Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Skully    1,022

I have seen a lot of statements coming past in which we put PvP over PvE to show hostility. Even going so far as to remove PvE completely.

On 6/29/2017 at 5:19 PM, Peter Goldman said:

I've got a great idea how to get rid of PvE from hostility system and create potential PvP Hostility (finally working) system.

Yet we when facing PvP to show hostility, we do not engage aka act out our hostility.

On 2/9/2017 at 11:15 AM, Ink said:

Hostility system was partially proposed by players and was supposed to bring people together in jolly cooperation vs other nations. But it did not. If there are more enemies than you have you don’t engage and enemies pve. same happens against you. Thus hostility points failed. We will try tweaking it one more time but we are very pessimistic about hostility points now.

That in itself is not a real problem, we can just count command of the sea to show hostility.

On 8/2/2017 at 9:38 AM, Skully said:

PvP can be denied.

Actual PB can could be removed, the trick is how to count command of the sea. (Multi-day formula including PvP and potentially PvE kills.)

Everybody shouts, PvP. The truth of the matter is, you won't unless you have the advantage. (And this is a very basic Naval doctrine.)

So what wins at the end of the day, a 1st fleet sitting at a harbor unless engaged by another 1st fleet. Say we make it 2 hour score slots. That means sitting idle for 2 hours.
Tactically it would make for nice gameplay, but other than that no fun.

On 6/29/2017 at 9:02 PM, admin said:

I don't like it it does not force players to do at least some effort and inlcudes doing nothing. You can stop offering it in the future. 

On 7/20/2017 at 11:24 AM, Skully said:

I think raids would be too static for something that needs elasticity. Hence I'm in favor of the thing that admin abhors most, let the game do nothing during hostility buildup.

By having more BR in a region you build up hostility in a chosen time slot. The BR difference and time slot leader board should be visible on the map. RvR commanders can then choose where to commit forces. The only way then to turn around hostility gain is through engagements (or chase the enemy out).

Current County may or may not be too large. Defenders would likely want to be close to forts, while attackers further out. Breaking the Mexican stand-off would require meeting roughly in the middle (with composition of force being a good classifier for positioning).

Anybody wanting in on the action can come in at any time. Anybody done can leave at any time.

As for the engagements themselves the winner scores 3x the enemy BR value normalized on the time spend in battle. Time in battle itself does not count towards hostility.

I haven't done the math yet, but with a fleet commander having 1 Constitution, 2 Trincomalees and 1 Renommee meeting 1 enemy Surprise. What is the best option for the fleet commander?

On 8/8/2017 at 1:18 PM, admin said:
On 8/8/2017 at 1:17 PM, Skully said:

I would rather steer players towards PvP fights, but I can't find a solution for folks not wanting to engage for 2 hours (/ 1 timeslot).

you can't do that - due to no-shows or lower online in that nation

On 8/9/2017 at 9:57 AM, Skully said:

True, if they want to engage. If not, then one side will see 2 hours of nothing or PvE.

I think that we can all agree that PvP trumps anything.

Any form of PvE will feel like an empty placeholder.

And no shows or lower online are a reality and they lead to my earlier statement "no fun" on which we can all agree I think.

So here we stand. At an impasse and out of ideas.

So how would we want to show our hostility? (Yeah, yeah, I know the obvious "fun" way, but it must involve ships and cannons. :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AxIslander    75

Why not combine hostility grind tied to SOL access? U get access to a SOL only if u have hostility points. Its not like there are plans to remove hostility grind, instead there will be hostility missoins. Kinda strange thow coz at the moment a hostility mission spawns like 10 Vics or so. Nerf that down and have us raise hostility with smaller ships to get access to bigger ships for the PB.

This way there will no longer be any guaranties that the opponent will have a 25 Agga fleet or a 25 Victory fleet. Ppl with less hostility points will have to make do with smaller ships. Diversity...maybe :)

Edited by AxIslander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Goldman    1,274

We will get PvE missions instead of PvE NPC Fleets for hostility. How huge improvment is it? Probably it's going to be lesser waste of time, but still boring as hell. From one PvE to another PvE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearwall    840
1 hour ago, Peter Goldman said:

We will get PvE missions instead of PvE NPC Fleets for hostility. How huge improvment is it? Probably it's going to be lesser waste of time, but still boring as hell. From one PvE to another PvE.

And it has already been done - nothing new under the sun and the criticism will be the same. Boring PvE rather than excillerating PvP. I like the idea of basically controlling an area - IF they removed many of the forts as well. The forts need to be removed from most of the islands anyway - at no time in the carribean were there such a huge amount of fortifications around every single unimportant island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearwall    840
1 hour ago, AxIslander said:

Why not combine hostility grind tied to SOL access? U get access to a SOL only if u have hostility points. Its not like there are plans to remove hostility grind, instead there will be hostility missoins. Kinda strange thow coz at the moment a hostility mission spawns like 10 Vics or so. Nerf that down and have us raise hostility with smaller ships to get access to bigger ships for the PB.

This way there will no longer be any guaranties that the opponent will have a 25 Agga fleet or a 25 Victory fleet. Ppl with less hostility points will have to make do with smaller ships. Diversity...maybe :)

A shitty idea. Sorry but it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slim Jimmerson    132

Lack of PVP in hostilities isn't the problem, its that the PB its self doesn't make up for that lack of PVP when it should

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cortez    62
3 hours ago, AxIslander said:

Why not combine hostility grind tied to SOL access? U get access to a SOL only if u have hostility points. Its not like there are plans to remove hostility grind, instead there will be hostility missoins. Kinda strange thow coz at the moment a hostility mission spawns like 10 Vics or so. Nerf that down and have us raise hostility with smaller ships to get access to bigger ships for the PB.

This way there will no longer be any guaranties that the opponent will have a 25 Agga fleet or a 25 Victory fleet. Ppl with less hostility points will have to make do with smaller ships. Diversity...maybe :)

Diversity in PB will not work. At least not with 3 or 2 circles which need to be taken and hold.

Some nations tried this out when new PB system was implemented..It went wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you 

5 hours ago, Skully said:

So here we stand. At an impasse and out of ideas.

So how would we want to show our hostility? (Yeah, yeah, I know the obvious "fun" way, but it must involve ships and cannons. :D)

Hostility itself is a failed idea, too much grind, too much of a time sink, bring back flags. NA isn't failing because of not enough mechanics, it's failing because there are too many mechanics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vizzini    96

I'd look at the ideas around occupying an area for an amount of time over a real time day and if others want to come and defend ( reduce the hostility ) then they can turn up and fight or occupy the area to reduce the hostility. The players who are helpful in raising the hostility get priority in the PB's and the same for those who tried to reduce it.

 

So if a decent sized enemy fleet turned up within a certain area, for a certain amount of time this would raise the hostility or reduce it depending on whether they are attacking or defending

 

The same sort of ideas could work around buy-able flags, these would need to be fairly expensive. If they are planted and the attackers don't show up, then the defenders can take the flag to use at their discretion. This could help a small nation stake a claim on a far away Island when they are in trouble. Most nations have traders and economies to have enough funds to purchase flags. You could also look into hiring Pirate mercenaries to fight a Pb for you, for enough gold of course, obviously harder to work but these are the sort of ideas to look at. Stop looking for the same tired old formulas that are workable, but bore the player base

 

Time needs to be allowed for defenders to organize if they want. This is important.

 

the timing of PB's , the same as the hostility grinding is the most important factor right now. How to keep players in different time zones happy (ish)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,022
45 minutes ago, The Old Pretender said:

Hostility itself is a failed idea, too much grind, too much of a time sink, bring back flags. NA isn't failing because of not enough mechanics, it's failing because there are too many mechanics. 

Flags in itself failed because of 3 reasons:

  1. The OODA loop of a Nation is longer than 1 or 2 hours, but rather 24 hours
    1. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/14406-grander-port-battles-tomorrow/
  2. Blocking timers / map lockup
    1. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/15033-dutch-position-on-exploiting-game-mechanics/?do=findComment&comment=280857
  3. The so called nightflip (or rather opposite timeslot flip)
    1. I don't think I need to link anything here. :D

What if we had the following basis:

  1. 11 timeslots (as we used to)
  2. You can pull a flag at any time, both offensive and defensive
    1. Offensive is the old sail the flag for at most 1 hour and plant
    2. Defensive is PB in 1 hour
  3. You win the port if the current battle is won and you did not lose any flag(/port) battle in the last 11 timeslots (or 24 hours) on that port
  4. No more cooldowns
    1. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/14941-utila-cancer-blot-bug/
  5. Optionally we can keep the 17-22 timeframe for EU until everyone is convinced

No more PvE and no-show is no-win.

It is still a pretty raw idea, but what do you all think so far?

Edited by Skully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slim Jimmerson    132
11 minutes ago, Skully said:

Flags in itself failed because of 3 reasons:

  1. The OODA loop of a Nation is longer than 1 or 2 hours, but rather 24 hours
    1. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/14406-grander-port-battles-tomorrow/
  2. Blocking timers / map lockup
    1. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/15033-dutch-position-on-exploiting-game-mechanics/?do=findComment&comment=280857
  3. The so called nightflip (or rather opposite timeslot flip)
    1. I don't think I need to link anything here. :D

What if we had the following basis:

  1. 11 timeslots (as we used to)
  2. You can pull a flag at any time, both offensive and defensive
    1. Offensive is the old sail the flag for at most 1 hour and plant
    2. Defensive is PB in 1 hour
  3. You win the port if the current battle is won and you did not lose any flag(/port) battle in the last 11 timeslots (or 24 hours) on that port
  4. No more cooldowns
    1. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/14941-utila-cancer-blot-bug/
  5. Optionally we can keep the 17-22 timeframe for EU until everyone is convinced

No more PvE and no-show is no-win.

It is still a pretty raw idea, but what do you all think so far?

Still doesn't fix lack of PVP in RVR, or the fundamental issue of limitation

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,022
24 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Still doesn't fix lack of PVP in RVR, or the fundamental issue of limitation

The game can never force PvP, that is completely up to the players. It can only take away any (perceived) barriers to entry.

What fundamental issue of limitation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slim Jimmerson    132

 

Just now, Skully said:

The game can never force PvP, that is completely up to the players. It can only take away any (perceived) barriers to entry.

What fundamental issue of limitation?

Its not about forcing, its about allowing room for.

Having flags, time windows, and removing hostility doesn't change the fact that the there is only a single 25v25 that decides the port, no room for anyone else

People would RVR more if it was fun, approachable and rewarding. But its repetitive, restricted to 25v25, and hardly worth the time.

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,022
9 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Its not about forcing, its about allowing room for.

Having flags, time windows, and removing hostility doesn't change the fact that the there is only a single 25v25 that decides the port, no room for anyone else

https://youtu.be/b4CPyGmu9H0?t=769

From what I gather, more than 25 British ships were involved. I'm not sure about the number of Pirates though.

I think the belief that PBs are the holy grail is just false. Only if both sides manage to secure entry, then it becomes the 25x25 that decides a port's fate.

Edited by Skully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eyesore    15

From Redii's thread about flags.

 

All ports are capturable, we also still have regionports. Clans (and nations?) can ally (even from other nations perhaps?). Lordprotector can set the hours when the ports are available for attack. No neutral ports that need to be set to another condition, just the map as it is now.

What about having the flags used to attack the small ports, not the regioncapitals? They can still cost a lot of money or resources or combat marks or all of those together?

The ports attacked with a flag will be contested (if the attacker wins), which means production(?) in that port gets lowered (50%, 70% 100%?)(for a certain time perhaps or as long as it isn't recaptured?).

Only one flag per day can be used against a certain region? So it would take atleast 4 days of fighting, before 'sudden death', or 'matchpoint' comes into play.

Everybody knows where the fight is going to be, there are several chances to intercept, defend and counterattack, there is time to assemble a countergroup (be it: relocate ships, make alliances, etc.). It is in everybodies interest (both attacker and defender) to fight the next battles (to get full controle again for the defenders or to push on and advance for the attackers).

Should the attacked port be empty (no defenders), than the attackers don't get any rewards (make the rewards dependend on br or something? dividing something through zero doesn't work). The port goes into contention and production (or something else) gets lowered (for both attackers and defenders), both nations/enemies/defenders can still enter and use the port (so the attacker has free use to dock up, teleport, etc.). Consider it hostility?

Defenders can try to kick the attackers out (they cannot craft/buy a flag while their enemy/attacker has an active flag against one of the other ports in the region, and vice versa?)(the hours set by lordprotector are not reset). (Maybe, if the defenders, for some reason where not able to defend, they can craft a counterflag now? The attackers know this, they also know in which timezone this counter-attack might occur, they see the flag.)

To be able to actually capture those ports, the attackers would need to capture more of them (or all) before they can go for the regioncapital in a 'real' portbattle. If the attackers win, they take over the region (they already occupy the other ports, defenders lose acces to them at this point and the new lordprotector can set a new timezone if he so desires).

It would make the fights/fronts move slower, it would be obvious to spot the dangerous areas (not for an hour or two, but for the next several days), pvp'ers and pirates maybe act as mercenaries, etc. The playernumber will always be a problem, a zerg is hard to stop, atleast maybe you have more time to organize against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slim Jimmerson    132
16 minutes ago, Skully said:

https://youtu.be/b4CPyGmu9H0?t=769

I believe more than 25 British ships were involved. I'm not sure about the number of Pirates though.

I think the believe that PBs are the holy grail is just false. Only if both sides manage to secure entry, then it becomes the 25x25 that decides a port's fate.

That's not possible anymore sadly. Shortly after this US and GB at Savannah, the biggest screening fleet ever seen on global post wipe, was completely bypassed by the new battle exploit. Now screening as a part of the game has been phased out in favor of pure 25v25, which has caused most people to disregard it.

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serk    243

The problem I see is that of the 2 mechanic we currently have for RVR, only one decides the fate of the port: the PB itself. Hostility is felt for what it is, a grind, because it barely means anything.

1 of the 2 had to go, but I think it is unfortunate that it is the hostility that is thrown  in the bin. So many things have been tried to make the PB's work, without success, even going at such length as splitting a huge part of the community on their own server, that I think it is time to send the PB's to where they belong : NA Arena.

I'd just remove the PB and flip the port once hostility reach 100%. That way, any battle happening in the are would have the value of a PB, as it would have a direct impact on the control of the port. The no show strategy would only happen when a nation doesn't not wish to defend a port, since the defender would lose the port automatically. We could also use the flags to open an area to conquest, so both the attacker and defender know where the fight is happening.

With the removal of invisible PVE mission, correct tweaking of AI fleets and flags, and great rewards for PVP kills in a constested area (paints for exemple), we could have an interesting and working system all around the clock.

Regarding the balance issue between small and large nation doesn't change much as OW battles are also limited to 25 vs 25 and I d on't see how it could be worst that with the current situation or with the flags, that both allow the large nation to completely screen out smaller ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slim Jimmerson    132
3 minutes ago, Serk said:

The problem I see is that of the 2 mechanic we currently have for RVR, only one decides the fate of the port: the PB itself. Hostility is felt for what it is, a grind, because it barely means anything.

1 of the 2 had to go, but I think it is unfortunate that it is the hostility that is thrown  in the bin. So many things have been tried to make the PB's work, without success, even going at such length as splitting a huge part of the community on their own server, that I think it is time to send the PB's to where they belong : NA Arena.

I'd just remove the PB and flip the port once hostility reach 100%. That way, any battle happening in the are would have the value of a PB, as it would have a direct impact on the control of the port. The no show strategy would only happen when a nation doesn't not wish to defend a port, since the defender would lose the port automatically. We could also use the flags to open an area to conquest, so both the attacker and defender know where the fight is happening.

With the removal of invisible PVE mission, correct tweaking of AI fleets and flags, and great rewards for PVP kills in a constested area (paints for exemple), we could have an interesting and working system all around the clock.

Regarding the balance issue between small and large nation doesn't change much as OW battles are also limited to 25 vs 25 and I d on't see how it could be worst that with the current situation or with the flags, that both allow the large nation to completely screen out smaller ones.

agreed 100% PBs themselves hold back RVR.

Check out this suggestion I made on the topic, though its not exactly the same, its in line with the idea.

 

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,022
2 hours ago, Serk said:

With the removal of invisible PVE mission, correct tweaking of AI fleets and flags, and great rewards for PVP kills in a constested area (paints for exemple), we could have an interesting and working system all around the clock.

You need a very clear signal that the opportunity for a PvP match-up is going to happen. This is provided through the means of a Flag pull.

As it travels across OW, the Flag becomes the focus, not the Port. From far you can try to intercept it with faster ships and as it draws closer the bigger ships can be maneuvered in position.

You also can't have a round the clock mechanism as this favors the Nation that brings forth the 24/7 wave. It would become a winning strategy for that side and effectively kill RvR once more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jean Ribault    845
1 hour ago, Skully said:

You need a very clear signal that the opportunity for a PvP match-up is going to happen. This is provided through the means of a Flag pull...

 

You know, I agree that was one of the greatest successes of the flag system.  No matter how many or how few were playing at the time the flag was pulled, it always created an immediate sense of urgency and excitement across the server.  That doesn't happen with activity scheduled out via hostility goals.

And albeit abused some, when three or four were pulled simultaneously, the excitement grew even more.

Edited by Jean Ribault

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my two cents, dump the current port battle (PB) system completely. Make certain ports unconquerable, others conquerable by PB and others conquerable quickly.

1) Half the ports of any nation can not be conquered. These ports were strongly garrisoned and protected by large forts. Their waters should be protected as well by strong AI fleets. This will keep any nation from being one ported or left so devastated it can not function in game terms. It will also give semi-safe spaces to new players.

2) Half of the rest should be conquerable via standard PB process. These ports were defended but not that well. These are the line ship battles. The standard 100% hostility will apply as well as the time delay before the battle. Once taken the winning nation will retain that port free from attack for one week. After that week they may be attacked again by any other nation

3) The remaining half can be raided. These ports were poorly defended and once a threshold of hostility is reached (30% hostility) the PB will begin. These will be the Frigate class ship battles. These ports can change hands as many times as there are battles. After each PB the hostility is set to 0% and the process begins again with the winner of the last battle being the new defender. There could be as many PB in a day as time will allow. This will make for PvP zones where battles can be reasonably expected.

Recourses should be dispersed throughout the three port types, with at least one vital resource only being attainable from a port that can be raided.

 

While I'm at it...

Open world sailing speeds should be increased 10 fold outside regional areas.

Pirates should not be a nation but a neutral, non-national entity, limited to 4th rates and below. They should only be able to attack raidable ports.

Games within the game (GWTG) need to be added. Navigation could be a (GWTG) using a sexton to determine exact position. Other examples of GWTG could be careening for temporary speed buffs or target practice for temporary fire accuracy and speed buffs. Cargo placement GWTG to increase hold size for a single voyage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearwall    840
7 hours ago, Skully said:

 

What if we had the following basis:

  1. 11 timeslots (as we used to)
  2. You can pull a flag at any time, both offensive and defensive
    1. Offensive is the old sail the flag for at most 1 hour and plant
    2. Defensive is PB in 1 hour
  3. You win the port if the current battle is won and you did not lose any flag(/port) battle in the last 11 timeslots (or 24 hours) on that port
  4. No more cooldowns
    1. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/14941-utila-cancer-blot-bug/
  5. Optionally we can keep the 17-22 timeframe for EU until everyone is convinced

 

It would not solve the fundamental problem that the factions are lopsided. One side would get approx 3-4 free PB wins and the other party would have to contest for both offensive and defensive flags in a scant cycle of hours. The fundamental problem is that the factions are based on real nation - but it's a catch-22.. Remove the nations and you remove the need for a carribean setting (setting the devs free to develop a far better map in regards to gameplay) and even if this may sound like a swell idea it would in reality give every player that has bought the game a valid refund-request as it breaks with a premis for the backing of the game (that the game would be realistic). The reality is that the best possible solution is regional servers but - and this I cannot stress enough - the US server will always be boring. Why? - same reason as the EU server is interesting. The majority of people join the faction they feel affiliated to and in the US this means the US and Britain. Same unfortunately goes for all other regions and as I have already pointed out - removing national factions is not a viable solution.

As for the RvR mechanic - make the warbombs cheaper, make them unable to trade. This would eliminate the use of spies/alts and force the factions to actually transport the warbombs. Combine it with a blockade timer, blockade a port for x amount of hours and get the PB set. If you're a smaller nation you can off-set your diminiature status by the use of war-bombs and a disciplined PB fleet (the larger faction can then intercept Indiaman en route with the warbombs) and if you're a larger faction with plenty of food for the cannons - send out the noobs and let them learn by getting bitch-slapped by the more disciplined navy (but as the zerg has shown us greater numbers will eventually get the job done).

 

Just my penny for the thoughts.

 

PS: Another possible solution could be to time-lock PBs for each nations. I.e. US get US timezones DK-NG, Sweden, France, Spain and britain get EU timezones. This would NOT be a fix but a band-aid that could perhaps allow the servers to be merged without causing a massive exodus by the euro players. Perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,022
4 hours ago, Bearwall said:

It would not solve the fundamental problem that the factions are lopsided. One side would get approx 3-4 free PB wins and the other party would have to contest for both offensive and defensive flags in a scant cycle of hours.

Fundamental problem, but nothing the game can truly fix.

On 8/24/2017 at 10:14 AM, Skully said:

To solve it we need to agree on premises.

  1. The game does not model real life alliances at all. And we game by those alliances, not by what the game dictates.
  2. You can only fight who is in your timeslot, regardless of Nation, Clan or alliance.
  3. A 25 (PB) Fleet must be able to defend/hold a port, unless defeated directly in a 25x25 fight.
  4. You bickering buggers are not entitled to hold more than 1 port.

Ergo:

You can toss in incentives to try and balance populations, but that just opens the door to exploits and abuse. Stick with reality, it is always the safest bet.

What if the game shows properly what happened in which timeslot? Which port came under attack and which was defended?

Then players know where they are needed and we might just see 11 time-slotted fronts appear (or more or less). I think the map is big enough to accommodate that.

The next step would be ensuring players can get where they are needed. But lets take one step at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebrall    87

@Skully what do you think if they hot fixed the current system (not that i want it to i hate it), one of the issues i have with the current system is the lack of fleet's around even @koltes said pirates had problem and made a thread about it, sorry back to my point

 

what if the hot fixed it so that when say for argument sake my clan or a group of players enters an enemy region in warships or not in a group with traders aka not escorting, there BR rating starts elevating "Hostility" which increases the amount of fleets around the region, which would have set point's of elevation of hostility, so the higher the BR the more Fleets around and they get increasingly more powerful as the BR goes up i would also like it to take into consideration BR from the defenders in warships,

 

now i can already see there could be an exploit right there so they have a time limit to enter battle or there BR become null in-void 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2017 at 9:03 AM, Serk said:

I'd just remove the PB and flip the port once hostility reach 100%. That way, any battle happening in the are would have the value of a PB, as it would have a direct impact on the control of the port. The no show strategy would only happen when a nation doesn't not wish to defend a port, since the defender would lose the port automatically. We could also use the flags to open an area to conquest, so both the attacker and defender know where the fight is happening.

This would make the "nightflip"/"workflip" problem even worse, unless the hostility timescale is increased to a more reasonable length like a week or two.  Some groups are very efficient at getting 100% hostility on some ship-rich regions in just 2-3 hours, and they would simply plan to do that at a time when the enemy doesn't have the numbers to respond.  However, instead of the current 24 hours notice of a port battle (not even sufficient for some folks who can only play on weekends) you'll lose your outposts and get your ships and resources locked away in just 3 hours while you're not in the game. 

 

If the timescale of the struggle was increased to a week or two maybe it would work, though people might complain about too much time investment. I'm guessing ideas like this have been discussed many times before? 

 

I wonder if it would also create "piling-on" situations, where a nation is attacked in one region and then several other nations seize the opportunity to also begin attacking that nation's other regions because they can only hope to defend one region at a time. (Ideally attackers would themselves face attacks, but picking off the weak and wounded is more in line with human nature) 

 

Edited by Barbancourt (rownd)

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

×