after the hostility level reached 100%, which means that the attacker chooses the time and the defender gets screwed over.  The only difference between this system and timers is that the attacker gets to choose the time and the defender gets to hope that it's a time when they're not all asleep.

 

This isn't going to solve the time of day issue, the only thing that would solve that is to have 5 or 6 different servers for time zones, and as we sit now, there's not even close to enough players to support that.

 

The time is determined by Attacker vs Defender vs Other interfering parties efforts. You were able to raise hostility of the port for 8pm great - you have the battle at 8pm in 48 hrs. Because hostility is not getting up fast defenders can respond in kind outside of the time-zone

 

In that iteration of the design we are not going to be solving for time of the day issue. There is no time of the day issue if the port battle set up is slow and deliberate. You cannot just buy a flag and capture a port. 

Soooo.... Pretty much how POTBS worked?

It looks good in theory, just a shame you could not have done it from the very beginning of Port Battles when many people suggesting a similar system.

 

I think its just a shame that you misunderstand the concept of testing :). To find what works we must test it, including the options you might not like first.

Test slow/fast pace, test big/low damage etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the use of it is bad, it is already bad in the current state of the game without those new mechanics ! Where in the world did you saw a Nation able to magically spawn large fleets of warships right in the middle of the enemies waters and sail less than 5 minutes to get into battles on the heavy populated waters of the attacked Nation  ? 

 

 

If one Nation wants to do such things they have to sail from them closet own National port or from an allied port once diplomacy will be done, they won't use magic tricks to spawn and store ships or also like now have to possibility to produce ships in free towns, safely in the middle of a Nation controlled territory, they will have to sail them fleets or privateers from them ports and maybe have time to be spotted by the attacked Nation on them way, then the defending Nation maybe will have time to prepare a correct answer, preparing a counter-attack fleet it if they get spotted on the way. Will be far more interesting too from my point of view. 

 

Free towns were put in game only to allow trading between players of different Nations, now we have smuggler flags and soon diplomacy that will allow to do all this easily with allied Nations without the need of free towns, trading war materials at large scale with enemies Nations will not be possible like now with alt accounts buying ships in a National market at cheap prices to sell them to an enemy Nation where supply for ships cost a lot more and is more sparse, it will be like it should be, no trading of such things with enemies, smugglers only will still be able to do some stuff with raw materials and parts, at the risk of being attacked by the players of the Nation they go visit while wearing the smuggler flag, again as it should be, and for 1st class ships the fake battles with surrender will still be a thing possible to trade ships but without ship teleport it will be de facto limited compared to how it was until now.

 

 

As for opening multiples fronts using free towns, that's where the game is completely broken already, a Nation not having any port in a large vicinity is able to do operations in the middle of another Nation most frequented waters, without the need to ever conquest ports and get a port near by so the sailing time to get on the operation waters isn't too long, and also no risks of having you starting operation port getting attacked and potentially captured with all the stuff stored there ...

 

How is this logical when one entire Nation can stay at 1h30 sailing time from your closest city and able to perform large scaled operations there without having to sail more than 5-10 minutes or sometimes less from a free town ?? What's the point of owning territories in this game is you get rat holes everywhere inside you "National" waters allowing this ?

 

 

 The game have port conquests mechanics and this only ( or borrowing some dock slots on allied Nations once diplomacy is done ) should allow one Nation to attack another from them closet ports, or sail long time to get to the operations area, not start operations from a magical spawn point placed right in the middle of an enemy territory.

 

Want to get some fight ? Get closer first, then do your operations from there. 

Want to open a second front ? Get a port on this second front you want to open and start from there, don't use magic free towns to spawn right there. 

 

All this will favor a way more dynamic development of conquests, will push Nations to get close by and expose themselves to counter attacks before launching operations that could lead to a PB and will produce way more strategy depth than using free towns spawn points that make no sense at all in this game.

 

 

With current proposed dynamic and free towns a Nation and them potential allies will be able to have them closet National ports almost 1h30 sailing real time away and perform a lot of hostilities from a magical free town spawn point until they raise the hostility to 100% and get a possibility of PB and a new port in another Nation territory ... while having them own closest territory at the other side of the map at many sailing hours from there ? Really ? Is this how you see conquests and territory expansion in game ? 

It ain't at all the idea i have of this, certainly not using free towns and spawning by the some kind of holy spirit in the middle of a Nation owned territory to cause troubles there ...

 

Free towns with smugglers and diplomacy plus those new PB mechanics will have no more reasons to exist anymore in game and absolutely need to be removed. 

 

 

PS : And also free towns allowing ships production without even the need to bring yourself the materials there or buy them around as smuggler, just using the deliveries system from another free town to deliver all materials needed into the free town placed in the middle of the enemies waters, no blockade possible, costly but ships productions not suffering any kind of downside ... great stuff really ...

You seem a bit angry for some reason.

 

Anyway, as I explained earlier in this thread,  port ownership in a back area is convenient, but hardly necessary, to stage and effectively take over a port in hostile waters, especially with the 48 hour prep time before the port action starts.

 

So for your first question.

 

"Of course the use of it is bad, it is already bad in the current state of the game without those new mechanics ! Where in the world did you saw a Nation able to magically spawn large fleets of warships right in the middle of the enemies waters and sail less than 5 minutes to get into battles on the heavy populated waters of the attacked Nation  ? "

 

Without numbers to know how much hostility it takes to create a port battle instance, it is theoretically possible for a dedicated single player operating deep in enemy territory to trigger a port capture instance, which then the rest of the team can stage for, and then log off in the stage location, in preparation for taking the port.  Log back on, and poof there is your instant magically spawned large fleet of war ships, no port required.  As long as people can log off at sea, there is no way to prevent fleets from hiding in this fashion.

 

Well timed, this strategy could cause the target to be faced with two fronts, and have to make a choice about which one is the one they want to defend, because setting up defenses in both could be... problematic.

 

As to what appears to be the core of your problem with the model.

 

" What's the point of owning territories in this game is you get rat holes everywhere inside you "National" waters allowing this ?"  

 

Well, to get resources, and to attempt to have some contiguous trade and national presence, oh yea, and have a boat load of fun fighting other players who want to kill you and take your stuff. I could turn that question on it's head so easily.

 

"What is the point of joining a game that only has defined fronts where the strategy is limited to beating your head against the same, rarely changing, set of ports and areas?"

 

Limited chaos is much better than stagnation. Also, a nation on it's heels without free ports would have to focus on a very small area. That forced focus pretty much guarantees that they would be stuck forever, since they already were not strong enough to resist being taken over in the first place, odds of them being able to push back are even less. 

 

Oh, and don't move the goal posts by talking about the current trade rules and "deliveries" model for free ports.  I think those are broken and every product not produced at a port should need to be shipped in the OW at some point.  Risk free deliveries are indeed a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The time is determined by Attacker vs Defender vs Other interfering parties efforts. You were able to raise hostility of the port for 8pm great - you have the battle at 8pm in 48 hrs. Because hostility is not getting up fast defenders can respond in kind outside of the time-zone

 

In that iteration of the design we are not going to be solving for time of the day issue. There is no time of the day issue if the port battle set up is slow and deliberate. You cannot just buy a flag and capture a port.

 

To include all of the time-zones, why not have a series of Port Battles (once it reaches that point in the hostility threshold), like 3 or 5 PBs to cover the main time-zones?  The time-zones with the heaviest action (player vs. player) would get the weighted value on the PB.  If there is a time zone where only one nation is showing up and doing the hostile actions, that timezone would get reduced PB value compared to the timezone range where there was a greater percentage of fights (human vs human) in a timezone range.  The hardest fought (actual player vs actual player) time-frames would be rewarded with the PB with the highest value. 

 

The goal here is to ensure all time-zones get to participate in a port's future.  The heaviest fighting time-frames get rewarded with the PB that matters the most, but not necessarily the deciding factor.  The nation that puts forth the best national effort (across all time-zones) will win the port.

Edited by Kiefer Cain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To include all of the time-zones, why not have a series of Port Battles (once it reaches that point in the hostility threshold), like 3 or 5 PBs to cover the main time-zones?  The time-zones with the heaviest action (player vs. player) would get the weighted value on the PB.  If there is a time zone where only one nation is showing up and doing the hostile actions, that timezone would get reduced PB value compared to the timezone range where there was a greater percentage of fights (human vs human) in a timezone range.  The hardest fought (actual player vs actual player) time-frames would be rewarded with the PB with the highest value. 

 

The goal here is to ensure all time-zones get to participate in a port's future.  The heaviest fighting time-frames get rewarded with the PB that matters the most, but not necessarily the deciding factor.  The nation that puts forth the best national effort (across all time-zones) will win the port.

 

The problem with that model is that national population would guarantee victory.  They would be there when it was quiet on the other side, AND when the battle was contested. Given enough people with interest, your going to see some players willing to log in at any hour to fight that spot. The more players on a nation, the more that fall into that category.

 

If it was 1 PB every 3 hours fro 24 hours (8 battles), it would be all but impossible to balance the values of uncontested fights against contested.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, as I was writing this out, I was thinking of 'those' players, lol, that will call in sick/vacation day or play hooky to attend a PB.  It is a hard solution to come by.  How to include the international player-base in meaningful ways that keeps all players around the clock involved in the nation's direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, as I was writing this out, I was thinking of 'those' players, lol, that will call in sick/vacation day or play hooky to attend a PB.  It is a hard solution to come by.  How to include the international player-base in meaningful ways that keeps all players around the clock involved in the nation's direction.

I think the balance point will be somewhere around a stale mate between to opposite timezone nations.

 

While one team is awake they try to build hostility.

While the other is awake, they try to tear it down, or build hostility in a different area.

Eventually the scale will tip to a battle, but this will be rare enough that it's possible those hooky players will make the effort to show up for the defense.

 

I think the real fighting will be done with groups in the same time zone

 

Or

 

Teams will start to recruit and clan together for each time zone, so there is full coverage.  I have high hopes that with some of the recent changes, and with a more meaningful conquest game, that populations will go up enough that at least 3 teams will be able to field forces 24/7.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While one team is awake they try to build hostility.

While the other is awake, they try to tear it down, or build hostility in a different area.

Eventually the scale will tip to a battle, but this will be rare enough that it's possible those hooky players will make the effort to show up for the defense.

 

 

Once the two large groups in the same time zone meed and sink each other - hostility will go up fast because of pvp action 

Out of timezone ports will most likely be on low-medium hostility anyway until the sides meet each other, because you can lower hostility unopposed while your enemy is sleeping (and vice versa)

 

We believe that this latest design is an elegant solution to the timezones problem - ports that don't see active pvp around them will never get captured/lost.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the two large groups in the same time zone meed and sink each other - hostility will go up fast because of pvp action 

Out of timezone ports will most likely be on low-medium hostility anyway until the sides meet each other, because you can lower hostility unopposed while your enemy is sleeping (and vice versa)

 

We believe that this latest design is an elegant solution to the timezones problem - ports that don't see active pvp around them will never get captured/lost.

 

There goes my lone raider option.  :ph34r::)   

 

 

That's a good solution.  That way nations on opposite time zones will simply [never/not very often] create the scenarios that will see them battle each other.

 

Will consideration be given of national time zones in parceling out initial territory and capital locations on a map wipe to place them in somewhat similar regions, or are these set in stone based on historical holdings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the balance point will be somewhere around a stale mate between to opposite timezone nations.

 

While one team is awake they try to build hostility.

While the other is awake, they try to tear it down, or build hostility in a different area.

Eventually the scale will tip to a battle, but this will be rare enough that it's possible those hooky players will make the effort to show up for the defense.

 

I think the real fighting will be done with groups in the same time zone

 

Or

 

Teams will start to recruit and clan together for each time zone, so there is full coverage.  I have high hopes that with some of the recent changes, and with a more meaningful conquest game, that populations will go up enough that at least 3 teams will be able to field forces 24/7.

It won't because I am sure there will be a limit on how many zones you can have. Let's just wait and test it. Balance will be found eventually.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be bad because Nation will always choose an easy way to win. That is where Devs have to stop this and keep their ground on making PBs based on National Effort. Attackers will always select time when other Defender Nation population is at weakest point or vise versa. By making it random, it will be more interesting(will require players to play and flip port when they play) and will enable Nations and Captains to plan ahead. It will require you to unite, plan and sail as one Disciplined fleet if you want to set your PB to a specific time. After some testing people will figure out how long it takes to Flip a port and this will easily be calculated with each nation fleet numbers that participated. 

 

I know you will say no my Nation will pick the best time for all. Based on what we see during this Alpha, Nations always switch timers when no one is online to make an easy take or win. 

I'm not certain it will be bad but rather that it would be more RL. The current system makes the defender choose when they can defend, when in actuality in RL it was the attacker who chose when to attack. And usually, the attack would chose when it was best for them, not when it was best for their enemy to defend....just saying. I think once hostilities are up that we should then have the options to choose our attack window within those 48hrs...based on when is best for us, not best for our enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There goes my lone raider option.  :ph34r::)   

 

 

That's a good solution.  That way nations on opposite time zones will simply [never/not very often] create the scenarios that will see them battle each other.

 

Will consideration be given of national time zones in parceling out initial territory and capital locations on a map wipe to place them in somewhat similar regions, or are these set in stone based on historical holdings?

Why are you guessing? Did you actually test it yet to tell what nation will do and won't do. You will be able to provide feedback very soon.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you guessing? Did you actually test it yet to tell what nation will do and won't do. You will be able to provide feedback very soon.  :)

Because speculation about limits is what I do?

 

I've pushed the edges of almost every game I have ever played to look for corner case exploits.

 

I enjoy theoretical scenarios and trying to break systems. Better me posting my musings on the forum so people can evaluate and preemptively work around possible problems than keeping it to myself I figure.

 

Besides, Admin said "ports that don't see active pvp around them will never get captured/lost."  With port TP and "Top 10 ports with the highest hostility level will be indicated on the map " there is probably zero chance that a lone raider will be able to push hostility up unmolested by a more superior defensive force.  

 

A smallish elite group that could fight a couple of first wave "lets go see why our ports hostility is so high" groups maybe, but solo I don't think that's possible without cross nation collusion. (I.E. players on two different teams do the equivalent of "damage farming" for hostility)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem a bit angry for some reason.

 

Anyway, as I explained earlier in this thread,  port ownership in a back area is convenient, but hardly necessary, to stage and effectively take over a port in hostile waters, especially with the 48 hour prep time before the port action starts.

 

So for your first question.

 

"Of course the use of it is bad, it is already bad in the current state of the game without those new mechanics ! Where in the world did you saw a Nation able to magically spawn large fleets of warships right in the middle of the enemies waters and sail less than 5 minutes to get into battles on the heavy populated waters of the attacked Nation  ? "

 

Without numbers to know how much hostility it takes to create a port battle instance, it is theoretically possible for a dedicated single player operating deep in enemy territory to trigger a port capture instance, which then the rest of the team can stage for, and then log off in the stage location, in preparation for taking the port.  Log back on, and poof there is your instant magically spawned large fleet of war ships, no port required.  As long as people can log off at sea, there is no way to prevent fleets from hiding in this fashion.

 

Well timed, this strategy could cause the target to be faced with two fronts, and have to make a choice about which one is the one they want to defend, because setting up defenses in both could be... problematic.

 

As to what appears to be the core of your problem with the model.

 

" What's the point of owning territories in this game is you get rat holes everywhere inside you "National" waters allowing this ?"  

 

Well, to get resources, and to attempt to have some contiguous trade and national presence, oh yea, and have a boat load of fun fighting other players who want to kill you and take your stuff. I could turn that question on it's head so easily.

 

"What is the point of joining a game that only has defined fronts where the strategy is limited to beating your head against the same, rarely changing, set of ports and areas?"

 

Limited chaos is much better than stagnation. Also, a nation on it's heels without free ports would have to focus on a very small area. That forced focus pretty much guarantees that they would be stuck forever, since they already were not strong enough to resist being taken over in the first place, odds of them being able to push back are even less. 

 

Oh, and don't move the goal posts by talking about the current trade rules and "deliveries" model for free ports.  I think those are broken and every product not produced at a port should need to be shipped in the OW at some point.  Risk free deliveries are indeed a bad thing.

 

So you find perfectly normal that a Nation having ports only at the other side of the map is able to use a spawn point right in the middle of a Nation territory to deploy some fleets, able to store safely ships there in docks that never can be captured, to then cause troubles around and raise the hostility level and in fine able to get a PB and a city there if they win the PB ? 

 

Sorry that's not how i see the game, at all, it simply makes no sense to me to have free risk spawn points that are placed right next to enemies waters, it makes no sense to me to be able to produce safely ships there, and not even have to sail with materials for this while using the deliveries system allowing to skip risks of hauling materials, it makes no sense to me to have one Nation able to raise hostility levels while them closest port ( or allied Nation port they could use) is at the opposite side of the map of the attacked Nation.

 

Login off at sea is one thing, people will have to sail there and potentially get spotted on the way even if they logoff, it's totally different than using a free town magical spawn point and able to spawn there whatever you want to do it, you cannot compare both situations in terms of advantages they will give.

 

Deliveries system is in game, is and will continue to be used to produce directly ships in free towns close to enemies most frequented waters instead of sailing ships with materials to those locations or use smugglers to gather materials in the closest cities, nor it is needed to bring the need of extension for resources, you need only 3 cities + your capital to produce everything needed in game and now with smuggler you can get everything from any city, friendly or not , while being reduced to one single port in game, later with diplomacy it will be even better with allied Nations ports.

 

Free towns are a broken mechanic in game and can only be more broken with this new PB mechanics, conquest of the map territory should start from your owned waters and develop from there, alone or with your allied Nations in a cooperation war effort, whatever is the strategy to move out into one single front or progressing into 2 fronts direction at the same time, or group up with some other allied Nation to start this into multiple fronts and then using them ports for starting point of operations as if i understood this will be perfectly possible with diplomacy, never it should start directly into the enemies waters using free towns.

 

I maintain that free towns have to be removed, Nations have to progress into the map to get in the vicinity of the enemies to then harass them and raise the hostilities level, and get exposed when doing this with those ports able to be captured back if the enemies defend well enough and raise the hostilities levels enough to get a PB opportunity, war and hostilities should start at the borders of a Nation not right into the middle of it own waters from unrealistic and invulnerable spawn points, simple as this for me ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you find perfectly normal that a Nation having ports only at the other side of the map is able to use a spawn point right in the middle of a Nation territory to deploy some fleets, able to store safely ships there in docks that never can be captured, to then cause troubles around and raise the hostility level and in fine able to get a PB and a city there if they win the PB ? 

 

 

Yup, as a matter of fact I do.

 

It's part of having surprise or feint attacks be possible in a game that will require build up to generate enough hostility to trigger a PB.

 

In real life terms, fleets did not have to stage anywhere near their target of attack, they had 6 MONTHS of food supplies, and could roam where they pleased.  Nobody was around to announce a fleet to a target port through national "chat", and if you saw a fleet on the water, it was already too late to send a warning to the intended target town, and it would be hit while it was completely defenseless, because you had to send your own bloody boat to deliver the message.

 

So if you somehow manage to solve the unrealistic and unfair advantage that "magical" internet communication gives a team, maybe, just maybe, I would see it your way.

 

But with that being an insoluble issue due to third party out of channel communications, and with captain TP to any port they have a ship, which I also support, even with a fully staged fleet in a free port, there will be the ability for the defensive team to stage a counter attack.

 

And if you had read what Admin said above, it will probably take real PvP at that location to drive hostility up enough to trigger a PB, meaning the presence of defensive ships.

 

So no, it's open water, there are no boarders, this game appears to be sandbox play first, conquest second, not the other way around, and your never supposed to be totally safe ANYWHERE.  

 

If you want safe, PvE is on your list of available servers.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Referring to real life does not work here, you did not have fleets able to get in front of one capital in 10 minutes sailing by spawning in a 100% risk free spawn point very close to it. You did not had full fleets able to reach enemies cities all around in less then 5 minutes starting from a magical spawn point where the ships were stored and protected from any strike back.

 

You could sail for months with 3-6 months of provisions to do a battle deep into enemies waters yeah but once the battle was done you had to sail back too, to refill stuff or to replace crew lost ( that will also be a thing in game), it 's a bit different than sailing 5 minutes do a battle and sail back 5 more minutes and all this into the enemies most populated waters while your closest port or allied port is at the opposite side of the map, you could not do this by sailing 5 or 10 minutes only to then be 100% safe leaving you ship docked in an invulnerable spawn point like here ... 

 

As for the nobody had TS or chat ... yeah i'm pretty sure that a full fleet was able to pass incognito and strike an enemy capital every day like it is possible in game by sailing 10 minutes from a free town ...dispatch vessels were used to communicate, i believe we have one in game used for this, the Pickle.

 

I'm not sure but they also maybe had pigeons on some ships, if a ship had spotted a fleet 10 sailing days away from them home waters a message could have been sent and the defense could have been prepared, anyways there is no point to compare really life with the game and his time compression when it takes less than 5 minutes to reach an enemy city from a free town and less than 10 minutes to reach a Capital ... 

 

 

I don't want safe stuff, at contrary i ask for more risks involved, no more safe storing/production of ships in the middle of enemies waters, no more safe spawn point right in the middle of enemies waters when your closest port is at the other side of the map hours away from there, not being able to raise hostilities if you either doesn't sail from your closest port to the activity area or reduce sailing times by setting up a port close enough before with a backlash risk on it .

 

 If you want to attack deep into heavy populated waters of a Nation from the start you will have to take some risks and sail your fleet there from your closest port, then have to resupply crew lost to your closest city, if your closest port is too far to make it interesting then do what it takes to come establish one closer and take the risk of getting this new operations starting points located closer to the enemies harassed by them and see his hostility level raising to high levels potentially leading to a PB and a loss of the port.

 

No more easy trading of warships materials between enemies factions like now with many alt accounts working for the enemies, ( will be possible still way less easy and interesting at least ), encouraging and favoring the need for allies to profit of them installations and make coordinated conquests progressions, the need of work between Nations when they want to strike an opponent on various fronts once diplomacy will allow to profit of the allies installations etc will be interesting.

 

I think we both see this under a different angle of approach and agree to disagree but i explained why free towns should not be in game anymore and really thinks it will bring more deep and interesting gameplay perspectives on the long run when the game will be released, there is no point in making such conquest system and keeping free town able to store warships, this will simply make the game boring as hell and the top 10 ports able to reach port battle state will for most of them be near free towns magical and protected spawn points ...

 

Free town were a necessity before we had smugglers implemented in game for trading between nations, this is now possible and will be even easier with diplomacy once done, the free towns need to go and things be based and setup on your own or your allies territories, not on some magical risk-free rat holes spread all around the map allowing to spawn anywhere safely into the enemies waters while your closest National port if at the other side of the map.

 

It's supposed to be a age of sails game where sailing and conquests are full part of the gameplay, not some kind of call of duty on seas where you respawn near the enemies for quick and easy action without any need to set up things before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I don't see this as off topic, it's entirely part of the current exposed mechanics about PB's and numerous possibilities and big advantages offered by free towns for the raising of hostilities around those ports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are worried about the new conquest system & hostilities being raised at off hours, admin already posted that pbs will be at times players can meet up as hostility raised at off hours will be lowered at the enemy's off hours. If you are worried about Sweeden taking Spanish ports, for example, Sweeden is already allied with the Brits & so has allies nearby. When allies come into play, expect to see scattered colors on the map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are worried about the new conquest system & hostilities being raised at off hours, admin already posted that pbs will be at times players can meet up as hostility raised at off hours will be lowered at the enemy's off hours. If you are worried about Sweeden taking Spanish ports, for example, Sweeden is already allied with the Brits & so has allies nearby. When allies come into play, expect to see scattered colors on the map.

I don't think it's the off hours he is worried about, its the fact that players will be able to stage fleets in Free Ports to conduct invasions.

 

I wouldn't even worry about this though if I was him, as the entire port structure is also set to change anyway.

 

From the link:

 

Except for starting areas, every port will have to be founded by players or player guilds. We will seed the world with some native villages that players can capture to speed up the shore development, but most of the map will be uninhabited.

 

Explorers will be able to name coastal towns that will appear on map after Royal Courts, or Admiralty approvals. The world creators will name key landmarks – but explorers could chart and provide naming for smaller islands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the off hours he is worried about, its the fact that players will be able to stage fleets in Free Ports to conduct invasions.

 

I wouldn't even worry about this though if I was him, as the entire port structure is also set to change anyway.

 

From the link:

 

Except for starting areas, every port will have to be founded by players or player guilds. We will seed the world with some native villages that players can capture to speed up the shore development, but most of the map will be uninhabited.

 

Explorers will be able to name coastal towns that will appear on map after Royal Courts, or Admiralty approvals. The world creators will name key landmarks – but explorers could chart and provide naming for smaller islands.

Admin said it will take long time to raise hostility to 100%. This means it could take 48 hours and will allow 2 time zones to participate. Even if they stage fleets it won't be enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin said it will take long time to raise hostility to 100%. This means it could take 48 hours and will allow 2 time zones to participate. Even if they stage fleets it won't be enough. 

Yea, much shorter with PvP than PvE, so even buried deep, an enemy fleet that is left alone by players will take along time build up hostility.

 

I think that may be a strategic mistake on the part of the developers, that choosing to ignore player fleets in your waters to prevent the climbing of hostility is a potential strategy.

 

Ignored fleets should devastate the target, not be less effective. I think the Devs should consider a mechanic that seen PvE hostility start off less effective, but escalates to being more effective if left alone.

 

 Perhaps after a certain level of hostility is reached (>40%) , PvE becomes equally effective as PvP, so that fleets simply can't be ignored after a certain point.

 

You shouldn't be able to stop an invasion by ignoring it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the off hours he is worried about, its the fact that players will be able to stage fleets in Free Ports to conduct invasions.

 

I wouldn't even worry about this though if I was him, as the entire port structure is also set to change anyway.

 

From the link:

 

Except for starting areas, every port will have to be founded by players or player guilds. We will seed the world with some native villages that players can capture to speed up the shore development, but most of the map will be uninhabited.

 

Explorers will be able to name coastal towns that will appear on map after Royal Courts, or Admiralty approvals. The world creators will name key landmarks – but explorers could chart and provide naming for smaller islands.

2014 statement that i perfectly know and was one of the numerous reasons that made me buy this game in December 2014 but there has been a lot of water that passed under the bridge since... next patches plans up to final release of the game don't even include exploration anymore sadly .. 

 

If you are worried about the new conquest system & hostilities being raised at off hours, admin already posted that pbs will be at times players can meet up as hostility raised at off hours will be lowered at the enemy's off hours. If you are worried about Sweeden taking Spanish ports, for example, Sweeden is already allied with the Brits & so has allies nearby. When allies come into play, expect to see scattered colors on the map.

 

Taking in account current alliances in game is not and option as this can change, who knows what will be the alliances running in 6 months from now, yet you will still have one Nation, and his allies if there is some, miles away from your waters but able to use free towns to raise hostility at your capital door while storing and producing ships in a completely safe spawn right in the middle of your waters, basing statements on the current political situation is not really what have to be done, you need to have a more global vision for the sustainability of the game on the long run .

 

I think i explained myself long enough about those free towns and why they need to at least not allow anymore to store warships or preferably be simply removed from the game once and for all, i cannot be more clear explaining it than what i did already .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...