Revolutionary Gameplay Change to Save NA

[Bristol Fashion]

I have been doing a lot of reading in the forums the last week. I have noticed that, aside from battle instance complaints, most of the criticisms and arguments revolve around some common themes.

One of these is the lack of PvE content/the role of PvE players in a PvP server, as well as the lack of incentive for players to leave the safe zones. I see these as being major problems for this game. Don't get me wrong, I love this game, but I don't see the current set-up being sustainable long-term.

Since there is no ultimate victory being worked towards, players are left to play the game for the combat, which is of course NA's strongest atribute.

PvE content in this game is not satisfying right now. We all know that the AI OW fleets spawn at random and sail around at random waiting to be attacked by humans who are trying to get drops. There is no deeper purpose to fighting AI right now other than getting resources. The same can be said for admiralty missions.

I believe to have a successful MMO, there must be the appearance of a living, breathing world that draws players in. Players who are in it for the PvE still want to feel a sense of accomplishment and purpose in their game. Knowing that completing an admiralty mission or sinking OW AI does absolutely nothing other than provide money and drops is a huge blow to that sense of purpose.

So my proposal hopes to address the issues mentioned above and should provide a much more interesting and fulfilling playing experience for PvE and PvP players alike. I will try to avoid using specific numbers as this is a concept and the details would be need to be hashed out and play tested. So here we go.

This game should revolve around the idea of "campaigns". Each port in game will be tied to a geographic region on the map. Instead of ports being captured via port battle that is scheduled for specific times and can happen quite quickly, each port and its surrounding region will require a campaign in order to capture it. An aggessor nation can designate an enemy region as a campaign area. This contested region now receives a "balance of power" meter.

A temporary "port" will now pop up on the edge of the region being campaigned for and belongs to the aggressor nation unless the aggressor nation already controls an adjacent port. The game will now designate one or two of the closest 5 aggressor nation ports as being the supply ports for the campaign. What this means in practicality is that AI supply/trade ships will start spawning at those supply ports and sail to the temporary/adjacent port. Each shipment of men, provisions, or weapons that reaches the port will increase the power rating. Some of these AI ships could be a group of two or three supply ships escorted by several AI frigates, or they could be lone ships trying to sneak in. 

The defenders will have almost the exact same set up except they of course would have their supplies going into the port that belongs to them. Human traders will of course be able to assist in these operations as a few new items should be added to the game which are deliverable to the ports and the amount turned in will correspond to the power increase for that nation. On occasion, there can be/will be scheduled a large shipment of men/material that would show up sort of as future PB's do now so that players have advanced warning of when these fleets are leaving. These shipments, if successful will be quite significant in the power rating. This means it will be in the best interest of the nations involved to form large fleets to protect/attack these shipments.

"Hostility" will still be able to be ground up on the port that is the target of conquest or on the aggressor's port. However, instead of triggering a port battle that gives control of the region, the players will now choose to either conduct a port raid, or establish a blockade. Choosing the port raid option would schedule a PB akin to what we have now but with some changes. First of which, no more capture points. Instead, there needs to be structures on shore that can be damaged by cannon/mortar fire.

If the attacker destroys the defending fleet and wins completely, they will be given credit for plundering shore facilities and each attacking captain will receive a bounty in gold and other random items that they can destroy or put in their hold to cart off as booty. Any damage done to the port facilities, in the case where an attacking force managed to damage shore structures but was forced to disengage or was sunk, will reduce the defenders power in the region by an amount corresponding to the damage dealt.

If the option to establish a blockade is chosen, AI supply ships will no longer be sent to that port as it is blockaded. If human captains with campaign supply goods on board attempt to enter the port in their ships, it will trigger a "blockade runner" instance in which they must attempt to outmanouver and evade a screen of ships around the port and reach a circle in port within the battle instance. The personal gold reward for captains successfully running a blockade would be significant because the risk is high. If the other nation wishes to break the blockade, they may schedule it and a battle will occur. Once a blockade is broken, there would be a long cool down before another one may be established to avoid blockade spamming.

These military campaigns will run for a set length of days, this helps to eliminate one of the current problems of port flipping. Because these last days, everyone will have a chance to contribute to the final outcome and every battle and each AI ship sunk actually means something.  The amount of active campaigns a nation may have, offensive or defensive, will be based on the amount of ports controlled. This will prevent smaller nations from getting stretched impossibly thin.

Since nations will not always want to be attacking other nations' regions and because there are a significant amount of traders in the game, there will also be "Inland Trading Ventures" which can be established like a military campaign. There will be multiple locations around the map where these can be launched such as south America or the Gulf of Mexico. A temporary port will be spawned and just like the military campaigns, personnel and trade goods can be delivered to this port. When a venture is started, the region will have a piracy rating and AI pirate ships will spawn in the area. The higher the piracy rating when the venture concludes, the less profitable it will be. Sinking AI pirates in the area will reduce the piracy rating and lead to more booty! At the end of the set amount of days, the payout of the excursion will depend on how many trade goods were deposited, and of course tracked by player. The rewards for these excursions will be gold as well as drops (mods/books/regional trading goods), some of which could be quite exotic. You'll of course have to watch out for pirates or privateers from other nations looking to relieve you of your investment or ship!

I have many more specific ideas within this framework for mission types and AI behaviors but this is already, I fear dragging on dreadfully long so I will save that for specific questions captains may want to level my way. Essentially, this is an immersive way to: 

Focus hostile players into some smaller zones for enhanced PvP,

Give PvE players ships to fight/loot where doing so actually affects the world around them,

Fix the idea of port flipping,

Add new game play elements that were big parts of the age of sail, ie blockade running, convoy escorting etc.

Give players a real reason to leave the green zone on a daily basis,

Make territory gain and loss feel like a real achievement and a real military campaign was waged to make it happen,

And perhaps most importantly, make the world feel alive and have AI ships doing things with a purpose, increasing both PvP and PvE depth for everyone.

I think most of what I have suggested wold be possible for the devs to implement without having to rewrite the game from scratch. They are already track PvP scores by player and in the past we had to carry items (flags) to specific locations in order to start port battles.

Discuss/ask me questions at will.

 

 

 

[Slim McSauce]

yes. just yes.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Navalus Magnus]

@Bristol Fashion a „like“ for the ideas mate!

... but now i need some time to process all the information, before being able to respond properly, I think!

Edited January 19, 2018 by Navalus Magnus

[Navalus Magnus]

@Bristol Fashion

So to summarise the most important facts (imo) of your ideas:

 

An attack of a region / port leads to:

- putting up a temporary port / marking a port already under control of the attackers, which is close to the attacked region / port

- 5 closest ports supplying this so marked port with AI and player driven trade runs

 

Defended region / port

- 5 closest ports supplying the attacked port by AI and player driven trade runs

 

The possibility of hostility missions as a means of setting up a ) a port raid or b ) a blockade

a )      Possibility to raid and destroy defense strukture of a port

b )      Possibility to screen the port against supplies     (could be undermined by players in „blockade runner“ instances)

 

The basic mechanics behind this would be:

- Supplies increase power factor

- Sinking or capturing supply runs (AI or player based) would prevent the increase of the power factor

- Raids decrease power

- Blockades prevents the power from increasing

- Reaching 100% leads to a portbattle where a port can be won / lost

 

Did i understand you correctly?

Edited January 19, 2018 by Navalus Magnus

[Bristol Fashion]

@Navalus Magnus

For the most part, yes. 

It doesn't necessarily have to be the 5 closest ports, it could be one or two if it's determined that would be better for gameplay. I just threw out the numbers as an example.

Aside from blockades, you can always of course attack the trade ships in the OW to prevent their supplies from reaching the destination.

And lastly, the final method for port capture I wanted to leave open for discussion as I know players feel differently about PB's. I would be open to a system where perhaps regional capital ports require a final PB for capture where as the smaller ports are captured if the attackers power rating is above a certain threshold at the end of the campaign. At any rate, the final method of port capture I am not set in stone on, my bigger concern was the gameplay leading up to it.

[Navalus Magnus]

@Bristol Fashion

My first concern is, that such a campaign - with equal forces - could last like ‚forever‘ - the power factor increasing and decreasing again and again. Would you set a time limit?

I think I would do that!

My second concern or question is: What’s the exact purpose of the power factor?

My idea would be to link the power factor / delivered supplies to some bonus in the deciding portbattle - for example the number of ships either side could deploy in the portbattle, the maximum overall crew the attacking / defending forces are able to muster for the pb on board of their ships (and to man the defense buildings) ...

This way a pb would be fought after a certain amount of time after the attack - like you proposed above - was launched.

In the meantime attackers and defenders would have time to gain advantages in the eventual pb by increasing their supplies (power factor) and decreasing thier opponent ones.

What do you think!?

Edited January 19, 2018 by Navalus Magnus

[Bristol Fashion]

@Navalus Magnus

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I had wanted to be when I said the campaigns would last for days. My intent was to imply that from the very start, a definitive end date for the campaign would be set so players know how many real days they have to fight and influence.

The point of the power meter is to give a basic simulation of what's happening on the ground. My initial idea is that if the attackers in the situation can't get their power above a certain threshold when the time limit for the campaign arrives, there wouldn't even be a need for a PB. The ground campaign failed too badly. 

Your idea of having a port battle occur anyway but giving a bonus or a malus based on the power rating is interesting. My concern would be that if a side was going to be at a big disadvantage because of that, they just wouldn't show for the port battle because it wouldnt be worth risking their nice ships if they don't even get a fair Crack at the PB.

Perhaps it should work something like this: let's say the balance of power is on a 100 point scale. D will be defender A will be attacker.

D 100 - 0 A = Complete rout of the attacker, no PB occurs because the ground campaign was a total failure. Defender players that actively contributed gain large bounties (spoils left behind by attacker's army)

D 90 - 10 A = same as above but less rewards for defenders

D (80-70) - (20-30) A = no PB as the campaign failed, defenders receive no bonus rewards.

D (60-40) - (40-60) A = close campaign, fate of the port is decided by a PB.

And then reverse the outcomes but in favor of attacker from there.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Bristol Fashion

[H2O]

It's no longer considered MMO, it's closer to a Hardcore Sailing Simulator with Multiplayer option included. I don't know why Developer ignored PvE content at all costs as this product could have so much potential. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by H2O

[Navalus Magnus]

@Bristol Fashion

Yeah, sounds good to me!

Something that would need some thoughts - or testing if implemented - was the time of a campaign!

Would it be good to have it last a few days (more time for players to fight) or would it be better to get it done within one day or even a shorter period of time (players might want to see results and if an attack fails it could be mounted again)!?

Edit:

Maybe I would set a bigger pb frame: 100%-30% success of the campaign leads to a port battle.

Increasing bonus / malus for the attacker from 60% onwards / 40% downwards.

New idea of bonus / malus:

Port defense buildings and their firepower / range (ball, charge, „heated balls“ / outer skirts of circles, half of the circles, two thirds of circles).

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Navalus Magnus

[Bristol Fashion]

@Navalus Magnus

I would say they need to last at least two days. I have a couple reasons for this. Since there is a possibility for a port to be lost without a PB, you need to give the defending nation time to respond and develop a strategy if need be. One of the big annoyances right now is port flipping where due to timezones, a defender has very little odds of managing to defend their port. If you make these campaigns only a couple hours you run a serious risk of losing ports without the ability to to respond.

The second reason is by dragging them out a little you greatly enhance the feeling of achievement at the conclusion.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Bristol Fashion
Typo

[Navalus Magnus]

18 minutes ago, Bristol Fashion said:

If you make these campaigns only a couple hours you run a serious risk of losing ports without the ability to to respond.

I think you won‘t be able to completely avoid such disadvantages, because it doesn’t matter how far you stretch the time period of these campaigns: The fraction with the most players able to play in the last hours before the campaign finishes has a big advantage, don’t you think?

Edit:

Nevermind, i think @admin and @Ink: Devs you should try the system mentioned above and test what suits players purposes best! 😊

Edited January 19, 2018 by Navalus Magnus

[Bristol Fashion]

 

1 minute ago, Navalus Magnus said:

I think you won‘t be able to completely avoid such disadvantages, because it doesn’t matter how far you stretch the time period of these campaigns: The fraction with the most players able to play in the last hours before the campaign finishes has a big advantage, don’t you think?

That's certainly an issue that needs to be considered. I have a couple ideas for this. First is would be to make the scale such that a last ditch hour or two would be hard pressed to swing the balance dramatically. If something were right on the edge, then yes they could notch it over but it wouldn't able to take a guaranteed loss to a guaranteed win.

My second idea would be, the nations need to consider this and adopt strategies to counter this. For instance, perhaps instead of establishing a blockade at the beginning of the campaign, you suspect a late push by your opponent so you set up your blockade late in the hopes they won't be able to break it until it's too late. Alternatively, perhaps nations will need to start relying more on diplomacy or hiring pirates to do their dirty work. You think the enemy is going to send a big push of supply ships at the buzzer and you won't be online?

Find a pack of pirates that will be online and hire them to go pillage and harass your enemy. Perhaps your enemy sees them coming and offers them double to look the other way and let them through? Many fun shenanigans are possible with the dynamics a campaign system such as this provides.

[Odol]

1 hour ago, H2O said:

It's no longer considered MMO, it's closer to a Hardcore Sailing Simulator with Multiplayer option included. I don't know why Developer ignored PvE content at all costs as this product could have so much potential. 

I have noticed this trend in quite a few newer MMOs coming out of this region in the world.  Could it be laziness, lack of skill, fear, lack of software, funding, or all of the above.   I am thinking all of the above. 

Most of the newer MMOs coming out of Eastern Europe/Russia have been lacking on the AI/NPC development part, while they are all pretty, none of them have any real competent NPC or AI depth.   Usually coded with one of two choices in mind, A- Fight, or B-Run.