Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Screening action and rewards


Recommended Posts

Oh yeah, didn't you know? When the British attacked Gilbraltar, they sailed their 1st rates in under the forts one at a time, dropped anchor, struck the colors, and then lay about on the decks napping for as long as two days. Spanish couldn't lay a finger on them according to the articles of war. Then at the appointed time, they all slapped their alarm clocks, raised the colors, hoisted anchor and joined a big fight with the Spanish Santi's. Spain only managed to get 24 1st rates of their own in, and Great Britain won just five minutes before everyone had to cease fire according to the battle's chief timekeeper.

Or maybe Kloothommel needs to stop pretending he cares about realism and sportsmanship after a month of abusing play mechanics with absolutely no basis in realism whatsoever.

Just. Saying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Wesreidau said:

Oh yeah, didn't you know? When the British attacked Gilbraltar, they sailed their 1st rates in under the forts one at a time, dropped anchor, struck the colors, and then lay about on the decks napping for as long as two days. Spanish couldn't lay a finger on them according to the articles of war. Then at the appointed time, they all slapped their alarm clocks, raised the colors, hoisted anchor and joined a big fight with the Spanish Santi's. Spain only managed to get 24 1st rates of their own in, and Great Britain won just five minutes before everyone had to cease fire according to the battle's chief timekeeper.

Or maybe Kloothommel needs to stop pretending he cares about realism and sportsmanship after a month of abusing play mechanics with absolutely no basis in realism whatsoever.

Just. Saying.

Just to quote @TommyShelby: Don't start about abuse as Brit or Dutchie. No right to speak whatsoever. And it was patched so we did our job testing.

 

Now stop the eternernal "z0mg they done teh exploits!!!!111eleventyone"-drone and get back to the topic: Why screening should be rewarded and if it should impact the PB.

I say no and no.

Edited by Kloothommel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should stopping the British fleet outside of Brest harbor be not allowed / not considered a victory compared to stopping them inside of Brest harbor? I thought you wanted historical realism, Kloothommel. If the French picked off English 1st rates up and down the channel from Portsmouth to Brest, keeping them from ever forming their fleet up and stopping the battle, that would be the greatest naval victory / English goof-up in history. Screening rewards are realistic because real people recognize the merit of stopping an attack before its completed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Wesreidau said:

Why should stopping the British fleet outside of Brest harbor be not allowed / not considered a victory compared to stopping them inside of Brest harbor? I thought you wanted historical realism, Kloothommel. If the French picked off English 1st rates up and down the channel from Portsmouth to Brest, keeping them from ever forming their fleet up and stopping the battle, that would be the greatest naval victory / English goof-up in history. Screening rewards are realistic because real people recognize the merit of stopping an attack before its completed.

Wow, you really want an empty server XD You make me laugh and cry at the same time. Should I just reroll Brits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2016 at 4:27 AM, Archaos said:

I keep hearing people wanting things balanced so the "small nation" can compete, but the simple solution to this is, do not be a small nation, recruit more people, work better with your allies. With all the balancing you want all you do is exclude other players from participating in content.

I get the feeling sometimes that some people like to be the underdog yet be able to claim "oh look how good we are, this small nation defeated the mighty ....". You cant have it both ways, you cant claim to be a small nation and have the playing field leveled yet still gloat that you beat a large nation.

As you say yourself "...small nation of hardcore PVPers can't give a fight to large nation of carebears ..", which would indicate that the small nation is more organised and ready for PvP, maybe that is why they remain a small nation, because they do not make the so called "carebears" welcome. As someone else mentioned, if the screening battle can affect the port battle result, then maybe the nation with more carebears are at a disadvantage against a well organised small nation of PvP'ers as the experienced PvP'ers should make short work of them. Having a large nation of carebears is not always a good thing, have you tried organising a group consisting of many different clans many who are not on or dont want to use teamspeak? I have played other games where the most effective nation in RvR was the smallest nation as 90% of them were in the same clan and on TS.

Maybe some sort of nation balancing is required, but trying to bring everything down to equal fights is not the answer. A small nation that can only field a port battle fleet shouldnt be able to reach a port battle.

edit: BTW I do not think that the screening should affect the port battle result, as someone already mentioned, if the screening is sucessful then the port battle is avoided, and that should be job done for the screeners.

You are missing few points.

Point 1. There ARE small nations in this game which have tried to recruit more people but cant due to low server population. These people dont want to play with a large nation of carebears or just new pkayers for whatever reasons. Its good that they have a choice.

Point 2. Whether you like it or not, believe it or not, you have just said that you "keep hearing about small nations". So you keep hearing about this and want to ignore?

Point 3. On PVP2 GB and US two largest nations have been in alliance for quite some time. This means that while one is in PB the other is screening for them. No matter how many numbers small nation bring to PB, one of the largest nations is capable to screen them for eternity and prevent to enter PB and even if sone do get to enter there is full force of other nation waiting for them there.

Point 4. Naturally there are more small nations than big nations. Together they provide about 40% of the server population. Making conquest impossible for them (fair or unfair is a separate issue) denies them ability to compete. If they are unable to compete they either reroll to the large nation or quit. When PVP2 server has lost 40% of PVP players from small nations the large nations had no one left to fight. Server went into sleep mode.

Point 5. There cannot be peaceful stability in open world PVP game setting which has war and fighting as a core activity and reason to play altogether. This means there needs to be ongoing conflict of interests, fair chance for everyone to compete. During times when we were pulling flags small nations had better chances to fight large nations. Server was buzzing, fights were going all the time and could happen in an instant. Now players log in to do a bit of this and that and sonetimes pvp event and log off.

Point 6. While small nations only take 40% of the setver population they form 75% of PVPers. You kill them - you kill PVP aspect of the game. You kill contest and competition. Of there is no PVP aspect in the game it is doomed to die.

Point 7. For most PVP players OW means oportunistic PVP. Its the place that require risk and either play safe and ask for help or take bold moves. Its ok to get ganged on OW or be outnumbered. Its ok to have unfair fights. This is where your name is forged due to your own actions. People get to know who you are because you have a choice to act the way you like.

Point 8. PB are part of conquest and therefore must promote fair fight team vs other team where best team is winning not the largest. The conquest type game game must have equal balance. BF3 would have bases in fair positions to both teams, WOT global map is a fair fight between two teams and battles are scheduled and preorganised etc etc. Because of NA nature the teams (nations) are unbalanced and NEVER will be. This means that game must have means to balance teams in PB mechanics.

 

...and so far its the largest teams that gets all the cream and the balance keep falling off the scale

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Borch said:

So, not rewarding screeners will save the small nations then?

No, there should be no screening outside bottleneck battle join. Join PB button should appear soon as player entered the region or at least a huge circle size of a square on the map. Screening still posible when allied fleets will be hunting in the area (which by the way smaller than the current pvp zone) but wont give significant PB advantage when it prevets the PB to actually happen

Edited by koltes
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is there hard to undersrand?

Current screening mechanic combined with the rewards only encouraging more screening around bottleneck point and preventing fair and square PB.

Rewards will be welcomed after screening mechanic is changed so its doesnt negatively affects PB. 

Ideally they should implement staged PB instance where first stage is screening stage. Equal numbers are present. Get rid of these capture circles. Max combined BR is allowed and the rest is up to players to figure what they want to bring how they want to fill in the BR.

You get your rewards after the battle in form of PVP points earned based on your actions (kills, assists, cap points whatever).

Screeners get their screening action and PB match is still a fair contest.

Did I answer your question or are you going to gimme another: "and then?!"

Edited by koltes
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, koltes said:

You are missing few points.

Point 1. There ARE small nations in this game which have tried to recruit more people but cant due to low server population. These people dont want to play with a large nation of carebears or just new pkayers for whatever reasons. Its good that they have a choice. My point is that bringing in mechanics that suit a low server population will probably not work when game is fully released and there are not the same low numbers, you will hopefully have enough people to screen and do port battles even if you are still considered a small nation. Maybe also people in the large nation do not want to play with carebears but they cannot kick them out of the nation, they have to work with them and encourage them to join in the PvP. People will always have a choice who they play with, but if you make the choice not to play with certain people then do not complain that your numbers are limited.

Point 2. Whether you like it or not, believe it or not, you have just said that you "keep hearing about small nations". So you keep hearing about this and want to ignore? Same as response to point one, on game release hopefully the so called small nations will have larger populations.

Point 3. On PVP2 GB and US two largest nations have been in alliance for quite some time. This means that while one is in PB the other is screening for them. No matter how many numbers small nation bring to PB, one of the largest nations is capable to screen them for eternity and prevent to enter PB and even if sone do get to enter there is full force of other nation waiting for them there. I can agree that something needs to be done to stop people endlessly respawning and rejoining the screening, but I still think people should be allowed to screen as there are some very good PvP battles to be had there and people who cannot enter the PB due to numbers limits can still get some action.

Point 4. Naturally there are more small nations than big nations. Together they provide about 40% of the server population. Making conquest impossible for them (fair or unfair is a separate issue) denies them ability to compete. If they are unable to compete they either reroll to the large nation or quit. When PVP2 server has lost 40% of PVP players from small nations the large nations had no one left to fight. Server went into sleep mode. I do not know about PVP2 server but on PVP1 I would say that there was a more even balance between the two alliances, if people could motivate their players to participate.

Point 5. There cannot be peaceful stability in open world PVP game setting which has war and fighting as a core activity and reason to play altogether. This means there needs to be ongoing conflict of interests, fair chance for everyone to compete. During times when we were pulling flags small nations had better chances to fight large nations. Server was buzzing, fights were going all the time and could happen in an instant. Now players log in to do a bit of this and that and sonetimes pvp event and log off. So why did the flag system fail if it was so buzzing? Was it because people pulled false flags? was it because people tried to outwit their opponents so they could take a port without opposition? You also have to remember that a that time there were individual ports and it was not as crucial if you lost a few, now if you lose a region it can seriously impact your nation. We cannot have the region system if we still want multiple port battles every night.

Point 6. While small nations only take 40% of the setver population they form 75% of PVPers. You kill them - you kill PVP aspect of the game. You kill contest and competition. Of there is no PVP aspect in the game it is doomed to die. I dont know where you get your figures from here, but using them, what you are saying is that 75% of the PvP'ers on a server want the nations with only 25% of the PvP'ers restricted in some way. To me that looks like it needs balancing the other way.

Point 7. For most PVP players OW means oportunistic PVP. Its the place that require risk and either play safe and ask for help or take bold moves. Its ok to get ganged on OW or be outnumbered. Its ok to have unfair fights. This is where your name is forged due to your own actions. People get to know who you are because you have a choice to act the way you like. I have no issue with this.

Point 8. PB are part of conquest and therefore must promote fair fight team vs other team where best team is winning not the largest. The conquest type game game must have equal balance. BF3 would have bases in fair positions to both teams, WOT global map is a fair fight between two teams and battles are scheduled and preorganised etc etc. Because of NA nature the teams (nations) are unbalanced and NEVER will be. This means that game must have means to balance teams in PB mechanics. Port battles are already balanced numbers wise, but because of these restrictions there are a lot of people who cannot take part, the screening is where these people can make a difference and feel part of the successful attack or defence of a port. How come screening was not the same big issue with the flag system? Maybe because of less notice about the attack, and if that is the case then maybe they can look at some way of introducing a surprise element into the attack again and that way screening would be more acceptable to you.

 

...and so far its the largest teams that gets all the cream and the balance keep falling off the scale

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kloothommel said:

Just to quote @TommyShelby: Don't start about abuse as Brit or Dutchie. No right to speak whatsoever. And it was patched so we did our job testing.

And to be clear, when you advocate to keep an exploit in as a feature, you can't pretend you were only "testing" when this problem was fully known and predicted before the patch even dropped. There was no need to go through the November player decline, Steam rating drop, and pages of forum salt had everyone agreed it was an exploit, and not attempted to justify it as a feature. We could have dusted off our hands after Bermuda and called for a hotfix. Instead you resisted any such efforts and an entire nation reoriented their play around the exploit, driving hundreds of players to quit out of disgust at the broken mechanics you claim to have been merely testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wesreidau said:

And to be clear, when you advocate to keep an exploit in as a feature, you can't pretend you were only "testing" when this problem was fully known and predicted before the patch even dropped. There was no need to go through the November player decline, Steam rating drop, and pages of forum salt had everyone agreed it was an exploit, and not attempted to justify it as a feature. We could have dusted off our hands after Bermuda and called for a hotfix. Instead you resisted any such efforts and an entire nation reoriented their play around the exploit, driving hundreds of players to quit out of disgust at the broken mechanics you claim to have been merely testing.

Are you REALLY arrogant enough to think the player decline was ONLY because of that? Are you arrogant enough to say the decline was only in the big nations?Are you arrogant enough to say the upcoming wipe, port timers, slow pb setups, zerging and general boredom and waiting for release had nothing to do with it? 

Don't get me started, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can put up with lot of nonsense for the sake of having fun, but to have all that effort made utterly irrelevant by the self-centerness of the opposing team refusing basic principles of sportsmanship drives people to quit. The exploit you advocated for as a feature left the game's content only accessible to twenty-five players of the opposing coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Archaos said:

Point 1. There ARE small nations in this game which have tried to recruit more people but cant due to low server population. These people dont want to play with a large nation of carebears or just new pkayers for whatever reasons. Its good that they have a choice. My point is that bringing in mechanics that suit a low server population will probably not work when game is fully released and there are not the same low numbers, you will hopefully have enough people to screen and do port battles even if you are still considered a small nation. Maybe also people in the large nation do not want to play with carebears but they cannot kick them out of the nation, they have to work with them and encourage them to join in the PvP. People will always have a choice who they play with, but if you make the choice not to play with certain people then do not complain that your numbers are limited.
Yes you have a point there, but here is another side of the coin of the same screening mechanic. It is very possible for two, three or even four nations to help each other and screen. We used to do this before politic alliance/war voting were even introduced so no necessity to be in alliance. One nation prevented the other to enter the PB tagging and kiting them to eternity while 1 single mortar brig took the port. What is relative in both examples? Screening that affects PB.
Yes on release there will be more people (hopefully), however no matter what numbers you bring screening in its current state is possible to prevent everyone to enter or at least unbalance the actual PB.

 

Point 2. Whether you like it or not, believe it or not, you have just said that you "keep hearing about small nations". So you keep hearing about this and want to ignore? Same as response to point one, on game release hopefully the so called small nations will have larger populations.
Larger numbers dont really affect screening, but screening affects PB.
 

Point 3. On PVP2 GB and US two largest nations have been in alliance for quite some time. This means that while one is in PB the other is screening for them. No matter how many numbers small nation bring to PB, one of the largest nations is capable to screen them for eternity and prevent to enter PB and even if sone do get to enter there is full force of other nation waiting for them there. I can agree that something needs to be done to stop people endlessly respawning and rejoining the screening, but I still think people should be allowed to screen as there are some very good PvP battles to be had there and people who cannot enter the PB due to numbers limits can still get some action.
Yes screening can provide some good PVP and newer players can join some fun etc etc. However (and it is a big however), we are sacrificing a balance of PB in order to create PVP somewhere else. In my opinion its not a good way of balancing. If you have screening then its should be stand alone, self sufficient and not affecting other mechanics.
 

Point 4. Naturally there are more small nations than big nations. Together they provide about 40% of the server population. Making conquest impossible for them (fair or unfair is a separate issue) denies them ability to compete. If they are unable to compete they either reroll to the large nation or quit. When PVP2 server has lost 40% of PVP players from small nations the large nations had no one left to fight. Server went into sleep mode. I do not know about PVP2 server but on PVP1 I would say that there was a more even balance between the two alliances, if people could motivate their players to participate.
When you start the game it says US or GB an easy start so naturally newcomers join those nations. Later some PVPers that wants more action will move out and join more PVP active nations and lots of those who stay are PVE casual carebear guy. Two nations dominated by these type of players will naturally lean towards peaceful solution, to bring order and balance to the waters so they can trade, mission safely. This is how PVP2 has been driven for the last 6 months anyway.
 

Point 5. There cannot be peaceful stability in open world PVP game setting which has war and fighting as a core activity and reason to play altogether. This means there needs to be ongoing conflict of interests, fair chance for everyone to compete. During times when we were pulling flags small nations had better chances to fight large nations. Server was buzzing, fights were going all the time and could happen in an instant. Now players log in to do a bit of this and that and sonetimes pvp event and log off. So why did the flag system fail if it was so buzzing? Was it because people pulled false flags? was it because people tried to outwit their opponents so they could take a port without opposition? You also have to remember that a that time there were individual ports and it was not as crucial if you lost a few, now if you lose a region it can seriously impact your nation. We cannot have the region system if we still want multiple port battles every night.
Flag system never failed. It was not perfect and required work. Walking away from it gave opportunity to learn on mistakes while implementing new system. Unfortunately the new system brought more issues. There were lots of positive things about flag system. Guys got together, what are we gonna do? Hell lets pull the flag, lets check what we can attack. Boom, our iron fleet is formed, boom we are all sailing to PB, boom flag is pulled, boom enemy nation chat is buzzing fleet forming, boom screening outside, boom 25vs25 PB. Win or loss it was good fun that was pulled instantly and improvised. Yes there was screening then, but because there were so many pots to have PB almost any time that wasn't an issue. When there is 1 PB for a region and it takes you lots of PVE grind and 2 days waiting to show up you dont want to lose or be screened to death of boredom and not make to the port. Its just upsetting.
 

Point 6. While small nations only take 40% of the setver population they form 75% of PVPers. You kill them - you kill PVP aspect of the game. You kill contest and competition. Of there is no PVP aspect in the game it is doomed to die. I dont know where you get your figures from here, but using them, what you are saying is that 75% of the PvP'ers on a server want the nations with only 25% of the PvP'ers restricted in some way. To me that looks like it needs balancing the other way.
I got these figures because I know how many people are online and approximate player base per nation. What you are missing that it was all the way around before when PVP was active. PVEers were playing PVP game and surviving somehow. Now when devs clearly favoring the casual guy lots of PVPers have left leaving these ratios technically killing PVP activity. Now when the server is PVE dominant most votes goes towards carebear gameplay and devs are getting the wrong picture. Should the game continue this path soon the rest of PVPers will leave. And trust no such game have survived on PVErs. There are lots of titles that provide overweeningly better PVE experience than NA. So my point is listen to the PVP player more and make NA pvp active again. This will boost the server numbers again. Continue PVE path and it will die before release.
 

Point 7. For most PVP players OW means oportunistic PVP. Its the place that require risk and either play safe and ask for help or take bold moves. Its ok to get ganged on OW or be outnumbered. Its ok to have unfair fights. This is where your name is forged due to your own actions. People get to know who you are because you have a choice to act the way you like. I have no issue with this.
 

Point 8. PB are part of conquest and therefore must promote fair fight team vs other team where best team is winning not the largest. The conquest type game game must have equal balance. BF3 would have bases in fair positions to both teams, WOT global map is a fair fight between two teams and battles are scheduled and preorganised etc etc. Because of NA nature the teams (nations) are unbalanced and NEVER will be. This means that game must have means to balance teams in PB mechanics. Port battles are already balanced numbers wise, but because of these restrictions there are a lot of people who cannot take part, the screening is where these people can make a difference and feel part of the successful attack or defence of a port. How come screening was not the same big issue with the flag system? Maybe because of less notice about the attack, and if that is the case then maybe they can look at some way of introducing a surprise element into the attack again and that way screening would be more acceptable to you.
Not really balanced if people can't make it in and put out same number as defenders who had all the time in the world to prepare. Also those who made it in are not necessary those who are the best for the PB battle. You often have people who came to help against screeners but end up in PB because others couldn't make it.
Surprise element was greater in flag system when port battle window was active players kind of expected flag to be pulled.
I totally understand your point that with screening PVP you are trying to make it interesting for the guy who can't make it to PBs. But you are forgetting that the sole reason why this issue happen in the first place and why you need this screening to give newbs some action and participation is because Port Battles have become so few and far between. Sort this and you wont need screening to keep the new guys involved. Before we had so many and new people were fighting in shallows, it was easy to pull no grinding need etc etc. Lots of PBs were not that important so no matter the outcome and newbs were more than welcome to join and try. Now its an event on its own so rare it is. Sounds great for a story, but not so great for a dynamic PVP game setting.

I hear you. I really do. You want to give more PVP opportunity to people who otherwise cant get to PBs. I get that.
My issue with this is that it affects PB balance depending on who from the attacking side could make it in. Sorting one issue creates another.

I have proposed many times a simple conquest mechanic and PB system that would work and quite elegantly tackle all the aspects that we are trying to cover without creating new issues. This system has been well received by many pvp oriented players.

1. Each region has 5 ports. 3 Shallows, 1 deep and 1 lineships.
2. You have to fight each port in the region in order to take the region. First shallows needs to be taken, then you can attack deep port and if you take that you can attack the capital. Take the capital and the region is yours.
3. One clan can declare war on one region only. No flags, no hostility. You simply declare war on the region and it become contested. During war attacker can open PB and set any time for the battle (on shallow ports first) but minimum 1 hour timer is given.
4. When/If shallows are taken, then attackers can set PB time for the deep port, but again minimum 1 hour time is given. Taking deep port opens ability to set time for Capital PB, this time 24 hour timer is given.
5. Failing attack on any of the ports will delay second attack for 12 hours, e.g. Team attacked 3 shallow ports, took 2 and lost 1. The port that has been lost can be attacked again in 12 hours or later. Same is for the deep port.
6. War declaration on region last for 3 days (72 hours).
7. If capital port has been defended or the region has not been taken in 72 hours from the moment of war declaration then the region is defended and receives immunity for the next 7 days.

PORT BATTLE DEPLOYMENT SCREEN:
Not to be confused with a lobby type matches. To join PB player have to sail to the region. Soon as he reaches the region he is able to join the Deployment screen where teams are being sorted..
In this screen there are 5 windows. 3 for shallow battles, 1 for deep and 1 for capital. Clan that is responsible for declaring war on the region is in charge of setting up the teams. Officers from this clan can shift players into slots from general room. Or clan can run this battle on "first in first served" principal. Each team fights its own port battle. Then they meet back in general room to sort next teams. Ports that have been taken players are able to enter and setup outposts. These ports are now being plundered (reward mechanic).
Because battles are fought in different type ports, players can bring different fighting ships in fleet with them for each port type battle.

SHALLOW PBs:
Maximum 7 ships allowed, 5th rate being the highest. All three shallow ports can be fought at the same time by the attacking team (21 players fighting in 3 different shallow port battles). If one shallow has not been taken then the next attack is delayed for 12 hours. All shallows needs to be taken before attackers can open PB for the deep port.
Attackers have to take all 3 Shallow ports in order to be able to attack Deep port. Loosing battle means 12 hour minimum delay before reopening another PB and having another try.
Single stage Shallow port battle is set close to the shore line with a basic fort. Old school victory objective - 2/2 BR advantage + destroyed/capped fort.

DEEP PB:
Maximum 15 ships allowed:
Participation slots are - one 2nd rate or two 3rd rates, 7-8 ships of 4th rate and 7 ships of 5th rate.
First stage is Screening. The battle is in the open waters away from the shore of even numbers. Attacker's ships that got sunk close their relative participation slots for the next stage, e.g. when maximum x8 4th rates allowed for deep port battle have x3 4th rates sunk during the screening stage, then only x5 4th rates can join the Second stage of Fort Battle. If ships where captured by the attackers that opens additional slots for the next stage. Defenders are able to fill in their team slots fully no matter their previous stage losses. Victory condition is 2/2 BR advantage.
Second stage is Fort Battle. Set close to the shore line entry to the Port with an intermediate Fort strength. Victory condition is 2/2 BR advantage and the fort destroyed. Only those ships can participate on the Attackers side that made it through the First stage. Participation slots could be lost (attackers ships sunk or capped) or gained if attackers capped defender's ships. But number participating in the battle not exceeding maximum allowed by the port battle type.

CAPITAL PB:
Maximum 25 ships allowed. 2 stages - First stage is Screening and the Second stage is Fort Battle.
Participation slots are: x5 ships of 1st rate, x8 of 2nd rate and x12 of 3rd rate.
Screening and Fort Battle stages are otherwise same as for the Deep PB. Attackers objective is to save as many participation slots for the Fort Battle and defenders team is to reduce attackers participation slots. Victory conditions are the same also.

If any of the battles for Capital Port has been lost by the attackers then the region is considered to be defended and plundering stopped in all ports of the region.


PLUNDER REWARDS:
While ports remain under control of the attacker's team the plundering is under way during which the attackers receive 5% of port's wealth each hour. The wealth of the port is a combined figure of what port is producing, player's buy contracts investments, players sell contracts investments, players production stock (players normal assets like upgrades and resources that are not being produced in the actual port are not being plundered.
It takes 20 hours in total to completely plunder the port.


This sorts the following issues:
1. The regions are not taken fast which was an issue with flag system and why hostility introduced.
2. Number of regions in war depending on number of active clans.
3. Screening is implemented as part of the battle stage and affects the next stage however gives attackers a chance to have a fair fight.
4. Taking a regions is still somewhat difficult and rely on attackers skills and teamwork as they basically need to have 2 victories per PB. More so if the first victory was not very clean it makes it a lot more difficult for the next fight.
5. Plundering is implemented and allows smaller clans to have fights in the regions and take plundering rewards even if they are unable to bring force for deep or capital PB.
6. Because war is declared by a clan and can be done any time it makes it easier to participate for the new guy. Also number of PB fights will naturally increase giving people more opportunity to participate;

This system is somewhat hybrid of gathered knowledge of NA PVP experience and other similar set games and has actually been over calculated and balanced on paper taking into account:
- Newcomers participation;
- Battle tactics and ship variations;
- PVP dynamics and improvisation;
- Rewarding activity;
- In-game tools and what is possible and realistic to implement with a relative easiness;
- Players interest;
- PVE and PVP type players brought together;
- Interesting, but most importantly fun conquest mechanic

Edited by koltes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 2016-12-19 at 8:03 PM, admin said:

Admiralty pvp events work with no bugs and allow us to implement another feature that we wanted to add long ago. Such defined pvp zones with no AI provide interesting options to reward OW battles before and during port battles (screening rewards).

For example. 1.5 hours before port battle starts and 1.5 hrs during port battles all kills in the PB harbor and vicinity count to leaderboards and provide rewards to those who intercept fleets and sink stragglers. In case port battle does not happen due to large fleets intercepted players will be rewarded for such successful interceptions. 

Of course number of players on the leaderboards should be increased in this case.

I am not sure if points from OW action (for kills) should be added (influence) port battles themselves. But it could also be an interesting mechanic which might eliminate all friction that arise because of instanced PB. (some players suggested many times that PB could be a series of battles in the harbor - not one decisive battle).

 

Discuss

 

I belive this is a great ideea, it allowes every1 to take part. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2016 at 0:41 PM, Yar Matey said:

It has everything to do with hostility.  Hostility is at the primary core of the game right now.  In order to even get a port battle you need to generate hostility, which players have made it very clear, either by being vocal on the subject in the forums or simply strait up quitting the game they do not want to PvE to gain hostility.  No hostility equals no port battles, and no port battles equals no rewards for screening and other actions at the port battles. 

The developers need to find a way to get the game focused on primarily PvP to generate hostility. 

 

On 12/19/2016 at 0:03 PM, admin said:

Admiralty pvp events work with no bugs and allow us to implement another feature that we wanted to add long ago. Such defined pvp zones with no AI provide interesting options to reward OW battles before and during port battles (screening rewards).

 

 

You seem to have ignored what the devs said in the 2nd sentence at the start of his post......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Balsafer said:

 

You seem to have ignored what the devs said in the 2nd sentence at the start of his post......

This was posted 8 weeks ago, and nothing the admin posted in the OP has to do with how we get port battles, but simply rewarding people for screening at port battles or having more ongoing port battle type battles around the vicinity.  Thus, the problem still remains, we need to grind PvE to get port battles.  The current system was setup back in October, and it was evident after the first week that the system was flawed and most didn't like the new mechanics, yet here we are, now in February, and we still have to grind PvE to get port battles.  I really hope that the devs have a working solution close to being finished up their sleeves. 

Also, a member in our community created a poll on this issue, and many (probably most) agreed that a hybrid flag/hostility system was the way in which the developers should try and steer the game.  Yet the devs keep focusing on other things, and it can be frustrating to see that when we the community feel like the PvE grind for port battles is a much bigger issue at hand, yet they continue to focus on other things, like new damage models, and this OP. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I was thinking about the possible new mechanic where AI fleets might attack players. Would it be an idea to have as a nation the option to build your own AI fleets with donated ships. Those fleets could then be assigned to either defend a region or raise hostility in a region. It would introduce a way to siphon money out of the game and introduce "nation assets". It might even allow for renting transport fleets in the future. Granted its still PVE, but maybe an attack on a fleet like that could trigger a PVP event? Just an idea.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Ekpy said:

Hey, I was thinking about the possible new mechanic where AI fleets might attack players. Would it be an idea to have as a nation the option to build your own AI fleets with donated ships. Those fleets could then be assigned to either defend a region or raise hostility in a region. It would introduce a way to siphon money out of the game and introduce "nation assets". It might even allow for renting transport fleets in the future. Granted its still PVE, but maybe an attack on a fleet like that could trigger a PVP event? Just an idea.

Not a bad idea at all

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I am personally against all the leader boards and random rewards. Look at what happened with PvP events: players come for paints and ships not for a good fight. It's either ganging or running away, or simply very early surrendering. After scoring some point the players will remain in port to deny opportunity for others to knock them off the leader board. So, this is a bit twisted system that does not contribute to chances for good PvP.

With admiralty shop implemented, I would like to see all (or most) PvP rewards (including PBs and raids) to be given in form of points, which players can then spent on what they really want or need, being that a paint, trim, or other item.

Edited by Stilgar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stilgar said:

I am personally against all the leader boards and random rewards. Look at what happened with PvP events: players come for paints and ships not for a good fight. It's either ganging or running away, or simply very early surrendering. After scoring some point the players will remain in port to deny opportunity for others to knock them off the leader board. So, this is a bit twisted system that does not contribute to chances for good PvP.

With admiralty shop implemented, I would like to see all (or most) PvP rewards (including PBs and raids) to be given in form of points, which players can then spent on what they really want or need, being that a paint, trim, or other item.

Remember we are going to test 1 durability ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19.12.2016 at 7:03 PM, admin said:

I am not sure if points from OW action (for kills) should be added (influence) port battles themselves.

No, imo.

If this is implemented with new ROE so screeners needs to have BR equal to the attacking pb fleet, it should be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 19.12.2016 at 7:03 PM, admin said:

Admiralty pvp events work with no bugs and allow us to implement another feature that we wanted to add long ago. Such defined pvp zones with no AI provide interesting options to reward OW battles before and during port battles (screening rewards).

For example. 1.5 hours before port battle starts and 1.5 hrs during port battles all kills in the PB harbor and vicinity count to leaderboards and provide rewards to those who intercept fleets and sink stragglers. In case port battle does not happen due to large fleets intercepted players will be rewarded for such successful interceptions. 

Of course number of players on the leaderboards should be increased in this case.

I am not sure if points from OW action (for kills) should be added (influence) port battles themselves. But it could also be an interesting mechanic which might eliminate all friction that arise because of instanced PB. (some players suggested many times that PB could be a series of battles in the harbor - not one decisive battle).

 

Discuss

 

What is the status of this?

I like the idea to reward the players if they participate in screening activities.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...