Development plans for conquest mechanics (RVR)

[Sven Silberbart]

i would say..lets test it. That is why we all are here.

[TheAmerican]

i would say..lets test it. That is why we all are here.

Amen

[Bloody Hound]

This looks great, I'll defiantly coming back to give it ago, even if i'm pirate so it wont effect me much... but this makes me really interested in how pirates will fit in. All that ripe gold and weak prey.

 

[Robert Lance]

In my opinion I like the changes, but would like to test them. One of my concerns is that I would like to see every nation have a good chance of winning. This is a hard thing to make happen given the location of some of the nations. What I would say is give the smaller nations, a advantage in some form that would give them a chance at winning. Not sure what that could be. I believe that we need to test some options. The community may have some Ideas on this. I would also say that it may be a good idea that a nation that is forced into an alliance, be given the option to became a pirate if they so choose, or accept the alliance. As individuals. Then at the restart of the map they are given the option to rejoin their nation again.    

[Skully]

Auto-alliance would entail not having the option to instantiate a new capital at another location.

[Hethwill]

 

 

 

OT: Love that pic ( and the movie ). Exactly how I look when those jolly traders are full !!!!

[Vernon Merrill]

Me too!!!

[Woody051]

Step 1

Basic alliances that are coming this august we would like to share the plans and ideas for new improved RvR.

 

Step 2

Changes to port battles are briefly described in this post

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

 

Ports

Ports will change: Map will split into regions with regional capitals. 

Nations will conquer regions (not individual ports)

 

This will also help a lot in hostility generation and will open road for significant trading/supply/demand improvements, with proper regional goods distribution. 

 

Last draft of the counties/regions design

 

ink to file http://imgur.com/wSjKF1G

 

 

Potential proposals for discussions. 

 

Capitals could become capturable. 

If nation have lost all the ports the last county (with capital) will open for capture. Losing the capital will force an alliance with the conquering nation.

 

Total victory should become possible (with the map reset afterwards)

If capitals become capturable this can lead to clear win conditions and map resets (seasons) with rewards for map victory. Current design is more real life with flowing changes of power (like in Eve), but maybe Battle Royale design is better. 

 

Freetowns

Some free towns will be repositioned (to be on the borders of regions)

 

Mission changes

Missions will always be generated to the nearest enemy region to promote pve players meeting each other in action (Irrelevant for the pve server).

 

First i want to share/reiterate an idea i had - Trading posts

In this thread: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14273-trading-posts/

 

My Trading posts idea would help support the changes planned with the freetowns and encourage more player traffic around the map in addition to other cool features.

 

Regarding Capitals:

I don't think capitals should be capturable in the context that they literally "flip" to the conquering nation's colors. However i would humor the idea that if a nation was reduced to say 1 or 2 cities (such as their capital and 1 other) that their nation could be forced into a diplomatic session. This could either be done by A.) The attacking nation through the game mechanics must initiate the session, or B.) the Capital could be beseiged and upon victory it would represent the government building being raided/attacked and a diplomatic session would then be forced upon them.

Some ideas to consider when a nation is in a "Reduced" state

• Sue for peace - a Diplomatic option to immediately enact a cease-fire
• Conditional Surrender - Nation can enact a cease-fire and a lump-sum of gold. Nation cannot be attacked by that same attacking nation again for 7 days.
• Conditional Surrender with secession - Cease fire is enacted and ports/territory is granted as spoils of war. (Perhaps maximum 5?)
• Conditional Surrender with Protectorate Status - Nation immediately surrenders and becomes a protectorate (puppet state) of the nation claiming victory. The protectorate enters cease-fire with it and must remain a protectorate for a minimum of 14 days. The conquering nation may also cede conquered territory back to the protectorate in the deal.
• Unconditional surrender - cease-fire occurs but at a price (I don't know how these mechanics should work. Maybe randomized items of value should be pulled from clan storages? The Capital market? NPC prices go up for a week? All players must pay a percent fee? i don't know.)

Regarding Freetowns:

What if there was a way to setup a transport contract for players to transport between freetowns? A player could "package" their cargo into exact size/weight amounts and a contract could be setup that would enable an another player to act as a courier to transport it from Point A to Point B between freetowns? The player carrying the items won't know what the contents of the cargo is but will only act upon the size/weight perimeters and will be paid for delivering the item to the destination. The player wishing to have their items transported would setup the start location, the destination, the time duration, the reward, and the collateral price with the number of units. The player acting as the transport/courier would pay the collateral (on hold) and will receive the units in the form of crates or barrels so that they make the trip in the ship of their choosing. If they successfully make it to the port destination and deliver the items then they will be repaid their collateral and collect their reward money.

 

Contracts could be separated by size so that there isn't odd quantities that cannot be carried on ships

• Small contracts - Cargo capacity of 1 up to 1600
• Medium contracts - Cargo capacity of 1601 up to 3200
• Large contracts - Cargo capacity of 3201 up to 8000

Regarding Mission Changes:

I think there are good intentions here and it will indeed lead to more PVP opportunity. However the first thing i should say is i think there should be a rank cutoff and that it should only be a "X rank and above" missions should appear near or around enemy territory. It does not really help our newer players to send them far way from shore (or home territory) when we wish to retain some of them in interests to keep this game running. The second thing with this is i certainly hope that this doesn't turn into a gankfest where the ranked-up players just end up hunting the players who are trying to level up all day. I would hope there would be more incentives for our higher-ranking players (and clans) to run protection fleets.

 

In all honesty the mission types really need to change as well. The same thing over and over gets pretty stale.

 

Here are perhaps a variety of new mission ideas:

• Exploration - Discover 5 new ports (player has to dock in 5 new ports that they have previously never been to before.) - Limited once per rank
• Exotic Trade - Mission will spawn an exotic good in the port where you start the mission and task you to deliver that item to another port of the same or ally nation.
• Escort - Battle instance will load with a landmass with a harbor on each side. Your goal is to escort a trader to a circle near the opposite end of the map as 1 or more npc's want to kill you and your trader.
• Intercept - You and 1 NPC spawn in vs a trader and 1 NPC and your job is to kill or capture both ships.
• Fleet Intercept - A well guarded group of trader ships are being escorted and you and your group must kill and capture them all.
• Fire Watch - (Group Mission) You spawn in next to a large NPC fleet of line-ships of your nation. Your nation's NPC.s sail in a straight line and in 3 waves npc's equipped with the fireship module will spawn that will be trying to target your ships of the line. You and your group must sink all 3 waves of fireships.
• Coastal Assault - You spawn in next to an abandoned mortar brig and you have to sail over to it and take command of it and start killing structures/towers. As you do this you have a npc fleet of ships "carrying troops" that will be sailing into the port. Your mission is to destroy all land targets before they can kill your assault fleet of NPC's.
• To Arms! - Daily mission - Win one small battle or one large battle (Through joining in the port user interface) Mission is active until a win is achieved.
• On Guard! - Daily mission - Player assumes coastal patrol duties and is flagged as "Coast Watch" or "Coast Guard" for one hour. Player receives x3 experience for travel and x2 experience and gold for combat fought in friendly territory sphere of influence.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Woody051

[Jeheil]

Perhaps to ensure the same nation doesn't win every time, after a seasonal reset, the nations get starting positions and benefits inversely proportionate to their seasonal result (so the winners start off with the least, the losers the most) or some such 'handicapping' balance thingy.

[Woody051]

Question 1.)

Is the player affiliated with their nation indefinitely or do they have to re-choose their nationality every seasonal reset? 

 

Question 2.)

a.) What happens to our assets?

b.) Do any of our items carry over to the new season? How would this work?

c.) What about guild/clan assets?

 

Question 3.)

a.) Will the national starting areas and capitals be the same for each season?

b.) Will players be able to vote for new capitals?

c.) Will the freetowns always be in the same locations?

 

Question 4.)

Is there any way to generate a server leaderboard/scoreboard based on the server's API key? (It could update every day after downtime). Perhaps the stats could show kills/deaths by nation and clan as well as other data areas.

 

Question 5.)

It was once discussed that perhaps clans could break away and form their own factions or nations. Is there any more discussion about this and how this could potentially effect the new conquest mechanics?

[Skully]

Question 5.)

It was once discussed that perhaps clans could break away and form their own factions or nations. Is there any more discussion about this and how this could potentially effect the new conquest mechanics?

Just preliminaries: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15655-national-and-clan-edicts/

[Captain Kibble]

 

Question 2.)

a.) What happens to our assets?

b.) Do any of our items carry over to the new season? How would this work?

c.) What about guild/clan assets?

 

This is why I think a much better solution would be to give nations that have been conquered some way to rebel against their conquerors after a time, rather than a server reset at the end of a "season". I don't see how assets could carry over after a reset. This would keep the world in a perpetual state, rather than in cycles which is very unappealing to me.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Captain Kibble

[Woody051]

Would there be a such thing as aggressive AI fleets (i know in the past sometimes AI would tag us, but rarely) to supplement nations with a low population? Maybe server trends would use this as a way to compensate during low times and they would fade out during peak hours?

 

In an another idea - What if after a nation is conquered and that nation becomes a protectorate then the conquering nation then could control the offensive AI fleets? I'm not talking like large amounts here but just occasional fleets of AI that are more aggressive.

They could be controlled via a drop down list (Like we have a drop-down list for setting up a contract in that user interface.)

The conquering nation would choose what regions (Since the map will now be divided by region) limited by nautical miles from each port.

Capitals and Regional Capitals would spawn larger AI Fleets, shallow water and regular deep water ports spawn small and intermediate sized AI fleets.

 

This is based on the fact that usually after a nation is conquered they are pretty reluctant to fight with or alongside the very force that just beat them so i saw this as a means to accent or "supplement" this.

[KrakkenSmacken]

 

 

Capitals could become capturable. 

If nation have lost all the ports the last county (with capital) will open for capture. Losing the capital will force an alliance with the conquering nation.

 

Total victory should become possible (with the map reset afterwards)

If capitals become capturable this can lead to clear win conditions and map resets (seasons) with rewards for map victory. Current design is more real life with flowing changes of power (like in Eve), but maybe Battle Royale design is better. 

 

 

 

Been taking a couple of days to let this sink in, and to ponder the ramifications before responding.

 

I have read through this whole thread, but did not find exactly what I was looking for in the comments. 

 

These comments came close 

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15638-development-plans-for-conquest-mechanics-rvr/?p=292165

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15638-development-plans-for-conquest-mechanics-rvr/?p=292809

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15638-development-plans-for-conquest-mechanics-rvr/?p=294338

 

Perhaps it's somewhere in alliances, have not read the whole breadth of that discussion.

 

Regardless, let me first say I really like where this is heading, but as others, I have a concern that the "Losing a capital will FORCE an alliance with the conquering nation".  Any time you take agency away from a player, you are going to lose players, especially on something as important as who they have to work with to accomplish a goal, or the fact that their goal (E.G. freeing their nation from the yolk of an oppressive force), now runs completely contrary to those goals forced on them by the games mechanics. 

 

There is however a two step potential solution to this problem, and the team overrun Zerg problem.

 

 

Step one.)

Every player has two national identities.  One identity, call it "birth" identity CAN NEVER BE CHANGED BETWEEN MAP WHIPES. It is selected at character creation, and remains with that character for the entire time they play the game and the map has not been reset.  Tied to the steam account, even a change of allegiance country or character deletion will not erase this identity between map wipes. This includes "pirates".

 

Step two.) 

Every character has an allegiance.  The flag they operate under. This can be changed.  Pirates start with a birth identity, and enter allegiance to the pirate flag. So for example you would have a French-Pirate or a US-Pirate.

 

 

 

When a capital is lost, players are given three choices

Swear allegiance to the conquerors.

Swear allegiance to one of their existing allies, (Neutral or other enemy nations will not be valid to swear allegiance to)

Become Pirate, and fly the black flag.

 

So when for example the Danish are eliminated, they could chose to join the Swedish.  Those characters would be identified as Danish-Swedish

 

In this way every player and clan can make a strategic choice as to how they would like to proceed post national conquest.  By having a birth identity, it would also be possible to wage a successful resistance, and reclaim their birth capital, making them a nation once again.

 

How to use this to help deal with the Zerg problem.  Give the best conquest rewards only to those who are both birth and allegiance members of a nation.  Sure some rewards could be passed down to members of the allegiance, and should be based on participation in the campaign, but the lions share, the best rewards, the special titles, are reserved for those who for example are Danish-Danish rather than Swedish-Danish (assuming the Danish won). This will reduce the rewards for those that joined the winning team after it was effectively decided, and provide a disincentive for the behavior.

 

This would encourage top alliances to break when victory is close, so that their birth country could get the big prize, allow for resistance movements operating with the assistance of an allied nation, allow clans to decide who they would like to play for/with if their origin nation is removed out, and reduce the incentive for band wagon jumping.

 

Additionally it would add the option for special rewards for being part of the force that took back your capital.  

 

In conclusion.  I really think it is very important that losing in the game does not also remove agency from players as to how they want to play, or who they are obligated to play with, what team they identify with, or what side they are forced to take in the greater conflict.  

 

Game of Thrones as a story is great, but "Win or Die" can very easily turn into "Win or Quit" (Tommen Baratheon <Spoiler if you google for him>) if choice of allies is removed from a player.

 

That type of model is just a recipe for forcing people out of the game.

 

Remember when you play Risk at home, long before the game is finished, more than half the people who started are doing something else.

Edited August 9, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Skully]

When a capital is lost, players are given three choices

Swear allegiance to the conquerors.

Swear allegiance to one of their existing allies, (Neutral or other enemy nations will not be valid to swear allegiance to)

Become Pirate, and fly the black flag.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14244-hegemony/?p=269119

The 3 choices should be there, but do not need to be played out immediately. First and foremost the losing Nation gets access to its previously locked assets (if any). Then those folks can plan their way back to becoming a Nation again from the safety of the "zerg".

Alternatively they concede to their fate and work their hardest to bring about the end of the season.

Note that a Capital should be extremely hard to capture in the first, but without the possibility neither side will give it their full effort.

Coming back to initial hostility I think it should be impossible to generate initial hostility in the Capital region until it is the last of the Nation. Effectively this means ganking a Capital will not bring any benefits beyond the potential ship captures. (Overdoing it will weaken your own regions. Guerre de course.)

Edited August 9, 2016 by Skully

[Wilson09]

>Game of Thrones as a story is great, but "Win or Die" can very easily turn into "Win or Quit" (Tommen Baratheon <Spoiler if you google for him>)

 

And now we have "Never win" and Quit" + "come back for next patch".

Better "Win or Die" + "quit and come back for next game".

 

 

[KrakkenSmacken]

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14244-hegemony/?p=269119

The 3 choices should be there, but do not need to be played out immediately. First and foremost the losing Nation gets access to its previously locked assets (if any). Then those folks can plan their way back to becoming a Nation again from the safety of the "zerg".

Alternatively they concede to their fate and work their hardest to bring about the end of the season.

Note that a Capital should be extremely hard to capture in the first, but without the possibility neither side will give it their full effort.

Coming back to initial hostility I think it should be impossible to generate initial hostility in the Capital region until it is the last of the Nation. Effectively this means ganking a Capital will not bring any benefits beyond the potential ship captures. (Overdoing it will weaken your own regions. Guerre de course.)

 

I didn't put it here, it's more of an alliance thing, but my hope would be that you can switch allegiance at any time, after jumping through some hoops, so the impact of a forced choice at time of capital loss or next login, would not be a permanent situation.

 

I would hope that so that you could preemptively swear allegiance to an ally, expecting your capital to fall, and if it did not switch back.

 

The devil in that model is the details of "jumping through some hoops".  Perhaps it's financial reparations, perhaps its loss of assets, or special missions to re-gain standing.

 

Those mechanics should be similar to what a pirate would have to do to "go straight", and both requirements should survive character deletion and re-creation.

 

I agree that generating hostility in a Capital should be impossible if any other town is held.

 

I also believe it should generate much slower.  I actually think that hostility generation rate should be tied to outpost and resource building construction and levels, so that a nation pushed to few towns, is harder to even generate hostility against, because of the concentration of production resources, while an over extended nation has towns that are easy to trigger battles over.

 

Edit:  This way a subversive "ally" could build up in towns under utilized by their ally, and then move team allegiance and create almost instant port capture hostility, simply because they have control of the local economy.

Edited August 9, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Wilson09]

Potential proposals for discussions. 

 

Capitals could become capturable. 

If nation have lost all the ports the last county (with capital) will open for capture. Losing the capital will force an alliance with the conquering nation.

 

Total victory should become possible (with the map reset afterwards)

If capitals become capturable this can lead to clear win conditions and map resets (seasons) with rewards for map victory. Current design is more real life with flowing changes of power (like in Eve), but maybe Battle Royale design is better. 

 

Freetowns

Some free towns will be repositioned (to be on the borders of regions)

 

Mission changes

Missions will always be generated to the nearest enemy region to promote pve players meeting each other in action (Irrelevant for the pve server).

 

No one can dispute that they are LISTENING !

Great stuff...wow.

They picked up lot of ideas from the forum (or had the same ideas).

 

 

>>Capitals could become capturable. 

>>If nation have lost all the ports the last county (with capital) will open for capture. Losing the capital will force an alliance with the conquering nation.

+++

 

I have no problems being forced as a vasall or something into British ranks, if they beat me before.

Only, only.

If there is only the very very slight chance of "revolting" and breaking free again...keep hopes alive for FREEDOME again.

However achieved...

Edited August 9, 2016 by Wilson09

[Captain Kibble]

 

I have no problems being forced as a vasall or something into British ranks, if they beat me before.

Only, only.

If there is only the very very slight chance of "revolting" and breaking free again...keep hopes alive for FREEDOME again.

However achieved...

 

^^This. That slight hope of gaining Independence again is what would keep me playing even after being conquered. If it was just a matter of joining the conquerors until reset, I would probably go play PvP2 until the reset happened.

[Wilson09]

^^This. That slight hope of gaining Independence again is what would keep me playing even after being conquered. If it was just a matter of joining the conquerors until reset, I would probably go play PvP2 until the reset happened.

 

Yes. Why not take a break? Finally, it is a game. You failed and need to wait for a restart.

Why not quit and wait?

What is the problem with it?

It is not a hardcore PvP with a "hardclose", where you loose all !

You only lost the desire to play on as a vasall. Your exp and all this,

will be there for the next try.

 

After fierce PBs, many players complained about "burnout" and never returned.

So here, a "break" would be enforced and natural way to recover.

Why not?

 

All complain about "carebear" ingame,

but if it comes to test it,

they all want "safety" not to be on the loosing end.

[KrakkenSmacken]

No one can dispute that they are LISTENING !

Great stuff...wow.

They picked up lot of ideas from the forum (or had they same ideas).

 

 

>>Capitals could become capturable. 

>>If nation have lost all the ports the last county (with capital) will open for capture. Losing the capital will force an alliance with the conquering nation.

+++

 

I have no problems being forced as a vasall or something into British ranks, if they beat me before.

Only, only.

If there is only the very very slight chance of "revolting" and breaking free again...keep hopes alive for FREEDOME again.

However achieved...

 

 

The other side of that problem is the Conquers. What if they don't actually WANT you as a vassal, because they know your going to turn on them the first chance you get?

 

Forcing these mechanics takes agency from both sides, both of whom may not want the other on the same team.  That would only leave a single choice, go Pirate.

 

If that was the mechanic, then what you would end up with is pirates vs last team standing.  

 

Also think of the emotional baggage, of for example a football team that trades it's star player to their most bitter rivals. Now, your that star player, have no say in the trade, and your future team mates also have no say in having to work with a guy that just hours before they hated with a bloody passion, and probably still hate.

 

Much better to put the choice to players first in my opinion.

Edited August 9, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Mrdoomed]

>Game of Thrones as a story is great, but "Win or Die" can very easily turn into "Win or Quit" (Tommen Baratheon <Spoiler if you google for him>)

And now we have "Never win" and Quit" + "come back for next patch".

Better "Win or Die" + "quit and come back for next game".

You accidentally described tbe modern gamer in so many wods......I get MY WAY or i quit.

I really dont know how any game that has even the slightest bit of patients and strategies and thinking things through as a selling point will ever be popular with more than a few thousand dedicated players.

The question now days is is there a game company that will let the my waynor I quit crowd quit and make a great game for a smaller audience.

[KrakkenSmacken]

You accidentally described tbe modern gamer in so many wods......I get MY WAY or i quit.

I really dont know how any game that has even the slightest bit of patients and strategies and thinking things through as a selling point will ever be popular with more than a few thousand dedicated players.

The question now days is is there a game company that will let the my waynor I quit crowd quit and make a great game for a smaller audience.

 

I understand the sentiment, but it's not just the "my way or I quit" crowd.  Losing agency (control of how you play your game), is a terrible experience for everybody.

 

Imagine if you were told that you couldn't play as pirate, and that you had to join a specific clan other than the friends you currently play with in order to be successful at the game.

 

Or imagine if after a long fight against the US, who you have grown to despise because of some of the tactics used, you were now obligated to not only play with them, but also adopt those same tactics for face national ostracization, or even face ostracization regardless of your actions because of past history.

 

Playing a game IS agency of choice, at every point and move, within the confines of the mechanics of the game. 

 

Choosing not to play because you have lost the ability to make a meaningful choice in the game is not the same thing as simple rage quitting because you don't like the way certain mechanics operate.  

 

If you no longer have choice in a game, then you are not longer playing it, someone else is playing it for you, or the game is basically playing itself. The moment you loose the ability to choose the game has become the antithesis of "strategies and thinking things through".

 

I would rather be directly kicked out the game entirely until after the reset, then feel that the decision to quit was forced onto me by the games mechanics and social or psychological pressure.

Edited August 9, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Wilson09]

The other side of that problem is the Conquers. What if they don't actually WANT you as a vassal, because they know your going to turn on them the first chance you get?

 

Answer:

Don´t conquer their capital.

Let them be in the same shape like SWEDEN was for a long, long time?

 

So? Maybe the nation with 1 capital will voluntarily ask for protection as allies or vasall to regain ports?

Solutions / testing and answers will be found.

 

It is no fun being beaten down to 1 port.

Let this game of Pirates run for another 2 month?

 

It´s no fun for the players being beaten again and again. Every day ingame chat / global chat / forum the banter

(hahah 1 port 1 port...hahaha...carebear...balablaba).

 

Is it a desirable state of affairs to remain in this position?

[KrakkenSmacken]

Answer:

Don´t conquer their capital.

Let them be in the same shape like SWEDEN was for a long, long time?

 

So? Maybe the nation with 1 capital will voluntarily ask for protection as allies or vasall to regain ports?

Solutions / testing and answers will be found.

 

It is no fun being beaten down to 1 port.

Let this game of Pirates run for another 2 month?

 

It´s no fun for the players being beaten again and again. Every day ingame chat / global chat / forum the banter

(hahah 1 port 1 port...hahaha...carebear...balablaba).

 

Is it a desirable state of affairs to remain in this position?

 

With my suggestion, that you could switch national allegiance after jumping through some hoops while retaining your national identity "birth", a player would be able to temporarily move nations within the game mechanics (currently only supported as delete/recreate character) and abandon, perhaps temporarily, a hopeless capital.

 

Or with the current plan for alliances, a nation down to a final port would be able to petition other nations for help and alliances. 

 

Why the straw man argument?  I never said anything about it staying at the current state of affairs which are wholly inadequate.

Edited August 9, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken