Development plans for conquest mechanics (RVR)

[Serk]

We are going to be playing the RvR game over the course of months/years, instead of the current days/weeks model.

It is to be seen if this will be too slow for people to feel a sense of accomplishment.

I really hope this will be the case. With the new hostility trigger, we might actually see two larges fleets cruising an area and pursuing each other to increase or decrease hostility, instead of scrambling to a port with a flag or to intercept it. Frigates and scouts will become more important to find and screen the enemy fleets. Gameplay will focus more on real fleet action instead of PB's.

I also hope that it won't be possible to raise the hostility of a port overnight, even if uncontested. I don't like those massive port swap in short period.

This new hostility mechanic is clearly a step in the right direction.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Serk

[Vernon Merrill]

Agreed.  I'm of the opinion that the raising of hostility sufficiently to trigger a port opening for conquest should be a very tedious affair.  As an American faction player with a small start area after the reset,, this may go against my best interests, but still probably better for the game.

[Quarios]

I think you may be missing the fact that the cap of 10 per day could only be met if all nations trigger a hostile port take over on the same day.  There is also a 48 hour lag between hostility trigger and the port battles.

 

The odds of there being a day with all 10 nations triggering hostile port battles in the same day, is I suspect, rather small, especially since to trigger one, you need to be engaging the enemy actively.  Having all nations fighting a two front war at the same time seems... difficult to imagine.

 

Hey kraken,

 

where do you take your information from? Im refering to this thread: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/

 

If you read this carefully, according to the dev there is no limit to how many hostility zones a nation can create. So one nation can create 10 Hostility zones and block all other nations out. (Talk about defensive tag ;D)  And if you continue reading carefully u will stumble upon this

 

Hostility levels

Player actions generate hostility levels

• PvP kills, by means of free hunting or pvp missions
• PvE kills by means of hunting or pve missions
• Smuggling and Sabotage - delivering war supplies to support increase or decrease of hostility
• Potentially - Raids

 

 

So in contrary what you are writing I just need to sink enough NPC fleets to triger hostility. Which is as i stated before much easier if u have double the population than other nations.

 

I would also argue that high pop nations will not spread faster.  On PvP 2 I just watched the pirates sweep the Florida coast area (>15 ports) in the period of a week, only to be pushed back those same 15+ ports a week later.  That was at the least 2 ports every 24 hours. In the new model the best the most aggressive and populous nation will be able to take in a week is 3 ports, due to the one port at a time and 48 hour port battle trigger.

 

We are going to be playing the RvR game over the course of months/years, instead of the current days/weeks model.

 

It is to be seen if this will be too slow for people to feel a sense of accomplishment.

 

Not that a underpop server is really a reference, but basically u agree with me even tho u say u disagree. According to you only the most aggressive and populous nation will be able to take 3 Ports. So what about the low pop nations? Yes they spread more slowly like I said.

 

 

The potential for abuse is there if u deny it or not, hope the admin will implement some protection mechanism there.

 

P.S. I'm not saying hostility system is bad, but the global 10/day limit is. Make it 3/day/Nation i.e. and it will be much better.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Quarios

[KrakkenSmacken]

Hey kraken,

 

where do you take your information from? Im refering to this thread: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/

 

If you read this carefully, according to the dev there is no limit to how many hostility zones a nation can create. So one nation can create 10 Hostility zones and block all other nations out. (Talk about defensive tag ;D)  And if you continue reading carefully u will stumble upon this

 

 

So in contrary what you are writing I just need to sink enough NPC fleets to triger hostility. Which is as i stated before much easier if u have double the population than other nations.

 

Not that a underpop server is really a reference, but basically u agree with me even tho u say u disagree. According to you only the most aggressive and populous nation will be able to take 3 Ports. So what about the low pop nations? Yes they spread more slowly like I said.

 

 

The potential for abuse is there if u deny it or not, hope the admin will implement some protection mechanism there.

 

P.S. I'm not saying hostility system is bad, but the global 10/day limit is. Make it 3/day/Nation i.e. and it will be much better.

 

 

Um from that link you just sent me,

 

"Top 10 ports with the highest hostility level will be indicated on the map (where assault fleets are now currently)

Once hostility level reaches 100% port battle is automatically set up in 48 hours"

 

Additionally 

 

 

 

pve and smuggling is needed if other nation is not in the zone (trying to deny kills) 

but of course pvp kills will give a lot more than pve.

 

 

And this

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Simple math tells me that if it takes 48 hours for a port battle to start,  and the total system is limited to 10 active zones at a time, then on average there will be 5 port battles per day, spread out between all the nations.

 

But then thinking about it some more, I realized that both of us are making assumptions about something that has not been explained.

 

I assumed that a nation would only be able to have a single port battle active against another nation at one time.  So that for example the US would not be able to trigger a second port battle against the pirates prior to the first being settled.

I also assumed that a nation would only have one or two hot spots possible,(one offensive, one defensive) regardless of population, due to the new division of ports model outlined on the map.

 

You I believe assumed that once one hostility trigger was hit, the country could go strait into trying to trigger a second port battle before the first one was resolved. 

 

This actually points out a really good question. What is happening to hostility during the 48 hour count down to the battle?

 

Can another town become the focus of hostility, or does hostility drop back to zero across the board?

Is it impossible to generate new hostility until after a port battle has been resolved?

Is it simply harder to generate the hostility, as in adding in a divisor on hostility generated based on outstanding port battles?

 

Can you be forced to defend against two at a time by multiple nations, or is there an automatic lock of new defensive battles once you are scheduled to be attacked?

 

The answer to all the questions around  "What happens to both nations during the 48 hour before attack window?" has not been explained and does require further exploration.

 

This also ties into alliances.  Perhaps you are only able to generate hostility against the nation/s you are specifically at war with, regardless of windows and timers.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I am going to throw out my suggestion again that the timer should be set by the attackers between 24-48 (numbers could be changed to 36-60 for example) hours from time of trigger, based on the time voted on by those that contributed the most hostility.  In this way an alliance could force a hostile enemy to fight both an offensive and defensive port battle at the exact same time.

 

If for example the US triggered a war at 2 pm vs the French exactly 48 hours from the time hostility hit maximum. The UK would see this and be able to trigger their own attack for the next 24 hours to also select a 2 pm attack on the same day against the US.  

 

The US would have to fight the UK tooth and nail to prevent hostility being raised against them in the 24 hours following declaration of attack to prevent being attacked during the same time window that they are running an attack, or be forced to sort out two engagements at the same time.  

 

If they US however picked a time that was only 26 hours from the trigger time, the UK would only have 2 hours to generate the necessary hostility to trigger simultaneous attacks.

 

This would be resolved at least 24 hours prior to both attacks so the whole engagement would offer more strategy and more interesting alliance dynamics. With the current model of fully fixed time start on both sides, it totally prevents the ability to create any kind of secondary counter game prior to the event.

Edited August 29, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Bramborough]

Nations will conquer regions (not individual ports)

Pretty simple statement, and seems clear.  But as I think about the implications and second-order effects, a number of questions come to mind.  I've read through admin posts in this and several related threads, and have not found answers...if I've missed any clarifying statements from admin, apologies in advance.

 

Let's take the North Mosquito region as an example.  As of port reset, I think the most recent map draft reflects that the region will consist of:

 

Black River  (British, deep..."capital"?)

Ruatan  (British, deep)

Brewers (British, shallow)

Croata (Independent, shallow)

Bonacca (Pirate, Free Town, deep)

Utila (Pirate, shallow)

 

1.  At port reset, will the North Mosquito region be considered "British" or "mixed"?

 

2.  How does Britain go about acquiring Croata or (more importantly) Utila?  Is it possible to generate hostility within one's own region targeted at non-national ports?  The neutral ports aren't a big concern...but how does a nation drive pirate ports out of a region which otherwise belongs to that nation (or at least predominantly so)?

 

3.  If some other nation - say, our esteemed Spanish friends - conquers the North Mosquito region, then do all ports (other than Bonacca) become Spanish?  Or only the previously-British ones?

 

4.  The map denotes Black River with an orange star, reflecting that it is the capital of North Mosquito...but does not include the note "BRC"...so is Black River going to be a regular deep-water port, or a regional-capital deep-water port?

 

5.  If the conquest mechanic is region-focused rather than port-focused, then does the previous question even have any relevance?

 

6.  Ok, hostility levels rise and triggers a PB in North Mosquito.  Is that PB associated with a specific port?  Or is it one "all-the-marbles" fight for entire region?  If the latter, what determines whether the fight is 1st/4th/6th rate?

 

7.  Bonacca is reflected as both "Pirate" and "Free Town".  Many other Free Towns on the map are annotated similarly.  I assume that "Free Town" designation takes precedence over "Pirate", correct?

[Guest]

I've been reading the posts and read a few things that caused me to pause.

 

First off: Gameplay mechanics

 

There's a few threads that mentions total conquest and endgame, even seasons. Have the devs been mentioning this (and have I been lazy browsing through the threads?)? (a link would be super!)

 

As I understand the new map-wipe and PB mechanic it's intended to actually exclude any endgame or victory. Making PBs less frequent and larger and making PvP more OW battles. The playerbase is both stagnating and was never large enough to force a endgame through conquest alone. With the new PB mechanic this is even less likely. It all depends on how fast u create aggro ofcourse but as I see it the two allianceblocks will most likely have the same regions as they do now (DK/NG will probably be a lot smaller) but will have difficulty advancing much beyond the regions close to capitol. Depending on playerbase and activity ofcourse.

 

Regarding the PB: Will we be able to do PB's in all ports once a region becomes open for conquest or will it only be the regional capitols? As I understand Anolytics post above he is under the impression that PBs will be open and all ports needs to be taken. This is contrary to my understanding of the portbattles. As I understand the PB's: The regions capitol decides the fate of the region and as I understand it this exclude 4th rate and shallow-water PBs (I haven't spotted a shallow water regional capitol on the map) and means all important PBs will be 1st rates in effect making the 4ths and 3rds obsolete in the game. (unless their use becomes larger in OW battles).

[KrakkenSmacken]

 

There's a few threads that mentions total conquest and endgame, even seasons. Have the devs been mentioning this (and have I been lazy browsing through the threads?)? (a link would be super!)

 

Literally the first post in this thread by admin.

 

Don't be lazy, go real all the comments that are already in the thread.

[Jeheil]

Given that in theory this is all a couple of weeks away now, I would really appreciate a NEW dev-moderated thread with the 'current' expected mechanics...coz I have the 'gist' of it but don't really understand the complete picture as well as a target (it can slip Dev's we know its cool but grab yer nads and give us a date) when we can expect this....we are targetting the 29th or some such. If it slips it slips.

 

I also REALLY would appreciate a Q and A FAQ being developed on both the Port Wipe and what will/won't happen and a similar thing on the Port Battle mechanics.

 

Its Alpha it can be made from fog, jelly and other easily malleable things....buuuuut c'mon....give us an update.

 

I know there are lots of bits and pieces in other threads, some of them dated, some of them thoughts, some maybe concrete...but perhaps 30-50% of your player base are forum jockeys....of those perhaps half have read everything of those most will have different 'expectations' on what is coming.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Jeheil

[Sir Texas Sir]

I just want them to hurry up and get these in game and than get us the new pirate mechanics too.

[Gobur]

I'm say strongly no for changing mission placement. For casual player is no fun sailing 1h only for be ganking by gang. Now is dificult for casual player - be more dificult and stey on servet 200 ppl, rest left the game, and say negative comments for potential buyers. Many say "this is team game, bla bla bla" But most players is not in clan, and never be. Most clans are hardcore, and very anplesant for player who may enter 2-3 times in week for 2-3 h. And this players pay for servers, developtment of the game - this is 80-90%. And most of this players never get on this forum. Why? Little time, family, work. We need thinking about this players too, and for this type of play must be more content. And not say "is PvE server" - Not, many ppl go to pvp only becose on pve is maybe 200ppl, but not becose ppl want pvp, becose lack of pve content. For this couple time when i play is 0 new PvE content, and many pvp. Ok, you may say "this is pvp game", but if, you lose 50% new players. We dont want pay for ingame stuff - we need new players, and now on pvp1 new player have hard time, be ganked by 4-5 hardcore players. New region for new player is not solution, this be fast ussing by "veterans" for easy hunting ground. We need solution, where player who is on pvp server may play pve and not be hunting animal. If i have 2 h time, and want play, may go to mision. If for mision i must sail 2h, and fight in pvp, i may not have time for this, and this be not funn on me. then i play another game insted. Next time i even not think about play - next game buing my time. And i quit. This is in most cases scenario in 99% ppl who not play anymore. If game requied more and more time in 1 time, more and more clan work, most players don't have time for this, and left 

[Werewolf]

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

This is a really cool idea!

[Sir Texas Sir]

Why is it that if you capture a port there is over a week (I think 9-10 days now) cool down before you can build any hostility so prob like 2 weeks before you could win a port back.   Though if you successfully defend a port there is pretty much zero cool down until hostility can be built back up on it.   It was like this before the patch and I never understood why one got a cool down but the other didn't?  Shouldn't the defenders also get a cool down before they can be attacked again?  Not to mention 9-10 days cool downs are going to end up making less and less port battles as we end up with most of the regions on cool down if they get captured.

[Mrdoomed]

Why is it that if you capture a port there is over a week (I think 9-10 days now) cool down before you can build any hostility so prob like 2 weeks before you could win a port back. Though if you successfully defend a port there is pretty much zero cool down until hostility can be built back up on it. It was like this before the patch and I never understood why one got a cool down but the other didn't? Shouldn't the defenders also get a cool down before they can be attacked again? Not to mention 9-10 days cool downs are going to end up making less and less port battles as we end up with most of the regions on cool down if they get captured.

Just an educated guess but probably for two reasons. 1 if both defense and conquest of a port caused a cooldown there would be so much stagnation of the map that the port battle crowd would quit and 2 i could just see ALL the alts attacking ports just to give them a protected cooldown period. I know of at least one person with 6 accounts so i can only imagine how alts could abuse a defense cooldown.

[Sir Texas Sir]

It's never been clearly stated, but was Total Conquest put into the game?  What will be there to fix a problem if say two nations alligned with each other and beat every one down to one port.  Was the force alliance for capture Nations put into play?  If not than what will stop those two power nations fro keeping every one at one port and not fighting each other?  Sooner or later this gets to be very stale play and you basically have a PvE server not a PvP.

 

There are a lot of things they didn't really give clear details we haven't gotten a chance to test. I heard that they didn't add the part where you can capture a nations last region and force an alliance with them utnil total conquest.  So if that isn't in game than what will keep the servers from becoming even more stagnated than they are now?

[Sir Texas Sir]

Well the three largest nations have made a super pack with each other so they have no one else to fight on PvP2.  SO what game mechanics do we have to keep this from happying?  There is no conquest of a nation (take it's capital) or total conquest in the game so now they will just sit around and pick on the three low pop nations and beat up the only person they can fight them Pirates?  Yah there needs to be something to break these care-bear super alliances. I can see one time, but if it just stays happening over and over it will kill more of your population as it runs players off of those other nations.   

Edited December 21, 2016 by Sir Texas Sir

[Kloothommel]

3 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Well the three largest nations have made a super pack with each other so they have no one else to fight on PvP2.  SO what game mechanics do we have to keep this from happying?  There is no conquest of a nation (take it's capital) or total conquest in the game so now they will just sit around and pick on the three low pop nations and beat up the only person they can fight the Pirates?  Yah there needs to be something to break these care-bear super alliances. I can see one time, but if it just stays happening over and over it will kill more of your population as it runs players off of those other nations.   

This guy gets it.

[Guest]

I think it was mentioned that for the release there might be 'seasons' with a declared seasonal winner before everything is wiped again which could potentially break the political deadlocks, but ultimately there's nothing to prevent the same nations from ganging up yet again, leaving it up to player mentality.

Kinda makes me miss the days before the alliance patch - now there's no political rows because no one is able to attack allies even if they wanted to, nor resource competition because everything's shared, and the combined voting system doesn't seem to make room for dissident voting. As toxic as it could be at times, at least it stirred the political pot - now there's really no reason to ever shift or drop out of any allegiance anymore, so no wonder why no one ever will.

Other than, well, for the sake of not killing off your own content, but apparently PvP2 didnt get that memo, and PvP1 is well on its way towards the same fate.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Guest

[Sir Texas Sir]

5 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I felt pretty negative about seasons because of the effect it has on the feeling of persistence. I don't want this to feel like a pay to play war game, but rather a persistent, dynamic open world that lives and breathes. 

I'm happy they haven't been discussed again. I think the alliance system needs a rethink in general, with some more flexibility and more tools for within nation politics and decision making as well. 

But I think if one wants a shakeup to current blocs of nations then that's a social problem to solve, not one for game mechanics.

One way is to force war, but even I don't think that is fair for some one.  Though the could limit that you can't have two high pop nations alligned with each other.  So they have to pick one of the lower pop nations to help them out and maybe get there numbers up.   The sad thing on PvP2 the pirates prob done more for the low pop nations than the other nations.  We have in the past captured ports and gave them back to lower pop nations from who ever had them to help them grow.  RIght now I keep saying we should let all nations have one good region (there nation regional bonus) so they can craft and maybe one or two more regions. US and Brits really don't need to own the whole map other than to have pretty dots.  No one can fight against them cause they don't have the population.  Pirates could but it's getting where we are burned out cause it's basicly the same 10-15 guys (use to be 15-20) doing the fighting against US/Brits and now I guess the Dutch.   Many of us got burned out and left and than the fine wood/PvE grind to get PvP and port battles ran off even more players.  Now we started to get numbers back cause of the PvP events and they make there super alliance and complain they have no one to fight.  Well sooner or later we will just all stop showing up and they won't have any one to fight.  

 

To be honest I hear a lot of new players not wanting these super alliances, but they don't have the votes to turn the tied to be able to fight each other.   The problem is more the old time PvE palyers that don't want to change there prefect little world of owning most of the map. 

I did like the fact POTB did have a mechanic that if you got so many ports/points you end the map and it resets.  Than you can't flip to a over populated nation, but you could change to an underpopulated nation.  I think this would stop every one going to the winning team.  That and let folks that join low pop nations get xp/credit bonus over the over pop nations. I play a merc clan in MWO and we all ways pick low pop Nations to get the most credits and such from our contracts over the over populated ones (which gives you less than the norm.)  Things like that might help a bit.

 

That and why do Pirates get to vote for war but we get no alliances?   I mean aren't we a Pirate Republic (Nation)?  I bet you we would vote in a heart beat to help out the small nations.  Maybe give us votes, but have them last only a week at a time or something.  That way we can turn the tied between the nations when they are suppose to be fighting each other.  It would give us a more Privateer feel too.  Those that don't want to take part can vote OUTLAW and they stay pretty much the same.

[Elric]

The French and Swedes on PvP2 are really too small to mount much resistance to the big nations.  The recent Dutch / British PB against the Swedes saw the Swedes and French get swiftly overwhelmed by a far larger fleet.

It is a shame there is no 'balance' to the nations.  Going back to a point I made many months ago, when new people buy the game, they are prompted to join easier versus harder nations - it would be nice to actually push new players to nations needing them - possibly by providing material incentives to help balance the game.

The current US/GB/Dutch alliance on PvP2 really hurts the game.  None of the smaller nations have a chance of competing. 

• How many Spanish players are there on PvP2?  A couple at most.
• How many active French players are there?  3 or 4 at most online at one time - and we could probably muster 2 players with first-rates
• The Swedes are slightly larger than France at the moment - but not by much.

The combines players from these three nations are not even close to filling a port battle.  In fact since switching to France in the middle of this year, the MOST French players I've seen in a single PB was 10...

Going back 4-5 weeks, some of the Pirates started ganking the French - and after a few one-sided battles, 3-4 more French players quit playing.

Balance is going to be critical to retain players.  Getting crushed in PB's or by ganking fleets is causing more and more players to leave. 

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by ElricTheTwo