Port battles

[Johny Reb]

I have a proposal that is in its infancy but has potential and is unique to most of the ideas above. It doesn't tackle all the questions or problems yet as the idea is in its infancy. This is just one part of the total equation and it covers how Port Battles happen. In Potbs terms.... how they are flipped. The devs say that they want to avoid pve grinding of ships to create enough unrest to flip the port. I've tried to avoid, at least, meaningless grinding in my proposal.

 

The goal of the proposal is to avoid a point system like Potbs that requires 10000 points to flip the port. In some ways it may appear to loosely resemble some of Potbs port flipping but in the bulk I believe I have found away for it to be different.

 

First, flipping a port is a tiered system. Ports rise through a series of stages of unrest and the desire is to have many ports in various stages of contention making it more difficult for a nation to know exactly what port is being targeted and require more intelligence gathering giving explorers something else to do. Contention for ports will obviously only be generate by nations at war. I haven't worked out how alliances could participate. Each stage should have realistic meaning.

     Uneasy

     Distressed

     Alarmed

     Panic-stricken

 

Uneasy - A port enters a state  of uneasiness simply as a factor of traffic. Basically, enemy ships in the vicinity. This could be done as a blockading function by individuals or simply as enemy ships pass through the area. Ports that are in a state of unease will be common, especially in high traffic areas like the windward passage and lesser Antilles. Because this state will be common there will be no penalties to the port, econ, and no reports will be issued to the defending nations other than the common ship reports that currently exist in the game.

 

Distressed - This stage comes through blockading. This is where the similarity to Potbs is the greatest. Blockading was often boring in Potbs but it was also boring in real life so it shouldn't be used as a reason to avoid it. I don't see how to avoid a blockading stage. It was such a part of historical naval warfare. I'd like to avoid the points of unrest system in Potbs and would suggest, for now, a time requirement instead. As an example we can say that three hours of blockading is necessary to reach the next stage. The blockading group sits for 30 minutes before they get chased off. The clock pauses at 30 minutes. When the group returns the clock starts up from 30 minutes again. If the group or another group doesn't return in a certain amount of time then the clock will reset. There is nothing that the defending nation can do to stop the clock outside of preventing the attackers from reaching their waters. If they are able to chase the group off then they have the option to patrol the approaches to the port in order to intercept the attackers if they choose to return keeping them from starting the clock up again.

The penalties of a port in this stage: The obvious is that if a port is being blockaded then there can be no econ in and out of that port.

Warnings: At this stage a national warning would be issued in some manner or another. Maybe all that is needed is to up the drop rate of dispatches or maybe by hailing npc's of your nation you will receive the intelligence.

 

Alarmed - At this stage there will be mini "port battles" that will consist of smaller groups with specific missions to accomplish. The attacking nation could begin a fight at any time. At this stage a warning call would go out from the admiralty to all ships of the defending nation informing of the attacks on the city. Defenders would use a system similar to the "escort duty" that the devs have said would be in game. They would sign up as defenders and when the attackers initiate one of the mini port battles the system will allow players to take the place of npc's in the battle. If no players sign up for defense duty then the attackers will have to fight NPCs. Defense duty would give the same rewards as escort duty.

The objectives I can think of now would be:

     1. Mapping the area: This would be great for explorers that like to live on the edge. By accomplishing this mission the major Port Battle map will be decided on with either random generators for port defenses that decide what missions will be required before the port can be moved into the final stage, or it will reveal the details of player created forts and their strengths. This mission would be accomplished by a very small group of players and would be opposed by only a small force.

     2. Destroy the forts/fleets guarding the approaches to the city: The mapping mission will reveal the number and size of forts and floating batteries that guard the harbor. Each fort will consist of a separate mission and floating batteries could be a part of fort protection. Attackers will use Bomb ketches and main fleets to silence the forts. Defenders will counter with small fleets to take out the mortar brigs and disrupt the attackers from being able to coordinate against the forts.

     3. Destroy the gunboat fleet: If the mapping reveals that the town has a fleet of gunboats then the attackers must dispatch a fleet of smaller ships to get in the shallows to take out that flotilla.

     4. Destroy defenses that prevent entry into the harbor. This would include things like chained logs or preventing the sinking of ships in the channels to prevent approach.

 

After accomplishing all the missions the final stage is opened. It could be designed that the attackers don't have to be successful in every mission, they just have to attempt them a certain amount of times. If they don't accomplish all the missions then the port could still progess to the next stage but the final fight will be more complicated to win as it could leave a fort in action.

 

Panic-stricken - On the OS the city will have a marker similar to the attack circle. The cities themselves will all have battle ratings like ships. The attackers will have to travel to the port and the group will have to all be within the circle when the group leaders choose the "schedule port battle" option. A shallow water port may only require a group of 6 to initiate the port battle timer, whereas a deep water port with large shipyards and infrastructure may require 25 or even more maybe to initiate. So either all players have to be present or players have to arrive and "click the button" in a given amount of time. When the satisfactory number of players have done their duty the Main port battle will be scheduled.

 

__________________________________________________________________________end

 

Lots more to work out yet!

[Nathaniel]

The gameplay elements suggested are interesting. I disagree strongly however on the need to introduce boring blockades only because they were a distinguishible feature of naval life. Well, monotonous, boring officer watches were a distinguishable features of naval life, but we don't have them. And as a captain you were obviously excluded even from those and led an even more boring, distanced life, mostly confined to your cabin except the rare cases, when you were expected (i.e. allowed) to take direct command. We don't have that either. Why should we have an element of boredom in blockades?

[SueMyChin]

Sorry for the delayed reply, I didn't even know where to start with this to be honest, there's so much I have to say on it.

 

I just want to state first the reasons why I think there should be enough for everyone to participate in, yet not too many that players are in 1 or two per night. If port battles are going to be the defining battles in this game mode they need to be unique and exciting, we should be looking forward to them each week. Not having one each night. It WILL get stale like this. I know it's been spoken about too much but where is the loss/reward if a port taken one day can then be lost the following night?

 

I would say each port should be up for grabs once per week/fortnight. That would of course mean that there are hundreds of port battles per week BUT, without teleporting/lobbies/invites there is no way a player can participate in them all.

 

If you had to actually be in the vicinity of the port to participate, then you would only be in them a few times a week, keeping them fresh and something to look forward to but enough of them that everyone can participate.

 

Then you have to consider the size of them. If there are 60 players operating from 'port A' how do we include them in the port battles involving their local port? My idea features one actual port battle instance but the area around it will be a hive of activity, teaming with battles consisting of the players who could never participate in a teleporting/lobbies/invites system.

 

If we went with teleporting/lobbies/invites we would

1. end up with a player being able to join as many as he was invited to each night, likely to be too many in my opinion.
2. your local/favourite port could and would be defended by players from all over the map who have little vested interest in that port.
3. random players participating in each battle so that clans can't fight battles together, especially when contesting their home port
4. there little problem of actually coming up with a fair system of selecting the invites
5. in my opinion they should be a unique battle type, involving every aspect of the game, not just one plucked from skirmish mode

 

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...

 

I've said this before and in a round about way above. If Trafalgar battles are what players want then they can go do them on the click of a button in skirmish mode. However, I seem to remember player number dwindling and countless threads about falling player numbers in sea trials because the repetitive nature was off putting.

 

 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 ... ...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?

 

They have but they never once stated that you could join the defining battles of open world with one click. Port battles are equivalent to end game content and giving it to random teams of players from across the map is undermining their importance for me on top of taking open water tactics out of it.

 

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.

 

It does, we don't need an open world to determine any of that. It could all be done in a WoT style 'garage' or 'hangar' from War Thunder. By "determined by open world" I'm talking about which players participate, surely having to sail to places in open world is the point in having an open world?

 

Regarding "it's importance in the world's economy", a one off port battle will be of little consequence to players on the other side of the map to it. Which is why they shouldn't be considered for participation.

 

 

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. 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.

 

Firstly, I don't. I've offered my suggestion and it fits all the criteria stated in the OP. Unlike you and yours ( this  one?) I can't pick holes in it myself either, that's your job.  

 

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

 

If we have battles where an entire clan can participate together and any random players joining in, firstly don't take up a space which a clan member should be filling but simply compliment the clan members when they do, we have no contradiction. The random players can hardly do any harm this way, unlike if they were taking up part of the 25.

 

This is why invites and locking port battles to one instance make a system that suits all impossible, only a system like this that encompasses open world can accommodate more than 25 players working together. Any other system simply leaves players out or has them in simultaneous battles where they can only effect the whole result, rather than every subsequent battle.

[Johny Reb]

I just read your idea about fights outside the instance, Sue, for the first time.

 

I find it interesting to consider activity outside of the Port Battle itself but I think your idea needs to be adjusted although I can't quite figure out how just yet. Ill tell you my concerns about the idea for now.

 

One, it seems to favor the nation with the highest population. The idea seems like a revolving door idea where players on the attacking team constantly rush the center hoping to make it in. Larger nations that can throw a lot of people at that circle will always have the advantage. There may be some real life element there but it will not make for good game play if the smaller nation doesn't have a chance 9 times out of 10.

Second, it is ripe for griefing by the defending nation. A couple ships tag and drawl into battle as many ships as they can and then kite them for as long as they can.

Third, I think it may promote reckless behavior instead of strategic.

Fouth, the instance itself should not be a revolving door where people can keep coming back after they sink or where people can keep joining throughout the battle. That will make for very bad dynamics and a very unrealistic feel in my opinion.

 

I like the idea about stuff outside the instance effecting stuff in the instance as long as it doesn't include magical buffs. I think troop transports could be a viable idea but I can't see how a transport could not be intercepted outside the port unless there was no one there to defend it.

[Johny Reb]

The gameplay elements suggested are interesting. I disagree strongly however on the need to introduce boring blockades only because they were a distinguishable feature of naval life. Well, monotonous, boring officer watches were a distinguishable features of naval life, but we don't have them. And as a captain you were obviously excluded even from those and led an even more boring, distanced life, mostly confined to your cabin except the rare cases, when you were expected (i.e. allowed) to take direct command. We don't have that either. Why should we have an element of boredom in blockades?

I find blockading the weakest part of my idea and would love to insert another activity in its place. My argument for having them remains the same. We should have them because that was a huge part of naval warfare but I will add because its easy to implement. Your right, we don't have officer watches and such but that has little bearing on the argument for blockades or not. What you mention are detailed items but blockading is no small detail. It was just as important as fleet actions, frigate patrols, blockade running, etc. and not having some form of it is like Iced Tea without the ice or a snowstorm without snow. It just doesn't make sense. I don't want the monotony anymore than any other. I sat in just about every Potbs blockade that I was logged on for. I stayed up till three in the morning blockading difficult ports. I understand plenty about the boredom of blockading. Blockading doesn't have to be designed like Potbs though. Blockading just needs to mean that you are in the waters of the port. Also, you will notice that the idea requires a time limit which cannot be reduced so if you sit for 15 minutes and get bored then you can leave. Later someone else can come and get the clock started again.

 

Either way, I understand why you don't like that part and if you can come up with something else to replace it that would make sense in the grand scheme of things than I am all ears.

[SueMyChin]

I just read your idea about fights outside the instance, Sue, for the first time. I find it interesting to consider activity outside of the Port Battle itself but I think your idea needs to be adjusted although I can't quite figure out how just yet. Ill tell you my concerns about the idea for now.

 

Thanks for feedback man. Yeh, it will need tweaking no doubt.

 

One, it seems to favor the nation with the highest population. There may be some real life element there but it will not make for good game play if the smaller nation doesn't have a chance 9 times out of 10.

 

The idea seems like a revolving door idea where players on the attacking team constantly rush the center hoping to make it in. Larger nations that can throw a lot of people at that circle will always have the advantage.

 

There needs to be a compromise between numbers and quality sure, the larger nation should have an advantage over a smaller nation with a similar level of skill on both sides but skill should decide between similar size clans. The thing to keep in mind here is that without having teleportation/lobbies/invites then it wont simply be the larger nation, it will be the larger congregation of players in that area. You could have 10k players on the opposite side of the map but they wouldn't be able to do a thing to help.

 

Then we can use the same 'over extension' theory to balance the nations as we do between clans. If one nation has loads of players they'll accumulate lots of ports, we can then adjust how often their ports are made vulnerable to attack according to how many players they have per port. So if the British have 50% of the players and start steam rolling other nations to capture the majority of the ports, we can simple increase how often their ports are made vulnerable, spreading their players more thinly and balancing the numbers involved in port batltes...

 

I do think my idea provides some decent mechanics that can be used to balance the sides a bit too. For example a larger perimeter would disperse the defending blockade wider and leave bigger gaps for attackers to sneak through while the converse helps the defenders.

 

Second, it is ripe for griefing by the defending nation. A couple ships tag and drawl into battle as many ships as they can and then kite them for as long as they can.

 

While I agree, it will encourage that kind of behaviour, I think that's not so much a problem of conducting port battles this way, it's a problem with the Rules of engagement as they stand and one that needs resolving first. Also, it's not necessarily 'griefiing' when used like this, it's a valid tactic that has been used in war for centuries and was used by naval captains of this era too. Obviously, it's not ideal from a gameplay point of view but I think it can be discouraged at a later point in development should the rules of engagement mechanics not be enough.

 

Third, I think it may promote reckless behavior instead of strategic.

 

Could you explain a little more where you think this?

 

Fouth, the instance itself should not be a revolving door where people can keep coming back after they sink or where people can keep joining throughout the battle. That will make for very bad dynamics and a very unrealistic feel in my opinion.

 

Unless they're going to be short 1 hour vulnerability windows we would have to leave them open (or semi open instances) to players joining. We can't expect players to stay online, inside the instance for over 2 hours straight and what happens if the attacking players don't get into the actual instance until after an hour of the window being open, the defenders would have been sat there doing nothing the whole time. For this reason I would leave it open to new attackers (remember they would still have to sail there themselves and run the blockade) but closed to defenders (who would be able to spawn at that port after death to defend but obviously then couldn't just rejoin otherwise the attackers could never win.

 

I like the idea about stuff outside the instance effecting stuff in the instance as long as it doesn't include magical buffs. I think troop transports could be a viable idea but I can't see how a transport could not be intercepted outside the port unless there was no one there to defend it.

 

Yeh, I wouldn't have any magic nonsense myself, the outside perimeter battles simply effects who makes it to the main instance, how quickly they get there and in what condition. An attacking troop transport or mortar brig would need an escort to defend them, with or without improved RoE.

 

 

RE: Blockading

It's only boring if you don't expect anyone to try and run it. If you're expecting players then it's a completely different situation to blockading Brest in the 1800's, knowing fine well nothing but the occasional smuggler was going to put out.

[Johny Reb]

I don't think I'm unable to fully respond but Ill say as much as I can in the time that I have.

 

We are in agreement with the blockading. Pvp'ers often blockaded a port in PotBS simply in hopes of drawing a fight to them. If no one showed than they at least had the satisfaction that they would get a fight two days later at the Port Battle.

 

The "circle" - how I see this playing out is the defenders sitting very close to the port and well within the circle preventing anyone from even having a chance at reaching the port. The only adjusment that could be made to ensure that the defenders are spread out would be to have the edge of the circle be the instance point, not some point within it. That would trully spread them out.

 

If you allow one group to reinforce but not the other than you are giving them an advantage. It matters not what side gets to reinforce. If you allow attackers to reinforce but not defenders than that would almost always guarentee an advantage to the attackers even if they had to run the blockade. But I don't like the idea of reinforcements at all. The best idea I could come up with is the transports. If the instance requires a "boarding" of the town to finish it off then maybe somehow transport ship could aid in the final combat. I don't know how that would work exactly.

I don't care for reinforcements because I think it will ruin the strategy of the fight. Instead of being like football, where the attackers develop a plan and attempt to successfully execute it, it would be like a soccer game that is more reactionary and the preplanning isn't as important as the constantly changing maneuvers that develop separate to the main force engagement which is unrealistic to historical major fleet actions.

 

The recklass behavior I spoke of would be a simple mad dash to the instance entry by the attackers. They wouldn't be trying to fight. They would hope to charge through and beat the defenders to the spot. Any fighting would more likely keep them from the Port Battle even if they win the fight.

 

I agree about the rules of engagement but it is still griefing in this game environment. In rl a ship could ignore a smaller vessel but in the game that isn't possible. If that vessel tags you, you will be pulled into it and could be stuck there for an hour as the lesser vessel shoots your sails from downwind then runs outside your gun arcs over and over again without any plan other than to keep you off the OS. Thats griefing in its loosest meaning.

[Lord Howe]

With your blockading idea, would weather be taken into account. So should a storm roll into the area and you are blown off of the blockade for a moment would ships confined to the port be able to leave? Mind you I'm not sure if the weather implement on the open sea would have that effect in the final product.

[Neary]

Much prefer travelling to destination, we could said blocks up to slow the enemy down etc, just make sure people are well aware of the time its taking place

[SueMyChin]

The "circle" - how I see this playing out is the defenders sitting very close to the port and well within the circle preventing anyone from even having a chance at reaching the port. The only adjusment that could be made to ensure that the defenders are spread out would be to have the edge of the circle be the instance point, not some point within it. That would trully spread them out.

 

I'm not sure you're thinking along the same lines as me with the perimeter idea.

 

 

So once an enemy ship was inside the perimeter they couldn't be engaged or engage a defender themselves. They sail up to to instance marker and attempt to join. If there's space they can join, if not then they can opt to join the queue to join should someone leave or be sunk inside the instance.

 

This forces the defenders to blockade around the perimeter itself rather than just camp the instance marker. This is where the tactical side would come into it. They could all just try to rush the centre but they would probably just end up in a big melee with the defenders.

 

If they win the melee, they will get temporary invulnerability and would be free to sail into the perimeter, if they lose then they respawn at their nearest friendly port and try again. This is why I wouldn't be too concerned about the reinforcements, they would have to travel to the port battle and negotiate the blockade before getting in. The defenders can rejoin the blockade after death/re-spawning but they can only join the main instance once, and only when there is space. As they would be re-spawning right on top of the instance, you couldn't give them infinite chances to join the main battle as the attackers would stand no chance.

 

There are undoubtedly some issues to resolve (like players tagging each other outside the perimeter, peacefully leaving the instance so they can then use the temporary invulnerability to bypass the blockading force) but an open world solution like this has to be preferable to teleports and lobbies..

 

The recklass behavior I spoke of would be a simple mad dash to the instance entry by the attackers. They wouldn't be trying to fight. They would hope to charge through and beat the defenders to the spot. Any fighting would more likely keep them from the Port Battle even if they win the fight.

 

Well that would be the ideal situation, running in without being touched, that's what running a blockade was really but doing it tactically would still be a better approach. Remember, if you're tagged and either win the engagement by destroying the defenders or manage to manoeuvre past the defenders and escape towards the port then you're through the blockade.

[Johny Reb]

With your blockading idea, would weather be taken into account. So should a storm roll into the area and you are blown off of the blockade for a moment would ships confined to the port be able to leave? Mind you I'm not sure if the weather implement on the open sea would have that effect in the final product.

That would be fine but I doubt storms will force boats on to lee shores and such. I don't think the weather model will ever be that intense.

[Johny Reb]

Well I did misunderstand you Sue so we are on the same page with that.

 

I'm still not sold on reinforcements. I think it will absolutely ruin the experience but I'm also not trying to hate on your idea. The admins have asked for us to give them ideas and thats what we have done. So, I'd like to make each of the viable ideas better just in case they choose one of them but beyond the circle mechanics that I see we are on the same page about, I don't know if there is anything else I can offer since I don't like the idea of reinforcements.

[Lord Howe]

What about if you created a model based on supplies. Therefore there would be flips that would be harder than others. For instance if the town had only minimal significance or had recently been captured then it's supplies shall be low and therefore will not be able to endure a blockade for too long (perhaps 1 or 2 hours) then more substantially fortified ports would have a larger amount of supplies and so would take (2-3 hours). This would then place the emphasis on resupplying the port. this then means that the port defence is not only focusing on one section of the player base but many. For example the traders to resupply the port, the pvp'ers to defeat or deter the blockading force and lower levelled players who would have smaller ships that could run small supplies or information (ports time until surrender or port battle) in and out of the port. With regards to the significance of the port, perhaps the lower ports provide 5 points towards victory and the stronger ports 10.

[Crankey]

To take a port should be a very major occurrence in the game with large strategic and economic significance both for the victor and the defeated. Taking part in a port battle should also be an awesome pvp event. (Trafalgar, Glorious 6th of June) etc.

 

Taking a port should not be a frivolous occurring every hour event. However battles to effect the outcome of the port capture could indeed be every hour or 2 hourly through a 24 hour period to allow all timezones to effect the outcome of each port attack. This should negate 'night flip' 'meta gaming'.

 

Different ports should have different levels of strategic, economic and tactical(Castles, Gun Batteris etc), strengths. Making them tougher or weaker opponents.

 

Attacking a port should be a National initiative. There may be differences of opinion within a nation which port should next be attacked, so you have to have a mechanism to 'vote' for the actual port decided upon. By Vote this could be players individually placing a battle marker on a port with different guilds and player groups urging players or indeed entire fleets to vote for the outcome they themselves want. Fleets could perhaps vote en-masse using the number of accounts (NOT characters) in their fleet active in the last 3 days. (This system would not be unlike clan battles in W.o.T)

 

I would like to see supply be a factor in the effectiveness of the attacking and defending fleets/forces. Chain of supply could force lesser important ports to be captured in order to have reasonable chain of supply to reach the ultimate target port. This could create cases where ports not too important for economic reasons become an important port for the purpose of denying or allowing an attack on a port further away.

 

Without good chain of supply, attacking fleets should become weaker/over extended.

 

 

(I leave meta gaming and cross nation playing in a single account to another discussion). Other methods I imagine will involve grinding locally which the Devs have stated they wish to ignore.

[Booyaah]

My biggest concern is what will happen to the player's ships if his nation's port is taken?  Will the shore-leave crew automatically sail the boats down to the next friendly dock? 

[scepo]

I think they should all lose 1 dura to be taken as spoils of war and teleported to the capital.

[Crankey]

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

 

The mortar was a badly armed brig or similar, that once anchored could 'lob' large calibre shells over terrain if needed into a targetted area. Such as a harbour, Port, fortress, battery etc.

 

The mortars were never to my knowledge used outside of this specific circumstance. The mortars themselves were cast down into the hold when not in use as they placed too much weight too high for normal ship operations, they would be fit into place once the ship was anchored at its deployment point. I know of single and double mortar ships. Some converted merchantment others purpose built.

 

The brigs std guns normally very small number of small calibre cannon would be used for any ship to ship engagement.

 

I believe the mortars also had to be anchored with at least  1 spring to the cable to permit alteration of mortar direction whilst fine tuning was carried out on the mortar itself. The mortars were not designed to hit moving targets, rather they targetted an area or building. Possibly anchored ships etc.

[Muinko]

 

Ports will be in important resource that will shape the way the OW evolves. I have put together a list off ideas that I would like y'all option on.

 

• Ports should be unique and provide certain resources or strategics positions. (ie a port that provides much more iron than other, or one that has a higher fort level.
  
• Neutral port should always remain neutral and cannot be captured. This is to make it harder for large guilds to take complete control over large areas. 
  
• Capturing a port shouldn't be a matter of a couple hours. Guilds will have to siege a port for a certain amount of time based upon its fort level. (ie lv 1 being 12 hours in game lv 2 16 hours ect. very subject to change)
  
• A siege can be reset if the defending nation gets a fleet into the port (I have a couple ideas about this, one being having a resource such as food that needs to be loaded up on the relieve fleet and lowers the time to reset not just resets it. on the other side if the siegeing fleet has bomb ketches with motors they get a small boost for each one in a fleet (should be capped though to prevent blitzing))
  
• Ports can be upgraded by the players through a donation system either through the nation or the guild that controls the port depending on which way the devs go with it.
  
• All docked player ships in a port that is captured could either be moved to the nearest friendly port or are captured, would like to hear you guy's opinion on this.
  
• Ports on mainland or with a over land connection to another non sieged friendly port should be much harder to siege
  
• Port traits such specialized shipbuilders or better ironwood be spread through out the Caribbean to make monopolies harder.
  
• Successfully sieged ports have a cool down 3-7 days after capture when they are much more easily sieged back and offer limited port facilities. 
  

The time frames I gave I think would be good for OW release, in the limited alpha we are in they should be much shorter so that the mechanics can be fleshed out. 

[DesertRat]

I think that if you have an outpost at a port that is taken from your nation, your ships should be moved to the nearest neutral or nation port.  The cost would be too high if the ships were lost.

 

Example:  Say I have two captured ships and two purchased ships (full durability) at said port.  I happen to go on vacation and I am gone for a week, or just happen to be sailing a trade ship on the other side of the Ocean while port battle is going on(too far to sail there in time).  When I get back from vacation and find all of my ships are lost (most players would quite) as this would not make for good game design.  The design should not be a system were players are punished for not being on all the time and there luck as to if they will have their ships when they log-in is in the hands of other players.

Edited July 9, 2015 by DesertRat

[Crankey]

I don't believw in Neutral. They either flew a nation flag , flew a company flag or were a nest of pirates

[Hugh Latham]

A warning of immanent attack could be generated when an armada was being assembled for attack. Not sure how to constrain the timing of the attack so as to avoid "night flipping".

 

Armadas and invasion forces could assemble and sail as a group to the port under attack. The assembly could take place at the nearest national port. To avoid griefing of the armada, any interceptor force could require a minimum ship value relative to the invasion force. Captains sunk could be locked out of combat until the port battle was finished, preventing multiple attacks by captains. Captains in the invasion force sunk by interceptors would be locked, too.

 

Ports should have attributes such as shore batteries and even forts built at the entrance to bays or in the bay. Size (perhaps determined by the level of commerce) could, also, be an attribute with the result that large port cities would require a well organized invasion force with troop transports (perhaps recruited AI transports). Small ports would be conquerable using marines (placed in the upgrade slot) from the ships in the port battle or one transport if marines were not enhanced on board.

 

This is going to take a lot of input and careful thought, but we are here to test out various scenarios as we are doing with all other aspects of the game.

[Hugh Latham]

What about pirate ports? Since they cannot enter any other type of port, they have a special problem losing ports. Perhaps immunity to attack should be given pirate ports. I am having a hard time accepting pirates in anything bigger than a Surprise. Frankly, if they want to sail anything bigger they should roll nat.

[Alejandro]

Late to the party, it seems, but I've read most of the comments and I'll answer the original post directly. I will assume that most players know of PotBS (as it seems to be somewhat heavily referenced there). The gist of it, for players who never played that game, is that you had three phases to a port battle.

1)The contention period. Aggressors needed to put the port above a "10,000 contention points" barrier for a port battle to be scheduled. For contention points to happen, four mechanisms existed: killing NPCs of the port's nation in the vicinity of said port, killing players of the port's nation (again, close by), bringing "goods bundles" inside the port (both the aggressor and the defender could do that, with bundles being counted every hour) and having a group of aggressors voluntarily PvP flagged, sitting on the open sea close to the port (to represent a blockade). Every hour, the port's governor (a player) could spend a small amount of gold to reduce contention by 1,000 points. There was three levels of contention: at 3,000 points, a small red circle appeared on the map and meant players in that area could be attacked on sight, even if unflagged. At 6,000, the circle would double in size. At 10,000, a port battle was scheduled.

2)The Port Battle was scheduled three days later, with certain timezones being closed (to avoid PBs happening at 3:30 AM). Meanwhile, players on both sides had to get points for the battle. For that to happen, you essentially needed to either kill players or NPCs of that nation.

3)Port Battle invites went out a handful of minutes before the Port Battle itself. It was based on a lottery system based on points (every point gave you 1 ticket, so to speak). Once you accepted your invitation, you were sent to a lobby with your fellow captains. The place was a physical instance ingame where you could do last minute trades with other captains (mats for repairs, gunpowders, cannonballs, etc.) and your port battle leader could explain the gameplan. Both sides then went out on a relatively large map, from one of three possible exits (the more points your team had, the more exits were available to your side) and you battled the enemy fleet for 2 hours. It was a 24 vs 24 battle (cap), where the aggressors had to either decimate the 24 enemy captains or take the port. To take the port, one needed to destroy the port's defenses (took but a few cannon shots) and then wait (20? 30? don't remember exactly as I'm writing this) before the port itself was to open. The port was an avatar battle (no ships) where the 24 captains would face a lot of NPCs. 

The trick for the defenders is that they couldn't get in the port before that time was up either, to avoid having 24 defending captains simply sit in the port every time and have a sizable advantage.

It was a system that worked well in practice, despite being slightly unrealistic. The main problems were well highlighted by the admin's OP.

 

For the sake of this post, I am assuming that there will be map resets and map victories.

 

Key issues to solve:

• No PVE to PVP. We are against grinding NPCs to get the port battle opportunity
• Timezones have to be taken into account
• 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
• 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
• Port loss must be painful, but not devastating
• Variability of ships in port battles

 

1)While being against grinding NPCs - a large number of them do evidently get very tedious - there perhaps could be a single type of NPCs one could kill/board/neuter once to get a small chance to get invited (sort of 1 point in the PotBS system). 

 

2)Timezones are a problem, most assuredly, especially since this game's population seems to feature players from the west coast of North America all the way to the east coast of Russia and Australia. I don't think it'll be possible to satisfy everybody but efforts can definitely be made.

 

3)One way to combat night flipping could be to have a mechanism where the port must be put in contention and remain there for a duration of 12 hours before a port battle is scheduled. So if a port is put in contention at 3 AM, it'd need to simply be in contention (I don't know how the system would work, I can only refer to PotBS' points system) 12 hours later, at 3 PM. Practically, it could work so that you could bring up the points much higher than needed, to have a sort of "reserve" that the morning defenders would have to bring down. 

4)Never played GW2, can't comment.

 

5)Agreed on the port loss idea. The main thing is that port losses must affect the economy in direct ways. A MMO like this one will only work if PvP, RvR and Economy are tied concepts, one affecting the other intimately. It's why EVE is still a success story even twelve years later. It's why PotBS was beloved by its veterans (despite FLS' best attempts at ruining the game). It's also why so many MMOs fail to get their playerbase really involved into all the aspects of the game. 

 

Shallow water harbors will only accept light ships for port battles. (A-la our sea trials small vs large pvp rooms)

Definitely a must. Although the problem is then: if your attacking fleet is limited to smaller vessels - just like the defending fleet - you most definitely need to bring down the defending guns too. Or certain ports will largely be uncapturable. That's why I'd warn some of the most "realism" oriented players not to push too much for massive fort batteries and large gun defenses in general. The game has to be one of ships.

 

Port vulnerability

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

If you go with an idea like that - and it's not a bad idea - you could divide time slots into Day, Afternoons, Late Nights. Most ports could be flipped/put in contention during two time slots, key ports only during one. It'd give players from different timezones a chance to shine when they're most active and it'd put your nation's most important cities in a safer spot.

 

However, I don't think the time slot should be determined by the defending nation (and even then, by who exactly? who's leading the nation?) and I don't think the attacker should be allowed to change the timeslot either.

What I'd do, continuing my suggestion, is that once a port is conquered by another nation, its "can be attacked timeslot" becomes "all 3" to make it harder for conquering nations to hold vast areas and a large number of ports.

 

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 could be interesting or frustrating or both.

I'd go with both. I'll explain.

 

The physical travel option is pleasing at first glance, it gives the opportunity for much open-sea PvP, but it's also a double-edged sword. From my experience - arguably, it comes from another game but the concept is very similar - if you go with full physical, what you will end up with is a superior nation simply preventing another nation from even entering the port. Stragglers and ungrouped people will be hunted down by opportunistic pirates/other nations. Very quickly, should that happen more than a few times, you'll end up with entire nations not bothering to show up to port battle calls because they know they'll lose a lot if they go, even before the port battle itself has occured. I don't know the exact mechanisms that are planned should somebody be sunk but I doubt it is to let him go to the nearest port with his intact ship. 

 

I'd recommend a system where the defenders must be in their ship of choice but can be teleported inside the port's bay (or wherever the PB is going to take place) once they accept their invites. On the other hand, the attackers have to be within a certain radius of the port to actively accept an invite. That way it's on the attackers to assemble a fleet properly; it gives the defenders an advantage when it comes to ease of movement, you make sure port battles are contested and it gives the attackers the advantage of having a better composition. I'd say that it also gives opportunistic hunters a chance to then attack the extra-attackers who didn't get an invitation to the port battle and are now sitting ducks.

 

Announcements

 

• Port battle can be announced long before so everyone is ready
• 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. 
• 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 generated that can only be captured from boarding players or high level npcs.

I would go with an hybrid system, assuming port battles take a few days before they happen (a la PotBS, again). I'll assume a three day system.

 

1)Port is put in contention. Port Battle is scheduled. Anybody who has points (or something similar) is notified when they take a look at some "Upcoming Port Battles Journal" window.

2)If you sail by that port, your "Upcoming Port Battles Journal" window is updated. 

3)Each nation's capital could have a sort of gazette that you could buy, letting you know about upcoming port battles and updating your journal. It'd act as very small money sink and a sort of small RP feature.

4)Twenty-four hours before a PB is set to happen, every captain's journal is updated with the time and date. 

It keeps a certain fog of war, brings some RP elements to it and rewards sailing and exploration. 

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?

I don't know what will be your RvR system. If it's going to be points (obtainable how?) or something else. All I know is that you are opposed to NPC grinding determining who gets in or what. Here's what I'd suggest. It's by no means definitive or complete. I'll go with "points" as a generic system. 

1)Have it so players can at least kill one NPC ship within a port's vicinity to get a few points. Sort of a last chance type of deal. Killing more NPCs wouldn't better his odds. Gives a chance to people who are late or broke.
2)Have it so killing other players of the port's nations give points. Doesn't matter where, as long as X losses (aka the value of an average enemy ship) is sunk during the battle. Rewards PvPers. Should be considered the best option.

3)Have it so you can do some quest or another to get a few points. Delivering guns and powder from A to B (B being close to the port), a message to the admiral, etc. Gives a safer option to the less intrepid.
4)Have it so you can spend money to get a few points. When you enter the port, you could take contact with some kind of saboteur, a NPC. A one time only deal. Another relatively safe and lazy option. Also acts as a money sink.

5)I'd also have it so if you decline a port battle invite, those points are transfered to overall points that you can use anywhere. Rewards general activity.

 

And, the most important;

6)I'd have it that if you participate in a port battle, your ship must spend 24 hours out of combat, in a harbour, repairing. You can participate in another port battle on that same day but not with that same ship. It's a measure meant to avoid seeing the same captains run all the port battles of their nation. That way, nations with large numbers aren't necessarily at a disadvantage when it comes to port battles (large numbers means a higher percentage of inexperienced captains has a chance to go to PBs). They can force many PBs to happen in a single day and outnumber their enemies with quality ships over and over while theirs are being repaired. It forces small nations to pick their fights carefully.

[WhiskeyBarrel]

I like the idea of shallows port battles.  I was a long time POTBS player too.

 

I would rather not have an avcom solution to port battles.  That system was very easy to defend with just a few people and a wrong pull could destroy the enite attacking force.

 

I would lean more to more kinds of port defenses, such as cannons, heated shot if the game is going to be ship based then the outcome should be determined by the best sailing and ship setups.

 

After traveling around the map so far in the beta, I would not be in favor of traveling to the port battle.  While many gamers have nothing to do in their lives but play games, most have limited time periods in which to play and having to spend 1 to 3 hours getting to a port is exessive.

 

The POTBS port battle was 2 hours long and it was easy for one side to time grief the other side.  I would like to see  a more varied approach to how a defense could be won or how an attack is sucesseful or the victor is determined by the most objectives obtained.

 

Ships destroyed

port defenses destroyed

etc.

 

I would also shorten the PB to 1.5 hours of real battle with a 10 minute prep time.  The prep area should allow for the necessary docks and merchants necessary to prepare properly especially if there is not going to be a way to trade between players.

 

I liked the options for upgrades to each side depending on what they did to prepare for the PB in POTBS the more NPC's your killed in the pb zone the better the options in the PB, more doors, better fort guns, etc.  I think most like the perks but grinding the npc's was never a great time as much of it was done during off times with little risk around the attacked zone. 

 

There should be economic options to assist in the attack or defense of ports such as very specialized components that would only last for the battle.

 

The port governor option was fine but it had to issue of dividing the faction because of egos.  I would rather see more ship based perks over ground/avatar type solutions if Avatars ever come into the game.  Port defenses should be upgradable through economic means

 

There should be stiff penalties for losing ports, conversely ports should be very difficult to take.  50 percent more to produce items or 50 percent less produced or something along those lines. 

 

The one issue we saw in POTBS was that you could totally destroy one faction by simply taking all their deep water harbors, rendering them unable to produce large/huge ships.  Once a nation lost all their high value ports, people either switch sides or stopped playing until the "Map Win".

 

Will there be a "Map Win" or should the ports after a certain amount of time reset back to the owner with a period of protection?

 

A careful balance needs to be maintained on the winning conditions so that certain sides do not just fold.  There must be protections in place that do not allow a zerg nation to simply roll over the less populated nations because of popularity of say Great Britain during this period historically.

 

Port battle awards or rewards should be based on contribution.  We always had a few players in POTBS that would join a PB and sail off on their own or stay for the 30 minutes to get their reward and click out. You will always have some lone ducks that refuse to help so maybe some type of vote system to remove these players.  Friendly fire is always an option unless there are plans to remove this, which I hope is NOT the case.   Friendly fire makes ship combat much much more difficult and tactical.

[admin]

We are starting active work on the port battles... Lets refresh what was discussed in this topic and finalize ideas. We are going to review it carefully. If you have new and better ideas or improvements to what was discussed - it is perfect time to share them.