Update on the port battle set up

[MacVaultDweller]

Very interesting looks like it will be fun to test.

[KrakkenSmacken]

So a few questions, one opinion

 

Is "Hostility" by nation?  It seems it must be.

How does Hostility work when two nations are operating against one nation in an area?

 

Is it a race to 100% for both nations, can more than one nation have a port battle scheduled against a single nation at the same time, or do the activities of one nation reduce the hostility of the other, so that if more than one nation is targeting a single nation, the singled out nation has a bit of a reprieve in that both nations can't trigger a port battle against them at the same time.

 

Can hostilities create a situation where two teams both have scheduled port battles against each other, over the same cities?  I.E. is hostile gain weighted higher than defensive, or vise versa?

 

 

I think that if one nation is being picked on by two or more nations in the same area, that those nations should mechanically be limited so both can not gang up on a nation in that way, with a mechanic that forces them to collude as to what country gets to push hostility to the 100%.  

 

For example, if hostility of one nation is higher than 50%, no other nations hostility can go higher than that same 50% until it has dropped below 50% for the first nation. This would allow the defending nation to focus counter hostility efforts against just one of the hostile forces at a time.

[Skully]

I see potential in this mechanic. I also see additions that can be added later like:

1. A more detailed supply mechanic
   I'm not sure how far it's going to come up now, but I see something like "buying" supplies in a friendly port, "selling" in enemy. With different regeneration numbers for shallow, deep, regional and capital.
2. Whale-boating from Santismas as a mini-flag alternative
   http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14792-pvp1-june-22nd-the-foggy-dance-at-bone-cay/?p=274409

The one thing I don't like is the "random" time slot. The worst outcome would be a time slot that has very little players (with assets) in that area and thus an empty port-battle. This must be prevented.

The other issue is that it gravitates towards the peak population time slot. So you would only see PBs happening at 18-20.

Tie to this the limitation of 10 port battles, and we are back at a tidal wave problem, but now time slot based.

 

Maybe something like the following will work:

1. Count up the contributions of each player by time slot. Assuming a player can't be at two spots at once, it means he implies his preference for the time slot in which he makes his contribution.
2. Once the threshold is reached, determine the time slot based on top contributions in each time slot.

Now comes the tricky part, because there is choices on how the proper time slot is chosen:

1. The time slot with the most contributions wins (regardless of which side made it). Could end up in 25-1 fights.
2. The time slot with the most contributions on the outnumbered side wins. So a 10-8 slot beats a 15-5 slot. That means 20 players worked for "nothing".
3. The time slot with some other funky formula wins.

The important bit is that contributions should be tied to a time slot and whatever formula is chosen the UI must clearly show the potential outcome (/ leaderboard).

Edited June 25, 2016 by Skully

[cheatos503]

Update on the current design research for port battles arrangements and pvp motivations

 

Initial proposals were posted here

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14642-port-battles-assault-flag-rework-proposals-moderated/?hl=port+battle

 

During the research and design exercises we believe that we have found an even better way to arrange port battles and wanted to share it with you for discussions.

 

Assault fleet construction still allows for some trolling potential especially in case of two powerful groups in one nations having competing goals. Also delaying or speeding up the fleet construction could be confusing and lead to lack of understanding of what is going on conquest wise. 

 

The new design is the following.

 

Hostility levels

Player actions generate hostility levels

• PvP kills, by means of free hunting or pvp missions
• PvE kills by means of hunting or pve missions
• Smuggling and Sabotage - delivering war supplies to support increase or decrease of hostility
• Potentially - Raids

All ports have the hostility level that is increased or decreased by above mentioned actions. 

Hostility levels will go up slowly to give the chance to respond in all time zones. 

 

Top 10 ports with the highest hostility level will be indicated on the map (where assault fleets are now currently)

Once hostility level reaches 100% port battle is automatically set up in 48 hours

Hostility level is generated for all ports in the vicinity - which creates interesting options for smaller nations and allows unexpected flexibility

 

Only top 10 ports can reach port battle state - which is awesome because:

1. it is naturally limiting the number of port battles per day (lets say 10)
2. it funnels players to top 10 most active locations - if you want action you sail to the zone with high hostility level

Increasing or decreasing hostility levels grants War effort commendations per port 

• During the first 10-20 mins of the port battle timer only people with war effort points for this port can enter the port battle
• After this timer everyone else can enter
• This stops port battle trolling when large groups enter and quit battle denying the victory or opportunity to fight.

Commendations are a cargo hold item and can be lost (and intercepted to use for your advantage). 

 

New mechanics are way better than assault fleet construction or assault flag because

• It stops trolling by entering and leaving port battles
• It stops assault flag abuse
• It eliminates timers and sets up battles based on the activity level (while providing options to defend in other timezones)
• It allows smuggler hunting (against nations who want to achieve port battles without PVP)
• It immediately shows to players where the action is creating more PvP
• It removes all confusion and timer problems

Discuss and ask questions

im skeptical at best of this. seems this would work if there was still a large player base like 3 months ago, now? im not so sure.

 

I had proposed a while ago that we keep the timers for PBs BUT..... you can still attack at any time but it would cost you 5x-10x the original port cost. The devs are always looking to make a system for PBs to work. why not let economics work instead? It solves for any group wanting to take a port at any time instead of what it has devolved down to. And it add some defense in the form of breaking the attacking side's war chest so you wont see widespread port caps because after a while nobody could afford it over the long term. Also if you do lose that port know they paid through the nose to do so

Edited June 25, 2016 by cheatos503

[Fastidius]

sounds like an interesting system however i would think that hostility levels would be affected by freeport locations...

[Fastidius]

actually if you auto spawn PB timers....then your going to have issues with timezoning.

[KrakkenSmacken]

 

The one thing I don't like is the "random" time slot. The worst outcome would be a time slot that has very little players (with assets) in that area and thus an empty port-battle. This must be prevented.

The other issue is that it gravitates towards the peak population time slot. So you would only see PBs happening at 18-20.

Tie to this the limitation of 10 port battles, and we are back at a tidal wave problem, but now time slot based.

 

Maybe something like the following will work:

1. Count up the contributions of each player by time slot. Assuming a player can't be at two spots at once, it means he implies his preference for the time slot in which he makes his contribution.
2. Once the threshold is reached, determine the time slot based on top contributions in each time slot.

Now comes the tricky part, because there is choices on how the proper time slot is chosen:

1. The time slot with the most contributions wins (regardless of which side made it). Could end up in 25-1 fights.
2. The time slot with the most contributions on the outnumbered side wins. So a 10-8 slot beats a 15-5 slot. That means 20 players worked for "nothing".
3. The time slot with some other funky formula wins.

The important bit is that contributions should be tied to a time slot and whatever formula is chosen the UI must clearly show the potential outcome (/ leaderboard).

 

 

I proposed something similar on another thread.  Vote for a set time, then the time is declared.  

 

The vote could be a player setting that always applies to all "Hostility" they earn, so that all hostility points come with a set time, that is displayed to all when they accrue. The reason it should be a set value, is as a player I would want the fight to start when I start, not when I earned my points, especially if I earned the most at the end of my play session.  A set value means I swing things closest to my own availability.

Players could then block out what time they DON'T want fights, and any counter to hostility points they make, will take points from those set in that time first, and then move to the next closest times to that. 

 

[Edit: Will hostility points earned used to determine placement in a fight be a TOTAL of all points earned towards the port?  If there is a back and forth it should be, as other wise it will be a nightmare to figure out "who's" points got removed by counter action.  It would also be interesting to see the level of contestation  for a port based on TOTAL hostility earned/lost in the process.]

 

Fights start 24 hours + whatever it takes to get to the set time that the two teams hostility settings were set at when the hostility hit 100%

 

In case someone leaves these things default.  Current time is used to gains, and 12 hours out is used to remove.

 

This way even during the ramp up on hostility, both teams are trying to influence when the port fight will happen.  The most active on each team having the highest influence on when it will occur.  It will add a depth to strategy, in that teams that see hostility climbing on a fight in a time they don't want, may focus their efforts in that direction rather than one they figure they can win because the time is more favorable.

 

 

Or NA could try the model that Crowfall is using, they are going to have the same problem with castle sieges.

 

"During a campaign, a castle siege like in this video will have to be planned. It wouldn’t be very fair to attack an Australian guild on American hours, for instance, so the aggressor will have to declare a window of time when they’d like to attack, and the defender will be able to choose the hour. "

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/watch-a-large-scale-castle-siege-in-upcoming-mmo-crowfall/

Edited June 25, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Eldberg]

Soooo.... Pretty much how POTBS worked?

It looks good in theory, just a shame you could not have done it from the very beginning of Port Battles when many people suggesting a similar system.

[ObiQuiet]

Good idea!   Question: what is the system for giving out war-commendation-pb-tickets?   Is there a possibility that that PB could be over-sold?

[Kiefer Cain]

That's when  the small nation gets help from friends or hires corsairs to fight the larger nation. There's more than just two factions in this sandbox.

 

... and more than just a single battlefront to fight on.  If a big nation is all committed on one front... than it would leave other fronts less protected and prone to attack by observant/astute nations.

[Kiefer Cain]

Perhaps, I overlooked something, but what is the speed of hostility points rising or lowering?  Are we talking PotBS-type hours (at the most), or a longer-term campaign likeoperation that is longer.  Hopefully a slower pace, as it would be more inclusive of all the time-zones playing the game.  Setting the PB times... I haven't a good answer, but I sense a bit problems with that one.  Maybe a series of PBs? 

 

These hot zones will not be actual safe/not safe lines on the open sea, correct?  I hope there is no difference.  Just a mere indication of where the action is at.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Kiefer Cain

[Skully]

Perhaps, I overlooked something, but what is the speed of hostility points rising or lowering?  Are we talking PotBS-type hours (at the most), or a longer-term campaign likeoperation that is longer.  Hopefully a slower pace, as it would be more inclusive of all the time-zones playing the game.  Setting the PB times... I haven't a good answer, but I sense a bit problems with that one.  Maybe a series of PBs? 

 

These hot zones will not be actual safe/not safe lines on the open sea, correct?  I hope there is no difference.  Just a mere indication of where the action is at.

Remember the 7 day proposed cooldown? This should be the equivalent, but then reversed.

 

Nowhere will be safe! This is PvP!

[Anne Wildcat]

Quick question, how will pve missions raise hostility as you cannot enter enemy ports in a warship to pick up missions?

[Cpt Blackthorne]

Quick question, how will pve missions raise hostility as you cannot enter enemy ports in a warship to pick up missions?

I'd guess the PvE mission you pick up from your own port would be for you to go seek out other nation NPCs and/or run as a smuggler into enemy ports.

[Kanay]

Impatient to see all those interesting changes in game but there is one thing i'm curious about : the free towns 

 

Will they finally be removed or not allow any warship to be docked there to keep this balanced ? 

 

Apparently the teleport of ships will not be possible anymore but what will prevent a Nation to move a very large feet of warships into a free town when there is very low population on servers like when players numbers are down to around 135 online only ?

 

The distribution and placement of free towns is unequal for Nations , some have them very close to them most frequented waters etc, the free towns system if it allows to still dock warships there will give great advantages to some nations and great disadvantages to others and this can't really be balanced .

 

With the diplomacy and the ability to dock in friendly ports or participate in allies PB's ( if i understood correctly ) they don't have anymore a reason to exist, removing them will favor the linear conquests of territories, not allow a Nation to strike deep into enemies waters while they should sail for a long time before being able to do some operations in those same waters if they had to start from them closest port or closest allied port.

 

 

The free town from my point of view always were a problem, allowing players to magically spawn right in the middle of enemies waters while them closest port is more than one hour sailing time far away is something unrealistic and with this new system it creates a great unbalance between nations.

 

So the question is simple : will the magical free towns remain as they are now, will they finally be removed or changed so only trader ships can be stored in them to make it fair for all Nation and favor a linear extension of territories instead of striking easily in the middle of a Nation territory using a magical spawn spot ? 

 

 

 Also if they are changed and traders only are allowed will you make it so there no way to get a armed cutter to exit them ? 

 

Like it is possible now with smuggler flag, allowing you to enter in an enemy city as smuggler with a trader ship and get a armed cutter to get out and harass players there ?

Players if they don't have enough money to buy a trader ship to get out should get a special version of a cutter, a special version not allowed to carry guns, i don't think it will be too hard to make a "basic unarmed cutter" with no guns allowed on it and force players to use this in case they went bankrupt and cannot afford a trader ship to get out of a city they entered in with a trader while having a smuggler flag enable. Being able to make a large fleet of captured cheap traders, sail to an enemy city as smuggler and once in the port buy a armed basic cutter to cause troubles there is something that should not be possible at all already and hopefully changed soon too.

 

 

Thanks a lot and like i said i'm impatient to see the incoming changes.

[Skully]

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14600-auto-travel-from-port-to-port/?p=270697

 

To me freetowns server two purposes:

1. Trader/crafter hub
2. Ship storage for the casual players

Especially the second is important, because if you lose assets through inaction of yourself, you'll quit the game.

(It's already very hard for me to deal with asset loss through actions of myself. )

[Kanay]

Extend the possibility of ships docks in capital by buying more slots ( reminds me this too btw ) , or give a couple more cities close to capital that cannot be captured but free towns and possibility to store or acquire warships there needs to go, even more with planned changes and the drastic advantages they will give and unbalance they will create between Nations when it should not be this way.

[Anne Wildcat]

I really really hope they don't get rid of free towns, it allows for privateers to hunt in enemy waters. I'd hate to solely have to operate out of pirate ports (especially as it would require pirates to play as nats to keep ports). And as ships in the future cannot be tp'd, I've built 3 level 2 shipyards in various Freetowns for when I lose all dur (being a noob at PVP, I can't rely on capturing player ships, yet)

And Freetowns are great for finding resources as a smuggler.

Keep Freetowns but have a ship manifest of ships docked there.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Anne Wildcat

[Æthlstan]

Keep free towns the way they are. They make the game interesting and add another layer of strategy

[KrakkenSmacken]

Impatient to see all those interesting changes in game but there is one thing i'm curious about : the free towns 

 

Will they finally be removed or not allow any warship to be docked there to keep this balanced ? 

 

Apparently the teleport of ships will not be possible anymore but what will prevent a Nation to move a very large feet of warships into a free town when there is very low population on servers like when players numbers are down to around 135 online only ?

 

The distribution and placement of free towns is unequal for Nations , some have them very close to them most frequented waters etc, the free towns system if it allows to still dock warships there will give great advantages to some nations and great disadvantages to others and this can't really be balanced .

 

With the diplomacy and the ability to dock in friendly ports or participate in allies PB's ( if i understood correctly ) they don't have anymore a reason to exist, removing them will favor the linear conquests of territories, not allow a Nation to strike deep into enemies waters while they should sail for a long time before being able to do some operations in those same waters if they had to start from them closest port or closest allied port.

 

 

The free town from my point of view always were a problem, allowing players to magically spawn right in the middle of enemies waters while them closest port is more than one hour sailing time far away is something unrealistic and with this new system it creates a great unbalance between nations.

 

So the question is simple : will the magical free towns remain as they are now, will they finally be removed or changed so only trader ships can be stored in them to make it fair for all Nation and favor a linear extension of territories instead of striking easily in the middle of a Nation territory using a magical spawn spot ? 

 

 

 Also if they are changed and traders only are allowed will you make it so there no way to get a armed cutter to exit them ? 

 

Like it is possible now with smuggler flag, allowing you to enter in an enemy city as smuggler with a trader ship and get a armed cutter to get out and harass players there ?

Players if they don't have enough money to buy a trader ship to get out should get a special version of a cutter, a special version not allowed to carry guns, i don't think it will be too hard to make a "basic unarmed cutter" with no guns allowed on it and force players to use this in case they went bankrupt and cannot afford a trader ship to get out of a city they entered in with a trader while having a smuggler flag enable. Being able to make a large fleet of captured cheap traders, sail to an enemy city as smuggler and once in the port buy a armed basic cutter to cause troubles there is something that should not be possible at all already and hopefully changed soon too.

 

 

Thanks a lot and like i said i'm impatient to see the incoming changes.

I don't see what "warships" has to do with it really, I've already figured out a work around if free ports only allow traders.

 

Dock your smuggler non-war ship, Le Gros Ventre, in a free town. (Classified as a trader)

Pick on Snow/Brig/Le Gros Ventre Traders from the enemy nations directly adjacent to the port.

Smuggle in the same area.

 

Once 100% is reached, rally your nation to make the trip in time for port battle. (you have 48 hours to do this prep.)

 

Stage in open water nearby, You don't need a dock anymore because no more flags.

 

Begin assault when the window opens.

 

I don't see what prevents any nation for starting hostilities in any location.  Open water is not a game of boarders.

 

Oh, and I happen to think all of the above is a good thing.  There should be no place entirely safe from attack.  

 

Us infectious pirate types should be able to be found popping up all over the map, not just around Mort.

[Skully]

I don't see what "warships" has to do with it really, I've already figured out a work around if free ports only allow traders.

 

Dock your smuggler non-war ship, Le Gros Ventre, in a free town. (Classified as a trader)

Pick on Snow/Brig/Le Gros Ventre Traders from the enemy nations directly adjacent to the port.

Smuggle in the same area.

 

Once 100% is reached, rally your nation to make the trip in time for port battle. (you have 48 hours to do this prep.)

 

Stage in open water nearby, You don't need a dock anymore because no more flags.

 

Begin assault when the window opens.

 

I don't see what prevents any nation for starting hostilities in any location.  Open water is not a game of boarders.

 

Oh, and I happen to think all of the above is a good thing.  There should be no place entirely safe from attack.  

 

Us infectious pirate types should be able to be found popping up all over the map, not just around Mort.

You should not be able to buy war supplies at the free town. Ergo you have nothing to smuggle into the enemy port, but normal trade goods.

It can only be gotten from a friendly port.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Skully

[Kanay]

Starting some hostilities with a trader ship like an indiaman or LGV will be easily countered ... indiaman that is a 4th rate have the same armor as a 5th rate essex or frigate ... LGV have less armor than an cerberus ... while they could do some damages it ain't warships in term of potential damages they can do, they are way weaker and easy to take out with inferior class ships if they start to mess around, maybe only allow smugglers to enter and leave free towns to counter potential traders attacker from other traders too if they want to keep those free towns.

 

But yeah simply getting rid of free towns once and for all will be better, with the new system there will be heavy zones of pvp identified by all looking at the map, players should never be able to magically spawn right into enemies waters to cause troubles around, the magical and invulnerable spawn points make no sense in such game that wants to be somewhat realistic, players will have to sail to those waters from them Nation closest port or an allied Nation port if this gets allowed with diplomacy patch. 

 

And for storing more ships and keep them safe just add a way to extend docks slots at least in the capital.

[KrakkenSmacken]

You should not be able to buy war supplies at the free town. Ergo you have nothing to smuggle into the enemy port, but normal trade goods.

It can only be gotten from a friendly port.

Please define the difference between "war supplies" and "normal trade goods", because that line is rightfully blurry.

 

I made more money selling raw materials to shipbuilders than anything else, so I fail to see how "Oak Logs" would qualify as a "war supply" more than say "Compass Wood".

 

If it's simply arbitrary "this dock won't deal in X", with X being anything used in ship construction, then what the hell is the point of a free town?

[Cpt Blackthorne]

Starting some hostilities with a trader ship like an indiaman or LGV will be easily countered ... indiaman that is a 4th rate have the same armor as a 5th rate essex or frigate ... LGV have less armor than an cerberus ... while they could do some damages it ain't warships in term of potential damages they can do, they are way weaker and easy to take out with inferior class ships if they start to mess around, maybe only allow smugglers to enter and leave free towns to counter potential traders attacker from other traders too if they want to keep those free towns.

 

But yeah simply getting rid of free towns once and for all will be better, with the new system there will be heavy zones of pvp identified by all looking at the map, players should never be able to magically spawn right into enemies waters to cause troubles around, the magical and invulnerable spawn points make no sense in such game that wants to be somewhat realistic, players will have to sail to those waters from them Nation closest port or an allied Nation port if this gets allowed with diplomacy patch. 

 

And for storing more ships and keep them safe just add a way to extend docks slots at least in the capital.

I would expect the LGV and Indiaman would not give a large amount of hostility compared to warships.

And I would hope they wouldn't get rid of free towns. These are import and historically accurate. Reading Porter's Journal of a Cruise Made to the Pacific, he speaks of entering a free/neutral port and neither he nor the enemy engaged each other there out of honor and respect. They waited until they were further out to sea.

[Kanay]

Maybe in real life yes, there was no time compression there and i suppose it was lost in the middle of the seas, isolated, you wasn't able to be near an enemy city in just a very few minutes from such neural town like in our game and tp there when you want and get your warship, but we all know how the free towns are and will be used when the changes to PB will come ...

 

PS : and they were probably used to dock for one or few days, refill ship provisions, or repair after a trip and bad weather, not like they are now, not used as advanced naval bases full of warships ready to go at war in a blink in the middle of enemy waters ^^