Diplomacy and Port Battles - A New Vision

[Captain Underpants]

It has been suggested in my clan that I post some ideas for possible future changes. Some of these ideas are mine, some are already in the forums and some come from other members of my clan (BWITC).

 

Make Diplomacy Developer controlled:

 

At first I wanted a player-led system but the more I thought about it, the more I realised that a Dev-led system has many benefits and opportunities for cool stuff. I realise that this may divide opinion but bear me out on this.

 

Here are some benefits of this approach:

 

A) More Historically Accurate

 - We, as Captains would never have been controlling national diplomacy. Captains received their orders from the Admiralty who, in turn, responded to policy from the national government. In this scenario we can imagine the Devs as our faction's governments.

 

Better Game Balance

- By pitting lower population nations against each other, or allying them against more populated ones we see much fairer fights across the map and avoid larger nations bullying smaller ones or multiple nations ganging up on lone ones. Ultimately we avoid nations being decimated/reduced to one port as we have seen before and give every one a chance to flourish.

 

C) Less hostility/negativity on forums/in game

- As there would be no more misunderstandings, accusations of backstabbing or underhand play or ability to act outside of a player's nation's orders (which is causing such problems at the moment), the game should become a much nicer, more fun and honourable place to play in.

 

D) Opportunity for Devs to create narrative/story-telling

- Players already producing newspapers in forums giving their faction's perspective and stories. The Devs could do similar and tease/hint at future events, announce wars/alliances etc and some reasons why these have occured.

     -eg The Dev-run newspaper announces that the US ambassador has insulted the British monarch raising tensions between the two factions. A couple of days later it is revealed that the British have demanded an apology on threat of war. Later on, we learn that the Americans have refused to apologise and war is declared.

 

E) We prevent the kind of issues that have pretty much destroyed other similar RvR games such as PotBS

 

So how might this approach look in action?

 

 

A) All nations have a small number of unconquerable ports and a safe 'starter area' for newer player to learn the ropes without being ganked etc

- These ports would contain all the necessary resources to support a faction meaning it would always be possible to enjoy the game as a player of any nation.

- All midshipman and ensign missions would take place in this starter area as well as there being the presence of smaller ai ships. All higher level missions and large ai fleets would occur outside of this zone.

 

Devs could set specific goals for each nation in a conflict

- Rather than all ports being up for grabs in a war, the Devs could give each nation a task to perform. For example the Devs could decide that the French and Dutch will be fighting over a particular area in Panama. In this scenario, whilst only a certain number of ports are open for attack, warfare can be unrestricted between protagonist nations in the OW.

i) This allows the Devs to further ensure that the game map remains reasonably balanced.

ii) This allows nations to focus their forces on a more localised area leading to more allies, more enemies, more big fleets and more epic battles.

iii) Players could be encouraged to PvP more by receiving rewards based on their level of participation in, and their nation's success in any given campaign. These rewards could be in the form of special titles, medals or even premium currency that unlocks cosmetic and account perks.

 

C) Ports have a 'Morale' value that can change

- A nation's ports could rebel and become neutral or even join an opposing faction depending upon the port's morale. Morale can depend upon:

i) The amount of resources (Trader ships) docking at that port. This allows an enemy to blockade a port and essentially starve a population, or a defending nation to escort their ships into the port giving plenty more opportunity for conflict between ships of all sizes. Escorting/attacking Trader ships could even be incorporated into an expanded Admiralty Mission system.

ii) The presence of enemy/allied ships in local waters.

iii) The ownership of surrounding ports (if a port is isolated and surrounded by enemy ports morale would be much lower).

 

D) Newer PB mechanics

- On top of the proposed Morale system for ports which effectively is a new form of Port Battle we could also enact the following change in PBs: Once land is introduced into battles it could be necessary for attackers in PBs to land a certain amount of Marines ashore in order to take a port. Certain ships might have that responsibility/be carrying specific invasion forces and, therefore, need escorting by attackers or sinking by the defenders.

 

E) All faction players bound by the nation's alliances etc

- So if two nations are at peace it would be physically impossible to attack each other's ships without turning Pirate. This would lessen some of the arguments we are seeing about 'rogue clans' on the forums right now.

 

 

I have probably missed some ideas so shall edit if I think of them! 

 

 

 

[Tief N Tote]

hmm all verry interesting points but i really don't care, as a pirate i want your traders. i don't care what arrangements the government makes

[Captain Underpants]

I thought I would do a separate post on ideas for the Pirate Faction.

 

In my view, playing as a pirate should be a completely different experience. Being a Pirate should have unique appeal to players due to specific advantages and disadvantages. Here are some ideas:

 

A) Pirates have a certain number of scattered ports/hideouts that are not marked on other faction's maps. These are unconquerable.

B ) Pirates cannot capture other faction's ports.

C) Pirates can raid other ports - if successful this brings significant reward to the Pirates and economic/morale penalties to the opposing nation. This makes it essential that nations defend their ports against Pirate raids.

D) Pirates cannot build ships any bigger than than 5th rate.

E) Pirates can capture any level ship.

F) Pirates have a boost to boarding skills including being able to board at greater speed and at greater distance.

G) Pirates can build ships unique to their faction that are particularly good for boarding. This might be very fast ships with very few cannons but packed full of crew (which is historically how they tended to fight).

H) Pirates have no alliances and can attack anyone at any time including each other.

I) Pirates have the ability to customise their own flags - something which might only be purchaseable by other nations.

 

As a British player currently, this is not a personal agenda against the Pirates or an attempt to nullify a threat to us. I simply think the Pirates would be a much more proposition to play as (for me certainly) if they provided a completely different type of gaming experience.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Captain Underpants

[Anolytic]

Seems like this would be very time consuming for the devs. I rather want them to work on improving the game and fixing bugs. I would prefer a player driven system. Where clans act as political factions within a nation and as a coherent force against other nations.

[Captain Underpants]

I understand that this could be time-consuming for the devs, however, the community have voted new diplomacy and port battle mechanics a priority so devs will be spending time on this anyway.

As I said, I was initially in favour of player-driven diplomacy until I stopped and considered some of the drawbacks of this and benefits of it being Dev-driven; and this caused me to rethink entirely.

[Wilson09]

Really, you want to take the playing toy from those clan bosses?

 

I could not think of anything less attractive to them?

 

Imagine the "spice" being added? The Devs would permanently being insulted by the biggest faction,

as the Devs set war goals to balance the game?

 

Players / factions want to control their own destiny.

[codyproxy]

Players / factions want to control their own destiny.

 

This says it all.

[Skippy]

It has been suggested in my clan that I post some ideas for possible future changes. Some of these ideas are mine, some are already in the forums and some come from other members of my clan (BWITC).

 

Make Diplomacy Developer controlled:

 

At first I wanted a player-led system but the more I thought about it, the more I realised that a Dev-led system has many benefits and opportunities for cool stuff. I realise that this may divide opinion but bear me out on this.

 

Here are some benefits of this approach:

 

A) More Historically Accurate

 - We, as Captains would never have been controlling national diplomacy. Captains received their orders from the Admiralty who, in turn, responded to policy from the national government. In this scenario we can imagine the Devs as our faction's governments.

 

Better Game Balance

- By pitting lower population nations against each other, or allying them against more populated ones we see much fairer fights across the map and avoid larger nations bullying smaller ones or multiple nations ganging up on lone ones. Ultimately we avoid nations being decimated/reduced to one port as we have seen before and give every one a chance to flourish.

 

C) Less hostility/negativity on forums/in game

- As there would be no more misunderstandings, accusations of backstabbing or underhand play or ability to act outside of a player's nation's orders (which is causing such problems at the moment), the game should become a much nicer, more fun and honourable place to play in.

 

D) Opportunity for Devs to create narrative/story-telling

- Players already producing newspapers in forums giving their faction's perspective and stories. The Devs could do similar and tease/hint at future events, announce wars/alliances etc and some reasons why these have occured.

     -eg The Dev-run newspaper announces that the US ambassador has insulted the British monarch raising tensions between the two factions. A couple of days later it is revealed that the British have demanded an apology on threat of war. Later on, we learn that the Americans have refused to apologise and war is declared.

 

E) We prevent the kind of issues that have pretty much destroyed other similar RvR games such as PotBS

 

So how might this approach look in action?

 

 

A) All nations have a small number of unconquerable ports and a safe 'starter area' for newer player to learn the ropes without being ganked etc

- These ports would contain all the necessary resources to support a faction meaning it would always be possible to enjoy the game as a player of any nation.

- All midshipman and ensign missions would take place in this starter area as well as there being the presence of smaller ai ships. All higher level missions and large ai fleets would occur outside of this zone.

 

Devs could set specific goals for each nation in a conflict

- Rather than all ports being up for grabs in a war, the Devs could give each nation a task to perform. For example the Devs could decide that the French and Dutch will be fighting over a particular area in Panama. In this scenario, whilst only a certain number of ports are open for attack, warfare can be unrestricted between protagonist nations in the OW.

i) This allows the Devs to further ensure that the game map remains reasonably balanced.

ii) This allows nations to focus their forces on a more localised area leading to more allies, more enemies, more big fleets and more epic battles.

iii) Players could be encouraged to PvP more by receiving rewards based on their level of participation in, and their nation's success in any given campaign. These rewards could be in the form of special titles, medals or even premium currency that unlocks cosmetic and account perks.

 

C) Ports have a 'Morale' value that can change

- A nation's ports could rebel and become neutral or even join an opposing faction depending upon the port's morale. Morale can depend upon:

i) The amount of resources (Trader ships) docking at that port. This allows an enemy to blockade a port and essentially starve a population, or a defending nation to escort their ships into the port giving plenty more opportunity for conflict between ships of all sizes. Escorting/attacking Trader ships could even be incorporated into an expanded Admiralty Mission system.

ii) The presence of enemy/allied ships in local waters.

iii) The ownership of surrounding ports (if a port is isolated and surrounded by enemy ports morale would be much lower).

 

D) Newer PB mechanics

- On top of the proposed Morale system for ports which effectively is a new form of Port Battle we could also enact the following change in PBs: Once land is introduced into battles it could be necessary for attackers in PBs to land a certain amount of Marines ashore in order to take a port. Certain ships might have that responsibility/be carrying specific invasion forces and, therefore, need escorting by attackers or sinking by the defenders.

 

E) All faction players bound by the nation's alliances etc

- So if two nations are at peace it would be physically impossible to attack each other's ships without turning Pirate. This would lessen some of the arguments we are seeing about 'rogue clans' on the forums right now.

 

 

I have probably missed some ideas so shall edit if I think of them! 

 

 

 

I really like that man, this is great

But im not sure about Dev deciding war and peace, could work. But maybe we just need a mecanic implemented involving the players themself.

 

For your pirates ideas, this is also good. Exept i dont agree for limiting pirates crafting (already discussed a lot in another tread about the next patch), they should craft everything. A lot of pirate i know are good crafter and its unfair for them. Historical argument is nul, because this is not a historicla game, its a sandbox.  At least they should be able to have up to the 4th rate with boarding bonus, different stats and more crews just as you explained, but I would prefer crafting not limited at all for them. I really like your idea of boarding at higher speed and boarding bonus.

But anyway, overall its excellent.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Skippy