Preliminary discussion of the changes to conquest - clan wars are coming

[Corona Lisa]

5 minutes ago, koltes said:

This can be achieved by concentrating resources. As player base expends, more resources might be added making other regions valuable 

Thats what they are also doing (moving valueable ressources in the middle). So why keep worthless regions captureable? They are probably just empty portbattles which means its boring and waste of time.

[admin]

17 minutes ago, koltes said:

There are 362 ports on the map. Making 125 capturable and the rest 237 non is a waste. Its like making 2/3 of the EVE space safe.
There is absolutely no need to make non-capturable land so huge

PvP EU: Players who won at least one port battle since wipe 612
PvP US: Players who won at least one port battle since wipe: 428. 

Total players logged in at least once during last two weeks on all servers is around 11000.

[Busterbloodvessel]

4 minutes ago, admin said:

PvP EU: Players who won at least one port battle since wipe 612
PvP US: Players who won at least one port battle since wipe: 428. 

Total players logged in at least once during last two weeks on all servers is around 11000.

... and of the 11000, how many were alts and how many new players ....????

(stats) Buster 

 

[Koltes]

12 minutes ago, admin said:

PvP EU: Players who won at least one port battle since wipe 612
PvP US: Players who won at least one port battle since wipe: 428. 

Total players logged in at least once during last two weeks on all servers is around 11000.

For players which does not participate in RvR the ports themselves are not a content. They just need some to do whatever they doing.
But the players who play in RvR, the quantity of ports is the actual content. If there will be lack of it directly reduces content for these players.
Also lots of players does not participate in PBs because there is only 25 allowed per side, not because they dont want to. But they still do participate in PB activities such as grinding and screening

Edited August 4, 2017 by koltes

[admin]

2 minutes ago, Busterbloodvessel said:

... and of the 11000, how many were alts and how many new players ....????

(stats) Buster 

 

lol.
This is just alt paranoia. A huge majority of new players buy this game "because ships" and don't really care about alts or rvr. 
War companies will eliminate alts from your conquest. 
 

[Hethwill]

The old adage "stick to the capital" must be broken if the protected coastline is to be used.

I do suggest that upon creation of character ( this means turning all possessions of old accounts into redeemables ) the players can select their starting port instead of being forced to the capital, from a list of 3 to 5 possible ports.

More, and this will probably be met with resistance by some but, in all the Protected coastline

- allowance of shipyard, 1 per region capital.

- allowance of Workshop, 1 per region capital

- no other production buildings. Return to player contracts.

But in the unProtected middle

- Company controlled ports can be used for production buildings, with the present limit of 5 per player.

- Grants shall be issued by the Company officers to Nationals ( land permit item soulbound to player upon crafting )  -or- automatically granted to all Nation players.

 

 

[Corona Lisa]

2 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

What will be the benefits of being in "low-sec" hardcore zone?

1. We need all rare resources there (sorry, but sailing 4-6 hours for Bermuda Logs, Live Oak, Teak, White Oak is just pain in the ass.

2. We need special events in low sec, so it's worth sailing around. Not just a single one, but a couple of them. 

3. More income and risk from trade & PvP

As they say - no risk, no gain. 

We need a place where PvP players can expect PvP instead of sending them to the capital to gank noobs as only option.

Maybe something like the PvP-event we had just without the circle. A highly contested area in the middle of the map where every player wants to go and fight (maybe higher rewards in this area, maybe leaderboards?).

 

To make it even more competitive and decrease the ganking and zerging you could add a maximum player restriction so its maximum 5vs5 in that area, but I guess thats against the sandbox aspect.

[Mamen]

As for building upgrades in this new scenario I suggest to allow buy crucial and rare materials for perm upgrades/refits only through manual buy (not placed contract). That will encourage people to travel and search ports with traders... in other case best upgrades will be exclusive for certain nation only

Edited August 4, 2017 by Mamen

[Christoph]

We  need the tow request back .

I think the most  people have not the time for 2 hours sailing

[Corona Lisa]

2 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

That's trying to turn sandbox OW game into arena, why not just a 5v5 room? No need to sail 1h and look for enemies which will run probably.

You are right. So maybe instead give players in battles with lower BR better rewards and big zergs ganking small groups smaller rewards?

[admin]

10 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Do we have any solution for fake flag spam, though? Let's say player needs to form a battle group, get at least like 15 players in group and all of them must pay for example "entry-fee" 100k and then flag is active. These players cannot go into other PB until flag is inactive.

We will provide the tax collected info on the port card. And can make flag cost to depend on weekly taxes collected.
In this case lets say you see that 3 flags are created for your ports.

1. Flag 1 - port earns 10,000 per week in taxes
2. Flag 2 - port earns 5,000 per week in taxes
3. Flag 3 - port earns 50,000,000 per week in taxes

Which port flag you will react to? And which you will ignore?

[Luc]

2 hours ago, Zoky said:

What about pirates? Any changes there?

+1

or please - tell us it won't happen - so I can stop waiting desperately 

[admin]

Just now, Peter Goldman said:

It's not a solution for spamming flags. You think 50m port will be the main target, but it will be easier to capture 10k and 5k. 50m port will be just a diversion. 

why a sensible money oriented leader will defend useless ports that earn less than 2 basic cutter missions. 

[admin]

3 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

So what's the point in the first place of attacking/owning port that gives an income of 5-10k per week? Where's the logic? That comparison/example was invalid from the very start. 

Thats exactly what i am asking - where is the logic in trying to find solutions for fake flags. 
Taxation and port income make conquest finally meaningful from the monetary perspective, and will make combat for unimportant ports meaningless. 

Even if 5000 fake flags are created why would a clan waste resources and risk ships for useless ports? They will only respond to important ports and defend them. 

[qw569😳]

On 8/2/2017 at 4:57 PM, admin said:

• • Port royal and havana will still remain secondary capitals but the spawns of new players Might be moved to 
    • Sisal
    • Bridgetown or Belize 
  • Pirate republic capital might move to Nassau (with a secondary capture able capital in Mortimer)

 

Sisal, Bridgetown and Belize are deep water ports. Nassau is shallow water port.

So in capital pirates will have no any 5-1 rates.  Is it mistake or by design

[admin]

5 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

My example:

The Company has 3 regions that earn 50m per week. Other company buys 3 flags but is willing to contest only one. This will lead to sailing for 1 hour looking for a fake flag, empty port battles, trying to chase a traders lynx for 1 hour with flag etc. We all had it with flags before. Before adding flags back, ask players what they hated in flag system, to eliminate it in advance before we get to the same problems that we had already.

Flags is a lesser evil compared to the hostility grind. In reality you would not even get a warning. Enemy would just sail and capture. Flags being placed for 30 mins (similar to potbs just standing with pvp flag near port, or eve shooting a structure) would allow you to sink it if you are stronger. 

flags were hated not because of fake flags, but because you could use them to BLOCK conquest
 

[Sea Fox]

32 minutes ago, admin said:

lol.
This is just alt paranoia. A huge majority of new players buy this game "because ships" and don't really care about alts or rvr. 
War companies will eliminate alts from your conquest. 
 

Then why are you full steam ahead with RVR mechanics!?? The further you drift away from solo/sandbox type game the less appealung. Find a balance. Make game appealing to solo players and RVR players. It's possible, you've came so close in the past. People don't like their entire future progress and enjoyment to be in the hands of others. Sailing games are about freedom and individual triumph. I understand RVR and the appeal but don't shut out Solo's we make up more of the population than you give us credit for.

[Hethwill]

@Peter Goldman I think that's where the Battle Group idea comes in, maybe ? With minimum composition, for example. And Flag being carried by the Admiral of the Fleet ?  

Why not the assembly of a Battle Group ( technically a flag in itself ) should not be done with war supplies ?

They are going to war. They need those supplies.

Summing. Battle Groups ARE the flags. Battle groups cost War Supplies to assemble. 

[Vernon Merrill]

32 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

Do we have any solution for fake flag spam, though? Let's say player needs to form a battle group, get at least like 15 players in group and all of them must pay for example "entry-fee" 100k and then flag is active. These players cannot go into other PB until flag is inactive.

yes...  make flags cost like 25 mil...  capturing a port is supposedly a MAJOR undertaking...  fitting out of ships and transporting soldiers is not cheap.

[Liq]

On 2.8.2017 at 3:57 PM, admin said:

Reinforcements in coastal ports will come back to game (as fleets no longer give xp)

• to those who don't remember this is how they worked
  • If BR of enemy was higher than yours if you were attacked near your national port, the port would send you the support equal to the difference between your BR and enemy BR.
  • For example - if you were in a surprise and were attacked by two surprises port would send you 1 surprise to support you in battle (which you could command)

 

So basically you want to reduce the silly 5v1 ganks close to a national port, which is fine with me. I dislike fights where one side has 5x the BR and is going to win most likely. So I like the idea. 

But why do we have to rely on AI? I Think we all know that AI in this game are not the smartest and very easily counterable. Also, only as much reinforcement until BR is matched doesnt seem enough. 5 surprises will still wreck a brig, even if it gets 5 npc surps backup.

Solution:

Why not let battles where the side being attacked and close to a national port in his nations waters be open to join for actual players, until the total BR reached 1.25 - 1.5 times the BR of the attackers? This should help a lot more, as you are trying to prevent those 5v1 ganks outside another nations port. I donz really like the idea of having to rely on AI to save you .

Maybe make it so you have the choice. One or two minutes time to call for AI reinforcement, and if you dont do thaf during the time, the battle will stay open for players to join your side until the BR factor (1.25 - 1.5x the BR of attackers) is reached.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Liquicity

[admin]

1 minute ago, Sea Fox said:

 It's possible, you've came so close in the past. 

It is a perceived feeling which was caused by higher online numbers. The bad stones on the riverbed were just invisible because water level was much higher. Everything was 10x fun because there were 2500 players online (and another 500 in the queue). 

Now when online is lower some systems start to break down and uncover problems. 

[Hethwill]

Not money. War Supplies. You already have the ships, you just need to provision for war. And no kiddies play, there's a bottom limit to ensure you are not just wasting the Company resources

[Skully]

25 minutes ago, admin said:

We will provide the tax collected info on the port card. And can make flag cost to depend on weekly taxes collected.
In this case lets say you see that 3 flags are created for your ports.

1. Flag 1 - port earns 10,000 per week in taxes
2. Flag 2 - port earns 5,000 per week in taxes
3. Flag 3 - port earns 50,000,000 per week in taxes

Which port flag you will react to? And which you will ignore?

I like it, but remove the flag cost balancer. Else it'll become an investment decision.

For the same price, we should all be going for port 3 unless player defense is consider too high.

[admin]

1 minute ago, The Red Duke said:

Not money. War Supplies. You already have the ships, you just need to provision for war. And no kiddies play, there's a bottom limit to ensure you are not just wasting the Company resources

yes.. flag is an arbitrary name. we can still make players craft it (and just call it the flag instead of war supplies)

 

[Teutonic]

I really enjoy the update. We are going in the right direction here.

This allows for the solo player, crafter, and trader to do their business without getting destroyed and losing access to everything. This also allows for the dedicated rvr groups to control ports and probably also control he rarer resources. Finally, the small gang ow pvp groups can continue doing whatever they want. A win win win for everyone.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Teutonic