Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'conquest'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
    • Feedback & Suggestions
    • Support
  • Game-Labs Forum
  • Naval Action Legends
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • closed's Topics
  • Catalunya's Comença la llibertat !!


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


  • Community Calendar
  • United States Continental Navy's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 41 results

  1. Volunteers for His Majesty’s Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy Ahoy Captains! To all who consider setting sail under the flag of Denmark-Norway. Our Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy requests you sign up with us. [RDNN] - The Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy, a company of brave sailors flying the white cross, is recruiting. We want all able captains and friendly sea creatures to join our ranks. When you join you will find we are a social group and you will find brothers in arms as well as good friends. Our clan is very Port Battle and PvP-oriented, and we arrange Port Battles and PvP events every single day. With tactics, communication and good spirits we always bring a good fight to any opponent. Having fought continuously in wars since the beginning of Early Access our players have deep knowledge of the combat mechanics. Our experience comes from never resting behind friendly lines, always seeking combat and glory. We always help our friends out and our captains are expected not to leave anyone behind. RDNN is always to be found at the front lines, always looking for good PvP and to help protect our nation’s borders. We have a cooperative playstyle and work closely with other clans playing for Denmark-Norway, spanning multiple nationalities and languages. Where others struggle with language barriers, we succeed. Our cooperative spirit ensures that together with our allies we form one of the most accomplished fleets in these Caribbean waters. If you think RDNN might be a group that fits your playstyle, don’t hesitate to contact myself or one of our other recruitment officers in-game or here on the forum. You can come on our TeamSpeak to learn more about us and sail with us to make up your mind. If you come from another nation, we will help you out with the transfer of ships and goods. We also do clan mergers. We are an international clan with members from all over the world and English is our primary language for communication. Members of RDNN are required to use TeamSpeak when participating in group events where orders and coordination are necessary components. We respect that players are different in their desire to communicate, and we do not strictly require that you talk a lot, so long as you are able to listen when instructions are given. Players seeking to join the ranks of RDNN are expected to be team-players, good-spirited and able to listen to orders when needed. You are expected to be gallant in victory as well as in defeat. We have a ship building system to provide all our members with ships and outfitting for Port Battles, and every member is expected to contribute with materials and labour hours. We have multiple level 50 crafters in our clan, holding every blueprint, so our members have opportunity to have built every ship they wish to set sail in. To join RDNN as a full member it is necessary to be of rank Kaptain (250 crew) or above. Special considerations can be made for players who prove their dedication or show particular aptitude. All sailors of all ranks are welcomed to join our TeamSpeak and play together with us until they are accepted into our clan. We will help you with learning the game mechanics, increasing your rank, finding fights and acquiring a fitting vessel. Applicants should come to our Teamspeak and contact an RDNN officer: ts3server://na.danmarknorge.org Written requests can be submitted in our forum: danmarknorge.org/forum/ We look forward to sailing by your side. May the winds blow in your favour. On behalf of His Majesty King Christian VII
  2. We have had a number of mechanics to manage port battles in the past, all of them with various positives and negatives. The current iteration moves away from a realist base, and instead favors abstraction: If you control a majority of the circles around a port, you control the sea lanes, and therefore, the port. This is not bad, per se, but it is so abstracted from the subject matter that it feels disconnected. Setting up the port battle is an exercise in mass AI farming, taken from the idea that "people need to do something in order to create the port battle." And so, I present a series of ideas that hopefully are easy to implement (I will point out the sticking points as I go), remove a layer of abstraction, and hopefully make the battles more dynamic by introducing more options. 1. Return of the old flag system to initiate hostility. Instead of simply taking a mission, launching a flag could once again be done in isolation, or with a whole fleet escorting. It should be physically carried, and announced as it was in the past. This brings the first aspect of the port battle back: Fleet actions at sea, heading off the port battle in its inception. I would encourage these flags to cost doubloons, in order to have big-ticket items that are consistently purchased, keeping them moving within the economy. 2. Generate Hostility via economy. Instead of grinding bots with a massive fleet, I would encourage basic supplies moved into the port. This can be abstracted from siege equipment, bribing locals, what have you, but I would encourage the goods brought not be trade goods, but instead, actual crafting goods. Hemp, Oak Logs, Iron Ore, etc. Things everyone needs, and everyone uses, which in turn would encourage privateers to hunt the waters (and in turn encourage escorted merchant vessels, which in turn leads to larger, task-force sized engagements). Further, I would cap the rate of hostility generation at 25%/hr., in order to prevent simple spiking of hostility - this would allow for time for people to gather and fight. The lower end, I would recommend at 10%/hr., forcing a faction to commit to at least 4 hours of setting up a port battle, at most 10 hours. 3. Add a craftable "Shore Party" item weighing 100 tons. This will come into play later, but simply adding the item should be easy. The reason for 100 tons is to limit them in quantity, while having a palpable effect upon ship handling in battle. Further, merchant ships should be allowed into the fight in order to carry more shore parties. (This will be important.) 4. Reduce the three circles to one circle in front of the port. This is abstracted to represent storming the town itself. This is partially where the shore parties come in. Each shore party is one "unit." Much like the game of Diplomacy, you need one more "Shore Party" than the defending side to take the town. Shore parties, ideally, would only be active when the ship is going less than 3.5 knots. This would take programming, but could loan from the "boarding initiate" parameters. I am not certain how easy this would be to code in. 5. Add circles near to shore batteries. Exactly as above, one more "shore party" than the defenders, and you can seize the tower for your own side. This adds to dynamism of battle, increasing options from "destroy fortifications" to "destroy fortifications" or "seize fortifications" for each fortification the port has. (This mechanic was present in Naval Action: Legends, but simply used the ships as abstraction for shore parties, without an item representing those shore parties.) 6. Destruction of the Enemy Fleet, or Total Absence from the Port Circle would result in the town's capitulation. This mechanic would remain from current mechanics, that way even if no shore parties are left, the defenders cannot simply kite away and leave the town. In a nutshell, this brings the focus of RvR back to economics, which is of course the whole purpose of naval presence in the Caribbean. It re-diversifies both the lead-up and execution of the port battle, creating a more dynamic event - largely re-using old mechanics in new permutations.
  3. Ports with Port Battles schedule should automatically become closed to all after next maintenance
  4. I have been and have seen on stream a considerable amount of PBs so far to come to this conclusion: Forts and towers are usually used to make some fast points for the attacker, the defender usually have no time to stop the enemy mortar from killing some fortifications. As a consequence, we have seen several times the "mortar brig duel", which consists on bringing a mortar brig to kill the enemy one. Yes, a small ship able to destroy another one at high range. Not only did I see the mortar brig duels, but also the sniper aboard the mortar brig. This player is able to dimast lineships or even sink ships because the mortar ball usually hits the structre bar. A mortar brig, controled by an average player, can destroy a tower in only a few shoots and forts in less than 5 minutes. When I see this happening my world as an archittect and history lover breaks into pieces, what would have happened in reality if Cartagena de Indias had the same paper forts as NA? Towers can be destroyed by the broadside of some wasas and the wasa receiving little damage in return. In one stream (Reverse), even a surprise killed a tower. Forts are harder to kill by broadside fire but some of the big ships like first rates can. Except in shallow water PBs, the fortifications are mostly useless for the defender. First of all, their fire does almost nothing to the enemy ships unless they are at close range. Secondly, the defender must be "really worried" about the mortar brigs due to their ability to score a lot of points in little time. And lastly, most of the forts placements arent linked to protect circles, which makes easy to the attacker to avoid them. My proposal is rather simple: _Buff HP and thickness of fortifications, reload, penetration and effective range. _Nerf perk and skillbook related to mortar brigs. Mortar brigs cant be so accurate. _Nerf reload and damage on the mortar gun. Their firing rate is high for the damage they can deliver. Discuss.
  5. Change name from Hostility to Stability Invert meter - e.g. Stability in El Dorado dropped to 10% Review factor needed to drop Stability to 0% - now 1.0, change to 0.5 - to accommodate all playstyles Include port demand/supply in the Stability formula Details for each topic as needed 3 - Sum of all parts being better. Still possible to completely drop Stability to zero just with combat missions -or- by trade alone. Reduce Hostility Missions factor to accommodate with Trade Stability. Full cycle of X missions, drops by 100%. Reduce factor per mission. Full trade achieved ( supply and demand of NPC traders in town ), Stability drops/raises by 100%. 4- Simple ( and complicated ). Read... Port nation owner traders supply town with daily demand of products. Stability rises. "Population" is happy. They got access to the items they need. Port nation owner traders buys port npc produce - Stability rises. "Population" gets a influx of money. They are happy. Nation dedicated traders have a indirect impact on keeping the "empire" stable and "population" happy. Enemy smuggler supplies town with daily demand of products. Stability drops. "Population" starts to trust foreign power traders. They got access to the items they need. Enemy smuggler buys port npc produce - Stability drops. "Population" is happy with the influx of foreign cash more than own nation. Now to the Pros and Cons, the most complex part. Pros - direct daily influence on the empire stability (RvR) by non combatants - players more interested in the trader careers - as they also increase their personal fortune by being trader moguls - increase importance of trade in the game world to mimic age of sail - "The Spice must flow" factor. - opportunity to award marks to traders by amount of Stability secured by supplying goods ( only supply, not purchase ) in similar proportion to what combatants get with damage/kills in Hostility missions - trade vs privateering Cons - in some cases a overextended period to drop Stability ( raise Hostility ), mainly in the big ports where supply/demand items are expensive. ( can also be a pro ) - different favorite playstyle - pvp, pve, trade - may have to coexist towards the same "national" goal. - trade vs privateering Further clarifications Just to clarify some details which have been asked in private: - Each port has a quantity for offer and demands a quantity, for several products. So it is visible to any player. A port that demands 100 Wine, will only count 100 Wine delivered towards the effect, any surplus can be sold to port but counts for naught. Quota has been met already. - Same with offer. Port NPC offer ( across the entire day ) is 1245 Cider, it will only count 1245 towards the effect. Even if a player brings 2000 units to sell there, the NPC produce is what counts. Players cannot spam. Note: Only products that cannot be produced by players via buildings count.
  6. While pvp is being promoted lately with the patrol zones, RVR suffered a major step backwards. In my opinion, right now, rvr is a non rewarding system. I´ll explain, you risk your (expensive) ships in an action that dont give you any inmediate reward (before, one year ago, it was different (blue screen of rewards)). Also, after you conquer the port, each day you have to pay from 100-600k, which most of the times makes you lose money (only a few ports in the entire server are really profitable). The map, as we see it now, is a heir of several mechanics applied to the server after the map wipe. But, imo, we would have a quite different map, far more uninsteresting, if we continue with this system. Also, it is not very rewarding when you have to do a hostility mission (usually quite boring due to npc) that takes you some time and give you basic upgrades. I mean, if you force me to do something which is not very amusing, at least give me something in compensation. Many people think we shouldnt grind pve to have rvr but the return to the flag system would create the same issues we had in the past. We need proposals to revive RvR. Proposals that sorted out alts because many people have second accounts that provide them everything. This is why I insist on inmediate rewards after the port battles and inside hostility fleets, not in owning the port. Discuss.
  7. I have listened to the different takes on how to make RvR more attractive. We all want to get people more involved in RvR and this way, have them understand the beauty with this game. Have to say that suggestions are many and some are quite creative, one thing stands out thow, and that most of us agree that we need a clan based solution. Here is my suggestion. Suggestion My suggestion is based, and is quite similar to the competitions in the game of Football. That is within every nation there will be a constant competition between clans to get to the top three. The national competition is flag based and requires that every clan should have an own outpost. Like so: Clan A pulls a flag for Clan B. Clan B attacks Clan A defend at Old Providence and the outcome Clan A wins. Clan A gets 3 points. Then Clan A attacks Clan B defend at Turneffe and Clan B wins. Both of them have 3 points and the national competition continues until all the participating clans have battled each other. The next step is that the top three clans will participate in the world domination competition. The rules are the same only that this time the theater of war is the whole map. Now I know that I said 3 clans from every nation but that gives 33 clans and that’s not a good number. So my suggestion is that the lowest points do not participate. And so we have a world domination competition with 32 clans. I understand that it is a bit trickier to duel other nations especially when it requires countless hours of sailing around the map. But, maybe adjustments can be made to accommodate this idea. Who knows… Implementation Most of the algorithms required for this idea, already exist within the game and have been tested at one point or another. Not a lot of new programing is required, even for a small team of developers. The only new programing that is required is the competition framework and a counter that keeps tabs on the points from all the battles. Conclusion I believe that this idea have the potential to remove griefing from the RvR and give us a clear winner and champion with every iteration. Tks!
  8. OK before everyone will start that I am crying on the forum because we dont jave a victory mark this week and i am salty, I absolutly dont care if I get a victory mark or not. I dont use them and they are just stockpiled in my captains chest. Now that we have this out of the way let me start my post. I have participated in numerous port battles over the last years sailing from here to there, moving ships, towing ships, making sure the resources are where they are needed, and in the process of doing all this having a lot of fun both in the offensive and defensive port battles. However sometimes the result is a bit frustrating. You will win a battle on points but loose half your fleet and vice versa. Also some battles inconclusivly and no one wins. I think it should be reworked in some way like in a football (soccer for the americans) where you get 3 points for a won battle, 1 point when there is a draw and 0 points when you loose a battle. This way when a defender wins a port battle they are also getting points and not like it is now where it is only based on the amount of ports you own. The issue i see with this is the multi flipping of ports. I play GB and often in the weekend we get 3 port battles at the same time so we need to concentrate on 1 port to effectively defend it and if we loose that battle that means -3 points for us. The fights are usually fun but boy it does get tiring. The system with the win and loss would also mean that people dont just flip ports for flipping ports. Not to blame you guys or point a finger but Sweden flippped Harbour Island on saturday. Spanish were there to defend the port, Russians were there to screen for the Spanish, GB was there to screen for the Swedes, Pirates and Prussians were there to get PVP marks and kill the stragglers. The only ones that were missing were the Swedes. The spanish didnt get anything for getting their captains organised and defending the port. This would change if they got 3 points for doing this. Multi flipping is also terribly annoying for the defender. You need to make a choice and sometimes it works other times it doesnt. The russians lost ports due to it, we lost ports due to it and if some nations decide to multiflip a small nation like Denmark, Prussia or Poland they can get 1 ported or even annihalated in no time. For the attacker it is easy to multi flip. Just coordinate a bit and you will flip 3 ports, preferably not to close to eachother so the defender has to guess what the target is. The defender needs to spread their forces as to see what port is really going to be attacked and if they loose the real target well they are at -1 on the conquest board. In the system i propose the defender would get 6 points for 2 defended port and the attacker would get only 3 points for the one they won. I am personally not in favour of a system where if 1 port is flipped the next port battle can only start 2 hours after the start of the first one. That would negate the tactical decision of multi flipping. We are all looking for content in the game and Port Battles are an important factor. There needs to be more but those are diffent subjects. Keep it decent when replying. Thank you
  9. Previously we have the following regions which granted 3 points: Santo Domingo Cartagena de Indias San Juan Port au prince San Iago Morgan Bluff Vera Cruz Campeche Nouvelle Orleans Bridge town Road Town http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/21757-patch-104-conquest-changes-battle-groups-wapen-von-hamburg-iii/ However, due to the later implementation of safe zones we lose two ports: Nouvelle Orleans and Vera Cruz. I suggest the following ports instead: Vera Cruz-> Soto La Marina Nouvelle Orleans-> Pensacola In order to promote more RVR fight at some regions which are utterly dead RVR speaking, I also suggest new 3 points regions: Trinidad. Reason: South Cuba is a meaningless area without interesting ressources. Placing here a 3 point port will generate fights for the area. Puerto Plata. Reason: Haiti as a hole island for pvp and rvr. South and West is already covered with 3 points ports (Port au Prince and Santo Domingo). Pampatar instead of Bridgetown. Reason: To see again some nice fights (again) between the french and the dutch. Camp du Roy. Reason: Same logic as Pampatar, port located in the frontier between nations to promote fighting.
  10. I have seen a lot of statements coming past in which we put PvP over PvE to show hostility. Even going so far as to remove PvE completely. Yet we when facing PvP to show hostility, we do not engage aka act out our hostility. That in itself is not a real problem, we can just count command of the sea to show hostility. you can't do that - due to no-shows or lower online in that nation And no shows or lower online are a reality and they lead to my earlier statement "no fun" on which we can all agree I think. So here we stand. At an impasse and out of ideas. So how would we want to show our hostility? (Yeah, yeah, I know the obvious "fun" way, but it must involve ships and cannons. )
  11. After some time testing in the testbed server I want to share some thoughts about marks and permits. I really think that it is good to have limits to some ships, and that will promote variety on port battles, however I believe the permits requirements are a bit over the top. Lets begin talking about if its logical to price with 15 pvp marks ships like the constitution, the endymion and the indefatigable. I mean, the endymion is not of the same class of a constitution and between the indefatigable and the constitution, the logical choice is the constitution (more crew, firepower, turn rate, speed, better sailing capabilities). So I would balance that a bit, like: 12 pvp marks constitution, 10 pvp marks indefatigable, 6 pvp marks endymion. No converter between pve-pvp-conquests marks: -A good way to remove those players who are more into economics and crafting in the PVP server. We need them, more than ever, in the new player driven economy. -The best way to destroy hope of recovery after a the loss of one PB fleet. Let me set an scenario to ilustrate my point: 0. War between two small nations like sweden vs denmark, each one only have the RvR playerbase for one PB fleet. 1. Each one have been capable to raise a PB of 12 agamenons and 13 constitutions. 2. In one PB, the swedish lost around a 45% of their fleet (redii and sveno were on vacation). A decisive victory for the danish. The danish get conquers marks, the swedish nothing. 3. Next PB, the swedish are in great disadvantage in firepower because they couldnt replace their losses. Another victory for the danish, they get conquests marks. The swedish, nothing again. 4. Next PB, no attendance by the swedish. 5. Peace deals have to be made. End of the war, end of the fun. Admin would say that there are shallow water ports to get easy conquests marks..., and then, I´ll say, there is no shalllow water ports on the Antilles, neither near them. Now, your thoughts.
  12. By whatever means I have to my availability I would vanquish my foes of the map.
  13. Patch will be deployed today to live servers. Changes to conquest Conquest changes significantly but we want to keep the details about the change vague. Conquest marks as a reward for damage port battles are removed - so don't be upset when you don't get conquest marks in today's battle that will happen after maintenance. Conquest marks will be distributed differently from now on. Certain regions significance increased for conquest. All regions give 1 conquest marks. Some give more. Capitals of the regions your governments demand to bring under control of your nations and will provide additional benefits for them: Santo Domingo Cartagena de Indias San Juan Port Au Prince San Iago Morgan bluff Vera Cruz Campeche Nouvelle Orleans Bridge town Road Town National governments and Brethren of the coast councils will consider current state of the map status quo and will only provide conquest marks for the increase of the land and its control. Other changes PvE to PVP mark conversion improved on the PVE server to provide for the above mentioned change. Additional UI bugs fixed Stability of the bug reporter improved Mystical bug bringing 6th rates into 7th rates missions is still being searched for. We can't reproduce it so please send us more reports from inside the missions while you run away from that rattlesnake
  14. Currently Conquest Marks are a hotly debated topic. If we go and change it to a system where it awards CM to all the players in that nation based on the number of regions controlled and the importance of those regions. For example each player in a nation will get 1 CM for ever 3 regions they control, Capitals will give 2pts instead of automatically. So no nation can ever drop below 2CM per day. Some regions will award 2pts based on value, like New Orleans would be one, Nassau another. Lastly Trade Manifests should make a return but as Trader Marks, they are awarded to players who deliver war supplies to regions to either raise or lower the hostility in that region, you will get 1 TM per 5% hostility you gain from war supplies. You will most likely have to make these war supplies instead of buying them on the Admiralty/Den, as it wouldnt be cost effective, but you could if you wanted to blow 200PVE marks just to get 5 PVP marks. (it is 50 war supplies for 200PVE marks right? and they will only raise the hostility up 25% with 50 supplies correct?) This way the players who want to be traders, or gun runners or even smugglers can feel like they are involved in the RVR of their nation without getting into fights. This is just a suggestion and I think it would be a good addition to the game without rewriting the entire RVR system. You have a good baseline for the system but it needs tweeking and I feel this would be the best fit for all.
  15. What percentage does hostility in regions go down by per maintenance?
  16. If anyone hasn't seen @admin's post this morning, here it is. Seems like a pretty good idea, but perhaps needs more fleshing out. Had an idea about how to build upon it. Offer captains who have an outpost in the area a pension as well. Call it a coast guard protection fleet money. This would give captains a reason to be in the new areas and make it so it's in their interest to keep it. This would also help smooth over hurt feelings about not getting into the PBs by giving folks unable to make it a stake in the operation as well. Another bonus is it would force people to push further out from the capital areas. The further out your outposts or closer to the action, the higher the pension. An example. Port battle participants get 2 marks a week. Players with outposts get 1 every other week. Obvious cons - players will simply open up an outpost and do nothing with it just to accrue points. Unavoidable, but given the expense of outposts now and the limited amount of slots, this should help deter. Parking alts. Unavoidable. Put a cap on the number of outposts that can accrue. The main problem I see with @admin's such is a lord idea is unfortunately there are only so many battles and so many slots. With a population of 1100+ on EU, a vast majority of the players who want to get into the battles to get marks simply wont. This will help the balance a bit, but still let players who attend the battles to get a trickle down effect. Thoughts?
  17. Dear captains! If you participated in port battles previously or if you have port battles today please make sure that you use your conquest marks before tomorrow's maintenance. A significant change is coming in a tomorrow patch. Prices for blueprints will remain the same, but prices for permits will go up due to changes in how conquest marks are going to be distributed. TLDR If you have conquest marks - or will earn them today in port battles until maintenance tomorrow (2nd of June) - spend these marks on permits! spread the information in the nation or/and in global chat.
  18. I am sorry, but this is going to be a rather long post. However, I feel that for you to understand my suggestions I need to lay out those problems which I perceive and am trying to address, and I need to explain what assumptions I am making in addressing them. Let’s start at the beginning: There once was a little boy…Ok, maybe not that far back…Try again. Anyhow... RvR is my primary playstyle. I am a (de-facto) clan leader, diplomat, and occasional port-battle commander. So it is only natural that the conquest mechanics are among my chief concerns about this game, and it is the mechanic on which I try to come up with solutions to the problems that are discovered during testing. I have previously on several occasions offered thoughts and suggestions to that effect, most notably the following suggestion for regional conquest, which was the brainchild of a former clanmate and fellow danish captain, @Bartas11, and which I was given the opportunity to formulate in English and help develop: It is upon this idea, which has since been partially implemented, that I intend to expand and further develop below. But first: What conclusions can we draw from testing a few variations of RvR mechanics for the past year and a half? I will try to offer some suggestion as to what conclusions I have drawn, based on my own experiences, and talking to fellow players, clan-members, and RvR-players of other factions in-game. Players want conquest to be a daily activity: Most RvR-players that I talk to want conquest to be an accessible, low threshold, frequent occurrence in the game. A lot of the players who had been playing day in and day out since January of last year, left when conquest became dependent on days of grinding, hours of sailing to the other side of the map for some special region or resource far from ones own frontlines, and long (46h) preparation times. Many I know, missed the spontaneity of gathering 20-30 players sometime between 6 and 10 in the evening, buying a flag, and going for a port nearby, with all that it included: arguing about which port, anticipating enemy defences, screening with the flag, planting it, fighting and then sailing home-or never even getting there because while we were wasting time the enemy bought a flag for one of our regions and we decided to defend that instead. Now we have to plan our gaming 2 days ahead and try to get enough people together at the right spot and at the right time. It’s not spontaneous, it doesn’t feel player driven. It feels like a chore the game gives you, rather than an opportunity that you grab. A lot of players left, I believe because there was simply too much work, too much PvE-grinding, too much planning, and too much waiting around for each time you want to do something. Players want conquest to be flexible: On top of that, players-in my experience-want conquest to have a constant ebb and flow. Win and loose. That regions change hands, rather than stay static. It doesn’t have to be either, that regions change hands all the time, but that battles are won and lost with a little more variety. When the outcome is determined beforehand by wether you are defender or attacker, it looses some of its appeal. With the new system, attacking a port is a chore, and victory is a slim chance in most cases. Defenders only need to find a decent defence tactic for a port and stick to it, and the attacker has no chance. Add screening, getting delayed into the fight, and spawning far, far away, and you might end up doing a ton of work and not even getting a fight out of it. Port Battles have been well stocked with players on both sides for the past months, but still half the time port battles were over before the forces were even able to engage each other in the instance. We may have gotten rid of empty port battles, but I’m not sure we made port battles more fun. In my opinion, despite it’s flaws, it was much more fun when the map changed colours from day to day, and you lost one port (or three) one day, and regained it (and 5 more) the next day. There were more undefended Port Battles, more zerging, and more pointless pixel colours, but there was more action. Not all of those things were good, but ideally we could keep the positives and throw out the negatives. I’ll get back to how. But to be clear, to its credit, the 46 hour preparation time makes port battles slightly more fair now, at least once screening will be fixed and easy teleports removed. Players want RvR to be meaningful, but not a zero sum game: We as players, want to feel that we achieve something. That when we win we get rewarded and that we win *something*. When we win a port battle, we want to win the region/port. We are willing to work hard to see pixels change colour. It is in the nature of a RvR game. We also want to see the enemy suffer. But for most of us, who at one time or another have been on both sides of the win/loss, we don’t want that loss to be too great. We don’t want our enemy to quit because loosing is too punishing, and we know that one day the shoe might be on the other foot and we are the ones to loose. Ideally you want your enemy to loose to you one day, chalk it up to bad luck, and be back the next day ready to try again with the same spirit. If loosing is too punishing, many players don’t bother to continue playing until they get enough experience to be able to win. Players don’t want defenders to be able to wait out the battle by simply kiting and running till the battle is over: Before we got land in port battles, one of the main complaints about port battles was that since the attacker needed to kill the defenders, while the defenders only needed the battle to be over, a viable tactic for defenders was trying to run the entire match and kite the enemy to prevent them from being able to catch up and engage a battle. You could defend, simply by drawing out the time and avoid a fight. Since the circles we got with land in Port Battles, this particular thing is no longer an issue. How can we address these requirements?: Players want daily conquest activity: Ideally the promised raids could be the daily, large-group, RvR-tied, clan-centered/organised activity that RvR-players can do and enjoy every evening, on short notice and spontaneous organisation. It needs to be tied in with RvR-as working towards port battles somehow, so that it is not just an inconsequential activity that players have to weigh their time doing against doing activities that would gain RvR. If we get raids, that work, but with no tie-in with Port Battles, then raids will either be DOA, or kill RvR. We need a balance. Players want conquest to be flexible: With the flags and individual port capture, RvR was too flexible. Frontlines were shifting back and forth every day, but too many ports would change hands each day, and it was all about taking more ports in a night than the opponent could take back the next day. Way too many ports were exchanged without any opposition. There was a lot of sitting around shooting towers, and not enough shooting each other. The new system, however, has made conquest too inflexible, yet at the same time too fleeting. First, winning as an attacker is hardly possible due to the mechanics and the port defences. Second, if you win a battle, through a stroke of luck or moment of brilliant inspiration, that single battle makes a whole region of several ports change hands. It makes little sense to me that a single battle should make as much as 7 ports change nation in an evening. It also makes little sense to me that attacking should be so punishingly hard and unforgiving that it is demotivating. And if you mess up one evening and loose a port, that port will be almost impossible to get back. Players want RvR to be meaningful, but not a zero-sum game: You need to get rewarded for conquest, but conquest also needs to be reversible. If you loose an important region, you should be able to get it back if you just put enough effort into it. A defeated nation needs to be able to get back on their feet. You also want it to take more than just one single battle to win or loose a region. Conquesting a region should take several days, but you want it to involve action every one of those days. The grind to get port battles, and the 46 hour wait, are both toxic. Yet without preparation time you will have more empty port battles and difficulty for the defender to be where they need to be. To the point of making it meaningless. Players don’t want defenders to be able to wait out the battle by simply kiting and running: The capture point circle system that we got with land in port battles fixed this. Yet I never liked the 3 circles. It took port battles from being about sinking each other to being about artificial points and number of ships. Most of all I strongly dislike that there is now very little viability in fighting when outnumbered. If you didn’t get 25 people together, or one ship dropped out (or god-forbid was blocked out by a devious exploiting alt) you are now at a huge disadvantage, whatever the skill comparison. This might improve with the structure system making ships sink quicker, but with the unlimited repairs it might just as well magnify the problem tenfold. Instead of the 3 circles and the capture points, I wanted the old single circle of the tower maps just to be reduced in size and tweaked just enough to make kiting less viable as you would run into the edge of the circle sooner, and with land in port battles added to that, the number of directions you could run in would be severely lessened as well. Instead of loosing armour after 5 minutes by going outside the circle, and instead of the circle shrinking, you would get a penalty of some sort for staying outside the circle too long, even loosing by having a certain percentage of your fleet outside the circle for a given number of minutes. I think that with land in port battles and a slightly lesser radius on the port battle circle, we remove or reduce the issue of kiting defenders. I have 2 proposals for reworking the conquest system below. I believe that with the current mechanics that are already in the game, neither of these proposals will require prohibitive amounts of work to implement, and that both will constitute significant improvements over the current conquest system which we have. I leave judgement of the latter to my fellow testers and to the devs. Conquest system A: Raids, the new Port battles Make raids the new «port battles». Make raids the activity that clans and organised groups, but also just unorganized spontanous gatherings of players, can do every night, in and out, spontaneous and with little preparation. Specifically, raids need to be viable gameplay for groups of 15/20+ players working together. Give it meaning and make tactics a part of it, not just a blob of cheap ships shooting at another. To allow smaller groups to do raids as well, you can assign different tier raids to different ports, so some can be attacked with small groups of 6 players, while others require 20 players to work together. Bring back the old flag system for raids. 1 hour to plant the flag, and the flag can only be bought in a national port, and allied ports if and when alliances are brought back. We can bring back 2 hour defence timers for raids, or we can have open, 24-hour timers (for EU-server limited to within conquest window). A limited number of raids can be organised each day, but the limit could be something like 6 raids, or even more. You could conceivably organise within a nation to raid every port in an enemy nation’s region at the same time. In order to counter abuse, zerging and exploits, make raids prohibitively costly, and give diminishing returns for consecutive raids directed at the same region. Meaning that flags are purchased for PvP marks in addition to gold/war supplies to craft the flag. Since all or most ports in a region can be raided, buying the flag for one with an alt to block it, means nothing since all the other ports in the region can be attacked instead. Other exploits are also less viable to players, since no regions actually change hands directly from raids. Exploiting the flag system will be prohibitively expensive and gain you almost nothing. A successful raid limits owning nation’s production in that port for one day and gives raiding party produced resources as loot to bring home with traders. Say that production is halved in the specific port for one day by a successful raid, or by 75%, or maybe even halted completely. To prevent spamming and zerging the same region day after day by attackers, implement diminishing returns. A port/region that was recently raided needs time to recover before it will pay anything to successful raiders again. They can raid it again and again, but they won’t receive any rewards. To limit the off-hour raids to avoid defenders, scale rewards during the day relative to defending nation’s active population (or server population as a whole to make it simpler). Much higher reward for raiding in prime time could encourage raiding when there are enemies around to defend. Also, with the flag system, defenders have up to an hour warning to get to the port to defend against the raid or even intercept the raiders. The most likely defenders against a raid will be those players who have an outpost there because they have production there, so that they can go to a national port when they see that a raiding flag is bought, and teleport to their outpost to defend. Other players with outposts in the same region can teleport to their outpost and sail there to defend. Thus better rewards and better defences in a port the more people own production buildings there. Raids will be variable, have a decent chance of success, therefore being motivating, and yet a good chance that defence will involve players and not just AI. If raids are successfully implemented to be the go-to activity for larger scale group play and satisfy RvR and port battle fleets, then we can make the actual port battles even rarer than they are today. Keep port battles mostly as they are today (with improvements), with 46 hour preparation (or rather 22 hours if I had my wish), and increase the time between them. Make them weekly or bi-weekly for each nation for instance. That a nation can manage to set up and go through up to 2 port battles per week. Maybe only during weekends. Regions change hands rarely, and the map and conquest is fairly stable. The tides of war and conquest are slow, but not stagnant. Conquest system B: The removal of Port Battles (this is my preference) After thinking long and hard on how to improve conquest mechanics, the following is what I came up with. This proposal is not dependent on the implementation or progress of development of the raid mechanics that we are waiting for. Yet raids could easily be tied in with this mechanic to contribute towards RvR, or implemented alongside it without affecting RvR. In developing this idea, I tried to rethink my position on RvR completely, and pay some heed to those players who say that «port battles» in their setup are detrimental to the game and to the open world gameplay. They are a remnant of this game’s past. Some even say that conquest should be removed from the game. I love port battles, and I know a lot of players who play this game mostly or only because of them. So the removal of RvR is to me not an option. Yet we as RvR players could perhaps do well to scrap our current ideas about RvR and look at it with fresh eyes to come up with a system that is more integrated with the Open World and the rest of Naval Action gameplay. In developing this idea, I also relied heavily on my previous conquest mechanic suggestion, written in cooperation with @Bartas11, back before we had regions in the game. It is on his idea of Open World «Trafalgar» battles and controlling sea zones that I base my new approach. We now have in-game the regions that we suggested. We don’t however have the multi-stage conquest of a region. There is one Port battle, and then the region either changes hands or doesn’t. I’m proposing that we scrap «Port Battles». Why do I say this, being an admitted port-battle player first and foremost myself? And why do I say that when devs have spent so much effort and time giving us land in port battles and towers and the capture point mechanics? We waited so long for these features to be developed before the port-wipe, and we spent so much time refining them. Well. I’m not saying we should scrap the land in port battles features completely. These ports, towers and so on should be used for the upcoming raid mechanics. Here is my proposal for conquest mechanics port battles are scrapped: -When you wish to capture a region, you buy a flag in any nationally owned port. This flag is crafted with X amount of Conquest marks, X amounts of Gold and X amounts of War supplies - war supplies being the main ingredient. For instance 5 conquest marks, 200k gold and 50 war supplies. -This flag lasts for 5 hours from the time it is crafted and you buy it for a specific region. Say that you want to attack Santo Domingo region. You would craft the flag in Ponce or Areceibo probably, if coming from the east. -When you craft the flag, you need to form a group. This group can hold up to 25 players, and to avoid abuse the group has to have 20 players in it before you can properly craft the flag. -Upon crafting the flag, a message is sent to the entire server, alerting of the fact. Just like previously with the flag system. -The crafting of the flag also spawns a circle in the open world at the region capital of the region that is under attack. This circle has its focal point on the capital city. The radius of the circle is roughly equal to the viewing distance in OW in clear weather. -Whoever crafts the flag, becomes the flag-bearer (flag-carrier). -The flag can be transferred between players in port(?). -If the flag-bearer logs off from the game for more than 5 minutes, the flag disappears and the group is dissolved. -The composition of the group can be changed by adding or removing players from the group. But the group can not have more than 25 members in it. -The point now, is for the flag-carrier and his group to bring the flag and themselves to the region they are attacking. -The attackers are now to get their fleet to the OW circle outside the region capital. They need to be inside the circle. Once inside that circle, if the flagcarrier leaves it, the flag expires immediately. Thus you cannot hover at the edge of the circle and go in and out of it like people do in the PvP-events. -Conquest depends on a «meter». That meter rises for every hour that the aggressors' flag stays inside the circle. -In order to flip a region’s ownership the attacking faction has to have the flag inside the region for a cumulative 12 or 24 hours (number to be determined by testing). Meaning conquest will not happen in one day, but may take several days or even weeks to generate enough points towards the meter. With a 5 hour flag expiry, you can maximum contribute 5 hours minus travel time towards conquest in one day. But then you would have to sit inside the circle for an entire five hours consecutively and the enemy would have 5 hours to mobilise a defence. -While the goal of the attacker will be to stay inside the circle for as long as possible to generate points towards the conquest of the region, the owners of the region that are under attack will have the goal to try and chase or force the attackers out of the area, or sink the attacking fleet. -Once an alert is out to the server that a nation crafted a flag against a region, the current owner of the region will have to mobilise a defensive fleet of their own to sail there and defeat the intruders. Once there, they will observe the invading fleet and engage it in a large open world battle. The position of the invaders in OW will determine the spot of the battle, and it could happen close to shore or at the farthest end of the circle far from any land. Forts will not really be a factor, unless the invader sails all the way up to a town, but why would they? There were no forts at Trafalgar either. -When in battle instance, the timer still counts towards conquest for the invaders. If they stay one hour in battle, that is one hour towards conquest just like if they sat in OW. To avoid that invaders just tag a small fleet or single ship to hide in battle instance from defenders, anyone belonging to the group carrying the flag cannot do a tag on any other ship, player or npc, while inside the conquest circle. In other words, invaders cannot initiate a battle while inside the circle. -The defenders however will have to attack the invaders in order to halt their conquest. To avoid that invaders use alts or trick noobs into engaging a fight with them that allows them to hide in battle instance, the new BR rules should apply. Only a comparable force can engage the invaders. If they have 25 Victories, only a force of 20+ 1st rates or so can drag them into battle. -Once the defenders engage the invaders, making a battle of 25 vs 25 players, the following can happen: The battle stays open for the entire duration of the fight incase either or both sides do not have 25 players initially. However either side can have a maximum of 25 players enter. Neither side can get a 26th or 27th ship in even if there are less than 50 ships total in the instance. The battle may have 3 outcomes. Invader wins, defender wins, or a draw. The invader wins by getting to 2 times the BR of the defender (just like old times). The defender wins by either getting to 2 times the BR of the invader, or by sinking the invader’s flagcarrier. A battle ends in a draw if by the end of 90 minutes neither side has gained 2 times the BR and the flag is still afloat. If the battle ends in a draw, then the time that was spent inside the battle is added to the conquest meter in favour of the invader. If the invader wins the battle, then they get 2 times or 3 times the number of points. So they get credited for twice or three times the time they spent inside the battle. If the defender wins, that sets back the clock for the invader by about the same amount of time as they would have moved forward if they won. To explain this better I will use points: You need 24 points (for instance) to flip a region. For every full hour spent inside the region with the flag, you get 1 point. If the defender engages and you defeat them, you get maybe 4 points from the battle, if the battle is a draw you get 1 point from the time you spent inside the battle, but no bonus. If the invader looses the battle they are subtracted 4 points. There is a bonus to the defender for sinking the flagcarrier, which subtracts another 1 point in that case. -If the defender sinks the flag 3 times before the invader can flip the port, then the conquest is reset and a cooldown of a few day is applied before the flag can be crafted again for that region. -The flag for any one specific region can only be crafted once per day per nation. -More than one nation can have conquest going against the same region simultaneously. They will then be competing about getting 24 points first. -If the defender does not have players near the region when you first attack it. There is a chance that they might not get there the first day to engage the invaders, if invaders turn around and go home after sitting in the circle for 2 hours unopposed. However, the owning nation then knows that the region is under attack, and a flag will most likely be crafted the subsequent days, and must therefore station ships in the region and an outpost to be able to respond in time the next day. -If attackers do not face resistance the first day of conquest, they are guaranteed to face it the next day, as defenders set up base there to be ready. Defences will be gradually increasing as the conquest progresses and defending nation sends more players there. -How to avoid that either side just kites to get a draw? Well. If the defender does not engage and try to sink the flagcarrier, then they will be helping the invader who then gets points for staying in the region by surviving the battle. -To avoid that the invader tries kiting the defenders to draw out the battle, the following mechanic applies: The ship of the player carrying the flag will get a 25% HP bonus as long as he is carrying the flag. However, in battle instances that are initiated inside the circle, the flagcarrying ship will also have a 15 or 20 percent reduction in top speed. If the invading fleet tries to kite the defenders they will therefore be leaving behind their flagcarrier, leaving him exposed to be sunk by the defenders and winning the defenders the battle. -Looting the hold of a sunk flagcarrier yields some war supplies which the defenders can take back home to their own port and use to craft flags themselves. -Players in the invading party, the group formed by the flagcarrier, cannot initiate tags of their own as long as they are inside the circle, but they can also not be dragged into separate battles unless they are too far away from the flagcarrier (the diameter of the ROE large tagging circle). They are bound to the flag-carrier. They cannot be dragged into separate battles, either by allied screeners or enemy screeners. The invading fleet cannot be separated into multiple instances. -To avoid that the defending fleet accidentally drag some of their screeners instead of their big ships into battle against the invading fleet, putting them at a disadvantage BR-wise, defenders should possibly also be able to make 25-player conquest groups that prioritise them into the same battle as players from their own group doing a tag. -Players will be encouraged to take part in screening. Players who show up in the circle to screen, but are not part of the invading force’s conquest group or the defenders’ engagement with the invading fleet will get larger rewards from any PvP they do while the flag and the circle is still active. Any battles that do not involve the flag-carrying fleet will not however count either positively or negatively towards the conquest points to flip the port. -The invaders can get reinforcements and exchange members of the conquest group while inside the circle. -Once the invasion is over for the evening, either because flag expires after 5 hours, or because the invading fleet sails out of the circle, the flag disappears and the effects that apply with it disappears as well, like flagcarrier having more HP or giving off war supplies when looted. -An invasion fleet can be intercepted and engaged before they enter the circle. If the flag carrier is sunk, the invasion is ended for that day before it even started. -The flag has to be crafted over again each day to continue the assault. Thus, the longer it takes to finish capture the region, the more expensive the invasion will be. -Each nation can have up to 3 invasions going on at the same time against different regions. -Not buying a flag for a region one day, does not reset progress on that conquest. A conquest can be halted to focus on another or on a defence. -Flags should not be so expensive that they cannot be bought each day. But they should be expensive enough to feel costly. -Most regions that are invaded, will in most cases eventually flip. Unless the defender sinks the invading fleet’s flag 3 times, the conquest can go on for a long time if slowed down by defenders. But eventually they will probably reach 24 points. That way a small and hard pressed nation can always eventually regain important territory that they lost. No regions are unassailable or impossible to a determined attacker. However a skilled defender will still be rewarded by the invader being forced to spend more resources and time on the conquest, and the previous owner can try to take the region back again after a couple of days cooldown. Advantages of this system: Brings action to OW. Counteracts the segregation between OW and port battles which has happened. Forces RvR-players into OW. To conquer regions you have to spend time in OW. Brings spontaneity back to RvR. Prolongs the conquest of a region. Means that several battles will have to be fought to conquer a region, not just one. Increases variety in RvR battles. Screening is relevant but not OP. No kiting. Gives defenders warning and time to respond to invasions. Battles are no longer set to start at (example) 18:23 and you have to be there at that time. RvR-battles start when both the attacker and defender are present. Removes PvE-grind from RvR. Involves trading and crafting with RvR (for making war supplies) Regions will always be changing hands, but much more slowly and less abruptly. We will have a frontline conquest system limited by sailing distances as you will always have to sail out from a port that you own with the flag. However there is a possibility for conquest over longer distances than an hour for instance, but it will be more costly and more time-consuming as the time you spend sailing there takes away from the time that you have to sit in the region to gain points towards conquest. You could also adapt the above by having most regions be attackable by 3-hour flags (leaving 1 hour travel + 2 hour camping/fighting), while some special regions were accessible with longer lasting and more expensive flags. That would force front-lines more, but still allow jumping the map to certain hubs. There would be no advantage to not showing up and avoiding PvP. Defenders would have to defend, if not the first day, then the second day. I believe this system will suit those players who used to camp their fleets outside capitals - typically - KPR, to bait players into coming out and attacking them. Now these fleets can get involved in RvR. One of the advantages I see of this system is that it leans in favour of the attackers, but still balances. Realistically someone would only invade a region if they had a significant force and a good chance of conquering. In this system, unless the defender repeatedly beats back the invader and sinks the flag (or win the battle, if being able to sink the flag to win would be too easy), a determined attacker will always eventually flip the region. This makes for a dynamic RvR world where regions change hands every week. You will loose regions and have to take them back, rather than just sit on what you have and fend off attackers. The system forces nations to act aggressively in RvR. Otherwise, in the current RvR-system which very much punishes invasion attempts with total loss, nations that start out with much territory are incentivised by the system to not act aggressively, and only defend as many as possible of the regions they start with, at much less risk than those nations that have to go out and attack something. Because defenders would still affect how fast a region would switch hands, this dynamic conquest system would let nations conquer territory no matter their RvR-fleets' relative skill, but would favour as the most successful and expanding ones the nations that have more skilled fleets and therefore more effectively can halt and slow down enemies attacking their regions, while quickly completing their own conquests. A nation would expand not by always winning offensive and defensive conquest, but by being twice as fast at capturing their neighbour's territory as their neighbour was at capturing theirs. Sorry for the long post (5 400 words!)
  19. Considering that the game that we have now pretty much revolves around RvR, and devs have made statements previously to the effect that they want to force (push) every player into RvR-involvement (cf. discarded land ownership idea, resource wars etc), I feel like remarkably little has been said on the matter of RvR in connection with this particular much anticipated wipe and patch. How does RvR fit into the new direction of the game? Will Conquest even remain? Or are Port Battles-being relatively fair battles normally-about to be phased out and put into the coming Arena game instead as they don't fit the current direction? Will hostility generation remain, even though missions and PvE are getting cut, making it on testbed practically impossible to generate port battles in some areas? Or will we get a new flag-system or other system where we spend gold and/or Marks to create port battles? Is the goal for port battles, which is the content that many of us primarily log in to take part in, to still be a daily occurrence, or will it be a lot rarer, requiring us to grind for a long time between each Port battle to set up the next one? In most other aspects of the game, devs are saying that balance, easy access and fairness are no longer priorities. The world is a harsh place, the open ocean was doubly so. But for RvR to be viable, some semblance of balance needs to be maintained. Sailing and the partial removal of teleports actually promotes this balance. By making it harder to concentrate forces, and making defence an effort more equal to attack. As long as no-one holds to the illusion that territories should ever be equally sized for small nations as for large. However, the removal of compensation for losses and the increased effort to build ships threatens this balance. If one nation builds a strong fleet, and is able to sink part of the other nation’s fleet in a Port Battle with minor losses themselves. The defeated nation will get no compensation or marks that they can use to rebuild their fleet or regain their loss, and the next day the first nation can attack again before the enemy can grind to replace their ships. A lot of territory could change hands before the defenders are able to rebuild their fleet. How will this be sorted and balanced to prevent nations from being stomped at and kept from ever rebuilding? With resource production being all player-driven, and territories being key to production access, the efforts and results of RvR-players will have very considerable impact on the gameplay and competitiveness of non-RvR PvP-players, crafters, traders and PvE-ers alike. This could force more and more players to switch to the larger nations with more possibilities, or give up and stop playing altogether. How will the number of nations we have in-game today be maintained and kept viable?
  20. As one of the admins posted in another thread : " the conquest is still being discussed/reworked. Current ideas are 1) return conquest flag - sell it for pvp marks and create PB on purchase removing all exploits potential 2) change (bring back) hostility missions to only generate for regional capitals and be open all the time (allow missions to generate only for nearest 2 enemy regions - to create some form of frontlines " These are the only possibilities to achieve sustainable conquest in the game. Why? 1 .FLAGS: Pos : Surprise, unpredictability, Conquest around the map(FOR THOSE WHO LIKE IT)Gather players,purchase flag and go. If you want to throw away the PVP marks,by not showing up in a PB, thats your problem/nations, and most important thing(NATIONS NUMBERS DO NOT MATTER), forces players to sail the f..k out Neg : Conquest around the map(SOME MIGHT NOT LIKE IT), Abuse through alt accounts,(who is this guy who bought the flag, wtf is going on) Abuse through multiple flag buys(although this is the only way of confusing enemy and forcing him to sail out)--imo this could be prevented by 72 hours cooldown on regions to avoid player attrition,and buying simultaneously ONLY 3 flags. 2. HOSTILITY : Pos : Idea of FRONTLINE, PvP self explanatory due the presence of friends and foes,(which are considered as such:) ) focus on certain areas. Neg: Blockbuilding(again),danger of "forever trying to rise hostility" ,NATIONS NUMBERS MATTER,unability to operate "mapwide",absence of surprise and unpredictability leads to static, in long terms boring conquest. Myself prefer FLAGS because of the named positive aspects. I would like to dicuss with my fellows in clan, and other clans in nation which areas are needed,and we can decide on our own where to go. Dynamic conquest does not force me to focus on regions which are useless,have no resources,but because of the game mechanics HAVE to be taken.Blue,red or yellow dots on the map DO NOT MATTER, silver,gold and refits do.:) With a given cooldown of AT LEAST 96 hours, it is worth for a nation to make an effort,conquer the region,AND gather resources in case of being defeated after cooldown by previous owner. Player attrition is not given, because the conquest can be organized by anyone,anywhere,for whatever the reasons.Take part or don`t. I hope one day there will be some sort of campaign for each nation.That is what i would like to see Thank you for reading.
  21. Due to the new announcement of the changes in the RvR conquest mechanics I really need to know if it is true that the community really wants the old conquest system.
  22. I think the current Region conquest needs to changed and testing Raids is urgently needed NOW to keep numbers up before the wipe. So, keeping the idea of Raids as laid out by admin, and hostility generation to create a PB, but with the follow changes: 1, Regions have kind of ruined the variation of PB locations (in combination with Resource locations). I think it should be possible to generate hostility in a Region, and then hostility generators vote which non capital port in the region to attack. If you control 50% of ports in a region (as number of ports in regions vary), then Region capital PB is now generated. Change these be to 26 hours, instead of 2 days. 2. Conquest can be too fast, this should slow it down. It will also allow for enemies to have a port in a region for a period of time, without totally taking it over. PB's Region capitals should therefor have some extra benefits, like ships for sale, more resources and materials. ?? 3. Conquest should be about the next region over. It should be easier to raise hostility in an adjacent region to your own, and the distance from capital should also count. Flags were good that way, as the attack had to be launched from a friendly port, which makes realistic sense. It should also be hard to create PB in a region close to the enemy capital, not impossible but the % increase should be tied into how loyal the region population is (if you were to think of it that way). So 100% loyal in capital (full reduction of hostility generation %, 3-4 times harder than now?) and a decreasing number, effected by distance, Raid successes, PvP/AI kills, making PB hostility creation easier. 4. Voting is an important part of this, so as to allow those who generate PBs to decide the target, and then to also decide who enters the PB. A majority vote to kick someone from the 25 should be possible, as this will avoid the frequent occasions when 1 or 2 ALTs or randomers who will ruin the chances of and attacker or defender joined. This is similar to Bobzillas RvR thread suggestion, but I do think it should be possible for people in the PB fleet to decide who they fight with. It should be pre battle instance. It would be really beneficial to see the hostility points the people trying to join have, as people will agree if someone has the points and the ship, they should get in ahead of someone who has not been around to attack/defend. 5. Alliance/Groups. One way I think Alliances in open world might work would be to allow attackers and defenders to create a PB group, based on hostility generation in defence or attack. A "Group" of 25 should be possible to create in OW, so if someone gets tagged or disconnected, a new person can be invited to the PB group. This could also be extended to inviting someone from another nation to join that group and be treated as that nation whike in that group, even if Alliance as a nation is not in force. This could allow Pirates to sell there skills to people who are willing to pay for there services. Creating screening groups of 25 would also be good, as the same could also be done. These groups could then be also rewarded with loot (but no ships, paint or BPs). It should be possible to Tow loot to an Outpost, like you can with a ship. Im sure they are similar to other peoples suggestions, but I just wanted to share mine as I wouild like to see the above happen. Feedback and comments/tweaks welcome!
  23. So, here's an odd idea I had. Premise: the gripe with port battles vis-a-vis nightflips and so on does not look like it will be resolved in the near future (for reasons that have been discussed in boatloads of other threads, so let's not rehash this here). It appears to me that the root causes people get so emotionally worked up are that, currently, the culmination and decisive point for conquering a region is happening at one point in time, in a very narrow time-frame (two hours for the battle, more like two minutes for the join window). Thus individual captains are upset when they themselves cannot take part in the decisive engagement, and nations as a whole are aggrieved as ports can change hands because of awkward timing rather than combat success (whether with malice aforethought or not, that’s not my point here). The hostility generation on the other hand, is less problematic: for one thing, it happens around the clock, so everyone can have a go; and its separate engagements are not individually decisive, so adrenaline levels are lower. So – thought experiment – what if we turn this on its head? The port battle opens conquest, rather than closing it: there is no pre-requisite for declaring a Target Region, merely an advance warning window (48 hrs or so); a limit to the number of Target Regions a nation can declare in parallel; and the requirement to declare an Attacking Region. Then the opening PB happens after 48ish hours. Defender wins PB: nothing happens. Attacker wins PB: the region is now open for conquest. Think: the port defences have been broken, and a beach-head has been established. Now we have different kinds of missions to generate Superiority (rather than Hostility). These missions run parallel, for a period of time. PvP engagements in Target Region: to gain/refute control of the sea-lanes. (Superiority accrues like the scores in the Admirality Events) Player convoys: running trader ships with War Supplies from Attacking Region to Target Region. Similar to War Supplies now. AI convoys: both Attackers and Defenders are notified in Missions tab that: Fleet of [trading vessels] will leave Attacking Region Capital for Defending Region Capital on [date and time]. If those AI ships make it to the Attacking Region’s capital, attacker scores Superiority, if they are taken or sunk, Defender scores. Nail mission: both Attackers and Defenders are notified in Missions tab that: [AI Fighting Vessel] carrying important personage will leave Attacking Region for Defending Region on [date and time]. If this AI ship makes it to the Attacking Region’s capital, attacker scores Superiority, if it is taken, Defender scores. Minor Port battles: open the non-capital ports for port battles, the outcome of which will contribute Superiority [randomtaskkk's idea] Smugglers: smuggling contraband into or out of the Target Region contributes Superiority for the attacker [Wraith's idea] After a period of time (2 days maybe?), conquest operations cease, and Superiority scores are tallied. If the Attacker wins, the region changes hands. So, in a nutshell we go from “distributed Hostility opens decisive single port battle” to “single port battle enables distributed Superiority engagements, which will decide conquest”. Worth thinking about, or utter balderdash? Discuss (in a civilised manner, please )!
  24. Seen a few of these posts but thought I might as well have a go The aim of these ideas is to make the pirates a unique 'hardcore' pvp faction with interesting mechanics but also limited economic and military strength compared to the nations. These should also keep a nice balance of power between the industrial and pvp players in the nations. Pirates Economy One economy building per player 25% tax for all trades between pirates and other nations, including player to AI and player to player (bribes, mistrust etc) Production/ships Largest ship produced by pirates will be 5th rates Cannot purchase ships from other nations, any ships larger than a 5th rate will have to be captured (1 dura) Conquest Pirates will be unable to participate in the current conquest mechanics Nations will be unable to launch a port battle/flag against pirate ports New 'control' system describing the difficulties nations had at the time keeping the peace in their colonies Each national port/region will have a base 'control' score (CS) which will naturally decay over time. Local merchants (AI) will create hauling missions for national players to take goods to any ports that need it (similar to the current missions) to increase the CS for that region. If the CS for the region goes too low the nation then has 24 hours to increase the CS above the base score or the region will flip to the pirates. To recover a pirate port (any) nation can send goods near the port to reduce the pirate CS. If the CS goes low enough and stays below the base CS for 24 hours the port will flip to the nation that delivered the most goods. Pirate CS is increased by pirates transporting their own goods to the ports or by capturing/sinking enemy (player) trade ships in the region. These mechanics should create a situation where pirates become strongest on the borders or quiet areas of the national empires. Finding opportunities where nations are fighting each other and playing them off against each other. Small groups of pirates will be able to harass areas and capture a region or two by raiding ports and shipping trying to supply those ports – but find it extremely hard to hold onto those regions when an organised fleet of traders and warships try to take them back. (If technically possible) Pardons could be purchased by a pirate player at any free port which will allow them to join one of the nations for a fixed time (7/14/28 days). The cost of these pardons would depend on the rank and fame of the captain (see Zooloo's fame system for ideas) meaning a famous Curse would find it stupidly expensive. At the end of the time frame the captain would revert back to a pirate (with xp and fame penalties) and lose any of the advantages of being a national captain – 5 dura ships etc. Any comments welcome
  25. Since the last pastch the differents nation are suffering of 2 behaviors First one is stacking of port battle. A nation is attack on multiple area on the same time to not allow the nation ot defend Second problem are the nightflip. The last patch introduce no solution for that when it was one of the most hating things for most of us. I would like to suggest the Pobt ssolution. I know the rvr may seems to be copy to potbs but if they used it it was because it was probably the best to do so First: The PB are on fix hours every 30 minutes. If a stack is token, the next pb is on hour after. It prevent stacking of pb on the same nation Second: PB are shedulded for 12 hour. You can flip a port outside of thie window but the pb is on 46h if in the window, if not, it's take the "better slot" the one in middle of the window. Or you can't make unrest while outside window
  • Create New...