Development plans for conquest mechanics (RVR)

[admin]

Step 1

Basic alliances that are coming this august we would like to share the plans and ideas for new improved RvR.

 

Step 2

Changes to port battles are briefly described in this post

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up

 

Ports

Ports will change: Map will split into regions with regional capitals. 

Nations will conquer regions (not individual ports)

 

This will also help a lot in hostility generation and will open road for significant trading/supply/demand improvements, with proper regional goods distribution. 

 

Last draft of the counties/regions design

link to file http://imgur.com/wSjKF1G

 

 

Potential proposals for discussions. 

 

Capitals could become capturable. 

If nation have lost all the ports the last county (with capital) will open for capture. Losing the capital will force an alliance with the conquering nation.

 

Total victory should become possible (with the map reset afterwards)

If capitals become capturable this can lead to clear win conditions and map resets (seasons) with rewards for map victory. Current design is more real life with flowing changes of power (like in Eve), but maybe Battle Royale design is better. 

 

Freetowns

Some free towns will be repositioned (to be on the borders of regions)

 

Mission changes

Missions will always be generated to the nearest enemy region to promote pve players meeting each other in action (Irrelevant for the pve server).

[Sella]

I spy with my little eye some pacific regions

 

WIth capitals inland? Hmmm

[Konali89]

This looks very interesting. I can't wait , this is the sweet stuff

[OlavDeng2]

I like it, in terms of battle royale system, assuming one does not loose any posessions or outposts or anything, maybe having seasons would be cool.

 

edit: also now everyone knows where secret island is.

[Anolytic]

I really like this! It reminds me of something.

[mikawa]

 

Total victory should become possible (with the map reset afterwards)

That is awesome! You can defeat an enemy nation completely, then the map will be reset? Mixing cards again, probably you can join then another nation of your choice? Sounds very good! Go for it!

[Anolytic]

I'm very excited about these news! I think this has the possibility to add a whole new dimension to the strategy of the game. I can barely wait for this to be implemented. Too bad I'm on holiday, I want to just go and play this right now. The charm of fishing IRL in Norwegian seas just reduced a little bit.

 

 

Capitals could become capture-able. 

If nation have lost all the ports the last county (with capital) will open for capture. Losing the capital will force an alliance with the conquering nation.

I think that every port on the map should be possible to contest with Port Battles, including capitals, but capitals should have special fortifications and land formations that make them virtually uncaptureable. Essentially punishing a nation into submission / forcing a ceasefire for a set number of weeks between the factions, should be achieved by keeping up the pressure and blockading a capital region, not by capturing the capital.

 

I think being able to totally and ultimately conquering a faction, and/or forcing them to become a protectorate isn't a good idea for the enjoyment of the game. It should rather be that said nation is not able to fight against their conqueror for a number of days/weeks after defeat. 

But assaulting a faction capital region and putting it under pressure should be enough of an economical and military punishment, that it should be considered a defeat/loss of the war, even if the nation cannot be totally and utterly annihilated. 

 

 

Total victory should become possible (with the map reset afterwards)

If capitals become capture-able this can lead to clear win conditions and map resets (seasons) with rewards for map victory. Current design is more real life with flowing changes of power (like in Eve), but maybe Battle Royale design is better. 

I'm not sure I want map resets and total Victories. Factions will strive for this, forming big power blocks, squeezing smaller nations. And you would inevitably have conflicts and resentment spill over from before map resets, as well as having people get demotivated from facing a "total loss". Moreover it will make the big factions, like Britain, even more popular because people like to have a chance to win, while it will severely diminish smaller nations like Denmark-Norway and Sweden. 

In my opinion a system like that would only seem viable if nations in-game were fantasy-nations or just had colour names (though the red faction would probably be the most popular) rather than nations based on real historical nations.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Anolytic

[Batman]

What means "forcing an alliance?" You still sail under your flag, but as a protectorate of a larger nation? You have to obey what a captain from the conquering tells you? This definetaley needs a better explanation. Even if it will only come MAYBE to the game, I think plaers need to know what might happen.

 

I like the idea of regions, but if you make capitals open for capturing this will totally kill smaller nations playerbase. Forcing people to join something they don't want to join is not a good idea. It is just a game, don't go hyper-real.

[Ledinis]

The thing that was off putting me a bit from RvR was the fact that even if i played 24/7 always fighting the enemy i had no way of loosing or winning the war, so these news are like god-sent. The thing that raises a question is the enemy being forced into alliance if conquered. With a limit to alliances wonder how that would work if the conquering nation is already at its alliance limit ? You talked about an idea of letting players declare independence from their country some time ago as an idea in a Q&A. Wouldn't it be possible to implement it in here also ? A conquered nations players are given the option to join the conquering nation or become a pirate (assuming they get reworked), and somewhere down the road with an investment of resources they can try a coup, trying to declare independence in a region for their original nation.

[Powderhorn]

I'm not sure why, but something does not sit well with me with the idea of total conquest - that is, having capitals be capturable and forcing an alliance with the winning team.  Might lead to steamrolling smaller nations to grind out victory rewards and map resets.  Dunno, just don't like it.  Think it'll make for an even more toxic community.

[z4ys]

So everyone will join the winning team to get the win rewards?

 

/sarcasm on "Yes we need more power to all steamroll and swarm nations." /sarcasm  off

 

Dont like it

 

That proposal would work with 2 even teams. Otherwise it is just steamrolling for the rewards

Edited August 4, 2016 by z4ys

[Bartas11]

I really like this! It reminds me of something.

Me too, me too Anolytic

[Captain Boneboys]

Just done a quick count and the five (5) Freeports I have outposts in covers 9 regions (not including Kingston PR).

Life is going to get,,,, stormy !

[Sven Silberbart]

Great. This is just great. I am happy like a child on christmas day.

Ok that rewards thing, hmmm, but the base idea and the winning conditions are very good.

But we need to prevent:

 

A weak nation shouldn't be reduced to a punch-ball, because all nations wanna win (and get rewards) by killing the weak nation repeatly.

 

So please give some details about that a defeated nation goes ally with the winner. Is that your idea to handle this problem?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Sven Silberbart

[Luc]

What means "forcing an alliance?" You still sail under your flag, but as a protectorate of a larger nation? You have to obey what a captain from the conquering tells you? This definetaley needs a better explanation. Even if it will only come MAYBE to the game, I think plaers need to know what might happen.

 

I like the idea of regions, but if you make capitals open for capturing this will totally kill smaller nations playerbase. Forcing people to join something they don't want to join is not a good idea. It is just a game, don't go hyper-real.

or the defeated nation can set or get little hideouts who are not on the map and working something like a new little capitals where they can try to start resitance from inside

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

What means "forcing an alliance?" You still sail under your flag, but as a protectorate of a larger nation? You have to obey what a captain from the conquering tells you? This definetaley needs a better explanation. Even if it will only come MAYBE to the game, I think plaers need to know what might happen.

 

I like the idea of regions, but if you make capitals open for capturing this will totally kill smaller nations playerbase. Forcing people to join something they don't want to join is not a good idea. It is just a game, don't go hyper-real.

 

That means that for a period of time, the conquering (and conquered) nation's ships wouldn't be able to attack each other.  So effectively, an Alliance (see the Alliances system thread) would be auto-declared, making the ships of those two countries unable to attack each other without turning pirate.

[Captain Kibble]

Not sure how I feel about it, but I have to ask: what happens to assets after a map reset? Start from scratch again?

[z4ys]

That means that for a period of time, the conquering (and conquered) nation's ships wouldn't be able to attack each other.  So effectively, an Alliance (see the Alliances system thread) would be auto-declared, making the ships of those two countries unable to attack each other without turning pirate.

Then the next nation kill the already small nation to get the reward?

[Anolytic]

I've downloaded the map and am studying it closely. I'm seeing so much gold. Like the names of the regions. And the Pacific regions. Also this is the first time I see the secret islands on a map I think.

 

I have one question though: what does the letters in parenthesis after port names stand for? It's probably obvious, but I just haven't figured them out yet. Anyone care to clear that up for me?

[Captain Kibble]

 

 

I have one question though: what does the letters in parenthesis after port names stand for? It's probably obvious, but I just haven't figured them out yet. Anyone care to clear that up for me?

 

Seems like it's Nations..... But I'm not sure on some of the letters.

 

Edit: Yes, definitely nations, with I being independent/freeport, N being Neutral, P being Pirate.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Captain Kibble

[Red Jack Walker]

Don't like the idea of Total Loss/Victory...no good for smaller nations.

[Daliscar]

I'm not sure why, but something does not sit well with me with the idea of total conquest - that is, having capitals be capturable and forcing an alliance with the winning team.  Might lead to steamrolling smaller nations to grind out victory rewards and map resets.  Dunno, just don't like it.  Think it'll make for an even more toxic community.

 

Steamrolling smaller nation eh... Thats what happens in Pirates of the Burning Seas, a game i used to play. It really takes the fun out of the game once that starts happening.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Then the next nation kill the already small nation to get the reward?

That next nation has to now beat prob the two combined nations.  So this will make one nation more and more stronger as they beat one nation and they end up being teamed up with each other cause of it.

[victor]

So everyone will join the winning team to get the win rewards?

 

/sarcasm on "Yes we need more power to all steamroll and swarm nations." /sarcasm  off

 

Dont like it

 

That proposal would work with 2 even teams. Otherwise it is just steamrolling for the rewards

 

There's a great risk that it will end this way

[admin]

Historical choices affect the development. I love swedish, us, danish flags too much to drop them (creating a traditional Spain, France, GB nations). 

Most nations will become parts of the alliances - those who don't could be forced to so to speak "join or die. Or putting it differently in the game of thrones you win or you die . 

 

We think there will be 2-3 alliances with heated relationships. Full conquest is just an idea for discussion. In fact full conquest might not be needed at all. because with the new alliances you will be able to use other nations capitals, so safe status for your capital becomes less important. Alliances will actually provide a lot more freedom of movement and crafting than it is now. And they will force people to fight more and move to enemy waters more - because allied NPC ships will become friendly ships. 

 

Thinking it through further - large alliances will actually promote more pvp for smaller nations(alliances) because large blocks will most likely have no PVE targets in safe waters at all (all allied ai is non-attackeable). They will be forced to sail to that smaller alliance waters providing non-stop pvp opportunities.