Conquest Rule of Dimishing Returns

[CrazyBaer]

So I'm not sure if everyone has seen the latest on the EU1 server but the Danish faction took out 50% of the French ports and 80% of the Swedish ports in one 4-6 hour session.

 

Hats of to the Russians, who although they reportedly had a shady path to so many third rates, their organizational skills, game tactics, and fighting is UBBER.

 

Heres the problem: No nation should be able to practically wipe out 2 complete factions and take 14 some ports in a single day. Not only is this completely inaccurate from both a historical perspective it makes no sense in the game mechanic itself.

 

Heres the solution: Rule of diminishing returns on port battles. For each flag that is purchased during a server day the cost factor for flags goes up X2. So if a flag costs 500K, the next one will be 1M, and 2M and 4M for the next.

 

If you have 1 faction with unstoppable might the entire map could be subjugated in less than a week with the current mechanics.

 

A better solution: Not only do the port battles cost more each flag purchased but they are divided as a whole amount between a nation's ports. For instance lets say the entire pool is 20M for a nation, a nation with 40 ports the base cost would be 500K per port, for a nation with 5 ports it would be 4M per. (these are rough figures but you get the point)

 

It should be relatively easy to battle for control of the majority of the map but quite difficult to destroy a faction and consequently the game for all it's players. Unless Gamelabs has an easy pipeline of gamers to replace the ones that leave because their game quality of life has dropped through the floor.

[Meraun]

Sounds good

[Aetrion]

They definitely need to include some mechanics that counteract the snowballing effect that PvP servers are experiencing, where once a faction is gaining momentum it gets easier and easier for them to keep going rather than harder and harder for them to control that much territory.

[Hethwill]

Sound like a fix to a undeveloped mechanic. If anything just remove Gold from the equation and find a diferent way to craft flags.

[Sea Nettle]

There is no way to destroy a faction.

 

Why should a well planned and fought series of battles that lead to a decisive albeit temporary victory not be possible? This isn't a re-creation of actual history, it's a game based in a select historical time period.

 

I also see no need to make the second player on any given day arbitrarily pay more for their conquest flag. Nor the third to pay even more.

 

What could be changed is the maximum participants in a port battle. Doing so would enable smaller nations to field a full defense force at less than optimal times much easier than the 25 required.

 

You have asserted that a steamroll that can not achieve total destruction should be arbitrarily dragged out or made more cost intensive and provided no reason of substance other than being vexed you were on the receiving end.

 

Muster your forces and your finances and do the same to them tomorrow. If you or the nation are not prepared to or capable of doing so then you never had a real claim to the territory you lost.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Sea Nettle

[Elmer the Mauve]

I feel like increments on port battle flags should be there.

I think it should be multiplied based on how many flags you have active or how many have you wage before server resets.

 

The price of the nation should be based on distance to capital, the farther the nation is to capital, the more costly it is.

 

There should also be operating costs.  We have a neutral nation, there should be a reason they exist, certain governments/ or non governments, cannot keep them because the upkeep is too much. There they actually defect from any nation.

And if I want to keep this port I should atleast put some gold in it.

(Pirates should also be allowed to raid for this income) Yarr!

 

To be actively holding any and all ports should be both be a drawback and a reward(Slightly more than just, we can trade with you)

[Lobottomie]

I like your idea and for me it's not quite nailing the problems with the port capture system in general.

 

The current system actually favors the players with higher levels fielding better ships.

It leaves lower ranking players out if it. They even tend nowadays to not wanting them in battle because of the BR rating.

 

I would like to suggest another option for a port capture mechanic.

 

1. Redo the port capture timer into a level meter for supplies that the port currently has that updates every hour.
2. I mean supplies that are not currently needed for building like fresh water, food, or something similar.
3. Have a port tab like called nation to view all ports currently owned by nation and show
4. Have players getting admiralty missions for attacking enemy ai supply convoys of a town nearest to them.
5. Make it that player also can attack random supply enemy ai fleets that are normal for supplying the ports
6. Allow defending players in the area also to defend the ai fleets.
7. once the port supply is disrupted enough to fall below a certain level the port comes open for conquest until level is back up high enough to close again.
8. When this happens u can have admiralty supply missions from nearby friendly towns be generated to have players go for manual aid. These can also be intercepted.
9. When the flag is created have a mixed setup of predetermined shiptypes for the capture fleet be setup of wich the flagcreator can choose.
10. Fleet with flag stil has to travel to the contestable town to start the port battle.
11. Defence fleet composition should be based on BR rating of attacking force allowing defenders to field a good response if they have the numbers. Everyone wants a good fight and not just see 3/5 towers undefended and do 2 volleys drive-by sailing for 15 mins.

I think this gives all players in the nations to have a fun time helping at any rank making a port capturable and defend it.

[Aetrion]

Sound like a fix to a undeveloped mechanic. If anything just remove Gold from the equation and find a diferent way to craft flags.

 

Putting the focus of the economy on building invasion forces or whatever lets you attack a town would be nice.

[weissenwulf]

Putting the focus of the economy on building invasion forces or whatever lets you attack a town would be nice.

 

Perhaps you could only raid ports with ships specifically crafted for such a role, i.e. they must have a player-made upgrade included in the same vein as Oak/Teak/Fir/Stiffness, et al., -- "Blockade"?

 

Or ships that wish to participate in port battles must be equipped with a specific player-made Basic Upgrade -- "Landing Party"?

 

Not the best articulated ideas admittedly, but you get the idea: force Port Battles to be directly tied to the economy by tying it to the attacking faction's ability to craft, stockpile, and then organize and distribute items necessary for the invasion. 

[Aetrion]

The problem with tying port battles to the economy is that whatever faction controls the most ports also has the strongest economy right now, because it gives them cheaper resources. That snowballing effect is why people are calling for diminishing returns in the first place.

 

There is also just a ton of content that this game isn't properly exploring yet IMO. Port battles are fun and all, but actually capturing ports should be the most demanding and damaging thing you can do in a war, not the one and only thing. Right now not enough of the game's economy is tied to anything that actually happens out on the open seas, and that means actual map control isn't in any way important. 

 

I mean there isn't just an issue with the fact that capturing more ports doesn't get harder the more you have, there is also an issue with the fact that actually holding ports doesn't get more difficult the more of them you have, and that generally the economy of the game isn't effectively tied to actually controlling the map. Right now it's just way too easy to drive a steamroller because the game doesn't require you to actually pacify any areas for them to be profitable.

 

One thing Eve Online gets right is that a single guy in a cruiser can potentially shut down an entire system. With the right kind of ship you can make mining and hunting in a system so unsafe that people have to spend their time trying to hunt you down rather than making money, which means you can cost them hundreds of millions of ISK in profits with just a few players in cheap ships. In Naval Action you can't do anything like that, because profits aren't dependent on having safe areas. Fast little ships like privateers employing pirate tactics and patrol ships like Frigates to counter that also lose a lot of their historical relevance precisely because those factors don't apply in the game.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Aetrion

[Lobottomie]

The problem with tying port battles to the economy is that whatever faction controls the most ports also has the strongest economy right now, because it gives them cheaper resources. That snowballing effect is why people are calling for diminishing returns in the first place.

 

 

 

Actually i think it would be the other way around, the more ports that need supplies the less is available. Yes, conquering towns that have/generate supplies is ofc best way to gain momentum. But on the other hand having more ports is also straining the total supply stacks your ports have/generate to keep them supplied. This can actually bring the regional capitols in on the chain with a better definition in the process. Keep a capitol cut off and slowly a string of surrounding ports are not able to be fully resupplying themselves or other regions because of the cut off.

[Aetrion]

Yes, ideally owning more ports would mean having to do a lot more work policing the waters around them to keep them productive, but right now that just isn't the case.

[CrazyBaer]

There is no way to destroy a faction.

Why should a well planned and fought series of battles that lead to a decisive albeit temporary victory not be possible? This isn't a re-creation of actual history, it's a game based in a select historical time period.

YES. I'm saying that there should be a logical limitation to the amount of ports that can be capture in a short amount of time.

I find it hard to belive that you really advocate for that wholeheartedly. As it sits now you could go out and capture ports just as easily as doing a mission if you have the money.

This post wasn't a poor me I'm a sweed and I just got steamrolled. It was an analysis of an as yet unvetted game mechanic.

Actually your right in that my post isn't the solution because it could be exploited by an enemy spy acting to artificially inflating the cost of flags.

I posted the original but I was not the one who came up with the idea, neither am I the originator of the following better idea:

Each player can participate in unlimited port battle defenses but can only participate in 2 offensive port battles in a 24 hour server day.

Thus us a more elegant way to bring some logic to NA war logistics.

This is meant to spur conversation to,a solution to what I believe to be an important game mechanic blind spot.

All views appreciated greatly.