Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Hostility changes - fun for everyone, including small clans.


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

Agree with Banished and Wraith.

Port battles are great because it guarantees PvP action. Hostility is boring because most of the time there is nothing happening.

Somehow the hostility area needs to be turned into a PvP hotspot with lots of actions at least for important ports. 

This new system promote camping outside of the hostility mission and ganking the 10 guys when they come out, not nice fights. Also you basically have to take 1st rates all the time.

 

I prefer a small area infront of the port where you have to sit to raise hostility. Its like going into enemy reinforcement zone and waiting for the enemy to gather up for a fight.

People would come out and there would be nice fights.

Did you play "Pirates of the burning sea"? They had such a system as far as I remember.

Sitting in front of a port is very boring. Waiting 10 minutes doing nothing feels like 1 hour. (Players starts to be afk, cause they are bored)

Defender can build up a perfect counter group with bigger numbers. Cant see that as a good solution.

 

Edited by Sven Silberbart
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems were back where we started. Poor screening guys have to beg for marks / nations need to organise mark distribution by themselfes.

50 minutes ago, admin said:

There must be a way to gain hostility if defenders do not come. Thus NPCs are needed in all battles.

Issue with npcs: If npcs are freekill, thats just annoying grind. If npcs are challenging, youre just loosing against any players joining. You get gameplay thats either annoying or frustrating.

19 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I'd suggest that hostility accrues for a player in the region by the BR of the ship they are sailing and the number of minutes they are in the attacker circle zone of the port they want, a blockade if you will.

The problem might be kiting, outside or inside the instance.

Maybe hostility just isnt a good mechanic. Wasnt it ment to simulate front lines? Atleast thats how i remember it. The question then should be if it achieves that goal. 

If the frontline part isnt working, whats so bad about flags. The time between flag and attack can be set how we want it to be. It could e.g. provide enough time to tow defensive ships to where theyre needed. Buying flags atleast seems a good way to consume crafted materials, war supplies are in the game already. When people buy lots of fake flags they just seem too cheap to craft.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the proposed changes in concept.  We’ll have to see how it plays out.  That said, I still find the current PB time window system fraught.  At the hours I can spend some time doing PBs.  The only nations with windows are either one I am not supposed to beat on due to politics, and one that is the underdog that everyone has already been beating up into oblivion.  Can the pb windows be increased a bit?

 Incidentally, is the political alliances system coming back?  I recall statements that an altered version would be applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ronald Speirs said:

Remove the PvP and Victory marks from the game then maybe we might reduce the amount of players cheating the current systems available to them!!!! Yet again with the current system players seem fit to use their alt accounts to farm these current marks, when you start segregating the community into groups and in this case marks players will always find the easiest means to get them, by removing the marks system for PvP and Victory then we wont have the current problem of Alt Farming and port swapping as we see already to gain them to buy the exclusive mods and garbage we have in admiralty atm, just convert everything back to combat marks then every player has the same opportunity to gain the marks to get the same items from admiralty and there will be no means of exploiting to gain advantage over the system!!!!

Why should PvP and RvR players get more rewards? their doing the nation duty yet some are still exploiting the same system to gain the greater rewards and bypassing the previous systems to get their ships etc!!! Removing the PvP and VM it will eliminate exploiting as everyone is on the same playing field with no real advantage over the rest of the population, If the only advantages we had in game were economic advantages then controlling ports as i've suggesting before like % Iron extractions, % Teak and so on from capitals and territory then it would make RvR more of a feature that nations want resources and control over those resources it would make it harder for exploiting as its only benefiting players that are involved in the actual OW side of things which is what this game should be about!!!!

I seen a system in Heroes and Generals about capitals and map restarts that involved map control and underdog bonuses for nations that had lesser populations maybe that could be a thing looked into?

Spoken like a true carebear :D

Do people cheat? Yes, it's human nature, but it's only a small percentage of the game population and they risk getting reported every time they do so. PvP and Victory marks are better for the game as a whole, it has been proven twice now. I would quit the game at this point if PvP marks were removed.

If you want more econ and PvE content, then go suggest it in the proper discussion. I will agree with you there. But removing PvP content is not the way to progress the game (imo)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The port participation requirement will probably lead to the toxicity we had back in the days around players excluded from pb lineup & randoms.. other than that i kind of like it.

 

Also about the hostility, none of this will probably solve the problem we actualy have due to ninja flips:  hostility missions are finished and 100%host reached before the defending nation knows about it due to latency & simultaneous missions (+missions spawning on the other side of the islands.)

Edited by Baptiste Gallouédec
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sven Silberbart said:

Defender can build up a perfect counter group with bigger numbers. Cant see that as a good solution.

Battles are limited to 25vs25.

If you think you cant handle the incoming defenders fleet you can still try to run.

Its like Open World PvP when you wait infront of the enemy capital until they feel strong enough to challenge you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like earlier said it is too easy for big clans to gather huge fleet to start or block the "presence circle".

Another good point was that if one side is now going to show up, the other side may have slightly boring time waiting someone to come.

 

Maybe we should simply remove hostility?

Lord Protector sets specific time window .  At this time port is open for attacks.  Defender can decide how they want to defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Capn Rocko said:

Spoken like a true carebear :D

Do people cheat? Yes, it's human nature, but it's only a small percentage of the game population and they risk getting reported every time they do so. PvP and Victory marks are better for the game as a whole, it has been proven twice now. I would quit the game at this point if PvP marks were removed.

If you want more econ and PvE content, then go suggest it in the proper discussion. I will agree with you there. But removing PvP content is not the way to progress the game (imo)

Well since 2014 the game has proven that focusing on just PvP and the systems that it has atm that it clearly has no idea on how to make an OW function with the rest of the world created, im all ears to how u think that PvE and what u think is a carebear mentality is wrong for the game, every MMO has massive PvE content world to support the smaller PvP world around it, yes the PvP is far more exciting then the PvE but its what creates the WORLD the PvP players work in. So far all we see is PvP and RvR exploiting the current systems as its part of the mechanics to do so, seriously if that's your attitude then it clearly shows that you show just as much lack of understanding on how MMO and Sandboxes should work, so if u could refrain from commenting and trying to add you lack of productive ideas on how you think that the current broken systems are good for the game then ur best to not reply!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fenris said:

Please no. Imagine defender who wants to countergrind, finds a fleet of cutters. Enemy can sink without true losses.Abuse danger.:ph34r:

Please try to flip ports in cutters and I will laugh as it takes you 10 missions to flip it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, admin said:
  • Number of player ships allowed in a hostility mission will be set at 10 for both sides. Only ten player ship can enter a hostility mission from one of the sides.
    • player ships: total 20 for both sides - 10 attacking players/10 defending players
    • npc ships: total up to 10 on the defending side (20 in total - up to 10 npc defenders and up to 10 player defenders)

So if 10 attackers begin a hostility missions there will be 10 ai with space for 10 defending players to join? 

This will make Hostility riskier than it already is. Since the thickness changes killing AI of equal tier will surely take a toll on the HP of the attacking ships and if/when 10 defenders jump their mission they will not be able to fight. 

I suggest the Hostility missions spawn AI of a lower tier i.e. Player 1st rate spawns an AI 3rd rate. 

This way if a defending fleet joins they will have a chance to fight and uncontested hostility is not a bore (like 1st rate hostility missions are now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Davos Seasworth said:

The issue I have with this change is the port battle timer. With only about three hours to grind hostility it would be very difficult to grind enough hostility in smaller ships to flip a port. Extend the time frame of ports then I can see this as a reasonable solution @admin. Otherwise I feel there is a need for a new system.

Yes. Allow hostility generation to start at least one hour prior to the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ronald Speirs said:

Well since 2014 the game has proven that focusing on just PvP and the systems that it has atm that it clearly has no idea on how to make an OW function with the rest of the world created, im all ears to how u think that PvE and what u think is a carebear mentality is wrong for the game, every MMO has massive PvE content world to support the smaller PvP world around it, yes the PvP is far more exciting then the PvE but its what creates the WORLD the PvP players work in. So far all we see is PvP and RvR exploiting the current systems as its part of the mechanics to do so, seriously if that's your attitude then it clearly shows that you show just as much lack of understanding on how MMO and Sandboxes should work, so if u could refrain from commenting and trying to add you lack of productive ideas on how you think that the current broken systems are good for the game then ur best to not reply!!!!

I didn't say that there's anything wrong with being a carebear or PvE. I sympathize with you that other areas of the game are being ignored and agree they should be improved.

But the fact is PvP and RvR are the sole focus of this early access game that we are playing and if you take away those rewards, then that severely limits our content which has taken the developers 2-3 years to get to this point. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wraith said:

You'd rather shoot a bunch of braindead AI waiting for a 10 man gank jumping into your mission compounded by another 25 man gank fleet outside your mission waiting for you?  I'd much rather have my fleet either 1) in a hostility zone in or around the port where open world-generated PvP can happen if the defenders want to and you can hit NPC fleets coming into and out of port to increase the hostility gain if they don't, or 2) something more interesting than shooting up said braindead AI for days on end by escorting mortar brigs and shallow water landing ships to the port, etc.

stationary ticking of hostility points in the open sea is impossible. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Any chance you could elaborate on why? 

All it would take is an intermediate table in the database that tied clans to the port with a hostility amount, with hostility calculated, let's say once a minute with let's say a small percentage of the BR from each clan's ships within the outer join circle of the port.  Obviously hostility would only accrue during the window that each port is set to, is reset at server restart, and the total hostility points reduced by the same fraction of the host nation BR present in the circle.

Seems simple enough to me?

 

41 minutes ago, admin said:

stationary ticking of hostility points in the open sea is impossible. 

Just an oddball nugget of a thought.

What if hostility was split in 2?

1 bucket is the current port-specific hostility.

The other is a "general" hostility between nations. This is gained solely by engaging in PvP (sinking another nations trade and war ships in OW). Gaining hostility here makes the amount needed in bucket 1 for any given port less.

Such a system would allow people who find the current NPC hostility grind boring and would rather PvP still be able to participate in RvR, while also keeping the current system (with adjustments proposed in the OP by admin) for folks who like that method (and to set specific battles). It also give a much more tangible and equitable reason to PvP other than those stupid marks (I really dislike all the different types of marks in game, even though I have them. Too cumbersome to earn/manage without a means of converting between the 3, not to mention their highly inflated value)

Of course, the amount of gain from the PvP bucket could never be enough to turn a port on it's own, but could be allowed to gain, say, 50% of the required hostility?

Edited by BPHick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, admin said:

dont get the trolling part. 
hostility is granted for ships sank and if you sink cutters you get less hostility 

Will the hostility levels be announced in combat news? If so, at what percentage and frequency.  Now we get an announcement when at 25% but no others.  It should be at 5 or 10% increments.  It is a pain to log out and log in to see % as update takes too much time.

The trolling part is easy to imagine.  You divide in 10 players and do separate hostility against 10 ports.  Each should show up in combat.  Defender will need to dispatch fleets to all of those areas to ascertain size of hostility grinding fleet.  Lots of useless sailing and frustration.  This makes it very similar to old flag system where you could take flags out for multiple ports.  By the time you identify the port where the main action is and hoping you still have a tow and time, that port will be flipped.  This can also be an issue with limited outposts and limited tows.  There is a huge potential for abuse.  System sounds very promising but impose a minimum limit on npc - like 5 npc ships or so.  This should mostly avoid solo grinders or a divide and confuse approach.

Edited by TheLoneWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, admin said:

Captains

This month we plan to deploy final hostility changes based on the testing and learnings over the last 18 months. 
Unfortunately current leader takes all approach is not working due to human nature and ability to solve any problem politically. We and many players are unsatisfied with how it works; for example you can deny enemy his position on the leaderboard by abandoning ports to a friendly nation taking them back the next round. 

Proposals

Victory marks changes

Victory marks will be awarded for port control not for the national position of the conquest leaderboard.

  • Every captain who participated in a victorious port battle and has lord protector status on the round end will get victory marks (even if their clan only owns 1 port)
  • Rewards will be tiered to provide incentive to capture more ports in a way similar to Naval Action Legends event leaderboards
    • 1 port 1 mark
    • 10 ports 2-3 marks etc. 
  • New ways to spend victory marks will be added (gold chests, paint chests etc for VM and PVP marks)

As a result even a small clan from impossible nations will be able to get rewarded for their conquest efforts giving fun for everyone. Large nations will get more rewards due to structured tiered nature of the leaderboards.

I really do like this change. I feel like victory marks should be more cosmetic or for other mediocre to good modules/upgrades like the ones we have currently and that victory marks should not be rewarded to the minority of the factions which in turn prevents others from actually being competitive in port battles because of the lack of Victory Marks which are practically needed. 

13 hours ago, admin said:

 Hostility changes

Hostility currently is based on old system (line ship ports, 4th rate ports and shallow ports) has the following main problems
Number of NPC ships in hostility is not related to the port, force of the attacker and it does not allow means to counter it effectively. For example if 25 first rates are gaining hostility defenders basically have no means to counter it because they are always disadvantaged in a battle due to bots presence. 

The following changes will be applied

  • Hostility missions will spawn ships ships similar to the ships of the attacker.
    • If attacker comes in first rates - NPC will spawn with first rates. If attackers come in cutters - NPC will spawn in cutters. 
  • Hostility missions will spawn number of ships similar to number of ships of the attacker
    • if you want to grind hostility solo you will encounter solo defenders.
    • if you want to grind hostility in a group you will see grouped NPCs against you.
  • Number of player ships allowed in a hostility mission will be set at 10 for both sides. Only ten player ship can enter a hostility mission from one of the sides.
    • player ships: total 20 for both sides - 10 attacking players/10 defending players
    • npc ships: total up to 10 on the defending side (20 in total - up to 10 npc defenders and up to 10 player defenders)

This will make hostility missions more predictable, will balance them depending on the number of attackers, give defenders better chances, and give the options to counter the hostility.

As I stated I like the direction if there has to be the current hostility mission system still in existence. My only issue is the time it requires to grind missions in and to have them count towards the overall hostility to set up a port battle. That is what I found to be the largest issue for the smaller and younger clans when it comes to grinding up hostility missions is being able to complete them in the correct amount of time. It does wear a person down doing hostility missions and at the end of it all not completing enough for a port battle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

Small problem: Getting lord protector in ports which rarely or never get attacked means you almost never lose the status without doing anything for it.

Im pretty active but I didnt joined any undefended PBs so I have only like 4 lord protectors atm.

Dont know if this is fixable and its only a small problem anyway tho.

They should wipe the status at start of the patch so only way to get it is a new battle. neutral ports should not count only only nation vs nation ports.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...