[Suggestion] Port Timers - global balance for present mechanics

[Hethwill]

Yes yes, oh look another port timer suggestion...blah blah blah

 

Well, taking off the fact that we still miss management mechanics specific for conquest, we have to live in the world of fantasy where admirals build force fields around the ports.

 

It has been working okay and can be improved for the sake of three players. Me, You and that other one over there.

 

I live in Europe. You live in New Zealand and that other guy lives atop the Blue Mountains ridge and we all play on PvP1.

 

Well... only one of us will be able to play with the fleet, given only 1 timer is on and can only be open to one of us...

 

Now onto the real deal of the port timer suggestion and how to ensure all three of us can access the war.

 

Three timers must be set upon conquest. None of the timers can be less than 4 hours difference from the other and must end 1 hour before maintenance starts and start 1 hour after maintenance ends.

 

As an example, Oranjestad gets conquered. The Lord Protector sets 3 timers according to the rules, with varied intervals:

 

- 1st timer is set to 12 - 14

- 2nd timer is set to 19 - 21

- 3rd timer is set to 03 - 05

 

The port will be open for attack during all those 3 timers as normal.

 

It also enables the opportunity for a retake of a port during the same cycle.

 

I get to play, You will play and that player over there will also have the chance to play.

 

Have fun.

[Capt. Rice]

i thought of something like this ....it would be a 12 hour mirror of the time you choose though       i if chose 1pm - 3 pm capture time    there would also be a open window at 1am-3am  capture time as well....but to offset the more open windows for ports  there would be a cool down time for it to be recaptured..... one more thing is make ports linked to where you could only capture a port adjacent to the one next to it.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Capt. Rice

[Hethwill]

The 12 hour looks nice at 1st but will limit both +6/-6 timezones, therefore I suggest 3.

 

Also I am sure it would inadvertedly help to balance the Nations populations for the simple reason one player can come online at their prime and always have action.

[Capt. Rice]

The 12 hour looks nice at 1st but will limit both +6/-6 timezones, therefore I suggest 3.

 

Also I am sure it would inadvertedly help to balance the Nations populations for the simple reason one player can come online at their prime and always have action.

very ture

[Baron Quertier]

It's a great suggestion, I like it. Another option in my opinion is to make the port timer completely random and perhaps even to scramble and change after server maintenance, or maybe every 3 days or something like that. at least it's fair and nobody can complain about timers, I think flags need to be a lot more expensive too so that there are more open sea battles rather than everyone fighting for ports.

Still though Mr Hethwill has a good suggestion here.

[Hethwill]

Actually your randomization add on can be used with ports that do not have a Lord Protector.

[Baron Quertier]

Another thought would be for a nation who captures a port to set their timer, but it only lasts for say 5 days. Then the timer goes and it's open for all to take. I like to think of this game as realistic and having 'Windows' to attack ports is unrealistic in my opinion. That being said, I don't understand that it's a fix for now, and I appreciate all the hard work the devs are doing. I myself can't really think of many alternatives to port timers as a way of stopping instant flipping the moment maintenance is done other than making it extremely difficult to capture a port or for it to be extremely expensive just as a way to make attacking ports a big gamble and a little less frequent.

[Thomas Rousseau]

That's a good idea, not what i would want but still far better than the current one.

[Taralin Snow]

I'm not sure I see the value of having multiple windows on one port.

 

If you have 3 players in 3 time zones, it seems like the easiest solution is to capture 3 ports, then have each person set their own window on one port.  so everyone will have a specific port they can defend which is attackable during their own play time.  if there is a particular time period that has a lot more players than the others then I'd expect to see more ports for that time.

 

I do like the idea of a window decaying after a few days and needing to be reset.  Ideally the reset takes the form of "make this port attackable during the current window" which means if you want a window of 12-14 server time, then you must log on to the game during 12-14 server time and go to that port and set the window.

 

It would be nice if this mechanic encouraged the setting of timers that say "this port is reserved so that players in the X-Y time zone have something to attack/defend" where X-Y is a time period where players are actually on, and discouraged the setting of timers during periods when nobody is on ("we are effectively removing this port from the conquest game by setting it to a time where nobody is on.").

 

Really what we need is a way to ensure that the distribution of port timers roughly matches the distribution of player activity.  If 90% of the players play during 02-04, then around 90% of the ports should have 02-04 windows.  if zero players play during 14-16 then it shouldn't be possible to set a 14-16 window.  this is harder than it sounds because we don't care so much about players who are crafting or pve grinding but uninterested in port defense -- ideally we want the windows set during times that "port battle players" are on.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Taralin Snow

[Hethwill]

Having three different ports with their own different timezones, for example sake, port 1 at gmt hour, port 2 at gmt-6, port 3 at gmt-12 is not the same as having any port with all three windows open and give everyone the chance to fight over it.

 

In a war between two nations, let's say US and France, you could indeed have a prolonged Louisiana campaign where in a weekend ports would change hands several times.

 

On top of that everyone has a go at the war. More ships get used. More crafting has to be done. And even PvE'rs can actually become more useful capturing ships to give away and hijack resources from trader AI.

 

I simply suggest a way to include everyone into the PvP conquest game.

[KrakkenSmacken]

You have to always ask with this issue, will this help defenders or attackers more?

 

My personal opinion is that advantage should always be on the defenders side, and this addition of more timers does I feel the opposite of that.

 

I really don't think these port timer juggling changes have any positive effect on the real issue, ports are too easy to flip.  I have a whole other system that would take a while to build towards in other threads so I won't put it here again.

 

However that system could be simplified to requiring a port be captured 4 times, with each 6 hour window being allowed a single attempt. One "capture" marker being removed if two 6 hour windows pass without a successful attempt, or if an attempt fails.

 

That way everyone has the same advantage and disadvantage related to their own schedule.  

Edited March 18, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Hethwill]

You have to always ask with this issue, will this help defenders or attackers more?

 

My personal opinion is that advantage should always be on the defenders side, and this addition of more timers does I feel the opposite of that.

 

I really don't think these port timer juggling changes have any positive effect on the real issue, ports are too easy to flip.  I have a whole other system that would take a while to build towards in other threads so I won't put it here again.

 

However that system could be simplified to requiring a port be captured 4 times, with each 6 hour window being allowed a single attempt. One "capture" marker being removed if two 6 hour windows pass without a successful attempt, or if an attempt fails.

 

That way everyone has the same advantage and disadvantage related to their own schedule.  

 

I am all for a system that actual mimics a national war effort but I think that requires further development in a big scale. IIRC we will have 3 tiers of battles and Naval Bases added alongside with the Land Ahoy! update. That will change the tactical scenario and the strategy layer but concerning the play times it will remain the same.

 

The timers are simply a way to open ports for conquest and defense to all timezones. *shrugs*

 

At least is better than the cage we have now. The ports can be and will be always caged behind bars in timezones when threats are minimal. With 3 windows the threat is always there.

 

Your idea of a threshold of capture is also interesting and could actually be more meaningful in simulation an entire militar operation. So victories&defeats would keep the port window open and eventually close it. Sounds also nice.

[Musuko42]

However that system could be simplified to requiring a port be captured 4 times, with each 6 hour window being allowed a single attempt. One "capture" marker being removed if two 6 hour windows pass without a successful attempt, or if an attempt fails.

 

Now that IS a good idea!

 

With tweaking for exact numbers and times, of course. But I like it!

[Sir Henry de Montfort]

Not a bad idea, but...... until they fix the port flag costs (increase to like 1.5 million) and remove or fix A.I. third rate issue. All you will see is 30 ports Change hands everyday becuase it would be impossible to defend anything. Being a British player and fleet adm. I would lose my mind trying to defend any British port from spain, danes, french, pirates, americans. Anyone could attack at almost anytime. It would work if and when they fix said issues to make port attacks more costly in money and craftiness ship losses.

[Hethwill]

I think we are standing at different points looking at the issue.

 

I am looking at the players and making it possible for the entire community to play the full spectrum whenever it is their prime time.

 

You are simply looking at the ports being bounced back and forth which in my POV is no problem at all. It is actually a good thing and given that losses will mount it will becoming mingled with crafting necessities ( economy ) and frigate level action, but I am already moving away to other suggestions...

 

Given we are testing mechanics it would be worth a shot and see how it goes. If not this exact system something in between that given ALL players, from Europe, Americas and Oceania, a go at the game in the same server and playing for the same nation and with the same chances.

 

Limiting conquest to fixed timers kills the conquest game and the port battles to, at least, two thirds of the player base.

[Lytse Pier]

You guys need to think more of what makes a port vulnerable to attack now and what the consequences are of a port battle. I think it is the wrong mechanic for a port to switch sides using solely the port battle mechanics and I would like to introduce something called Port Loyalty.

 

Port Loyalty is the measure of which you can swing a port's governor into your favor and towards your faction. The more you can convince the port to leave its Neutral Stance the better it will be for your faction.

 

Port Loyalty convincing is done by:

- Number of people of your faction getting docked each day (raises money to man the forts and buys their gatling gun cannonballs).

- Supply the demands of the ports that are being met (happy people will like you).

- Winning a port battle (or rather call it a port raid) significantly contributes to the ports loyalty.

 

So it will not become a simple Port Battle that swings the loyalty of a port towards a threshold to join your faction (or leave your faction). An effort on more than one front, using several game mechanics that are now in place to convince a port to join your side, so to speak.

 

Hope you like this direction of idea.

 

 

P.S. ofcourse Port Loyalty should deteriorate if supply demands are not met and hardly any of a faction is docking at its ports.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Lytse Pier

[Lytse Pier]

In itteration on my former post it would make port timers obsolete, because a Port Raid of one nation would cancel out the effect of a Port Raid of another nation.

 

Make it one raid per day per nation per port and you are good to go without port timers.

[Hethwill]

I am all up to a more in depth mechanic of course. The opening post suggestion was in regards of the present mechanics only as a buffer until we get better systems.

 

Regarding the Loyalty system, by all means, include the Port Consumption values into that. Basically ports must be "fed" with their requirements, by direct trade or production buildings output, or else they also fall into disarray and loyalty drops.

Rebel ports would go neutral with timer resets.

 

Another entire system would be to rotate timers. Open for two hours, battle happens. Window closes for 4 hours then opens again. And so on.

Limitation to 1/12th of the playable time worldwide is cruel.

[Lytse Pier]

I agree Hethwill. Best thing would be to eleminate timers all together, hence the itteration I made in a post above whilst you were typing your post, no doubt! ;-) 

[Heibges]

This seems like it would just lead to more uncontested port battles.

[Hethwill]

This seems like it would just lead to more uncontested port battles.

 

If the population in the nations sticks to one single prime time for sure... but taking from pvp1 somehow, all the nations now start to get populated with players from all timezones.

 

Anyway, proposed something different somewhere else.

 

Tie the defense timer with attack timer. A flag can only be crafted in port during that same port timer.

[KrakkenSmacken]

I think we are standing at different points looking at the issue.

 

I am looking at the players and making it possible for the entire community to play the full spectrum whenever it is their prime time.

 

You are simply looking at the ports being bounced back and forth which in my POV is no problem at all. It is actually a good thing and given that losses will mount it will becoming mingled with crafting necessities ( economy ) and frigate level action, but I am already moving away to other suggestions...

 

Given we are testing mechanics it would be worth a shot and see how it goes. If not this exact system something in between that given ALL players, from Europe, Americas and Oceania, a go at the game in the same server and playing for the same nation and with the same chances.

 

Limiting conquest to fixed timers kills the conquest game and the port battles to, at least, two thirds of the player base.

I see port bouncing as a HUGE problem in the larger scheme of things.

 

First, it will lead to player fatigue.  Why take a port, other than the fun of a PB, if you know it's just going to bounce again by tomorrow?

 

Second, resources.  With the direction being to remove all AI production at some point, a way to stabilize and hold ports NEEDS to be in place. Frequent flipping is not an option. Players will need to build resource buildings, and those buildings will need to be in place for at least 7 days (10k new outpost cost minimum, 10k resource building) to recover costs at +60gp/unit.  If ports flip and you are constantly losing that investment, and getting practically zero resources from it, there simply won't be enough materials available except for the larger nations who have a stable back line with production.  

 

There needs to be a way to strategically protect certain key locations, in a way that concentrates national effort the smaller the space gets.  Right now that is simply travel time and population, but it needs to be more than that. 

 

Port capture should be a MAJOR event, one that the entire nation participates in on both sides, not a 25 man impulse gum purchase as your buying your groceries.  

 

The idea that a few guys get together and go "hey, what port should we take today", bothers me. I could see a "hey what port should we RAID today", but capture should be a multi day campaign.