Development plans for conquest mechanics (RVR)

[Arctander]

There has to be a balance between slippery slope, and perpetual comeback.  I think that accepting the natural behavior of players to move to "winning" teams has to be understood, and re-sets planned for. I do think however at the very least the a perpetual comeback mechanic, where it is harder to raise hostility in an active port based on outpost and building construction.  This would both be "realistic", that the last vestiges of a nation would be the hardest to route, and would go a long way to both create a perpetual comeback as enemy nations that are spread out too thin, would have ports that could be knocked over with a harsh wind and a musket. But they really do need to plan for how resets will work, even if it is uncommon, because people being what they are, sooner or later it is probably going to be needed.  Better to plan for it an make it part of the game, than have to scramble to sort it all out when suddenly the whole server is a single nation.

 

Agreed 100% - there has to be some where in the middle. Most gamers would rather win easy than lose in a close and hard fought match. So encouraging people to not just join the hoard side is going to be a tough selling point and developers will HAVE to find out some methods to reward players who are the underdogs. I'm not sure what is the best way to do handle it, but something relating to the difficulty of supply and/or maintaining control over a growing area are two ways that many games handle it. Hopefully there is some way to balance it and keep it all interesting and fun.

[Elric]

Is there any intent to change the ships that can compete in port battles?  Currently you see 1st rates for regional capitals, Ingers/connies for deep water ports, and Mortar Brig and smaller for shallow.  Ships like the Bellona/3rd rate rarely get used in PB's - and the same is true of smaller frigates like the Belle Poules, Essex and frigate.

 

By having different upper limits for each port, it forces production of more variety of ships, and limits where ships are stored as only 5 are allowed in each outpost.

 

At the moment you only need a trader, mortar brig, Niagara, Inger/connie and 1st rate in each outpost to cover all PB's.

Edited August 22, 2016 by ElricTheTwo

[KrakkenSmacken]

I suspect that with the changes to the port mechanics (Port attack window opens automatically 48 hrs after hostility trigger), that the rush to the port is going to look a bit like a salmon run with bears (defenders) tagging the ships as they try to make it in.

 

In those circumstances it's very likely that some/many of the big fish are going to get tagged on route, while some/many of the smaller ships heading to the battle will sneak past or be let through.

 

I foresee a glorious chaos as players jockey for position, defenders target the important targets, screen fleets and formations are ran in an effort to form up the best possible final BP ship distribution.

 

I also suspect that the race to the port, and battle for the area around the port, will start several hours before the actual port capture window opens.

 

It's going to be messy and I think rather intense.

Edited August 22, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[themule08]

I really, really like this idea in regard to the trading aspect, at risk of going off topic. It could probably be implemented loosely with the national goods that already exist in the game, and causing multiple types of them to be needed to make certain things, like upgrades, perhaps.

 

Say, to make light canvas, you need: American cotton, Swedish iron (lol, just an example), and French wine (just, use your imagination). So, yeah, to make certain things, you'd actually need materials from different nations, so that going to war with them actually carries some economic penalty.

 

 

I rather like your idea more so than crafting notes!

[themule08]

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?

 

 

I believe they should be able to to help in your battles.. they can join your side fighting, become separatists, or pirate.

 

Those are your options once you get conquered.. join your nation well they are on your side, the separatists can't fight in pbs..and can eventually break off.

[squedage]

I like it, in terms of battle royale system, assuming one does not loose any posessions or outposts or anything, maybe having seasons would be cool.

 

edit: also now everyone knows where secret island is.

dont think the "secret" island was a secret

[squedage]

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. 

 

i would like the see that the nation that has been captured be able to start a rebellion in that area for their capital is for a limited time after it was taken. This would make the larger nation have to defend what it has taken for a set time to see the "population" won over. Also in this time it allows allies of that captured nation a chance to liberate their friend say if that smaller nation was taken when  most of the other players were not on to help defend.

[themule08]

 I've seen the pirates come back from just a single port before smuggling to dominate PvP2 due to perserverance and lack of effective leadership in the enemy factions. With smuggling, all you really NEED is one port to keep going.

 

So fallen capital turns immediately to a "Free Port" on capture.

 

Nation gets new Capital in a previously "Free Port" in another area of the map, selected by vote by the defeated nation prior to losing the capital, votes start when last non-capital port falls. 

 

This port stays "Free" for one week and serves double duty as the nations capital for new players, and free port while other players scramble to remove assets. This can be used as a base to try to secure towns around it.

 

Since Free ports can't have resource buildings, the things at risk to other players already set up in the free port is outposts and ship yards.  If it's a shipyard, well that was a choice as you could easily shipyard in your capital, and the lost shipyards could be converted to $$$ the same way that they did for the server merge.

 

That said, I still prefer an uncommon but possible win condition scenario, but with a whole nation moving to the other side of the map from where they were just pushed out of would definitely mix the pot and change the dynamic of the game in a big way.

 

Problem with "go rogue and become a pirate till the reset" being the only option after conquest is that eventually the pirates will red-rover the whole map.

 

I don't agree with all your ideas..but you are on to something with this post and the other large one earlier in the thread.  I like your idea of US-Pirate... Be an easy way if you do get captured you could go that way.

 

But you could not have that idea, and also the one you just pitched which I like a lot as well.  The idea of your nation being re-established in a free port is a great idea.  What would happen to the resources you had though in port.  I guess they would be destroyed in a large fire.

 

My reason that you can't have the two is fairly simple.. Either you can roll into your other "nation" or join the conquering nation.  OR you as a whole nation have to restart..if not then 50% might leave, and 50% might stay.. you need 100% to make a comeback.

 

 

Like to hear what you think of the above..maybe I am wrong and you thought of something else to combat this issue.  Always enjoy reading your suggestions..even if I don't agree with all of them, nice to have active people looking to improve the game for the future.

[KrakkenSmacken]

I don't agree with all your ideas..but you are on to something with this post and the other large one earlier in the thread.  I like your idea of US-Pirate... Be an easy way if you do get captured you could go that way.

 

But you could not have that idea, and also the one you just pitched which I like a lot as well.  The idea of your nation being re-established in a free port is a great idea.  What would happen to the resources you had though in port.  I guess they would be destroyed in a large fire.

 

My reason that you can't have the two is fairly simple.. Either you can roll into your other "nation" or join the conquering nation.  OR you as a whole nation have to restart..if not then 50% might leave, and 50% might stay.. you need 100% to make a comeback.

 

 

Like to hear what you think of the above..maybe I am wrong and you thought of something else to combat this issue.  Always enjoy reading your suggestions..even if I don't agree with all of them, nice to have active people looking to improve the game for the future.

 

 

I'm not married to any one idea I may have.  I toss out many ideas, some that would not work with each other, but I think are worth considering depending on the circumstances.

 

In this case, my first preference is for the original, Birth-Allegiance, character relationship. It think it offer's the most opportunity for groups and clans to hold together, even without a "natural" nation state, and stay together through server wipes.

 

The second creates a perpetual comeback mechanic that could potentially avoid the need for server wipes, but I consider that more fraught with peril.  The peril being that there is no viable location for the state without a capital to travel to, that will not result in an almost immediate repeat of the same situation.  That said, with total mobility on the map, it may be ideal and cause exactly the type of regional control mix up required to wobble the top nation enough for others to make a bid for it.

 

They are not entirely mutually exclusive, but they are certainly not the most compatible of models to work side by side.

Edited August 23, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Marques]

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 don't like the idea of ​​ TOTALvictory / loss. It is not historical at all. I said yes to the maritime areas,  I like this idea that capital can be attacked and even eliminated or conquered. That's good and historical too. (Havana, for example)

But the totally defeat nations should be not implemented. If you do, the strongest will go all against one, this will make the game worse or fail. The game is pretty good right now, and improvements should be related to avoiding excessive port battles but especially improving other aspects such as cities fortifications, captains boats in the ships, crew on board, new visual boarding system, different fishing methods(whales), more graffics environment, lighthouses on coast, further exploration, land conquest, etc, etc etc. (Devs, please...you still has much work to do) However, if you focus only game-changes in the dynamics of battle you are going to ruin the game. 

Please don't change this, because, neither in history, never a country completely defeat the others. Be Respect with history and will have a good game. I think you want to change some mechanics, but do not want to improve other issues. Focus as well in the other aspect of the game, there are very important.  Remember, nobody like to play with my enemies by force, as a mercenary, so I'll leave the game if finally results a game for two players. One country againts eachother ?... American vs British ? .... is such ridicolous !! ! NO thank you !

Edited August 26, 2016 by Marques

[Septimius Severus]

I do t think it matters whether total victory will happen or not because I doubt it would. The fact is that they would get over extended or a coalition of nation would reduce them to what they were. I think also that the capitals should be unconqerable (in other words, I think its fine the way it is).

What happened in pvp 2 at least was that countries that were dong poorly ie 1 city left would get a few back as a base because the whole server would come together and organize some sort of an agreement to give them back some towns.

Also with the new alliance mechanic it think it will become less likely that a country is comoletely defested in this way.

[Todbringer]

Maybe something similar Vichy France status combined with Europa universalis conquest rules? Defeated nation would get most of it's ports back (but not all) but it would be in some kind of forced neutrality for a certain amount of time. Winning nation would get a reward and get to keep part of the captured ports. losing nation would get some time to rebuild and enter game again, but a bit weaker.

 

It might lead to a death spiral but it also might be a chance for a losing nation to, with rebuilding, more organization, more experience etc to find allies and weaken or defeat the previously winning nation.

[KrakkenSmacken]

I do t think it matters whether total victory will happen or not because I doubt it would. The fact is that they would get over extended or a coalition of nation would reduce them to what they were. I think also that the capitals should be unconqerable (in other words, I think its fine the way it is).

What happened in pvp 2 at least was that countries that were dong poorly ie 1 city left would get a few back as a base because the whole server would come together and organize some sort of an agreement to give them back some towns.

Also with the new alliance mechanic it think it will become less likely that a country is comoletely defested in this way.

 

I think you are very wrong about this assumption.

 

Right now there is no way to eliminate a nation, so there is no effort put into eliminating a nation.  I've been down to Mort as a pirate, that I KNOW if it was possible for us to have been wiped out, we would have been.

 

The back and forth is forced on both sides, with no relief.  Eventually something always happens to tip the scales back for a nation to make a comeback, but often that something is unhealthy for the game.  

For example the top team players get bored of hammering newbs at the capital, have no other real enemies and leave the game.

 

In the case of pirates when pushed to just the capital, many players gave up and quit, leaving an interest vacuum for the other team, and so they moved on. New players joined the pirates and pushed the nation and revitalize it to where we are now, with a solid back/forth between Pirates/US/UK, but those old players are gone or switched servers.

 

Bottom line, a good game developer thinks just as hard, actually harder, about how the losing experience is and feels, and tries to make it as palatable as possible. They also give incentive to continue to fight against losing odds.  Trust me, I used to write gambling software for a living where the absolute truth is that you are going to lose more than you win consistently. Far more time is spent on programming the losing experience than the winning, because you lose more players when they are losing than when they are winning.

Edited August 26, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Linguine Mike]

 

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. 

 

I see problems with this.  Players develop an 'affinity' to their nation of choice.  Smaller nations will, probably, never have the manpower to "win" the game outright. 

 

Frustration may lead to either players just leaving the game ... bad ... or jumping to a larger nation far a chance to be on a "winning" side, making the situation even worse for the smaller nations.

 

I love this game and the PVP, but am not into the scenario you have just announced.

[Skully]

I see problems with this.  Players develop an 'affinity' to their nation of choice.  Smaller nations will, probably, never have the manpower to "win" the game outright.

This is true. But we have seen cases where treaties were formed to protect a Nation.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15548-the-three-admirals-treaty-pvp1/

So players as a community can control the destiny.

On the other hand we have seen players steamroll a Nation.

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

The death choke needs to be resolved, but in a subtle way.

A Pirate nation is balanced asymmetrically. But you do have a valid point that players do not want to be drawn involuntarily into that asymmetrical setup. This I agree is unacceptable.

Frustration may lead to either players just leaving the game ... bad ... or jumping to a larger nation far a chance to be on a "winning" side, making the situation even worse for the smaller nations.

 

I love this game and the PVP, but am not into the scenario you have just announced.

So instead of trying to uphold the death choke and see players leave the game, the mechanic does the exact opposite.

It pulls the losing players into the winning team. But this does not make them lose their identity! They are foremost players who want to play their Nation.

So they can now build up strength within the other Nation. Maybe become Independents at some point.

Seek out (or create) new lands to conquer.

I want to revisit this, because both holding land and raiding should be playstyles allowed within Independents/Pirates.

If we define the farmer (/ building owner) as part of the Town Council, then we have effectively closed the loop towards the Road of Independence.

Hethwill can join the raid after which the town becomes an independent town and anybody can put up a building to assert control. A Nation could even lose the raid, but by rebuilding the town reacquire it. Or Independents can take control and reinstate their precious Capital they lost earlier.

I see a story that can move on for all parties involved.

And finally liberating themselves again.

It needs some rework, because you actually need to be able to control at least 2 Regions. One for your Capital Region, one for initial hostility to start against your newly founded Nation.

There is my full view of the Road to Independence.

With that it closes the loop of the perpetual aspects of the game. A season could last forever if we choose to do so, or it could end. (All depending on what the majority of players will actually do, instead of click. )

The destiny of our universe should lie in the hands of all players.

[Mrdoomed]

I see problems with this. Players develop an 'affinity' to their nation of choice. Smaller nations will, probably, never have the manpower to "win" the game outright.

Frustration may lead to either players just leaving the game ... bad ... or jumping to a larger nation far a chance to be on a "winning" side, making the situation even worse for the smaller nations.

I love this game and the PVP, but am not into the scenario you have just announced.

Im with you. I choose a nation depending on how i feel at the time or what my schedule fits with best and then i give my all for that faction and take on whatever role is for me.

If the faction i like was conquered by another i would never willingly support or help that faction and in fact i would do anything in my power to work against it. Problem is that in NA i cant really sabotage or hinder my conquerer like most conquered people did.

I would probably only log in to craft and sell ships to the enemy of my new owners. There should be some mechanic to allow for rebellion or sabatage.

[Skully]

There should be some mechanic to allow for rebellion or sabatage.

Likewise a mechanic to deal with saboteurs. Court martial them and brand them an Outlaw.

[Mrdoomed]

Likewise a mechanic to deal with saboteurs. Court martial them and brand them an Outlaw.

Indeed.

[KrakkenSmacken]

Im with you. I choose a nation depending on how i feel at the time or what my schedule fits with best and then i give my all for that faction and take on whatever role is for me.

If the faction i like was conquered by another i would never willingly support or help that faction and in fact i would do anything in my power to work against it. Problem is that in NA i cant really sabotage or hinder my conquerer like most conquered people did.

I would probably only log in to craft and sell ships to the enemy of my new owners. There should be some mechanic to allow for rebellion or sabatage.

 

Exactly why I posted this possible variance method a few weeks ago.

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15638-development-plans-for-conquest-mechanics-rvr/?p=294381

[Skully]

Exactly why I posted this possible variance method a few weeks ago.

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15638-development-plans-for-conquest-mechanics-rvr/?p=294381

The beauty of the Road to Independence is that a player doesn't have to make a choice right away. And since we have moved on since your initial post I can now close the loop with a later reply.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15638-development-plans-for-conquest-mechanics-rvr/?p=303850

Players will not be forced to make a decision on the spot, but can have as much time as they want or need to build up to a decision.

As for National Identity or birth identity leading to birth rights, well... lets just say historically very accurate.

Gameplay wise a killer. It's a completely uninformed choice you make as you start the game, which you could never change again.

Should you, for whatever personal reason, believe you made the wrong choice, only one option remains, quit playing.

So true affinity should be a meta-concept that is not modeled in the game. The less you model in a sandbox, the bigger the chance of getting things correct. (Picture LEGO.)

How do you find out true affinity of a player? Observe his actions, watch his moves and if his affinity doesn't match, then mark him a saboteur.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Skully

[angriff]

 

 

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.

 

This is a non-starter for me.  I only play one faction.  I have since the beginning.  I don't have three Steam Accounts for three alternate personnas in other factions.   I have played with both smuggler and no smuggler flag timeframes.   I have still never changed factions.   If you let my port capital be captured then I have no means for flying my faction flag or creating my faction ships?  I suppose my Naval Action days are numbered.

 

Put in mechanics that attract players into action not mechanics that force players to be near one another.  The mission thing has to be something that will make new players not play anymore.

Edited August 28, 2016 by angriff

[KrakkenSmacken]

Gameplay wise a killer. It's a completely uninformed choice you make as you start the game, which you could never change again.

Should you, for whatever personal reason, believe you made the wrong choice, only one option remains, quit playing.

 

 

 

This part is true enough, so some sort of limit would be acceptable.  

 

Say for example you have 14 days from entrance into a campaign world to make the switch, once.  Then you get to have an informed decision, and one chance to switch, without the ability to flip flop or suddenly join the winning side at the last minute (unless you happen to join at the last minute).

 

It's at least better than the current model of complete character wipe and restart from an assets point of view that is currently in play.

 

I would also let you change nations during a map reset, so you if you feel you picked the wrong team the last game, switch to a new team for the next.  Natural attrition and joining, as well as the number of nations, should reduce the impact of Zerg joiners to the winning team.  That would be a wait and see sort of thing.

[Skully]

This part is true enough, so some sort of limit would be acceptable.  

 

Say for example you have 14 days from entrance into a campaign world to make the switch, once.  Then you get to have an informed decision, and one chance to switch, without the ability to flip flop or suddenly join the winning side at the last minute (unless you happen to join at the last minute).

I was talking about identity not "being a National".

I think the path to any Nation should remain open at any stage of the Season. How hard it is to take the path is left undetermined for now.

For Pirates the path was easy for example, just attack your own Nation.

 

It's at least better than the current model of complete character wipe and restart from an assets point of view that is currently in play.

The path to any Nation is still open in that regard and you do not lose any assets, just BPs. It lies outside of the game, if you would call it that.

 

I would also let you change nations during a map reset, so you if you feel you picked the wrong team the last game, switch to a new team for the next.  Natural attrition and joining, as well as the number of nations, should reduce the impact of Zerg joiners to the winning team.  That would be a wait and see sort of thing.

Picture the options a player has as the Zerg approaches. I see them as:

• Fight
• Wait
• Quit

Fighting will only be done by the final hard core of a Faction.

As for waiting.

A player waiting [...], is a player not providing content.

And both waiting or a straight decision leads into quiting. The worst outcome in my opinion.

But what if the Zerg approaches and you have two other options:

• Join the Zerg
• Go Independent, start somewhere else on the map

What does the story then look like?

A week ago AUSEZ clan decided to go down with the Black Plague. We would go Pirate, live the life and see if we could take on Truxillo.

[...]

So at the end, the game should give players options, not limitations. And then it only becomes a matter of "are you unwilling or incapable of playing the game?"

Don't be daft Snoggy.

We always have, and always will respect our allies including SORRY. But do not belittle the Free Empire of AUSFC.

And finally what happened to the Zerg?

AUSFC fell, which is a huge contingent of the Pirate part of the Free Empire.

Now AUSFC is back at waiting with attrition taking place.

Why?

Going for Morro Chico

With battles raging everywhere, the British finally managed to regroup at Ruatan for an assault on Morro Chico.

Sailing away with 10 Constitutions, a Bellona, two Frigates, an Ingermanland and an Essex, the British were confident of a success.

Constant harassment by one Pirate Constitution, two Pirate Renommees and a Rattlesnake did little to stop the British fleet from moving onward. Until a Pirate Pavel and Spanish Constitution appeared from Morro Chico, diving straight into the British fleet.

Against superior numbers AUSFC has a distinct tactic. But as other players started to abuse it via Basic Cutters (again) there was no other option but to disable it.

1. the BR limit return is getting live tomorrow - it will stop light ships intercepting heavy fleets

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/15067-no-tribunal-cheatersexploiters-players/?p=279448

It was fun while the BR limit rule was off and I think it needs to be revisited. (Pegan Pete will likely agree to that one. )

With the limited numbers in given time zones it is impossible to form up for a true Port Battle defense.

But by now the Pirates had woken up and with two ports under attack there was no other option than to sail out two ships, an Ingermanland and a Trincomalee.

[...]

Unfamiliar with the ferocious tactics of AUSFC, the US seriously underestimated their opposition. This cost them many ships in the process.

So once again, options is what we need. The story must continue!

[Quarios]

One thing to consider, with the map wipe + the new hostility system which is limited to global 10 PBs a day (stated in the other thread). This will make the low pop nations even weaker. The high pop nations can spread much faster.

 

In the time France puts one Neutral port into Hostility, Britain will have 3 already. In the worst case the high pop nations might even block the little nations from taking ports at all. i.e. Aussie sqds filling the 10 slots before europa even wakes up, depending on how fast you can raise those hostility levels.

 

On the other hand if you would make those limit let's say 3/day/nation, you might actually encourage people to even out the nations.

[KrakkenSmacken]

One thing to consider, with the map wipe + the new hostility system which is limited to global 10 PBs a day (stated in the other thread). This will make the low pop nations even weaker. The high pop nations can spread much faster.

 

In the time France puts one Neutral port into Hostility, Britain will have 3 already. In the worst case the high pop nations might even block the little nations from taking ports at all. i.e. Aussie sqds filling the 10 slots before europa even wakes up, depending on how fast you can raise those hostility levels.

 

On the other hand if you would make those limit let's say 3/day/nation, you might actually encourage people to even out the nations.

 

I think you may be missing the fact that the cap of 10 per day could only be met if all nations trigger a hostile port take over on the same day.  There is also a 48 hour lag between hostility trigger and the port battles.

 

The odds of there being a day with all 10 nations triggering hostile port battles in the same day, is I suspect, rather small, especially since to trigger one, you need to be engaging the enemy actively.  Having all nations fighting a two front war at the same time seems... difficult to imagine.

 

I would also argue that high pop nations will not spread faster.  On PvP 2 I just watched the pirates sweep the Florida coast area (>15 ports) in the period of a week, only to be pushed back those same 15+ ports a week later.  That was at the least 2 ports every 24 hours. In the new model the best the most aggressive and populous nation will be able to take in a week is 3 ports, due to the one port at a time and 48 hour port battle trigger.

 

We are going to be playing the RvR game over the course of months/years, instead of the current days/weeks model.

 

It is to be seen if this will be too slow for people to feel a sense of accomplishment.

Edited August 29, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken