Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Iroquois Confederacy

Conquest Timezone Suggested Maps

Recommended Posts

@Iroquois Confederacy

The idea that I'm pushing gives eu and global players the ability to come together under one roof. Again I ask why should the eu server be punished for allowing global server players back?!?

The gulf of Mexico is a low use area on eu. Hatii on the otherhand is a very high actively area on eu BUT it has no nation capital and it's central to most nations.

I'll break it down this way:

hatii - close to pirates, Danes, sweeds, gb, French, Dutch, Spain. HATII has 'la mona' free port on the doorstep.

north Bahamas - is located close to the usa, Spanish, pirates, gb. 

hidden island - close to pirates, usa, Spanish, gb.

gulf of Mexico - holds 80 odd ports, one free port, currently a French safezone, I'd remove the safezones in this region but I'd propose giving the French, sweeds, Dutch, Dane one port under there control. (all ports on gulf would be capturable)

big money ports - like Cartagena would be in the open (global style) attack window.

The new pvp nations from eu server would have to forge there own lands like it was on launch!

The eu server is stable because we have PB time locks, global has no locks but is beginning to fail. Make what of that you will but don't punish the eu server with STUPID changes just to benefit a few players.

Right now the pve server has more players than global so should be lissening to the needs of the pve crew over the needs of global?? Mabey!!

Ps -working on a visual version of the idea (Im shit at this kind of thing)

Edited by monk33y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the feeling we all overestimate the importance of conquest. With ships made by notes and 3 clicks. Crafting is unnecessary.

During the steamsale and player boom I asked new folks to join Pb everything above cutter was excepted. And nobody was interested. Pb are an elite thingy. Therefore it should stay elite. Ditch hardcore nation. with a few exceptions they are more pve nations than actually carezones nation. Reduce conquest to one port Per nation. This port can't be lost. A loss disables it production. Production could be for example cartagena tar. Clans that are active in RvR gets bonus production in their own nation port. Regarding timezone. Ever clan setts an attack/defense window overlapping clans can challenge each other for Pb.

This way RvR doesn't destroy the game experience of the 80%+ Naval action player that don't care about RvR.

 

This thread is about the joy of a handful of player pls handle the suggestions like that. I recently found out RvR is equal to hubris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@monk33y- If the EU server is succeeding because of locks, and the Global server is failing because it does not have locks, would it not make sense to merge the servers with locks on both sides?  IE - A conquest timer fit for different regions of the world, instead of just one timer for one region of the world?

@z4ys- Yes, conquest is totally unnecessary.  If memory serves, only 10% of total copies of the game ever participated in a single port battle.  It's likely an order of magnitude less for people who have been to more than one port battle.  However, the vocal community has made this the hill to die on.  I agree, conquest could be handled very differently, however my goal is to chart a path for a server merge that can happen as soon as possible (ideally coinciding with a proper launch), as I believe it is really the last real chance to do so.

This means using largely existing mechanics and concepts that are easy to code or simply replace or edit old code.  I think other changes to conquest could be made after the game is released.

Here, then, I think that "perfect is the enemy of good."  If we insist upon perfection, we won't get anywhere at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, z4ys said:

I have the feeling we all overestimate the importance of conquest. 

Pb are an elite thingy.

This way RvR doesn't destroy the game experience of the 80%+ Naval action player that don't care about RvR.

This thread is about the joy of a handful of player pls handle the suggestions like that. I recently found out RvR is equal to hubris.

 

6 hours ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

 Yes, conquest is totally unnecessary.  If memory serves, only 10% of total copies of the game ever participated in a single port battle.  It's likely an order of magnitude less for people who have been to more than one port battle.  However, the vocal community has made this the hill to die on.

 

This explains 95% of the problem with NA. The very vocal minority of RvR players (you know who you are) holding the game hostage. I've had this game since February. I've participated in 2 port battles...perks of being with one of the larger clans on Global. Honestly, I wouldn't really care if I never got to participate in another. Personally prefer smaller OW skirmishes. Frigate duels or squadrons...not 25-ship battle fleets.

Those handful of folks screaming about timers and whatnot, just remember the rest of us who spent $40...just to sail empty seas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s interesting reading this thread, more are looking seriously at the problem. Understanding the problem from an [PvP EU] perspective (I believe) was the blatant use of the nightflip in the past helped a clan railroad its way to victory that couldn’t be defended properly due to time coverage.

The Port Battles in your own ports were always triggered at 3am your time on a Tuesday morning.

We fixed this issue simply by only allowing a Port Battle triggered when our clan mostly plays.  

Right now [PvP EU] after driving up HOSTILITY 100% will allow for a PB between UTC 17:00 & 22:00 when most EU players will be on. So, this immediately stops the EU clans getting Night flips.

the idea...

If on any merge or not a clan must select one of three HOME time slots it resides in. For me living Hong Kong, but most of the clan coming from the UK I choose EU time for [ELITE]. For [ARMED] most are Australian so would choose the ASIA time. And so on…

image.png.6c9b386aa1bbff1c32934b2d3dfb195a.png

 

Right now, if [ARMED] attacked an [ELITE] PORT in [PvP GLOBAL] they’d choose early ASIA time to Night Flip [ELITE] which makes sense if not sporting. However, if the Port Battle defaults always to the DEFENDER it would pop but within the EU time zone. Look at this chart below see if this makes sense… The UTC time is against summer times for the other countries so you might see so off by an hour.

If [ARMED] wanted an [ELITE] PORT they’d need to be prepared to fight outside their time zone. [ELITE] can’t complain as its in their play window. If keeping the 22-hour fixer [ARMED] could make it as early as UTC 17:00 but that’s it…

What if [ARMED] wanted to attack a US base clan…?

The windows give the US Clan protection, but the weekends you can see become vulnerable…

Not a perfect solution…

It’s not a perfect solution but actually works easier than having fixed period times on the MAP leading to resource distribution issues and leading to more game play mechanic issues. Using the DEFENDER as default Aggressor always pays up it stops the night flip.

Coding wise also is easier do than splitting up areas and resetting resources.

 

Let me know what you think

 

Norfolk nChance.

Edited by Norfolk nChance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Timers.

Problem ain't servers.

Timers.

Once system doesn't use Timers and one decisive Trafalgar then everything is possible :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Red Duke said:

Once system doesn't use Timers and one decisive Trafalgar then everything is possible :)

I don't disagree with you, however, timers are the one fix that we can implement now.  It's not a perfect fix, I'll freely admit.  However, I feel that if we miss the opportunity for a merge at launch, we will have missed it for good.  Get the servers back together, as it is a better solution than no solution at all.  Aim for the "ideal" after launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand behind you Iroquois, never ever did I want anything but a unified world :)

Or at least where the actions of all servers work and act and result in the exact same game universe ( à là Elite D ).

But alas, the necessity for the one decisive Trafalgar is the mainstay mechanic and the majority population flocks to three factions. The rest is fluff and cool RP content for those that enjoy it :)

( being generalist, exceptions prove the rule )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Red Duke said:

But alas, the necessity for the one decisive Trafalgar is the mainstay mechanic and the majority population flocks to three factions. The rest is fluff and cool RP content for those that enjoy it :)

It's true.  Many people are perfectly content to populate a few factions, conquer as much of the world as they care to, and sing kumbaya.  As a sandbox game, that's their right.

However, I think the idea @Christendom(?) brought up about having increasing port taxes for increasing empire size would help to mitigate that to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Red Duke

 

Can you explain to me what is “Trafalgar”? It was before my time in NA. I’ve YouTube clips etc but I thought it worked like an EVENT?

You’re implying an “End Game” scenario I’m guessing?

@Iroquois Confederacy

 

I like @Christendom tax Golden Handcuffs. The way I’d do it is via a divisor made from total accounts against clan’s percentage. The seesaw would levy the larger clans while loosen the smaller ones… Or Nation would be better

 

Norfolk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Port Battle is a "trafalgar type of battle".

Big fleet, lines of battle, epic massive cannonades and smoke, until someone wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Norfolk nChance

Don't want to put a damper to your timezone idea because I do really like it (living near NYC)...but.

The west coast US players would get the short end of the stick for those timezones...maybe that is the necessary evil we must face.

If at all possible I would move the US time window an hour forward. I would further actually suggest to make the time window "larger."

Share this post


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

It’s interesting reading this thread, more are looking seriously at the problem. Understanding the problem from an [PvP EU] perspective (I believe) was the blatant use of the nightflip in the past helped a clan railroad its way to victory that couldn’t be defended properly due to time coverage.

The Port Battles in your own ports were always triggered at 3am your time on a Tuesday morning.

We fixed this issue simply by only allowing a Port Battle triggered when our clan mostly plays.  

Right now [PvP EU] after driving up HOSTILITY 100% will allow for a PB between UTC 17:00 & 22:00 when most EU players will be on. So, this immediately stops the EU clans getting Night flips.

the idea...

If on any merge or not a clan must select one of three HOME time slots it resides in. For me living Hong Kong, but most of the clan coming from the UK I choose EU time for [ELITE]. For [ARMED] most are Australian so would choose the ASIA time. And so on…

image.png.6c9b386aa1bbff1c32934b2d3dfb195a.png

 

Right now, if [ARMED] attacked an [ELITE] PORT in [PvP GLOBAL] they’d choose early ASIA time to Night Flip [ELITE] which makes sense if not sporting. However, if the Port Battle defaults always to the DEFENDER it would pop but within the EU time zone. Look at this chart below see if this makes sense… The UTC time is against summer times for the other countries so you might see so off by an hour.

If [ARMED] wanted an [ELITE] PORT they’d need to be prepared to fight outside their time zone. [ELITE] can’t complain as its in their play window. If keeping the 22-hour fixer [ARMED] could make it as early as UTC 17:00 but that’s it…

What if [ARMED] wanted to attack a US base clan…?

The windows give the US Clan protection, but the weekends you can see become vulnerable…

Not a perfect solution…

It’s not a perfect solution but actually works easier than having fixed period times on the MAP leading to resource distribution issues and leading to more game play mechanic issues. Using the DEFENDER as default Aggressor always pays up it stops the night flip.

Coding wise also is easier do than splitting up areas and resetting resources.

 

Let me know what you think

 

Norfolk nChance.

I prefer this type of suggestion rather than the different conquest timezones, but the argument given by proponents of the EU locked PB timers is that nations with a greater timezone mix of players will have an advantage as they will be able to field players at all times. This is why such a suggestion would have to be tied into limitation on who could participate in the port battle so not everyone from the nation could partake but only the clans involved and a limited number of direct allies with restrictions on how quickly people can be brought into and switch alliances. Maybe even limit the size of clans so it is not possible to have a super clan covering all timezones.

To further your suggestion of clan set times, why make them fixed as per your table, why not let clans decide their own windows of 5 hours, so rather than have 3 times as your example you have multiple times for multiple clans with delay procedure if clans want to switch their conquest timezone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Teutonic

The time zone block is based first and foremost on the current [PvP EU] time slot of 6x 1-hour slots. Funny enough add the other 2 zones either side and we’ve a 6-hour downtime window. The server maintenance windows cannot be shifted much or at all as like EvE Online is the Dev’s start day.

So, UTC 7:00 8:00 and 9:00 cannot be used. This leaves 10:00, 05:00 and 06:00. Asia could take the 10:00 slot, EU could extend to 23:00. The US then takes 00:00 to 06:00. Each zone now has a window of 7 hours…

The US east to west is totally covered and we still have the server maintenance window covered.

You cannot have One Timezone larger than the other two.

@Archaos

The arguments you make are valid. I would state this is PC/Clan focus (not Nation) and the most important part is “Aggressor Pays UP…”. The clan with the most players with the most Global presence still has one fixed local even if it has a GLOBAL presence it can only have 1-time zone slot. The issues for the small clans is the big clan can no longer flip YOU as it will be in your own Time slot when most of you play.

The allies of the clan raising HOSTILITY out of time agreed is a problem but the Port Battle can only happen in the DEFENDERs play time only.

Allowing the PC/Clan to pick its own 6 or 7-hour window am not sure if possible but a really nice idea. If @admin and more importantly [PvP EU] players like this idea I’d like it tested on [PvP Global] first to see if it could work for all.

It’s easy to implement and manage than slicing up the map which in my opinion creates more issues than it solves.

 

Thanks for the input guys,

Norfolk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Archaos said:

I prefer this type of suggestion rather than the different conquest timezones, but the argument given by proponents of the EU locked PB timers is that nations with a greater timezone mix of players will have an advantage as they will be able to field players at all times. This is why such a suggestion would have to be tied into limitation on who could participate in the port battle so not everyone from the nation could partake but only the clans involved and a limited number of direct allies with restrictions on how quickly people can be brought into and switch alliances. Maybe even limit the size of clans so it is not possible to have a super clan covering all timezones.

To further your suggestion of clan set times, why make them fixed as per your table, why not let clans decide their own windows of 5 hours, so rather than have 3 times as your example you have multiple times for multiple clans with delay procedure if clans want to switch their conquest timezone.

 

I really like Norfolk's idea and the chart he created.  Well done.

I get the gyst of your argument Archaos, but I disagree with the limiting clan size approach.  On the contrary I think this should promote enlarging clans.  Your clan specializes in a certain 5-hour time groups so you can field decent size battles for that region, then you expand your clan to allow your clan to specialize in two of those time groups, and ultimately three.  Requires strategizing and encourages progessive dominance.

I also agree with above that the USA time groups should be adjusted, that is if you are only looking at the USA.  I'm on east coast coincident with NYC time indicated, so no big deal for me.  But west coast is 3 hours behind (yeah, you guys can't keep up, slackers), so that time group needs to shift forward by at least one hour.  And there's no reason it can't be 1.5 hours either.  Just my thoughts, try not to hit me with the ole' but hey you don't RVR anymore so shut up. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

I get the gyst of your argument Archaos, but I disagree with the limiting clan size approach.  On the contrary I think this should promote enlarging clans.  Your clan specializes in a certain 5-hour time groups so you can field decent size battles for that region, then you expand your clan to allow your clan to specialize in two of those time groups, and ultimately three.  Requires strategizing and encourages progessive dominance.

The problem with this is that proponents of the EU timelock brigade will claim it gives an advantage to nations that find it easier to recruit players from multiple timezones. I have to agree with them to a certain extent in that respect, that nations such as GB, USA and Pirates tend to attract players from multiple timzones while smaller nations like Sweden, Denmark etc. tend to attract more localized players. You cannot just tell people to recruit from multiple timezones, because it is not that easy.

The only other way round it would be to get rid of nations altogether and just have clans, but that may be too much for many players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Archaos said:

The problem with this is that proponents of the EU timelock brigade will claim it gives an advantage to nations that find it easier to recruit players from multiple timezones. I have to agree with them to a certain extent in that respect, that nations such as GB, USA and Pirates tend to attract players from multiple timzones while smaller nations like Sweden, Denmark etc. tend to attract more localized players. You cannot just tell people to recruit from multiple timezones, because it is not that easy.

The only other way round it would be to get rid of nations altogether and just have clans, but that may be too much for many players.

I understand that issue and honestly I don't see a solution at this time.

I mean I know the group I play with would not play the 3 mentiones nations, but I also know other groups aren't the same mindset.

So one possible solution could be that the clan nominates a time window, any RvR activities done outside that time window incur a "fee." Whether that is a large increase in maintenance payment in ports outside the time window or an additional "cost" when creating a port battle against another group outside your clan's time window.

Another option I believe coild work is the map could/should be split into 3 areas. Each area has a time slot. People can attack any port, but if they want to change the port's "window" they must pay a huge maintenance fee (something like double or triple).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disproportional size advantage of a Nation Solution…

 

On a re-set so, PC accounts that don’t nominate a time zone are deemed old and dead. They’ll need a reactivation mechanic by the games admin to re-start. Old players must be able to return easily though. What’s left is a true-ish Global playing population number. This can be then turned into a flexible weighted divisor. Very easy.

The largest Nation would take the largest tax rate penalty while the smallest would have the smallest rate. This all based around a BASE Tax rate of say 10%. The rate will grow for the largest nation if more PCs join that Nation and fall for the smallest. So, GB may pay 17% while Prussia pays 2.25%.

 

Expanded Deviser Limiter…

This penalty actually can be expanded now into other areas. XP earned on missions work the same way. The HOSTILITY grind percentage the hours needed to craft something. The amount earned from Delivery missions and so on…

 

What this does is levy the Largest Nation in such a way that discourages further PC recruitment as its grind difficulty increases. At the same time, it encourages new PCs into smaller Nations because of the ease benefits against the larger Nations or PCs to switch Nations…

 

Flexibility and continued a Balance…

The rates against the deviser ratios would reset say ONCE a week and NOT daily. This will stop chop and changing issues constantly.

 

Again, just a thought

 

Norfolk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant make a mechanic depending of something like the gold.

The gold sometimes is really easy to get and sometimes it isnt.

The easy nations like GB with their huge safezones and high playerbase would pay easily any price. While other will struggle.

Dont you see? You make proposals without thinking in the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

You cant make a mechanic depending of something like the gold.

The gold sometimes is really easy to get and sometimes it isnt.

The easy nations like GB with their huge safezones and high playerbase would pay easily any price. While other will struggle.

Dont you see? You make proposals without thinking in the consequences.

This is totally true, and this is the PC Population devisor I suggested should be able to expand into other game mechanic areas. Giving not just a Gold penalty but other areas am sure you'd know more than me...

A simple example would be the actual HOSTILITY earned per mission would reward less in percentage amount for the largest Nation and give more to the smallest. 

What it might create but I doubt it, would balance out the population numbers. If it doesn't the Nations will reap the rewards or pay the price according to the player population as a whole. 

The coding is easy as its already fixed amount numbers just timed against the Devisor in each case. Labor Hours to make a Victory... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Norfolk nChance said:

This is totally true, and this is the PC Population devisor I suggested should be able to expand into other game mechanic areas. Giving not just a Gold penalty but other areas am sure you'd know more than me...

A simple example would be the actual HOSTILITY earned per mission would reward less in percentage amount for the largest Nation and give more to the smallest. 

What it might create but I doubt it, would balance out the population numbers. If it doesn't the Nations will reap the rewards or pay the price according to the player population as a whole. 

The coding is easy as its already fixed amount numbers just timed against the Devisor in each case. Labor Hours to make a Victory... 

All of this goes to trash when people have alts.

I know guys with a dozen alt accounts. Just imagine how many labor hours and how easy to get millions in one single trip with traders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not Make the total number of attacks that can happen in any time period(say 3-4 hour blocks across the day.. determined by the avg player count in those periods from the previous week?  SO say a certain time period avg only 100 players only 1 port can be attacked across the entire map in that time period.. 500 people 5 ports (numbers for example only)  Hell make it so you can only do  hostility in 25-30% increments in every 6 hours of the day? and you can only do counter Hostility  the same... SO even if it is all done in  say US time zone... It would take 2-4 days of doing it each night to get to 100%. And until it gets to 100% the EU day crew could knock it back down 25% each day so you have to start over..  So unless some group can get the numbers to raise Hostility in all 4 time brackets.. the other side can knock down at least 50% worth during theirs.. 

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

×