Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

War and Port battles rework - moderated

Recommended Posts

That might be getting ahead of ourselves. "Every port battle is full" would be a new and exciting problem to have.

 

The current problem is that way too many of them are 1-25 attackers versus 0 defenders.

 

Give this captain a medal. He stated the obvious modus operandi of many groups - attack undefended, run away if defenders show up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To many posts to read through with poor reception.

Regarding wars

Would there be a system that once war is declared that the council has to pick 5 ports they wish to take of their opponents as their goal, first to capture those ports wins the war, end of war negotiations are activated, return of ports, keeping of ports, payments etc, after negotiations are concluded there is a 2 week cool down before war can be declared again, slowing the rate of battles and captures. Trying to come up with an idea to promote more balanced wars rather then big nations rolling over smaller nations, maybe less rewards or half rewards for the bigger guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With newest patch we finally got some variety of fleet compositions in PB. That is, we have two compositions instead of one - all first rates, or all 4'th rates.

 

There are a few problems with the current system:

- from my experience players who fought on 1'st rates are loosing interest in the game, as they don't have an option to fight in their best ships. Naval Action suddenly became less epic

- we still have only 2 compositions

- there are only 25 vs 25 PB's, and no option for smaller events. Smaller clans and groups are often excluded from PB's.

- soon economy will be meaningless. A consti with 4 dura can be crafted with labour from 3 days. This means I can loose my ship once per day without trouble. Soon we'll have an abundance of ships.

 

 

There's one more problem:

- you want to limit port battles to 1 every 3 days for a single port. This will make game really boring, as most time there will be nothing to do.

 

 

I would propose a more fun solution for a fleet composition problem, which takes some ideas from war missions. Once a port battle is declared, you can make water around the port contested. An attacker could attack the harbour only when he gets to 100% supremacy in those waters. You could script various missions that can be done on  those waters eg. in preset times, which allow to increase or lower supremacy, and which would allow for only selected ship types. Missions could be announced in advance. 

 

Those could be:

- a defend armada mission, where an NPC (or player) trade fleet that is provisioning a harbour has to be sunk by one team and defended by other, with various limits for attackers and defenders. A speed of NPC ships could define what ships would be good for the role. An NPC ship would escape only once he reaches harbour, with no 2 minute escape ticker.

- a smuggling mission, where X amount of goods have to be transported to the harbour in a given time (giving good return for a smuggler)

- eg. a "viceroy" mission, where on both sides there's a 1'st rate NPC ship with full boarding modules, which has to be captured by another side. Side that gets enemy ship first, wins.

- sink NPC fleet (for non-PVP players also having an option to participate in gaining score)

- an encounter, where BR of one of the teams has to go above 2:1 ratio

- an encounter in which you can bring eg. 1 1'st rate, 2 2'nd rates, 3 3'rd rates, 4 4'th rates etc.

 

 

After attacker gets 100% supremacy, we could have a large PB with 1'st rates. To make Naval Action Epic again :)

 

 

Missions have one more problem - you can block access through screening fleet. This could be countered by giving players an option to join mission once they reach contested waters. A screening fleet can't easily block the whole area.

 

 

I think it should be fairly easy to differentiate missions in similar way, making them fun for both PvP and PvE players, as well as non-clan players. This could make game more dynamic, with less port swapping in the same time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about allowing the buyer of the port battle flag to set the limitations for the battle.

He could set a BR and / or a maximum percentage of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the 4th to 7th rate ships. The higher the BR, the more you would pay for the PB-flag.

I like the idea for PB-realted missions spawned. You could maybe up the BR for your side by fullfilling them, so PVE player could contribute to the PB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about allowing the buyer of the port battle flag to set the limitations for the battle.

He could set a BR and / or a maximum percentage of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the 4th to 7th rate ships. The higher the BR, the more you would pay for the PB-flag.

I like the idea for PB-realted missions spawned. You could maybe up the BR for your side by fullfilling them, so PVE player could contribute to the PB.

Bad Idea in my opinion, why should the attacker have the advantage of limiting the defenders choice of fleet composition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He would limit the attackers fleet aswell and the defenders fleet could bring more BR if the PVE players fullfill the spawned mission until the countdown is finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- soon economy will be meaningless. A consti with 4 dura can be crafted with labour from 3 days. This means I can loose my ship once per day without trouble. Soon we'll have an abundance of ships.

 

Thats not always a bad thing at the moment people love their ships to much and are afraid to loose them or even dura so every pvp fight is more or less running :/ if people dont need to craft for 2 weeks they are maybe more willing to loose a ship and dont run ... in theory ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with abundance of ships is that you become less linked with your ship and sinking them becomes less meaningful. If game went this way, probably there should be no economy at all, and just pure action. It's about the balance between epic and unique, or arcade and accessible.

I understand your point though. Probably some ships should be common, and some should be hard to get. Both should have their use. Right now big ships have too limited use I think.

 

Another downside is that all ships fight with counterparts in their tiers right now. It would be much more interesting if we had more battles between tiers.

 

 

 

He would limit the attackers fleet aswell and the defenders fleet could bring more BR if the PVE players fullfill the spawned mission until the countdown is finished.

 

 

I think it's a good idea for supremacy to affect end battle somehow - eg. with 80% supremacy you can still attack, however you can bring less BR to the battle as an attacker - eg. 95%. Defender could still bring 100%.

Edited by vazco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He would limit the attackers fleet aswell and the defenders fleet could bring more BR if the PVE players fullfill the spawned mission until the countdown is finished.

-attacker would choose the perfect setup for his guys/members that he can bring to the battle 

-he limits the defender to this mix of BR and if the defender team isn´t able to match said fleet composition they will be at a huge disadvantage

 

The current PB mechanic is far from being perfect but giving the attacker the possibility to dictate the fleet composition (sort of) is in my opinion a bad idea.

Edited by Bommel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regard to port timers,

 

I believe we should make each port battle event into a structured PVP tournament.  Ports can be attacked at anytime, there would be no port timers.

 

When a port is attacked, it would remain in a contested state for 24 hours, allowing equal opportunity for players all across the world to have a participating say in the outcome.  The port battles would essentially turn into a series of fights being conducted throughout the day.  As the nations participate and do well in the battles, they earn "points" towards the capture of that port.  Completing objectives, destroying towers, holding a key area, and sinking ships could all be mechanics that award "points".  When the timer is complete, the nation with the most points would win that port and have it turned over to them during daily maintenance.

 

During the port battles, neither side could access the port that is under attack.

 

Players could continue to battle at that port many times over the course of the day, the more dedicated your side is to winning and the more participation you have, the more your points will go up.

 

Players defending territory could use crafting hours to repair the forts throughout the day and bring crafting into the port battles.

 

this would be a massive change and require lots of tweaking; however, I think a 24 vulnerability period will accomplish a few objectives that the community and developers are after:

 

 

1) all time zones would be fair play, no port timers required, only the overall participation of your nation would hinder/help you.

 

2) Port conquest will be slowed down. nations would only be able to concentrate their efforts in so many places in the course of a day being careful not to spread themselves too thin... the larger a nation becomes, the more likely they will be attacked on multiple fronts by multiple nations and have their numbers split into multiple battles.  This naturally mitigates a nations power instead of doing it artificially by offering flag cool downs and such.  IMHO, I think nations should be allowed to buy as many flags as they want, whenever they want... they just need to get more expensive as you acquire more ports.  (ie. Sweden has no ports, can buy a flag for 10K.  Britain has 50 ports, can buy a flag for 500K.)

  • 3) Losing or capturing a port should be a national effort.  No better way to make it a national effort than to allow EVERYONE in the nation to participate if they want to instead of limiting it to 25 and an unlucky few assigned to "blockading"
  •  
  • 4) Losing or capturing a port should be a big event.  Multiple huge battles being conducted over and over again for as long as you care to participate? basically unlimited access to on demand PVP without question of where to go for a fight?  I don't know how it could be any bigger of an event than what I've described in my suggestion.  This really pits an entire nation against another nation instead of a small select few.  This makes it into an absolute war, a slug fest where TONS of ships and resources are being lost to the cause.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyrant, I like your suggestion to have port battle period last for 24 hours, instead of this being decided in 1 battle. I think that still there should be a single large battle at the end - if not deciding, then at least giving eg. 30% of final points (or less if BR difference at the end is smaller). The advantage of this is that it would be worth to fight to the end.

 

Some remarks:

- if port battle is open for 24 hours, there will be times where eg. on some hours 2 or 3 players would be fighting. This shouldn't affect points as much as battles of 25 players. Those players should be still able to influene the score, even by resupplying the port, or by fighting PvE if no enemy is available

- economy wouldn't survive eg. 5 battles of only first rates. This should be limited. It should be probably an epic event only once per port battle

- port battles shouldn't be affected by participation so much, as smaller nations, or nations eg. without American players, would suffer. Everyone should be able to contribute, however levels of contribution should be limited by type of encounter. Eg. one type of mission could improve score points only by X%

- it would be good to leave players some freedom. Missions would be probably very interesting, however it would be also good to have events that give incentives for encounters, but don't dictate them (eg. resupplying of ports is one example)

- it would be good for everyone who contributed to be rewarded at the end, instead of rewarding just players that took part in the last PB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyrant, I like your suggestion to have port battle period last for 24 hours, instead of this being decided in 1 battle. I think that still there should be a single large battle at the end - if not deciding, then at least giving eg. 30% of final points (or less if BR difference at the end is smaller). The advantage of this is that it would be worth to fight to the end.

 

Some remarks:

- if port battle is open for 24 hours, there will be times where eg. on some hours 2 or 3 players would be fighting. This shouldn't affect points as much as battles of 25 players. Those players should be still able to influene the score, even by resupplying the port, or by fighting PvE if no enemy is available

- economy wouldn't survive eg. 5 battles of only first rates. This should be limited. It should be probably an epic event only once per port battle

- port battles shouldn't be affected by participation so much, as smaller nations, or nations eg. without American players, would suffer. Everyone should be able to contribute, however levels of contribution should be limited by type of encounter. Eg. one type of mission could improve score points only by X%

- it would be good to leave players some freedom. Missions would be probably very interesting, however it would be also good to have events that give incentives for encounters, but don't dictate them (eg. resupplying of ports is one example)

- it would be good for everyone who contributed to be rewarded at the end, instead of rewarding just players that took part in the last PB

I am totally open to suggestions and improvements.  I know the little details will need to get worked out.  I just think the 24 hour battle is the best way to go forward with port battles.  It will maximize fun and mitigate some other issues like steamrolling nations, and inability for some to participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In regard to port timers,

 

I believe we should make each port battle event into a structured PVP tournament.  Ports can be attacked at anytime, there would be no port timers.

 

When a port is attacked, it would remain in a contested state for 24 hours, allowing equal opportunity for players all across the world to have a participating say in the outcome.  The port battles would essentially turn into a series of fights being conducted throughout the day.  As the nations participate and do well in the battles, they earn "points" towards the capture of that port.  Completing objectives, destroying towers, holding a key area, and sinking ships could all be mechanics that award "points".  When the timer is complete, the nation with the most points would win that port and have it turned over to them during daily maintenance.

 

During the port battles, neither side could access the port that is under attack.

 

Players could continue to battle at that port many times over the course of the day, the more dedicated your side is to winning and the more participation you have, the more your points will go up.

 

Players defending territory could use crafting hours to repair the forts throughout the day and bring crafting into the port battles.

 

this would be a massive change and require lots of tweaking; however, I think a 24 vulnerability period will accomplish a few objectives that the community and developers are after:

 

 

1) all time zones would be fair play, no port timers required, only the overall participation of your nation would hinder/help you.

 

2) Port conquest will be slowed down. nations would only be able to concentrate their efforts in so many places in the course of a day being careful not to spread themselves too thin... the larger a nation becomes, the more likely they will be attacked on multiple fronts by multiple nations and have their numbers split into multiple battles.  This naturally mitigates a nations power instead of doing it artificially by offering flag cool downs and such.  IMHO, I think nations should be allowed to buy as many flags as they want, whenever they want... they just need to get more expensive as you acquire more ports.  (ie. Sweden has no ports, can buy a flag for 10K.  Britain has 50 ports, can buy a flag for 500K.)

  • 3) Losing or capturing a port should be a national effort.  No better way to make it a national effort than to allow EVERYONE in the nation to participate if they want to instead of limiting it to 25 and an unlucky few assigned to "blockading"
  •  
  • 4) Losing or capturing a port should be a big event.  Multiple huge battles being conducted over and over again for as long as you care to participate? basically unlimited access to on demand PVP without question of where to go for a fight?  I don't know how it could be any bigger of an event than what I've described in my suggestion.  This really pits an entire nation against another nation instead of a small select few.  This makes it into an absolute war, a slug fest where TONS of ships and resources are being lost to the cause.

 

 

This is very well thought out. There would have to be some fine tuning and such. Kudos.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very long thread so tossing an idea in here that may be buried in the previous 7 pages.. if so sorry

 

 

   Port Battles...

 

          Should be a combination of BR and ship type limits...

              ie... Capitals    High BR to be determined BUT

                      no more then 3 1st Rates and 2 2nd rates total per side...   These ships should be RARE...  At Trafalgar when the 3 most power fleets in a world met there were only 7 1st rates and 4 2nd rates out of the total of 74 ships involved.

 

                      Normal Deep ports only 1 and 2 of each the rest 4th and 3rds

 

    Add in a Medium port(say the Shallows that all ships can actually dock at now) Where it is 2-3 4th rates and the rest are Frigate sized ships...

   Shallows as they were before you locked the ships smaller then a Brig out

 

 

       All Battles Open Water and Port also need some setup love...  in Port battles the 3 sections would be marked in battle at least to friendlies by a different flag so you can more easily track who is Squadron and who is not... Open world should have the same thing..  Allow Groups to sub divide in OW into Squadrons so that when battle starts they can move together... Remember in a naval battle you had lookouts and officers keeping track of these things.. the captain wasn't doing it all by himself.

 

       Just a few ideas... Thanks 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I suggest that the "capital cannot be attacked in a port battle" be expanded to include a core of ports for each nation in order that no nations casual players get left unable to play the game for long periods of time due to being unable to craft or do missions because they are blockaded to one port via their capital. Perhaps 10-15 home ports should be invulnerable to assault by port battle. Making sure that those that a factions player base is never killed off or leaves the faction entirely. As I see happen when a nation gets ganged up on currently. Each nation should be able to function with a minimum of ports because players need to be able to play the game without jumping factions because their faction is wiped. I believe this would be a major step to retaining a lot of the more casual players and traders in PVP servers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I suggest that the "capital cannot be attacked in a port battle" be expanded to include a core of ports for each nation in order that no nations casual players get left unable to play the game for long periods of time due to being unable to craft or do missions because they are blockaded to one port via their capital. Perhaps 10-15 home ports should be invulnerable to assault by port battle. Making sure that those that a factions player base is never killed off or leaves the faction entirely. As I see happen when a nation gets ganged up on currently. Each nation should be able to function with a minimum of ports because players need to be able to play the game without jumping factions because their faction is wiped. I believe this would be a major step to retaining a lot of the more casual players and traders in PVP servers.

 

I like to think that the planned slower pace in port captures allowance and alliance politics make unnecesary this expansion of the "sure zone"  , artificial limits seems wrong "per se" (at least to me) and they tend to be abused ...... 

 

If this not suffices and sure zones must be implemented, it should be paired with a capital repositioning, to avoid big "safe zones" creating artificial dominations in strategic places [i. e. expanding safe zone around havana the florida straits]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to think that the planned slower pace in port captures allowance and alliance politics make unnecesary this expansion of the "sure zone"  , artificial limits seems wrong "per se" (at least to me) and they tend to be abused ...... 

 

If this not suffices and sure zones must be implemented, it should be paired with a capital repositioning, to avoid big "safe zones" creating artificial dominations in strategic places [i. e. expanding safe zone around havana the florida straits]

I respectfully disagree. I think slower port captures just means that when your nation does die you spend even more time locked in your capital. 

It just means slow death rather than quick. When their should be a guarantee of being able to play for your nation 24/7 and be functional as at least a minimum. Thus the need for more ports protected at the nations core.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest that the port battles include at minimum 3 battles maybe as many as 9.... 1-3 each of Small, Medium, Heavy ships (7-6 rates,6-5 rates, 4-1 rates) you have to win the majority of the battles over a 24-48 hour period for your team to Win the port.

 

  So say you have a Attack declared with a 1 day advanced notice... Then over the next 1-2 days(depending on number of battles) There are every say 5 hours after Downtime there are battles  So if your have  3 battles(1 each) they are at 07,12,17 hours server time... If thee are 6 battles  2 at each of those times (with no doubles never have 2 of same type in a battle time slot)  if 3 one of each type at those 3 times...

 

  This would allow for Large battles of sorts spread across All time zones... with most people getting to play the ship types they prefer......  

 

 just an idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I suggest that the "capital cannot be attacked in a port battle" be expanded to include a core of ports for each nation in order that no nations casual players get left unable to play the game for long periods of time due to being unable to craft or do missions because they are blockaded to one port via their capital. Perhaps 10-15 home ports should be invulnerable to assault by port battle. Making sure that those that a factions player base is never killed off or leaves the faction entirely. As I see happen when a nation gets ganged up on currently. Each nation should be able to function with a minimum of ports because players need to be able to play the game without jumping factions because their faction is wiped. I believe this would be a major step to retaining a lot of the more casual players and traders in PVP servers.

 

Smuggling covers off on this.  You can smuggle at any port, including placing down outposts and purchase orders.  (I tested both)

 

It could/would be more expensive, but it can be done. If your team is really behind the 8 ball, dropping into the middle of behind the lines territory, setting up a free port outpost, and then smuggling in the area and you can function pretty well.  FYI, I am pirates server 2, where we were at one point down to our capital, before smuggling, and I was personally able to supply a significant percentage of our teams building supplies from free port access.

Made a heck of a profit from players who were more interested in farming gold as well. 

 

The worst part of being down to one port, was all our new players were constantly being jumped when leaving port.  The new join mechanic in protected waters covers that problem as well. (I think)

 

Now with smuggling it would be even easier and trying to get into hostile ports in a trader can be quite fun.

 

Besides, 10-15 protected ports is absolutely ridiculous. There would be no reason to fight for the remaining 5-10% of the map. 2 or 3 maybe, as long as at least some shortages of supplies could be triggered by war.

 

This isn't farmville.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lost a port battle as ships can board towers.

 

This needs to be looked at reducing to only 1 tower that can be boarded and the rest require attacks. The so called 45 min port battle window fails miserably when you can have boarding mods ships taking towers in a minute. Regional capitols is worse when a Pavel set up for boarding can do so in a minute.

 

The port battle rework really does need to allow the defence at least.

Edited by BallsOfSteel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lost a port battle as ships can board towers.

 

This needs to be looked at reducing to only 1 tower that can be baorded and the rest require attacks. The so called 45 min poty battle window fails miserably when you can have boarding mods ships taking towers in a minute.

 

The port battle rework really does need to allow the defence at least.

 

 

Naw.  

 

Just up the population on the towers to include a few hundred marines and give them a pile of defensive mods and hull advantages, so that a single ship of any type can't effectively take one. 

 

Split them so they continue to fire at "somebody" until they fall, regardless of being invaded.

 

Right now the towers are quick and dirty copies of some of the ships stats wise.  Once they become their own things I'm certain they can be improved mechanically to overcome the current shortfalls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I have been thinking about Port battles and war in general.  Why not ad a feature where the contesting nations to to reinforce the port or the landing troops.  Keep the area active for pvp because people will have to ferry in troops, ammunition, food ect.  This is where the will of a nation to capture or hold a port can be taken and will also provide a gold sink for a lack of a better word to help reduce inflationary pressures in the game.  If a nation wants to hold a port they will have to invest in the defence if a nation wants to take a port they will have to invest in the capturing.  You could make it a 7 day timer where players can see progress updating at down time.  This could also play into the manpower commodity as you will have to use available manpower to create soldiers combining man power with say fire arms and food or something along those lines.  It will also remove port battles from being a time zone issue.

 

Pilious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will post this here just to be heard, as I think it's important:

 

You're loosing players in an alarming rate (steam charts?). If you want game to survive, you should focus on what's important for the product now. Identify your key problem, instead of answering to small problems of different users. You should really understand what causes players to leave.

My experience is that everyone who gets to top level in combat and crafting quickly looses interest in the game and leaves at some point. They're not interested in missions, as bots are never as good as players. Missions work as long as you're grinding up the ranks. Players get less and less PvP action every day. You should really focus on two points:
- politics to give people a higher goal and additional incentive to get higher in a hierarchy (as many people in Naval Action like grind and progressing in ranks. They leave when it ends)
- port battle mechanics to make it more frequent, make it a zone where there's always an action and that focuses all active players around a single area

If you don't manage to do this in 1 month, I predict we just won't have enough players to keep game in the current form. It's sad, as I really like the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...