Development plans for conquest mechanics (RVR)

[Gr3y]

So trading will be great again!

i like that!

 

 

 

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).

 

i'm a little worried about this, because if a new player is generated in a large nation he need to sail from the capital to the missions for hours. 

can it be only after the first rank? 

 

i ask this only because if i think like a new player with 0 gold, make a travel of hours can be frustrating. 

[Hethwill]

So trading will be great again!

i like that!

 

 

 

 

i'm a little worried about this, because if a new player is generated in a large nation he need to sail from the capital to the missions for hours. 

can it be only after the first rank? 

 

i ask this only because if i think like a new player with 0 gold, make a travel of hours can be frustrating. 

 

Yes. Makes sense only after the Lieutenant ranks. 1st to 3rd ranks stay in the academy. After that you are sent to a navy station somewhere

[Guest]

I don't like the ideas of Capitals could become capturable and Total victory should become possible (with the map reset afterwards).

 

All reasons that speak against those ideas have been already stated in this thread so I don't need to repeat them.

 

The rest of the ideas..... Bring 'em on!

[huliotkd]

nice! but...

 

1: remove possibility to switch nation (only go pirate).  in this way, if your nation is loosing you must fight to defend or make ''forced alliance'' with attaking nation or let them conquer all you ports until so you are able to switch to winner nation.

that way lets attakers must finish to conquer 1 nation or the losing nation can grow up again an take back lost ports, if the attaking nation choose to ''ok they have rage quitted, lets change frontline and start attack spain''.

USA vs GB  100vs100; GB is also at war with france that has 50 players, and GB is near to win.  USA should has to put an alliance with france and go defending some french ports, preventing GB wins vs france and probably take 50 new players on it's side...just new tactics.

french players will not rage quit because they have new possibility with new allied, or simply can't switch to the winning GB until GB has finished conquering all french ports.

 

2: remove possibility to open an OP in enemy waters until all regional ports have been conquered. this prevents the annoying game of pop out from OP that is 20 mt away from the near port, start attacking NPC to create PB preparation and if defenders incoming, come back to port and if engaged and lost battle, spawn again in OP and start again attacking NPC ecc ecc.
so, you have to sweat to attack enemy waters until 1 region (3-4 ports) is conquered and safe bases are allowed. then you can go on with the nearby regions.

this prevent, for example, to send 20 player for other nation's ports on the other side of map, start conquering 20 ports at same time in undefended waters, put OP in the first port conquered and go on so, teleporting back if necessary.
the attacker nation will have 20 player less that aren't able to teleport from other side of map to homebase, for defend in case of counter-attack, until all ports of the region are conquered (then you can buy the 1st op in enemy waters).
so, new tactics: split our forces to random attacks or group up to attack 1 port at time until enemy capital?

 

3: create admiralty mission as now (near port), for grow up lower level players, and RvsR missions for high rank near enemy waters like you have proposed.

 

4: once enemy port is conquered, you have to do a commercial mission but only to bring resources to the new city. maybe you have a timer in which you must bring a determined quantity of resources. if not, the port falls back to previous nation or maybe neutral...so again PB.

 

5: reduce costs for crew...really. maybe put a determined quantity in each port that grow up fast if you nation take more ports and grow up slowly if you lose them. you have to sail 1-2 ports to refill high rank ships and 4-5 (if you are lucky) for 1st-2nd-3rd rates.

 

6: pirate can't craft more than pirate frigate. they have to board from trinco to up.

Edited August 5, 2016 by huliotkd

[Anolytic]

I absolutely favour a dynamic map over repeated map resets. I believe a nation that has been "defeated" should always be able to rise again and fight back after a short while so that the war continues. As Hetwill said, they will be forced into a peace for a week or maybe too, then they will be back at it.

 

Though if the regions are implemented in conquest as I think they will be, then defenders will have every strategic advantage (as they should have). The benefit to the attacker is they will always be able to find a fight. 

 

If you have to capture every port of a region to conquer that region, then an attacking nation will have to fight for every port, while the defending nation, if overwhelmed, can resolve to dig into one single port of that region and defend it tooth and nail. If successful in defending that port for a few days in a row, then the defender keeps the region (reverting other lost ports to the original owner) and the attacker has to start all over again after a cooldown.

 

Take Sant Iago for instance. If the Spanish defending that region is overwhelmed by British numbers, they can let the British zerg unnopposed the three other ports of that region, but dig in at the Regional Capital and defend that until time runs out for the British invaders. 

 

Similarly: Say the Danes lost all our regions save our capital region. Then the British want to assault our capital region as well. Because of all the noobs sailing around making easy targets the Brits will have no problem initiating conquest of the region by making a PvP hotzone. Next it turns out Danes are terrible at normal deep water port battles with 4th rates, so Amalienborg, Fredriksted and Coral Bay are all hardly defended. But as we all know Danes are unbeatable in 1st rates, so our capital would be defended till time ran out for the British, and then there would be a cooldown before British could assault our capital region again. In the meantime we would start attacking other nearby regions.

 

Again: Zerging would be neutralized, because the attacker has to capture all the ports of a region, while the defender only has to defend one port to keep the region.

 

On the other hand everyone would know where (in which region) and when port battles would happen in advance, so they would not be far away and port battles would almost always have a defence.

 

A nation defending a region would likely face economic penalties, and penalties to player production, in the region when some of the ports were captured by the invader. However these penalties would be reset if the nation managed to defend the region as a whole, even if by holding onto only the regional capital.

 

And a nation would be able to always utilize their strengths. A nation that cannot expect to win a 1st rate defence battle, would be able to choose to dig into a normal deep water port where they have a better chance maybe. Or maybe their strength is shallow water port battles. And a nation that is terrific at open water PvP would be able to delay the development of a hotzone in a region for ages tiring the enemy out who never managed to deploy a conquest.

 

Also a nation should be able to invest in port defences in their regions, and those investments are destroyed if that region is lost to another faction, making nations invest in their regions and also feel the loss when a region is captured.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Anolytic

[admin]

Nice changes!

One thing : battle royal would be a cool mechanism IF YOU CAN ENSURE EQUAL NUMBER OF PLAYERS IN NATIONS....

until this, if you keep the current free nation choice, then I am strongly against it, as it will cause some small nation to loose anytime... Which will be frustrating.

 

agree

battle royale will work if there are no teaming

but if only one nation can win alliances will still break by the end?

for example starting nations = 7

5 nations form a block and batter 2 to submission

then if there could only be 1 victor those 5 nations will still have to break the alliances and start fighting each other?

[Hethwill]

Can work if the Nation Crew pool would be introduced

[Anolytic]

agree

battle royale will work if there are no teaming

but if only one nation can win alliances will still break by the end?

for example starting nations = 7

5 nations form a block and batter 2 to submission

then if there could only be 1 victor those 5 nations will still have to break the alliances and start fighting each other?

I still don't favour that. Because if one nation is destroyed early in the map, then that nation's players would either quit playing for a while until reset, or they would switch nations and spend so much time in their new nation that they would loose their attachment to their original nations, gradually diminishing the smaller nations' significance even further.

[Leku]

Mission change, woah, so bad idea...

Already boring as hell to do mission concidering the long travel and the AI is alway outnumbering in BR and in numbers, and now, you want to bring some opportunity for gankers to join the battle ?

As a Flag cpt. im playing Flag cpt. fleet order, using a 3rd rate here is the balance:

-Allies: 2x 3rd Rate (including mine), 2x Constitution, 2x Ingermanlan

-Ennemeies: 1x Bellona 2x 3rd Rate, 2x Constitution, 2x Ingermanland

It is even worse if i play post captain fleet order or so, with Frig or Consti, 3 or 4 AI ships outnumber our side.

 

That is also easy to imagine how, even a basic mission order is going to be impossible to accomplish, you, alone VS 2 AI ships + gankers.

 

And you want to bring possibility for players to join easily the opposite side ? Best condition to stop playing, maybe the playerbase is still too big for your taste...

 

Carebears will have pacific zone for themselves. You`ll be able to stock that mountains of gold there without any disturbance.

Otherwise if you join PVP server, expect PVP ffs. Switch to pve if you dont like it.

 

agree

battle royale will work if there are no teaming

but if only one nation can win alliances will still break by the end?

for example starting nations = 7

5 nations form a block and batter 2 to submission

then if there could only be 1 victor those 5 nations will still have to break the alliances and start fighting each other?

 

Still 2 nations are being totally wiped out without any real chance of defending themselves. Imo, bad idea. It`s full battle royale, or none.

Generally battle royale is not going to work in NA. If actually clans could create their own "nations", then it would have some kind of chance.

 

TL:DR.

If you want battle royale you need to allow clans gather as nation, and give them privilages to set everything withing nation. Port entrances, fleets, etc etc. Without some voting.

Otherwise i suggest to stick to propositions you made already. Alliances + voting. With some good implementation for landlording, where not only rvr players are allowed to get lands, and vote for important stuff. Heroic feats sounds very interesting.

[Skully]

IMHO what makes players quit is when a Nation works it way up to the enemy capital and some of those enemies are too proud and arrogant to admit defeat.

That ruins the game for casuals. So instead being either forced to stick into a non-Nation ruled by ... well ... idiots. The casuals can come into the other Nation for free.

Now if, and I say if, the new grand Nation suddenly has a powerbase within itself that thinks it can do better, then either it should be able to declare independence or go to civil war.

Let leaders be true leaders, and let followers choice who to follow.

This doesn't mean that a fight towards a capital should not be an uphill struggle. It should be. It should be a grand goal! An epic that goes beyond the current epic events!

So it should be easier to assembly a 1st rate invasion fleet closer to home for example.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15189-war-supplies-crafting-marines-flag-assault-next-gen/

[Carljcharles]

Capitals could become Capturable. 

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

 

I am really concerned about this two points from a purely player base point of view. Given the time scales involved to play this game, having any nation wiped back to the capitol will inevitably push players out of the game. Even now on PVP1 the councils are forming consensus that no nation should ever be pushed back to even a single port because of the damage it does to the player base. The map reset could be just as damaging as nations and players will have worked hard to establish a position and created alliances and enemies they want to fight.

 

The perpetual war situation can be addressed through the diplomatic update. It may be that the nation can also vote for Surrender. As an alternative way to win a war.

 

 

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).

 

I appreciate the intent, however, this will also drive PvE players directly into PvP players, as PvP player will just hunt in the nearest enemy region where mission will appear for that nation. I think a little more thought needs to be given to this as it is likely to put off some pve players before they feel ready to move into PvP on the PvP Server.

[Skully]

I appreciate the intent, however, this will also drive PvE players directly into PvP players, as PvP player will just hunt in the nearest enemy region where mission will appear for that nation. I think a little more thought needs to be given to this as it is likely to put off some pve players before they feel ready to move into PvP on the PvP Server.

The problem here is twofold:

• How do you generate initial hostility?
• What prevents you from generating initial hostility next to the enemies capital?

Then there is also, if a current conflict zone is "full", how does the dynamic mission generator handle overflow?

[edit] Forgot an "initial" there

Edited August 5, 2016 by Skully

[Hethwill]

The problem here is twofold:

• How do you generate initial hostility?
• What prevents you from generating initial hostility next to the enemies capital?

Then there is also, if a current conflict zone is "full", how does the dynamic mission generator handle overflow?

[edit] Forgot an "initial" there

 

 

Hostility is one of the mechanics and the single one we be testing this August.

 

Plus we have no idea of the threshold. It might be very demanding.

 

IMO BR difference in battles should work towards Hostility with ratio.

 

So, from 0.1 point up to whatever. Meaning a Invader adds 0.1 points to hostility if attacking Owner in a battle with equal or above 10 times BR. Attacking equal BR means 1.1 point, and with under 10 times BR, 10.1 points. You get the point.

[akd]

Mission change, woah, so bad idea...

Already boring as hell to do mission concidering the long travel and the AI is alway outnumbering in BR and in numbers, and now, you want to bring some opportunity for gankers to join the battle ?

As a Flag cpt. im playing Flag cpt. fleet order, using a 3rd rate here is the balance:

-Allies: 2x 3rd Rate (including mine), 2x Constitution, 2x Ingermanlan

-Ennemeies: 1x Bellona 2x 3rd Rate, 2x Constitution, 2x Ingermanland

It is even worse if i play post captain fleet order or so, with Frig or Consti, 3 or 4 AI ships outnumber our side.

That is also easy to imagine how, even a basic mission order is going to be impossible to accomplish, you, alone VS 2 AI ships + gankers.

And you want to bring possibility for players to join easily the opposite side ? Best condition to stop playing, maybe the playerbase is still too big for your taste...

Missions could be closer under new system. Let's say Brits hold St. Nich and French Port-de-Paix. Now missions you take in St. Nich spawn near this frontline, leading to much shorter sails, but with more danger / chance of PvP. If players are near your mission, you should engage them instead, as it will surely generate greater "hostility" for port conquest.

Now if you are actually saying "why are you making it harder to just solo PvE all the time on the PvP server?", then I'm not sure what to say. I would agree that low level missions for new players should still generate in safe® waters.

[Skully]

I would agree that low level missions for new players should still generate in safe® waters.

Here-be-Danger is a low level "new" player, generating a mission which some "random" high level enemy player interdicts. Voila initial hostility in safe® waters.

[Elric]

Overall, I think this should be interesting - and hopefully very playable.

 

I would like to see a graduated difficulty level implemented for region capture.  With the capital region being the most difficult and then gradually reducing in difficulty for each additional region a nation controls.

[Mrdoomed]

I like this. As a pirate i aprove!

#realpirateforlife or a purerat.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Mrdoomed

[akd]

Here-be-Danger is a low level "new" player, generating a mission which some "random" high level enemy player interdicts. Voila initial hostility in safe® waters.

How is this any different than the current state of the game? If you want total safety, not safe® play, go to PvE server for first ranks.

[TheAmerican]

If we want players to concentrate in certain areas for pvp and foght on the front lines, we need to get rid of teleportation between free ports. Territory will mean nothing if we can still hop around he world willy nilly. Let's put some REAL meaning to "friendly" and "enemy" waters?

Edited August 5, 2016 by TheAmerican

[Anolytic]

Capital regions should only be possible to contest after a faction has lost all other regions they own. Or I suspect first thing after this is initiated will be a race to capture each others' capital regions.

[Fenris]

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

link 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).

1. Danger of exploits, like someone said, possibility of capturing the capital, and then? Conquered nation gets few ports back, all of them, becomes Protectorate?

2.If total victory can be achieved, then it should be not allowed to switch nations. Only as last solution, turning to pirates.

3.If positioned on nations borders, then Shipbuilding should be restricted(also mentioned by someone else), and Delieveries are not possible, only the nations who are separated with that Freeport can trade there.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Fenris

[Fenris]

If we want players to concentrate in certain areas for pvp and foght on the front lines, we need to get rid of teleportation between free ports. Territory will mean nothing if we can still hop around he world willy nilly. Let's put some REAL meaning to "friendly" and "enemy" waters?

not a bad idea.

[Mrdoomed]

If we want players to concentrate in certain areas for pvp and foght on the front lines, we need to get rid of teleportation between free ports. Territory will mean nothing if we can still hop around he world willy nilly. Let's put some REAL meaning to "friendly" and "enemy" waters?

There should be a cooldown brought back on teleports not a total ban.

It used to be fun to set up a quick raid to trick 50 guys to waste thier teleport to gank 2 ships then have the real navy to take a port or two.

Used to be real strategy and cunning to gameplay then. Now its just grind easy pve till top rank and teleport between ganks and pbs. ...yawn.

[Anolytic]

There should be a cooldown brought back on teleports not a total ban.

It used to be fun to set up a quick raid to trick 50 guys to waste thier teleport to gank 2 ships then have the real navy to take a port or two.

Used to be real strategy and cunning to gameplay then. Now its just grind easy pve till top rank and teleport between ganks and pbs. ...yawn.

I agree with you about the strategy element. And fighting on two fronts required a lot of planning for a small nation with only one PB fleet. Playing for Danmark-Norway I remember it well. I'm not sure I miss it, but it had it's charm.

 

------

 

Regarding teleportation between freeports, it could be limited or removed. It should be angled a lot more towards teleportation between national ports rather than free ports. With regional conquest slowing down port captures and giving a lot more warning and predictability about which ports may be lost at the frontline, using national ports as a base should become a lot more favourable and using freeports a lot more unfavourable (except for pirates).

[Elric]

Teleports - I like the idea of no teleports. 

 

If we can have multiple officers - with officers being attached to the ship/fleet unless it comes back into a port, and only then being able to change officers when both ships/fleets are in the same port.. 

 

Although wrecks then need to occur within a reasonable distance of where the bottle is found...

Edited August 5, 2016 by ElricTheTwo