Port battles

[Leviathan]

I don't see any confirmation of multiple instances? Each port battle will consist of one battle between the defenders and the attackers. If another port of the same nation gets attacked that will be a separate port battle itself.

[scepo]

I don't see any confirmation of multiple instances? Each port battle will consist of one battle between the defenders and the attackers. If another port of the same nation gets attacked that will be a separate port battle itself.

 

I guess i used i think wrong, that was just my opinion. Apologies.

Edited June 30, 2015 by scepo

[Leviathan]

No worries Scepo

 

Okay, back on topic. What should the criteria for player invitation to port battles be?

[kang]

So, if teleporting is the entry mechanism, i say the first people to declare/join the battle lobby get in.  If you have to sail there, then the first people to get there. 

 

Eventually, you could add a bit more complexity in various ways but we don't really have anything to support that sort of thing, at the moment.

[SueMyChin]

What would stop the "300" from steam rolling the entire map then? Or is that an acceptable outcome?

 

I think if a nation has 300 players available to join a fight vs 100 it should be a sure win for the 300, every battle should be 3 vs 1 ratio. That is why I also think players should travel to a battle, it would make over extension a real thing.

 

I would prefer clans to be the factors here and new or unaffiliated players should have ports for them to participate that are of no interest to clans.

 

That's part of the reason why teleporting shouldn't be allowed in open world. The game should rather be designed to work without it.

When talking about the clans and guilds mechanics I suggested a way to use over extension as a balancing factor between clans so that we don't end up with them challenging national powers across the whole map. This same mechanic along with no teleporting would prevent one clan of the best players or one clan with the most players owning every port too.

"I would suggest that the clans/guilds are limited in the number of captains. They can increase this by improving their port but there is still an upper limit. Every subsequent port the clan/guild captures will increase the captain limit too but by a smaller figure.

 

Let's say the limit is 30 players for one port (rising to 50 when they have the best facilities) each subsequent port adds a further 5-10 captains to the limit. This way there is no theoretical limit to the number of players each clan/guild can have however, as they branch out it will become increasingly difficult to maintain.

 

The exact numbers would have to be worked on in testing obviously."

[kang]

Yeah I get that teleporting is cheesy i'm just a little pvp starved at the moment. 

[Souvenir]

I think that 300 against 100 in fighting collision, the result will be clear. On it, for such a case, I suggest the defending party to choose some other option. The first that comes to my mind, it is evacuation of warships or dealers, their warehouses and other, to some point of rescue. 

 The computer can collect itself the fleet loaded by goods from warehouses of local dealers and (or) players can employ the necessary quantity of the ships for the freights. And it will be interesting, what each owner of freight who participates in fight, saw where its goods float. Those goods, which owners not in game, are loaded in the ships which the owner appointed to a similar case in advance.

 Task, the defending party to remove as much as possible ships. It is possible to make some points of an exit, in different waters, it can be as enormous volumes in very big ships which float only deeply, and it is a lot of small ships.

 The destiny of the city is clear, it most likely passes to won. But also for this purpose attacking have to make something (to destroy forts, to take key points or something else).

It is possible that for performance of conditions on occupation of port, in my offer, it is necessary to enter some quantity of the seized ships.

[Crankey]

If you have paid your money to play the game, you have as much right to take part in all aspects of the game as everyone else, regardless of time in game, the only requirement is to have at least one fitted vessel of a suitable class.

 

I don't think we should plan a major part of the game to 'exclude' anyone, this includes lotteries, grind scores etc etc.

 

A system to allow as many players take part as is humanly possible would be the ideal. The Port battle should be the highlight of the game and not restricted to a lucky few or as a 'reward' for spending 12 hours a day grinding.

[Nathaniel]

LvL 3 - Must participate in at least 2 battles in Port battle zone (PvP or PvE) 

 

In the end, the more hours you spend in PB zone the higher the chances that you will get in Port Battle. 

 

That still means a form of "flipping", which, as far as i understood, isn't on the table.

 

 

Over extension, 300 players can not be on the entire map at the same time, there are more than 250 ports now. If a nation can bring a force to the port that can cap it then why would they lose that battle, i see no possible explanation for that. On the other side there would be a 25 player team of players that would just win every battle because they are organized, why is that fair, or do you want to take that away to and just make it sea trials.

 

Multiple battles at the same timeslots will achieve the same result even with teleports.

 

 

"I would suggest that the clans/guilds are limited in the number of captains. They can increase this by improving their port but there is still an upper limit. Every subsequent port the clan/guild captures will increase the captain limit too but by a smaller figure.

 

Let's say the limit is 30 players for one port (rising to 50 when they have the best facilities) each subsequent port adds a further 5-10 captains to the limit. This way there is no theoretical limit to the number of players each clan/guild can have however, as they branch out it will become increasingly difficult to maintain.

 

The exact numbers would have to be worked on in testing obviously."

 

I was a member of several clans in such games, that restricted player numbers per clan. You know what the clans did? They split into several companies while still playing as a plan. And there are nearly no solution to stop a big clan from being a big clan if it want's to be one

 

Edited July 1, 2015 by Nathaniel

[SueMyChin]

I was a member of several clans in such games, that restricted player numbers per clan. You know what the clans did? They split into several companies while still playing as a plan. And there are nearly no solution to stop a big clan from being a big clan if it want's to be one

 

That's cool, and totally expected behaviour. If two clans don't want to fight each other then fine but they shouldn't be able to easily help their 'sister clans' in port battles.

 

Simply make it so that only a player of clan A can actually participate in port battles involving clan A.There should strictly only be two sides in a port battle, attacker and defender, no rouge pirates, no neighbouring factions etc.

[Ned Loe]

Here is another suggestion. 

 

 

Wheel of fortune system.     

 

Wheel has 3 categories:

 

1. 100% chance players. (Spent required amount of time fighting in red zone)

2. 50% chance players. (Did not meet required 100% of hours in red zone, but still have more than 50%)

3. 1-49% chance players. (Players who did not meet 50%, but have the minimum allowed time spent in red zone to join PB)

 

If there are 25 players then:

 

12 Players will be selected from 100% chance wheel section (100% chance player wheel has no limit, this means if 100 players are eligible at 100% then they all will be listed on the wheel and might be picked by fortune, up to 12 players.)

 

8 Players will be selected from 50% chance wheel section (50% chance player wheel has no limit, this means if 100 players are eligible at 50% then they all will be listed on the wheel and might be picked by fortune, up to 8 players.)

 

5 Players will be selected from 1-49% chance wheel section (1-49% chance player wheel has no limit, this means if 100 players are eligible at 1-49% then they all will be listed on the wheel and might be picked by fortune, up to 5 players.)

 

 

 *Players whose fortune was poor and they did not make it, will get participation hours that will be added to next PB %. Hours spent reset after each Port Battle. So, those who had (100%) and did not make it, will have 50% hours transfer to the next PB. This means they will only need to get 50% more hours to reach 100%  to get in next time. Same applies to 50% (25% hours transferred) and 1-49% players (5% hours transferred) players.  

 

Conclusion

​Obviously, those who did get invites and participated in PB will get reset to 0% and will need to earn hours in battle to reach 100, 50 or 1-49%. Those who were @100%, but did not win the lottery invite will automatically get +50% hours towards next one.   This means, 2 missed Port battles guarantee you +99% hours for next port battle. In the end, you will only need to get 1% in battle and wait for your invite. 

 

 

The wheel system 

 

 

Could devs tell us what is their ideal plan for PB invites?

[SueMyChin]

Haha, we could do age of sail trivial pursuit!

 

Do you really think a lottery system is a genuine option though Wind? You can picture the responses from that player who's attempted to get into one 5 or 6 times and always missed out...

 

Why do we even need an invite system? We have an open world to decide who gets into the instance or not. Isn't that essentially what it's for?

First 'faction' to enter the port battle instance is the side that will contest it with the defenders. The first 25 players who join will be the first 'wave' attackers. As they die they can be replaced by players nearby in OW (should they chose to join) until the instance is closed.

 

Someone please explain to me why this is a bad idea?

[Ned Loe]

Haha, we could do age of sail trivial pursuit!

 

Do you really think a lottery system is a genuine option though Wind? You can picture the responses from that player who's attempted to get into one 5 or 6 times and always missed out...

 

Why do we even need an invite system? We have an open world to decide who gets into the instance or not. Isn't that essentially what it's for?

First 'faction' to enter the port battle instance is the side that will contest it with the defenders. The first 25 players who join will be the first 'wave' attackers. As they die they can be replaced by players nearby in OW (should they chose to join) until the instance is closed.

 

Someone please explain to me why this is a bad idea?

The thing is, nation can spam players inside port battle on their separate accounts and ruin PB. Ex. I will use my 2nd pc and my 2nd character on different account to take the spot on the opposite team and do nothing during pb to make sure other nation wins. 

[SueMyChin]

The thing is, nation can spam players inside port battle on their separate accounts and ruin PB. Ex. I will use my 2nd pc and my 2nd character on different account to take the spot on the opposite team and do nothing during pb to make sure other nation wins. 

 

Then that account should be reported by the player base, what clan/faction is going to sit by and allow a player doing that to be part of their fleet?

 

..and even still, what is stopping the same thing from happening in your lottery system? A 2nd account is just as likely to get an invite as the next players...

[Ned Loe]

Then that account should be reported by the player base, what clan/faction is going to sit by and allow a player doing that to be part of their fleet?

 

..and even still, what is stopping the same thing from happening in your lottery system? A 2nd account is just as likely to get an invite as the next players...

Would you want to fight and earn hours on 2nd account, just to get an invite chance to disturb another team? On the other hand, In open lobby everyone can get in and ruin game for everyone.  

[SueMyChin]

Would you want to fight and earn hours on 2nd account, just to get an invite chance to disturb another team? On the other hand, In open lobby everyone can get in and ruin game for everyone.  

 

I wouldn't have an open lobby, I would stick an instance over a port on the open water map with the port battle inside. That's why we're playing an open world game, because it's preferable over lobbys and arrange skirmishes.

 

If someone has gone to the bother of buying a 2nd account, setting up a 2nd PC, sailing to the port in question then yes, I would imagine nothing would be too much work for them.

 

Let's say whatever system is implemented you got a player joining on one side who just sat AFK to deny his enemy an extra captain, he could easily be reported and have his account banned. Problem solved, he'd be $40 worse off if he wanted to do it again, who's going to bother just to win a port battle? It's not even an issue, and definitely not something we need to concern ourselves with when coming up with port battle mechanics.

[mindnet56]

A few thoughts...

 

As far as I am concerned, OpenWorld is Open World. Everyone should have the 'chance' to participate in port battles.

 

I think that Capital ports should be considered invulnerable.

 

In order to limit any nation achieving total domination, a value has to be used for the 'over reach' of a nation. So as they over reach themselves their ports become more vulnerable. Imagine the RN with say 25 ports as a starting point, then they end up with 100, perhaps their ports invulnerability should be divided by 4, or maybe less as they will have more money and trade to pay for their occupation. Maybe the invulnerability of nation’s ports could be linked to the number of ships/players in the nation, though some governing handicap factor should be employed to prevent world domination by any one nation. So a diminishing scale so that the difference between 1000 players and 10k players is next to nothing or inversed to give the 1000 an advantage. For example we could say that a massive nation could well become carelessly over confident, and a smaller nation would have to be more careful and cunning, hence the advantage to a smaller nation.

 

So do we establish a status quo of port occupation and allow that to change only by a certain percentage.... perhaps we could have seasonal and political cycles that influence the status quo in favor of one or other nation(s).

 

One thing is certain and that is that not everyone will be happy with whatever we end up with, but it must be enjoyable for most everyone to take part in.

[Totoche]

If I may I am against port battle how where rare until the invention of the explosive munitions. I am not here talking of blockade and siege how where possible but very boring in the time frame of this game.

This is my opinion and I do uphold it. 

[Paraclete]

If any player, regardless of effort expended (as in zero) has an equal chance of attending a port battle as I do after many hours of raising contention (or whatever we are calling it). What would be my motivation for spending hours to initiate a port battle for a guy that purchased the game 15 minutes ago to attend when I am left out.

 

I understand that some of us have kids and demanding employment and demanding spouses and girl friends softball leagues and darts at the pub ect.

Like any human endeavor you only get out of it proportionally what you are able to put into it.

 

No free lunches.

Its 2015. You are free to adjust your schedule to what is important for you.

[Mirones]

 

4. Gameplay

• Updated damage model 4.0
• Improved sailing of for-and-aft rigs
• Better turning and rudder mechanics
• Commander tablet
• New game types: Operations gameplay – 24 hours large battle map with respawns, and shore defences

 

i gues we got some scale of what to expect from the port battles.

i just wonder if the map will be 1:1 scale of the Local Port.

 

maybe we get an test bed of one of the battles from outside the timeframe or carebean

would be intressting to see shallows there

[Crankey]

Maybe i'm misunderstanding but the battles will still be capped at 50 players (25v25) and it's just a matter of determining who gets the invite out of the 300/100 example and the criteria involved. It will never be a 300v100 battle.

 

I'm sorry but this would totally suck, in particular if numbers grow above expectations. the majority of players should be able to enjoy all of the content the game offers, not the minority.

[Paraclete]

In another similar game (which shall go unmentioned) being excluded really was not a problem. After a few PBs it gets mundane and the problem actually becomes getting enough players to fill a PB roster.

When you figure that it would take 25+/- port battles to register a win and flip the map....well you can do the math.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Paraclete

[Nathaniel]

If any player, regardless of effort expended (as in zero) has an equal chance of attending a port battle as I do after many hours of raising contention (or whatever we are calling it).

 

If i correctly understand the current planning, there will be no "contention" at all. An attacking force (with conditions yet to be defined, it wasn't announced, i can imagine it being a guild with X members or someone paying a fee) declares the wish to attack your port, you have to come to defend it in timeframe designated by the defending force. That's it. And that's a way better system, than PotBS "flipping".

 

I'm sorry but this would totally suck, in particular if numbers grow above expectations. the majority of players should be able to enjoy all of the content the game offers, not the minority.

 

It wouldn't suck per se. If you generate a world with enough ports and enough battles going on on one evening (it has not to be several fights per nights as in PotBS), the single instances will be not a problem at all. On the contrary, organized guilds will have to cooperate with casual players, relying on them to also take over less strategic targets in simultaneous (or nearly simultaneous) battles.

 

While i like your multi-instanced solution to at least have a test to try it out, you must also admit that it is a complex system, which will involve a lot of development and balancing. While trafalgar-style 25vs25 battles are already implemented, balanced out and fun. They just need a good meta to work as port sieges.

[SueMyChin]

If you generate a world with enough ports and enough battles going on on one evening (it has not to be several fights per nights as in PotBS), the single instances will be not a problem at all.

 

This can't happen I'm afraid, you'll make it so there are so many port battles that nobody cares enough to participate in them, there is an open world because players want more than just one arena match after another. They have to be special, one-off events almost. Otherwise you'll end up with nobody taking part in them.

 

In another similar game (which shall go unmentioned) being excluded really was not a problem. After a few PBs it gets mundane and the problem actually becomes getting enough players to fill a PB roster.

 

 

Which is exactly why this is a bad idea.

 

While trafalgar-style 25vs25 battles are already implemented, balanced out and fun. They just need a good meta to work as port sieges.

 

Please explain what is the point in creating two game modes (Open World and Skirmish) and then making the most important aspects of one exactly like the other? You have Trafalgar battles on the click of a button in skirmish mode yet you want to regurgitate them onto the open world, to be the most important battles, the ones that actually define the point in Open World to begin with?

 

The port battles have to happen maybe once per week or so, to be special and so that casual players can always participate if they like. They have to be big enough to draw players to a particular part of the map, and the have to be able to accommodate them all, not just 25 of them. Not just invite players at random, via a lobby, to participate in a skirmish mode battle which if they wanted to, they can do every day of the week in the arena mode.

 

and this is a recipe for disaster too...

 

On the contrary, organized guilds will have to cooperate with casual players, relying on them to also take over less strategic targets in simultaneous (or nearly simultaneous) battles.

 

If you join a clan you want to be able to play with that clan alone, not with a bunch of random players. You will cause so much rage by sticking inexperienced players into battles along side clans whom they could potentially cost them their port. Just look at WoT and WT random battles and there is little to nothing riding on them...

[Nathaniel]

This can't happen I'm afraid, you'll make it so there are so many port battles that nobody cares enough to participate in them, there is an open world because players want more than just one arena match after another. They have to be special, one-off events almost. Otherwise you'll end up with nobody taking part in them.

 

 

 Ehm, how is that to come about? You just make just enough battles that 1. it's fun an interesting for everybody involved, 2. it gives both attackers and defenders incentives to participate 3. there are some more strategically important battles and some more "just for fun/rewards" battles happening at the same time. It's a straightforward balancing act, not of making X or Y numbers of battles, but of making JUST ENOUGH for both the hardcore clan and the casual player to have fun. Nobody speaks about being able to attack the same port one match after another. But with over 100 ports and a port battle in each one at least once a week you are bound to have multiple battles every evening. And why should that be bad? I didn't remember the repetitive nature of trafalgar putting people off...

 

 

 

Please explain what is the point in creating two game modes (Open World and Skirmish) and then making the most important aspects of one exactly like the other? You have Trafalgar battles on the click of a button in skirmish mode yet you want to regurgitate them onto the open world, to be the most important battles, the ones that actually define the point in Open World to begin with?

If i understood the dev's ideas correctly, their picture is exactly NOT to have a dedicated skirmish mode completely detached from the OW experience (despite what what the current placeholder button might suggest), but to introduce seamlessly more structured forms of PvP into the OW experiences like trader escorts, admirality calls or, yes, fort sieges. Where is the difference in the escort of a trader being teleported into a battle instantly (which was discussed endlessly and settled) and a port battle with teleports in and out?

 

And of course a port-battle with restricted access doesn't mean it isn't determined by the Open World. Of course it is: the ships players are able to bring, their skill, the ships and trade items being on hold in the port, it's importance in the world's economy. All that is determined by Open World player activities.

 

If you join a clan you want to be able to play with that clan alone, not with a bunch of random players. You will cause so much rage by sticking inexperienced players into battles along side clans whom they could potentially cost them their port. Just look at WoT and WT random battles and there is little to nothing riding on them...

Well, in the opening post we were asked to give ideas for Port Battles in a set framework. And this framework includes participation of random players:

 

(remember - that judging by sea trials and wot and many other games with random force composition) having more random players can actually increase the fun and sometimes frustration. Inexperienced players must be able to participate in such events effectively or they will leave the game.

 

So if you feel the framework itself is set incorrectly, then you should probably open another topic. But anyway, earlier i set out two entirely different systems, both of which can pretty much harmonize casual player participation and organized/hardcore member interests. And i say that as a player belonging more to the "organized" camp.

 

 

Besides, could you explain me, why there is no contradiction between this quote

 

 

The port battles have to happen maybe once per week or so, to be special and so that casual players can always participate if they like [...]

and this:

If you join a clan you want to be able to play with that clan alone, not with a bunch of random players.

 

?

Edited July 3, 2015 by Nathaniel