Port ownership, bonuses, friends list - reworked

[Koltes]

This post is not about poking any clan in particular. This post is about discussing current issues at hand with the game mechanic.

I think everyone agrees that the current system of "port ownership - friends list" leads to bully and mechanic abuse.
We have seen plenty of examples of that.

Current flaws at hand:
1. Owner of the port switches to another nation, but may still retain control over the port. It is hard-coded mechanic that nation CAN NOT deal with such situation using intended game mechanic;
2. Owner of the port quits the game without leaving Diplos in the clan - the port becomes inactive and a waste for the nation;
3. Sometimes it's not about the capital, but it's satellite port. Guibara produces WO but JAWS clan leadership were not online for months. No one can get to their friends list and this port can't even be lost and retaken without first loosing Baracoa (the only crafting port that Pirates have - so not an option). This becomes a total waste for the nation;
4. Due to friends list limitation lots of legitimate clans are missing out which again cripples the nation as not everyone can craft good ships;
5. Clan friends list kills solo play in NA. There is no way a casual player who plays at his own pace is capable of being competitive captain. Because solo play is the most activity of the new players = no wonder we have poor new player retaining rate;
6. Owner of the port decided to troll the nation. He has tools to hurt the nation and nation has no tools to retaliate

Issues summed up:
1. Friends list limitation;
2. Immunity of satellite ports (can't be attacked without capitals falling first);
3. Immunity of rogue clans in a nation (no GnG or other mechanics to deal with trolls);
4. Port bonuses are only available to those who are on the friends list;
5. Inability for the port owner to simply pass the ownership to another clan


Below is how I propose to sort all these issues:
1. Keep the friends list, but remove limitation and only make it applicable to who can enter the PBs of the given clan. Edited: (added by @WilsonMG's suggestion: friends list also gives access to port investments. Not being on friends list does not cut off the port bonuses;
2. Remove shielding of satellite ports by the capital. Allow all ports to be attacked (if hostility missions can be pulled on any given region then all ports can gain hostility with one exception! When hostility mission is taken on one of the ports, the hostility missions on other ports becomes unavailable, thus removes multiple flips on any given region). All hostilities should cost to take. Regional ports 500k, capitals - 2m per hostility, thus makes it expensive if someone chooses to use this as defensive tactic;
3. In port management add "Pass port ownership to another clan" button for easier transition. The new ownership takes effect after downtime. Only clan creator is able to do so;
4. Use previous Alliance voting mechanic for a new Civil War mechanic - allow any given clan to start voting on attacking any given clan within a nation. If rebels have 30+ % votes in favor - they have grounds for the Civil War. Two sides are created - defenders and rebels and all clans will have 3 options - either join one or the other or stay impartial (neutral). Civil War runs for a limited time and has a cooldown. Only one vote at any given time may be created


Thank you for your time

Koltes out...

Edited October 4, 2019 by koltes

[WilsonMG]

I'm not sure I fully agree with the "Civil War" idea, but the rest I can definitely get behind.

One suggestion... the Friendly Clans List should apply to defenders (so you can control Port Battle groups), as well as port investments.  You wouldn't want someone investing in something the owners don't want.  Port bonuses should definitely be available to the entire nation.

[Severus Snape]

ah the irony.

[William Death]

Just go full out clan vs clan. 

Clan you don't like owns the port? Take it from them. Solo players can hunt whoever. Port bonuses and the other magic just needs to be gone totally. Go back to cookie cutter ships with a small pool of reasonable-percentage mods that allow for customization of performance. Let skill triumph over pretty pixels once again.

 

Agreed on "pass port ownership" option. Should already be in the game.

Agreed that we need larger friends list so more clans can be added. Why limit it to 15?

Somewhat agreed on having the shielding effect of capital ports removed.
I'd go with Hammy's suggestion in his thread about reversing the roles of capital and surrounding ports: first take the surrounding ports, then take the capital.
Or implement a sliding BR effect. So if you want to take the capital without first conquering the surround ports, you'll only have room for half the BR that the defenders can bring. Take more of the surrounding ports, and you can fit more BR into the battle. Take all the surrounding ports and you can fit full BR into it on both sides.

 

Disagree on what the clan ownership should entail. It SHOULD allow a clan to put pressure on other clans, by refusing the use of resources. It'll drive clan wars within a "nation." See above for my suggestion to go all-out clan based gameplay. Have the nations (and cut nations back to 4-6 nations max, no need for so many) be like a loose affiliation of players under the same flag, but clans fly their own flags and wage their own wars. Sometimes those are civil wars against other clans within their nation. If the friendly clan list can extend beyond nation boundaries, then we can have true diplomacy in the game. 

 

And one does have to wonder...if the friendly clan list was working well for you, would you be complaining about the terrible mechanics? When my friends who remained in pirates after some of us left the nation got removed from the friendly clan lists, it was all well and good in the world: because they weren't deemed "true pirates." Perhaps another pirate king has risen to power and deemed you unfit to be a "true pirate" and removed you from the friendly list. Perhaps power blinded some to the injustices they wrought. 

[Archaos]

50 minutes ago, koltes said:

2. Remove shielding of satellite ports by the capital. Allow all ports to be attacked (if hostility missions can be pulled on any given region then all ports can gain hostility with one exception! When hostility mission is taken on one of the ports, the hostility missions on other ports becomes unavailable, thus removes multiple flips on any given region);

This is exploitable. Get an alt clan to constantly flip one of the satellite ports as a defense mechanism.

[Koltes]

Well I actually agree with you and also stood for clan wars and even have a post about it.
However I dont think port bonuses should go. They just needs to be available to all nation. If nation likes the way bonuses setup they will naturally use the port.
I think that clan should be able to charge tax not only on the shop transactions, but on everything that is done in that port - crafting cost reals (whatever small amount it cost should go to the clan as well as portion of doubloons that it cost to craft), pulling resources our cost reals right? they should also go to the port owner.

This makes ports different and give more natural influence within a nation. Makes some ports more important than others.

 

27 minutes ago, William Death said:

Just go full out clan vs clan.
I proposed that and was told by devs they are against the idea for different reasons. So hence why I'm trying another ideas that are not so OP and does not gives power to one clan own it all repeat issue. Why step on the same shovel again and again?
 

Clan you don't like owns the port? Take it from them. Solo players can hunt whoever. Port bonuses and the other magic just needs to be gone totally. Go back to cookie cutter ships with a small pool of reasonable-percentage mods that allow for customization of performance. Let skill triumph over pretty pixels once again.
I would love it, but see above. Devs are afraid (and rightfully so) that this will cause even more power concentration issue even more so than it is now.
So I propose a Civil War that gives nation some control over it. If one clan will start having too much of a power the nation can stop it from keep taking ports.

 

Agreed on "pass port ownership" option. Should already be in the game.
👍
 

Agreed that we need larger friends list so more clans can be added. Why limit it to 15?
👍

 

Somewhat agreed on having the shielding effect of capital ports removed.
I'd go with Hammy's suggestion in his thread about reversing the roles of capital and surrounding ports: first take the surrounding ports, then take the capital.
Or implement a sliding BR effect. So if you want to take the capital without first conquering the surround ports, you'll only have room for half the BR that the defenders can bring. Take more of the surrounding ports, and you can fit more BR into the battle. Take all the surrounding ports and you can fit full BR into it on both sides.
I totally agree that shielding should be reversed, but again was turned down by the devs. The answer was that historically no one would have gone for the ports that dont matter. An escadra would have been formed and sent to attack the richest port in the region. Why waste time on smaller ports. I can see the historical reasons behind that, but disagreed with the devs for the balance of game mechanic. Historically that situation was mainly referred not to conquest but rather to raiding. In my opinion that permanent conquest needs to be done starting from regional ports, then move to capital. Raiding (temporary conquest) should be able to attack capitals right away like it is now, but hold only limited time during the plunder. Then yeah sure. But then again we were turned down on this so there is no point arguing.
The easiest way to sort this is to make all ports available for attack (remove shielding), but make it so only one at the time can be attacked so there are no multyflips. Players can decide for themselves which ports are more important for them to attack. Maybe they just want an outpost in the region.
 

 

Disagree on what the clan ownership should entail. It SHOULD allow a clan to put pressure on other clans, by refusing the use of resources. It'll drive clan wars within a "nation." See above for my suggestion to go all-out clan based gameplay. Have the nations (and cut nations back to 4-6 nations max, no need for so many) be like a loose affiliation of players under the same flag, but clans fly their own flags and wage their own wars. Sometimes those are civil wars against other clans within their nation. If the friendly clan list can extend beyond nation boundaries, then we can have true diplomacy in the game.
I personally would love clan wars and believe that it would make this game go back to its glory. But for any reasons devs are against that idea. I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with the gods 🤣
It is what it is. Question is - if they wont make new mechanic (clan wars), how can we change the current one so its playable? I agree with what you said in regards resources. Was thinking that too, just forgot to put it in

 

And one does have to wonder...if the friendly clan list was working well for you, would you be complaining about the terrible mechanics? When my friends who remained in pirates after some of us left the nation got removed from the friendly clan lists, it was all well and good in the world: because they weren't deemed "true pirates." Perhaps another pirate king has risen to power and deemed you unfit to be a "true pirate" and removed you from the friendly list. Perhaps power blinded some to the injustices they wrought.
I rather you not turning this discussion into clan politics that we have in the game and continue civilized non-trolling non-prejudice discussion about things that matters for everyone.
And no, I didnt have an issue with VCO members that stayed with pirates (or left to russian for that matter). I always had an issue with anyone playing for one nation while being able to control ports in another nation.
Also no, neither myself or my clan are cut off from port bonuses so I'm genuinely not pullig the blanket on my side only and thinking about the game in general. I all against this same issue of one person holding nation or his own clan hostage of his personal agenda or ego.

Please make no mistake. When I say this I don't mean they should be denied that option either. Its just OTHERS should not be denied to be able to retaliate. This time around its happening in my own clan and all the same - I'm against that wholeheartedly.
So its not actions of few that annoys me as I believe that everyone should have a freedom to act as the wish. Its the inability to answer those actions by normal game mechanics that I find to be the primary issue here.

 

[Koltes]

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

This is exploitable. Get an alt clan to constantly flip one of the satellite ports as a defense mechanism.

Yeah I was thinking about this too and though about timers etc. But then I realized that this is self-sorting issue. If someone choose to use an alt to pull hostility then everyone can still attack that port and flip it. That port is still open for everyone to pull hostilities on. Sooner or later regions will run out of ports to pull - sorted.
Also (thanks for bringing this up as I forgot to put it in as I originally intended) - taking hostility mission should cost lots of reals. Regional port - 500km, capital 2mil.
There you have it. Only serious intentions please  

Main post updated. Cheers

Edited October 4, 2019 by koltes

[Oli Garchy]

30 minutes ago, koltes said:

Yeah I was thinking about this too and though about timers etc. But then I realized that this is self-sorting issue. If someone choose to use an alt to pull hostility then everyone can still attack that port and flip it. That port is still open for everyone to pull hostilities on. Sooner or later regions will run out of ports to pull - sorted.
Also (thanks for bringing this up as I forgot to put it in as I originally intended) - taking hostility mission should cost lots of reals. Regional port - 500km, capital 2mil.
There you have it. Only serious intentions please  

Main post updated. Cheers

Ah yes make naval action more grindy to afford the hostility missions....

[Koltes]

14 minutes ago, Oli Garchy said:

Ah yes make naval action more grindy to afford the hostility missions....

Is this is your only comment you have about the entire post?

There was always cost involved and intended even when we had flags. With old super inflation it just didn't cost enough to stop multi flips.
The prices will be adjusted and are only for example purpose.

[Oli Garchy]

3 minutes ago, koltes said:

Is this is your only comment you have about the entire post?

There was always cost involved and intended even when we had flags. With old super inflation it just didn't cost enough to stop multi flips.
The prices will be adjusted and are only for example purpose.

the cost now is the risk and time you run grinding the hostility in the mission. why would you also need anything else?

 

PS im on the 100% clan based game and nations just starting safe locations

Edited October 4, 2019 by Oli Garchy

[Koltes]

If you would have taken time to read carefully what's been discussed and the reasons "why" you would not had to take time asking these question
 

 

[Oli Garchy]

Just now, koltes said:

If you would have taken time to read carefully what's been discussed and the reasons "why" you would not had to take time asking these question
 

 

 well I did and it currently seems like you cant find an answer and refer back to the first wall of text as a deflection (do you have carta or navy planking?)

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Wraith said:

I'll agree that we need an increase to the number of friendly clans. But we should also allow friendly clans to be from foreign nations.

The rest of that is just pissing and moaning because you can't seem to get along with your nation after trying to make yourself king, and then proceeding post-haste to go about losing a third of their ports and two major crafting centers. Learn to play well with others.

They really need two list for sure, the crafting friendly clans that doens't have to be changed.  Than the PB list that can be changed of empty any time.  Cause you might not have the same clans for both list as you might have some folks as crafters and some that only show up for the fights.  This would be one way to expand the list.  At least make it 20 or something than just 15 which is an odd number like having 8 ports only.

[John Page]

Good ideas!

[Raekur]

7 hours ago, Wraith said:

I'll agree that we need an increase to the number of friendly clans. But we should also allow friendly clans to be from foreign nations.

Wouldn't this in effect turn the port into a limited available to all without the indicator that it is being done? Or would it require the port to be switched to available to all but now you have a potential hostile group crafting ships and/or gathering resources from said port? I think Wraith should probably expand on his thoughts here of just how this would benefit the nation that owns the port without causing harm at the same time.

[Thonys]

all good ideas in someway or another .

BUT The big problem is :

devs do not listen to the european forum posts for implementation of features ( but only ideas and only solutions to existing problems )

ask yourself why is there no trade?

and it/that  will count for many ideas...it's a rollercoaster .

the first thing what we as a community need is a grip on q and a for this game.

but that will only provided by development ,and only... if they want to do so. 

but that is not what i see often, the only thing i see is a blackout (what will take about 2 months (   )  / we still have 3 weeks to go )

until then it's just a speculation on what will happen...

the only thing i seek is expansion, but

we just don't know the solution.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Thonys

[Angus MacDuff]

13 hours ago, koltes said:

1. Keep the friends list, but remove limitation and only make it applicable to who can enter the PBs of the given clan. Edited: (added by @WilsonMG's suggestion: friends list also gives access to port investments. Not being on friends list does not cut off the port bonuses;

Good overall Op but I have a small issue with the above.  Just make it so the friends list does not apply to investments or bonuses.  However, there has to be some form of profit for the owning clan when everyone piles in to take advantage of this.  Could be easily accomplished if the cost of putting up buildings went directly to the owning clan and then taxes would supply a continuing income.

[Teutonic]

I am 100% for a total Clan v Clan, apart from that I disagree with your issues and solutions, but agree that the problem should be fixed. These 3 things would be what I would change to largely change/solve what players perceive to be an issue.

1. Clan v Clan - nation only as a dackdrop

2. Friendly clan list - any clan on the list is friendly to you (even clans in other nations). Players in OW - if friendly, would show up just like you see players in your nation.

3. Port Bonuses should be destroyed, completely. In exchange there should be more "Economic" bonuses. Stat boosts are hello kittying stupid. kill port bonuses as they are now. Look, I love port bonuses, I also loved the idea, but they were a mistake.

 

on a side note, It is interesting to note that the issue the pirates brought upon themselves is entirely unique...and while it probably is the perfect example of what "can be abused" the majority of the rest of the nations seem to not have the same issue here... 🤔

Other nations that possibly have issue with friendly clan list abuse or "satellite clans" are Russia and Great Britain - but I haven't quite seen the same irritations (except everyone hating on the BASTD clan).

Edited October 4, 2019 by Teutonic

[Angus MacDuff]

33 minutes ago, Wraith said:

The way I'd envisioned it is that a foreign friendly clan sees the port as open, but clans not on the friends list do not. It effectively allows you to turn foreign clans friendly for port access, crafting, hostility, and port battles. As a result, it gives clans the ability to form clan-based alliances across national boundaries, which would be a stepping stone towards a more fluid alliance system based on clans not on nations, but works within the mechanics we already have. 

 

How does it work for a solo player?  If he gets on a friendly clans list, is he then limited in who he can attack?  Maybe not the owning clan obviously, but what about all others on the list?  Is it effectively an alliance system with all?  Can he be kicked off the list by the clan leadership?  This is my issue with the current system.  Comply or be shunned

Edited October 4, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[Simon Cadete]

Port bonuses need to go. Permits for ships also need to go. Give us the freedom to build whatever we want as long as we have resources. 

Maybe have the option develop and improve any port of our choosing with defenses, resource gathering, production bonuses or something like that. 

It might be too late now anyway. Population is gone and the little burst from release is gone and never coming back.

Maybe start thinking of some kind of single player on a stand-alone version with no server for the future...

[Beeekonda]

OP be like

On 10/3/2019 at 6:41 PM, koltes said:

This post is not about poking any clan in particular. This post is about discussing current issues at hand with the game mechanic.

ALSO OP

On 10/3/2019 at 6:41 PM, koltes said:

3. Immunity of rogue clans in a nation (no GnG or other mechanics to deal with trolls);

Could you define "trolls" please?

 

[Dark Moon]

On 10/3/2019 at 6:41 PM, koltes said:

This post is not about poking any clan in particular. This post is about discussing current issues at hand with the game mechanic.

I think everyone agrees that the current system of "port ownership - friends list" leads to bully and mechanic abuse.
We have seen plenty of examples of that.

Current flaws at hand:
1. Owner of the port switches to another nation, but may still retain control over the port. It is hard-coded mechanic that nation CAN NOT deal with such situation using intended game mechanic;
2. Owner of the port quits the game without leaving Diplos in the clan - the port becomes inactive and a waste for the nation;
3. Sometimes it's not about the capital, but it's satellite port. Guibara produces WO but JAWS clan leadership were not online for months. No one can get to their friends list and this port can't even be lost and retaken without first loosing Baracoa (the only crafting port that Pirates have - so not an option). This becomes a total waste for the nation;
4. Due to friends list limitation lots of legitimate clans are missing out which again cripples the nation as not everyone can craft good ships;
5. Clan friends list kills solo play in NA. There is no way a casual player who plays at his own pace is capable of being competitive captain. Because solo play is the most activity of the new players = no wonder we have poor new player retaining rate;
6. Owner of the port decided to troll the nation. He has tools to hurt the nation and nation has no tools to retaliate

Issues summed up:
1. Friends list limitation;
2. Immunity of satellite ports (can't be attacked without capitals falling first);
3. Immunity of rogue clans in a nation (no GnG or other mechanics to deal with trolls);
4. Port bonuses are only available to those who are on the friends list;
5. Inability for the port owner to simply pass the ownership to another clan


Below is how I propose to sort all these issues:
1. Keep the friends list, but remove limitation and only make it applicable to who can enter the PBs of the given clan. Edited: (added by @WilsonMG's suggestion: friends list also gives access to port investments. Not being on friends list does not cut off the port bonuses;
2. Remove shielding of satellite ports by the capital. Allow all ports to be attacked (if hostility missions can be pulled on any given region then all ports can gain hostility with one exception! When hostility mission is taken on one of the ports, the hostility missions on other ports becomes unavailable, thus removes multiple flips on any given region). All hostilities should cost to take. Regional ports 500k, capitals - 2m per hostility, thus makes it expensive if someone chooses to use this as defensive tactic;
3. In port management add "Pass port ownership to another clan" button for easier transition. The new ownership takes effect after downtime. Only clan creator is able to do so;
4. Use previous Alliance voting mechanic for a new Civil War mechanic - allow any given clan to start voting on attacking any given clan within a nation. If rebels have 30+ % votes in favor - they have grounds for the Civil War. Two sides are created - defenders and rebels and all clans will have 3 options - either join one or the other or stay impartial (neutral). Civil War runs for a limited time and has a cooldown. Only one vote at any given time may be created


Thank you for your time

Koltes out...

is it just me or are u regretting taking it from vco in the first place now. but come on BL4CK wanted that port so bad they employed the spanish to take it from another pirate clan and now their complaining cause their clan cant give it away cause their clan lacks diplo's and their leader left the game.

maybe if BL4CK cared for the nation they wouldnt of taken the port in the first place. the pirate nation doesnt need a civil war mechanic u just want to take it cause ur leader 7grams left the game and ur clan fractured down the middle.

this is the only reason ur suggesting this kind of suggestion for the game so it fits ur agenda has nothing to do with other nations. just ur clan and its mistakes

[Koltes]

I think port bonuses was an attempt to make ships unique and ports matter.
I believe this was discussed and offered some time ago.

Reasons for above solutions was that if devs are hard set on the current system - they would only want to hear about how to balance it out.
If you are hard stand on your opinion what is in your opinion better this wont get us anywhere. Unfortunately.

I always promoted professions in ship building. A player may specialize only in one profession. Each profession gives an ability to craft related part of the ship with bonuses.

The ships are made from complete parts. Sails, Hull, Bow, Stern, Mast, Stricture etc etc. Even cannons. All bonuses are made by players.
Port themselves should give economic bonuses that might benefit in crafting some part. I've got it written somehow. Can did out if anyone is interested. But chances are its a waste of time discussing this.
It is what it is and if we are not offering solutions to balance the current system then there might not be ANY improvement

Edited October 7, 2019 by koltes

[Raekur]

I am beginning to think that the only way in which there will be a player driven option for crafting bonuses is if it is offered as a DLC. The question then becomes how many players will have issue with it as it may be viewed as changing the game to one of pay to win. The current DLC ships area already much weaker when compared to ships of equal rank if you just view it by the numbers. I think that if the only future DLC's are restricted to just ships that the game will not progress based on the abilities of the current ships as a guide and that some of the ships cost as much as buying the game which I have never seen any company do. Most of the DLC's that I have seen for other games are about 1/8th to 1/5th the price of the game itself.