KrakkenSmacken

That's exactly why I suggested to hinge it on hostility generated or countered. Alts: pffttt, you still have to play and sink with the alt, may as well use your main and get all the glory. Ports: pfffttt, that's already a popularity contest and a pretty cheesy way to show what it represents, that you could rally enough players to take a single port, rather than you could rally enough players to make a concerted effort to move your nation in a direction. AFK: pfftttt, no hostility there, so no vote for you Mr might as well be a bot. It would also have the impact that someone who used to be highly active, can't just log in and disrupt the current nation direction simply because he used to have that kind of sway. This would be a week by week measure of influence. It also has the advantage that very soon after new players start playing and get into PvP, they can have a voice without needing to ask anyone's permission, or make it into a specific groups good book. Just go out and sink some enemy ships and poof, you have as much voice as you earned.

Perhaps this rule needs to be looked at. Perhaps in addition to level as a base, which is a one way door always moving up, and gives reason for alts, give more weight to votes based on absolute hostility contribution (+/-) during the week. In this way your direct contribution to the current cause is also the weight your voice has in what is the next cause. Then all that has to be balanced is how hostility is raised/lowered, including all the PvE mission/trade/smuggle content and such. EDIT: BTW, I personally think of "hostility" as how hostile the towns population is towards the ruling authority, given that loss of ships would represent how crappy of a job they are at keeping the population safe and happy. In this context the better you are at protecting the town, or increasing national interest, the larger your voice in governance.

There has to be a balance between slippery slope, and perpetual comeback. The problem is that pretty much all perpetual comeback mechanics have been disparaged as "unrealistic". Such things as increasing tax rates for winning teams etc, have all been put forward and either shot at by community members, or not brought up again by Admin when discussing the issues, so at this point I can only assume that the majority of the focus is on the winning experience rather than keeping losing players interested. I know both sides of the experience in this game. Having been a pirate on PvP2 since before the time we were knocked back to our capital, to the current sweep and clear we are doing of the US. Winning is much more fun, and continues to pull disgruntled players to the pirate nation in a "red rover" sort of way. I think that accepting the natural behavior of players to move to "winning" teams has to be understood, and re-sets planned for. I do think however at the very least the a perpetual comeback mechanic, where it is harder to raise hostility in an active port based on outpost and building construction. This would both be "realistic", that the last vestiges of a nation would be the hardest to route, and would go a long way to both create a perpetual comeback as enemy nations that are spread out too thin, would have ports that could be knocked over with a harsh wind and a musket. But they really do need to plan for how resets will work, even if it is uncommon, because people being what they are, sooner or later it is probably going to be needed. Better to plan for it an make it part of the game, than have to scramble to sort it all out when suddenly the whole server is a single nation.

The way they handled the EU merge was to turn everything into items you could claim (Like that free ship), "sell" buildings, and have you start with all those assets.

I've seen the pirates come back from just a single port before smuggling to dominate PvP2 due to perserverance and lack of effective leadership in the enemy factions. With smuggling, all you really NEED is one port to keep going. So fallen capital turns immediately to a "Free Port" on capture. Nation gets new Capital in a previously "Free Port" in another area of the map, selected by vote by the defeated nation prior to losing the capital, votes start when last non-capital port falls. This port stays "Free" for one week and serves double duty as the nations capital for new players, and free port while other players scramble to remove assets. This can be used as a base to try to secure towns around it. Since Free ports can't have resource buildings, the things at risk to other players already set up in the free port is outposts and ship yards. If it's a shipyard, well that was a choice as you could easily shipyard in your capital, and the lost shipyards could be converted to $$$ the same way that they did for the server merge. That said, I still prefer an uncommon but possible win condition scenario, but with a whole nation moving to the other side of the map from where they were just pushed out of would definitely mix the pot and change the dynamic of the game in a big way. Problem with "go rogue and become a pirate till the reset" being the only option after conquest is that eventually the pirates will red-rover the whole map.

I've seen what "normal life" is like in an internet game. I'll stay just a wee bit anti social thank you very much. Too much "normal life" and I think my sensibilities might be offended past the point of recovery.

Your probably right, but we are just testing this model first, so I suspect caution in the form of 1 nation 1 ally is a good starting point. It could be that it works fine that way, simply because if the largest 2 nations ally, then most likely the rest of the server will team against them. Also never forget, Pirates have no "official" allies, which means they will be a constant thorn in the side of pretty much everyone. I myself will probably focus my efforts on unseating the top dogs, whoever they are. Odds are probably good a nation on it's heels would be able to make a deal with a rather large part of the pirate group, simply to harass other nations in their waters.

With my suggestion, that you could switch national allegiance after jumping through some hoops while retaining your national identity "birth", a player would be able to temporarily move nations within the game mechanics (currently only supported as delete/recreate character) and abandon, perhaps temporarily, a hopeless capital. Or with the current plan for alliances, a nation down to a final port would be able to petition other nations for help and alliances. Why the straw man argument? I never said anything about it staying at the current state of affairs which are wholly inadequate.

If they are small enough, there should be no problem in forming unofficial alliances (truces) and strategy between themselves. Sure they would not be supported by game mechanics, such as what sides they are on, or joint port defenses, but that also leaves them with the advantage of having more targets (AI) and the ability to trigger defensive hostility port captures. For example these types of allies could attack each other and raise hostility and force a port battle between themselves to block out the larger nations from being able to attack that port for a period of time.

I guess that's a question of server population. But to prevent that situation, I would be fine with a clan based two week process with a minimum clan population requirement, so one guy can't be a spammy "clan". Clan vote to petition one week, affected nation to vote to authorize the next. This makes those "relationships" naturally harder to maintain, and if you want it to be continuous, better not miss the clan vote week.

As a pirate, I would like to second this as one more option for this "alliance" thing, but as an individual not as a nation, to facilitate the "spy/smuggler". Role. Each voting week a pirate can petition a SINGLE nation for a letter of marque. Players who vote in alliances, are also able to vote Aye/Nay or abstain on every pirate that has applied to their nation. [ EDIT: I would give them a way to see that pirates combat VS their national and allies history. If he has a penchant for poaching their traders, he probably should not be allowed in. ] If the pirate in question is voted Aye, they can fly the nations flag for that week, or the pirate flag. When flying the nations flag, they are treated in all regards as part of the nation. When flying the pirate flag, they are not. Similar to how the smuggler toggle works now. Every week they want to remain able to fly the nations flag, they must re-petition the national vote.

Um it's supposed to be a "very unfavorable situation". I picked what was described as "Hard Mode" in the selection process for a reason.

I understand the sentiment, but it's not just the "my way or I quit" crowd. Losing agency (control of how you play your game), is a terrible experience for everybody. Imagine if you were told that you couldn't play as pirate, and that you had to join a specific clan other than the friends you currently play with in order to be successful at the game. Or imagine if after a long fight against the US, who you have grown to despise because of some of the tactics used, you were now obligated to not only play with them, but also adopt those same tactics for face national ostracization, or even face ostracization regardless of your actions because of past history. Playing a game IS agency of choice, at every point and move, within the confines of the mechanics of the game. Choosing not to play because you have lost the ability to make a meaningful choice in the game is not the same thing as simple rage quitting because you don't like the way certain mechanics operate. If you no longer have choice in a game, then you are not longer playing it, someone else is playing it for you, or the game is basically playing itself. The moment you loose the ability to choose the game has become the antithesis of "strategies and thinking things through". I would rather be directly kicked out the game entirely until after the reset, then feel that the decision to quit was forced onto me by the games mechanics and social or psychological pressure.

The other side of that problem is the Conquers. What if they don't actually WANT you as a vassal, because they know your going to turn on them the first chance you get? Forcing these mechanics takes agency from both sides, both of whom may not want the other on the same team. That would only leave a single choice, go Pirate. If that was the mechanic, then what you would end up with is pirates vs last team standing. Also think of the emotional baggage, of for example a football team that trades it's star player to their most bitter rivals. Now, your that star player, have no say in the trade, and your future team mates also have no say in having to work with a guy that just hours before they hated with a bloody passion, and probably still hate. Much better to put the choice to players first in my opinion.

I didn't put it here, it's more of an alliance thing, but my hope would be that you can switch allegiance at any time, after jumping through some hoops, so the impact of a forced choice at time of capital loss or next login, would not be a permanent situation. I would hope that so that you could preemptively swear allegiance to an ally, expecting your capital to fall, and if it did not switch back. The devil in that model is the details of "jumping through some hoops". Perhaps it's financial reparations, perhaps its loss of assets, or special missions to re-gain standing. Those mechanics should be similar to what a pirate would have to do to "go straight", and both requirements should survive character deletion and re-creation. I agree that generating hostility in a Capital should be impossible if any other town is held. I also believe it should generate much slower. I actually think that hostility generation rate should be tied to outpost and resource building construction and levels, so that a nation pushed to few towns, is harder to even generate hostility against, because of the concentration of production resources, while an over extended nation has towns that are easy to trigger battles over. Edit: This way a subversive "ally" could build up in towns under utilized by their ally, and then move team allegiance and create almost instant port capture hostility, simply because they have control of the local economy.

Perhaps two different play styles rather than two different types of server. For example a commissioned officer style of play, entered into by choice, where money is not a factor in any way. You can not own, you can not build, you care nothing for resources of economy. Your character owns nothing, but can requisition a ship and crew from your country based on rank which is determined entirely on your rate of success. (Crew survival being a big factor in determining success) Rank for this play style however can go DOWN if you do poorly, rather than a endless climb to a top plateau. Fight and do well, and you can take out 1st rates all day long, fight and do poorly, and its back to the cutters for you. In this way just being in a different play style (fight only) does not insure these players will eventually be an endless supply of high cost ships that upset the economic balances, but rather a balanced source of combat focused play.

I spend as little time as possible in and around Mort. It happens to be where I build ships, so most resources end up there sooner or later, but I usually operate in foreign waters. Have not been in a port battle in ages, and I "Feel" like a pirate. Yarr!

Been taking a couple of days to let this sink in, and to ponder the ramifications before responding. I have read through this whole thread, but did not find exactly what I was looking for in the comments. These comments came close http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15638-development-plans-for-conquest-mechanics-rvr/?p=292165 http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15638-development-plans-for-conquest-mechanics-rvr/?p=292809 http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15638-development-plans-for-conquest-mechanics-rvr/?p=294338 Perhaps it's somewhere in alliances, have not read the whole breadth of that discussion. Regardless, let me first say I really like where this is heading, but as others, I have a concern that the "Losing a capital will FORCE an alliance with the conquering nation". Any time you take agency away from a player, you are going to lose players, especially on something as important as who they have to work with to accomplish a goal, or the fact that their goal (E.G. freeing their nation from the yolk of an oppressive force), now runs completely contrary to those goals forced on them by the games mechanics. There is however a two step potential solution to this problem, and the team overrun Zerg problem. Step one.) Every player has two national identities. One identity, call it "birth" identity CAN NEVER BE CHANGED BETWEEN MAP WHIPES. It is selected at character creation, and remains with that character for the entire time they play the game and the map has not been reset. Tied to the steam account, even a change of allegiance country or character deletion will not erase this identity between map wipes. This includes "pirates". Step two.) Every character has an allegiance. The flag they operate under. This can be changed. Pirates start with a birth identity, and enter allegiance to the pirate flag. So for example you would have a French-Pirate or a US-Pirate. When a capital is lost, players are given three choices Swear allegiance to the conquerors. Swear allegiance to one of their existing allies, (Neutral or other enemy nations will not be valid to swear allegiance to) Become Pirate, and fly the black flag. So when for example the Danish are eliminated, they could chose to join the Swedish. Those characters would be identified as Danish-Swedish In this way every player and clan can make a strategic choice as to how they would like to proceed post national conquest. By having a birth identity, it would also be possible to wage a successful resistance, and reclaim their birth capital, making them a nation once again. How to use this to help deal with the Zerg problem. Give the best conquest rewards only to those who are both birth and allegiance members of a nation. Sure some rewards could be passed down to members of the allegiance, and should be based on participation in the campaign, but the lions share, the best rewards, the special titles, are reserved for those who for example are Danish-Danish rather than Swedish-Danish (assuming the Danish won). This will reduce the rewards for those that joined the winning team after it was effectively decided, and provide a disincentive for the behavior. This would encourage top alliances to break when victory is close, so that their birth country could get the big prize, allow for resistance movements operating with the assistance of an allied nation, allow clans to decide who they would like to play for/with if their origin nation is removed out, and reduce the incentive for band wagon jumping. Additionally it would add the option for special rewards for being part of the force that took back your capital. In conclusion. I really think it is very important that losing in the game does not also remove agency from players as to how they want to play, or who they are obligated to play with, what team they identify with, or what side they are forced to take in the greater conflict. Game of Thrones as a story is great, but "Win or Die" can very easily turn into "Win or Quit" (Tommen Baratheon <Spoiler if you google for him>) if choice of allies is removed from a player. That type of model is just a recipe for forcing people out of the game. Remember when you play Risk at home, long before the game is finished, more than half the people who started are doing something else.

So with the recent bump of this thread, I'm going to put on the record that I think the current stated implementation of "Hostility" planed by the developers is simply a reversal of this terminology, and the described mechanic is almost identical, with one thing missing. That being a clear statement that outposts, buildings, shortages and other economic factors create a variance in how fast hostility can be raised. More buildings, harder to raise to port battle levels, starvation of resources, easier. Other than those missing parts, I support the new model, although I think the word "Hostility" is a not exactly the correct term for something that is increased the more you are attacked, as the word is something that describes a build up of aggression, rather than a loss weakening of resolve to defend a position. Loyalty or moral is still a better word for it if you ask me, but hostility is simpler to understand given that loyalty or moral could technically be at 100% in a port that simply does not have the resources to defend itself. The fact is no single word I can think of really encompasses the idea that after repeated attacks and setbacks, that a town would succumb to aggression.

Truth be told, something or rather several somethings will need to replace the damage printing gold they plan to remove. May as well include a bunch of fishing ships spinning in the ocean.

If I see ya heading for a wreck, it will be a Krakken. I do like your other suggestions, and your point about this turning the top upgrades into a one step, one player process. I too think they should be rare, There are some upgrades that are impossible to craft, only available as victory rewards. Perhaps they should make a different set that are only available this way.

If they need to re-set assets, then there is something wrong with the basic design of the game from an MMO persistence point of view. Proper design would accommodate any number of people at any level, with any amount of assets, and use game play mechanics to balance individual contests. The way to do this is with an increasing level of diminishing returns for expenditure of resources the higher in assets a person gets, to restrict power no matter wealth, to create scenarios where not having certain assets is not a guaranteed loss, and other scenarios where limitations are set that see's everyone at the ceiling in performance regardless of assets. If they have to re-set to get balance, then at a core level they have failed to design a balanced game, because unless periodic resets are a planned part of the game cycle, they need to have a system that can survive long term players having essentially unlimited assets, as that is the inevitable outcome of a persistent game.

Since the announcement of "hostility", I've always thought this could be handled as a factor in the speed and ease that hostility builds up against a town. For every outpost, shipyard, resource building and upgrade, the time it takes to build hostility would increase. For towns that are starving of consumables, that time would decrease. In this way a nation that is hammered back into a few ports would have a naturally greater staying power, as every member would be building in the remaining ports, while an over extended nation would have many ports that could be pushed over with a harsh wind. No real need to "shore up" a new port with supplies. The process would be natural if players wanted to hold it. They would set up outposts, ship yards, resource centers, etc, and if they failed to do so, the port would be just that much easier to flip back.

If you let people post shipment orders that AI would then take and give/sell at the port, the "job" part would be handled by AI. The only thing players would need to do is care enough, and have enough resources, to support the endeavor. Oh, and prevent other players from blocking said shipments on route.

Any core mechanic that creates limitations on play and takes more that a couple of months tops to over come is not a well thought out one if you ask me. EvE is a HUGE exception, and it is precisely those long term aspects that largely prevent new players from even starting now. It's a bad plan to marginalized new players from the start with a multi year commitment. Change should be reasonably rapid and fluid, and even new players should be able to participate in, or at least see how it is feasible that soon they will be able to participate in, every aspect of the game, or the mechanic will deter more than it attracts.