Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Hostility and conquest feedback - moderated.

Recommended Posts

I like the hostility degrading at server reset. However, the fact that you can get to 100% and then still have it drop at reset because you were inside of the PB blackout window needs to be fixed. Just schedule the PB to occur in the closest available time slot (either before or after the window). Shortening the blackout window would also be a huge help to people playing in North America, especially on the west coast.

All that said, I have been trying to figure out how to deal with hostility drops and the difficulty for small nations to cope. I realize this is predominantly a PVP2 issue, but it will effect any nation with a small pop regardless of server. So my thinking was, what if we changed the drop to a % of points earned in the last 24 hours? So let's say nation A is a big nation generating lots of hostility and gets 4000 points in a day. They lose 25% of that at reset, so 1000 points. Nation B is a small nation going very slowly and only gets 400 points in a day. They would also lose 25%, but that only translates to 100 points. Meaning they can continue to make progress on an uncontested port, but at a very slow rate. Obviously numbers would need to be tuned to ensure it is balanced, but I think this makes more sense.

One other thing to add, if you gain 0 hostility points in a 24 hour period, the current flat mechanic would have to kick in to prevent hostility from becoming a slow creep up all the time. But if you are actively attacking, you get to keep some of your points so you can continue to progress, even if it is very slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some observations :

 

1) The points earned for killing AI needs to be scaled to the BR of the AI you are killing. Killing an AI cutter should reward you less hostility than killing an AI Ingermanland.

 

2) Killing AI fleets its a sneaky way of raising hostility without being attacked, so unless there is a trader in there (or if the BR is over X) then allow folks to join

 

3) Allies can lower hostility in each others area, however killing those allies does not Generate hostility. So lets say there is a Spanish county called Brinidad and the brits raise its hostility to 50%...the Swedes and French can lower it with missions (thats PERFECTLY OK) but if the Brits kill those pesky French and Swedes they get ZERO points....thus the BEST way to lower hostility in one of your counties is for you not to do it...but to use your proxies.

 

4) We need to encourage PvP more, the new small/big tagging circle seems to involve ships joining VERY far away, even in the small circle...I think this needs some lovin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some observations :

 

1) The points earned for killing AI needs to be scaled to the BR of the AI you are killing. Killing an AI cutter should reward you less hostility than killing an AI Ingermanland.

 

2) Killing AI fleets its a sneaky way of raising hostility without being attacked, so unless there is a trader in there (or if the BR is over X) then allow folks to join

 

3) Allies can lower hostility in each others area, however killing those allies does not Generate hostility. So lets say there is a Spanish county called Brinidad and the brits raise its hostility to 50%...the Swedes and French can lower it with missions (thats PERFECTLY OK) but if the Brits kill those pesky French and Swedes they get ZERO points....thus the BEST way to lower hostility in one of your counties is for you not to do it...but to use your proxies.

 

4) We need to encourage PvP more, the new small/big tagging circle seems to involve ships joining VERY far away, even in the small circle...I think this needs some lovin.

 

Very good post.

 

I think points 2 and especially 3 are very important to be chanced.

 

As it is its almost impossible for the brits and dutch to get the trinidad area for example. lots of swedes and danes (and practically no spanish at all) sail in that area just looking for pvp. If brits/dutch get nothing from sinking them they are hugely disadvantaged.

 

This (atm atleast) combined with the difficulty of winning a well defended port battle makes it very (too) difficult to gain a region that is defended by allies.

 

Did not know this fact so thanks Jeheil!

 

 

PS.  Also waiting for the first war supplies abuse to get 100% in 1 minute :)

Edited by Apina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan at all.

 

Hostility is mostly just fighting AI fleets or using AI fleets to gank other players. It completely wrecks my playstyle preferences (either relaxing PvE when not paying that much attention or intensive PvP when paying attention), is difficult to do for smaller nations, and forces you to mobilize plenty of people to get any lasting result (or just paint a "come gank me" percentage sign in the conquest tab if you try to scratch together some percentages on your own/small group).

 

And while we had the extreme before of having too many PBs with many of them being empty, this is the other end of the scale - we probably have around 1 pb for every nation per week, which is horribly low. It is nowhere near enough, to the point that I'm hardly even bothering to log in anymore unless one of the rare PBs are scheduled, or just to craft/gather resources, which goes to show how lackluster the post-patch environment currently is.

 

Not to mention how for those few PBs that do get set up, the defender is favoured so heavily that I wonder if people will even bother wasting ships on it soon enough. The entry system to the PB is either flawed or buggy, leaving lots of people caught out by screening fleets because they cant enter, partial fleets managing to get into the PB, being denied entry to the PB after a little while for no reason, running out of time inside the PB because you have hardly any chance of ever winning unless you perfectly enter at the exact minute it opens e.t.c.

Edited by Aegir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some observations :

 

1) The points earned for killing AI needs to be scaled to the BR of the AI you are killing. Killing an AI cutter should reward you less hostility than killing an AI Ingermanland.

 

2) Killing AI fleets its a sneaky way of raising hostility without being attacked, so unless there is a trader in there (or if the BR is over X) then allow folks to join

 

3) Allies can lower hostility in each others area, however killing those allies does not Generate hostility. So lets say there is a Spanish county called Brinidad and the brits raise its hostility to 50%...the Swedes and French can lower it with missions (thats PERFECTLY OK) but if the Brits kill those pesky French and Swedes they get ZERO points....thus the BEST way to lower hostility in one of your counties is for you not to do it...but to use your proxies.

 

4) We need to encourage PvP more, the new small/big tagging circle seems to involve ships joining VERY far away, even in the small circle...I think this needs some lovin.

 

Complete agreement with 1 and 3, hostility generation needs to be tied to BR and allied ships need to be treated as your own for hostility accounting.

 

I disagree about putting an exclusion in for AI fights with traders. What I do want to see is joining into a mission spawns you at a great distance from the fight. Right now we pop out right on top of the brawl when reinforcements, allied or enemy, should be making their appearance near the horizon. This will give people time to disengage from the AI they were fighting and run if they so choose.

 

 

I think moving to scheduled port battles was an excellent idea because it allows players to plan ahead and prepare for "events", which drives involvement. I know I took extra measures to attend the defense of Bermuda. What I dislike is how scheduling is based on when hostility ticks to 100, and not when players want to fight.

 

Perhaps in the same manner we do alliance voting, we could use the first 24 hours before the PB to vote on a time block, using our earned hostility points as votes. This will help our players in odd time zones, like Australians, to make a concerted effort in a region, hit 100% hostility, and use their earned hostility points to vote for a time zone they want. After 24 hours the votes are tallied and the time is fixed for the port battle, giving the defender a little less notice than the attacker (who could see the votes) and helping to ease the balance between an offensive and a defensive operation.

 

And we'd still have shenanigans, like voting for time X, leaking it will be time X, and switching our votes at the last minute to time Y.

 

Port battles themselves need to be shifted from 25 v 25 tournament-style play to fighting a battle right in the geography of the port, forts and towers included. I would suggest the goal of capturing or destroying both forts with marines or gunnery to capture the port. Once both forts are taken or neutralized, there's still some time for the defenders to recapture them before the town is forced to surrender. Some harbors will be much easier to defend than others and the fort locations will need tweaking, but a huge battle instance open to late joining (but only one ship) right on top of the real-world geography will be far, far more immersive and authentic than our current port battle mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMo hostility point generation priorities should be:

 

1st - PvP, the basis of a pvp server. War Supplies, as vital as PvP mechanic wise. It is the "pvp" of a dedicated tradesman.

2nd - Open World AI / Epic Event AI ( duality for attacker and defender and both can be challenging to a degree )

.

.

.

.

.

100th - Hostility Missions AI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good post.

 

PS.  Also waiting for the first war supplies abuse to get 100% in 1 minute :)

Challenge treating that as abuse. Enough war supplies to go to 1000 points is 14 war supplies. Fully loaded cost about 3.5 million.

Consider that as the Spanish landing an invasion force on the South Carolina coast. Hostility should go to 100 percent if that happens.

Perhaps the poster was joking styling it as abuse instead of organized warfare.

Preventing just that thing is why defense patrols are even more important now and why good battle comms and attention to national and allied chat vital.

- HK -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some observations :

 

1) The points earned for killing AI needs to be scaled to the BR of the AI you are killing. Killing an AI cutter should reward you less hostility than killing an AI Ingermanland.

 

2) Killing AI fleets its a sneaky way of raising hostility without being attacked, so unless there is a trader in there (or if the BR is over X) then allow folks to join

 

3) Allies can lower hostility in each others area, however killing those allies does not Generate hostility. So lets say there is a Spanish county called Brinidad and the brits raise its hostility to 50%...the Swedes and French can lower it with missions (thats PERFECTLY OK) but if the Brits kill those pesky French and Swedes they get ZERO points....thus the BEST way to lower hostility in one of your counties is for you not to do it...but to use your proxies.

 

4) We need to encourage PvP more, the new small/big tagging circle seems to involve ships joining VERY far away, even in the small circle...I think this needs some lovin.

 

Fully agree. 1) Need to be fixed fast and it is urgent to encourage PvP too. RvR is more like PvE experience right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.I believe war supplies should have a limit as to how much hostility they generate. For example, war supplies can be used to generate 33.3% hostility each hour. Or war supplies generate a maximum of 60% hostility.In my opinion the nation that has the war supplies delivered to its port should have some kind of warning. Checking hostility and seeing that a port is instantly at or near 100% without warning does not seem fair to the nation being attacked.

Edited by HMCS Warrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want to have more action

remove the war surplies

now they make a bomb of it(it looks like a exspentsief vlag)

whitout any battle

let us fight for the region

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want to have more action

remove the war surplies

now they make a bomb of it(it looks like a exspentsief vlag)

whitout any battle

let us fight for the region

Tune down the tag circle and remove spawning in hostile regions (using ports there) and I'm fine with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much PvE, not enough PvP.

 

...

 

We need PvP hostility missions.

 

I select a region: Ciudad de Cuba

I select BR rate: 500

Reward: X hostility points

 

Location pops on map, I sail there (or even teleport, I could not care less, I want PvP, not craft/trade/pve timesink carebearing).

So the enemy sees the location as well.

 

If we can teleport, then everyone just pops in the instance, and winner will get the points.

If we sail, then everyone sails in the mission, and winner will get the points.

 

If there are none to defend/attack, the winner will get X/2 points or something similar.

 

You are free to refine the idea.

Edited by Cmdr RideZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how hard it would be to do but why not make a system that relies on 3 number to determine total hostility of a port.

 

assuming that the current number of 10,000 hostility points needed to flip a point the numbers could look like this:

 

war supply count - war supplies still provide hostility like they do now, but limit this number to 3,000 of the 10k points.  any more is than that is ignored.  It stops at 3k and stays there until the daily decay time.

 

pve count - points from killing OW AI and hostility mission AI.  Limit this number to 3,000 of the 10k just like the war supplies.

 

pvp count - points from kill target nation player ships in the area.  if going after a British port then only players belonging to the British count.  Should probably also limit it to 4th or 5th rate and lower (5, 4, 3, 2, and 1) that way you can not flip an area by only killing new players or cheap ships to limit the use of alts.  There one can go to the full 10k value.

 

full hostility is when the sum of those three adds up to 10k points.  so you can flip a port using pvp alone, but you can not flip a port without using pvp.

 

for the daily decay, the usual 12% of 10k is removed split evenly between the three types.  if the amount to be removed from any one set of points is more than the total point that type has, the remainder should be applied to the other categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

pvp count - points from kill target nation player ships in the area.  if going after a British port then only players belonging to the British count.  Should probably also limit it to 4th or 5th rate and lower (5, 4, 3, 2, and 1) that way you can not flip an area by only killing new players or cheap ships to limit the use of alts.  There one can go to the full 10k value.

 

 

Simple defense then. Don't go there so they can't get the last points from pvp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you mean removing the use of freeports for warships, or do you not want people to be able to use outposts in contested areas?

I mean the usage of outposts AND ports in aggrod areas. 

 

That levels the playing field and you will see less suicidal grey fireship connies destroying gameplay. No respawning in ports that are aggrod, no usage of outposts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the usage of outposts AND ports in aggrod areas. 

 

That levels the playing field and you will see less suicidal grey fireship connies destroying gameplay. No respawning in ports that are aggrod, no usage of outposts.

if you do that we will be back to uncontested port battles, sail times already turn players off the game.  Why should it be just as easy to attack as to defend?  As for fire ships, fire should have been toned down long ago, its ridiculous that you can order 600 men on a wooden ship to not fight a fire and explode,

 

i was hoping you meant freeports, borders mean even lass now that you don't need a port to buy flags out of, if i felt like it i could just attack any ones home area and that is a bit silly

 

Also the game is already balanced, you your self have spoken in favor of war supply to 100% and logged off attack fleets.  And that will be the new meta, the trouble is it leaves only 25 of us per side to play the game.

Edited by Augustus Charles Hobart H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple defense then. Don't go there so they can't get the last points from pvp.

 

good point...then simplify it down to two categories of points that have to add up to 10k points.

 

pve - this is for war supplies and the killing of OW AI fleets (since to my understanding, defenders can not join into the battle to help the AI unless its specifically a trade fleet).  limit this one to 4k points if the 10k to flip a region is kept.

 

pvp - this is for actually sinking of defending nations player ships or from the hostility missions that to my understanding the defenders have the ability to join and disrupt.  this one can represent the entire 10k points.

 

as for the log out mechanics that everyone seems to hate, that one can be potentially fixed a few ways.  one is that if you log out in open world, it gives you a 5 minute timer on log in that prevents you from starting or joining any battle including port battles during that 5 minutes.  You can still be forced into a battle by an enemy player after the normal 1 minute.  To curb the battle results camping, the same timer could be applied there.  after you exit battle results you have 5 minutes where you can not join a battle or start a battle.  you can still be pulled into battle by an enemy and maybe make it such that if anyone you are fleeted up with gets a pop-up that asks if they they will join you in any battle forced on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only real complaint would be the continuance of closed battles. It is understandable that battles should take place in an Instance rather than Open World. But if  I sail past a battle in the real world, and I can see it still in progress, I always have the option to engage or avoid. Seems this should also be the case in game.

 

Obviously this creates the risk of any numbers of hostiles showing up at any moment to turn the tide of battle. But that is realistic.

 

I agree to a point, but now the current open Combat missions is just as unrealistic.  It is sheer craziness to have an enemy fleet suddenly beam in/materialize into your battle instance right next to you. Realism would dictate that you should have seen them approaching and decided to fight or attempt to flee before they got there.

 

How Johnny-come-laters join a battle instance needs to be corrected for open battle instances to work. The idea I've floated in other threads is to have the late entries spawn into the combat instance, pull circle distance away on a heading where they crossed an 'invisible' pull circle around the mission marker. They would of course have the option to decline engaging. I suggest the 'pull circle' should be invisible to try to counter those who would maneuver in the OW to gain advantage in the combat instance. Perfect? No, but it's an attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late joiners should definitely be at the outside of a join circle, not the center of the fight. On top of that, why can't everyone see the attack circle to maneuver in or out of it?

 

So far as screening and port battles are concerned, why a ship can join a port battle right after logging in is beyond me. The timer says "cannot join battles for X", but they can pop right into a port battle, which is the most important battle the game offers. I've suggested log-in drift to fix this, pushing port battles onto the no-join timer would also fix this... ignoring it will not fix it. Not being able to participate in screening battles pretty well excludes the casual player from participating in port battle PVP. Its gold 1st rate or go away for port battles, but screening battles are genuinely enjoyable brawls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hostility is a PvE grind.

 

we searched yesterday in Magarita for 3 hours and stopped because we just couldnt find the guys which did the hostility missions. the area is just too big.

 

we even searched with a route drawn on a map in a fleet which was in a loose formation to cover as much ground as possible. we made the map with accepting and canceling missions for that area after we drew it on a grid map screenshot. after the missionareas repeated everytime we stopped and draw a route from la orchilla. Still couldnt find them. so ~12-15 guys sailed 3h in magarita in order to find pvp and found 1 lone santisima at the beginning and thats it.

 

after that 2 of us went out of la navasse, got into a fight with pirates 30 seconds after we left, won and decided to stay in la navasse for the next days so we dont get bored with RvR too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and to sum this experience up, a dutch basic cutter left la orchilla with us and followed us for like 30 Minutes without any chance of getting him. we had a fir/speed/speed rattlesnake with us.

edit; what i want to say here is, restrict the buy of basic cutters in outposts other then the capital or make them slower so you can get the spy. The purpose of this cutter was to monitor our movement and get the dutch fleet away from us.

 

BTW: i love the game and the hostilitysystem is a good idea, it just needs a bit of tweaking with the missionareas or information where the enemy is

Edited by rediii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(another) proposal to streamline the conquest, with emphasis on generating more quality PvP

 

The current approach to conquest mechanics is all right, but there is indeed too much boring PvE involved. PvP is basically not required to generate or counter the hostility. The PBs are rear, which is not bad, but with large nr of players joining, the action is rather messy (large screening fleets and decisive role of numbers and lucky/unlucky tagging and less in-battle organization and skill). As a result, very little quality PvP.

 

Here is a proposal to streamline the conquest and (hopefully) generate more PvP opportunities, all using features already in game (at least as far as I can see).

 

Basically, I’d propose to use exclusively port raids/attack for gaining hostility points instead of PvE missions. The conquest will be then a step-wise process as follows:

 

(1) War supplies (WS) are used to trigger port assault/raid of any port in a region except for the regional capital, either by bringing WS to given port using a trader with smuggler flag or simply by triggering in a nation port (does not really matter). This will generate the PB instance within say 24 hrs or so (just as attack of regional capital now, but will shorter delay).

 

(2) The (secondary) port is then attacked and PB battle takes place. Hostility points are gained in same way as now, that is by fighting and sinking the enemy ships. Successful attack would mean decent loot and bonus hostility points. This would need some balancing, but the idea is to encourage triggering PBs in 2-3 ports in a region, which will create multiple PvP instances. Losing a PB raid battle will not result in loss of that port, but some penalties, like blocked trade/production for 12-24 hrs, for example, and of course increased threat for attack on regional capital.

 

Importantly, I would strongly recommend to make these PBs smaller (12vs12 ? and/or BR limited), so the action is distributed around the region and not everyone jumps to one port. Besides, with smaller battles, clans will have easier time to get organized groups in those battles, which should improve their quality. These raid PBs could be the old-style towers-at-sea or open sea battles, with focus on maneuvering. Furthermore, war supplies should not be excessively expensive, but still require some effort.

 

(3) When the attacker gain enough hostility points in as a result of PvP in raiding PBs, the regional capital PB will be triggered and then fought, just as it is right now. This should be full-scale (25v25) with land-in-sight (in the future) and be a special event indeed.

 

Overall, conquest should require quite some effort, but even not getting beyond phase 2 should already generate a lot of good PvP for both sides.

 

Additional remarks on other relevant aspects:

 

Alliance system. Conquest cannot be viewed separately from the alliance system. I would say the current is no good. I’d say each faction should have one full ally (able to join PBs and auto-dragged in battle) and one faction at war. Rest of the nation gain neutral status. With 3-weeks war cycle and 1 week voting (truce) period. After 3 weeks, all nations are reset to neutral status automatically, just to have that beginning and end of war effects. This will promote multiple alliances and will add to the dynamics and complexity of conquest.

 

Economy-related. Finally, to further promote conquest and PvP, I’d get rid of the feature allowing producing in allied towns and limiting smuggler flag to traders up to trader brig. This should provide a better motivation for actually capturing and holding certain regions, instead of relying on allies help or simply not bother with conquest at all.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×