RVR (port battles and territory control) feedback

[Tiedemann]

• Tie port hostility points to port tax income:
  So we can sabotage the port income of reals and/or what it produces by generating hostility there? This would be interesting and motivation owning nations to protect the waters around their precious ports
• Reduce costs of ports trading posts and timers:
  Why does a port with out any defense timer activated or any other special feature for that mater have to cost reals to own? This makes owning a port a burden, and it should not be that as long as anyone can attack it at any time imo. No special feature activated = no cost of owning. But when you start enabling defense timer limiting the attack window from other players then it should become very expensive to own, so it is not an option to have defense timers on all ports like it is now.
• Remove conversion of victory marks on War (RVR):
  What about having conversion both ways? Highly favoring actually getting victory marks/participating in PB?
• Additionally RVR reward trading should be disabled :
  I don't like it. Why is this needed? If it is to prevent some sort of exploit okay maybe, but if it is not you should avoid limiting trading. It makes the rewards less useful/valuable and getting the same thing multiple times then at some point = no reward.
• Add items or chests for victory marks to the admiralty with some conquest related exclusive items. (Including paints and rare ships):
  YES! When ever paint is involved I'm in!
   
• Add feature allowing lockdown of ports by clans (giving access to port resources only to the clan who owns the port):
  The clan lockdown of a port would instantly kill of the use for alternative characters when this is wanted by the owning clan/nation. Then owning the port would become extremely important, and those who has bought alternative characthers to avoid the nation ownership issue is shit out of luck if the clan decides to reserve it for them self. Would be nice if rare/needed resources where available at multiple locations on the map if this feature ever hits
• maybe adding docking fees
  There should be fees for trading, docking, crafting etc, so that ports that are useful/valuable for a nation actually are profitable og the profitt they make shows the precence of players. And not just alt accounts stockpiling/dumping trade resources.   

Edited December 11, 2018 by Tiedemann

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

"Tie port hostility points to port tax income" 

What does that mean ?

-If someone generate some hostility around one of your ports this will lower the tax rate ?  (so owner have to show up ?)

-A port with high tax income is easier to flip ? 

 

 i don't understand could you explain ? 

 

[staun]

An issue could be to set the Pb at 48 h, insted 24 h. I know from personally experience that with real life, sometime you just log in and find out there is a pb in an hour. Longer planing time could be good, But not sure how the guys that flipped it will feel. Personally in the days where we flipped ports I wouldn’t mind the extra day waiting. But guess there is pro and cons for it.

[Socialism]

3 hours ago, Coraline Vodka said:

@Tiedemannback when we got chests for winning a PB we had the biggest turnout for PBs and alts joining the battle, which is why we have clan based rvr now. So basically a huge yes to chests with mods and paints. 

you mean......gasp  ... ..   reward people for showing up, risking their ships and winning the port?  How very terrible!

[staun]

18 minutes ago, Coraline Vodka said:

We used to have 48 hours timer after PB was set, was pretty nice to have a day off between multi hour nights of NA

For me it was ok too, but I just realized different timezones wouldn't make it work, not if we have to flip a port. Would be hard to keep it in an weekend so it wouldn't give a problem with ppl having to work. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

9 hours ago, staun said:

An issue could be to set the Pb at 48 h, insted 24 h. I know from personally experience that with real life, sometime you just log in and find out there is a pb in an hour. Longer planing time could be good, But not sure how the guys that flipped it will feel. Personally in the days where we flipped ports I wouldn’t mind the extra day waiting. But guess there is pro and cons for it.

See below.

3 hours ago, Coraline Vodka said:

We used to have 48 hours timer after PB was set, was pretty nice to have a day off between multi hour nights of NA

Wasn't it 46 hours though so it put the PB two hours early than when you flipped it.  I think it's good and bad.  It's good cause it gave time to prep, it's bad cause folks loose the motion of doing the battle and being ready and than forget to show up.   You would have to flip a port on Wed to get a friday night Port battle.  Or flip it on a Thurs (one of the slowest nights of the game number wise) to get a Saterday port battle.  I notice better numbers when it was dropped to 24......just don't go to 22 or 46 cause that crap was kiling us cause you had to stay up later to flip a port more early or get it in prim time. 

Though one thing that might help is if there was a way to put AGRO on over time instead of just the 3 hour window.  LIke you can put 25-50% a head of time and turn the port into a PvP HOTZONE that has increased bonus for PvP and fighting, but the AGRO can never go above that, but it can be removed by sinking the attackers ships.   Thus you know to be ready the next day for the rest of the agro at start of the window.  We really need mulit ways to do agro like POTBS had and when you did that it would build up slowly and than a port battle would be created once the total agro was meet.  They had goods you brought to raise/lower the agro along with killing ships.  I know war supplies wasn't the greatest thing, but maybe a thought is bring them back but make them more expensive and worth less numbers so you can't just bomb it all of sudden.  Make it where flipping a port can take a while, but don't make it all just AI flip grind of the port..  That could be the last resort if no PvP happens once you turn it into a PvP HOT ZONE.

[King of Crowns]

16 hours ago, admin said:

we can't bring flags back as we cannot solve the abuse problems when someone can purchase the flag for the thing you want and keep it hidden in port (like it was before). 

not that I am for bringing back flags. but clan controlled ports would be a way to purchase  a flag without alts being able to buy them. so for example. in order to buy a flag it has to be in an adjacent port and who can dock in the ports can be restricted by the clans.  

example. WO wants to set Les Cayes. the les cayes flag can only be bought from tibron or saint louise. WO then closes access to both ports so that only WO and clans on the WO friendly clan list can enter the ports. then the flags wont be purchased by an alt. (you could flesh out the details and abuses later but that's the basics of it)

Clan controlled ports is the way to counter all of the ALT abuse. I know that If alts couldn't buy  goods at Cartagena that port would be fought over every time the timer was open. it hurts the solo players but it also encourages them to get into a clan. 

just saying this is a way it can work. NOT that I want it to work like that. I think hostility system is better than flag system because it gives the defenders enough time to rally to actually try to prevent the PB. 

P.S perhaps flags for pvp raids on ports would be better. "financial warfare" as you called it.

Edited December 12, 2018 by King of Crowns

[Sir Texas Sir]

Flipping a port should be the announcement you plan to attack and should be a pain or end of things. You prevent the attack day of with screeners and your port battle fleet.   That why I brought up having the flags worth 25-33% hostility and can only be pulled one at a time for that clan.  If some pulls a flag it should only effect that clan.  Remember the old flag system was instant port battles when planted.  Do a stage flag system and also keep the missions and OW kills as means to gain or lower hostility.

[staun]

4 hours ago, King of Crowns said:

 

Clan controlled ports is the way to countet all of the ALT abuse. I know that If alts couldn't buy  goods at Cartagena that port would be fought over every time the timer was open. it hurts the solo players but it also encourages them to get into a clan. 

It is the way to counter alts. Yes and the restriktion will make ports valuable. Will there be more fight for value ports. Maybe with the high price on 1 rates. Because the one hold Carta will in the end run out of ships to defend it. Ppl might then again not try, because what if the don’t have ships left, well then they can’t defend rest if there ports.

Fine somebody think the way is to get ppl in to clans,  is the way for the game. But I have no doubt in my mind, that careing for the top clans, will make the rest stop trying and ind the end leavingThe more unballanced the game gets the less will try.

Edited December 12, 2018 by staun

[vazco]

On 12/10/2018 at 6:27 PM, admin said:

Remove conversion of victory marks on War (RVR) Server as their current prices in doubloons is one of the things that makes RVR not worth the time. RVR rewards must only be accessible through RVR on the War server (but should be tradeable like right now). 

• Additionally RVR reward trading should be disabled as i doubt Nelson could trade his Baron of the Nile title to others. This will make it important to participate in RVR if you want RVR related ships or rewards.

 

This means almost going back to VM system which we had before, when eg new nations couldn't compete with old and large ones due to lack of VM's to begin with. I think it's a bad idea. There should be always some alternative to getting VM's, to prevent snowballing.

 

On 12/10/2018 at 6:27 PM, admin said:

Add feature allowing lockdown of ports by clans (giving access to port resources only to the clan who owns the port) + maybe adding docking fees. 

If you add this, please make sure it locks down MOST of the resources (eg. 75%), not ALL. Locking down all resources will make many people quit. All similar changes were taken very hard by the community (eg. rare woods) and only thanks to exploits people kept playing.

[Sir Max Magic]

On 12/10/2018 at 6:27 PM, admin said:

Captains. 

We are not satisfied with RVR incentives and goals and wanted to discuss them with you.

Things that can be done within a short period of time. 

• Tie port hostility points to port tax income
• Reduce costs of ports trading posts and timers
• Remove conversion of victory marks on War (RVR) Server as their current prices in doubloons is one of the things that makes RVR not worth the time. RVR rewards must only be accessible through RVR on the War server (but should be tradeable like right now). 
  • Additionally RVR reward trading should be disabled as i doubt Nelson could trade his Baron of the Nile title to others. This will make it important to participate in RVR if you want RVR related ships or rewards.
• Add items or chests for victory marks to the admiralty with some conquest related exclusive items. (Including paints and rare ships)

Longer coding required and riskier features

• Add feature allowing lockdown of ports by clans (giving access to port resources only to the clan who owns the port) + maybe adding docking fees. 

Dear Devs

When i was quitting playing before the big wipe beginning of 2017, we had a PERFECT incentive for Port Battles in place:

Distinctive crafting bonusses to specific ports !!!

Yeah, i know, there might be downsides and flaws in this system, but

We had plenty of Port Battles because Ports did matter !!!

...and there werent more players playing the game then now...

 

So why not going back to a similar system ???

 

Because i had written 2 days ago a thread about exactly this topic and with better RvR in mind, i would like to copy this post, so everyone participating in this thread could discuss about:

 

SUBJECT:

Ports should have again distinctive crafting bonusses, those special trims we get now here and then should be DETERMINED by the port !!!

 

PRO: 

1. Ports would be UNIQUE again !

Lets face it, even when some ports have now better connections than others, better ports in their neighborhood or maybe even better trade routes...they are interchangeable ! It doesnt matter that much, whether i put my Outpost on this or that port...

 

2 Very big incentive for Port Battles

With Point 1. in mind, the incentive for doing Port Battles is directly linked to it !

When now a nation decides to start a Port Battle, she gets just a better trading Hub, maybe, or worse, just another port...

But when i remember how much planning, strategy, effort we put 2 years ago into global conquest, how full of tenacity the whole conquest was, because every nation tried sometimes desperately to get this special crafting bonus into their hand, its no match to today (...and dont come with the counterargument, release is on the horizon ! 2 Years ago, we had also the big wipe in sight and kept going nevertheless )

Maybe some of you just got used to it, but leaving the game in the peak of the global conquest 2 years ago and now...thats lightyears apart 😋

 

3. Better planning for crafters

Giving most ports a distinctive trim factor gets crafters the chance to optimize their ships to their intended role again !

It still leaves the random factor whether a ship is standard , purple or gold...but removes stupid combinations from the game, which now can make all the effort in crafting useless and gives you just another ship...

This links again to Point 2. again !

 

 

Contra:

Honestly, i dont see very important counterarguments but hey, lets see what you Guys think

The only contra argument i could imagine is:

1. One nation could get superior ?!

Contra arguments against this contra argument 😜 could be:

- every nation can be superior because of sheer numbers right from the start

- to prevent one nation could get the one and only OP crafting Port, just put more of those on the maps

 

/Discussion

[Marquis de la Fayette]

4 hours ago, vazco said:

Cela signifie quasiment revenir au système de machine virtuelle que nous avions auparavant, lorsque, par exemple, de nouveaux pays ne pouvaient pas concurrencer les anciens et les grands pays en raison du manque de machines virtuelles au départ. Je pense que c'est une mauvaise idée. Il devrait toujours y avoir une alternative à l’acquisition de VM, pour éviter la boule de neige.

 

Si vous ajoutez ceci, assurez-vous qu'il verrouille la plupart des ressources (par exemple 75%), pas toutes. En verrouillant toutes les ressources, beaucoup de gens vont cesser de fumer. Tous les changements similaires ont été pris très durement par la communauté (par exemple, les bois rares) et seulement grâce à des exploits, les gens ont continué à jouer.

Bonjour,

Il y a un autre moyen de pallier au verrouillage, il suffit de mettre en place pour chaque port capital fournissant une ressource unique un "Expert" de cette ressource. Cet expert irait de port en port chaque semaine par exemple (ou moins). Ce qui fait que le port où se trouverait l'Expert aurait une semaine pour récupérer la ressource.

Comment savoir où est l'Expert ?

Surveillez son propre port, échanger des informations avec des clans alliés, ou pourquoi pas intercepté des renseignements dans des bouteilles ou dans des courriers (interception de navires postaux).

Cordialement, La Fayette

[Durin]

btw, some ppl said doubloons killed RvR because of high ship prices. but is that really the case? i bet all those ships will be replaced in no time and with no problem at all...

[Durin]

Im pretty sure this attack on Barahona was just a test to find out how they perform vs the mighty Swedish fleet, with no expectations as the port doesnt have any real value. I think that if they had won, they would go for a profitable port like Santo Domingo or Cartagena next, and capturing a port like that can easily pay for lost ships.

And as you know, morale is a high factor in this game. Had they won this and the next PB, they might steamroll a nation because of RvR players crawling back in their caves.

With that in mind, i dont think the price they payed for trying was to high.

[Hethwill]

How could it be different then ? That's a good example, but ... if in a different way, how would/could RvR ( entire road to and pb ) be ?

 

 

[Ellias]

5 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

How could it be different then ? That's a good example, but ... if in a different way, how would/could RvR ( entire road to and pb ) be ?

 

RvR:

• should have slower pace, (3 days long mini games and activities)
• should include mini games and other fun activities FOR EVERYONE (Not only for few PB battle captains); flags, trading, patrol (port blockading) zones.
• Stress of one battle should be reduced. It should feel like a cherry on the top of the cake.
• Owning a port should matter.

[vazco]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:20 PM, Marquis de la Fayette said:

Bonjour,

Il y a un autre moyen de pallier au verrouillage, il suffit de mettre en place pour chaque port capital fournissant une ressource unique un "Expert" de cette ressource. Cet expert irait de port en port chaque semaine par exemple (ou moins). Ce qui fait que le port où se trouverait l'Expert aurait une semaine pour récupérer la ressource.

Comment savoir où est l'Expert ?

Surveillez son propre port, échanger des informations avec des clans alliés, ou pourquoi pas intercepté des renseignements dans des bouteilles ou dans des courriers (interception de navires postaux).

Cordialement, La Fayette

Przepraszam, ale zupełnie nie zrozumiałem co napisałeś, a nie chcę używać za każdym razem Google Translate. Czy mógłbyś przejść na angielski, który jest tutaj ogólnie przyjętym językiem? Nawet jeśli nie znasz angielskiego, przynajmniej wklej tutaj proszę angielskie tłumaczenie i pod nim francuski tekst - to taki ogólnie przyjęty wymóg kurtuazji na tym forum.

[vazco]

On 12/17/2018 at 11:29 AM, Durin said:

btw, some ppl said doubloons killed RvR because of high ship prices. but is that really the case? i bet all those ships will be replaced in no time and with no problem at all...

Yes, doubloons were a big reason why RvR is dead. Banished summarized it well - it's not worth the effort, at least for deep water ports. One battle requires multiple hours  of grinding. It's not even a PB, but costs of fielding a 1st rate fleet to flip a port.

 

[vazco]

On 12/17/2018 at 2:27 PM, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

How could it be different then ? That's a good example, but ... if in a different way, how would/could RvR ( entire road to and pb ) be ?

Announce a fleet is forming to flip a port the moment it gets formed with strong enough force. Lock people from this fleet from other activities, to prevent fake attacks. Require just a single battle to flip a port.

It's less PvE, more PvP, shorter time investment. Everyone wins.

 

Also, make 2-4th rates available for reals, and make 1st rates nice, but not critical for flipping (as they are already well balanced in PB's)

[OjK]

Well, the incentives for PB's and RvR are as for now absolutely non-existing.

Wood? Absolutely doesn't matter if half of the population is alt characters, so You have access to it no matter what flag waves above the port.
Good that You noticed that VMs are pretty much useless

RvR needs to provide the absolute best and unique rewards.

 

For example - Succesfull conquest of county capital?
Maybe rare note that unlock another permanent slot so You can upgrade Your purple ship into gold?
Maybe rare note that provide another trim to the ship?
Maybe a single note that guarantee 4/5 or 5/5 ship to award for one of the captains?

 

For all participants some other stuff- maybe some top-tier refits? Or maybe some cool custom items, like painting for the ships?
Painting and patterns for sails?

 

Just anything, that would actually mean something...

[Tiedemann]

Screening - IMO this is what is killing RvR!
Screening makes it close to impossible for nations with a small amount of RvR players to attack a port owned by a nation with a large amount players because they will just screen the attackers out with ease. We used to have a work-around for screening and this was "Hiding in battle". Now to counter defending screening fleets, attackers needs screeners and that makes it a numbers game. If you do not have screeners the odds are that your mixed PB fleet perfectly setup for the ports BR limit will end up in a fight with around 20 enemy 1. rates and 5 faster ships for tagging, and that's the end of that PB attack. So attacking a large nation is almost the same as a suicide and it is a huge loss for the attackers, who made it all happen in the first place! So the guys who creates the content are punished so hard they don't bother doing RvR. 

I believe that if the attacking PB fleet had a larger window of opportunity to join the PB, it would increase the chance of attacking PB fleet to get through the defending screening fleet and enter the PB. Right now you can look at when the PB is scheduled to starts and from that and for the 4 next minutes you will see an attacking PB fleet sailing towards the port.
So my suggestion is that the PB could open for entry at least 30 minutes before it will start. Then the attacking PB fleet has the option of waiting for better wind, cover by night, storm/fog what ever and then sail up and enter the PB. After entering early they will have to sit there and wait until the PB is scheduled to start. This is a bit boring, but nothing compared to what we where doing when hiding in battle back in the day. 

Blockade feature:
I think it would be very good alternative for grinding a port for players that are sick of doing PvE. Either have a marked spot in OW right in front of the port where attackers park and wait for defenders to show up. Or it could be a battle instance attackers enter and wait for defenders to join. If they defenders show up and lose/do not show up after x amount of time the port is flipped.

Raiding:
Today we just get hostility up to 100% and then the day after there is a PB. What about giving the attackers an option to choose between PB tomorrow and raid the the port right away? The raid could be like a pb with out the circles, attackers goal is to sail up in range of the town, look at it, get [X] and open the loot box and steal stuff, then make a run for it. Successful raid should not conquer a port, but it should effect a ports output for 1-3 days after being "hit". The stuff attackers can loot could be reals, resources the port supplies and then maybe some chests 
 

[staun]

I think no matter what RvR pack they role out, it only will give a short burst and then fade away. Problem is as I see it, that they try to make hardcore and softcore PvP/RvR players work side by side. I think it may be the time to think about not focusing on getting it all in one server,  but on 2.Let war server be for the hardcore and make the peace server a soft version, with respect for the PvE. It will take only a few changes and then we should be ready to go.

Warserver(Hardcore)

Elite patch 2.0 (all goes to the winner)

- Make ports matter, restrict ressources to port owner.

- Vm for won pb.

- New hostillity system, need to be easy to flip a port.

Elite patch 3.0 (PvP reward)

- Increase the reward for a kill to 50 % of what a ship cost in dbl,

- All ships cost dbl.

- No dbl reward for damage in patrolezone.

Elite patch 4.0 (PvP fights)

- Br limited 1,5 after first attack.

-Remove reinforcement zone.

- After fight increase invivibility, turn sped and OW Speed to 2 min.

Peace server

 Casual player 1,0 (implement softcore PvP)

- Have patrole zone implemented as they work on the War server right now, no other PvP on the server.

Casual player 2,0 ( Implement RvR)

- Make about 20 ports avaible for pb's. 

- Can't be screened out from a pb.

- Implement easy hostility flip.

Casual player 3.0 (The 2 hours man)

- Make all wood types and crafting ressources more even spread out and ind plenty of numbers.

- Reduce the numbers of Dbl needed in making ships and upgrades to 1/10 of current values.

I do think if we work in both directions on 2 different servers we will have a better chance to get a game both for the elite and casual player.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by staun

[staun]

32 minutes ago, vazco said:

Yes, doubloons were a big reason why RvR is dead. Banished summarized it well - it's not worth the effort, at least for deep water ports. One battle requires multiple hours  of grinding. It's not even a PB, but costs of fielding a 1st rate fleet to flip a port.

 

But did we not all(almost all) agree on that 1 rates had to be rare and that ships had to be expensive. Was that not what we got with dbl's?

Edited December 28, 2018 by staun

[staun]

7 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

Rewards are nice. But if only the winner gets them, a strong nation can concrete their position on the map, since weaker nations don't have access to such pimped ships. Rewards for winning a PB should never have an impact on the strengh of RvR factions. Otherwise RvR loses balance.

Well then you just will have to make aliance with other nations. We will always have some that are stronger than others. It can be based of skill, witch I like. But numbers ofc matters alot. As it is now there are only 3, maybe 4 nations that can compete for the best. So you allready have a unballanced game. The guestion is only where you make the cut.

[vazco]

10 minutes ago, staun said:

But did we not all(almost all) agree on that 1 rates had to be rare and that ships had to be expensive. Was that not what we got with dbl's?

1st rates - yes. The problem is that 1-4 rates are now expensive  

Another issue is also that you need to sail 1st rates to efficiently flip a port. There shouldn't be a difference in speed of flipping between 1st and 2nd rate, then sailing a 1st rate would be a ship to aspire to, but wouldn't kill RvR.