Update on the port battle set up

[Ledinis]

Any core mechanic that creates limitations on play and takes more that a couple of months tops to over come is not a well thought out one if you ask me.  

 

EvE is a HUGE exception, and it is precisely those long term aspects that largely prevent new players from even starting now.  It's a bad plan to marginalized new players from the start with a multi year commitment.

 

Change should be reasonably rapid and fluid, and even new players should be able to participate in, or at least see how it is feasible that soon they will be able to participate in, every aspect of the game, or the mechanic will deter more than it attracts.

I imagine he meant upgrading the entire worlds ports should take months, ofc upgrading a single port wouldn't take that long. But this would provide extra content + extra incentive for people to get engaged. At the moment if i see a port being attacked and not entirely feeling the thirst for a large scale battle i just say meh. If it was a port that i spent weeks in helping upgrade, spending countless resources, which also has my production line in it. I would not just rush to it the moment i heard a rumor of a planned attack i would hire mercenaries and provide ships for them just to help me protect it.    

[Vernon Merrill]

we wanted to force players to deliver supplies and immigrants to the captured towns to stay national (not to turn back into neutral town)

idea sounds great on paper but not sure if it fun (not a job) to do over a long time

Hey, aren't we supposed to be testing these things for you?!? :-)

[Ledinis]

we wanted to force players to deliver supplies and immigrants to the captured towns to stay national (not to turn back into neutral town)

idea sounds great on paper but not sure if it fun (not a job) to do over a long time

Thing is that the players that dont want to do it are not forced to do it. If you have a couple of hours a week to play you can do an occasional battle and not pay attention to this, but for the amount of people that wouldn't be bothered doing it theres and equal amount of players that would love a feature like this (mostly the guys that play 4+ daily and keep nagging for lack of content). If done properly as ai said you would:

• Increase the amount of content, specially with the more hardcore player base that has time to spend, giving incentive to keep the servers filled longer
• Increase and give reason for traders (you know the guys that keep shouting they want trading to be important in the game ? ) to actually do trade runs, and seeing as it would be something of a national effort, actually form convoys *gasp
• With the increased trade on the seas increase the privateer activity in the seas

So yeah activities for players focused on all aspects of the game, and all you have to do is implement and test it to make it fun and engaging.

[KrakkenSmacken]

we wanted to force players to deliver supplies and immigrants to the captured towns to stay national (not to turn back into neutral town)

idea sounds great on paper but not sure if it fun (not a job) to do over a long time

If you let people post shipment orders that AI would then take and give/sell at the port, the "job" part would be handled by AI.

 

The only thing players would need to do is care enough, and have enough resources, to support the endeavor.

 

Oh, and prevent other players from blocking said shipments on route. 

Edited July 6, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[KrakkenSmacken]

I imagine he meant upgrading the entire worlds ports should take months, ofc upgrading a single port wouldn't take that long. But this would provide extra content + extra incentive for people to get engaged. At the moment if i see a port being attacked and not entirely feeling the thirst for a large scale battle i just say meh. If it was a port that i spent weeks in helping upgrade, spending countless resources, which also has my production line in it. I would not just rush to it the moment i heard a rumor of a planned attack i would hire mercenaries and provide ships for them just to help me protect it.    

 

Since the announcement of "hostility", I've always thought this could be handled as a factor in the speed and ease that hostility builds up against a town. 

 

For every outpost, shipyard, resource building and upgrade, the time it takes to build hostility would increase.  

For towns that are starving of consumables, that time would decrease.  

 

In this way a nation that is hammered back into a few ports would have a naturally greater staying power, as every member would be building in the remaining ports, while an over extended nation would have many ports that could be pushed over with a harsh wind.

 

No real need to "shore up" a new port with supplies.  The process would be natural if players wanted to hold it. They would set up outposts, ship yards, resource centers, etc, and if they failed to do so, the port would be just that much easier to flip back.

Edited July 6, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Cpt Blackthorne]

You need to win the port battle just like today

 

Its just the preparation of the battle is a group/national effort without abusable flags

I'm still cornfused on how this will work when there is a port wipe and we're all facing Neutral Ports. What NPC or faction do we need to raise hostility against to be able to capture new ports?

Also, I think this patch would be a great time to implement the Port Activity a few of us would like:

Namely, ports don't appear on the map at first. Then we have to settle them with OPs and buildings and trading. The more players at that port, with OPs, making trades, etc, the larger the icon would be. Then if everyone abandons that port, it would eventually fade off the map again. It would not appear on map again until someone resettles it and makes it active.

 

Edit: or the larger the population there turns it into a regional port and if ppl abandon it, it doesn't have to fade off the map completely, but rather the icon gets smaller, the port image looks more deserted, and no longer is a regional capital.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Cpt Blackthorne

[vazco]

The idea is great. What kinds of PvP, PvE missions will be available in the vincity of the port? Do you already have some candidates?

 

 

 

I'll paste some suggestions from a previous threat, maybe they could be useful:

- 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, or pushed outside of the circle. 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.

[Loco Bandito]

Myself being in aus I would like to see some battles in our time zone but I know the player base is small compared to US. Hopefully this works out.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Loco Bandito

[vazco]

I agree. But if there is no-one in that zone and you want that port. What do you do?

 

You could eg. allow for a hostlity to raise only by a fleet being in the area and eg. triggering a signal for others "hey, we're here".

I think that PvE shouldn't be the required part, just like PvP shouldn't be, but both should be possible to raise hostility. PvP should do this much better than PvE from some point, eg. after 75% level of hostility, efficiency of PvE could go to 1% efficiency of PvP

[Skully]

You could eg. allow for a hostlity to raise only by a fleet being in the area and eg. triggering a signal for others "hey, we're here".

I think that PvE shouldn't be the required part, just like PvP shouldn't be, but both should be possible to raise hostility. PvP should do this much better than PvE from some point, eg. after 75% level of hostility, efficiency of PvE could go to 1% efficiency of PvP

Punish the party because the other side doesn't show up? I would say, no.

[vazco]

Punish the party because the other side doesn't show up? I would say, no.

You didn't read my whole post it seems.

You would get a supremacy just by being in the area, with a trigger turned on, so that enemy can locate you. This in my opinion is already a PvP and should give you points. If you're bored waiting, just join PvE mission in the area.

PvE shouldn't be a requirement, as PvP players don't want to fight dumb bots all the time. This is one of the solutions.

 

I have a more interesting suggestion though:

Once your fleet joins the area, it can start an epic event PvE mission. Enemy could join to such missions from harbours anytime they want, just like a Trafalgar battle, and take over one of the bots that fits their rank.

Edited July 29, 2016 by vazco

[Crayon]

Areas in red are commented on.

 

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 <--- Asking for trouble on this one. 
• 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). Expand on this.

 

 

 

Instead of ports individually, use regions instead. Region capitals would contain the meter of local agitation in my suggestion. Have captains elect themselves as members of a region of their choosing. They can elect themselves to an infinite amount of regions and in order to elect themeselves to a region they must pay gold to do so. The amount of gold is determined by how many resources are generated by that region.

 

-A region has a collection of regional captains. The amount of captains in the region is directly related to the hostility levels of the region (i.e. many captains elected to a certain region would negate sparse hostile action whereas remote areas with few elective captains would be more succeptible to increasing regional disruption).

 

-A region is dominated by regional capitals. Instead of individual ports for port battles (frankly there are too many with the current active player base), the port battle system would change to capturing only regional capitals and the collective ports of that region respectively.

 

-By harassing ports to the point of instability, the regional capital becomes available to attack via port battle. The region itself, not the ports individually is attacked in my view here. 

 

-Captains elected to the area are allowed first entry to the battle, and the battle would take 20-25 minutes to start to ensure an equal shake of defense/capture opportunity. 

 

-Loss/Defense of the region should have some war score value in determining if the war should continue or not.

 

I believe your current proposal to have captains selectively enter the port battle can be an exclusive feature on both sides. The captains who should be allowed to enter might not have time to make it to the battle screen, and the 'plebs' who are there first will still be able to enter. It can also be a devastating blow to the defenders if 25 ships roll up and only 5 players of the defending side are able to join when another 30+ there are ready to go but cannot enter.

 

The gold point i referenced above is a wrench in the cogs of the system to me. If you are aiming for a war goal of some sort, then instead of commendations make them crates. Crates need to be delivered after a port battle and could be used as a currency of sort to keep the war going. A certain amount of crates is required to 'win' the war and the crates are consume a certain amount each week in the capital of each nation at war. If you run out of crates, you lose the war. Each crate turned in rewards something of value i guess....

Edited August 1, 2016 by Crayon

[cheatos503]

honestly im no longer interested in port battles until they are redone as promised when they showed us the new port battle model, not the current fleshlights sitting in the water setup. With that said its alot like the red ring system POTBS used to employ.  and im interested in generating the unrest part but until there is something worth going into a port battle for ( ie something that doesnt involve capping towers and essentially playing rock paper scissoring for a port on the map) , the idea of more players being funneled into an area to kill or be killed by. It will automatically make the smaller more agile pvp play style shine because there isnt any towers in the pvp, and instead killing the player is the objective, think of old sea trials but for a reason which i've always wanted.

 

Besides ask around, generating a lot of hate is what i do. Now i can use my lvl 50 trolling skill for something useful

[Cpt Blackthorne]

Besides ask around, generating a lot of hate is what i do. Now i can use my lvl 50 trolling skill for something useful

lol you're the best, mate...

[Isink A Lot]

Why do port Battles have to be in a "time slot"? Think out of the box. 48 hours after hostilities hits 100% the port opens up for battles, port battles last 24 hours! Each battle happens in a 1 1/2 hour time frame with 30 min. delay for the next one. All time zones are covered this way. Battles are decided by which side does the most damage for that battle (promotes fighting), most battles that are won wins the port. Remember allies and or hired pirates can enter you port battles to help cover low pop times for your nation. Discuss! 

[Knobby]

Why do port Battles have to be in a "time slot"? Think out of the box. 48 hours after hostilities hits 100% the port opens up for battles, port battles last 24 hours! Each battle happens in a 1 1/2 hour time frame with 30 min. delay for the next one. All time zones are covered this way. Battles are decided by which side does the most damage for that battle (promotes fighting), most battles that are won wins the port. Remember allies and or hired pirates can enter you port battles to help cover low pop times for your nation. Discuss! 

Indeed, why limit it to a single battle, spread it out and let them fight multiple engagements for perhaps a day or even two.

[admin]

Indeed, why limit it to a single battle, spread it out and let them fight multiple engagements for perhaps a day or even two.

 

 

because people want resolution - action must bring results based on their actions (not on somebody else's actions)

If the battle lasts for several days not everyone has 48 hours to be online.

If i fought well and won the port battle then someone should not be able to lose my result. 

[Isink A Lot]

because people want resolution - action must bring results based on their actions (not on somebody else's actions)

If the battle lasts for several days not everyone has 48 hours to be online.

If i fought well and won the port battle then someone should not be able to lose my result. 

I disagree.

1. It was not yours and yours alone action that resulted in the fight to begin with!

2. A national effort to create the PB should mean a national effort to win it. (not on somebody else's actions to lose it)

3. If I fought well to get the PB and some other player loses my port because it didn't happen in my play time I will be extremely more upset about it than if my nation lost it as a whole.

The very reasons you list as to why not have it a national effort are the same reasons not to leave it up to just 25 players multiplied by the number of players that help create it in the first place!

[Konali89]

I can't understand why i have missed this topic. This is freaking amazing by the looks of it and i can't wait to start doing port battles again. I want to test this asap haha.

[Skully]

because people want resolution - action must bring results based on their actions (not on somebody else's actions)

If the battle lasts for several days not everyone has 48 hours to be online.

If i fought well and won the port battle then someone should not be able to lose my result.

I can only add to that with the hostility generation is already a 24/7 mechanic.

But really I expect the different conflict-zones to become centered around one of the 10 time-slots. (There is that magic number 10 again. )

You know that at the end there is going to be a port battle and you want that port battle to be in your favorite slot. Yes, it is a bit gimmicky, but time-zones are (I'm afraid) a RL interference.

So everybody will be focused on getting his time slot, both in terms of offense and defense.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14676-pvp1-june-the-british-honduras-campaign-pirate-perspective/

The other thing is that Nations may not be capable of raising fleets 24/7. We'll have to see how this plays out initially.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/?p=275044

[Isink A Lot]

I can only add to that with the hostility generation is already a 24/7 mechanic.

But really I expect the different conflict-zones to become centered around one of the 10 time-slots. (There is that magic number 10 again. )

You know that at the end there is going to be a port battle and you want that port battle to be in your favorite slot. Yes, it is a bit gimmicky, but time-zones are (I'm afraid) a RL interference.

So everybody will be focused on getting his time slot, both in terms of offense and defense.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14676-pvp1-june-the-british-honduras-campaign-pirate-perspective/

The other thing is that Nations may not be capable of raising fleets 24/7. We'll have to see how this plays out initially.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/?p=275044

With multi battle does it matter if you can raise a fleet 24 hours? What I proposed will make each PB 12 battles long, as a defender you only need to win 6 of those (tie goes to defender), as an attacker you need to win 7 (attackers should have to win more, no?). So if you can cover 1/2 a day with you pop and or ally/hired guns (hired guns are pirates clans) you can still win even if the rest of the battles are empty. But with this setup you just might find people spreading out to other nations to get fights instead of certain time zones having a couple of nations with all the pop.

[Skully]

With multi battle does it matter if you can raise a fleet 24 hours? What I proposed will make each PB 12 battles long, as a defender you only need to win 6 of those (tie goes to defender), as an attacker you need to win 7 (attackers should have to win more, no?). So if you can cover 1/2 a day with you pop and or ally/hired guns (hired guns are pirates clans) you can still win even if the rest of the battles are empty. But with this setup you just might find people spreading out to other nations to get fights instead of certain time zones having a couple of nations with all the pop.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15067-no-tribunal-cheatersexploiters-players/?p=282893

I consider empty PBs a symptom of a broken mechanic. We need to strife better than dive into such things again.

Also keep in mind, it is just one port won or lost in the region / conflict-zone. Like admin says, the match is over. The competition however is not.

The real problem I see is Alliances conflicting with practical time-zone fights. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15655-national-and-clan-edicts/?p=292360

[VonVolks]

creating "front lines" where PVP will be guaranteed and also PVE will have an impact is great

[Fastidius]

in general it looks fine, times are still likely to be an issue but what can you do to stop nations having Aussies/Kiwis in bulk....not much

 

How does this tie in with regions as per the other thread is a interesting question to me,,,, for instance if you say 10 port battles max per day then you imply that only the port in question is attackable yet you have regions to capture.....it sort of imples that you have to fight in that region for  long periods of time without moving on due to the need to flip many  ports side by side to conquer a region..   or does flipping the regional take the whole shebang which means your after 1st rate battles more than4th rates.....and you can instigate a mix of possible targets making people out of position to defend if you attack multiples. etc...

 

Just don't know exactly how that falls as tactically you would want to have multiple ports become open for PBs and attack multiples at once even if there was only a small amount going to smaller battles to dilute the enemy.

[The Spud]

That concept looks fine. I like it.

 

But let me do one question:

 

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

 

How do you think this an interesting option for smaller nations? I am playing Sverige, and we are one of the small nations.

This game will never be balanced by player numbers until the low populated nations don't get big advantages.

The game system needs to allow the smaller nations play their role in the carribean. It should be harder to capture

ports close to the nations capitol to give the small nations a chance to make their territory more save against bigger nations.

 

Maybe it is a solution to make the hostility increasing much slower, if the harbour/area is very close to the capitol

 

I'm guessing with alliances in place these smaller nations will be allied at least to one other nation who can help defend eachother. Maybe they should make TP possible to your allied capital (like an extra outpost). So you can always come to help your allies.

 

As it is right now on PvP one sweden is caught between denmark and france, so they suffer both being a small nation and not being in the best location (unless they change their diplomacy, in that case they have a safe spot).