Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Slamz

Port flipping: too casual / easy / fast?

Recommended Posts

Slamz    1,521

tl;dr: Is it too easy to flip ports?

This might be a problem that really only impacts PvP-Global, but I think it highlights the problem well: port flipping is a pretty casual affair right now. In our French-Dane "war" we are literally flipping ports back and forth every day. Danes play only during Oceanic time, France plays only during US prime time, so the port battles are always empty and we just ping pong them back and forth now. (Yes, this is a player created problem and we SHOULD just declare peace and both teams go do something more fun but we can't convince the Danes of this so we really have no choice. They were trying to one-port us with night flips and now we're just reflipping them as fast or faster.)

I just wonder if there's some way we can make port flipping into a bigger deal than it is today, though. Because the flip-flop and empty port battle situation is kind of ridiculous.

Like maybe it should be a slow process somehow.

Totally half-baked idea:

What if contention points build up into a pool that only gets applied at a rate of 10 points per minute?

So you need 10,000 points to flip a port. You kill enough fleets to do that in 1 hour. The 10,000 points goes into a pool immediately and then the pool turns into real contention at the rate of 10 points per minute. This means it takes just under 17 hours for your team's points to get turned into a flip (regardless of how fast you built up those points).

Counter contention works the same way. We kill enough fleets to generate 10,000 counter-contention points. It drains at a rate of 10 per minute.

This means port battles are really a tug-of-war. We need to keep putting points into the pool and ideally stop you from putting in points. Getting one flip that the enemy doesn't want is going to take some real back and forth 24/7 effort.

This would allow two teams in different time zones to really "fight". It's your point generation vs ours, rather than you flipping it in one hour today and us flipping it back in one hour a couple days later, repeat forever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vllad    408

I agree. The port flipping process needs to be something that takes 24 hours to do at a minimum. The largest impact needs to be the actual death of PC's. We need to encourage players to be in the same area at the same time. It shouldn't all be just fighting either. The mechanic needs to be something that traders, smugglers and other player types contribute at as well.

i.e., If I am a small nation, going to head to head in combat may not be the wisest idea if it leads to worse results so maybe to counter the contention I can defend not with just war bundles but running supplies or certain trade goods that are only bought by ports with contention on them. This in turn helps build up points if I can't fight them and promotes a way for other nations to "secretly" support on the defense of a port. They are running trade goods (only bought by ports under contention attack) making cash and helping defend. This again puts more people at sea and creates more PVP.

Defending a port doesn't just have to be I bring my ships, you bring yours and we duke it out. While that can be part of it, it has to be much more. If I am running blockades in Trader Lynx's to run goods into a port to counter the grinding that should be part of it as well.

It will make better use of all of these ship designs they have created and make players use multiple types of ships to grind contention rather than the fastest and biggest possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    711

It doesn't fix the underlying problem: two teams facing one-another in opposite time slots.

You need allies in the same time slot you are in to actually proceed. (And those don't magically appear.)

Here is where we need clan (from other Nation) alliances (for both hostility and PB). I fail to see any other option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slamz    1,521
33 minutes ago, Skully said:

Here is where we need clan (from other Nation) alliances (for both hostility and PB).

That won't help here.

We could easily have a Dane-France alliance tomorrow. We have proposed this several times. They just say "no". I think they literally do not want to fight anyone in their time zone and prefer night flipping empty ports.

If the alliance system was in it would be the same thing. We propose, they say no, two-way night flips continue.

There has to be an actual game mechanic that extends port battle flip mechanics into something that both sides can wrestle with even while the other side is offline.

In some cases this should result in a long stalemate and I think that might be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slamz    1,521

New half-baked semi-related idea:

Bring back PvP marks. You get them based on the value of what you sunk. PvP marks are per-nation too, based on the nationality of the target. Non-tradeable.

So I sink a Danish ship worth 100,000 gold and its lost cargo was worth 250,000 gold. This generates 35 Danish PvP Marks. (If I capture the ship and cargo then I don't get the marks. It must be destroyed to generate marks.)

PvP marks then work like war supplies. I can turn them in to generate contention. In this way, PvP contributes directly to port flips on a value basis. Doesn't matter where I sunk him, just that I sunk him and he was actually worth something.

Edited by Slamz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    711
28 minutes ago, Slamz said:

That won't help here.

We could easily have a Dane-France alliance tomorrow. We have proposed this several times. They just say "no". I think they literally do not want to fight anyone in their time zone and prefer night flipping empty ports.

If the alliance system was in it would be the same thing. We propose, they say no, two-way night flips continue.

There has to be an actual game mechanic that extends port battle flip mechanics into something that both sides can wrestle with even while the other side is offline.

In some cases this should result in a long stalemate and I think that might be okay.

That's only one option for such an alliance. You are forgetting the opposite option, find another ally to beat the Danes. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vllad    408
1 hour ago, Skully said:

That's only one option for such an alliance. You are forgetting the opposite option, find another ally to beat the Danes. :ph34r:

That really doesn't address anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slamz    1,521
1 hour ago, Skully said:

That's only one option for such an alliance. You are forgetting the opposite option, find another ally to beat the Danes. :ph34r:

This is ideal but yeah, until the magical day arrives where someone actually wants to fight, I am stuck in the present condition.

In our specific case, the British Aussies should be fighting the Danish Chinese. Same time zone. Similar strength and numbers. They even share a border. AND they border with the Danes right at the spot where the Danes control the local White Oak supply. AND the Danes are allies with the Pirates who the Brits are fighting. So the Aussie Brits took up a non-aggression pact with the Danes. The one group they can fight. Right next door. With a white oak port.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's f'n bizarre.

The game has taken two groups and lined them up perfectly to fight each other.

They don't wanna.

.... I'm not totally sure how you fix that.

It's like logging into Planetside and finding the Terran Republic is holding hands with the Vanu Sovereignty and roasting marshmellows together while signing a non-aggression pact with the New Conglomerate.

What kind of hell hole pansy garden have I spawned into.

All I can do from my side is shoot the hell out of everyone I see but even then the game is not really giving me a means to fight a team that plays exclusively outside of my time zone. We are bogged down in a non-war and don't have the spare time to take the fight elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidekick    0

My thoughts on War/Peace on GLOBAL Server:

US vs PIRATES(Prime time)
PIRATES vs GB + US(Prime time)
DANES vs GB(Oceanic timezone)
GB vs PIRATES + FRENCH (Prime time) DANES(Oceanic timezone)
FRENCH vs DUTCH + GB(Prime time)
DUTCH vs FRENCH(Prime time)
SWEDES In need of more players to go to war.
SPANISH In need of more players to go to war.

I would agree that Time-zones are an on-going issue on GLOBAL Server.  At this point of time, i have listed my thoughts of what Nation should be at war. Not everyone is going to agree with my thoughts but maybe there is an solution for this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptVonGunn    259

As an other server observer I have a suggestion.... (This would make all pbs more interesting)...  Allow players yo man the forts. We were able to man them if we boarded them last year(last time I was in a pb) add a mortar to each tower and 2 to each Fort.

 

    If the defenders are short ships. Add in AI... If Attackers are short they get some also..BUT not until battle closes from outside. Think of it as later arriving reinforcements. These would be basicly. A mix of 3rd rates(all types as we get more) for line ship. The big 5ths and 4th rates for those and mix of navy brigs,mercs and snows in shallows.

   Real life commitments and limitations should not screw over entire nations in game....

 

Well just my 2 bits

Edited by CaptVonGunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fastidius    269
12 hours ago, Sidekick said:

My thoughts on War/Peace on GLOBAL Server:

US vs PIRATES(Prime time)
PIRATES vs GB + US(Prime time)
DANES vs GB(Oceanic timezone)
GB vs PIRATES + FRENCH (Prime time) DANES(Oceanic timezone)
FRENCH vs DUTCH + GB(Prime time)
DUTCH vs FRENCH(Prime time)
SWEDES In need of more players to go to war.
SPANISH In need of more players to go to war.

I would agree that Time-zones are an on-going issue on GLOBAL Server.  At this point of time, i have listed my thoughts of what Nation should be at war. Not everyone is going to agree with my thoughts but maybe there is an solution for this issue.

the map is the issue not the nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vllad    408
21 hours ago, Skully said:

It doesn't fix the underlying problem: two teams facing one-another in opposite time slots.

You need allies in the same time slot you are in to actually proceed. (And those don't magically appear.)

Here is where we need clan (from other Nation) alliances (for both hostility and PB). I fail to see any other option.

Having mechanics that take 24 to 48 hours to complete is the only solution to this underlying problem. It can't be "when" you put in the effort, it has to be "how much" effort you put in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rediii    2,693

 

3 minutes ago, Vllad said:

Having mechanics that take 24 to 48 hours to complete is the only solution to this underlying problem. It can't be "when" you put in the effort, it has to be "how much" effort you put in.

I'm against it.

Don't like grindwars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vllad    408
Just now, rediii said:

 

I'm against it.

Don't like grindwars.

As stated above it doesn't have to be grind wars. You can have blockades, blockade running, PVP and any assorted other things that impact the point system threshold that Slamz laid out. I would go back and re-read the entire thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rediii    2,693
2 minutes ago, Vllad said:

As stated above it doesn't have to be grind wars. You can have blockades, blockade running, PVP and any assorted other things that impact the point system threshold that Slamz laid out. I would go back and re-read the entire thread.

Ok I did thanks and sorry

But the thing is that you can only counter back and forth flipping on global with grind wars. (I would count blockade etc. as grind war too) So if you grind more over a span of a week maybe you get the portbattle, if they grind more you lose and dont get the portbattle. It's the nature of pvp'ing against other timezones.

In the end you don't even have to pvp. Just go there when noone is around and grind some counter hostility with blocking or whatever else would be possible.

The issue you are describing is pretty close to the reason why folks demanded the EU server. Imagine now that danes could defend in the french timezone now or the other way around and you have the exact same situation we faced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    711
2 minutes ago, rediii said:

Ok I did thanks and sorry

But the thing is that you can only counter back and forth flipping on global with grind wars. (I would count blockade etc. as grind war too) So if you grind more over a span of a week maybe you get the portbattle, if they grind more you lose and dont get the portbattle. It's the nature of pvp'ing against other timezones.

In the end you don't even have to pvp. Just go there when noone is around and grind some counter hostility with blocking or whatever else would be possible.

The issue you are describing is pretty close to the reason why folks demanded the EU server. Imagine now that danes could defend in the french timezone now or the other way around and you have the exact same situation we faced.

Hence there should be no counter-grinding. Only time should reduce the hostility a little. Everything else should just be grinding up towards a PB. With the team having the most hostility dictating the PB timeslot.

Should the timeslot not fall into the attackers preferred one, then the PB can still be fought by members or allies who are in that timeslot (given a ~24 hour to setup the PB fleets).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slamz    1,521

 

24 minutes ago, rediii said:

The issue you are describing is pretty close to the reason why folks demanded the EU server. Imagine now that danes could defend in the french timezone now or the other way around and you have the exact same situation we faced.

Which is why the EU server was never a real solution. The game doesn't have the population to support the 3 (at least 3) different servers it would need: EU time zone, US time zone, Oceanic time zone.

If we could find a real solution, we would only need 1 server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vllad    408
34 minutes ago, rediii said:

In the end you don't even have to pvp. Just go there when noone is around and grind some counter hostility with blocking or whatever else would be possible.

 

I get what you are saying about what a "grind" is now. I have nothing really to counter that except to say that everything we do in every game may qualify as a grind in that context. 

I do disagree that there would be no PVP. With contention building you know people are there. That puts people in the water and creates hot spots. Sure those spots may be cold in certain times of the day but at least with long port flips we can move from multiple servers to 1 single server. That puts even more people in the hot spots.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fastidius    269

this game can only work if you set the ports to 3 or 4 different timers and non of those timers are a prime time locked. ...ie the servers combine and the defenders can choose a time but its an 8 hour window for attack.....that way eventually you get 3 different bands of timers which people just move toward.  you get rid of home ports for clans and clans completely are based on supply lines. 

 

the flag system was fine except it was too tight a lock down. If they just made it that certain ports had to be attacked on the front lines with a 6 hour window instead of 2 it may have actually worked.  the multiple flags and the being able to set untouchable timers was the issue.   alliance system would work with that except the voting has to be done in a way where alliances became untenable.   If a nation like say the GB and us had the most population then they can't ally.  etc.

the fact you had full player autonomy ruins it.

the alliance system should look at online players for each week and restrict valid options appropriately.

 

the idea is to get 2 sides that regularly change and makes the moar move around differently...say make alliances 6 weeks and unable to be renewed that way everyone is for themselves.  everytime theres an alliance change players can pick a side....or clans....but you can't move to the stronger side only remain. if players dont like the clan decision fine but eventually you will either have less nations and more balance.

this game will never work unless you can maintain a balance and a constantly changing allegiance system. if its historical pick a time and make PBs all raids and it about clans scoring points for PVP and mutipliers for sacking ports. no port nation changes just negs for failing to defend OR make it a sandbox and make the rules fit nations dying and seasons existing with redeemable bonuses for your points accucumulated..

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    711
Quote

Naval Action is a hardcore, realistic, and beautifully detailed naval combat sandbox...

Trying to force players into a certain reaction by limiting their options has so far failed to produce the desired results. The Alliance system was a failure as folks who wanted to be ally with certain others were in fact not. This however did not lead to fighting, but rather passiveness. And folks who could only fight certain other folks (because of timeslots) were forced into alliance, again leading to passiveness.

Second I don't see how the system can decide what kind of alliance would be good or bad for balance.

I do know one thing for certain, if players hit a game-play barrier, then it is simply game over.

Therefor the only option is have players duke it out in a naval combat sandbox. So we should have more options, not less. No barriers, but different paths.
For good or worse, we can make our own choices.

"Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willnae be fooled again!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quineloe    963

Flipping Ports is literally POTBS in 2008. Sit in front of the port you want to flip,  wait forever for a tiny NPC fleet to appear, kill it for a bit of contention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uilleam    36

As it is now, only the few players with the best ships get in to port battles and the rest of us end up being locked out.  If it were up to me, you could have a port battle after a port battle after a port battle and I think it would be great.  However, I would have a port defense counter that goes up or down depending on whether the defender won (goes up) or the attacker won (goes down).  When the port defense value is 1,0, or -1, the port becomes neutral.  The nation that drives it to -2 (could be a different nation than the one that drove it to 1 or less) takes the port.  Lots of battles that way, and if there was even a 2 1/2 hour cool down, would be at least a 1 day affair to actually flip the port (port defense value would NOT be reset each day, but would remain at its last value before the daily maintenance).

Never going to happen, but thats what I would do.  Then need to have a way to drive the defense back up during days it wasn't attacked...so, ok, maybe the value goes up 1 each day it isn't attacked.  All times of day would be a good time to attack or defend a port that way, and it would be the cumulative effect that causes the port to change sides or not.

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

×