Some thoughts on High/Low Security Seas and trade

[weissenwulf]

I mentioned this in an earlier post and wished to briefly revisit it. 

 

What if the OW took some cues from the EVE: Online concept of High and Low security player areas? If you're not familiar with how it works, essentially this: in High security (+1) space, human players are able to attack other human players, but at the cost of immediate interdiction and retribution from NPC police called "Concord" that are effectively impossible to destroy. So attacks against players in "Hisec" is extremely rare to the point that players interested only in PvE are able to do so in peace. Everyone can still transit through Hisec space and that's where most trade hubs are located. 

 

In Low security space (gonna combine EVE's Low and Null into just Low for the sake of argument), players are free to attack each other without any retribution. However, this increase in player risk also results in far more rich rewards from PvE activities -- missions, trade, resources for crafting, etc. 

 

Where EVE really nailed it was how they connected the areas of space. In order to trade effectively, players had -- but were not required to -- transit across danger areas of low security space. You could always take the safer route, but it cost you time. This areas of transition between high/low security were great hubs for PvP amongst willing and unwilling players alike. 

 

How would this work in Naval Action? Well, how about trade lanes? Say, for example, you wished to move Hemp from Gustavia to Ponce (just to use a random example) to sell for a huge profit. You consult your map and find your nation's Admiralty has established a trade lane in that direction. If you are attacked in this trade lane, your battle instance will populate with the overwhelming force of your Admiralty's navy (response would be, say, 2x-3x the BR of your attackers). You're still in a pickle, but you have help.

 

However, unlike EVE, you have to physically navigate the trade lane effectively. When in the trade lane, your UI will reflect that in the way it does in Ports (i.e. green, controlled by X nation), but there are no other navigational aids. You need to chart your course well. Should you stray outside the trade lane, in a storm or at night, or the wind fails you and you need to tack significantly, your trade lane indicator will disappear and you're now vulnerable to attack. Pirates and enemy navies frequently ply the seas around trade-lane chokepoints, so if you intend to arrive safely, you need to sail carefully -- not just point your ship in a cardinal direction and grab another beer. (Admit it, we all do that all the time.)

 

These trade lanes could connect the entire OW, but not completely. In specific areas, perhaps the trade lanes have gaps? Or perhaps players could contest trade lanes in fights against Admiralty AI fleets? Thereby cutting off safe trade to key ports. 

 

With successful navigation of a trade route comes reward, naturally -- so moving specific goods between nations should be a profoundly profitable endeavor, just as it was in the Age of Sail. Perhaps the presence of an ongoing or recent Port Battle should briefly spike the price of goods the NPCs will pay in order to encourage players to move goods into particularly dangerous waters.

 

What are you thoughts? I really think that an essential component to this fantastic game's long-term success is a more articulated trading system. EVE has shown that there are legions of players interested exclusively in accruing in-game wealth. While I fully acknowledge the heart of this game is the combat, I feel such a trading system would be relatively easy to implement while being inclusive of players not interested in such gameplay -- it could also subtly encourage risk-taking and, ultimately, strategically laid ambushes and ganks against trade routes, a element entirely consistent with the game's historical context.  

 

 

[ashley]

Just No.....

 

This game is nothing like EVE Online therefore it should take no ideas or mechanics from it.

 

The nature of NA would not suit Low/High Sec, nor does it need it.

 

If you fully understood both games you'd understand why there is high and low security in EVE and why there isn't in NA.

[weissenwulf]

Just No.....

 

This game is nothing like EVE Online therefore it should take no ideas or mechanics from it.

 

The nature of NA would not suit Low/High Sec, nor does it need it.

 

If you fully understood both games you'd understand why there is high and low security in EVE and why there isn't in NA.

 

Perhaps you're right, but care to explain why exactly it wouldn't be suited? 

 

How do you simultaneously encourage trading, create risk/reward tied to supply/demand, while also making it entertaining for both combat and trade-oriented players? 

Edited February 23, 2016 by weissenwulf

[HW Chopper]

I personally think that NA  needs to adopt the one server idea that eve runs. 

[Joe Spivey]

Different horses for different courses. Besides, Hi/Low sec in EVE caused more problems than it ever sorted.

[weissenwulf]

Different horses for different courses. Besides, Hi/Low sec in EVE caused more problems than it ever sorted.

 

The intent here is not to compare NA to EVE Online.

 

How do we encourage risk/reward in trade while also making it interesting to execute? 

[admin]

I personally think that NA  needs to adopt the one server idea that eve runs. 

 

EvE is not one server.

EvE is 10000 servers/system instances separated by jumpgates (jump animation hides the loading screen) providing plausible separation of system instances while keeping one server in the player mind. It is possible in any environment where you can separate areas by jumpgates

 

Unfortunately jump gates cannot not exist at sea - thus one server is not possible unless someone will come up with the great explanation of why there is a spot at sea teleporting you somewhere else 

[Justme]

The intent here is not to compare NA to EVE Online.

 

How do we encourage risk/reward in trade while also making it interesting to execute?

Unfortunately there are more than a few people here that want to turn this into an AOS version of eve.

[weissenwulf]

Unfortunately there are more than a few people here that want to turn this into an AOS version of eve.

 

That's fine; many new games draw inspiration and mechanics from long-standing franchises. Appropriately so. 

 

But I'm really more interested in ways to improve trade as a gameplay feature -- since I'm convinced that will draw more players to our game.

[Justme]

That's fine; many new games draw inspiration and mechanics from long-standing franchises. Appropriately so. 

 

But I'm really more interested in ways to improve trade as a gameplay feature -- since I'm convinced that will draw more players to our game.

I know I'm likely alone in this, but if you make trade more important than PVP then you really can't call this game Naval action.

If I'm stuck spending 3x as much in game time trading as I am fighting then what's the point?

[weissenwulf]

I know I'm likely alone in this, but if you make trade more important than PVP then you really can't call this game Naval action.

If I'm stuck spending 3x as much in game time trading as I am fighting then what's the point?

 

More important? I'm not proposing that at all. The PVP mechanics are relatively deep already. The trading isn't. As it stands right now, if you want to make gold and XP -- for the most part -- you need to engage in some form of combat. And it's fine if that's the primary focus, of course, as the game is called "Naval Action".

 

But wouldn't it be neat if trading was also an adventure of its own?  

[Ampen]

To me this sounds interesting. Could be connected to currents (wich is a part of sailing) that would increase the open sea speed. Would be very interesting for traders to haul quicker that way, as well as it would invite to PvP/escort actions.

[Justme]

More important? I'm not proposing that at all. The PVP mechanics are relatively deep already. The trading isn't. As it stands right now, if you want to make gold and XP -- for the most part -- you need to engage in some form of combat. And it's fine if that's the primary focus, of course, as the game is called "Naval Action".

 

But wouldn't it be neat if trading was also an adventure of its own?

Trade and adventure typically don't belong in the same sentence.

About the only way to make trade interesting is if you were smuggling contraband/running blockades. Those are pointless if you don't tie in trading ship loss to a ports economy.

[dynd]

EvE is not one server.

EvE is 10000 servers/system instances separated by jumpgates (jump animation hides the loading screen) providing plausible separation of system instances while keeping one server in the player mind. It is possible in any environment where you can separate areas by jumpgates

 

Unfortunately jump gates cannot not exist at sea - thus one server is not possible unless someone will come up with the great explanation of why there is a spot at sea teleporting you somewhere else

What about one server for Antilles, one for Peurto Rico, one for Gulf of Mexico etc.? Make the bordersrun through the middle of the ocean where the inconvienence of a loading screen is minimized. A bit like this but with more thought put into it.

[Taralin Snow]

EvE is not one server.

EvE is 10000 servers/system instances separated by jumpgates (jump animation hides the loading screen) providing plausible separation of system instances while keeping one server in the player mind. It is possible in any environment where you can separate areas by jumpgates

 

Unfortunately jump gates cannot not exist at sea - thus one server is not possible unless someone will come up with the great explanation of why there is a spot at sea teleporting you somewhere else 

 

A better model to consider then is Asheron's Call.  In that game the map was made up of square landblocks, and each landblock resided on a particular server.  There were many more landblocks than servers, which meant that typically a single server would be hosting multiple landblocks.  The game client received updates for the landblock you were in, as well as updates from the 8 surrounding landblocks (the size of a landblock roughly corresponded to your 'visibility' range, so you never needed updates from landblocks further away).  Landblocks could technically be moved from server to server while the game was running but this was generally avoided because it caused a visible lag spike for players.  It was possible to walk from one corner of the continent to the other, transitioning across many servers, all seamlessly (no loading screens).

 

But all that requires a fair amount of infrastructure on the back end, and your network protocols (both client-server and server-server) have to be written to support it.  Asheron's Call used its own engine that took care of this (eventually they named it the 'Turbine Engine') but I have never heard of another game that did this.  I think Naval Action is already too far into its development for something like this to be a reasonable possibility but I did want to point out that it is technically doable if you have it in mind from the start.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Taralin Snow