Port battles

[Souvenir]

Perhaps controversial offer.

It is planned to divide, into some time, other seas, Western Europe for example, all Caribbean region on time zones aren't started yet. I don't know on how many, the more the better. 

But I suggest to go further.

Make belts shifted (mixed) once a week (in a month). It is possible in any order. I will explain. For example the region shares on 6 pieces down, and in a month pieces are stirred.

 It is possible and not on belts, it is possible on sectors, squares, etc. It will compel to move, attack, borrow new, to transport.

 And it is possible to make it sounded in advance that the people would start preparing for moving earlier.

[ulysse77]

i m trying to think outside the box here. Lets say you have temporary ownership of a port after a your side won so many engagement. You effectively control that area and the other side is not tryin to regain that port and it's not contested. After a set of time the two waring nation have peace talk and trade ownership.

I have no clue how such a system would work im just brainstorming.

I don t like the idea of one port battle deciding who own a port. I d rather see a system that naval actions are required in order to gain a port. Blockade, supply of troop and supplies, protection of those convoys. Essentially ports were won by land forces.

[ulysse77]

I think maybe the term "port battle" is misleading. Maybe we could just change it to "fleet engagement" and it could be better. They we re exciting in Potbs because it was the only large scale battle, but they were a pain to grind and sometime included a lot of downtime for not a whole lot of actions.

[Principe]

I want to see a system like Europa IV actually. I believe it's called Casus Bella where a nation has to have an actual reason and a justifiable reason at that in order to conquer a port. 

 

Whether its rightfully their ports and such. Then this is where merchants & adventurers come into play in the future as well, say a system is implemented where merchants & adventurers would have to work to fabricate a claim on that port and based on the amount of players working on fabricating the claim and their skill it would take from a day to a week! If the nations fails at this then they lose reputation and such. 

 

Then so many things can be added to support this Casus Bella system like religious conflict or simply to ignite a war. This can balance things as well cause after a war you can't just take all the ports you conquered, there's always a peace treaty that grants you certain advantages, at least for the winners, and disadvantages for the losers!

 

Any thoughts?

[Principe]

Then the actual port battle itself.

 

Shallow ports for light ships & Deep ports for both ships alike is a good idea. 

 

Port vulnerability

 

I like this idea honestly, it's really convenient but I'm just worried about the consistently of it. Yes, it's alpha so we can test all day but in the future release, if its everyday then we as the working group, can't possibly compete against the wizard players who has all time of the world. 

I feel like it's a bit too arcade right now, we can improve it later on though, but please look at my Casus Bella post just above or two post of this one. 

If we want to stimulate the age of sailing, we might as well try to visualize the politics during the time, no? This can be troublesome since it might take a long time to conquer and decide to take a port but in every thing, there's always that perfect little balance

 

Announcements

 

It should be five hours prior to the actual battle itself currently It might be more but hey, this is alpha. We need to devote a lot of time for testing. 

 

Port battle invites

 

It should be:

 

1. Player's proximity of the port

2. Player's who are in adjacent alliance with the nation (For example US & France are allies, and GB attacks France, then obviously US should get a priority for reinforcement for France)

3. Player's rank & honor & popularity, gotta cater those who are fully invested in the game as well, and just let them join the underdog I suppose. 

4. Random choosing, you can't be too picky cause it will generation tensions, add this 4th factor and most people will be satisfied. 

 

Thank You for granting us the option to suggest and improve the upcoming feature 

[Marlinspike]

I think we need to clarify categories of ports, because not all ports are the same, therefore they should probably have different capture mechanics.

 

Currently in game we have:

 

Capital Ports -- uncontestable starting points, spawn point, teleport destination, one per nation

Flagged Ports -- belong to nation to the exclusion of other nations, open to neutrals

Neutral Ports -- open to all

Deep Water Ports -- could be any of the above; any ship can enter

Shallow Water Ports -- could be flagged or neutral; only shallow draft ships can enter

 

Currently, the only advantage of a flagged port is that it denies entry to other nations (am I wrong? are there other advantages to a flagged port?). 

 

Do we want port battles for the sake of battles? Are ports serving as badges of honor, where each nation/clan/faction is competing for the most badges?

 

Or does a port battle have to serve some strategic purpose, such as controlling territory/resources/wealth?

[Nathaniel]

That clearly stems from the development plans of the game. Clearly forts are meant to be strategic ressources intricately connected to crafting and trading in the midrange future. But as far as i understand the announcment the portbattles itself will come to testing a lot sooner, so for a considerable time they will be exactly that, badge of honour and bases for NPC/player hunts in far away regions. As a swedish/dutch/denmark player i would already now consider a few bases on cuba or in the maracaibo region as a strategic advantage.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Nathaniel

[SueMyChin]

A really simple idea, please feel free to tear it apart.

 

1. Defending team chose when their port is open to attack. They must chose a period (1-2 hours) each week.
    
2. During that time an instance indicator opens up over the port as well as a large perimeter around the instance inside which no instances can be started. The size of the perimiter will need to be tested, it's purpose is to stretch the defending players out accross a large area like blockading a port and stop them all camping nearby the instance, preventing attackers from joining the port instance.
    
3. A defending player can only join the port instance once, if he dies inside or leaves it he then has to defend from outside the perimeter.
    
4. An attacking player can rejoin the instance after leaving or dying and re-spawning.
    
5. Inside the instance there is a fort (it's armed and can be upgraded). This fort must be destroyed before the attackers can take the port.
    
6. Once the fort is destroyed the attackers must then side up to a pier and capture it through boarding action.
    
7. When the instance closes due to capture or the timer running down the perimeter remains for an amount of time to allow players in and out of the port without inevitable conflict.

 

This type of engagement would encompass blockading, blockade running, defending a fortified position and attacking a fortified position.

 

If we were to set the number of crew defending the boarding action inside the port relatively high, then you could even be required to escort a player controlled troopship safely into the port instance in order to give you the best chance of overwhelming the defending force.

 

There are several tools (fortification strength, difficulty of boarding action, duration of the instance and size of the perimeter) the devs can use to balance the attack vs defence difficulty.

 

This sounds a really simple, flexible solution. Please critique. I'll update if I think of any way to improve upon it.

[MikedaBike]

we must have fire ships too oooh oooh please please lets send fire ships to toasty them bad boys!! ooooh Morters too, come on devs no weekends for you now until this is in !!!!!

[Fellvred]

Port vulnerability

 

Not really a fan of time slots as they might just stop pvp port battles from happening - I'm sure most ppl would rather have an intense battle over 2-3 days with the port being wrestled back every few hours, rather than a port being taken and the defeated force having to wait till the next weekend to get a force available for the allotted time.

 

Maybe have a system where the port isn't fully taken over until 18/24hrs etc have passed - this will allow the defeated side to counter attack but also allow the devs to make losing a port the disaster it should be for the players with ships/goods in port.

 

Method of attack - two options

 

Would rather have a physical system to keep it somewhat realistic - maybe a nation can only attack a port within a certain distance of another national/allied port due to supplies?

 

Announcements

 

To keep strategy/cooperation etc important it'd be nice to keep any announcements as short as possible before the battle started  - maybe the attacking force needs to blockade a port for 30mins/1 hour 'setup time' before the battle starts. A global msg would only go out when the battle started (or even a few mins before) but it would give an advantage to those nations scouting/communication and working together.

 

Port battle invites

 

Personally I don't think there should be any barriers to players joining a port battle if they are in the area and wanting to fight. The balancing act should probably be done on the world map as a whole - if a nation becomes too large future ports captured could cost extra to use/keep friendly. Maybe have a rebellion system where nations with a large number of ports could have them flipped back to a previous owner, or even have a nation have to pay an upkeep with each port captured being exponentially higher, if it wasn't paid there could be a %chance it could flip. Maybe add an option to raid a port for gold/xp bonuses if a force doesn't want to control the port

[Mirones]

we must have fire ships too oooh oooh please please lets send fire ships to toasty them bad boys!! ooooh Morters too, come on devs no weekends for you now until this is in !!!!!

we had a mortar brig dont ask any further why she is gone we have our reasons

[MikedaBike]

we had a mortar brig dont ask any further why she is gone we have our reasons

Ok i did not know it had ever been in game as yet, was excited to try a different style Does this mean there will not be a mortar ship at all then? ( "at all"  being relative in an Alpha)

 

Edit woops sorry you said don't ask why... delete post if you wish.

Edited June 27, 2015 by MikedaBike

[kang]

I would suggest that you need to "declare" your participation in the port battle in some way.  Then, based on the order of declaration, you go down the list and whoever is actually on at the time of battle gets teleported into the battle based on whatever population limits are imposed. 

 

I know teleports break realism but I think the advantages inherent in teleporting outweigh the realism issue.  Here are a few:

 

1) instantly balanced battles

2) people aren't stuck outside the instance with either nothing to do or free reign to reek whatever havoc they can while all the defenders are stuck in the instance

3) quicker grouping, less solo sailing

4) and, for me, they increase the fun to tedium ratio.

 

I think while pops are low and disparity between nations is fairly high, we could really use some hard balancing especially since ports are going to be pretty important to defend.

[Mirones]

Ok i did not know it had ever been in game as yet, was excited to try a different style Does this mean there will not be a mortar ship at all then? ( "at all"  being relative in an Alpha)

 

Edit woops sorry you said don't ask why... delete post if you wish.

lets just say her gameplay was below the nivau of the rest in terms of quality

[BungeeLemming]

Mortar gameplay will most likely come back when its reworked.

The former gameplay was OP and very easy to learn. Dmge was bejond good and evil.

 

I like your Ideasfor the most part.

Giving the society the ability to choose their active time is actually working really good with WoT. Another game but it may translate well.

 

Part 3 and 4 propose a huge inbalance and I cannot see how you came up with it. As long as one side can always jump back its an endurance fight for one and a waste of time for the other party.

 

It should be an even fight (playerwise) where the defender has the advantage of defending landbatteries.

Mortar vessels are going to come to deal with fortifications.. That I am pretty sure about.

[Bart Smith]

Mirones what ship is on second screenshot?  To stay on topic: I hope port battle will be "something big" a huge task to complete. So i vote for few different encounters - as many players will be happy to join. Mortars if reworked should be very usefull against forts with long range...I not sure about defenders possibility of chose time slot. If defenders can why attackers cant attack at any time then? Many ideas depending of how many players will be active in RvR to be honest...And again quite a bit worry about too much realism which drove off effectively away from game. Need good balance. And arguments - we dont need "noobs" is wrong - we need all players to make big player base and devs need them too to make some money.

[scepo]

Here is my proposal,

 

12-24 hours prior to port battle the attacking nation has to pay the invasion force of NPC land forces. A few hours before the defending nation gets a report from their "spy" that the invasion force is going to come from port A to attack port B, multiple attacks could be announced at the same time if attacking nation has money to pay for it. The NPC fleet then sets sail from port A and attackers need to protect it until it arrives at the port B, then attackers need to win a port battle to land their troops. 

 

This would force scouting of ports to see which ports will actually get attacked and which are baits providing roles for inexperienced players. Clan which pays for the invasion force should have priority in joining the actual port battle.

Edited June 27, 2015 by scepo

[SueMyChin]

Thanks for the feedback

 

I like your Ideasfor the most part.

 

Giving the society the ability to choose their active time is actually working really good with WoT. Another game but it may translate well.

 

Yeh, I really think the defenders must have some say in the time of the battle given that we're trying to be friendly to casual players. That's why I'd have a relatively short duration too. Perhaps you could have the defending team choose a time window of 4-6 hours and the attackers choose when the battle actually happens inside of that window but I'm not so sure that helps anybody much.

 

Part 3 and 4 propose a huge inbalance and I cannot see how you came up with it. As long as one side can always jump back its an endurance fight for one and a waste of time for the other party.

 

It should be an even fight (playerwise) where the defender has the advantage of defending landbatteries.

Mortar vessels are going to come to deal with fortifications.. That I am pretty sure about.

 

The reason I suggest that is because the defending players are likely to be re-spawning very nearby, if not in the very port itself, while the attackers will have to travel longer distances to rejoin. It's actually makes it fairer if anything.

 

Once locked out of the port battle the defenders can then blockade the port from the edge of the perimeter too, so their participation in the defence isn't over.

 

It's also worth noting, in the future we could be talking about large numbers of players on each side and with a limited number of players inside an instance (25v25) at any one time anyway it will force some players to sit on the outside. This will ensure that every player gets at least once chance to fight inside the battle.

[akd]

I fully understand the need to prevent time zone exploits, but please don't make the process of waging war overly formal and rigid. I fear large fleet battles will be confined to repetitive, scheduled matches. Create systems that encourage people to work in groups on the open sea, and allow for the chance of large groups meeting in the open ocean and having a battle with a decisive outcomes.

[Nathaniel]

Why shouldn't protecting your ships or trying to disable the enemy's trade not by themselve lead to exciting and unpredictable open world encounters? In a world where all this works eventually i would be quite glad to see "sheduled, formal" Fort battles with clear rules as a contrast.

[SueMyChin]

I fully understand the need to prevent time zone exploits, but please don't make the process of waging war overly formal and rigid. I fear large fleet battles will be confined to repetitive, scheduled matches. Create systems that encourage people to work in groups on the open sea, and allow for the chance of large groups meeting in the open ocean and having a battle with a decisive outcomes.

 

Do you think setting a 4-6 hour window each day during which time your port is vulnerable would work?

 

I'm just riffing here, I never played POTBS but I've read countless times how the middle of the night raids were too easy to pull off.

 

I think this idea would lead to attacking forces sticking together in large fleets as they head over to the enemy port to deter attack from small hunting packs. They could even arrange decoy fleets to draw defenders away from the main fleet. It would be pretty fun from a tactical point of view.

 

It's also worth noting that just because a window is open it doesn't necessarily mean the port will be attacked either. You could have calm most of the time but then clan/nation chat erupts as a player spots a massive fleet heading in your port's direction..

[kang]

Alarm clock raids are the bane of persistent worlds.  In DAOC, you'd have 100's of North American players battling it out in primetime only to have a single Hong Kong guild get on in the middle of the night NA time and undo everything you managed to accomplish in prime time.

 

keke la...

[PIerrick de Badas]

Hello, i was port on many PB in potbs and i was engage in diplomacy to decrease nightflips and improve the honnorability between nation to lead to map victory.

Some things were good in potbs some were bad. The worst thing was the invite system forcing players to make fleet to get in.

Now lets discuss your ideas

 

Port vulnerability

I love the idea to be able to fix a period for the contestation of the port. I would prefer to see it governor per governor or port by port to allow society to really be part of the game by controlling "their" port. For example my society is based on new orleans, we put all our forces into this port we put times for French time. If my french allies of auld alliance take control of fort de france they put it on an america time etc etc.

Each society put the period were it get the most player to defend the port it prefer. If we decide nation per nation, we are going to get a period bases on island in the middle of atlantic XD

 

 

Method of attack - two options

 

Physical way is a troll mecanism. If the battle is limited to 50v50 you will get 100 to 200 players outside not allowing people to enter the area. You will not control the numbers of players in pb as many will not be able to join the area.

+ you force people to connect far more earlier to join the port when it's still safe and hide in or around with an OW dc. They will connect back just before the pB but they will not be able to play waiting the pb.

+ Larges fleets will be around to gank lonely players trying to help their nation

+ Larges fleet will be around to attack and delay and use any wrong trip to not allow peoples or groups to join the instance

+ People will have to travel hours in ow to join a pb when they are not sure they can be in

 

The TP method from potbs is better.

 

Announcements

 

You not help us to understand what is in your mind a PB. You speak about port flip and port battle as if it's the same things. You miuss the key points to start, what is a pb for you and you do you create it?

 

Port battle invites

It was horrible in potbs to protect people farming fleet with a pvp fleet of 6 to finnaly not be part in and seen the group you protected be picked into the pb. I hated that, i hated to see people rushing the port to farm on it when iwas not danger anymore when you spend hours to flip the port in middle of ennemys ships.

That is the ley point but one more time it depend on how you think port has to be put into PB. Without this answer, we can't help you to choose a way.

 

WHAT IS A PB IN NA?

HOW DO YOU PUT A PORT IN PB ?

[Nathaniel]

 

Port battle invites

It was horrible in potbs to protect people farming fleet with a pvp fleet of 6 to finnaly not be part in and seen the group you protected be picked into the pb. I hated that, i hated to see people rushing the port to farm on it when iwas not danger anymore when you spend hours to flip the port in middle of ennemys ships.

That is the ley point but one more time it depend on how you think port has to be put into PB. Without this answer, we can't help you to choose a way.

 

WHAT IS A PB IN NA?

HOW DO YOU PUT A PORT IN PB ?

 

 

Well, if defenders just put out a timeslot, when the fort is attackable, then that's it, a PB will happen if anyone comes to attack a port in this timeslot obviously, no flipping is needed at all. Of course that makes the question of how to invite (and filter) attacker and defender captains all the more pressing and in need of a good discussion.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Nathaniel

[SueMyChin]

Of course that makes the question of how to invite (and filter) attacker and defender captains all the more pressing and in need of a good discussion.

 

Stick an instance on the map and let them try to join it...?

 

Inviting players from the other side of the map to defend their port seems backwards to me. Surely you should have to actually be there to defend it otherwise all you've done is made an arena battle to decide who owns a port in an open world game mode?

 

The open world has to come into it for me, which is why I tried to encompass it in the port battles.