Anolytic Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 (edited) Free ports: So long as each region has a free port, I don't see the need to move them. It would be fair to move Vieques, which is right on top of the Danish Capital, while everyone else has some distance to their closest freeport. watching the map reset every time a small country like Denmark or Sweden got pushed back to their capital would be exceptionally frustrating Thanks for the vote of confidence! And right back at you, I don't want to be reset every time the US is pushed back to their capital. Having played for Denmark-Norway and against Sweden a lot, I am quite confident that with the new regional conquest system neither of us will be easy to press in our capital region. We've pushed Sweden to their capital quite a few times in the past, but I doubt that this will be possible with the new mechanics. Not only this, but I have no idea how this would even work with outposts, resources, etc... The only way I could possibly see this working would be to do a full server wipe of ships, resources, blue prints, port ownership, etc... Also, to be frank, the economy is really stagnant and boring. This would make it even less fun to handle economy, as it'd likely break a more dynamic economy system. About reset: My guess is that when they reset the map to implement the new conquest mechanics and diplomacy, we will loose all our outposts, while all the stuff and ships we had in all our outposts will be given to us as redeemables, quite like how it is when they merge servers. If they introduce total victories and map resets I believe each map reset will be done the same way. The objective should be making it harder to wipe a country off the map, not easier. I completely agree on this. Edited August 7, 2016 by Anolytic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVolks Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 People talking about resets seem to have grasped the wrong end of the stick. A reset wouldn't occur after ONE nation was defeated. It would only occur once their was a single nation victor. Smaller "defeated nations" would still exist but be forced into an alliance (for an unknown time) with the nation that conquered them. So resets would be very rare assuming alliances kept balancing each other out, and no nation would ever "disappear". unless I too have grasped it wrongly? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 People talking about resets seem to have grasped the wrong end of the stick. A reset wouldn't occur after ONE nation was defeated. It would only occur once their was a single nation victor. Smaller "defeated nations" would still exist but be forced into an alliance (for an unknown time) with the nation that conquered them. So resets would be very rare assuming alliances kept balancing each other out, and no nation would ever "disappear". unless I too have grasped it wrongly? Well i suppose you can imagine how a conquered nation would be willing to fight for an enemy(former) which conquered the whole country......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVolks Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 Well i suppose you can imagine how a conquered nation would be willing to fight for an enemy(former) which conquered the whole country......... who says they have to fight for them? It just means they can no longer attack them for the time being (plus can use their ports). then wait for your forced alliance to "time out" and seek revenge! (if you want) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne Wildcat Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 Or make their lives a nightmare while you are allied. Sounds fun for the conquered nation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anolytic Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 This issue could be remedied simply by introducing a neutrality option being exactly the same as the proposed alliance, except you cannot join each others port battles and neutrality cannot be voted for (to avoid everyone being neutral to each other and can only be applied through one nation 'defeating' another. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVolks Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 Think of it this way, as the people above said. Napoleon "conquered" Spain, but they weren't exactly a massive help. Yes he got the ships, but they weren't exactly begging to fight the RN, and Spain itself was full of partisans that tied down large French armies. Thats how i see it going in NA. Yes if you actually conquer a nation , well done.... But dont think anyone is going to be happy about it, least of the all the conquered nation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z4ys Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 (edited) I have to admit, that I like the actual endless map with no reset. Where empires rise and fall. We should keep in mind that politics are made in europe and not in the west Indies (except US). Therefore total destruction of a nation dont make sense to me. Such a nation would send reinforcments to the west indies, buy peace or a new island from an other nation that has less interest in this island. To simulate this captitals shouldn't be capturable. I also suggest that nations that are reduced to one port can buy all carfting materies for a cheap price in there captial to rebuild (simulate reinforcements from europe). The main reason to do port battles shoudnt be to wipe out a nation. Instead we should have a struggle for resources. WIth the introduction of regions some crafting mats should become only accessible in certain regions. That would give trading+ trade war + smuggling and conquest a purpose. Edited August 7, 2016 by z4ys 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrdoomed Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 So you prefer bs gamey 'tactics' and unopposed port battles over what we have now? God forbid you have to think right lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratline Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 While I'm looking forward to mot of the proposed changes I am not a fan of map resets. Take PvP1 for example; with map resets we would have missed out on so much drama and politics... the collapse of the Spanish and subsequent revival, same with the Americans. The taking of Jamaica and the fight to reclaim it. With map resets we lose the essential to and fro which actually makes strategic warfare interesting. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratline Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 God forbid you have to think right lol. Got nothing against gameplay which requires thought, but a lot against the kind of bullshit gamey crap that we had with the old system. If you prefer gaming a system in that way over having something vaguely believable in terms of how the overarching game mechanics work that's your business, ain't gonna convince me it's good though no matter how much you sneer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomms123 Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 If capitals should be capturable the players of that nation which got their capital conquered shall have 2 choices. They can either side with the enemy and go long with them or they can chose to keep the fight going but they will then be viewed as a new nation but still allied to their former allies. So let say Sweden gets conquered by the Danes, Sweden is allied with the Dutch. Some players chose to stay and side with the Danes. Some other decides we will never side with the Danes we will keep fighting them but we will do so out of the Dutch ports and when the time is right take back the capital to restore it to swedish hands. So Sweden will exist in two ways, those which collaberate and those which keep fighting but out of their allies ports. To break down on it even further. You got two choices, you can side with the enemy IF the capital is taken or you can keep going but in a new nation name but still that nation. Also a capital can only be taken if the capital is the only held port left. (which if you had read is even stated in Admins post) If you want a interesting game the map reset would not be a thing unless it's absolutley required. What that is well if there is no enemys left to fight how fun is the fights ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratline Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 If you want a interesting game the map reset would not be a thing unless it's absolutley required. What that is well if there is no enemys left to fight how fun is the fights ? I think so far we've seen that this simply does not happen. Even nations reduced to one port make comebacks but they need to play the political game and rebuild. Player alliances never really hold long term, power blocs always break up, there is always infighting and pressure to go in different directions. I think each nation (and pirates) having a handful of 'safe' ports which cannot be capped is not a bad idea, from there we fight and build and players have a small amount of asset security, if for instance they take a break or are more casual in playtime. To me map resets reinforce the artificial gamey side of NA rather than helping build a believable persistent game world. Some people will prefer that, same as some prefer gamey teleport bluffs, defensive tagging and exploiting timers/battlescreens or whatever. Not for me though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVolks Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 There have always been three basic political position in every war: Enemy, allied and neutral. Its a nonsense that in a war game with politics involved neutrality is not implemented. Surely currently that's what we have? And the patch means you can have official allies, and official war. So if you arent one of those two states you are basically a neutral. We dont have Swiss style "neutral nations" but I guess you can the Freeports that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAmerican Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 The main reason to do port battles shoudnt be to wipe out a nation. Instead we should have a struggle for resources. WIth the introduction of regions some crafting mats should become only accessible in certain regions. That would give trading+ trade war + smuggling and conquest a purpose. Yes! We need to put REAL meaning behind trade, recourses, and econ!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniboy3000 Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 who says they have to fight for them? It just means they can no longer attack them for the time being (plus can use their ports). then wait for your forced alliance to "time out" and seek revenge! (if you want) thing is, hey we got completely destroyed by this nation, now were allied to them and we can join their PBs. Lets just enter all of their PBs with 25 of the smallest allowed ships and ruin everything. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 (edited) thing is, hey we got completely destroyed by this nation, now were allied to them and we can join their PBs. Lets just enter all of their PBs with 25 of the smallest allowed ships and ruin everything.Court martial their asses. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15705-official-announcements-of-the-dutch-nation-high-council/?p=293442 http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15655-national-and-clan-edicts/ They would have to become much smarter saboteurs. Edited August 7, 2016 by Skully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVolks Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 Also u need to earn "PB Commendations" which you can only do by aiding the assault. So that plan isnt as easy as it sounds.... but sabotage is certainly an option.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z4ys Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 You still could buy cheap ships and let you sink^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastidius Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 I'd be wary about capture nations auto alliance.....I'd change that to NON hostile and unable to help in PBs. They can screen for you not hinder you nor attack for you. Just to stop griefing rogues etc If you capture a regional capital that means the other ports are capped also? or does that mean the region has multiple targets which you have to beat before you flip a region. How exactly do the regions flip or not flip in contest with deadlines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulwyf Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 That means that for a period of time, the conquering (and conquered) nation's ships wouldn't be able to attack each other. So effectively, an Alliance (see the Alliances system thread) would be auto-declared, making the ships of those two countries unable to attack each other without turning pirate. If this was the case you would only be able to operate from free ports assuming you had any bases there? Or after the expiry of the no fighting part be able to attack your conqueror's from ports they now owned since you would have none of your own? All in all I think this will see smaller nations crushed early, and players leave the game in droves. Appalling doesn't seem adequate to describe these ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeheil Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 This looks very interesting indeed. Please consider the round globe. so when the top 10 (or whatever the number is) of ports 'get aggitated' to the point of being capturable if you still end up having a 'decisive' port battle, then ensure all players have ports they can participate in. So based on player load profile, spread the 10 ports out across the timezones (perhaps in 4 6 hour blocks or 3 8 hours). so 5 Ports up in main block (based on player base), 3 in next, 2 in the other or some such. Otherwise, those of us not living on the 'meridian' will be left with little more than port aggitation and never see the wonders of a port battle. Or even better, have a 3 or 4 port battles per port in 3 or 4 different timezones with the winner being decided by a weighted aggregate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeheil Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 A couple of other things. Clarification : If we capture a region, how ? with one port battle or a series ? We still want I think the diversity of Regional, Deep and Shallow as this lets different players participate. Would there be a bonus (cheaper mats, labour hours) to holding a region ? Rewards : Make seasonal rewards cosmetic...a pennant or figurehead or some such. Total Annihilation. I like the idea a defeated nation is now operating out of a freeport and would need an alliance (of their choosing) to be able to craft etc. rather than be forced to join their conquerors. Although the later is more realistic...it is also something that might folks just stop till the next season. Maybe they can simply choose who their ally is (and as a 'capitol'-less nation they don't count to the number of alliances that nation has). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVolks Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 Where are people getting the "no ports" idea from. If your nation loses totally, then you are auto-allied to the conqueror power. So therefore you can use all their ports too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAmerican Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 Where are people getting the "no ports" idea from. If your nation loses totally, then you are auto-allied to the conqueror power. So therefore you can use all their ports too... Yeah exactly. Let's not forget half the patch guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts