Widdlemoe

Evidently you haven't been on PVP 2... While I do agree that the mechanical issues I see are tinged with the experience of lopsided populations, I think players largely think about the territory in terms of what can be taken in a week's time frame. Overall balance of the game will change slowly, but it will change.

Couple things worth considering... First I love the diplomacy and Port Battle changes in concept and think we are working towards a better product! However there is a major danger / flaw with these proposals based on the mechanic of players en mass. The frequency and cost of port battles will be marginalized based on the number of players available to a faction. While obvious, this will mean that groups with more players will be capable of mounting attacks against nations incapable of mounting counter attacks. For instance: If USA has 250 players and the Spanish have 50 players, the USA could (arguably) prep for Port Battles 5 times faster than the Spanish (organizational skills being held equal). Consequently the USA fleet launches 5 attacks to Spain's 1. While the availability of Port Battles is higher, the availability of players is higher, and the need to defend is lower (only needing to focus efforts on one defense in the same time frame as Spain has to focus on 5 defenses)... Well it doesn't take a strat genius to figure out that the nation with the most people will, almost by design, wipe out any smaller nation no matter how many fronts they choose to fight on. This problem is actually amplified as ports are taken because as ground is lost it becomes harder for the weaker nation to recoup the expenses of the war. Now in the light of the new Diplomacy ideas, we see some other issues... what if two Large Nations (GB and USA) sign a Treaty.... and three Small Nations sign a Treaty.... The Large Nations attack one member of the Small Nation, opening perhaps as many battle fronts as that nation has ports. The other Small Nation members have no way to open enough battle fronts to prevent the wipe out of their partner or even to counter attack in a meaningful fashion. War was very often about "size matters" but a functional pvp system with multi faction operatives needs some safe guards. I believe in giving solutions, not just pointing out structural flaws, so I have some thoughts there too... Idea 1: Aggressors must sail to location, defenders can tele to location. This makes going to war an opportunity cost for the attackers requiring planning and organization and discipline... while the defenders are given an advantage because they are defending their land. This idea may be better if it only affects the natural home ports, or 7-12 ports surrounding the nation's capital deemed essential by the developers for the nation's survival. It wouldn't make them immune from attack, but much harder. Idea 2: Leave the PBs the way it is, but penalize nations with massive population imbalances (based on real time online numbers)... I.e. (Taking from my examples above) USA, who is 5 times stronger than Spain, receives a 25% increase in Victory Points required... I'll admit this could be gamed if players with multiple accounts logged on with characters to flood an opponent or a defender in order to tilt the odds, but that is both expensive and requires a fair amount of people to act in concert (a level of coordination I have yet to see out of anyone). Idea 3: Make ports even more fluid than they are now. Remove the conquest timers all together. Make it so that any nation can enter any port, but they receive a penalty if its a non-friendly port (ie no repairs, triple AI pricing and no selling, etc.). While this isn't a historic solution it would be an effective game mechanic solution and promote frequent pvp along with trader escorts (which is something nations should do more of...). Basically ports could be assault at any time, but they could be taken back at any time. Yes this would make for some wild swings in territory but it could be pretty amazing if some other mechanics are incorporated (i.e. defensive teleports).

Economic models inside this game fascinate me. Short Version: Salary Per Voyage / Provisions is more economically stable in this situation because it does not penalize any group of players over the other (alt makers, eco-players, pve, or pvpers), it rightfully places the expense of the ship on a per voyage bases, and it doesn't introduce a mechanic that could be exploited by the hardcore to the detriment of the casual. Long Version: By using crew as a resource it would be more historically accurate. Certain ports were known for their ability to muster men; this has merit. Nevertheless, as the theory is proposed the resource would be a finite renewable resource with battle / sailing effectiveness consequences. So before I go into why adding a voyage cost creates the desired affect without the negative consequences, let me ask some questions? How many crew can be banked in a Barracks? How many Barracks can a player have? Does it require an outpost to Barracks crew? Would players have to consider positioning a barracks in their building slots? Would players be given their full compliment of crew (based on rank) per day, or would it be smaller? What would the refresh rate be? As one sails through the day, based on the answers to these questions, a captain may choose not to participate in a Defense of a Port even though they have a ship in the area and are familiar with port battles / pvp inclined due to their desire to bank or prepare resources for their clan's operations. One may choose to barracks crew in a non strategic location and be penalized as they try to re-position their barracks. (When the outpost mechanic already has this affect, why introduce another?) I like some of the concepts shared, e.g. skilled-crew are a renewable resource but base crew are everywhere... But really the OP makes it sound like this change is driven at realism of cost and not intended to penalize players for playing risky or making strategic decisions that don't pan out because of timing / ganking / placement / resource renewal rate / blah / blah / blah.... So instead of introducing a finite renewable resource, why not make voyages cost money? Mission and PVP rewards would need to be re calibrated, but before leaving port you simply pay a crew fee based on the intended journey. Each time you press the sail button a panel comes up asking you to pick a Voyage type. For example: Manifest: Transport - Crew cost 200 gold pieces Trait: 2% faster open world speeds Manifest: Trade Route - Crew cost 500 gold pieces Trait: 5% lower prices on one resource at destination port Manifest: Combat Route - Crew cost 1500 gold pieces Trait: 2% improved reload speed Manifest: Port Battle - Crew cost 50% of Spoils no upfront payment Trait: 2% increased damage to Siege Targets With this system you introduce an expense that promotes planning, rewards players, and doesn't penalize those who don't farm up or position resources. It treats casual and hardcore players equally. It's all carrot and no stick, except the costs should GO UP for larger crews on bigger ships. This portion of the mechanic would be control by a query when you press the sail button to determine crew make up (officers / upgrades: hammocks, marines, etc.) and ship type. Another incentive could be added where if you sail a ship over and over, theoretically keeping the same crew, the cost gradually reduces. Five back to back voyages with a Cutter may reduce your expenses by half, because of engendered loyalty. Or perhaps the first voyage on a new ship requires a premium crew rate in order to staff the ship with the basic crew? I don't know, but adding a finite renewable resource that ticks on the hour which affects game play effectiveness negatively is a mistake and will drive less hardcore players away.