Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'port battles'.



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
  • 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

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • The Enclave'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 57 results

  1. 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).
  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. So we had a port battle at Marsh Harbor tonight and I notice the defense goes down and suddenly the other team has 250 points. Even at full sales we would of just engaged them at this time. Than the second one goes down (they had two mortar brigs) and it was at 500 points. @admin is this how it's suppose to be with two AI fort/tower kills the Attackers had 500 points. Defenders have no real way to counter this. I remember the old points where 75 for Towers and 150 for forts.....250 is way to high. The battle was over really fast cause of this. While we would of lost the brawl in the long run getting over half points just for killing two useless for the most part AI that don't really help much as there range is two short is bad.; I'm just wondering if they are suppose to be worth so many points than they need to be doing more in defense or defenders need something else as this right now gives Attackers way to much a point advantage in the fights. Again we would of lost to the brawl (as neither us had complete control of two circles for long), but that 500 points straight off made the battle a very short one. Maybe the towers and forts need to be brought back down in points when killed as they should never be worth so many points you can win off just destroying them.
  4. The Mortar Officer perk is a definite requirement when operating a mortar brig and it costs 2 perk points, but the problem is the perk reset permit costs 200 dubloons, so in order to participate in a port battle in the mortar brig you are looking at a minimum outlay of 400 dubloons to operate the mortar brig and then change back to your normal perks, or go around gimped with your perks when not using a mortar brig. Either drastically reduce the cost of a perk reset to maybe 20 dubloons or make the mortar officer perk into a permanent mod that can be installed on a mortar brig maybe at a one off cost of 200 dubloons.
  5. 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.
  6. I hereby suggest the following: - that the 80BR limit that separates the shallow PB from the deep water PB to be raised to 160BR - that the most powerful ship able to enter shallow PB to be 160BR and all others to be addressed accordingly, mainly Heavy Rattlesnake and Prince, not to share the exact same BR as the Xebec. Traders to be accommodated under their warlike counterparts. - that the deep water ships increase in BR equivalent to 1/3 of their present value. So a 200 BR ship becomes a 266BR ship. And so on, such as a 600BR ships becomes 798BR. - that no port PB BR to be touched. Any suggestions for the BRs up to 160 value more than welcome.
  7. 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.
  8. So @Kutai came up with a great idea the other day to promote smaller clan RVR that levels playing field a bit. Posting because he's to lazy This might have been suggested before because it seems slightly to obvious as an idea. Let me know yours thoughts. So the idea: Limit port battle BR to the member size of the clan that's defending it. Some sort of arbitrary number that determines if its a 5200 br or a 7200 br port etc. For example, If clan X has 20 members limit deep water to 2500. 40 members limit port BR to 4000ish etc etc you get the point. Currently the predefined BR limits are actually turning people away from port battles. That mixed with the timers makes what seems like a choice of hundreds of ports to attack more like a choice of 2 or 3 for a smaller clan. Of course smaller clans will look to group up with other clans to take bigger ports but then there's the question of "can we defend it now" ? Typically no "so why even bother trying"? Essentially as it stands small groups of players are unlikely to partake in large RVR events because there's no incentive for them to other than to support a larger clans attacks/defends. It would be nice to see small clans getting a foot hold on the map and honing there RVR skills on there own then cooperating to take the bigger ports off the powerhouse clans in the future Benefits/drawbacks I can think of. Benefits: Small clans can partake in RVR easier Small clans can defend there ports effectively Promotes alliance and internal nation team work to take on bigger foes (bigger clans) Removes the large clans active player bias (IE can always field a big fleet) Drawbacks: Big clans might be able to multiflip easier (although there's a hard limit on nation port attacks) Could possibly be exploited. Multi clans rather than one big one. (not sure what you can do with that, maybe some sort of reward incentive to be in a big clan, less tax at nation cap or some such) Now as a fairly big clan we wouldn't benefit from such a idea but it would be really nice to see the small but hardened clans getting a stake on the game rather than it being limited to the big boys. Let us know your thoughts. Happy hunting.
  9. The game is of course a wargame and the battles and fighting are at the moment the most important part. However i think that that a lot of people would like to see both the economic side and the port handling side be improved so that the game can also cater to people who do not want to fight continuously or like me lack the skills of fighting 1v1. I want to explain the things that I would like to see for ports and this is just my personal opinion. I do believe that the interface of the ports and the management system of the ports should be increased. Also i would like to see that a clan leader who is now responsible for the port, can delegate this responsibilty to a port administrator (call it whatever you want probably per nation there are some fancy titles) This administrator would then be responsible for the running of the port and at the moment that isnt really a lot because there are not so any things that you can actually do with a port therefor i would like to suggest some options that could be implemented and that would stimulate also a bit the trade between ports. The administrator would have access to the port warehouse a bit like a clan leader would have access to the clan warehouse. This would be used for storing the goods that you would need for running the port and its defenses. Like a normal warehouse this can be expanded to store more goods and a different variety of goods. Later will become clear what types of goods i am thinking about and why it would be important to have these goods always in the warehouse. This would not be like your own warehouse where goods are stored but this would be more for storing the goods that are consumed every day. Forts are probably one of the main features of a port. A well defended port is harder to take and every port should start with 2 basic round towers that are next to the town. The administrator would then be able to add additional forts on places he believes are suitable for the defenses of the port. I would like to see it like with a shipyard that you will have to upgrade the forts that you build. Fort level 1: Basic round fort as we know it right now. To build it you will need to have stone, oak, muskets, provisions, iron, canons and a certain amount of gold. This fort could be placed anywhere on the map but depending on the location this can be upgraded to a bigger fort. Fort would also have to be maintained every day and would require a certain amount of the materials that are used for building it as well as gold for daily maintenance. Also after a port battle the damage would have to be repaired a bit in the same way that we have to repair our ships after a battle. This would also be necessary for the larger forts that follow but of course the bigger the fort the higher the maintenance. Fort level 2: This would be the basic suare fort like we know it now. This would only be available if you have allready a round fort in place and could only be placed on certain areas of the map to account for the underground etc etc. I would limit the amount to 2 forts of this type per port to avoid a port being cluttered by forts. Fort level 3: This would be the highest upgrade and i would call it a bastion. These would the upgrade for the level 2 fort and there could only be 1 of these forts per harbour. The places where these forts could be built should be limited due to there extended size. the most important change for these forts would be heavier guns and also mortars to defend the harbour. It would be important for the administrator to always keep the resources available to maintain the forts because if certain resources are not the there the fort will start to decay. This will be shown in the port battle as a damaged fort allready and therefor will take less hits before being destroyed. Same thing would go if the administrator does not repair the forts after a port battle they would still be damaged. Forts should only count as 300 points maximum in a port battle, no matter how many are destroyed, this to avoid too much emphasis being put on destroying only the forts and not fighting a battle with ships. The BR of a port battle should also depend on the size of the forts there are. A shollow water port with only 2 square forts should only get like 750 BR where a deep water port with 4 round forts, a square fort and a bastion would be 9600 BR or more, and maybe with other multipliers like county capital to go to 11000 BR. The prices for the maintenance should be set high enough that only the most valuable ports or the ports that a clan really wants to keep out of a strategic perspective, would have the biggest forts. A useless port would then also show up on the map as useless due to its BR. Trade should also be steered by the administrator and a bit more then it is now. instead of the random dropping of goods per port the administrator should be able to attract traders or trading companies from different nations. He can then choose for instance to have a dutch trading company of level 1, 2 or 3 in his port and the highest level would then drop the rare dutch goods like Grietje van Dijk. I am just giving an example. However if the dutch trading company does not make enough money of course they will not come with the rare resources and they will not drop. This would stimulate the trade between different ports. Of course having a trader in your harbour would also mean that he needs to be supplied with certain goods which would increase the import and export of a harbour. Natural resources that drop in a port can of course not be changed by the administrator, or only in a way that it is now. the benefits of an extended harbour management system would be increased trade, less gold in rotation, other gameplay options, port battles would be more important, important ports would be harder to take not like at the moment where ports are constantly flipped and changing hands. It would also give the nations an option for a long time investment in a port and would make the loss of one of those ports really hurt.
  10. 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
  11. Not turning up to Port Battles This has probably been done before but I couldnt find the thread. I was in a PB the other night, there was a full PB fleet and Screening fleets, probably involved 60 or 70 people. 60 or 70 people who could have been doing something else and in my case probably would not have been playing NA at all. But I changed my plans (and those of other people too) cos it was an important PB. The clan that raised hostility didn't turn up. That just lacks class and respect for your fellow players and I'm not happy about having my time wasted by a bunch of scrubs and for me that constitutes griefing and some action should be taken against players who deliberately waste people's time. Most clans have some sense of decency, rivalry but with respect to other clans and nations, fellow players. What makes it worse is that the useless scum-sucking clan in question, ran the hostility while we were in a Port Battle, as they would never have dared show themselves otherwise, (they are cowards as well as time wasters). I can understand that the mechanics of this game allow for diversionary tactics and fighting on many fronts, but if this just results in 60 or 70 players sitting around doing nothing getting bored of the game, then thats a problem. The clan in question were logged into the game and decided to run fleet practice missions instead. That was by far the most de-motivating experience I have had in NA, and made me question whether I want to be involved in RvR anymore. As it is your opponent that sets the time for the battle, it effectively means that someone has been allowed to actively go out of there way to waste my time and that of 60 or 70 other people, and that can't be good for the game. There should be some kind of penalty for raising hostility and then not making a reasonable effort to take the port. eg. clan banned from entering hostility missions for 1 month. Or at least the 'port can't gain hostility' period should be extended so attacking an enemy port and losing the PB at least has a big benefit to the defender. The Port Battle should be automatically won if no attacking players have entered within x minutes of the start, instead of having to sit there waiting for the points to accumalate. It's really Boring. Change it.
  12. Hello Everyone. I've been thinking about the mechanics of screening in-game at the moment, and I would like to ask the opinion of others. I have put together a suggestion on how to stop screening from ruining RvR (in my opinion), so please tell me what you think by voting or posting below. Suggestion Overwiew To avoid the situation where a nation decides to screen a port battle instead of actually fighting, a mechanic could be added where a PB fleet is granted immunity for a short period of time before and after the PB, to allow them to get into and out of the area. Mechanics Before the battle, an officer of the clan that scheduled the PB can choose to make a battle group for the specific port battle. (I imagine something where you can click on your scheduled battles, and there is an option to make a battlegroup for that battle.) Once started, this battlegroup will behave normally, except that 15 minutes (time could be adjusted) before the PB starts, everyone in the group will become immune to being tagged, but also will not be able to tag other players. This immunity will continue 15 minutes after the PB has ended, and will then expire. Conditions -If a player leaves the battlegroup, they lose all immunity. -If the battle group is disbanded, all immunity is gone. Argument I think defenders have their chance to stop a battle during the hostility generation. Once the battle is scheduled, it seems silly to be able to park a SOL fleet of 50 people outside a port, to stop the 10 enemies trying to get to the battle. In my opinion, this will put more importance on attacking enemies while they grind hostility, instead of having the safety net of screening them out.
  13. New Slate! Or Old Slate, You decide. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post your Port Battle Screenshots here as well! We all love looking at triumphs and conflict together, as well as telling the story of some epic clashes between nations or clans. Format will be as follows: War -- Nations or Clans have deemed each other enemies OW Conflict -- OW conflict is strictly OW PvP, Ports aren't the primary purpose of the nations contention, rather sinking your opponents ships is all the clan/nation cares about. Neutral -- Trade agreements, NAPs, NIPs, Port Agreements, or other limited agreements will define this slot. (everyone will start as neutral) Limited Conflict -- Nations Generally/Broadly Agree on only a Certain area on the map to be fought over. Alliance -- If an official post is made between 2 or nations it will be officially updated - an Alliance is only made when the majority of clans within a nation are in agreement. Clans Agreements - If a Clan wishes to have agreements be made public, they may do so, otherwise nothing is official. If any information is incorrect, Please inform me, I wish to make this post as accurate as possible. I ask that we keep this thread clean :). I will attempt to update this Thread daily. Politics/Diplomacy United States of America Verenigde-Provincien : Neutral Espana: Ow Conflict France: Neutral Great Britain: Alliance Denmark-Norge: OW Conflict Sverige: OW Conflict Pirates: War Prussia: Ow Conflict Russia: Neutral Poland: Neutral Verenigde-Provincien United States: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Clan Agreements Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: War Sverige: War Pirates: Neutral Prussia: Neutral Russia: Neutral Poland: Neutral Espana Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral United States: OW Conflict France: OW Conflict Great Britain: OW Conflict Denmark-Norge: OW Conflict Sverige: Neutral Pirates: OW Conflict Prussia: Neutral Russia: Neutral Poland: Neutral France Verenigde-Provincien: Clan Agreements Espana: OW Conflict United States: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral / OW Conflict Denmark-Norge: War Sverige: War Pirates: OW Conflict / Limited Conflict Prussia: Neutral Russia: Neutral Poland: Clan Agreements Great Britain Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: OW Conflict France: Neutral / OW Conflict United States: Clan Agreements / OW Conflict Denmark-Norge: Ow Conflict Sverige: Neutral Pirates: War Prussia: Limited Conflict Russia: Neutral Poland: Neutral Denmark-Norge Verenigde-Provincien: War Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: OW Conflict United States: OW Conflict Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Neutral / OW Conflict Prussia: Neutral Russia: Neutral Poland: Neutral Sverige Verenigde-Provincien: War Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: OW Conflict Denmark-Norge: Neutral United States: OW Conflict Pirates: Neutral Prussia: Neutral Russia: Neutral Poland: Neutral Pirates Verenigde-Provincien : Limited Conflict Espana: OW Conflict France: OW Conflict / Limited Conflict Great Britain: War Denmark-Norge: Neutral / OW Conflict Sverige: OW Conflict United States: War Prussia: OW Conflict Russia: OW Conflict Poland: OW Conflict Prussia Verenigde-Provincien: OW Conflict Espana: Neutral France: OW Conflict Great Britain: OW Conflict Denmark-Norge: Neutral United States: Neutral Pirates: OW Conflict Sweden: Neutral Russia: Neutral Poland: Neutral Russia Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: War Denmark-Norge: Neutral United States: Neutral Pirates: OW Conflict Sweden: Neutral Prussia: Neutral Poland: Neutral Poland Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Clan Agreements Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral United States: Neutral Pirates: OW Conflict Sweden: Neutral Prussia: Neutral Russia: Neutral
  14. Hello NA Community We are West India Trading Company a new Creat Clan in the Nation of the Great Britain. We are searching for Players they wanna do PvP/PvE/Crafting/Trading in a Family Clan. We are based in Trinidad and when we grow up i think we make another Base in KPR. What we are looking for Ts3 + Headset 18+ Ambition Rank and Ship doesnt matter What we offer: Ts3 Server Familiar Clan Active Leaders Helpin each Other If ur Interested contact Laempi, Yinyangpanda or Lord Iron Ingame, or leave me a Message in Forum or Poste. Have a nice evening.
  15. After leaving a battle there should be a restriction that prevents you from entering a port battle for 5 minutes, as is the case now when you log out at open sea but for less time. There are certain players who in order to avoid screeners get a friend from another nation (or an alt) and then tag them and sit in the battle. They then jump straight out into the port battle, avoiding screeners etc...
  16. You could perhaps even do away with all the random capture points as result of predictable winds making several points little to obnoxious, instead permitting capture of port after demolition of fort which anchors attackers so that they don't always start upwind, and successful defense so long as fort isn't taking damage. You could perhaps even make the whole thing zen by requiring that certain amount of damage is produced against the fort depending on enemy fleet size as apposed to defending fleet size (by cannon poundage), which means you don't need to go as clan somewhere just because you have to and be there for that same reason- in a clan. In small enough port (that is small winds) you could probably could disturb first rate enough that he would fail. It sure enough could still lead to attackers trolling defenders, but I trust you could come up with some math that would ensure that theres equalibrium with variables like firepower involved and such. In addition instead of hostility system you could require that fort is rebuilt requiring resources proportionate to amount of pounds of cast iron demolition took, requiring that there's also a fleet of indymans somewhere nearby lest defenders chose to regroup and kill of defenders with indyman having to travel through battle instance towards the port. I suppose that with supplies required to solidate capture of fort trolling defenders becomes less so practical but a timer could still be required unless you want to let defenders build up the fort again to which only requires that you check back in every so often in case some lonewolf did decide that he would both destroy the fort and bring the supplies to actually capture the fort. Either way necessity to escort a trade vessel requires frigates either in screening fleet/convoy or in actual port battle instances. Reference to sailing physics and winds come from first several sentences of this post.
  17. Port Battles are quite repetitive and I can here on the TeamSpeak more and more players telling that they do not want to do RvR anymore because it is “always the same”. Always 25 x 1st rates (some obliged to use Oceans or preferring her, some using Victories if their nation allows it, battle marks obliged) or 25 x 4th rates (most Wasa’s by now, awaiting remaining Agamemnon’s to be sunk or burnt) Or 25 Heavy-Rattlesnakes or Mercuries (also depending on Nations CM’s) for shallow waters. I would suggest a BR limit for Port Battle, this limit being a consequence of the tax recoveries during the last 2 weeks. So that important ports would have a BR limit of 16,250 (25 Santi’s), less important could decrease to 500 (25 Lynx, yes!) if no tax came from. This would create a lot of variety in Port Battles: Would I prefer 25 Bellona’s or 16 Ocean’s when the PB limit is 100,000? Or a mixture including some 1t rates, some 2nd and 3rd rates and some frigates?... What will be my strategy? What’s about enemy choices? Hoping that would help…
  18. In tradition I wish to bring this back for Global as for players who come on the forums and check out the situations on the servers, or new players wanting to see the lay of the land. I will keep this unbiased, and unless a player from that nation wants to update their clan or nation's diplomatic stance, it will remain unchanged from the beginning. I will make it clear, this is not a "Rumor says" political post. Post your Port Battle Screenshots here as well! We all love looking at triumphs and conflict together, as well as telling the story of some epic clashes between nations or clans. Format will be as follows: War -- All nations start off as at war by default OW Conflict -- OW conflict is strictly OW PvP, Ports aren't the primary purpose of the nations contention, rather sinking your opponents ships is all the clan/nation cares about. Neutral -- Trade agreements, NAPs, NIPs, Port Agreements, or other limited agreements will define this slot. Alliance -- If an official post is made between 2 or nations it will be officially updated - an Alliance is only made when the majority of clans within a nation are in agreement. Clans Agreements - If a Clan wishes to have agreements be made public, they may do so, otherwise nothing is official. If any information is incorrect, Please inform me, I wish to make this post as accurate as possible. I ask that we keep this thread clean :). I will attempt to update this Thread daily. Politics/Diplomacy United States of America Verenigde-Provincien : Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Neutral Verenigde-Provincien United States: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Neutral Espana Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral United States: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Neutral France Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: Neutral United States: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Neutral Great Britain Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral United States: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Neutral Denmark-Norge Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral United States: Neutral Sverige: Neutral Pirates: Neutral Sverige Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral United States: Neutral Pirates: Neutral Pirates Verenigde-Provincien : Neutral Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: Neutral Denmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral United States: Neutral
  19. tl;dr: Putting a port into 100% contention causes problems for that team regardless of how the port battle turns out. Random thought of the day: If you build 100% contention on a port, this is a "raid" and lasts 48 hours. While in a raid state, the county generates no trade goods, will not buy trade goods (or only pays "1" for them) and player buildings produce labor hours at 50% rate. I was just thinking that while contention often generates PvP, a smart team that was confident in their port battle fleet could simply ignore contention grinds. Let the contention happen, show up for the port battle, done. Costs them less time, less risk, no counter-grind and they win. I think this is such a huge risk that when people realize what I have just said, nobody will grind ports anymore unless they were really sure they could win the port battle. It would be a tremendous waste of time to grind contention, get no PvP out of it and not be able to win the port battle. You accomplished literally nothing in that case. So let 100% contention mean something: It means the county is screwed up for 48 hours. Better go out there and fight those contention grinders!
  20. I know it's late in the game development wise but perhaps this suggestion would be of some use. The PvP events weren't really that wonderful in my opinion. However, those mechanics could be applied to general RvR with a slight twist. Instead of one instanced battle to determine a region through a PB, how about making each region a point scoring zone for several days. The highest point scorer wins. Points would be scored by obviously sinking other players. However the trick is motivate people to be in this zone. How passive points are scored. Once a player enters the contested region, they'll score points over time based on BR. ((Perhaps this will be in the form of a "patrol" button that takes 10 minutes on the sea to light up and resets on docking)) Maybe tied to "days at sea" so that dock hopping isn't encouraged. The points over time caps at some BR level (possibly based on region size?) for each nation. The problem with this idea might be calls back and forth to the server and updates to map points sort of how contention takes a while to update each players map. Shallow areas on OW allow safety for shallow ship BR point generation from larger ships. Obviously battles near forts help defense as typical. No npc generation of points, only player controlled though patrolling the zone or sinking ships of the opposing nation. The one nation with most points after X days wins the region. Example: Region Dominia has been flipped. I patrol solo in my 100BR ship. Once I'm in the region, i score 1 point per 15 minutes in the zone. My friends join making our total BR 2150 BR but the cap is 1000BR so only 10 points are scored per 15 minutes. Then the enemy fleet arrives and battles ensues with each side losing 1000BR worth in ships. That scores 1000 points for each side. Three days later the contested area ends and the enemy wins 23,540 points to 21,550 points. Pros: No more hiding in instances. Screening is basically counted in points. No need to fear of a PB fleet being tagged. Multiday event-style allows more participants. Contested regions become hot zones for pvp. Even other nations might join in although no points are scored. Cons: Strain on calls to and from server and UI updayes. Larger nations may still have the advantage. (Although they'd risk more BR sinking thus more points might be scored by better smaller teams). Some people like arena style combat. Maybe this puts less people on OW and more into NA Legends. Discuss but please leave drama at the door.
  21. Political situation PVP 2 US (Inter Clan) Information is from players (Inter clan), updated weekly and daily if needed. This is the same sort of format as the EU political Situation thread. The Diplomacy part presents the attitude of the nation's major clans towards other nations. Verenigde Provinciën: Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Alliance Verenigde-Provincien: Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: War United States: Alliance Major clans: DWIC1-6 - Dutch West Indische Compagnie NPV- Nederlandse Protectoraat Vloot SMS - Reichsflotte Danmark-Norge: Espana: Neutral France: Alliance Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Sverige: Alliance United States: War Major clans: CCCP - CN - SORT - Pirates: Espana: Neutral France: Neutral Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Neutral Sverige: Neutral United States: War Major clans: CBP - BLACK - Black Flag BLANC - French PvP1 players BLOOD - Blood of Black HYDRA - SOB - Sons of Black TFG - Great Britain: Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Verenigde-Provincien: Alliance Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: War United States: Alliance Major Clans: AGW - CKA -Canadian Kicks Ass- Cordova BCS - British Commonwealth Sailors BRA - ELITE - ?- Norfolk nChance MINE - Sweden: Espana: Alliance France: Alliance Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Alliance Sverige: Neutral United States: War Major clans: RISE - ISN - SS - USA: Espana: Neutral France: War Great Britain: Alliance Verenigde-Provincien: Alliance Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: War United States: Major clans: ACDC - ASP - BSR - DD - Detroit Demolition IGG - NPG - No Pants Guys MARS - France: Espana: Alliance France: Great Britain: War Verenigde-Provincien: War Danmark-Norge: Alliance Sverige: Alliance United States: War Major clans: SD - SINK - Sink or Swim Spain: Espana: France: Alliance Great Britain: Neutral Verenigde-Provincien: Neutral Danmark-Norge: War Sverige: Alliance United States: War Major clans: note: If anything is wrong please reply or PM! Major clan= edit* no restrictions* *** Mods can we have this replace the current sticky post of the same topic. It's out dated and the old player that started it is no longer active so it's not getting updated. With that and I know Blackthorn/Decken had a clan one like this he was doing, if folks can post there clan info I'll go through this list and update the info. For clan info please send me a PM instead of posting it with your clan info that you want to post. Numbers can be optional but if you want to give current active numbers it might help with new players that want to join one clan over another. The main thing is to let folks know who the players and makers are for each nation.***
  22. IDEA FOR NEW NATION MECHANIC This system would address the following issues: 1. Would provide a good starting point for new players to run missions, explore the map and trade where there would be less PVP ganking, as only pirates would be a threat. Would then have option of entering the PB RvR world later if they wished through 'privateer-naturalisation route'. 2. Ends the utterly daft and unrealistic situation of Pirates as a nation sailing in fleets of SOL's and threatening the Ports of large powers. (Which imo is currently ruining the entire Pirate experience atm). Pirates would now have to behave like Pirates and would be heavily outgunned at National Hubs having to make use of 'Hit and Run 'tactics . Being a Pirate would be HARD (The big pirate clans need to just just go and join a nation like everyone else if they want to RVR/PB/sail 1st Rates) 3. Would make Free Ports (and Safe Ports*) far more interesting hubs of trade and commerce 4. Would create some interesting dynamics with regard to the use of 'Privateers' in RvR skirmish and hostility raising 5. Would make 'Pirates' a real threat but (probably) less numerous and spread more evenly across the map 6. Would allow players to explore different aspects of the game and would provide more 'fluidity' in nation Balance of power 7. Would rid need for 'forged papers' and players would now never be in a 'dead end' with regard to their playing careers 8. Allows players the option of a Merchant/Trading Profession without national constraints 9. Would also open the possibility of 'WANTED' Bounty Hunting Rewards (killing Pirates) 10. Has more 'historical accuracy' than current system displays IDEA: Every Player begins as an 'Independent Free Trader'. NOT a member of any nation More Free Ports added to Map and they would be in 2 Categories: 'Free Ports' and 'Safe Ports' The only difference being that 'Safe Ports have a protection area around them (as national ports do currently). INDEPENDENT (FREE) TRADER This would be the starting default setting for the beginning player. They: - Can ONLY sail, fleet or build 5th - 7th Rates!!!! - Do NOT have National Ports - CANNOT take part in Port Battles - CAN dock at ANY Port but must pay a tariff (except at Free/Safeports) (dont pay if smuggler flags enabled) - CAN build outposts and Buildings at Safe Ports or Free Ports - CAN teleport from Free/Safe Port to Free/Safe Port (*except below) - CANNOT attack other players (*except Pirates see below) - CANNOT be attacked by other players (*except Pirates see below) (or if smuggler flags enabled) This provides a safe(er) envronment in which new players can learn the game, trade, explore the map and be (relatively) safe from pvp gank, while they decide how they wish to play the game. The player then essentially has 4 Options: 1. Remain an Independent Free Trader 2. Become a 'Privateer' for any 'adopted' nation (NOT simultaneously) 3. Become a Privateer for an adopted nation and THEN 'Naturalize' and become a National 4. Become a Pirate (Players will have the ability to revert back to any of these states, but at a heavy price, see Below) PRIVATEER: AT ANY TIME Independent Free Traders can sail to a Nation Capital and acquire (buy) a 'Letter of Marque' (Ref 'Kotles' idea June 2) for that Nation. When activated the Player is a 'Privateer' for that nation and: - Can ONLY sail, fleet or build 5th - 7th Rates - CAN dock at (adopted) National Ports (no tariff) and Free/Safe ports - CAN NO LONGER dock at any Port (except as smuggler in trade ship in usual way) - CAN be attacked by any players of other (warring?) nations - CAN attack players of other (warring?) nations (not 'Independent free traders') - Can build outposts and Buildings at Free/Safe ports - CANNOT build outposts or buildings at the (adopted) National Ports (yet) - CAN teleport from Safe/Free port to Safe/Free port (but NOT national Ports (yet) - Can raise hostility and skirmish during PB's (although not enter the PB itself) (Becoming a) NATIONAL: After a certain amount of experience is gained while a Privateer for an adopted Nation the player then has the option to become 'naturalized' and become a member of the nation in the normal (current) way. (Thus unlocking 4th-1st Rates, Port Battles, Teleporting between and building Outposts and Buildings in National Ports) Then able to Build Outposts at National Ports but loses ALL Outposts and Buildings at Free/Safe ports and the ability to teleport between them. A Naturalised Player can revert back to Independent Free Trader at any time (after 1 week) BUT will lose any Outpost or Buildings in the National Ports (and then loses PB and 4th-1st Rate Sailing ability) OR: Player can remain a National Privateer OR: Become a 'Pirate' PIRATE: Independent Free Traders can 'hoist the Jolly Roger' and become 'Pirates' Once Jolly Roger is hoisted the player becomes a Pirate and loses any Outposts or Buildings at Safe Ports and ability Teleport to them (But retains Outposts and Buildings and ability to teleport between Free Ports) - Can ONLY sail, fleet or build 5th - 7th Rates!!!! - Do NOT have National Ports - CANNOT take part in Port Battles - CAN build outposts and Buildings at Free Ports (NOT Safe Ports) - CAN teleport from Free Port to Free Port (NOT Safe Ports) - CAN only dock at freeports (NOT Safe Ports) (unless smuggler tags in Trader in usual way) - CAN be attacked by any players - CAN attack any players (including Independent Free Traders) Pirates also have the option to get in a Trader Ship and Activate 'Smuggler Flags' and Sail to a National Capital. where they can 'Make Reparations'. Upon paying a (large?) sum of gold the Player loses all Buildings and Outposts and becomes a Privateer for that nation (from where (after 1 week) they can then revert back to Independent Free Trader) I cannot see any obvious alt (or otherwise) exploits of this (yet!!!) Obviously things can be tweaked Please Comment (constructively): Cheers
  23. We got the hostility at Vera Cruz to 100% at about midnight Pacific Time last night (3 hours before server down time) --- I WAS THERE. But - of course - instead of "flipping" to set a port battle for the next night at 10 PM Pacific Time (as we had been told it would) the "game" decided to apparently glitch out and not flip .... So that after server down time when SKMARSH came on and noticed the hostility was at 91% .... ---- WTF? I mean WTF? You owe me a night's sleep because of course the Aussies came along and "flipped" it so it is set for 4:09 AM Pacific Time. ---- (Mutters to self: and they wonder why I'm cranky) Server 2 (Global)
  24. After today's events and hearing players complain about the lack of conquest marks from winning a pb I think a set number of conquest marks should be given out to each player on the winning side of a pb. This would eliminate "rigged" port battles. Just in case you don't know what happened today: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/20465-cap-francois-battle-today/&
  25. Scroll to the bottom of the thread and read 1.02... Admin & Ink, The Port Battle Better Local Impact Mechanic Idea Port Battle Idea that tries to reflect the local impact prior and post battle. I don't even think it would take much extra coding, but would focus all players of any Nation on a single battle. In the time of war down the ages either at the theater point or along the armies march the local prices of goods and services rocketed and labor shortages rampant. This then just as quickly collapses post battle even with a new over lord. I will assume in the future (however the Port Battle is triggered) we will still have a two to three day build up window prior to battle on whatever server. Imagine Timeline Events Port Battle is triggered - 46 hours or count down timer starts. The Local Port will instantly feel the effects of an imminent clash. In the Port UI under the Shop Tab. All AI Bid & Ask Prices will increase by 25%. The bid quantity demanded increased by 25%. The Ask amount for sale will decrease by 25%. This reflects the local shops having shelves emptied and prices sky rocket. Any PC contract offers below the new bid would be completed at the contract offer price. In the Ships tab, all AI Ships for sale will see their prices increase by 25%. The amount of AI ships available will decrease by 25%. The mission tab under Delivery missions. Contracts with Goods to deliver to the Port that’s completed within the Port Battle window will see that trader receive a 25% Gold bonus. The Craft Tab, all crafting from Iron Ingots to a complete Victory build will suffer a 25% increase in Labor Hours needed. Again, this reflects chronic man power shortages common in these situations. Server Restart… 24 hours Server Restart, the actual day of the Port Battle. Replace 25% with 50% as above. This is the Panic escalation by the local community. Port Battle Takes place and ends. Server Restart, sees all prices return to normal values prior to the trigger. Outcome Expected…. I think if you see the PB trigger and want to off load resources or materials at an inflated price you’d load up the LGV or Indiaman and go for it. If it’s an enemy port Smuggler tag (mechanic) needed etc. If you’re the attacker, you can guess over the next two days a lot of Player Trade ships (with full cargo) are going to try and enter the port. In fact, if you are a Ganker or just the opportunist well its worth a look… This reflects the Blockade of the Port. So, it’s not just a Port Battle anymore but prior to it a load of smaller skirmishes. The Timer was 3 days instead of 2 well it would be more tempting to run the blockade. This is a lot more interesting than Night Flipping right ….? Anyway, it’s just an idea over a bottle of red. If you think its rubbish let me know, and if you’ve a better idea likewise… Thanks for reading, Norfolk nChance. changed the name to make it less cluncky
×
×
  • Create New...