Anolytic

This issue could be remedied simply by introducing a neutrality option being exactly the same as the proposed alliance, except you cannot join each others port battles and neutrality cannot be voted for (to avoid everyone being neutral to each other and can only be applied through one nation 'defeating' another.

It would be fair to move Vieques, which is right on top of the Danish Capital, while everyone else has some distance to their closest freeport. Thanks for the vote of confidence! And right back at you, I don't want to be reset every time the US is pushed back to their capital. Having played for Denmark-Norway and against Sweden a lot, I am quite confident that with the new regional conquest system neither of us will be easy to press in our capital region. We've pushed Sweden to their capital quite a few times in the past, but I doubt that this will be possible with the new mechanics. About reset: My guess is that when they reset the map to implement the new conquest mechanics and diplomacy, we will loose all our outposts, while all the stuff and ships we had in all our outposts will be given to us as redeemables, quite like how it is when they merge servers. If they introduce total victories and map resets I believe each map reset will be done the same way. I completely agree on this.

No matter how big a nation is, it will still only be able to put 25 ships in a port battle. And with land in battles and new port battle win conditions and fortifications making port battles more in favour of defenders I think conquest will be slowed down significantly even though everyone will still be able to seek plenty of port battle fun. And regional conquest will work as a bottleneck forcing an invader into a known area for the smaller nation to concentrate their forces to defend (moreover everyone, including allies, will have a 24 hour warning of port battles going to happen). So I believe that actual conquest will be so slow that before a nation is pushed to their capital tides, player activity and alliances have shifted and the invader will not be able to push further. Steamrolling will be impossible and any attempt at it will be easy to block. With conquest slowed down to comfortable levels a nation on a winning streak will be able to keep up the fight on multiple fronts and not feel they have to choose one nation to beat into submission before they can turn and deal with their other enemies. Capitals should only be fought over after many months of determined conquest and then winning the PB for another nation's capital should give some sort of reward or respite that should suffice to feel like a proper victory for them, while the defeated nation should be very quickly able to rebuild without feeling that they were vanquished. Pretty much like now a stronger nation should feel like they totally won, while the weaker nation should feel that they didn't really loose, they just had a temporary short term setback.

It's funny you should bring this up, since I was just today reading about America's Cup. A lot of people from the island where I'm vacationing at was hired as crew and sailing masters on yachts (like Yankee, Resolute, Vanitie) participating in America's Cup around the 1930s. Some of my family members as well. There's a phrase: "The Norwegian Steam" I'm interested to see how you want to organise this considering to actually have some skill involved, and I would suggest having some more details to share before putting up the topic.

If all of the proposed changes to RvR successfully slow down conquest and make ports/regions more valuable to defend, as I think they will, then my opinion is that freeports should only really be useful to pirates, and national ports should be all the more important to nationals. Pirates should be able to teleport to freetowns, nationals shouldn't. TO nationals freetowns should only be somewhere where they can sail to and trade with other nationals and with eurotraders, while also risking being raided by pirates on their way there. This will also remove the issue of nationals ganking out of freetowns by sitting in docking range and waiting for someone to try and sail to port. This behaviour will be pirate only. Or maybe something can be done about the ganking from docking range alltogether. Maybe you the tagging/invulnerability countdown should start not from "setting sail" from the port UI, but from setting sail from docking range. So if you're sitting in docking range you have to leave and still wait 2 min before you can initiate an attack. On the other hand small nations used to face a huge challenge by the teleport cooldown when attacked on two sides. I remember when Denmark-Norway was under attack by 3 nations and we had to carefully plan our teleports for the day, and often sail long distances to get to all the port battles. Black Friday put a stopper on this, and also used the teleport cooldown as a tactic as we knew that the SLRN would be engaged on another front that evening, so we would be able to concentrate on one front while not worrying about our other flank. However all of these points don't take into consideration the slow down of conquest. Even while nations can be under attack on multiple fronts, it is unlikely that hostilities will reach conquest activating levels on both fronts simultaneously. So a small nation will not have port battles on both fronts in the same day, but will be able to alternate fighting on either front. So the teleport cooldown might not be valid as a tactic anyway.

We've had this wave of people accidentally turning pirate before. This new wave is just because all the new players from the Steam sale is going through the same process the rest of the players went through months ago. If I remember correctly it was even worse around the time I myself started playing, because it was an easier accident to have happen, while now there are proper warnings. I never did it myself, but I guess a lot of people are so used to just clicking away pop-up warnings. This is why people get computer viruses and sell their souls through EULAs.

Seems like this Low-Level Farmer chose the wrong server.

I agree with you about the strategy element. And fighting on two fronts required a lot of planning for a small nation with only one PB fleet. Playing for Danmark-Norway I remember it well. I'm not sure I miss it, but it had it's charm. ------ Regarding teleportation between freeports, it could be limited or removed. It should be angled a lot more towards teleportation between national ports rather than free ports. With regional conquest slowing down port captures and giving a lot more warning and predictability about which ports may be lost at the frontline, using national ports as a base should become a lot more favourable and using freeports a lot more unfavourable (except for pirates).

Capital regions should only be possible to contest after a faction has lost all other regions they own. Or I suspect first thing after this is initiated will be a race to capture each others' capital regions.

I still don't favour that. Because if one nation is destroyed early in the map, then that nation's players would either quit playing for a while until reset, or they would switch nations and spend so much time in their new nation that they would loose their attachment to their original nations, gradually diminishing the smaller nations' significance even further.

I absolutely favour a dynamic map over repeated map resets. I believe a nation that has been "defeated" should always be able to rise again and fight back after a short while so that the war continues. As Hetwill said, they will be forced into a peace for a week or maybe too, then they will be back at it. Though if the regions are implemented in conquest as I think they will be, then defenders will have every strategic advantage (as they should have). The benefit to the attacker is they will always be able to find a fight. If you have to capture every port of a region to conquer that region, then an attacking nation will have to fight for every port, while the defending nation, if overwhelmed, can resolve to dig into one single port of that region and defend it tooth and nail. If successful in defending that port for a few days in a row, then the defender keeps the region (reverting other lost ports to the original owner) and the attacker has to start all over again after a cooldown. Take Sant Iago for instance. If the Spanish defending that region is overwhelmed by British numbers, they can let the British zerg unnopposed the three other ports of that region, but dig in at the Regional Capital and defend that until time runs out for the British invaders. Similarly: Say the Danes lost all our regions save our capital region. Then the British want to assault our capital region as well. Because of all the noobs sailing around making easy targets the Brits will have no problem initiating conquest of the region by making a PvP hotzone. Next it turns out Danes are terrible at normal deep water port battles with 4th rates, so Amalienborg, Fredriksted and Coral Bay are all hardly defended. But as we all know Danes are unbeatable in 1st rates, so our capital would be defended till time ran out for the British, and then there would be a cooldown before British could assault our capital region again. In the meantime we would start attacking other nearby regions. Again: Zerging would be neutralized, because the attacker has to capture all the ports of a region, while the defender only has to defend one port to keep the region. On the other hand everyone would know where (in which region) and when port battles would happen in advance, so they would not be far away and port battles would almost always have a defence. A nation defending a region would likely face economic penalties, and penalties to player production, in the region when some of the ports were captured by the invader. However these penalties would be reset if the nation managed to defend the region as a whole, even if by holding onto only the regional capital. And a nation would be able to always utilize their strengths. A nation that cannot expect to win a 1st rate defence battle, would be able to choose to dig into a normal deep water port where they have a better chance maybe. Or maybe their strength is shallow water port battles. And a nation that is terrific at open water PvP would be able to delay the development of a hotzone in a region for ages tiring the enemy out who never managed to deploy a conquest. Also a nation should be able to invest in port defences in their regions, and those investments are destroyed if that region is lost to another faction, making nations invest in their regions and also feel the loss when a region is captured.

Those complaining that the total conquest option will definitely lead to the frequent destruction of nations, fail to realise that combined with other planned changes this system will significantly slow down conquest and make conquering a region much more of an effort for a nation. And the regional conquest will add many new levels to strategy, allowing a faction to find their strengths and utilise them to effectively defending their core territory despite having fewer players and fewer 1st rates. Moreover the alliance system will allow allies to help each other out with defence. And if capitals and capital region ports are given special and extra strong fortifications, plus natural barriers with the land in port battles implementation, then a nation can even rally their PvE-ers and crafters to put up a strong defence of their last region even against a significantly more organised nation. I see the same problems as everyone else here, but I think if we test this system those can be identified and fixed within the currently proposed system.

Who would initiate the edicts against individual players/clans that don't follow the nation? I think it would generate a lot of spam if anyone could propose such a vote to the parliament.

Congrats.

I think that slowing down conquest and making it a huge effort to conquer a region and defending it would lessen this issue. If steamrolling isn't possible, then people will feel that they have a greater chance to turn things around and they will also not feel like they are being overwhelmed and loosing territory at a rapid pace. And a nation can rely on it's strengths to defend its territories. Open water PvP to slow down the rise of the conquest-meter, big 1st rate battles to defend the regional capital, or frigate/4th rate battles to defend the other ports of a region. Succeeding at any 1 of those would beat back the invading nation.

As a Dane I'm kind of flattered by still, after all this time, being accused of being the zerg/bullies of this server. Our 25-30 RvR players must have made quite an impact if our strength has spurned such legends. When the stories are retold it sounds like we were ten times that many. I wonder, if the SLRN after being crushed (in 25v25 1st rate battles) two nights in a row at Aves, if they came home to the British nation those nights and told the British Nation they were only beaten because they were outnumbered 2:1? (Which is not entirely untrue, as those who survived were indeed outnumbered 2:1 by the time they fled - after we sank half their force) And what, was the story told by RGL and SINK after they came home from Bluefields, where they faced 11 1st rates, with their 22? "make the brits quit" was never ever a statement of "the Danes". Our only concern has ever been fighting port battles (with defenders) and if Brits quit where would we get any fun. On the contrary a bulk of our RvR force took a break from the game because the tactics of our enemies evolved into avoiding facing us in port battles and rather trying to make sure that they could take empty or almost empty ports from us. It's why they all come here to NN. To get their fun from forum PvP since there is no in-game PvP. But I don't mind, I can't play at the moment so I'm confined to forum pvp for a while. Just point out what should be obvious: There are number of nations and there are number of players, and it's pretty clear which is referred to in that signature. I'll leave it to someone else to judge the actual relative numbers.

I believe they have concluded before that abandoning outposts is non-reversible. That's why they added extra warnings, red writing, and so on. That being said, after I was away from the game for a couple of weeks to go on holiday, when I got back every time I was trying to teleport to some outpost I clicked "abandon" instead of teleport. The warning caught me though, so I never went through with the destruction. But I feel like maybe you have a point about the teleport button being on the wrong side.

What if nations were "seeded" in regards to their alliance options. Based on their historical strength or on their actual in-game player numbers. So that if say, France, Great Britain and Spain are the most populated nations in-game then they are seeded to the same level. And if maybe only 1 or 2 nations from the same seeding level can be in the same alliance block, then those three nations could not all be allied together, or possibly they would all 3 have to form separate alliance blocks. Kind of like the football championships initial groups.

Regarding conquering capitals, I would suggest considering the Swedish solution. Guerrilla warfare and basing in the territory of an ally. The conquering nation could consider it an ultimate victory, while the nation that lost their capital would fight on based out of their allied nation's ports until they could recapture their own ports. Although probably any nation who lost their capital would have to reconsider their alliance partner(s) after they did not come to their aid and help defend their capital. Maybe being forced into a temporary protectorate would not be so unfair. I'm also thinking that this regional divisioning could be used as a basis of the economic system as well once this gets an overhaul. While probably all goods have to be available in all parts of the map to some extent in order to balance the advantages of nations, I believe that each region should have 1 or 2 resources that were historically significant to that region be available in every port of that region as sort of a special produce of that region. For instance suger was a very significant export from the Danish West Indies, so the region named "Vestindiske Øer" on the map should be a strong producer of sugar in every port of the region. This special product should then also be part of the reward to a conquering nation for conquering a region. Thanks! I was about to suggest that (I) was code for Portugal.

Thanks! Makes perfect sense. I couldn't figure out the WC on Gustavia, but of course Sweden and Spain couldn't both be S.

I've downloaded the map and am studying it closely. I'm seeing so much gold. Like the names of the regions. And the Pacific regions. Also this is the first time I see the secret islands on a map I think. I have one question though: what does the letters in parenthesis after port names stand for? It's probably obvious, but I just haven't figured them out yet. Anyone care to clear that up for me?

I'm very excited about these news! I think this has the possibility to add a whole new dimension to the strategy of the game. I can barely wait for this to be implemented. Too bad I'm on holiday, I want to just go and play this right now. The charm of fishing IRL in Norwegian seas just reduced a little bit. I think that every port on the map should be possible to contest with Port Battles, including capitals, but capitals should have special fortifications and land formations that make them virtually uncaptureable. Essentially punishing a nation into submission / forcing a ceasefire for a set number of weeks between the factions, should be achieved by keeping up the pressure and blockading a capital region, not by capturing the capital. I think being able to totally and ultimately conquering a faction, and/or forcing them to become a protectorate isn't a good idea for the enjoyment of the game. It should rather be that said nation is not able to fight against their conqueror for a number of days/weeks after defeat. But assaulting a faction capital region and putting it under pressure should be enough of an economical and military punishment, that it should be considered a defeat/loss of the war, even if the nation cannot be totally and utterly annihilated. I'm not sure I want map resets and total Victories. Factions will strive for this, forming big power blocks, squeezing smaller nations. And you would inevitably have conflicts and resentment spill over from before map resets, as well as having people get demotivated from facing a "total loss". Moreover it will make the big factions, like Britain, even more popular because people like to have a chance to win, while it will severely diminish smaller nations like Denmark-Norway and Sweden. In my opinion a system like that would only seem viable if nations in-game were fantasy-nations or just had colour names (though the red faction would probably be the most popular) rather than nations based on real historical nations.

I really like this! It reminds me of something.

I'm pretty sure there's been no mention of merging the PvE server with either of the PvP-servers. While merging the PvP-servers to increase the population makes sense, merging the PvE-server makes no such sense and would remove a gameplay option. Furthermore, where would I then tell whining brits to bugger off to?

The opinion that navigation is too easy and far too precise currently has been voiced many times, and I agree with you. What's really interesting is your opinion on the wind. Making the wind more of a difficulty factor and less of a predictable force turning constantly like a clock would be very interesting. Though I'm not sure that drifting off course would be wise to add to the game. Sometimes you just have to afk-sail because the distances are so enormous. If you drifted off course all the time it would be more annoying than immersive. Similarly making the wind blow mostly from the west would be an annoyance and an unnecessary disadvantage to players of factions that have to sail mostly to the west to find action. However making the wind less predictable and less stable both in speed of change and wind strength would be a good idea while still blowing on average as much to one direction as any other.