Port battles

[Nathaniel]

Let's assume there are 40 defenders actually at the port for 25 slots. Who will be able to join?

[MikedaBike]

Let's assume there are 40 defenders actually at the port for 25 slots. Who will be able to join?

How about they are allowed in as ships are killed? both sides could have an x slot available for reinforcements outside the instance to replace lost ships?? Just a thought on that point.

[kang]

Few more thoughts on teleporting...  I'd be willing to sacrifice a little realism to get some epic trafalgar-like battles.  Similarly, ports are of significant enough importance that i think it's worth at least trying out teleporting for the sake of fairness.  Plus, "forming up" a fleet (generic, as in defense/attack) takes FOREVER.  And even the best organized fleets will have lots of stragglers.  If part of the balancing strategy is to fill up the instances, teleporting benefits you in that way as well.

 

Yeah, it's not terribly realistic but why penalize someone who declared to be in the battle just because they got caught in traffic/wife aggro and couldn't be there an hour ahead of time.

[SueMyChin]

Let's assume there are 40 defenders actually at the port for 25 slots. Who will be able to join?

 

Once the instance fills up they can defend the port from outside the perimeter until there is space to join inside, like I said above. That way a port battle isn't just one instance, it's a constant battle inside and out for both sides until the window closes, without having players sat waiting in a queue for anything up to 2 hours either.

 

 

Similarly, ports are of significant enough importance that i think it's worth at least trying out teleporting for the sake of fairness.  Plus, "forming up" a fleet (generic, as in defense/attack) takes FOREVER.  And even the best organized fleets will have lots of stragglers.  If part of the balancing strategy is to fill up the instances, teleporting benefits you in that way as well.

 

Yeah, it's not terribly realistic but why penalize someone who declared to be in the battle just because they got caught in traffic/wife aggro and couldn't be there an hour ahead of time.

 

A lot of these concerns are for the players to worry about, not the game developers.

 

If a group of players cant organise themselves to attack at the same time, who's fault is that? They should be given tools to help them but working together should be one of the criteria that decide the outcome.

 

Also, if someone ends up caught in traffic, how can they blame the game for them missing a port battle? What if we have invites and teleports and they get stuck at work or in traffic, are we going to delay the whole thing for them? It's just life, the devs shouldn't have to compensate for that in the slightest...

 

How would you handle queues in a port battle where players are teleported in? Would you simply just not invite half of them or invite everyone and have them sit around waiting until players die? Seems no fairer than everyone getting a chance to fight but having to actually organise themselves and get there in the first place.

[kang]

There's no doubt that a teleport dumbs down some of the player organizational factors involved in these large engagements.  And getting everyone together in an organized and timely fashion and making the journey on the high seas seems like a romantic and noble idea.    But, in my experience, the larger the raid, the longer it takes to organize and the longer that the people who get there on time spend sailing around in circles waiting for the stragglers (who usually had some RL thing going on so it's not like you could get mad at them but nonetheless you just wasted half an hour waiting on them).  Organizing all that usually boils down to one or two people who quickly become unenamored to the task and followers such as myself are then left sailing around in circles. 

 

My dead simple, needs lots of improvement approach would be to have a way to "declare" your intent to participate.  Then at battle time, the matchmaker, goes down the list in order of declaration and whoever is online gets put into the battle up to whatever population criteria the devs are using.  The defenders likely will be the determinant so most of them probably get in.  On the attacker side, whoever declares the intent to attack would have their fleet members declare hopefully lower in the list so would be more likely to get in unless there are plenty of defenders and then everyone gets in.  Most assuredly needs improvement but shouldn't be too hard to whip up on the code side...

 

edit:

also probably have some matchmaker esque logic working in there as well based on the ship your in or the one you declare but prioritized by order of declaration.

[MikedaBike]

I vote we try both systems in test   but right now, how we get there will be easier to solve in the long term once we know what we have to do when we arrive, rather than focus on, and go round and round about, how to get there, for which there are 2 options we can test, how about we bash out the actual difficult part as in the actual combat part of the scenario ? I see this as our main problem, not the sail there or beam me up scotty part.

[kang]

I'm also cool with a more manual entry process if that's the way it ends up going.  I just think that given the current pops a teleport would be a great way to get some big pvp going and if they are putting it out there as an option, I'm throwing in my two cents.

[SueMyChin]

If they were to have defending players chose the battle window it wouldn't really matter about organising the fleet so much because you couldn't afford sit around waiting, the ship would have sailed by the time everyone was ready.

 

You would have to say in the clan/nation chat "battle window is 7-9, we must attack as soon as it opens" any players dawdling about wouldn't get into the instance right away and would run the risk of missing out..

 

Also, with a teleporting system, how would you choose witch nation attacks the port? There is going to be 3 or 4 possible attackers per port battle I assume? (again, I'm not sure how POTBS handled it). If we allowed OW to be the conduit to the port battles they would all be racing to get there first and fighting in and around the port for the privilege I would imagine.

 

I just think having it on OW leads to more interesting scenarios, while a teleport system just regurgitates skirmish mode in OW...

[Crankey]

I'm never succinct so hope you enjoy my long post, I hope it has merit

 

Rules for the port battle, Rules for their arrangement, rewards and spoils.

 

Am I correct in assuming this means, How a Port Battle is triggered, How entrance to that battle is achieved, What do you get at the end... ? This is a huge question but key to my future enjoyment fo the game (As I'm sure to many others)

 

Key issues to solve:

• 1) No PVE to PVP. We are against grinding NPCs to get the port battle opportunity
• 2) Timezones have to be taken into account
• 3) Night flipping problem must be fixed fully or partially - when a committed group of players conquer a series of ports at 4am against defenseless enemies
• 4) Guild wars 2 WWW/Tol barad situation have to be handled - when 3 warring groups run around the map conquering castles avoiding each other to maximize rewards
• 5) Port loss must be painful, but not devastating
• 6) Variability of ships in port battles

Initial Thoughts,

 

1,      Great, I already have a job, I don't want to 'work' in game grinding for hours to get to the enjoyable gaming bit (The battle itself)

 

2&3,  Please think outside the box. You are running a single server with a worldwide customer base, who will join various Nations. Have multiple influential battles over a period of time. There is no night flipping as your server has no timezone... 

 

4,      Make Losses hurt more immediately, Trade effects other ports income etc. Make gains 'over time' through holding the port rather than huge instant spoils. Keep spoils reasonable. The fun is taking part, the rewards just pixels.

 

5,      Unable to access the port for trading, removal of personal ships and items, Personal businesses boarded up, Stock quarantined, Local ports friendly to previous owner nation have reduced economy for 'x' days

 

6,      Players make available 3 ships they would sail, Ship size relative to the battle. Choosing only 1 ship (maybe you only own 1 ship) means you could be passed over for selection

 

     Deep water battle:- Maximum 2 S.O.L of different class.(At least 1 must be a 3rd or 4th rate SOL to avoid mass 1st rate battles), Minimum 1 Frigate, Maximum 1 Bomb Vessel.

     Shallow Water battle:- Allowing Frigates ? As Deep water but treat the Frigate choice as 2nd/1st rate option above.  Maximum 1 Bomb vessel, minimized to a single mortar smaller bomb vessel.

     Server randomly selects player ship to fill a balanced role in the fleet from the options the player offered. You must have all selected ships available. 1st/2nd rates and Bomb vessels should be rarer options within the fleet composition.

 

         I would suggest a variation in fleet composition be available to be voted on at battle outset by the players present, this adds an element of the unknown to the exact fleet composition turning up. So the same BR rating for the entire fleet, but perhaps "Balanced", "Frigate heavy", "3rd rate heavy", "1st/2nd rate heavy" could be 4 options for Deep water battle etc. A reasonable balance should still be the goal of the selection process. Don't forget 'Bomb Vessels'

 

     Attacking fleets, are Player only (Unless troop transports need to be present in which case I would suggest these are AI run and can be given basic instruction for their deployment) there needs to be sufficient players to fill the fleet or the attack is called off.

 

     Defending fleets are maximised from available players. If insufficient defending players are available to defend the battle, then current players are offered the chance to switch to a more preferred ship choice, within the selected Fleet composition restrictions(Be quick on the selection button if offered). Remaining slots (BR rating) is filled by suitable AI ships. To provide a decent challenge, the AI ships (BR rating) may need to gain a % boost to bump up the challenge

 

 

 

Port vulnerability

• 1) Port is only vulnerable during certain time slot
• 2) Port can be freely attacked during that time slot
• 3) The time slot is determined by the defending nation
• 4) Once port is captured the attacker can change the time slot to a more convenient for them

 

1 thru 4. As Point 2&3 above in Key Issues, have multiple influential battles over a period of time. Allow AI ships (Point 6 from above) to support defenders when insufficient players are available to fill the defensive fleet

 

 

Method of attack - two options

 

• POTBS style (with automatic teleport into the battle lobby for defenders and attackers) - easier for both parties to attack and defend. 
• Physical travel to port: attackers and defenders fleet have to physically travel to the port location and enter the battle, creating a lot of logistical problems, that c

 

Add a 3rd..  Historically squadrons would form in several ports and sail together to an agreed rendezvous point, before sailing onto battle etc. I would suggest 2 or 3 ports are selected as assembly ports (Scattered around the Caribbean) where Attackers ships have to be available to take part in the Port battle, Once in place and your attacking player in one of the ports they will be moved (tp) to the Port battle. However Defenders will receive a free tp from wherever they are as long as they are in port (Receiving their urgent dispatch to defend the nation). This gives the defenders a meta game advantage but not an in battle advantage.

 

 

Announcements

 

• 1) Port battle can be announced long before so everyone is ready
• 2) Or port battles can be announced 1 hour before the port attack starts, increasing the need for constant scouting, reporting and monitoring large fleets on the open map. 
• 3) Partial fog of war on port attacks. We can force attackers announce the intention to attack the port 1-2 days before but not give this information to defenders openly. Instead a battle correspondence rare loot item can be genera

1&3, Love the fog of war captured despatches idea, but make it so that the attack or attack start timer if you go for multiple combats is known at least 24 hours in advance. Remember players have RL and need to make arrangements for their time. Its a huge part of the game and the more players who can attend the better they will enjoy the game. So give maximum notice of the attack assuming they share the information, or would it be a nation notification that could be automatically shared and displayed in Nation Chat Box. With a reward to the captain finding it.

 

 

Port battle invites

Here is where we need your help:

If there are 300 brits and 100 swedes are willing to join today's port battle for Basseterre - how do we determine who is invited and who is not invited? 

 

Don't have a joining criteria at all... If you are online you can take part

 

Have enough simultaneous battles as you have attacking players with suitable ships to fill. As my point above allow AI to bolster the defender only. 

 

Lottery players into random battles, but allow 'groups of players'  to battle together in the same instance if their numbers don't exceed the port battle fleet size.  If the defending players wishing to take part outnumber the attackers, then individuals and groups will have to hope for  a lottery spot.

 

If the last filled attacking side cannot reach 75% of a full compliment invasion fleet, then a minor skirmish takes place with a reduced 'score' going toward the final tally for taking the port..

 

If no defending players or insufficient to fill the fleet are available, then the attackers have to compete with bolstered AI fleet of a higher BR rating to provide a challenge.

 

Each battle can be 'scored for success based on ships lost vs ships sank vs forts stormed vs troop ships successfully landing. Combined score of all of the battles is tallied to decide if the attack was a success.

 

 

 

I hope you managed to get to the end of the post and found merit with some of my suggestion. (This is going to be such an awesome game !!!) 

 

Wow - now I'm off for a coffee.
 

[Nathaniel]

 

Have enough simultaneous battles as you have attacking players with suitable ships to fill. As my point above allow AI to bolster the defender only. 

 

Lottery players into random battles, but allow 'groups of players'  to battle together in the same instance if their numbers don't exceed the port battle fleet size.  If the defending players wishing to take part outnumber the attackers, then individuals and groups will have to hope for  a lottery spot.

 

If the last filled attacking side cannot reach 75% of a full compliment invasion fleet, then a minor skirmish takes place with a reduced 'score' going toward the final tally for taking the port..

 

If no defending players or insufficient to fill the fleet are available, then the attackers have to compete with bolstered AI fleet of a higher BR rating to provide a challenge.

 

Each battle can be 'scored for success based on ships lost vs ships sank vs forts stormed vs troop ships successfully landing. Combined score of all of the battles is tallied to decide if the attack was a success

We had that with capital cities sieges in Warhammer Online. Due to the total lack of control over the overall battle i never met a player who liked the feature.

[Crankey]

We had that with capital cities sieges in Warhammer Online. Due to the total lack of control over the overall battle i never met a player who liked the feature.

 

We as players would have control of each battle, could you be more specific please

[Nathaniel]

Of course. Your achievments in three instances can be ruined by bad play in the other two. And that happened regularly. The idea could still work by giving the attacking/defending playyers both enough time and the full choice which instance to fill up. I.e. the game invites everyone who signed up in a separate chatroom, based on that number calculates how much instances it will create and then all the players between themselves can decide which room to join. Maybe even give the highest ranked players/clan leaders the option to assign other players to certain room, but that's speculative. So anyway the "organized" players could share the casual players up between them and help them be a usefull asset in a fight (those getting more fun out of it).

 

Even in that form however the system places hell of a demand of the organizing competence of an entire faction. I would like to check it out as an experiment though.

[Crankey]

That would actually be a nice way to achieve the split, like a war room discussion - Maybe the larger groups fill spots in battles first randomly and as you say smller groups and individuals filter in to fill the battles up by agreement or lottery for those unable to agree or have no preference

[SueMyChin]

What do you get at the end... ?

 

 

I believe admin stated that resources would spawn at a location and the persons controlling that location would have access to those resources. I assume the rewards for taking a port should be just that.

 

If upon losing a port in which you have ships retained, you lose the ships, then maybe the persons capturing the port are then rewarded the sum of the ships but I'm not if I would go there. Simply remove those ships from the game and the destruction of your enemies ships/resources and the benefit of the resources in that port should be your reward.

 

6,      Players make available 3 ships they would sail, Ship size relative to the battle. Choosing only 1 ship (maybe you only own 1 ship) means you could be passed over for selection...

 

 

I hate the idea of actually limiting the ships available to use. The variety should come from tactical decisions and the port 'terrain' (within the instance) as suggested.

 

1. Make the shorter runs to the fortifications usable to shallow draught ships only, larger ships must take the longer routes through the approach waters.

   

   Here is a map of the terrain at The battle of grand port on Isle de France (Mauritius). if the instance terrain was designed so that only shallow draught ships could use the lighter areas of the water and the heavier ships could only use deeper blue then it would add variation to the ships depending on tactics used.

    

2. Also if we were to encourage battles outside of the instance too ( like  this)    players choosing to sail larger, heavily armed ships would take longer to get there and would not be able to flee battles en route, delaying their progression to the port instance.

    

3. A third factor would be the ability of the fortifications to hit the ships, if we made it so that fortifications were able to use a variation of weaponry, mortars, heated-shot (more likely to hit larger ships and do more damage to larger ships when they do) as well as regular guns and small arms (more dangerous to the smaller ships that are smaller targets and harder to hit) then a force of all large SOL would be sitting ducks to a fortification focusing solely on mortars for example but would be more resilient to a fort with only small arms. Give the defending persons the option to select the defending armaments according to what their scouts are reporting and that will force the attackers to mix it up else they make the defenders job of picking fortification weaponry very easy.

    

4. Lastly, if/when we get variable winds, an attacking force all choosing large SOL would effectively be putting all their eggs in the 'I hope the wind doesn't die on us' basket. If there were lighter airs inside the instance the larger ships would be sat in front of the fortifications and their guns far longer than a smaller ship would have to.

 

 

1 thru 4. As Point 2&3 above in Key Issues, have multiple influential battles over a period of time. Allow AI ships (Point 6 from above) to support defenders when insufficient players are available to fill the defensive fleet

 

 

Again a system like this has the benefit of having multiple battles but only if they are needed or are forced by the defending teams strong numbers, good tactics and blockading ability. Overwhelming attacking numbers, good tactics and the ability to run the blockade (this is where ship variety would come into it again) could nullify this defence and make it to the actual port battle instance quicker.

 

 

Historically squadrons would form in several ports and sail together to an agreed rendezvous point, before sailing onto battle etc. I would suggest 2 or 3 ports are selected as assembly ports (Scattered around the Caribbean) where Attackers ships have to be available to take part in the Port battle, Once in place and your attacking player in one of the ports they will be moved (tp) to the Port battle. However Defenders will receive a free tp from wherever they are as long as they are in port (Receiving their urgent dispatch to defend the nation). This gives the defenders a meta game advantage but not an in battle advantage.

 

 

I won't hide the fact that I'm no fan of teleporting, I think it breaks immersion and undermines the point in playing an open world game in the first place. However, if it was deemed necessary to get players involved in port battles (particularly in testing while numbers are low) then teleporting to the defending port for the defenders and the nearest base of operations for the attackers would be my preferred system. That way it feels like an excursion and an actual attack rather than a skirmish battle with consequence. Also, it doesn't cut out all the open world tactics in-between too.

 

 

RE: Announcements

Why have any game generated announcements outside of making the 'port vulnerability' known? If you have a list of port vulnerability times then a player(s) can use his clan/nation chat to tell others of their intentions to attack a certain port once it's open to attack. Give the players the tools to make the announcements themselves.

 

I see no reason to make the attack known to the defenders (at least not in full launch once the player numbers are up) this is the job of scouts. They know when their port is vulnerable each week, around this time they should be on the lookout for large congregations of enemy forces heading in that port's direction.

 

RE: Port battle invites

Again a system like this forgoes the need for invite systems. Which, considering we're even talking about lotteries and systems where solo players are disadvantaged (and even left out if numbers are up) can only be a good thing really.

[Ned Loe]

If there are 300 brits and 100 swedes are willing to join today's port battle for Basseterre - how do we determine who is invited and who is not invited? 

 

Create port battle chance meter system that will need to be filled in order to get into port battle. Meter resets after each port battle. For example, you have many players who did fill the meter, what then? you will need to count player hours spent in that warzone and send out invites to the rest of the players. 

 

 

LvL 1 - Must have required rank.

LvL 2 - Must have a ship that is fit for battle. This means all slots must be filled with mods and guns. Large or small ship as listed on port battle invite.  (Remember potbs unfitted ships and their useless help in battle?)

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. 

[Souvenir]

I more than once wrote in similar subjects at the Russian forum, I will write and here. It is very important to understand how a lot of people will be in game? If 1000-2000 people of on-line on all nations, such decision as in POTBS, will approach. But if online there are more than 10000 people, already not. Let there will be 1000 people for one nation. How then to choose the worthy? Here probably it will be necessary already other organization of port battles. Perhaps transition to clan fights.

[scepo]

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.

Edited June 30, 2015 by scepo

[kang]

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

[scepo]

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.

Edited June 30, 2015 by scepo

[LeBoiteux]

If there are 300 brits and 100 swedes are willing to join today's port battle for Basseterre - how do we determine who is invited and who is not invited? 

It may depend on how many battles each player want to take part in...

What if Swedish players wanted to play, on average, two or three times as much as english players ?

That's why, instead of invitations, lobbies may do the trick. 

[kang]

Ok that makes sense especially if you require travel. But say the US has 300 and the swedes have 100. How do the swedes defend themselves? Or any underpopulated nation? Reroll?

[Leviathan]

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.

[kang]

Yeah scepo, I freely admit that I lean toward the 'how do we maximize the fun pvp' aspect of the game. Almost completely at the cost of realism.

I'm just struggling to see how you can do both.

[scepo]

Ok that makes sense especially if you require travel. But say the US has 300 and the swedes have 100. How do the swedes defend themselves? Or any underpopulated nation? Reroll?

 

 

Well swedes have only capital and that can not be captured. They should find a place on the map that no one else wants and make alliances so that if a fleet comes for them it is risking ports they are leaving behind. But the way they started the game they deserve to be kept hooled up in their capital. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by scepo

[scepo]

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.

 

Well yes but i think then there will be multiple instances, i still do not see why it would be possible for a 300 people fleet to lose to 100 people fleet. Battles could be 25vs25 but advantage in numbers needs to be an advantage.

Edited June 30, 2015 by scepo