Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Anolytic

Tester
  • Content Count

    2,125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by Anolytic

  1. This is nothing new, it is well known, and it has been noted before in the forum. It is a feature or a bug depending on how you see it. However it is worth to mention it again to let Devs consider before release. The issue, if it is one, is this: In Port Battles against neutral ports it is possible for a nation to get an almost endless number of captains into the PB and earn Lord Protectorates. And thus earn Victory Marks. In other words, while normally a port would earn a nation up to 25 Victory Marks, it is possible for a nation to get 30-40 Victory Marks generated out of a single Port. That is per week. The system that makes this possible is a feature that was added some time ago: If a player leaves battle in the first 20 minutes of a PB without having inflicted or received damage in the PB to that point, his Battle Rating and his «slot» in the PB is restored to his team in the PB. In other words his side can join another ship to replace his BR and number without exceeding either the BR limit or the 25-player limit. Case in point, if you have 25 players in a PB and you are exactly at the Battle Rating limit for that PB. One player in Agamemnon can leave the battle, and another player can join the battle. But only if the first Agamemnon did not fire at anyone or get shot at, and it is within the first 20 minutes. So this would never mean that one side could have more than 25 players on their side. Nor would they be able to have more than the BR limit in the battle at any time. So it cannot be used in that way to gain an advantage in a contested battle. The feature in itself is a great and much used one. Introduced to us because it did, and still does, happen that someone joined a PB who was too eager and not supposed to. Or he was in the wrong ship. Then you can kindly convince him to leave the battle, and let the original member of your party join. Also there are, and were, cases where a player who was supposed to be in the PB, would discover in the beginning of the battle that he was experiencing particular lags or connection issues, or a ship could even disconnect and drop out. Then this player could, in the first 20 minutes, be replaced by someone better able to fight in the battle. This is a much appreciated feature. But it can also be used, in battles for Neutral Ports, where there is no dangerous opposition, to generate more Lord Protectorates than originally intended. Because a player that was in a PB, whether he left after 2 minutes or stayed till the end, will get a Lord Protectorate as long as his side won. The situation is demonstrated in this screenshot from Harbour Island: Note that in the screenshot I took, my character’s name is not on the list of the first 25 players to join the battle. He is way down the list from that. Now, we have been discussing between ourselves whether the core mechanic at work here, the replacing of ships in the first 20 minutes of battle, could be abused in some way. In theory an attacker could join an entire PB-fleet at one position in the PB, and after the defender has started sailing to that position, the attacker could literally replace their whole fleet for another PB-fleet that would spawn in a different position, unanticipated by the defender, who now may have sailed too far in the wrong direction. Personally I tend to believe there would be little or no possibility to gain any real advantage from this. Just a great risk of abject failure. To the problem of Lord Protectorates, there is an easy solution if we want this possibility removed. As this can only be done against neutral ports or in traded ports, and nobody is harmed by it, I am not sure a solution is really that urgently needed. But the simple solution would be to only count Lord Protectorates for players that stayed past the 20-minute mark of a Port Battle.
  2. Reverse showed you his, so I guess I'll show you mine: WTT for Jamaica! The fact is REDS had seven port-bonus ships in Les Cayes. I crafted 8 for the battle but one of our players had to switch to mortar brig last minute and another REDS went in an old (but gold) Ocean. 7 out of 8 ships I crafted were plain 3/5 btw. BF had 0 Port-bonus ships and NN had 1. Did Port Bonuses have anything to do with the outcome of the battle? Yes and no. All our fleet was set up for brawling, and as soon as the brawl started, things turned south fast for the brits. We would have won the brawl anyway, but without port bonuses 2-3 REDS, including me, would probably have been sunk, and another couple of Russian ships would have been unable to take cover from each other when damaged without those speedy ships. This might have been enough for brits to win on points before we could turn the game around. It is true that our tactics for the first 20 minutes of battle, which I commanded, was mostly a series of bad judgements - from joining position, to formation, to the timing of manoeuvers. But after the brawl started, I got boarded, and Reverse had to take over command, things turned to the better. Brits already lost a lot of momentum when their lines split just before the initial engagement and a quarter of their fleet headed downwind of us. I agree with you, and argue for the same. But I still adapt to whatever system is in the game at any time. Which is why I spent 4 hours yesterday sailing 28 Indiaman loaded with resources to craft ships. As for further discussion of the port-bonuses, let's move it out of this topic. I suggest here:
  3. It is my view that such arguments are best made with visual aids. So I was going to make a video showing the difference between port bonuses and no bonuses in surprises. However @dron (<3) put a stop to that by sinking both test ships… And I haven’t gotten around to making a new test. But the argument is already raging about the portbattle of Les Cayes, in the wrong topic. So I thought I’d redirect that discussion here and sprinkle it with a few facts. And these recent port battles will have to do as demonstration. Here is my ship from Les Cayes PB: Anybody want to trade? The fact is that for each of the battles of Nassau and Les Cayes I constructed 8 new ships with port-bonuses (only one was better than blue). That is, less than a 3rd of each of our fleets was new ships with bonuses. So, did they decide the outcome of the battles? In Nassau it’s a clear NO. In Les Cayes, the answer is both yes and no. Without them we might have lost some ships, but the brawl was still decidedly in our favour. But let’s discuss the particulars of the battle elsewhere. The fact is the stats on ships with port-bonuses are very high compared to those without them. Just looking at the stats it’s like having a ship with 10 upgrade slots and all elite upgrades. Just to highlight a few stats, the 5% speed boost of Sailing Bonus 4, or 10% armour thickness AND HP of Hull Bonus 4. Port-bonuses seem like a good idea for content in principle. But they need to be nerfed. And they need to be accessible to all, dependent on effort, not nationality. I know that port-bonuses will be changed next week. But I don’t think that it is enough. No ports should have more potential for greater ship-building than others. But the full potential of a regions should only be realised through the development of dependent ports in the county. Making other ports on the map more valuable than now. Notice how some nations have not even bothered to take the ports around their county capitals yet. If we want to have some special ports that are extra attractive for conquest like now, make it through convenience and profit. Give them more profitable trade-goods and make it so that ship-building in those ports require less hauling of resources and less logistics than in other ports. Right now a few nations can take all of the 55-point ports and monopolise the production of OP ships. Skewing the balance of PvP and RvR alike. People ask for something to fight for. But I remember in 2016 when there was no exclusive resources and we all fought more than any other time just for dots on the map and our names on the Lord Protector list. And I also remember other times in the game, and how troves of players, even entire clans, left nations or left the game over the loss of these pixels which suddenly had become more than just pixels, but prerequisites for gameplay on even terms. We should not go back to the times when RvR was about the destruction of communities rather than fun fights. If you loose one crafting-port, you should be able to set up your facilities in another one until you can get the first one back.
  4. Keep in mind not all of this player numbers distribution is necessarily representative for what we will see at launch. The relative sizes of the coalitions are not fixed. Personally I think I would prefer the no-alliances system we have now, where diplomacy is purely player-created content. However our RvR-model should have some way for nations to trade ports. If we were going to have alliances I like admin's proposal. This is basically fulfilling the request by many of reducing the number of nations. In effect with this system we will have 5 nations instead of 11. There are certainly advantages to that. And at the same time we do not need to abandon our flag or our national identity. And it is still possible to form temporary, player-arranged alliances between coalitions. Player-made, mechanics-enforced alliances are too tricky. Even though our last test was not a proper one, it is right that it would be all but impossible to create a system where the strongest did not band together to destroy the competition. I voted for 11 independent nations, but I would support admin's proposal if settled upon.
  5. I wanted to post in this topic, but it was closed before I could finish my reply. A moderator may merge my reply into the topic. REDS will not go to the currently scheduled Port Battle in Kidd’s Harbour and we encourage other clans, including the attacking clan, to refrain from doing so as well. For the record, REDS was fully informed and invested in the attack on Santiago de Cuba and we still stand by that action. Ciudad de Cuba was at the Russian frontline and but for a broken mechanic should have been attackable directly from Cap Francais. If we could have attacked Port-au-Prince first to enable an attack on Cuba next, we would have done it in that order. Kidd’s Island however is not at the Russian Frontline and should not be attackable by Russia at this time. We were approached by some US players offering us missions for Kidd’s Island, understandably indignant that ports were taken by other nations behind their frontline using this mechanic of sharing hostility missions. Though the current status in the tribunal seems to be that as of now any use of hostility missions is allowed, we refused this offer. Unfortunately this refusal was not communicated sufficiently and timely to all Russian clans. Russia has a clear and direct path to Bermuda and the Secret Islands and no urgency or need to utilise this «shortcut». Whether it is legal or not. We knew about this path since the beginning and if we had considered it a legitimate option we could have done so already and would not have needed to wait till after we had conquered Nassau. Although no alts were used and by the current standing of the tribunal it seems no rules were technically broken in this action, we have still requested that the SCUM-clan do not go through with the port battle for Kidd’s Harbour. We can still make our way to Kidd’s and Bermuda in the future the right way, which is step-by-step.
  6. Please read my whole post. Especially this part: My point is that players should be able to survive and thrive on the War-server without ever earning a single Combat Medal.
  7. Combat Medals in my mind, are supposed to be the PvP-currency/-reward. As in, the one reward in this game that can only be attained through PvP participation, and that should encourage players (on the War server) to try out and participate in PvP. Why else would we have so many currencies if not to serve unique purposes. Lately the age old concern about alt-/friend-farming has resurfaced regarding Combat Medals, as we had before with every attempt at a PvP currency. Yet it is ignored that, assuming the premise that Combat Medals are actually supposed to be a PvP-currency and reward players for getting into PvP, alt-farming and friend-farming are minor issues right now. The BIG issue is PvE-farming of Combat Medals. Anyone right now who tried to exploit by farming his alt for Combat Medals would be an idiot. It is a waste of the ship that is sunk, the cannons on it, and not least of time. It is much more efficient and rewarding to farm PvE Search and Destroy Missions for Combat Medals (I guess you could farm your alt to complete non-PvP Hunt-missions). In fact, actively doing legitimate PvP cannot even compare in profitability to doing a couple of hours of PvE per day. I know of players who have amassed more Combat Medals doing only PvE than any normal PvP-players in their nation. I approve of the decision to remove Combat Medal rewards directly for kills, and instead give combat medals only for missions. I have suggested this before - with some added modifications I would hope to see also. And the tracking of Steam IDs in counting kills should, depending on the parameters, efficiently prevent rewards for most exploit farming, as well as occasionally deny rewards for some legitimate PvP (this is probably a fair price). We have after all a limited number of active PvP-players on this server, and they tend to run into each other with some regularity. However, the best way I see to discourage farming, or reduce the consequences of it, is to change the rewards. What is the point of having so many currencies if they are all earned interchangeably? PvP-players are going to be happy with PvP-rewards that let them A. show off that they proficient PvP-players by displaying special flags, paints or other cosmetic items purchased only from PvP-currency, i.e Combat Medals, and B. gives access to some convenience features such as PvP-upgrades that are comparable in strength to PvE-upgrades only acquired through trading and PvE. Also some ship-notes for common ships, but without the need for crafting, including the ship-notes we can now get for DLC-ships. The reason people farm Combat Medals, whether through alts or now through PvE, is because they must. Combat Medals are used for «everything» and everything is very expensive. Several days are needed in the patrol zones, or doing PvE-missions to pay for a first-rate which an active RvR-environment we are hoping to have after release would require you to use it and risk it daily. The same with all the upgrades for it. Lineship permits need to again be purchased for Victory Marks, or we are going to have nothing to spend our Victory Marks on after we have upgraded all of our ports in a few weeks. It also would mean we had to be strategic about what to invest in first, ships or port upgrades. The Combat Medal economy needs to be deflated, so that we earn much less Combat Medals than now, but also all prices in Combat Medals are slashed significantly. Make Combat Medals a bonus, a reward for PvP, and a way for PvP-players to show off their proficiency. But take them out of the PvE and RvR-economy. Doubloons and Victory Marks are more than enough for ensuring that we need to grind to upgrade our port facilities. And please make assists count towards Combat Medal mission rewards. In a fleet-battle you could be the most important player in ensuring a good outcome, by tanking the most damage and finishing off damaged ships, as well as protecting friends. And yet if your own damage output was spread around to where it was most needed, you could be left with no rewards after.
  8. For the owning nation it means they have to maintain their ports, keep their clans active and working together, and they should not hold more ports than they can actually use and visit with some regularity. I would prefer if it required some guesswork and/or intel so that it was actually a risky investment for pirates to probe a port. The profit should be great for capturing and holding a pirate infested port, but failed expeditions should also come at some expense so that they cannot probe all ports all times, or just take a traders lynx to find a sure target. I considered that as well. The only problem I would say then is the timing of the PB. Because unmaintained ports are unlikely to have a timer. It would be meaningless if the pirate clan doing the probing ended up with a PB at a time they could not be there. And I forgot to mention that the expeditions should take 24 hours (or even 48) before returning an answer, and only one expedition can be active per clan at a time. About defence. I obviously don't want this to be a PvE-feature, so yes, the nation can defend. But if the owning clan is inactive, then it could be a problem to get on their friendlist and join the PB. Another reason why hostility missions should be needed to prepare the attack. It allows some warning and some chance to push the pirates back.
  9. ...of unmaintained ports. Let’s face it. We’re not getting raids. Nor is black-on-black likely to come back as a RoE. But pirates should have some unique mechanic that distinguishes them from other nations without giving them an advantage or disrupting gameplay for the general populace. Here’s my on-the-spot idea for a pirate mechanic that I think would not be too much work to implement. I would welcome some input as to its viability or improvement. Pirate Infestation of Ports I’m going to try to explain my idea as simple and brief as I can. Essentially it’s this: Ports that are left unused, unvisited and unprotected by their national owners can become infested by pirates. To begin with this is just a stat, not an infestation of actual pirate players. If the pirate infestation reaches too high, a pirate clan can get the opportunity to attack that port, from Mortimer Town regardless of frontlines and regions and in any part of the map. If they win, they get a position behind enemy lines, to raid commerce and do other pirate activities. It gets an extra long cooldown before it is attackable again by other nations, but potentially it would not be possible to take hostility missions from pirate infested towns. On the other hand, the owning pirate clan gets a significantly boosted income from the pirate infested town, deriving from privateering and pirate activities like gambling, whoring and other debauchery in the port. What is addressed: Potentially, this mechanic would work to counter the cases of inactive clans holding ports behind frontlines because they never get attacked. Especially with regional conquest it is going to become a problem that dependent ports in a county will be held by clans that eventually disappear or go inactive, but nobody can take over the port. In the past this has also happened to important ports that were held for long times by clans that were not at all playing anymore. It would also mean that clans have to take care also of their less valuable ports and ports in the periphery, or risk loosing them to pirate infestations. How it would work: I am open to suggestions for how this mechanic could work, but I will give an outline of how I imagine it. Ports all have a stat of pirate infestation. From 0-100%. This stat can only be seen by the owning clan and clans allied to the owner. Pirate infestation increases with various factors, such as the port being unused. If it is free-for-all pirate infestation grows faster. If investments are active in the port infestation grows slower. When investments are made infestation goes down. Members of the owning clan trading to or from the port reduces infestation significantly. Generally infestations grow very slow, but if a port is not visited by the owning nation for a long time (weeks) it starts growing fast. If barely any members/officers log into the clan for a prolonged time, their ports all start growing infestations faster. If a port gets higher than 85% pirate infestation, then it can be attacked by a pirate clan and taken by them. But since only clans and their allies can see infestations in their own ports, pirate clans cannot know what ports have a high enough infestation level to be attackable unless they have a spy or a traitor in place to let them know. Instead pirate clans can, in Mortimer Town, pay for expeditions to be made to any port on the map. If the expedition they choose is for a port that has a low infestation level, then the money they invest is lost. If the expedition is for a port with a high infestation level - 85% or higher - then their expedition will infiltrate the city and increase the infestation rate to 100% and also send word back to the pirate clan that the port is ripe for attack and they will be able to take hostility missions for the port within the next 5 days.
  10. REDS was well represented in the recent victory at Nassau:
  11. Nassau PB Thanks Brits, for your enthusiasm in grinding Nassau on day one. It saved us from doing this against AI.
  12. I do not speak for the accused as I was not personally present, but in my view this is just how new mechanics are tested. The tribunal might come to the conclusion that this (trading hostility missions with allied players) should not be allowed (or possible by mechanics) in the future. It is not, however, obvious by default that this should be deemed an exploit. First of all, it should be noted the ridiculous situation deriving from the current implementation of the Frontlines mechanic, that from Cap Francais neither Ciudad de Cuba nor Port-au-Prince can be attacked, even though both regions are by every definition directly neighbouring Cap-Francais. I am sure it was not an intended mechanic that Brits should be in the unique position to be protected from attack from neighbouring regions. What's more, Cap Francais can be attacked currently from Port-au-Prince, but Port-au-Prince still cannot be attacked in return the other way around from Cap Francais. As such this case could be considered as a workaround to a bugged frontline mechanic preventing attacks on neighbouring regions which was not how the frontlines mechanic was clearly meant to work. Secondly, there is reason to consider it as a potential feature that allies should be able to share a frontline and for a nation to be able to sponsor an ally to attack a neighbouring enemy's territory through their own. Instead of trading ports, which leads to empty PBs, needless PvE and potential Victory Marks-farming, this could be bypassed completely by allowing nations in this way to use each other's frontlines as staging grounds for attacks on an enemy's frontline. With properly implemented frontlines this would still not take anything away from Frontlines as a defensive device. It would still only be a nation's frontline counties that could be attacked, but other nations than the immediate neighbour could perpetrate the attack if facilitated by the nation holding the opposing frontline. The only alternative way for Russia in the current mechanics to progress east and push the frontline from Cap Francais county would be to temporarily trade regional capitals with Pirates for Puerto Plata, Grand Turk, and/or Baracoa in order to be able to attack Brits. And then trade the other ports back to Pirates afterwards. I am sure Brits would have been no happier with this workaround than the current one. Flags could be traded between nations...
  13. The long and short of this idea is this: That Regional capitals are expanded ONLY through investment in the other ports of their Region. The problem to solve is that currently only County Capitals matter. All other non-capital ports are inconsequential. To change this, non-capital ports should matter in the conquest of a county, and they should matter in the development of a county. Only through expanding the infrastructure in surrounding ports can the capitals reach their full potential. This is not only prudent gameplay-mechanics, it is also historical. If you neglect the surrounding lands, the cities cannot fully develop their potential. There should be no distinction between 20k ports and 25k-ports in terms of development, except for possibly this: Some few ports could allow 100% development of shipbuilding bonuses, PLUS placing of Forts and other defences. While the other county capitals would still allow 100% development of shipbuilding bonuses, but you would have to ration your points if you also wanted to put defences in the port. That way any nation can make any county capital a shipbuilding port, but they would have to secure a frontline port as a buffer to their shipbuilding port, where they could develop defences instead of shipbuilding characteristics. The current model of having only some few 25k BR ports with full development potential creates gear disparity and is a great way to make people in the smaller nations quit the game in frustration and facilitate player-base warfare, where it is not about winning, but about destroying the enemy nation’s community. We tried this before. My preference however would be a system where shipbuilding upgrades in a port was a strategic choice, and you could only develop 2 traits to level 5, or alternatively all 5 trait options to level 1 and 2. And you would have to choose what traits to focus on. This would also encourage RvR expansion without it being crippling, as having more regional capitals would allow a nation to develop different combinations of traits in different shipbuilding ports. Successful RvR would allow more shipbuilding variety, but any nation with at least 1 county would be able to develop shipbuilding bonuses in that capital to the RvR-meta to give themselves a fair chance to expand their territory further. Back to the development of Regions as a whole, my idea is this: The county capital would have say 30 base development points if you owned only the county capital, or if the county capital was the only one being developed. Through the development of dependent ports, a further 30 points could be added to develop this county capital. By investing in a special infrastructure option in each of the dependent ports, the whole region would improve. If the region had only 2 other ports in it, each of those ports would be able to be developed for another 15 points each, available at the capital. All dependent ports in a county would not have to be equally important, so in a county with 4 different dependent ports, port A could be developed for a potential 15 extra points, while port B, C and D would each be developed for an additional 5 points. This system that I propose would have the benefits of encouraging collaboration within nations. If you want your county capital to be fully expandable, then you need to encourage the clans who own the dependent ports in the county to develop them. Most importantly, it would mean that capturing whole counties would be important, and loosing parts of a county would hurt the value of the capital.
  14. Я был осведомлен о том, что произошло, и от имени REDS я оговариваю факты, представленные в суде, и приношу свои извинения. Я также организую незамедлительную замену потерянных кораблей и улучшений. Пожалуйста, дайте мне знать, что конкретно было потеряно. Что касается случая: хотя присоединение к сражениям с целью их закрытия не является чем-то, что ранее рассматривалось трибуналом, я согласен, что это должно быть определено как подвиг, и это так же хорошо, как и любая возможность для его решения. Поскольку это первое нарушение рассматриваемого игрока, приоритет заключается в том, что игрок должен получить предупреждение. Он также получил предупреждение от клана. Что касается других игроков в битве, они не знали об этом до тех пор, пока это не произошло. Нам стыдно за этот инцидент и искренне приносим извинения I have been made aware of what happened, and on behalf of REDS I do stipulate to the facts that are shown in the tribunal, and I offer our apologies. I will also arrange to replace the lost ships and upgrades forthwith. Please let me know what specifically was lost. As to the case: while joining battles in order to close them is not something that has been previously been addressed by the tribunal, I agree that it should be defined as an exploit and this is as good as any an opportunity to address it. As this is a first offence of the player in question, the precedence is for the player to be given a warning. He has also been given a warning by the clan. As for the other players in the battle, they were not aware until after the fact. We are ashamed of this incident and apologize sincerely.
  15. After the map-wipe we had the situation with pirates being able to take Saint Mary’s using legacy hostility missions taken before the wipe happened. This was a good test and revealed a critical flaw. Because even though this specific situation could not be replicated at release, even if nothing was changed to address it, since at release everything will be wiped including any missions taken, it still reveals a path to another potential exploit. The situation is this: Some nation holds the whole of the Gulf of Mexico. Then they are attacked and successfully kicked out of ALL of the Gulf of Mexico. They really want the Apalache County back, because they have their stuff there. But some other nation now controls the whole Gulf of Mexico and to get back to Apalache, you would have to go from El Rancho and attack first Texas, then Louisiane, then Florida Occidental counties, and only then could you attack Apalache county The enemy nation has built strong defences, forts and timers on Texas county. So it is hard for you to go that route. But then someone in the clan says that he still has Hostility Missions in his mission log for the port of Apalachicola from when you last conquered that port 3 months ago. Thus you can sail straight to Apalachicola and attack that port, bypassing the whole frontline and 3 Counties. Strike at the hearth of the enemy territory and after successfully taking Apalachicola you can attack San Marcos and work your way outwards from behind the enemy Frontline. In simple terms: Legacy Hostility Missions allows bypassing frontlines and capture supposedly safe territories in the middle of enemy waters. The simple solution: Wipe hostility missions from the quest log at Maintenance every day. When you take a Hostility Mission from one of your ports or a freeport, you have until the first Maintenance to complete the Hostility Mission or it disappears from your map.
  16. Two major issues with the current way regions work in the Frontlines system is that: A. Big nations are able to go to every freeport and ports close to their starting territory and immediately capture the 3 closest Counties everywhere. Allowing just a few nations to grab an enormous amount of territory already on day 1, securing frontlines and laying the grounds for further occupation of territory. B. Besides the County Capital the other ports of a region are utterly unimportant and once you occupy a County Capital, you can take your leisurely time capturing the other ports - if you even bother to. Instead it is better to jump from one County Capital to the next, to secure control over another county before thinking of consolidating control over the ones you already have access to. On top of this, in the future once a nation looses the county capital of one of their Counties, they will have little incentive to defend the rest of the ports in the County, and we will see conquest focused only on County Capitals while other port battles will be undefended, abandoned or half-heartedly defended. Making most of RvR just about grinding rather than the battles. My suggestion is to involve whole regions in conquest, rather than just the capital. In my proposal, the next Region can only be attacked from the outer ports of a Region, and after capturing a County Capital, you need to progressively expand outwards in the region to control it before being able to capture the next one. Others I have discussed with, such as El Patron, would favour the inverse of my proposal, that in order to attack a County Capital you first have to capture all of the other ports in the region. Another option is to lessen the significance of regions and simply have conquest move from port to adjacent port, without the need to capture capitals first or last, but rather as you get to them. In this topic I will however use as premise the current model of capturing regions as a whole. Imagine that you seek to conquer Hispaniola, starting in this case from the freeport of La Mona. You would first have to attack the County Capital of Santo Domingo. After capturing it, you could not directly attack Les Cayes or Puerto Plata. If you wanted to attack Les Cayes, you would first have to take Bani, then Azua, then Barahona, before being able to attack Les Cayes County Capital. If you wanted to attack Puerto Plata, you would similarly have to make your way to the border port Higuey first. My proposal is illustrated below: I would pair this system with proposals I have made elsewhere to limit the number of Regions that can be simultaneously engaged to 2 per day (EU-time) and 2 per US-time day. And with a remapping of what constitutes adjacent regions. Ideally I would also move away from freeports as "jump-points" and to using captureable ports instead as jump-points between different parts of the map.
  17. I suggest adding a 2nd type of Free-for-all port that the owner can select. This option would allow other nations to take Hostility Missions to adjacent ports from said port. This would be useful for a couple of reasons: Allowing a nation/clan that you are collaborating with to use the port to move through your territory and attack the territory of a common enemy. Inviting a foreign clan to attack a port owned by another clan in your nation. Either simply to sabotage this clan, or because you wish to engineer a takeover of the port in question. It is an option that only the Pirate nation would be able to utilise such ports, and that this way mercenary clans within Pirates could be hired to help impact disputes between clans within the same nation. This mechanic would only really be worth to consider presuming that some other changes (discussed in other topics) were first done to the current Frontlines and County Conquest system.
  18. If we are going to stick with the idea of Frontline conquest, we have to find a better implementation. There are several problems with the current model, from the unimportance of non-capital ports. To the rate of expansion leading from nations jumping from Capital to Capital without filling in the rest of the region first. And the approach that was taken in implementing the Hostility Missions. I believe that given the current model we have for Frontlines, either most Counties are far too large (too many ports within each County/too many ports per county capital), or we should do away with Counties/regions completely in this context and jump from individual port to individual port like we did with flags. I am contemplating other ways of having Counties/Regions and having frontlines too, but in this topic I am taking as premise the currently implemented idea of Regions and Frontlines and only addressing the problem of how hostility mission distances are implemented. As I have written elsewhere, neither the model with ability to attack the 2 closest, nor the 3 closest Regional Capitals work in a satisfactory way. The first creates some odd results where adjacent regions are not connected, while the second in effect does away with the Frontlines concept. Below I put some effort into mapping out all of the regions and connecting them according to how I believe Regions should be interconnected in the current model conquest model. Note the distinction between one-way and two-way arrows, and that most freeports are only connected to a single region, and note that there are no frontlines in Bahamas. And sorry that I unfortunately did not have time to put more effort into drawing the arrows representing the connection between regions. P.S. In this map I have kept the Freeports as jump-points around the map, allowing nations with the capacity to do so, and especially "impossible" nations, easy (too easy in my opinion) access to jump to opposing ends of the map. I still maintain my opinion that conquerable ports would make better "jump-points" from Island to Island and to various parts of the map. Meaning that all movement of territory across the map has to be done by conquest, and these jump-points can be blocked by conquest as opposed to Free-towns that are always open.
  19. Frontlines are a great idea, but they way they are implemented is sloppy. At first we had that from each county capital/free-port you could attack the 2 closest counties. This led to situations such as Pirates not being able to attack Pitt’s Town from Mortimer Town, even though the two regions are directly adjacent to each other. To remedy this, it was expanded to the 3 closest counties. The consequence of this, is that for large parts of the map, the actual Frontlines are eviscerated. Case in point: From Cartagena, you can now jump past the British frontline and attack Old Providence. But presumably it would be impossible to go the other way, because Old Providence has several Counties that are closer to it than Cartagena is. However, Cartagena is no longer an eastern Frontline towards the freetown of Dariena. It is perfectly possible to bypass the Cartagena region and jump straight to Santa Marta. Because the 3 closest Counties are Portobello, Cartagena, and Santa Marta. From San Augustin on the Florida coast, the 3rd closest County is Abaco (Marsh Harbour), which any way you look at it is not adjacent to each other. Some parts of the map have still a semblance of Frontlines. If Spain was to settle the Gulf of Mexico, most of the territory would be behind a couple of frontlines, due to the relatively far-apart free-towns. If you are not already situated in the Gulf, it can only be attacked from the 3 closest Counties to El Rancho, and a single county from Tumbado. The Gulf has 10 or 11 counties depending on your definition. In either case more than half the counties are behind frontlines. Britain also benefits from the relative safety of being able to lock down most of their territory behind narrow frontlines. Everything in the triangle between Jamaica, Bacalar on Yucatan and Portobello in Panama, as well as portions of South Cuba, and with the exception of Old Providence can be defended behind Frontlines. Similarly, anyone possessing Bermuda and the Secret Islands will have the 2 very strong regions very safely protected behind a frontline as long as they hold Marsh Harbour. On the other hand, if you are Danish or Swedish, you might as well forget about the concept of Frontlines, at least as far as helping you to defend the integrity of your territory. When you are looking for places to expand, it might be a different story. From a Swedish perspective, not only has the Virgin Islands County been inexplicably expanded to protrude to ports directly on top of their capital, forcing an immediate confrontation between Denmark and Sweden that will be long-term completely destructive to the player-base of one of those nations. In addition, even if Sweden were to expand outwards from their starting position, in the 2 directions available to them, and capture every region north of Fort Royal (Martinique) to the South, and all the way to the Eastern half of Hispaniola to the West, only a meagre 2 counties (Leeward Islands and Grande-Terre) would be covered by the Frontlines Mechanic. Due to access from the Freeports of Aves, La Mona, La Tortue as well as enemy capitals, every other region they capture near their core territory will be constantly compromisable. For Denmark this is even worse. Given that they work outward from their capital and capture the same territory as mentioned above, comprising of the ten counties of La Vega, Santo Domingo, San Juan, Ponce, Virgin Islands, Bovenwinds, Leeward Islands, Grande-Terre, Basse-Terre and Dominica, only a single one region, Grande-Terre, would be protected behind their «Frontline», since Leeward Islands is attackable from Gustavia. I have said this before, and Hullabaloo made a good write-up of it somewhere as well: If we are to use frontlines, simply coding Hostility missions to be distance-based for each port is a terrible solution, whether it is the 2 closest or the 3 closest regions. Instead, the map has to be looked at and adjacent regions/counties identified, and for each County Capital and Freeport, it must be carefully considered what ports should be attackable from there. And most Freeports should only allow attacking 1 or 2 adjacent regions. For Aves, this number should be 1 - Basse Terre. And from La Mona, also only 1 - Santo Domingo.
  20. Stop projecting. Just because you are so self-centred that you only think of how this game can be improved for you and your own group, doesn't mean the rest of us do. Most of my proposals go against my immediate self-interest. Because I want thousands of casual players to enjoy and play this game, not just 200 bitter old power-gamers. I first made this exact proposal long before the wipe happened. And seeing as all will be wiped on release, I could hardly care less about Nassau right now. I am actually pleased that if brits think it's so important to us, they might actually fight to defend instead of us doing more boring neutral PBs.
  21. Wtf are you talking about? You previously complained that my OPs are too long and yet you accuse me of not contemplating my proposals enough. It seems like you try to imply that the current BRs we have are based on my suggestion, they are not. I have only advocated for removing the absolutely lowest BR limits we had before, because they made it possible for defenders to win by default by kiting, something which I stand by still. Overall, the increased BR limits we have now are a good thing. We cannot design this game for the current playerbase numbers. We have to assume that after release we will have a much higher population, and it should be designed for that, or we might as well declare it DOA right now. For a couple of years now we've had cute little PBs of 5-10 players each side. But after release most PBs should give room to accomodate 15-20 players each side, with a few PBs for smaller groups. In a 2500 player dream Naval Action world a small(tiny) RvR-clan will be the size of the largest RvR-clans we have right now, and the really large ones will reach the 250 player limit and have to create secondary clans like several British clans had to back in 2016.
  22. It is no secret that I and others with me are nostalgic about the good old days of 25v25 1st rate fights. This has two main reasons for me at least. First, with 25v25 1st rates, everything was equal at the start. Ships were equal, numbers were equal. It was all about what happened inside the battle instance, and all about sinking the opponent faster than they could sink you. Sure, we had kiting problems with the 1-circle system, but battles were at least decided on sinking or not sinking your enemy, not on passively acquired points. Secondly, screening. It took some effort and risk to screen a 25 first rate fleet. Screening 5000 BR port battle fleets is child’s play, and with hopefully 2000+ players after release, screening is going to be a huge issue in RvR when clashes happen between large and small nations. However, despite my nostalgia, I’m advocating to revise the current Port Battle BRs on the map. For a couple of reasons. First of all, everything is the same. With deep water ports being only 3 different sizes, 10k, 20k and 25k BR, out of hundreds of ports all over the map there will quickly become only 3 metas. One setup for each of those sizes, with little variety. Once someone finds a meta that works reliably, others will copy it. There will be no surprises, no strategising before PBs, and most importantly no variety. This does put us on a more even playing field in some regards. Some nations have leaders with more or less ability to innovate strategy. But it also takes away a huge element of RvR. An element which I was against when it was introduced, and never really developed a fondness for, but which I still think ads an important dimension to RvR, which should not be overlooked. For the purposes of this discussion, I am leaving aside the issue of screening, which is helped somewhat by the new BRs, as well as the fact that planning and organising PBs will now be significantly easier and that DLC-ships will be less of a deciding factor in Deep Water Port Battles. Speaking strictly about the experience within PB instances, I am advocating for more variety in BRs. As 25v25 1st rate clashes can occur in OW just as well as inside PBs, and there is nothing really special about having 25 1st rates on each side compared to 18 1st rates and a 6 2nd rates, I am suggesting that no Port Battle needs to have a BR limit higher than 20k. Why even have a BR limit on a port if there is so high that 27 1st rates would fit in, even though the instance can only take 25 players. This highest BR limit should only be in Regional Capitals, and the largest/most important County Capitals. Most County Capitals should have BR limit between 10k and 18k. Non-county Capitals should have an average BR Limit of about 8k, and a span from 4,5k to 12k allowing smaller fleets to take part in RvR for those ports. Historically some harbours, like Gustavia or Christiansted, were put under occupation by just a single frigate, but that would equate in-game to undefended port-battles. However, to accommodate participation of smaller fleets, some 5-10% of non-capital PBs should have a BR limit of 4,5-5k BR. Meaning they are small enough for small PB-fleets, without being so small that kiting is a default win option for defenders. Most importantly, variety. Instead of every port being X000k BR limit. Creating a limited number of meta PB setups that we will eventually get used to. Having port limits return to limits like 8500BR, and 5340BR, and 12400BR like we had before, will make sure that almost every port battle is fought with a unique fleet composition.
  23. I have made this proposal before, but I want to repeat for emphasis: Please remove the frontlines mechanic from the Bahamas Region. Specifically the Counties of Grand Bahama, Abaco, Andros, New Providence, and Exuma. The ports in this region should be available for all nations to fight over at will. Missions for any port within the Bahamas, county capital or not, should be possible to take from Shroud Cay. Regardless of whether your nation holds any adjacent ports or regions. The Bahamas should be an active RvR-area, with ports constantly shifting hands, and individual ports PvP and piracy abounds. Not locked behind the bars of frontlines allowing one or a couple of nations to control the whole region by their ability to lock down Regional Capitals using numbers, and the construction of forts that will be more significant in Shallow PBs than anywhere else. I would consider also the option to not allow construction of forts in Shallow/Bahamas Ports (Shallow Ports elsewhere on the map, i.e. Pedro Cay, is a different story). The frontline-mechanic, is a good idea for the general map, but in the Bahamas it only serves to limit diversity, access and gameplay. Removing Frontlines from Bahamas will allow the «Strong» nations to fight over the ports perceived as important and valuable, because of strategic location, profit, resources, or proximity to Patrol Zones. While leaving «lesser» nations or clans to fight over ports with great value, though they are often overlooked or ignored by the powerful nations.
  24. This wipe has made evident some notable problems with the current RvR-model. Especially about early expansion after release. One of the problems is the connection between regions putting unnatural restraints on the direction of expansion. Another problem is the rate of expansion. The map gets gobbled up by the nations with the most large clans that can fan out over the map and capture every region adjacent to default territories or Free-ports. Last but not least (of the problems addressed here) is the problem of no luck for the US-timezone. The first problem, created by the way hostility missions are now linked to the closest regions, was addressed somewhat by the expansion from 2 to 3 regions being available. But in return it created new problems and I plan to address this whole mechanic further elsewhere. However, the other two problems persist in full. That after wipe/release, it is first come-first serve, and since maintenance/wipe usually happens after US primetime and before EU primetime, by the time US players come online again after a wipe, the map is already divided between European clans. Every nation that has the ability, through sheer numbers, will fan out immediately after a map-wipe and grind everything that can be grinded. My suggestion consists of two recommended changes. First is a limitation on how many regions can be under attack at the same time by a nation, and the rate of outward expansion. What we are going to see clearly tomorrow, when nations for the first time take full possession of county capitals they have so far conquered. Is that it is strongly in the interest of clans and nations to largely ignore capturing ports that are not regional capitals, and instead to secure the largest territory possible by proceeding to attack the next county capital from where they have now reached with their expansion. We will see regions where a few, or even most, of the ports beyond the county capital, will not have the controlling faction even bothering to claim them. As long as they are within a region held by the nation, they are impossible to claim by other factions, and therefore can be left neutral with little threat save from enemies creating outposts and hunting there. Instead nations will be seeking to secure as many regional capitals as possible, and leave it to lesser clans to fill in the gaps of undesirable smaller ports. My suggestion is this: Allow each nation to only be engaged in the conquest of 2 regions per day. And also, make it so that until a nation controls at least 60% of the ports in a region, they cannot take hostility missions from that region to an adjacent region. So not only will you need to take a county capital anymore, a nation also needs to be in possession of most of the ports within that region before they can use that region as a staging ground to go for any adjacent region. And nations can only attack 2 regions at once, meaning that if they have attacked 2 regional capitals, they cannot attack any further regional capitals until they have control of those two regions. Meaning they should control a majority of ports (60%) in the regions. So for example if Pirates on day 1 attack Baracoa and Pitt’s Town. They cannot attack any third region until they have captured those regional capitals, plus 1 further port in Baracoa County and 2 further ports in Crooked County. This will slow down the initial expansion somewhat, and allow the map to develop at a more natural and steady pace in the beginning. With more nations being able to secure some initial territory, and with nations needing to cooperate to prioritise what counties they should attack first as well as in finishing up all of the smaller ports within each County. So what about the US timezone population? My opinion will always be that the game would benefit from having two regional servers. However, let us put the lid on that idea for the purposes of this discussion. My suggestion for the resolution of this issue is to consider each 24 hours as 2 12-hour days. One EU-timezone day, followed by one US-timezone day. The division being at, say, midnight UTC time (server time). Going by the system proposed above, that means that EU-timezone players would be able to attack 2 regions before midnight (server time), and US timezone players would be able to attack a further 2 regions after midnight (server time). Meaning also that in 24 hours a nation can engage in 4 different regions. So conquest will be slowed down a little bit, but not a lot and the division of the map not unnecessarily hampered. Nor will lack of coordination within a nation be too harshly punished with 4 chances to get the most important regions on the first day. Of course, SEA-timezone players will, given the current maintenance times, be caught somewhat in-between two chairs, neither being able to fully compete initially in the EU-timezone, nor the US-timezone. But if they were to find themselves in nations with less of a US-timezone contingent of players they would be able to take almost the same benefit from the proposed system. So in short: 2 regions attackable simultaneously per day per nation. 60% of ports in either regions needs to be controlled before the next regions can be assaulted. And divide the day into two 12-hour blocks to allow the US-timezone players to also attack 2 regions per day, even when the EU-timezone population used up the 2-region quota in their timezone.
×
×
  • Create New...