Port flipping: automatically driven by NPCs?

[Slamz]

Just a thought:

What if port attacks were NPC driven and automatic, set on specific timers?

 

Based on some fixed set of paths, NPC fleets will set out at specific times and go to attack an enemy port.

 

Perhaps every capital and regional capital sends out a fleet once every.....7 hours? Fleet heads to the nearest enemy port if there is one within range.

 

So the schedule may look like:

8am fleet goes out

3pm fleet goes out

10pm fleet goes out

5am fleet goes out

12pm fleet goes out

7pm fleet goes out

2am fleet goes out

9am fleet goes out

(etc)

 

7 hours is arbitrary but it's important to make it so that the times rotate each day.

 

The NPC fleet may be something like 5 ships. They will attack towers but they are meant to lose unless players show up to help them. If caught in battle on the way to the port the fleet flag carrier just tries to run away, like a trader.

 

 

Pros:

* Port battles occur at a regulated pace.

* Nobody has to pay for port battles.

* Everyone knows when and where the next port battle fight is at.

 

Cons(?)

* Players don't get to control when or where port battles happen (except indirectly, like by not helping the fleet if it attacks a port they don't want -- in that case, it's just a little XP event for the defenders).

 

[Galileus]

Pros:

* Port battles occur at a regulated pace.

* Nobody has to pay for port battles.

* Everyone knows when and where the next port battle fight is at.

 

• Port battle windows open and close all the time... we would see much more undefended port battles, because due to information saturation no-one would be willing to check every single one of these. More =/= better.
• Which is a pro how...?
• No-one ever know where and when next port battle is. Suddenly no more ports, because this time it wasn't 2 randoms in the port battle, it was a whole fleet!

 

This is an awful idea.

[Slamz]

 

• Port battle windows open and close all the time... we would see much more undefended port battles, because due to information saturation no-one would be willing to check every single one of these. More =/= better.
• Which is a pro how...?
• No-one ever know where and when next port battle is. Suddenly no more ports, because this time it wasn't 2 randoms in the port battle, it was a whole fleet!

 

This is an awful idea.

 

 

I don't think you understand the idea at all, because your points above don't seem to make sense.

 

Current system:

* Nobody knows when or where port battles will happen. They happen when someone feels like pulling a flag against one of dozens of open ports scattered all over the map. Most port battles are PvT because defenders can't show up in time unless they are camped nearby when the flag gets pulled.

* Only a few hot areas really get contested.

* Winners frequently then set the port battle timer to the lowest population time on the server and kills RvR in that area.

 

NPC driven system:

* Everyone on the server knows exactly when the next flag will get created and where it will go. There is ample time for attackers and defenders to get into place.

* Attacks run regularly, day and night.

 

Also, 7 hours is arbitrary, as I stated. Maybe it should be every 31 hours. We would probably have to play with it and see what feels right. (Might be that losing teams get more while winning teams slow down, too.)

 

 

Your posts need to spent a little time trying to imagine a system and how it might be improved rather than simply posting knee-jerk reactions that don't even apply to the idea, which wastes everyone's time. Bad ideas can be rejected, but not if your major complaint is actually just a minor adjustment to the posted idea or a clear misunderstanding.

 

If you don't understand, ask questions.

[Galileus]

NPC driven system:

* Everyone on the server knows exactly when the next flag will get created and where it will go. There is ample time for attackers and defenders to get into place.

* Attacks run regularly, day and night.

Port battle windows open and close all the time... we would see much more undefended port battles, because due to information saturation no-one would be willing to check every single one of these. More =/= better.

 

No-one ever know where and when next port battle is. Suddenly no more ports, because this time it wasn't 2 randoms in the port battle, it was a whole fleet!

 

I can add another one - busywork.

 

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. Yes, it was. Let's go and defend it guys!

- When?

- About an hour ago.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Henry d'Esterre Darby
Removed disrespectful content.

[Slamz]

I can add another one - busywork.

 

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

 

Current system:

* People buy flags as a distraction. You go to defend the port and no enemies ever show up. Their real attack was somewhere else. Flag purchases are actually used to try and avoid PvP on a regular basis.

 

NPC system:

* All attacks are real. Guaranteed at least the NPC fleet itself will show up and give you money and XP for defeating it. But also, attackers don't need 25 ships to try. If even 1 or 2 real players join the NPC attack force, it could be a threat if no player defenders show up.

 

 

I'm glad to clarify the idea for you but please go back and re-read the original post, as all of this has already been covered. It seems like you don't really even understand current gameplay.

[KrakkenSmacken]

Don't like it for a port conquest mechanic.

 

I will never support a programmatic strategy pattern dictated by algorithm that should always be up to and under the control of the the players.

 

Move along, this is not the solution you are looking for.

[Taralin Snow]

I can add another one - busywork.

 

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. No it's wasn't.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sigh. Yes, it was. Let's go and defend it guys!

- When?

- About an hour ago.

 

 

Here is how it would actually go:

 

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- It was just NPCs.  I sank them (with the towers helping) and got 120K gold and some Lignum Vitae

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- NPCs again.  This time I got purple Marines.  My hold was still full of Lignum Vitae from before so I dumped all the Coal I got this time.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Just NPCs again. I think I might open an outpost here to collect all my loot.  I got Compass Wood this time.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- NPCs again, but jackpot this time.  Exceptional Steel Toolbox, plus some Silver ore.  And 100K+ gold of course.  A couple other guys also showed up to defend, rewards are good so you should come down too.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Sorry, was busy doing something else (I can't be online all the time).  But I checked afterwards and we still own the port so it was probably just NPCs.

7 hours later

- Hey, Frank, go check if this time it's a real attack

- Yes it is.  Started with just the NPCs and 3 of us defending, but 4 enemy players just joined in.  Ask in nation chat for others to join, there is still time to get here.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Henry d'Esterre Darby
Edited moderated content.

[Galileus]

Yeah - good point.

 

Join in, wait till towers kill NPCs, count profits.

 

Told you it's broken :3

[Slamz]

I will never support a programmatic strategy pattern dictated by algorithm that should always be up to and under the control of the the players.

 

Well, the current system SHOULD work okay. The problem is that players abuse it. They buy flags as distractions and then don't attack. They set timers to off-hours. They wait for the last minute to buy the flag and buy it as close as possible so that enemies don't have time to react, etc.

 

The current system is all about avoiding the actual fight inside the port battle.

 

If you can think of ways to fix that, start some suggestion threads! We need the ideas.

 

Automating it isn't the only way, but it's a guaranteed solution that will solve a lot of problems.

 

Yeah - good point.

 

Join in, wait till towers kill NPCs, count profits.

 

Told you it's broken :3

 

You should always have to participate in order to get rewards. Ideally the reward should be based on your relative level of participation.

 

Not sure if that's true in the current system. I think you can show up, do nothing, and get rewarded if your team wins but I'm not sure. Never tried. If so, it needs to be fixed, regardless of anything else.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Slamz

[Taralin Snow]

There might need to be some adjustments.  Scale rewards based on number of players.  Maybe you should never get Compass Wood or Exceptional upgrades as a reward for fighting NPCs (this should probably apply to open world as well).  7 hours may not be a big enough delay between attacks.  But these are things that can be tuned and do not necessarily mean that the idea is fundamentally flawed.

 

An idea that needs refinement is not the same thing as a bad idea.  It's possible that this is a bad idea but so far I'm not seeing why.  Personally I think 7 hours is much too fast given the number of regional capitals we have, but maybe with a sliding scale where the frequency of flags is based on how many ports you have (a nation with fewer ports launches flags more frequently, while nations with more ports launch flags less frequently) this would work. It would also slow down the rate of expansion of overpopulated teams.

 

We do see a lot of bad ideas posted on this forum but many are good ideas that just aren't completely polished yet.  This is how development happens.  Somebody comes up with an idea and instead of "will this work" the question is "can this be made to work?".  Just because something isn't polished is not a reason to shoot it down.  First imagine refinements to make it as good as possible, and then if it's still a bad idea say why you think so.  Sometimes coming up with the refinements requires sharing the idea and discussing it.

[Taranis]

I like the idea very much.  AI fleets should be more aggressive, in general - but having the AI generate attacks would help create more activity and could be made to support smaller nations as well. 

[Galileus]

Automating it isn't the only way, but it's a guaranteed solution that will solve a lot of problems

 

What about the attacking NPCs? Do defenders get 30 slots? Do attackers loose 5 slots to NPCs? Do they get to spawn players instead of NPCs? What if NPCs sunk already?

 

What if you want to attack port X? Do you need to wait 7 days till there will be a fleet? Or is there 20 fleets with the flags? Or are behind-the-lines ports immune?

 

How do you protect the flag that is carried by brain-dead bot? How do you protect a port 24/7?

 

How do you order the bots in battle? What if they make you loose? They tend to ram a lot and get in the way. How do you deal with BR difference when bots suicide into enemy lines?

 

Thank god for all these problems solved :3

[KrakkenSmacken]

Well, the current system SHOULD work okay. The problem is that players abuse it. They buy flags as distractions and then don't attack. They set timers to off-hours. They wait for the last minute to buy the flag and buy it as close as possible so that enemies don't have time to react, etc.

 

 

You know, it would be much simpler if you want to avoid the enemy spending gold to enact an actual strategy, to simply limit flags to one out at a time per nation, or even the world.

 

That goal however, which you seem to think is a "problem" and "abuse" of "They buy flags as distractions and then don't attack." is actually a time honored strategy called a "feint".

 

"a deceptive or pretended blow, thrust, or other movement, especially in boxing or fencing."

 

Sorry you don't like it, but that and other strategy moves are a part of war. Hell it's even part of a stand up toe to toe fight like boxing and fencing.

Edited April 8, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Taranis]

You know, it would be much simpler if you want to avoid the enemy spending gold to enact an actual strategy, to simply limit flags to one out at a time per nation, or even the world.

 

That goal however, which you seem to think is a "problem" and "abuse" of "They buy flags as distractions and then don't attack." is actually a time honored strategy called a "feint".

 

"a deceptive or pretended blow, thrust, or other movement, especially in boxing or fencing."

 

Sorry you don't like it, but that's part of war. Hell it's even part of a stand up toe to toe fight like boxing and fencing.

 

Would that not just favor Zergs all the more?  Already an issue in the game as it is.

[KrakkenSmacken]

Would that not just favor Zergs all the more?  Already an issue in the game as it is.

What are you saying by "that", there were several points in the response.

 

EDIT: if it was my suggestion of only one flag out at a time, that was supposed to be dripping with sarcasm.  Neither of those ideas are a genuine solution to the problems with port battles.

Edited April 8, 2016 by KrakkenSmacken

[Taranis]

What are you saying by "that", there were several points in the response.

 

EDIT: if it was my suggestion of only one flag out at a time, that was supposed to be dripping with sarcasm.  Neither of those ideas are a genuine solution to the problems with port battles.

 

Sorry - should have clarified.  The concept of limiting the flag to one per world at a time. 

[Slamz]

One thing I like about this idea is that since port attacks are automated, we can easily play with how the attacks occur.

 

British are taking over their world? Their attack rate slows down.

French are losing all their ports? Their attack rate speeds up.

Swedes have no iron port? Maybe their attacks start going for "nearest iron port" rather than just "nearest port".

Pirates own 50% of the map? Maybe other nations start doing "attack nearest pirate port" instead of just "attack nearest port".

 

This is all easily automated.

 

Ideally, players would play like this anyway but I think the current system demonstrates that players are more interested in abusing the system than in creating a fun game that's actually enjoyable to play.

 

That goal however, which you seem to think is a "problem" and "abuse" of "They buy flags as distractions and then don't attack." is actually a time honored strategy called a "feint".

 

The question I see here is whether the strategic value of letting players do feints is worth it.

 

Successful feint:

* Defenders end up at the wrong battle and don't get to fight anyone or do anything.

* Attackers end up at an empty battle and kill towers.

 

Strategically it's a good move but it's very boring for both sides. I would actually rather eliminate this in the name of causing more good PvP battles. "Naval Action" not "Naval Ruse".

 

 

What about the attacking NPCs? Do defenders get 30 slots? Do attackers loose 5 slots to NPCs? Do they get to spawn players instead of NPCs? What if NPCs sunk already?

 

What if you want to attack port X? Do you need to wait 7 days till there will be a fleet? Or is there 20 fleets with the flags? Or are behind-the-lines ports immune?

 

I think I would not count NPCs as slots. Towers don't count as slots for defenders, so these NPCs would not count as slots for attackers. Maybe the NPCs could even be mortar ships... They just sail slowly in range and shell the fort unless someone stops them. Hmm...

 

Attacking ports of your choosing is potentially something we could think about, though -- ways players can influence NPC targets, to some degree.

 

Your other issues seem pretty self-explanatory to me or were already talked about.

[Galileus]

So - how do you defend? Ever? At all?

 

25 ships show up to attack - and you have 3 randoms in port. They kill towers even before anyone organized gets there. The defenders spawn too late and too far apart to do anything. It's a massacre.

 

And there is never any indication that attack is coming, because attack is always there.

 

You say you hate faints, and your system leads to even more one-sided, boring battles. Just skip one battle in active front - congrats, you just made 25 people waste their time organizing and showing up to fight NPC. Attack 3 days later - congrats, you have 3 randoms in cerberuses, you won.

 

It's awful.

[Balsafer]

I'm more in favor if a very hard NPC fleet was present to defend if no players are around too.

[Taralin Snow]

Galileus, you're not taking any time to think of refinements to make the idea better.

 

How about this:

 

Players who want to join the attack must gather at the regional capital where the flag launches from, and register for the port battle.  This allows them to join that battle as attackers.  There is no cost to register (or only a very low token cost, maybe 2k-10k gold or a variable amount that depends on whether the target is shallow medium or deep). Players may register as attackers up to 30 minutes before the flag is launched, and any time after that until the battle ends (Players may register after the battle has started if they think they can then sail there and join before it's over).  Players may not register for more than one attack at a time (they attack where they said they would, or not at all.  this reduces feints but does not eliminate them).  There is no limit on the number of players who register, but only 25 of them will be able to join the attack once it begins.  If the attackers expect heavy screening by the defenders, they should have extra attackers to ensure they can get a full 25 into the battle.  Attackers may escort the flag carrier NPCs (a good idea since the attack will be ended if these NPCs get sunk on the way) or not as they choose.

 

Defenders may join the battle at any time (once it has actually been started by the NPCs at their destination). They do not need to register, they only need to show up.  Only the first 25 can get in.

 

Players can find out how many attackers registered by looking on the Conquest tab in any port.  This will tell you in advance whether an attack is "real" (i.e. whether it will be more than just NPCs).  Even if there are no registered attackers players can still defend just for the XP/gold/loot rewards.  It is probably a good idea to reduce rewards if there are no attackers.

 

Regarding feints, this mechanic reduces them by requiring active player participation.  The current game allows 1 player with a lot of gold to create a feint, and this idea would still allow that 1 player to register for an attack they don't intend to go to (perhaps they instead plan to screen for the 'real' attack) but it will be clear to the defenders that only 1 player is registered.  For a true feint the attacker will need to have a lot of players register for the attack (then not show up) but they will only be able to screen -- they won't be eligible to hit the 'real' target unless the feint ends very quickly (at which point they can register for the real attack, if they think they can sail to the regional capital, register, then sail back to the battle and join before it's over).  But if you had so many players that you felt the need to screen your team probably had enough to fill the PB anyway.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Taralin Snow

[Taranis]

So - how do you defend? Ever? At all?

 

25 ships show up to attack - and you have 3 randoms in port. They kill towers even before anyone organized gets there. The defenders spawn too late and too far apart to do anything. It's a massacre.

 

And there is never any indication that attack is coming, because attack is always there.

 

You say you hate faints, and your system leads to even more one-sided, boring battles. Just skip one battle in active front - congrats, you just made 25 people waste their time organizing and showing up to fight NPC. Attack 3 days later - congrats, you have 3 randoms in cerberuses, you won.

 

It's awful.

 

No one said AI fleets should be composed of 25 santis.  Again, this can be modulated, tempered, balanced...

[Galileus]

SNIP

 

So make the whole system overly bloated, hidden, complicated and unnecessarily automated?

 

Your idea helps somehow (only up to a degree) to resolve the hidden attack power - but at the same time adds a completely redundant and unnecessary layer of complexity. Depth is good - complexity is bad. And this is a horror show of maximum complexity per minimum depth. It still leaves in the problem of busywork (you need to check all the time all the nations and all the ports and all the fleets), it still takes away any control from the player, it still kills the whole strategic depth, it still makes coordinated defense nigh impossible (24/7)... and all of that for what? To get rid of feints?

 

It's a very inelegant, rough and jarred solution. And I don't think there is any amount of polish that could make it better - as the very base idea is simply unfit the sandbox type of game. It would fit nicely into iPhone "PlayInToilet" kind of MMO, where you can just set a timer and every 4h or so check if you need to touch a button to defend. Not in a open world sandbox MMO, where this whole thing would very fast get old, stale and a busywork.

 

As is, war is natural. It starts, blazes in flames, nations jump between ports and look for angle of attack, they get burned out, they finally stop to take a breather and plan their next move. What you propose is unnatural, monotonous 24/7 hitting your head on the wall until an attack is actually really real, when finally you get to get disspointed... because the build-up for this port battle was the most repetitive, ugly, busywork task since farming them dire rats in some other MMO...

[KrakkenSmacken]

 

 

The question I see here is whether the strategic value of letting players do feints is worth it.

 

Successful feint:

* Defenders end up at the wrong battle and don't get to fight anyone or do anything.

* Attackers end up at an empty battle and kill towers.

 

 

 

 

You totally missed the end goal, that a port was captured.  As someone trying to capture a port for conquest reasons, I really don't care, and in fact want, the battle to be as easy as possible.

 

Besides, is that even a valid question when other solutions allow for better handling or removal of the simple band aid, ad hoc add on of port timers to reduce port flipping?

 

I would argue that any mechanic around "timers" needs to be trashed, and more rational and less off the cuff models need to be discussed and designed.  

 

It shouldn't be on timers, if you want to regulate port capture so that everyone has a fairly good idea and knows whats going on, extend the process to include raids and attacks on local economy and shipping.  In that case a real feint would take work, false raids, attacks against multiple targets to make is seem like a capture was imminent in one place, when the real target was somewhere else.

 

All this timer regulation and flag fiddling is a re-arranging of deck chairs to keep trying to fix a basically broken mechanic. 

[Taralin Snow]

Ok, this is good.  We are making some progress in identifying the issues.  It does not help to call them names, "horror show" tells me you don't like it but it doesn't clarify for me the reason why.  You are very clear about communicating your dislike but you rush ahead to the conclusion without giving us the reasoning that got you there.

 

So, regarding the problem of busywork.  What we have now isn't good either.  When a flag is launched a notification appears on your screen for only a few moments, if you weren't watching you could miss it.  You could check the map every few minutes to check for missed conquest announcements.  This is busy work too, albeit a pretty low amount.

 

So what we need is a system that requires no more than this small amount of effort.  So remove the idea that you must go to a port to look at the conquest tab, make it a window you can open at any time (just like the map).  And remove the need to click on nations and ports, just show a list of the upcoming attacks and the number of attackers registered for each.  Since they are automatically scheduled the game will always know when the next several are due so they will be easy to display.  This is much easier that what we have now, gives more information with less effort.

 

Regarding the problem of player control and strategy.  There is still plenty of room for this but the strategy will revolve around choosing which NPC attacks to reinforce with player attackers, and which ones not to.  There needs to be a large enough total number of NPC flag launches to give lots of choices to players about which ones to join and which to ignore.  There can also be some meta-gaming around having players register for attacks and then not show up for them, to exhaust the enemy.  I am not sure this meta-gaming aspect is good so we might want to have a cooldown on registering for attacks, or maybe just a cooldown for registering but then not showing up.  Something to discuss further later.

 

Yes, there are some strategies that will no longer be possible, like simultaneously attacking 4 important ports knowing that the defenders cannot defend them all.  I consider this a benefit because this kind of strategy hurts smaller teams.

 

I think it would help the game to have fewer port attacks (more infrequent), but to have more players involved (on both sides) for each.  Perhaps there can be preparation tasks, for example missions to deliver supplies from one port to another, and if enough supplies are sent the NPCs get upgraded.  This gives low-level players and traders who enjoy hauling cargo a way to contribute without requiring them to actually fight in the port battle itself.

 

Regarding coordinated defense, I do not see why this becomes impossible.  Can you explain further why you believe this?

 

Also I do not see why this is any more monotonous or "hitting your head on the wall" than what we currently have.  If no players register for an attack you don't need to show up to defend.  This is no different than what we have now.  Really the only difference is now you will at least know how many players have registered so you'll know whether to send 6 defenders or 25 (if it's a very valuable port, such as your last Iron port you might send 25 regardless of the number of attackers).  Which reminds me of another problem with the current port battle mechanic:  because you have no idea how many attackers are coming, you must always bring as many defenders as possible.  This leads to un-fun battles where one side has much higher BR than the other.  We had this problem fighting the British on PVP2.  They would bring large fleets of high-BR ships and we would have less than half the BR so the port battle would end as soon as the last tower was destroyed without a single ship getting sunk.  Then we would bring a lot of BR to the next port battle but they would bring fewer players and it would be lopsided the other way.

 

What we have now is already monotonous.  We have our port defense windows set to the time we are on, so for 2 hours every night we are restricted in what we can do because we must be prepared to defend against a possible attack (which on most nights never happens).  With a rotating schedule we don't have to be on guard duty every night, only at the time periods when an attack is possible against ports that we actually want to defend (we will not care about possible attacks against ports we aren't interested in keeping).  So maybe we can have some nights off to do other things instead.  This idea sounds like an improvement to me.

[Taralin Snow]

You totally missed the end goal, that a port was captured.  As someone trying to capture a port for conquest reasons, I really don't care, and in fact want, the battle to be as easy as possible.

 

The end goal is to have fun playing the game, that is why we are here.

 

Yes, winning is fun.  But winning by figuring out a way to prevent your opponent from fighting gives you the fun of winning by robbing your opponent of the fun of playing.  Because this is a game it needs to be fun for both sides, which means removing or limiting mechanics that are only fun for one side.  Taken to the extreme, this style of conquest becomes a PVE contest -- a question of which team can PVT the most ports the fastest.

 

This is why Monopoly is hated by so many people.  It is very rare for a game to be close enough that the loser has fun losing.  Compare this to games like Ticket To Ride where the outcome may be in doubt until the final move.