Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'pb'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General discussions
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
    • Closed Beta Gameplay discussions
    • Legends Support Section
  • 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 !!

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 31 results

  1. [SNOW] is now recruiting. Applicants much use Discord, be over 18, and have passed the final exam in-game. Please PM a SNOW member for more information on our recruitment process. English speaking clan with a few peculiar foreign people such as Germans and Greeks. PvP/RvR focus. Benefits of membership are to be accused of being a ganker solo in a snow and to make excellent puns such as, "you stand snow chance of escaping" or "it's snow problem sir!" This is the SNOW Discord link: https://discord.gg/9J8YHBt SNOW is a democracy, upon full membership you get to vote, use clan warehouse and use our fun GoogleDocs spreadsheet. We pride ourselves on being a modern clan and have made an effort to boost diversity and be an inclusive clan. We have a token Pole, a woman and a stereotypical organised German! Believe it or not we know Dean Martin and he was kind enough to record our official theme tune which can be found below Bing Crosby not wanting to be outdone had a crack at is as well. You get the general gist. Be a special snowflake today!
  2. Consider recent Tribunals, apparently the Pirate Rules of Engagement have finally been defined. Pirates can join both sides of a battle. - obvious mechanic Pirate's own clan mates can choose both sides of a battle. - again obvious mechanic This mechanic does allow for the raising of BR to allow for more Pirates to join the opposing side of the battle. - seen in multiple Tribunals as a legal mechanic Pirates joining the side of the battle they wanted to raise BR on can leave the battle without firing on opposing Pirate side. - seen in multiple Tribunals as not punishable However, No one on any side is allowed to fire on anyone from their same side: No Green on Green firing. - as seen by Ink's Response Here If anyone is seen firing on teammates from their side then they are considered a target by that side and can be destroyed by the side they joined. TLDR: The Pirate RoE is defined as being allowed to join the enemy's side of the battle to raise BR, but cannot fire on the side they join, AND can escape as soon as possible without any Tribunal worthy punishment. Devs and mods can correct this if it is incorrect, but recent Tribunals over the last few months seem to correspond to my statements. How I believe Pirate RoE should work: Open World Battles Only Pirates can join both sides of a battle. Pirate clanmates MUST join same side. Pirates can be targeted by the enemy side AND by any nation joining on the Pirate side. - All verse Pirates on any side Pirate vs Pirate Battles Pirates should be able to tag and attack other Pirates not in their clan. Pirate clanmates MUST join same side. All nations can join the Pirate vs Pirate Battle Anyone from one Nation must join the same side as others from that Nation Pirate Port Battles Pirate Clans should be able to attack other Pirate Clan Ports.
  3. Angus MacDuff

    Mercy

    Why does an uncontested PB extend one second beyond the cut-off time for the defenders to join? Is there in fact a cut-off time for defenders to join? I would suggest that defenders cannot join a PB 20 minutes after the start of the PB and further that at that point, if no defenders have entered, the PB is deemed a Win by the attackers and the PB is ended. We have enough time sinks in the game already. In fact, a mercy rule should also be applied, where if the Attacker to Defender ratio is high (better than 2:1? 3:1?) then the PB is ended and the Attacker is declared the winner. We shouldn't have to tolerate a Tlynx holding a fleet of 25 in battle.
  4. So this evening, we discovered an annoying mechanic. When all enemy players in our port battle had sunk or escaped, the battle didn't end. We feel that once all players on one side of a PB are sunk or escaped, the battle should automatically win. This will encourage fleets to join together and stick around and fight. Otherwise, its a massive waste of time for a fleet to sit there after they sank everyone (or everyone escaped). Hopefully this simple mechanic can be slid in the next patch. EDIT: in case anyone was wondering, they left/were all sunk by around 800 points into the battle. This left us to sail around and look pretty for a few minutes longer (waste of time).
  5. 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
  6. So we had a little Fracas over at Key West this week vs Spain and I've been a little salty about the amount of doubloons received at the end. 2 Vics sunk 3 Bucs 1 Bellona 1 Wasa 1 Belle Poule + 1 MB Total amount of dubs collected off the sunken ships was around 7000-8000. I think the highest amount received from the battle screen was around 200. Not even enough doubloons to replace 1 of the 1st rates that were risked to successfully defend the port. And we were lucky enough to be able to loot these ships. Most fights you are not given the flow of battle. Spain received nothing for their effort. ---- Rewards seem a bit abysmal no? We could probably get more doubloons capping AI trader snows in the span of an hour or 2. What incentive does Spain have to do a repeat attack? Sure we get to keep the port, but it only pays for itself 50% of the time if we're lucky. What would the alternative be? Dropping the port, not giving a shit about PBs and just sinking AI traders? Overall there's been far less deep water PBs since the doubloons patch. I see why. To be frank, this system sucks. At the very least we need to bring back chests with paints and random ship notes. Edit - more of a rant post than a suggestion, but whatever.
  7. @admin and players, Would it be possible to take a break of 5 minutes every 30 minutes in all combat operations? The game would be frozen and a clock is running. (Of course it would be possible for you to suffer a disadvantage as well, but on the other hand you could also benefit from an advantage.) The reason: Philanthropy and disability-friendly This would give time for the fulfillment of human needs and a brief relaxation from a physical and mental compulsory attitude. Often you play to yourself. Suddenly you are drawn from outside into a fighting. These battles can take 90 minutes. When resolving a combat action, you can be drawn into a new fight. And again, a duty of possibly 90 minutes begins. Already we would be at 3 hours, etc .. Personally, I think it would be interesting for game developers to incorporate these basic human needs. "Gambling Addiction and PC Addiction" are well-known terms and I think that even a gaming community would understand an adequate compromise. (Ger man texts are always translated with the help of Google.) @admin und Spieler, wäre es möglich bei allen Kampfhandlungen alle 30 Minuten eine Pause von 5 Minuten einzuführen? Das Spiel würde eingefroren und eine Uhr läuft. (Natürlich wäre es möglich, daß man dadurch auch mal einen Nachteil erleiden würde. Auf der anderen Seite könnte man aber auch mal von einem Vorteil profitieren.) Der Grund: Menschenfreundlichkeit und Behindertenfreundlichkeit Dieses gäbe Zeit für die Erledigung menschlicher Bedürfnisse und eine kurzzeitige Entspannung aus einer physischen und psychischen Zwangshaltung. Häufig spielt man vor sich hin. Plötzlich wird man von Außen in eine Kampfhandlungen hineingezogen. Diese Kampfhandlungen können 90 Minuten dauern. Beim Lösen aus einer Kampfhandlung kann man in einen neuen Kampf hineingezogen werden. Und schon wieder beginnt eine Pflicht von eventuell 90 Minuten. Schon wären wir bei 3 Stunden, etc.. Ich persönlich fände es interessant, wenn Spielentwickler diese menschlichen Grundbedürfnisse mit einbeziehen täten. "Spielsucht und PC-Sucht" sind bekannte Begriffe und ich denke, daß auch eine Spielgemeinschaft Verständnis für einen adäquaten Kompromiss hätten.
  8. Hello! My view on premium ship So lately these Le Requins have been appearing more and more in deep water pbs. They are quite useful for grabbing empty circles, killing mortar brigs and harassing players who guard/hold circles. Right now the Requin is extremely fast, rides low in the water so its hard to hit at a distance, not the easiest ship to demast imo and has very low BR. So bang for the buck it is awsome. You can shot down a Le Requin to under 50% internal structure and even take out one mast, but if your not in an upwind position or in a upwind capable ship, they are very hard to finish off. Those ships often just limp away upwind, repair and then it's the same story all very again. As long as they stay at long distance (3-400+ meters) they are basically unsinkable in my experience. It's much of the same for the Hercules, it is OP compared to the BR it requires to enter. Do you want a large frigate or 2 small fast super Shallow-Frigates? So they are starting to enter deep water pbs also, but at least they sink much easier than the Le Requin. Then consider that if your team are in control of a circle, you don't get points any points when an enemy is present in that circle or "riding the edge". The "Wack a mole" strategy Half a year ago I was part of an attack on a shallow water port, where our opponent used this "Whack a mole" strategy. 60 min into the PB we had destroyd the defenders main fleet, but they still had 3 Prince de Neufchatel and a fast Mercury. And they used those ships to harass our players who where holding circles and we could not gain points fast enough to win whne those shitty ships keept joining the circle at an upwind position. When ever we got them low, they just sailed upwind and repaired. In one circle when 1 ship left, another join at the opposite corner.. So it was basicly a 30 minutes of "whack a mole", and we lost. I fear we now are going to see more of this strategy. In a 2500BR port you can in theory fit 33x Le Requins.. Now you can't fit that but imagine fighting 25 Le Requins with a conventional pb fleet. It's not my idea of fun, and it is defenitly not why I joined grinding the pb! I'm not going to suggest fleet setups here, but it is easy to get room for 5-10 Le Requins and still have some high BR ships for kiting. And you may not kill all that much with such a fleet setup, because your defending you don't need to. All you need to do is run while you do all you can to deny the attackers points. 2-3 Le Requin can easily do drive by shoting at 15,5 kn while they sail in and out of the circles for 1,5 hour, most efficient way to counter Le Requins is by bringing Le Requins.. And to pull the wack a mole stratigy of you don't need mroe than 5-6 Le Requins, 350 - 420BR. So you still have 2080 - 2150BR to make a good running/kiting fleet for defending a port.. Latest pbs with premium ships (finger pointing) 11.06.18 we had 2 pbs. And I'm a gentleman, so I'm not going to name anyone, because I have pictures! So from my extremely partial view: the defenders where basically just avoiding combat with their main fleet, while they had several premium ships to harass the attackers players in the circles and there by denying attacker points in the process. As you all can see we also use the premium ships, but it is necessary now to be compatible in RvR. Little Cayman: 2. PB at Cayman Brac: They brought even more premium ships, but we came better prepared this time! SOLUTION Solution is pretty clear imo, this point blocking with lower BR in the circle must end! Entire reason for 3 circles was to force defender to stay and defend their port. And this was not an issue in the beginning of the 3 circle system.. So we need the older version of the 3 circle system back! The team with highest BR in the circle should capture it and as long as they have the highest BR in the circle or the circle is unchallenged it should generate points. Only way to block point generation from a circle should be by capturing it. This is simple and efficient because it forces teams into decisive battles in and around these circles.. Le Requins in Shallow water pbs As long as the Le Requin can enter shallow water port battles, I will try my best to avoid them.
  9. Could we please either get fewer windchanges in a 1½ hour match or removed entirely? - I'd prefer fewer windchanges but it's really changing fast and often..
  10. 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!
  11. Hello! I want, once again, to point out the unfairness existing in the game regarding battle rewards. It is the third time i participate in a PB "fought heroically" and in the end lost the battle. According to the actuall game logic i gained nothing, no exp, no money nothing. And so, when eventually i will get a new ship (Wasa) there will be no experience on it it will be like i never used that ship before. And now, lets assume that i am a some what new player, puting everything i owned in to this one ship get in a fight and loose this ship. The next step, is back to a bassic cutter OR, and i am sure this happend before, just quit this and find another game that does not punish me so much. In my case, i am fortunate enough to be part of a clan that helps out in this kind of situations. And they are acctually what brings me back to the game, win or loose we try to keep together! As a conclusion, i want to ask the devs to reconsider this decision, because no one ever got happy to see the "Battle Rewards No Rewards" at the end of a battle. PS. As a show of good will i promise to write a beautiful positive review of the game if this issue is addressed! (maybe @adminlike this aproach better)
  12. Will a set of port battle layout maps be provided for every port such as those already in existence for Capital Ports? https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx3OZcHt9VbNT3JkME9GMm4wOTg I tried to take some myself in a PB but I cannot go high enough in the "balloon". Buster (Vertigo sufferer)
  13. Combat mark and more have been introduce ingame in the way to decrease the number of larges ships ingame and to put diversity into port battle fleet. But Since combat mark appears, port battle have still the same number and same quality of ship than before. So combat mark are just decreasing the ability for a defeated fleet to fight again meaning more time will be needed to be able to fight back what decrease the aciton ingame what make peoiple boring and left the game. So COmbat mark should be use for skill, paint and this kind of stuff and be out of permit in the way to authorize people to still be able to play and enjoy. We can accept that open sea ship may be valuable in mark as endemyin but the port battle ship,n the one deciding the rvr should be not concern with this thing as everyone will use the bet ship for pb and there is no way to bring surprises in an aga fleet. At least a decent rataed ship need to be CM free per rank. One good 4th rate for pb (aga), one good 1th rate for PB (victo) TY
  14. hey, are Niagara + Rattlesnake Heavy allowed in shallow PB now that a permit costs 1 VM ?
  15. Chuliki

    PvE PB

    Hi, I'm a Spanish player, I've been playing since February of 2016 on the pvp1 server, now the pvp EU. Few weeks ago I started crafting ships on the PVP server, so while my LH were "recharging", I decided to start playing at the PVE server, but I think that server needs some more action; I'm okay with the peaceful ambient but I think there should be a bigger purpose than just getting the biggest ship, so I was thinking that maybe it would be cooler if you add the PB at this server too, but still with the peaceful ambient of OW, so anyone who wants to fight can start a PB but if you don't want to, you can keep attacking AI or doing missions.
  16. Dear DEVS there are a lot of use that like to travel and trade there hence should be a three day at sea or so extra XP bonus since we do more traveling then fighting and that's what we like as well as a bonus from Port hopping with your kind of help us move up and grind in the XPS well we're doing what we love doing so we can also get into larger ships larger Traders I don't think it'd be you at all that too much to ask or something like that as well as another way to get PVE and PVP and port battle bonuses for doing what we like doing . Then we would be able to craft larger Traders not everybody works within a clan . Come on DEVS WE LIKE TO TRADE HELP US OUT .
  17. 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!)
  18. 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?
  19. 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.
  20. Oxford Dictionary As per the tribunal rules outlined in the topic, griefing is a tribunal offence. Charge: Players from the US nation has repeatedly and intentionally been raising hostility in the region of Georgia with the explicit intention of setting port battles at times that for the defenders, danish players, are in the middle of the night on weekdays. This is intended to force Danish defenders to stay up for what is for us the middle of the night and mount a defense The US players then do not show up to the attack, or shows up in a very small number of fast ships with the express intention of wasting the time of the entire defensive force. This is textbook griefing. It is an intentional waste of other players time and an intentional sabotage of the game. With accompanying mockery and harassment in the battle chat and global chat. It causes great dissatisfaction amongst the defenders who have to stay up to mount a defense and yet do not get a fight, wasting hours of their time for nothing. This charge and proof addresses specifically the port "battle" that happened in Savannah on January the 11th. Proof of intention: Only four players showed up to the beginning of the fight, in fast ships to run away and waste our time. There was no screening mounted outside by the defenders that could explain the absence of more attackers. No attempt was ever made in the course of the battle by the attackers to fight or get any points. They were running away from the beginning, but refusing to leave the battle to let it end, wasting more time.
  21. Problem: - Screeners attack Port battle fleet in the goal to disturb it making it loose time. It's not the problem. The problem is that this fights are not fun because screen are juste kitting and not really fighting. It's mostly suicide squad of 5-10 ships. - Many battle occures around the PB but most are unbalance due of screen crushing together, group of 5 counter screen attack largest grou of screen wich then disband and form smaller group leading to small unbalance battles. - The port battle are unorganised because we don't get any tools to organise them before they start Solution: - Introduce "Admiral Flag". Admiral flag can be buy in port for 1 million doublon. The guy purchasing the admiral flag can make a group of 25 people. If people of the group in open sea stay near the Admiral Flag it gives the group a bonus on BR or it changes their ROE making them not attackable by group than not get at least 75% of their BR Why: - The flag can be purchased by everyone. It will make the groups sticking more together. - It will not forbid screen but will organise it to get real fight. We won't see any more 5v25 but if the screen success 20-25 at least. - Counter screen will stop suiciding in screen. We see many 5v10 5v15 where the counter screen has just to purpose to kite the screening fleet to let the pb fleet past. If screener use admiral flag, counter screen has to be organise to attack them making more big battles in open sea. /Discuss
  22. Gaining hostility on a region has a problem with group play. Right now it is way to efficient to push hostility by doing fleet missions alone. It does take around 12 - 16 Kommendör (186xp) missions going solo to push hostility up to 100%. If a group of players do missions together the hostility gain through missions is not as fast. Group play is discouraged with this mechanic right now. The overall hostility gain does seem a bit high right now but I suspect that this is one of the things accelerated in the current test phase.
  23. 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
  24. I believe hostility system is a step into the right direction, however it’s not working now. Fixing it may improve the game significantly. I’m saying this as a guy who proposed the system in the first place ( afaik ). Sometimes systems don’t work as you intended, or are modified to not to work as intended Edit: The newest version of this post is available under link below. It's constantly updated and allows you to put your comments on top of the text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QReWu6p7LJ3hhKpi4Lf5pbKQrK9NeqDVZU8NdTJtm5c/edit# What doesn’t work: hostility mainly generates PvE, not PvP system of entering PB’s is prone to exploits (log off screen, wave of screeners jump out of harbour) without using exploits, a decently organised defender has a huge advantage, making capturing a port extremely hard and costly system generates 1-2 battles per nation per week, with no meaningful encounters in between (not counting PvE) larger nations gain big advantage in both hostility generation, as quantity is quality now war supply hostility bump is not limited, allowing for a hostility bomb tactic What is important to notice: RvR is completely a domain of clans, and as such every system related with RvR should support clans people want screening encounters, it’s worth to give it to them people want more or less fair fights, which balance out nation size difference and which require skill, not numbers players raising hostility are PvP, not PvE players. It’s hard to convince PvE player to join even a PvE hostility generation mission. That’s why hostility should focus around PvP port battle system should value people's time, giving them interesting, meaningful and fair encounters quickly, without tedious work Some ideas to improve the current system: remove PvE missions completely. Instead, when attacking fleet reaches the mission, launch a notification that the fleet is raising hostility. Allow for any defending captain in an attacked region to teleport to a battle, filling in defending fleet to a BR limit of an attacker. In case defenders don’t show up, raise hostility by X and allow to launch next mission eg. 10 minutes later. this still allows for uneven screening tactics, however it also promotes PvP battles of different fleets in even encounters it saves time of players to get a good PvP In case players won’t show up on a regular basis, you could tweak mechanism to fill in defender’s fleet with AI up to attacker’s BR create war supply encounters, where eg. 4-28 hours in advance (chosen by attacker) there’s a notice that war supplies will be delivered to a harbour. Delivery ships would be allowed to deliver goods only in the specified time (eg. 1 hour), raising hostility eg. only by 50% if all goes well. This would allow for a large screening operations and delivery operations. it makes economy significant for war effort it could be launched both by a defender and attacker it would create more of meaningful encounters at times when port battles are rare, and often happen once per week it empowers organization that clans offer multiple other types of missions could be created with a similar mechanic. Eg. raids could be set 4-28 hours in advance, requiring attacker to sail his ships into the harbour within 30 minutes. Any ship that would get in would have to reach a certain area and eg. stay there unattached for 2 minutes to raise hostility, while defenders could join battle only to a limit of attacker's BR already in the mission. This could raise hostility eg. by up to 30% adds variety allows for experiments with different mission mechanics, defining which are fun, in the same time not influencing player's experience so much creates another opportunity for screening encounters Those are more or less rough ideas. If they were thought through and modified in search of corner cases and exploits, I think after implementation they would improve experience a lot. They would also make game available for much more players who don’t have time to sail for 3 hours in search for PvP, however would likely invest 30 minutes in order to do so. It would make organized even PvP battles more often, which is probably the best side of NA. ps. My first post wasn’t noticed probably since it was in on 5’th page of a large thread, and as such TLDR. That’s why I create this one in a separate thread.
×
×
  • Create New...