Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Preliminary discussion of the changes to conquest - clan wars are coming

Recommended Posts

C R E W    5
  • Rebel Witch
  • Members
  •  439
  • 285 posts

the discussion has gone on for a couple years now. The balance of pve and pvp. The options for pvp and pve for players.

If its possible here is my proposed solution

Keeping the current Caribbean map and its ports. No more regions, all ports solo , each one needing to be captured. The map becomes lawless, all out pvp between players. Ports no longer belong to the NPC countries, they are taken over by players, controlled by players, governed by players, joined into player empires BY PLAYERS. Wars fought over them by players. Taxes and shipping tarifs decided by players governing the ports. I think you get the idea, that the current map would be one big player sandbox. Player clans with their own colors taking the ports, NPC nations are gone from this map.

The second map would be a brand new map of europe. The ports of this new map would be owned and always controlled by NPC nations. That means players do not change their ownership there are no wars over those ports they are always NPC ports, stable and without player wars. yes there could be piracy but that would be limited because NPC nations would have defensive ships that protect traders and attack pirates. This european map would be the new high security NOT PVE, just high security map. Its not a PVE map because there is still a small chance for pvp but its greatly limited. this map will not only be a historic breath of fresh air, something new to sail around, trade, gain marginal profits etc. It will be the map where carebears and PVE players can enjoy relative safety to just play the game , trade, craft and not worry so much about losing ports or their stuff. This would also be the map where players who lose at pvp can fall back and rebuild, regroup and replan a pvp strategy then sail their new fleets to try and start a new empire in the Caribbean.

These two maps would be joined via Trade Wind spots . Lets say there are four trade wind spots on the edge of each map marking the entry to the atlantic ocean. Players go to these spots then are teleported to the new map.

These trade wind spots will likely have player pirates lurking looking for easy prey, they may also be a place for players to camp and invite all kinds of pvp battles, like a pvp gathering hole. Players just wishing to cross the Atlantic may need to scout ahead, they may need to form large escort fleets to reach the Caribbean. To balance things i would say the trade wind spots on the europe side would be patrolled by NPC ships that way that side is at least "safer" to allow players to at least scout and have a fighting chance to get back to europe safely. The Caribbean side would be anything goes pvp. Also to allow those players who have lost everything in the Caribbean a way to get back to europe you could allow for trade ship passage so you can just teleport from Caribbean with just you, no ships, to a europe port so you can just start over. Yes on the europe map you could serve under npc nations and MOST IMPORTANTLY there are no wars between NPC that way there is no forced pvp between players on the european map.

 

For a ship based sandbox MMO to survive it needs to give players options for play style. The current one map, everyone forced into npc nations total war is failing because the winners cascade steam roll, the losers have almost no options to regroup and carebear players are stuck in the middle and everyone is frustrated in the long run. The devs are pulling their hair out trying to balance it all and they will never balance it out in the current format.

Try my ideas above it may help this game long term?

Edited 56 minutes ago by Rebel Witch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slamz    1,704
On 8/10/2017 at 3:10 PM, Ser_Slack said:

This is also Slamz que to berate these people for not having enough gumption or something.

Do you think lowering ship cost by even 75% would cause more people to PvP?

I don't. It was 80% cheaper in 2016 and servers still died off.

I think the problem is still mainly:
* Tag mechanics encourage "gaming the game". What we need is "WYSIWYG" tagging: if I can't see you when the tag starts because you are invis or in a port then you can't get in. Problem is people get tagged in a WYSIWYG 5v1 and complain that their friends can't come help them. Devs listen to this and change mechanics and all it does is give gankers even easier ways to abuse the system.

* RvR mechanics and the routes to XP do not encourage PvP. People grind and mission outside their capitals (in what should be the "newbie zone") even at max rank, rather than going out and fighting.


It's just not a problem of ship affordability and you can't fix it that way.

It's mechanics, mainly tag abuse that turns people off of the game and XP routes that let people completely avoid RvR/PvP and face almost no risk. (This is why EVE makes you go out into lowsec or nullsec if you want real XP for higher tier ships. Safe zone really only supports basic, newbie tier gameplay.)

Edited by Slamz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Texas Sir    3,667
3 hours ago, Slamz said:

Do you think lowering ship cost by even 75% would cause more people to PvP?

I don't. It was 80% cheaper in 2016 and servers still died off.

I think the problem is still mainly:
* Tag mechanics encourage "gaming the game". What we need is "WYSIWYG" tagging: if I can't see you when the tag starts because you are invis or in a port then you can't get in. Problem is people get tagged in a WYSIWYG 5v1 and complain that their friends can't come help them. Devs listen to this and change mechanics and all it does is give gankers even easier ways to abuse the system.

* RvR mechanics and the routes to XP do not encourage PvP. People grind and mission outside their capitals (in what should be the "newbie zone") even at max rank, rather than going out and fighting.


It's just not a problem of ship affordability and you can't fix it that way.

It's mechanics, mainly tag abuse that turns people off of the game and XP routes that let people completely avoid RvR/PvP and face almost no risk. (This is why EVE makes you go out into lowsec or nullsec if you want real XP for higher tier ships. Safe zone really only supports basic, newbie tier gameplay.)

And you forget the main reason folks don't PvP.....just they refuse to fight unless they have winning odds.   Some folks won't risk pixels unless they have winning odds.  It's the reason when we had all them empty port battles with Spain you say some 50-70 guys show up to fight to get into the port battle and get a slot and the conquest marks, but when you actually had to fight that number dropped big time and when they actually started to loose a lot of ships it dropped even more.

They helped this problem a bit when the conquest mark was only rewarded for those that showed up to the fight, but the problem is they didn't have the active player base enough to keep those fights up.  People lost interest cause you didn't get rewarded by proper screening or bad BR mechanics keep you out of the fight.  I would love to see that system now that the BR mechanics is fixed, but human nation is never going to change when you have folks not willing to fight or risk anything.  Some of the other issues as stated many times is the Risk for Reward.  It's currently not High Risk get High Reward.  I can get more rewards by being lazy and grinding AI fleets and that is a problem with the system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok: my view on conquest as I explain on the french subforum.

 

1-capital protection is applied to the whole capital region waters instead of the ring around the nation capital port. 

 Battles in capital region waters stays open indefinitely on the nation's side

=> help prevent mission jumping and increase chances for players to be assisted around their capital. (No ai reenforcement)

 

2- clan leader have the option to build an headquarter to get acces to rvr

headquarter is used to buy two type of conquest flags: landing operation and naval battle (explained on chapter3) and buy defensive flags.

An rvr clan can also define a diplomat and offer 2 alliances max to other clans: one of them must be of the same nation, the other can be from any nation. This only affect to port battles entrance.

 

3- flags

Flags cost war supplies and must target a specific port. A clan can activate only one flag at a time.

when a flag is set, the defending side is noticed via pop up + mail so it can prepare the defense.

defending side can buy a defensive flag for the port for free. Then, up to two allied rvr clans can buy one too to assist the former defender  ( attacker can be assisted in a same way)

 

4- rvr battles

Flag is an item

The flag carrier is listed as admiral, this allow him to create a port battle group and invite up to 25 clanmates. 

 

• landing operation flag must be brought to the targeted port

Once placed, both sides have 24h to bring any quantity of war supplies. If defender don t bring any, it s the stock already present on port that is taken in account. War supplies define the number of troops and guns for each side of the siege

After this delay, each admiral have the option everyday to set a command for his land troops ala Rock Paper Scissors ( entrenching/ mines/ artillery fire/ assault) Resolution of each day of fight is solved during maintenance.

Troops must be supplied with provisions to continue the fight. They consume provisions each days depending on their numbers.

if a party loose by the lack of supplies or have no more troop able to fight due to combat losses, the port battle is lost.

=> economic war if a clan lack a powerful pb fleet

=> ship movements around targeted ports and increased potential ow pvp against cargo fleets bringing supplies then provisions.

=> open the possibility for merge with global server as those battles allow for contests between clans not playing on the same time zone.

 

• The naval battle flag open for a port battle like we have now after a 22h delay during the time window if set by the defender.

This flag allow the bearer to group up to 25 clans mates in a limit of 25 slots.

Depending on the pb category (shallow, 4th or lineship) each ship model count for one slot or more (for exemple in a lineship port battle, agga count for 1 slot, bello 1.5, pavel2, bucc 2.5, victory 3 and santi 3.5. While in 4th, agga could count for 3, indef 2.5, trinco 2, surprise 1.5, cerb 1) pure exemples values.

The admiral ship (flag bearer) enter the pb with all his group, after that, one or two allied admirals can enter with their groups in the limit of 25 players per sides.

When a naval battle flag offensive or offensive is paid for, only the two rvr clans allied to the bearer can still buy one for this port (if the targeted port is not controlled by their nation) by doing so they don t set a new pb but are allowed to create pbgroups able to join the pb next to their Allie.

=> Naval port battles allow for more ship setup and variety, favoring tactics and less an economic domination tool as we know now, where the one able to produce and gather 25 first rates Rule the pb.

=> mitigate the formation of super clans in nations where one clan regroup the whole rvr players, and favorise working with allied clans

=> assistance in pb from a clan from another nation allow small nation with a smaller player base to remain competitive even in lineship pb. Same for the slots limitations.

 

6- Port ownership

When a rvr clan take control of a port, it must build a kind of local warehouse

local warehouse is used to set taxes

The local warehouse consume warsupplies (when the port is not besieged). if there is no war supplies left in the Local warehouse, the clan loose control over the port and it switch to neutral.

 

My original post suggest a few other tweaks, but I think the core idea remain those two port contests format. Others may be a little off topic here.

 

 

Edited by Baptiste Gallouédec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Slamz said:

Do you think lowering ship cost by even 75% would cause more people to PvP?

I don't. It was 80% cheaper in 2016 and servers still died off.

I think the problem is still mainly:
* Tag mechanics encourage "gaming the game". What we need is "WYSIWYG" tagging: if I can't see you when the tag starts because you are invis or in a port then you can't get in. Problem is people get tagged in a WYSIWYG 5v1 and complain that their friends can't come help them. Devs listen to this and change mechanics and all it does is give gankers even easier ways to abuse the system.

* RvR mechanics and the routes to XP do not encourage PvP. People grind and mission outside their capitals (in what should be the "newbie zone") even at max rank, rather than going out and fighting.


It's just not a problem of ship affordability and you can't fix it that way.

It's mechanics, mainly tag abuse that turns people off of the game and XP routes that let people completely avoid RvR/PvP and face almost no risk. (This is why EVE makes you go out into lowsec or nullsec if you want real XP for higher tier ships. Safe zone really only supports basic, newbie tier gameplay.)

 

First, there will always be cowards no matter how cheap PvP becomes. That's not really the issue, though.

I noticed the largest drop off in OW PvP when the Fine Wood/Regional Bonus debacle happened. That's when I finally put the game down and took and extended break. People who would normally have fought, were tucking tail and running because the thought of replacing that now expensive 3/5 Meta Ship™ was too much. Meanwhile I was sailing in something cheap to replace, but got few fights anyway. 

A higher cost (be it real or perceived) has an absolute impact on people's willingness to engage in risky play, and PvP is risky play. Even worse when as the game sits right now, the return of investment on PvP can be abysmal.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rhodry Heidenrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slamz    1,704
15 hours ago, Rhodry Heidenrich said:

A higher cost (be it real or perceived) has an absolute impact on people's willingness to engage in risky play

I still disagree -- remember when we could join PvP battles from the port, and they were just little arena fights, and in early 2016 you didn't even lose your ship when you died in there?

People still ran in those battles. In a way it was worse because who wants to spend 30 minutes chasing some guy down for a ship that won't cost him anything when he finally loses? He was basically trolling you.

So I think ship cost is a red herring -- we would have all the same problems even if ships were free. We might actually cause new problems!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celtiberofrog    568

If this upcoming update is going to enable PB's in every single ports (not only regional capitals),

then it would be great to assignate different maxi BR's for each ports,

this feature would then allow vareity of fleets fighting into ports.

Today we got

Shallow ports ==> 25 Heavy rattles

4th rate ports ==> 25 Agamemnons

line ship ports ==> 25 1rst rates

it's fine but somehow limited compared to the existing ship's vareity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slamz    1,704
58 minutes ago, Celtiberofrog said:

then it would be great to assignate different maxi BR's for each ports,

I think it's a good idea but we need a much more robust PB entry mechanic.

Like we can join from any friendly port, but there's a system where we can queue up in a ship and if we see BR is too high, we can switch to a different ship.

(Clan battles won't solve this, I think, because realistically most war companies are going to necessarily be PUGs, not strictly coordinated entities.)

Edited by Slamz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeRuyter    725
On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 6:12 PM, Prater said:

The world is not too large.  We played just fine with 50 people, same world, slower speeds.  We didn't have a map then and we had less knowledge of the world.  Granted, the English were at St John's and English Harbor, the Dutch at Oranjestad, and I think the Spanish at Santo Domingo (or was it Havana?).  The Pirates were still at Mort.  We didn't even have port battles.  The only content we had was pve and pvp.  Since the world wasn't mapped and the secret island was still a secret, we had exploration and mapping as well.  But even though all the capitals were relatively close, clan locations frequently changed, and that changed were the wars took place.  A lot of fighting took place around Jamaica (British Capital was at Antigua remember) and Road Town.  Some fighting took place in the Yucatan and Venezuela when SLRN would move locations.

Taking nations out

If we take nations out, what is to insure that the nations are balanced?  Nothing.  We might end up with the same unbalanced state.  We originally started with British, French, Swedish, Spanish, Dutch, Pirates, can't remember about Denmark, US was added later.  But, maybe taking nations out is the way to go, but see below.  

I can agree to a system that essentially forces the playerbase into 3 or 4 nations but keep all of the current nations (and maybe allow others to be added) by making two types of nations:  npc and port battle nations (kind of like Eve has npc corps and player corps).  

The system I dream of is like this:

  • There are npc nations whose ports are unconquerable and which don't take part in Port Battles.  Players can join these nations and take part in pvp but not port battles.  
  • This will force players to join port battle nations if they want port battles and funnel the playerbase into a few nations.  Npc nations will still require resources from port battle areas.  They will need to keep their relations good with port battle nations so they can enter their ports and build outposts there (and do econ, for a tax of course) or buy from their market (higher taxed though, this is where smuggling comes in, getting around paying the tax).
  • 3 or 4 nations will vie for control of the map.  
  • PB nations would be Britain, France, Spain, and pirates (not a nation though).  
  • Non pb nations would be Sweden, Denmark, US, and Dutch.  
  • Pirates can't build above 5th rates, so their ports will mainly be shallow ports.  
  • Pirates don't conquer ports in the same way as normal nations, but force the port into a lawless state to take it over (pvp, smuggling, raiding).  
  • Raiding is an attack on the port's fort.  The port won't change to a lawless state until the fort is defeated.
  •  Nationals can attack pirate ports like normal and a normal pb will take place to take it back.  But pirates can't build 1-4th rates, so should have a hard time holding deep water ports.
  • Trading 1-4th rates to a pirate is a crime that makes that player a pirate.  
  • Each player has a reputation with each nation that allows the player to join that nation if their relation gets high enough. 
  • You can enter all ports unless you have negative relations with the port nation or your nation is at war with the nation of that port.  
  • In another nation's port you can do missions for its admiralty to raise your relations with that nation.  
  • Attacking players of another nation causes a severe decrease in relation to that nation, enough of a decrease to mean you can't enter that nation's ports anymore.
  • Attacking ai of a nation causes a minor relation penalty
  • Attacking anyone with a smuggler flag does not decrease relation with the smuggler's nation.  They are essentially temporarily an outlaw/pirate.
  • pirates have negative relations with every nation
  • pirates don't start off pirate.
  • smuggler flag still allows you to enter any port as long as you are in a trader.

So, the non pb nations are still in the game and you can sail under that flag, just not take part in port battles.  I think most people will join the pb nations.

Just wanted to bump this outline. Lots of good ideas IMO.

@admin The national reputation system may work well with the new clan wars type RvR system you have proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearwall    841

@admin Will there be a point in keeping nations? - will the war companies not remove the necessity for national factions? And if we remove the point in nations - why then not remake the map entirely? The current one is hardly suited for gameplay and if we disregard any pretense of historical accuracy then let's have a map that is buildt for gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,025
20 minutes ago, admin said:

Locked

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×