Dynamic campaign

[wkl_123]

I'm not sure whether the mechanics of open world have been set in stone yet, but if not, I have a suggestion to make. I haven't read through every thread yet, so apologies if someone has already suggested this.

 

Instead of having a fairly static open world, like most MMO games, how about something similar to WWII Online? I only played it very briefly many years ago during a free trial so I'm not entirely sure about the mechanics, but I think the salient feature of its open world is that it takes place on a map with dynamic frontlines, which change when towns and objectives are captured. Eventually one side will achieve a victory and a new campaign begins. Something similar could be adapted to work with Naval Action, where when one nation or alliance achieves an unassailable balance of power position the campaign ends. Perhaps the main nations will remain safe, but overseas territories can change hands, which affects the balance of power. Trade routes can be maintained by players and these could be blockaded or attacked by various commerce raiders like privateers or pirates. Lack of supplies could also affect the balance of power.

 

This system could also help prevent having a top heavy rank structure and having ships of the line being the most common vessels. For naval players, you can only be promoted permanently to Post-captain, and the most powerful ship you can keep through campaigns is a frigate. Only a certain proportion of players can have ships of the line during each campaign. There isn't promotion to flag rank, as such, but like commanding larger ships, a limited number of players per campaign are appointed as flag officers and they can play around with commanding squadrons and larger formations.

[Flip]

Thats the general idea from what we have heard. Instead of front lines ports and areas can be contested. How it take shape we have yet to see. The dev's have said they want to have a 'final battle' for ports.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

I'm not a fan of "reality" resets.  Make everything fluid enough that it can ebb and flow naturally.  Having to make the system reset is a crutch and a cover for inadequate gameplay mechanics IMO.

[Flip]

I'm not a fan of "reality" resets.  Make everything fluid enough that it can ebb and flow naturally.  Having to make the system reset is a crutch and a cover for inadequate gameplay mechanics IMO.

 

Resets may not be ideal but what happens when one Nation loses? If things ebb and flow naturally there will be a winner and loser. If Britain conquers all of Sweden's ports what happens to Sweden? Sweden players? etc etc. 

[Thomas Blackwell]

Resets may not be ideal but what happens when one Nation loses? If things ebb and flow naturally there will be a winner and loser. If Britain conquers all of Sweden's ports what happens to Sweden? Sweden players? etc etc.

 

 

Peace is declaired, and the loser regains control of his ports (for a price). The winning nation could be granted new resources and income for a limited time, bolstering that nations economy. A reset doesn't necessarily mean things have to be completely erased and nations must start from scratch.

[Edward Vernon]

Or instead there may be some "balancing" random natural event, for example France having lost all colonies in the West Indies discovers gold and diamonds in West Africa which would then create a whole new international dynamic in the Open World.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

What does "losing" mean?  Can a computer controlled nation hold anything more or less than their core ports?  If the computer controlled areas are fixed, and the striving nations are player based, "losing" means your "nation" is wiped off the face of the map, and at some point a new nation or alliance will arise to challenge the victor.

 

If the area contested is large enough, it will not be possible for one nation or alliance to hold the entire map, there will always be new player groups ready to chip away at the current superpower.