Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
sveno

Solution for Empty Portbattles?

Recommended Posts

Ahoy Community

Imagine your port(s) get flipped, you organize a PB fleet, 25 guys drive around ships and nobody shows up.
That is demotivating, hurts your community and in the end the game.

In this thread, i want to discuss what mechanic could set a stop to people who are thinking this is a proper style of war or to circumvent the difficulty level of PvE.
Please leave any political discussion out of this thread, we want to only discuss mechanics here.

So, my proposition is as follows:

To be able to flip a port you need an "Admirality Permit" (or whatever name), to obtain that item you need to raise and pay a depot.
That depot could be as high as 10MM or 1k combat marks, one guy has to get that permit to unlock a port to be able to do hostility there.
- If the hostility is not flipped within 24h, the depot payer get his depot back.
- If 5+ guys are in the portbattle and do damage, the depot payer get his depot back, whatever the outcome of the battle is.
- If 5+ guys are sunk in the PB region 0-30 minutes before the portbattle, the depot payer get his depot back. 
- But if the portbattle is set, less then 5 players are in the PB and do no damage, the depot is lost.

That would set a stop to empty PB trolling and missusing the RvR system to do easy as pie PvE.

What do you guys think? The amounts are just my numberthrowing. Do you have other/better ideas?

Lets discuss. o7

Edited by sveno
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure sounds a lot like the flag system, which your side of the world absolutely hated.  

This system would disproportionately hurt smaller clans vs larger clans (like yours).  False attacks have been a tactic throughout history, I see no reason why they should be removed just to make holding territory more convenient.  Don't want false attacks?  Hold less territory.  Generating a PB is't very difficult, but it also isn't exactly free either.  

Less nations, less servers and more people would be a long term fix to this problem.  

Edited by Christendom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd much prefer to test BR limited port battles first. I see the reasoning here, because if one side doesn't show up, the other side wasted X amount of time that could have been done doing something different.

At this time, I am not sure if we need it.

Edited by Teutonic
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point there @Christendom,

but, the issue is that it does not really cost to do hostility, moreover you are paid better than in some PvE missions.
If you plan it right, the chance of hostility interception is practically nill, we do 4th rate hostility missions well under 10 minutes.
So you will have a high probability to have the port flipped even before your enemy is glancing the hostility raise on the map.
Let alone the enemy can organize a proper interception fleet and sail to you.

False attacks is maybe a thing in RL, but i think in NA, as fake flags, are just hurting the game.
As said, prices can be adjusted and was just my example, by no way i want to punish clans for being small.

@Teutonic, just to quantify the impact one day of empty PB trolling had for us (and it was not the first time that was done):

Swedes had about 43 guys in TS, three portbattles on two fronts were set against us at the same time.
We had to ask most of our guys to make outposts in all to be defended ports as we did not have the manpower for 2 PBs.
It is save to say that an average member used 2.5 hours that day to ready up and participate (conservative estimation).
That makes a total 107.5 hours hobby/life time trolled away in a single day.

You see the severe impact of this.

Edited by sveno
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Christendom said:

).  False attacks have been a tactic throughout history

Except history doesn't know the concept of a scheduled battle that has one side not even showing up. That's not a false attack, that's a non-attack.

Also, this is a game, not a history simulator.

Anyways, what this game needs far more imo right now is a reasonable chance to defend against the port flip in the first place. Right now it's really just a "grind really fast for an hour before your opponent can react on utterly worthless NPCs you'd be grinding anyways for money" . Any attempt at reaction fails miserably because the battles could be anywhere.

Edited by Quineloe
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Main issues to address to the problem in general.

- How to define whether no one showed up at all or they got screened out.

- The Catch-22 : Painful PB generation prevents fake attacks, but painful PB generation sucks because...well, it's painful.

Diversionary fake attacks is one thing, but straight-up no-shows to any of them is the kind of shitty meta-gameplay of just trying to tire out/bore your opponent to death that sucks bigtime.

---

Off the top of my head, one potential way would be that every time less than X amount of players enter the PB, the max PB cap is reduced by 1, so that after the 2nd time it happens at least there can never be more than 1 no-show/fake attack. Every time more than X players enter, the cap is increased again by 1.

Shouldn't be an issue of playercount since if they can't field X players, they can't "fill" more than 1 PB anyhow, and if they get screened out it also means that they lack the means to enter more than 1 PB anyways.

If it keeps happening at a 1 PB limit, a timer cooldown can also kick in thereafter for every following no-show.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like your just pissed that you didnt get to fight a port battle .... if for whatever reason the attackers decided they couldnt win why should they be forced to fight ??

just so you can have your fun ???

spanish attacked selam ... Brits had 25 in defence fleet all first rates ... spanish had 17 but some 2nds mixed in ... they entered port battle ...saw the odds were against them ..so they left without firing a shot ... i would have liked them to have 26 ships and given us a battle do i blame them for leaving ,,no they were in a un winnable position and were just going to lose ships ..

cost me 250k to tp a ship in for that port battle .. but if i had been in spanish position i would have left battle too

your proposition benefits the largest nations ...and shackles the smaller ones

result will be smaller nations wont attack at all because no one will pay price for port battle .. they might not get back their  "deposit"

net result no port battles except those created by larger nations .... sounds boring to me

instead of spending time creating all these divisive mechanics and rules that drive people away why dont you come up with something that attracts people to the game

if your guys are demotivated by a non port battle ... why do you attack neutral ports

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be no restrictions on a port battle.... If you generate the hostility it's upto the attacker when amd where they fight....

This seems interesting that you suggest this after three port battles were set up against you in a single night... It should have been five port battles in a single night... If that had happened the screams for boycott from the sweeds would have been defining...

Your suggestion only supports the large nations.... Not suprised as you belong to the current no1 nation on eu server.

I do wonder what would happen if gb woke up from its pve sleep and started attacking Swedish ports... 

At the moment only two nations are willing to fight on the eu server (russian/Sverige), the rest pve or exchange ports.... This needs addressing...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, monk33y said:

There should be no restrictions on a port battle.... If you generate the hostility it's upto the attacker when amd where they fight....

This seems interesting that you suggest this after three port battles were set up against you in a single night... It should have been five port battles in a single night... If that had happened the screams for boycott from the sweeds would have been defining...

Your suggestion only supports the large nations.... Not suprised as you belong to the current no1 nation on eu server.

I do wonder what would happen if gb woke up from its pve sleep and started attacking Swedish ports... 

At the moment only two nations are willing to fight on the eu server (russian/Sverige), the rest pve or exchange ports.... This needs addressing...

Sounds like they need an american faction that fights.  Too bad they kicked em off the server.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sveno said:

Ahoy Community

Imagine your port(s) get flipped, you organize a PB fleet, 25 guys drive around ships and nobody shows up.
That is demotivating, hurts your community and in the end the game.

In this thread, i want to discuss what mechanic could set a stop to people who are thinking this is a proper style of war or to circumvent the difficulty level of PvE. u wot m8?
Please leave any political discussion out of this thread, we want to only discuss mechanics here.

So, my proposition is as follows:

To be able to flip a port you need an "Admirality Permit" (or whatever name), to obtain that item you need to raise and pay a depot.
That depot could be as high as 10MM or 1k combat marks, one guy has to get that permit to unlock a port to be able to do hostility there.
- If the hostility is not flipped within 24h, the depot payer get his depot back.
- If 5+ guys are in the portbattle and do damage, the depot payer get his depot back, whatever the outcome of the battle is.
- If 5+ guys are sunk in the PB region 0-30 minutes before the portbattle, the depot payer get his depot back. 
- But if the portbattle is set, less then 5 players are in the PB and do no damage, the depot is lost. e.g. any time someone flips a neutral port. if you need 5 people to flip an AI port something is severely wrong there.

That would set a stop to empty PB trolling known to others as a diversion and missusing the RvR system to do easy as pie PvE. if someone wants to go grind hostility missions on a foreign port, knowing that the battle stays open for the full 1.5 hours, and that foreign clans will in all likelihood scramble to intercept them, more power to them. it baits pvp and thus creates content.

What do you guys think? The amounts are just my numberthrowing. Do you have other/better ideas?

Lets discuss. o7

RVR and war in general isn't a mere contest of skill, in which the two sides meet twice weekly and settle their differences with fisticuffs. it's a slog in which the ultimate determining factor is a contest of will. Will you continue to log in and fight, or will you not. When we were still british, ROYAL and SINK, among other clans, sat Port Morant 3 hours a day, every day of the week, for a month when it had a flag pulled on it every day, waiting for an attack that wasn't simply a probe to test our readiness. That's RVR. That's war. Empty port battles are the majority of port battles. want great fleet action? sail a fleet into an enemy's capitol region - some of the best fights i've been in or seen recorded came about simply because someone decided to sail 20-odd ships into KPR, or La Habana. want RVR? be prepared to slog it out for a few months and chase your enemy port by port like we did in the broken baguette campaign. cutting out the option for diversionary attacks, especially as they are already limited by hostility grinding and the lack of warbombing, is simply counter-intuitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Yes, we need the nightflips to make them quit the game and be victorious.

I really like your evil way of thinking. Probably one of the reasons global server is a lovely place for playing.

Nightflips are out of the game and it's been like 6 months.  Get over it.  Global's hurting on players, but a higher percentage of our population PVPs and does RVR than yours it seems.  Sounds like you could use that fighting spirit on EU.  I saw a lot of empty port battles today while spending a couple hours sailing around, sure looks like fun.  

3 hours ago, Quineloe said:

Except history doesn't know the concept of a scheduled battle that has one side not even showing up. That's not a false attack, that's a non-attack.

Also, this is a game, not a history simulator.

Anyways, what this game needs far more imo right now is a reasonable chance to defend against the port flip in the first place. Right now it's really just a "grind really fast for an hour before your opponent can react on utterly worthless NPCs you'd be grinding anyways for money" . Any attempt at reaction fails miserably because the battles could be anywhere.

Frankly it sounds like what you and Sveno are talking about is basically a lobby system for PBs.  No sailing, no time wasting....no fun.  The advent of hostility grinding and set times for port battles 22 hours later have made this game very routine and sometimes very sterile.  While I understand the purpose of the timers, I do miss the organic flow and the hurry up and wait of the flag system.  The problem with one very large and very powerful clan basically owning the server is.....no one wants to fight it.  You made your bed, now sleep it in. 

People complained about the flags, people complained about war supplies, hostility was too hard to grind...now it's too easy.  Only solution would be to make the missions a touch harder and more importantly have an announcement once a mission is pulled or entered to that nation.  

----

Really though, the problem is greater than hostility missions or port battles.  We're playing on a map designed for 2k + people with servers of under 600.  Even if all 3 servers got merged, we'd still be undermanned.  With 2k players I doubt there would be empty PBs or room to grind up a port unmolested.  This applies to basically everything.  Lack of content, lack of pvp...boring economy.

WE NEED MORE PLAYERS.

Edited by Christendom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RVR is still a gross part of the game. How you can make what seems like the most important aspect of the game be so restrictive on numbers, time, and type is beyond me.

Having a PB open for a whole day with ships constantly able to jump in as others get destroyed and whoever has to most points at the end wins would be 10x more interesting than this bland set an hour for everyone show up in their fancy PB ship with the same 25 guys and play a single round of Naval Action Legends over and over and over is just.....just sad for a game that prides itself as being an open world MMO sandbox

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Christendom said:

sure looks like fun.  

more fun, is that 10 guys capture 20 empty ports while the rest sleep
3 hours ago, Christendom said:

Nightflips are out of the game and it's been like 6 months

Yes, from the moment you stayed in the global and you are out of eu server, if you are so well there, why do not you live your life and forget us?
since the servers were divided, there have been no problems between nations, what a coincidence
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to see how it goes with the proposed BR limit mechanic first before we try anything like this.

I understand showing up to an empty port battle sucks. But think the mechanism you suggest would perhaps be a little rough on smaller nations. It's not always wise to just sacrifice 5 ships when you can only get that many in the port battle on time and the enemy shows up with 20+.

What about a compromise? Make the deposit nonrefundable but more affordable. Also, make the deposit the final step for PB schedule, not the first. First aggro gets raised to 100% but to put the PB on the calendar, the attacker has to pay the deposit.

AND most important, hostility missions need to be near the port in question and the defending nation needs to be informed of the missions taking place.

 

Edited by Farrago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait for BR limited pbs

If trolling stays you can just reduce them to the safezone and gank. Seeing their community getting smaller and smaller hurts more than getting trolled

 

But I think this wont be present anymkre when they can turn up with 6 1st rates and do a pb or just get intercepted on OW and gift the enemy the 1st rates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be some compensation for the clan that shows up, that I agree.

What about extending the invulnerability timer for that port by 1 week instead of the 72 hours. But I imagine this could lead to exploits quite easily.

Difficult one to crack for sure. Hopefully the BR limit should alleviate some of these pains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, stop talking about 'balancing' anything or we end up with NPC missions with 45 reinforcementsNPCs against 5 players as hostility missions, need to pay the soul of our first born for a pb-flag or are hardlimited to ONE port battle per day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting but do you mean:

- one PB per nation and per day or one PB per clan and per day ? (To be noted that the first case would place all PB's at 5pm server time)

- do you consider that a nation or a clan cannot attack more than once a day or that a nation or a clan cannot be attacked more than once a day? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Empty portbattles are just result of unsolved economic issues in this game. Ports are not valuable at the moment, only few with their valuable resources are. This needs to be changed first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cortez said:

Empty portbattles are just result of unsolved economic issues in this game. Ports are not valuable at the moment, only few with their valuable resources are. This needs to be changed first.

in my oppinion ports shouldnt cost money but generate money, also by themselves.

This + lower income in missions would mean that people sell stuff again with contracts in shops. Clans can use the money to buy stuff and put it into the cwh to craft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cortez said:

Empty portbattles are just result of unsolved economic issues in this game. Ports are not valuable at the moment, only few with their valuable resources are. This needs to be changed first.

thats not correct, the biggest problem is the lack of players. The economy point you present just reflects the need to do PB to survive as a nation. That is not about the fun, its about getting forced to do PBs eventouh you dont have the numbers!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rediii said:

in my oppinion ports shouldnt cost money but generate money, also by themselves

Yep. Even if we do not see the habitants, someone has to live in those ports ;),working, paying taxes..... I was thinking of a "basic income" for each port, let`s say 10 000 gold, if neutral. Capitals have tax income 50 000 if neutral. When these ports are conquered, taken by any faction, tax income would automatically increase each day, let`s say 5%, if players trade or set contracts in these ports after being conquered, tax income is added anyway..

This might make ports valuable to hold and/or conquer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eleven said:

thats not correct, the biggest problem is the lack of players. The economy point you present just reflects the need to do PB to survive as a nation. That is not about the fun, its about getting forced to do PBs eventouh you dont have the numbers!

You are wrong. There is no REAL motivation to hold a port, since there is no VALUE to defend in most ports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cortez said:

You are wrong. There is no REAL motivation to hold a port, since there is no VALUE to defend in most ports.

The motivation should come from playing the game, not through 'we must hold the port or we lost the game forever', with that attitude you just loose even more players.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eleven said:

The motivation should come from playing the game, not through 'we must hold the port or we lost the game forever', with that attitude you just loose even more players.

No. Players are playing the game, game needs to keep players in the game though, through CONTENT. And there is no much of it right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...