Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

[suggestion] Lord Protectors & War Fleets


Recommended Posts

Flavor of the month - nightflips... so so old...that's true... it's huge...very old.

I've seen a resurgent wish of bringing Lord Protectors back. That's good, if it means the flags stay buried.

Scrap that, bring flags back as War Fleets.

Hence my suggestion to bring both back working the other way around with a twist.

Oh and scrap hostility, it will be needed with another name that you all hold dear in your hearts - war supplies.

Let's look at a imagined cycle of Conquest:

 

  • Lord Protector choses defense window for Region - defense windows mean a interval of 6 hours -

Example:  King Arthur sets Defense for Les Cayes / Server Time 16:00 - 22:00

  • some clan decides to create a flag - a War Fleet is announced for the server

Example: "Mordred has created a War Fleet in Santo Domingo" is splashed on our screens. Note that there is no target announced, just where the War Fleet is being assembled.

  • War Fleets are composed of 25 ships and need to be supplied with War Supplies. The more War Supplies into the War Fleet the more BR per ship slot.

Example: friends, buddies and nationals deliver War Supplies in Santo Domingo - right click - send supplies to War Fleet Mordred

  • Mordred last action before exiting to the open world with the War Fleet Banner ( not visible on the OW like the old flags ) is to decide which 2 hour window will be used on the intended target which remains undisclosed but the time window becomes public.

Example: Mordred choses to send the War Fleet against Les Cayes and selects 18:00 - 20:00, which is within the Defense window defined by King Arthur as Lord Protector. The server receives a splash "War Fleet Mordred attacking @ 18:00 - 20:00"

  • Mordred sails out the War Fleet. It has to form a group with ALL members beforehand that want to be in the port battle.

Example: Mordred invited his 15 clan members and nine other friends for a total of 25 ships slots according to the amount of War Supplies available. In the case of War Fleet Mordred it is composed of 5 first rates, 10 second rates, 5 3rd rates and 5 frigates. Entire server receives the message "War Fleet Mordred has left port!"

 

Attention: There's a 46 hour limit from the announcement of created War Fleet until it must be ready to sail out. Two hours window to make sail.

So Attackers can use that time to build up their War Fleet and defenders prepare their strategy.

No target is announced, only a origin port and a attack timer ( within the intended defense timer ) so Defense must play a scout game and logistics game.

 

In sum:

- hands over responsability to Lord Protectors set to his regions generic defense timer period

- hands over responsability to build a war fleet, as they wish, to the attackers and specify the

- hands over strategy to both attackers and defenders regarding time tables, distances to cover, scouting for attackers, screening for attackers

 

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Raids are unannounced and only to destroy enemy capabilities. This would be like a war fleet for conquest.

Actually regular global message of 50%, 75% completion could be added to mimic spies on the war fleet naval base.

As the war fleets could become a "clan" based thing the disruption/usefulness for spy alts could be diverted into proper spying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hour window?  I guess I can get behind that....  I much prefer no lockout timers, but I understand why many want them. 

Your war supply idea with a war fleet is a fantastic way of stopping the frigate screening griefing that is going on right now, I like it! 

However, you lost me after that....:unsure:

So Mordred forms a war fleet, leaves port, and everyone gets a warning saying "Mordred has left such n' such port" and they sail where exactly?  I assume to the port they want to attack.  However, when does everyone get the "Mordred is attacking Les Cayes at (2 hour window here)" message? 

I dont understand why that is even necessary, why not just make it so the war supplies only last 2 hours once they are sent to the war fleet, and the war fleet needs a designated target before leaving port that everyone knows about? 

Where does the 46 hour limit play into this?  Everyone gets a warning that in 46 hours Mordred will be coming to attack us?  Why do we even need a 46 hour limit?  The war fleet is being created during the enemy 6 hour prime time. 

I'm so confused........................   :huh:

Edited by Yar Matey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Protectors chose whatever time window they want for the port, like in the old flag system but now it is a 6 hour interval.

War Fleet commander choses which 2 hour interval he wants from the 6 hour interval set by the Lord protector.

As per the example, Protector chose 16 to 22, War fleet chose the 18-10. Both sides have a saying on WHEN.

Regarding strategy layer.

War fleets will be more common with clans for sure. Also ad-hoc groups of friends can do it.

Further not knowing the final target...

Your own fleet has to discover where the hell they sailing to. You will have two clues

1. Time chose for the attack

2. Where they sail from

So means some degree of planning, scouting and screening from both sides.

The 46 hours is for advanced warning and timeframe for war supplies, if needed and not stockpiled.

The War Fleet can be created at any time, just like old flag with the added advanced warning that is being created, which time will be attacking and when it has sailed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

er... they are only a Glorified group, with the special thing of being up to 25 ships in the group, so of course no lobbies no random folk joining in, etc. War fleet commander invitation based so it will deliver a proper validity to many of the clans and groups requirements for PBs.

They may have screeners and be intercepted.

As it surely be everything within clans or friends having spies and alts will require more finesse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not like the idea of Lord Protectors and choosing what time ports are open. Ports should be open ALL the time for attack. This is a global game - treat it as such.

 

As far as the War Fleet idea, I like it in concept, but I think making it invite based will make the current debate about the rights of the individuals in game vs the "elite" clans even worse: things will become even more of a social clique and those of us who play more casually will be completely left out in the cold.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont like the 46 hour thing.  I would much prefer war fleets were used to generate port battles in a simpler way using hostility. 

use war fleets to create RvR in the here in now. 

Example:  I log into Naval Action and see that most of my clan is on and I am able to muster up a 25 man fleet.  I open up my map and see which windows for attack are open and I say "hey lets create a war fleet against (insert port name here) because we are within their 6 hour window, clan says "OK LETS DO IT!"  so we create a war fleet and muster up all our war supplies, sail over to the port, and if we are not intercepted, an RvR port battle type battle commences.  If we win, then we generate 50% hostility for the region plus extra for any ships sunk.  If we attack again and win another battle, then 48 hours later is when the port battle will happen.  

Edited by Yar Matey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:

I do not like the idea of Lord Protectors and choosing what time ports are open. Ports should be open ALL the time for attack. This is a global game - treat it as such.

 

As far as the War Fleet idea, I like it in concept, but I think making it invite based will make the current debate about the rights of the individuals in game vs the "elite" clans even worse: things will become even more of a social clique and those of us who play more casually will be completely left out in the cold.

Thanks for the feedback. :)

The 6 hour window and 2 hour attack window is a compromise, as i see it, to have one unified server and not the split everyone is so eager to have.

Regarding non regulars ( I dislike the "bloody casuals" ida«ea ) they are not left out. They can form up a War fleet right ? It is open to all unless I wrote it unclear.

What it promotes to the clan though is a more organized way of conducting their agenda without interference from foreign agents.

Any player can for a War Fleet and invite whomever he wishes.

 

....

 

Yar, I would love Hostility / Stability to work but...we don't make it work. We players rush it as much as we can to suit our needs, not the envisioned path that the game needs.

Hence I suggested this path. A inverted flag system that relies on "blind" strategy and the need for screening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

 War fleet commander invitation based so it will deliver a proper validity to many of the clans and groups requirements for PBs.

They may have screeners and be intercepted.

As it surely be everything within clans or friends having spies and alts will require more finesse.

I like your suggestions. But history has proven that interception of attack fleets never happen in NA. 

Just think about the former flag system. Intention was to create awesome fleet battles besides the port battle. - never happened.

Chest event should generate awesome pvp. - never happened.

 

Blame human nature. For the attacker the goal is to capture the port. Therefore he must fight the port battle. A screening fight do nothing for him.First he might lose ships that he can't easily replace like the defender because he has to sail to the port again. 2nd the outcome of the screening battle don't do anything for the result of the portbattle.

In the other hand the defender wants to keep his port therefore the easiest way is that the attacker never reaches the port. So it's highly appreciated to screen the attacker.

This two point of views don't match with each other and that's the problem we have all the time. 

If the outcome of a screening battle would have any positive effect for the attacker we would have had no problems in the past with griefing, annoying and ganking port battleships.

Edited by z4ys
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Thanks for the feedback. :)

The 6 hour window and 2 hour attack window is a compromise, as i see it, to have one unified server and not the split everyone is so eager to have.

Regarding non regulars ( I dislike the "bloody casuals" ida«ea ) they are not left out. They can form up a War fleet right ? It is open to all unless I wrote it unclear.

What it promotes to the clan though is a more organized way of conducting their agenda without interference from foreign agents.

Any player can for a War Fleet and invite whomever he wishes.

 

....

 

Yar, I would love Hostility / Stability to work but...we don't make it work. We players rush it as much as we can to suit our needs, not the envisioned path that the game needs.

Hence I suggested this path. A inverted flag system that relies on "blind" strategy and the need for screening.

You are welcome. And no, you were not unclear. I gathered that, in theory, anyone can create a war fleet. But while it should't be *easy*, it would clearly require a group effort. it would, even if not by intent, have an effect of disadvantaging people who play less often and are less well known (they won't get invited to the big groups) and will likely lack the resources and time to do it single-handedly or in small groups. My clan is about 11 people - we are quite good, but it's unusual for more than half to be online at one time. I don't see this as being possible to do with 5 or 6 people, and while in such instances it is again theoretically possible to have a war fleet of the "dispossessed" or casual players, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to put together. This is a situation where the organization of the hard core players definitely comes into play.

 

However, I am not sure what the alternative would be at this time. I personally like the hostility generation mechanic for a couple reasons. First, it is a more organic way of attacking a port rather than "Mordred creates a war fleet". It is somewhat more historically realistic, as it does more to simulate the combined actions of an entire nation in an area, not the whims of one captain or admiral.

 

An area that I think would add tremendous depth to the game is to further simulate the fact that, in this time period, the nations of the world (specifically the nations in the game) were at war with one another and ship captains or admirals commanding fleets did not act unilaterally to do whatever they wanted when it came to territory changing hands. Strategies were orchestrated at the respective admiralties and governments and the admirals and captains were given significant lee-way in determining the way to accomplish such objectives, but they rarely defined the objectives themselves. While that latter part would be a poor limiting factor on the actions we should be able to take as players, it should present a baseline of the kinds of things we are able to, encouraged to, or prohibited from, doing. 

 

I don't have a problem with territory changes being rare, but the battles themselves should not be. Raids should be common which could yield the same rewards that port battles do now. While PVP1 seems better off, on PVP2 we saw nations hunted to extermination and so territory changes (or lack thereof) should make it harder to do that.

 

Finally, as an example of other types of missions, activities, etc I think should be focused on now I would suggest what @Yar Matey posted in the 1H 2017 thread. Focus should be put there, instead of reinventing the wheel with hostility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same should have happened with the former flag system and never happened.

To make it happen you add this point:

If the attacking fleet is pulled into battle the outcome of the battle influence the br of the defender and attacker available for the port battle. 

But even then why should the attacker fight the screening battle. He wants a port and not a battle? For the attacker a screening battle is just wasting time while it isn't for the defender.

Because of this it's a good suggestion and I really like it on paper. But like I said you can implement awesome events but the player sabotages it to the way with lowest resistance for himself. Which made most of the awesome feature we got just useless.

 

*Edit* We got the alliance system now we have two blocks one has more power than the other because of timezone advantage. Everyone sees the issue. But nobody is doing the step to mix up the blocks again to make a balanced 2 block system. Why should the winning block give up their advantage?  No complains by them. Only the losers are complaining.

So everytime you can chose between high and low resistance why should some pick high resisitance? In a system that is going to work in a perfect way there will be no if. I know its a sandbox game and the player should make the game. But to balance it for everyone there must be hard rules made by the game. Otherwise the winning team will always dictate how the game is played.

Edited by z4ys
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The limiting of defense window to 6 hours is almost as bad as the 100% hostility setting a 46-hr battle, for the one reason in my opinion that attack windows should not be set at all.  It should be open all day.  My main reason for that view is no different than has been stated across many threads by many people: that is that nations are comprised of people from different time zones, and limiting PB attacks to certain time windows limits overall participation.  Your suggestion does provide a more liberal solution and does promote teamplay, that's great, but if you can't take advantage based on your job or sleep schedule it still amounts to somewhat limiting participation.  At least if I understand your suggestion correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, z4ys said:

I like your suggestions. But history has proven that interception of attack fleets never happen in NA. 

Just think about the former flag system. Intention was to create awesome fleet battles besides the port battle. - never happened.

Chest event should generate awesome pvp. - never happened.

 

Blame human nature. For the attacker the goal is to capture the port. Therefore he must fight the port battle. A screening fight do nothing for him.First he might lose ships that he can't easily replace like the defender because he has to sail to the port again. 2nd the outcome of the screening battle don't do anything for the result of the portbattle.

In the other hand the defender wants to keep his port therefore the easiest way is that the attacker never reaches the port. So it's highly appreciated to screen the attacker.

This two point of views don't match with each other and that's the problem we have all the time. 

If the outcome of a screening battle would have any positive effect for the attacker we would have had no problems in the past with griefing, annoying and ganking port battleships.

 

Interception of attacking fleets have happen, happen alot during the first couple of Swedish-Danish war, we got really cool battles from it, but the goal was to take or defend ports so the screening battle become a prio 2 and not the prio 1. The goal was not to get the cool and awesome fight but to neutralize the flag. In one of the fights I took part in my goal was not to sink anybody else but the flag as our forces were thinned out, so all I did was to focus in on the flag carrier, decrew and board and quickly kill to cancel the port battle.

The whole reason why this started was due to people become bored, you either got a fight or you sat in a port waiting for 2 hours and nothing happens. So this become boring for people because it become like a chore to sit there for 2 hours because if you didnt, you lost everything.

 

This is for all not just Z4:

What you all need to understand is that there is people which want the total freedom to be able to attack when the enemy is absolute 0 online just so they can get a walk in the park to get the region. But there is also those which want to have a total freedom to not limit people from a other timezones to get the possibility to get port battles. 

If you're not one of those which want the walk in the park but still want the port to be open 24/7 why do you want it and how would you promote so there will be battles and not the walk in the park?

 

Those which want to have the port timer set by a Lord Protector most of those want it because they dont want to go up at 0300 and fight in a port battle, in short they want to get rid of the nightflips and get to fight these things when they're awake. But as it were shown earlier there is people which set the port timer at 0500-0700 just to avoid to fight the port battles.

So question to those which want to have port timers set by example a Lord Protector how would you solve the issue that you might limit players from different part of the worlds of content (please dont write different servers because that is just boring if it comes down to that) and the issue with people then setting the timer just to avoid the fighting?

 

If this questions isnt responded I wont take you serious in any argument or discussion because YOU NEED to acknowledge the issues and pointers of both sides and not just sit and say "I want it like this because its best for me" because that is not the goal of a mechanic.

 

 

So there is just not 1 or 2 or 3 problems you need to think about to make a good mechanic. Also dont think about what you want to have (because most times if you think like that its because you want to get an advantage over your enemy) but think about what would make the game better and more enjoyable for the biggest amount of future and current players but still make it fair for both defenders and attackers.

One of the things which have been shown over 2 total different conquest system and several different layers of those 2 is that the players which just want to win no matter what is the one which ruins the experience for the rest. Because these people dont care if they win in a fishy way aslong as they win and can poke fun at the one which lost.

 

Might add further to this and if so then it will be under this sentence right here which you read.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like some of the ideas, but

Maybe the whole implementation of Pbs has been done wrong all along.  Maybe we need a fresh start?

3 major cons to how Pbs are done:

Con - max 25 people take part in the battle per side.
Con - screening fleet (con?  not a con? debatable)
Con - one side can't field numbers because of work/night flips

 

I think a good solution would solve each of these 3.  Get more than 25 people involved.  Make screening fleets redundant somehow (get them part of the actual combat somehow?  Maybe by having them join the battle when players sink or leave?).  I agree that Lord Protectors can set 6 hour windows to stop work/night flips (though Jean makes good points as to why you shouldnt).  Finally, I think a solution needs to protect small nations/alliances and allow them to be successful at both offense and defense if they are well organized.  P.s. I think a solution cannot be split the community into different servers.

 

I think I want a system that isn't just one battle and the time doesn't last just 90 minutes max.  This solution wouldn't have lord protectors or time windows.  Maybe the battle itself lasts 24 hours from the point it starts.  People should be able to come and go as they have time.  If a player sinks, another player can take their place.  If a player leaves, another player can take their place.  If you sink or leave, you can reenter (maybe after a cooldown of 30 minutes?)  You have the 3 circles, forts, and sinking/capturing ships to get points.  At the end of 24 hours, the side with the most points wins.  This technically doesnt solve #2, but I think it might solve the other 2 cons I listed above?  But otherwise take Hethwill's ideas and then append these.

 

I don't know that this would solve the issues and maybe it just creates more.

 

Edited by Prater
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tomms123 said:

...

If you're not one of those which want the walk in the park but still want the port to be open 24/7 why do you want it and how would you promote so there will be battles and not the walk in the park?

...

If this questions isnt responded I wont take you serious in any argument or discussion because YOU NEED to acknowledge the issues and pointers of both sides and not just sit and say "I want it like this because its best for me" because that is not the goal of a mechanic.

...

 

Tomms, responding to your first quoted para above, my response above in this thread explains why I think there should be 24/7, paraphrasing, so that all in a nation can participate in their own convenient timeframe.  But to follow it up, I've mentioned in other threads that I don't think nightflips are as big an issue as they are blown up to be because it goes both ways, since no one in general is fielding 24 hours of fulltime players.  I think the problem resolves itself, even if it's not elegant.  So for that reason I don't think promoting the battles is needed.  If true pvp was intended, no promotion is necessary.

I've read your second quoted para above several times and for the life of me I have no idea what you are saying.  What's with all the all caps underlining stuff?  If you decide in an argument to not take the others seriously then you really make yourself out to be the poor side of the discussion; try to hear everyone's opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jean Ribault said:

 

Tomms, responding to your first quoted para above, my response above in this thread explains why I think there should be 24/7, paraphrasing, so that all in a nation can participate in their own convenient timeframe.  But to follow it up, I've mentioned in other threads that I don't think nightflips are as big an issue as they are blown up to be because it goes both ways, since no one in general is fielding 24 hours of fulltime players.  I think the problem resolves itself, even if it's not elegant.  So for that reason I don't think promoting the battles is needed.  If true pvp was intended, no promotion is necessary.

I've read your second quoted para above several times and for the life of me I have no idea what you are saying.  What's with all the all caps underlining stuff?  If you decide in an argument to not take the others seriously then you really make yourself out to be the poor side of the discussion; try to hear everyone's opinion.

 

Because most of the discussions I have read both on forum and ingame goes down to that they want to get the best suitable option for them self, as in what will give them the biggest chance to win. Those are the once I will not take serious, because the idea is not to give 1 side the biggest chance to win. But to give both sides (defender, attacker etc) a fun mechanic which both can partly or fully agree too.

With your text you explained why and didnt go "I like it this way" and then didnt expand. But you explained why and thus I will listen, but those which just state and dont explain why I wont. Because if you sit tight on your side and wont listen to the other side (as you said) you wont go no where because there is several problems to several solutions which need to be fixed.

 

I dont think it will be resolved on its own because there is people on both side which just want to win and brag about what they did. It has been shown time and time again people will go to measures to get a port without having to fight someone. Dont trust me on it? Look on all the past wars in this system and back to the first system in late 2015.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prater said:

I like some of the ideas, but

Maybe the whole implementation of Pbs has been done wrong all along.  Maybe we need a fresh start?

3 major cons to how Pbs are done:

Con - max 25 people take part in the battle per side.
Con - screening fleet (con?  not a con? debatable)
Con - one side can't field numbers because of work/night flips

 

I think a good solution would solve each of these 3.  Get more than 25 people involved.  Make screening fleets redundant somehow (get them part of the actual combat somehow?  Maybe by having them join the battle when players sink or leave?).  I agree that Lord Protectors can set 6 hour windows to stop work/night flips (though Jean makes good points as to why you shouldnt).  Finally, I think a solution needs to protect small nations/alliances and allow them to be successful at both offense and defense if they are well organized.  P.s. I think a solution cannot be split the community into different servers.

 

I think I want a system that isn't just one battle and the time doesn't last just 90 minutes max.  This solution wouldn't have lord protectors or time windows.  Maybe the battle itself lasts 24 hours from the point it starts.  People should be able to come and go as they have time.  If a player sinks, another player can take their place.  If a player leaves, another player can take their place.  If you sink or leave, you can reenter (maybe after a cooldown of 30 minutes?)  You have the 3 circles, forts, and sinking/capturing ships to get points.  At the end of 24 hours, the side with the most points wins.  This technically doesnt solve #2, but I think it might solve the other 2 cons I listed above?  But otherwise take Hethwill's ideas and then append these.

 

I don't know that this would solve the issues and maybe it just creates more.

 

Prater, by all means persistent War Zones until a victor is decided sounds absolutely delicious.

A Tug-Of-War of ships sunk, supplies brought in, supplies captured, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tomms123 said:

I dont think it will be resolved on its own because there is people on both side which just want to win and brag about what they did. It has been shown time and time again people will go to measures to get a port without having to fight someone. Dont trust me on it? Look on all the past wars in this system and back to the first system in late 2015.

While that's true, I also reckon alot of the problems boil down to a combination of what the game currently is.

It's a game with multiple timezones - for which relying on those being balanced is necessary for it to be healthy.

It's a game about war - for which relying on players to give up an advantage for the sake of balance is counter-intuitive.

It's a sandbox - for which relying on game-driven balancing mechanics compromises the sandbox experience.

How can we expect these things to ever be reconciled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War Fleet was assembled, had a 'secret' objective and made way without being intercepted -

- 1798, French fleet was known to be supplied at Toulon and still it managed to slip through and make way to Egypt. British tried to find and intercept it and almost made it on the 22/23 June.

War Fleet was assembled, had a secret objective, slipped through a screen blockade and made way to the final objective where it was intercepted by a chasing-screening fleet -

- 1796/1798, French fleet slips bound to Ireland. There was little info, war fleets made the slip, first wasn't successful, second was intercepted by screening.

There's plenty of good examples as we start moving backwards in the NA timeline.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rediii said:

Problem is that screening in history wasnt 5 3rds holding off a fleet of 25 SOL's.

Also there was no enemy basic cutter inside these warfleets which communicated by radio with screeningfleets with no chance for the warfleets to catch the basic cutter without loosing many minutes (hours in realtime or even days)

True, the balance between reality and gameplay is called credibility hence rulebooks are made to play a game about reality.

Also true that a fleet leaving Toulon in early May lands in late June in Egypt :)

Works both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On ‎08‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 11:17 AM, rediii said:

Problem is that screening in history wasnt 5 3rds holding off a fleet of 25 SOL's.

 

Interesting that with the upcoming curve of Br and numbers of ships this problem won't exist making the true nature of a invasion fleet to be undisclosed and make the frigates the true eyes of the fleet.

You simply have information that a lot is going on on some port. After that is up to the defending nation to organize, spy, scout, and gauge wind and time to potential targets.

It is my firm belief it is a system worth trying as it pertains inclusive and exclusive choice for both sides in a war and surely works with a 24/7 worldwide community and at the same time giving the clans their importance and not blocking non clan players from the conquest mode, as they can also setup operations on their own with other buddies without clans or small clans.

 

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...