War Supplied from 0 to 100

[Archaos]

1 minute ago, DreamMaker said:

You do not understand me... We was PVE grind  in Gerogia for 2 weeks, not 1 Fleet dont go pvp vs us.....
About shortest route - Read posts before, PVE is rly boring. Your fleet dont go pvp vs us any way, we have already check it

You say PvE is really boring but then are happy to spend days grinding materials to make War Supplies!!!!!

I know which one I would find more boring.

[DreamMaker]

Just now, Archaos said:

You say PvE is really boring but then are happy to spend days grinding materials to make War Supplies!!!!!

I know which one I would find more boring.

Stop trying to represent all the best for you. Craft not PVE, u cant craft for 3 hours, you spend all your Labor hours max 15 mins. If you have more questions about WarSupplies I'm listening. In the future, I'm not going to respond to any "troll-attack".

[Archaos]

Just now, DreamMaker said:

Stop trying to represent all the best for you. Craft not PVE, u cant craft for 3 hours, you spend all your Labor hours max 15 mins. If you have more questions about WarSupplies I'm listening. In the future, I'm not going to respond to any "troll-attack".

I am not trolling I am pointing out that you dislike the PvE grind but are happy to spend hours gathering materials to make war supplies. Crafting may be very quick but gathering the materials takes time and effort and usually a lot of boring sailing to deliver materials.

You have already agreed that war supplies should not be able to take hostility to 100% instantly and state that you have posted elsewhere regarding this, so why do you continue to fight me? Let us work together to get the hostility generation system changed so it becomes a better game rather than try and defend a bad game mechanic.

[DreamMaker]

We are not defend a bad game mechanic, just some forum-fighters whant kill game mechanic instead of correcting

[Archaos]

4 minutes ago, DreamMaker said:

We are not defend a bad game mechanic, just some forum-fighters whant kill game mechanic instead of correcting

So how are you proposing to correct it? We are not the ones using the mechanic. You agree it is a bad game mechanic but you still want to use it? How does that help make a better game. All I see is you defending your use of this mechanic rather than pointing out to the Devs that the mechanic has flaws that need addressing.

[DreamMaker]

Omg u start it again... in brief: this mechanic better than the alternatives! It need correct, but now it is better then PVE. 

[Powderhorn]

This thread is going back and forth with accusations and defensiveness.  If you can't propose solutions to the issue, and if it continues to simply be accusation, counter-accusation, defensiveness, this thread will be closed.  That's what national news is for.

[Archaos]

1 minute ago, DreamMaker said:

Omg u start it again... in brief: this mechanic better than the alternatives! It need correct, but now it is better then PVE. 

Then why are you arguing? I am here trying to point out to the Dev's that this needs correcting and you just seem to keep saying it is better than the alternatives!!!!

And personally I do not think it is better than PvE. At least with the PvE missions they can turn into PvP, but with 0 to 100% hostility there is no chance of PvP apart from the port battles which are limited to 50 players. I think you must be one of the port battle players who is guaranteed a place in the battle. Think about all the other players who will not get a chance to experience that PvP. If the only way port battles are generated is with hostility bombs then PvP is dead for majority of the playerbase.

[Archaos]

3 minutes ago, Powderhorn said:

This thread is going back and forth with accusations and defensiveness.  If you can't propose solutions to the issue, and if it continues to simply be accusation, counter-accusation, defensiveness, this thread will be closed.  That's what national news is for.

It might help if there was some form of official communication from the Dev's that they at least acknowledge the issue and are looking at ways to change it. Otherwise the only way to keep what I feel to be a major flaw in the game prominent is to keep posting about it so it does not get buried under other issues and forgotten about.

I think you can see that even the people who have used this tactic do agree that it is a poor mechanic even though they prefer it to the PvE grind.

[Powderhorn]

We're still adjusting to a major forum overhaul.  This happened overnight.  The original developer response when this happened before was to increase the weight of supplies, so it was less easy to do.  It seems it still may be too easy to do.  That is an argument for you all to present.  Please do so.

[Wesreidau]

10 minutes ago, Archaos said:

It might help if there was some form of official communication from the Dev's that they at least acknowledge the issue and are looking at ways to change it.

Feeling like there are major exploits and flaws in the PvP game and the devs aren't interested in fixing them is the reason peoplare quitting.

[Archaos]

3 minutes ago, Powderhorn said:

We're still adjusting to a major forum overhaul.  This happened overnight.  The original developer response when this happened before was to increase the weight of supplies, so it was less easy to do.  It seems it still may be too easy to do.  That is an argument for you all to present.  Please do so.

I hope you can see from my posts that this is what I have been trying to do, but some others keep trying to defend it rather that work towards a better solution.

[Wesreidau]

3 minutes ago, Powderhorn said:

 It seems it still may be too easy to do.  That is an argument for you all to present.  Please do so.

I think the same small faction continuing to perform hostility bombs is the only argument required, particularly when one considers the impracticality of intercepting such attacks. They are basically very expensive conquest flags without any warning they've been bought.

I propose two changes. The first is that war supplies are limited to 50% of the total hostility needed to start a port battle. This will have a faction work up hostility to 50% through hostility missions, then sail in a hostility bomb to hit 100%. This allows defenders to know when a region is threatened and to post their defenses accordingly.

The second change is defensive use of war supplies. Donating war supplies (or being rewarded by the AI) into a capital you own will build up a stockpile of defensive war supplies that "fortify" a port. When the enemy drops off war supplies, fortified war supplies negate out invading war supplies until the fortified supplies are reduced to zero. Fortified supplies also dwindle away when hostility is above 90%, holding down additional hostility generation until the supplies are consumed, which adds an additional buffer for the defender if they choose to heavily fortifiy a key region. 

The result will be key regions being fortified by factions and a longer conflict required to bring down those fortifications. Intercepting war supply shipments from defenders will drive more PvP as well.

In fact, hostility generation from PvE missions could be removed entirely and attacking or defending ports could entirely rely on the offensive and defensive deployment of war supplies in fortifications or offensive smuggling. This will bring more player convoys into the open world hostility generation for both offense and defense.

[DreamMaker]

1 minute ago, Wesreidau said:

I think the same small faction continuing to perform hostility bombs is the only argument required, particularly when one considers the impracticality of intercepting such attacks. They are basically very expensive conquest flags without any warning they've been bought.

I propose two changes. The first is that war supplies are limited to 50% of the total hostility needed to start a port battle. This will have a faction work up hostility to 50% through hostility missions, then sail in a hostility bomb to hit 100%. This allows defenders to know when a region is threatened and to post their defenses accordingly.

The second change is defensive use of war supplies. Donating war supplies (or being rewarded by the AI) into a capital you own will build up a stockpile of defensive war supplies that "fortify" a port. When the enemy drops off war supplies, fortified war supplies negate out invading war supplies until the fortified supplies are reduced to zero. Fortified supplies also dwindle away when hostility is above 90%, holding down additional hostility generation until the supplies are consumed, which adds an additional buffer for the defender if they choose to heavily fortifiy a key region. 

The result will be key regions being fortified by factions and a longer conflict required to bring down those fortifications. Intercepting war supply shipments from defenders will drive more PvP as well.

In fact, hostility generation from PvE missions could be removed entirely and attacking or defending ports could entirely rely on the offensive and defensive deployment of war supplies in fortifications or offensive smuggling. This will bring more player convoys into the open world hostility generation for both offense and defense.

I would not be surprised if you are offered to War Supplies exploded in the sea, sank the whole fleet which transports them....... 

[Magnum]

39 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I propose an alternative to the current war supply mechanic that might make it more interesting and less prone to "bombing." Why not make war supplies easier to make, simpler to deliver (fit in an LGV) but require the trader to loiter outside port for 5 minutes while doing so (ala old port battle flag timer)? If you combine the loiter timer with a cool-down timer (5 minutes) before the next war supplies drop could occur, then this would require a sustained supply line of war supplies to be delivered, increasing the likelihood of meaningful PvP surrounding their delivery and potentially increase the likelihood of contested supply chains.

Each war supply should only be able to add (or diminish) 2% to the hostility level.

Each "use" of a war supply by any nation should activate a 10 min cool down timer before another can be dropped by that alliance. No top end limit.

Simple, effective easy to code

Next problem ....

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

With more and more and more limits being asked we will never see another PB...

[Kloothommel]

3 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

With more and more and more limits being asked we will never see another PB...

Exactly. All agreements are against the attackers.

[Anolytic]

3 hours ago, Archaos said:

But in saying that you help make my point about how the war supplies mechanic is broken. If no one is going to spot you out there then there is no risk of being intercepted and by the time you are in sight of the port it is too late for people to stop you due to the sheer BR numbers.

I wish people would just admit that the Hostility Bomb tactic is just like the flag system but worse because there is no warning.

Actually, the point I was making was that all the players "defending" around Bermuda are port huggers, so sailing anywhere near Bermuda as long as it is not too close to a town is pretty safe from both spotting and interception. 

Hostility bombs are the best and surest way to get port battles at the moment, and to schedule them at reasonable times when the most players are available. Clearly the hostility system needs an overhaul, which should also work to make hostility bombs much less relevant or even redundant. Until then they are a part of the game, and for a small nation like Danmark-Norge with dedicated PvP/RvR-players the most favourable way to get port battles.

2 hours ago, Llewellyn Jones RN said:

Couple this with the fact that you had a clear route straight from your home port to target without passing any possiblity of being spotted and reported until destination reached

It's Geography. Are you trying to say that Danes are responsible for there not being any significant land formations between the Virgin Isles and Bermuda? Believe me, if we could control tectonic plates and the formation of islands millions of years back, using it to start port battles in Naval Action would be very low on our list of priorities. Personally I would have stopped a few Tsunamis from ever happening and then made a rift in New York to swallow Trump Tower.

 

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

Similar to alts being used to generate hostility, it is possible to do but people do not do it because of the threat of being banned. Just because something is possible does not mean it should be done. We are testing the game and finding the flaws, point out flaws you find rather than use them to gain advantage.

There is no similarity to using alts for hostility generation. That is against written rules for the game and an obvious circumvention of the game mechanics as opposed to utilising game mechanics to full effect. To allow the devs to work on improving the game they need data that they get from us playing the game. And saying that you can do something is very different from actually doing it. Until Georgia Brits thought war supply bombs couldn't be done and some argued that war supplies were underpowered and therefore useless. 

 

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

I keep hearing about how people want a fair battle of 25 vs 25 and how port battles are the best part of the game and there should be more, yet the same people who want this did not opt for a fair 25v25 port battle for Santo Domingo or Ponce (although as I understand it that battle did not happen due to a mix up with politics).

You say you want PvP. Why are you allied with US and VP? You can fight them can't you? Same argument.

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

You say PvE is really boring but then are happy to spend days grinding materials to make War Supplies!!!!!

I know which one I would find more boring.

With War Supplies we can guarantee that we get our reward (Port Battle) and that our efforts aren't counter grinded to futility during the night.

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

Then why are you arguing? I am here trying to point out to the Dev's that this needs correcting and you just seem to keep saying it is better than the alternatives!!!!

And personally I do not think it is better than PvE. At least with the PvE missions they can turn into PvP, but with 0 to 100% hostility there is no chance of PvP apart from the port battles which are limited to 50 players. I think you must be one of the port battle players who is guaranteed a place in the battle. Think about all the other players who will not get a chance to experience that PvP. If the only way port battles are generated is with hostility bombs then PvP is dead for majority of the playerbase.

Out of the alternatives available to us at the moment, it is the best one. For us at least. You might prefer PvE-but that doesn't mean we have to. And besides, the whole nation is invited to join the screening fleet at Bermuda, but it is a long sail for people who cannot spare the 3 hours to get there and then the 2 hours to fight.

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

It might help if there was some form of official communication from the Dev's that they at least acknowledge the issue and are looking at ways to change it. Otherwise the only way to keep what I feel to be a major flaw in the game prominent is to keep posting about it so it does not get buried under other issues and forgotten about.

The devs are definitely looking at the issue with high priority. They will probably communicate to us once they have had time to consider solutions. They have already shown that they are up on the issue by making the hotfix to change the weight of the war supplies.

1 hour ago, Wesreidau said:

Feeling like there are major exploits and flaws in the PvP game and the devs aren't interested in fixing them is the reason peoplare quitting.

You cannot expect devs to have a solution and have it coded overnight. If you don't want erratic development with solutions and fixes all over the place you need to be patient.

 

[Fenris]

On 7.11.2016 at 2:47 AM, Sir Henry de Montfort said:

First, fens this isn't the tet offensive this was 1700-1800 when it took a while to do anything.

The problem is war supplies cause the hostility to go from 0-100 in 5 min.

Why is it a problem?

Hostility was brought in to cut down on a multitude of P.B's everynight. It was "meant" to initiate increased pvp battles between players.

War supply basically kills all pvp....

Example this week for the Danish to raise hostility thousands of miles away in U.S. (Georgia) it would have been extremely difficult to do conducting pvp....so war supplies...done in 5 min. They did same thing in the attack on bahamas...then disconnect fleet outside port all done.

1) the war supplies eliminated all the pvp..

2) prevented any allies from assisting

So why did we go to this new PB system? More PVP and less PB. But war supply prevents this and is bad in many ways...

1) war supplying is hard to defend, American players and Russian players tend to be on opposite time zones. Just dump supplies at low player times...all over. At least if war supplies was nerfed or removed, allies could cover for focused nation..etc.

2) it eliminates screening and patrol groups...cause again you cant sail around all day looking for those traders (boring) and we all can't play 12 hours EVERYDAY....

3) Devs also wanted people pvping and battling on our nation's front lines...with war supplies there is no frontlines.....and remember this is 1790...not 2016. Back then you just couldn't sail deep into enemy territory...

I'm not crying about anything...brits this, Danes that.... what ever...half of you change nations every 4 months anyways and it's all gonna get wiped anyway. So please enough with the negativity. We need to find a good medium. I'm sure war supplies can be fixed, but how?

Personally as a former army officer...sending war supply to guerrillas doesn't so much make its hostility go up as much as deny it to the enemy or make maintaining it extremely high.

Suggestion...War supplies increase hostile from 30-50 percent gradually over a determined time period. Also makes the cost of all goods in region go up and up as hostility goes up (security and precautions cost extra money)..... to a point where markets close down....just an idea.

Lol.

Hostility rising was ok imo, untill people complaind it rises too fast.

Nowadays everybody is complaining about everything.Those arent suggestions or propositions,its how some would like the game to be.

War suplies are good as they are.Spend money,buy stuff,craft stuff,organise,deliver.You think this was easy,try it.

Like you said"all is going to get wiped anyway".

Just pixels.

p.s. Tet was about SURPRISE. Supplies are about surprise.You sleep,you lose.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Fenris

[Archaos]

3 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

 

There is no similarity to using alts for hostility generation. That is against written rules for the game and an obvious circumvention of the game mechanics as opposed to utilising game mechanics to full effect. To allow the devs to work on improving the game they need data that they get from us playing the game. And saying that you can do something is very different from actually doing it. Until Georgia Brits thought war supply bombs couldn't be done and some argued that war supplies were underpowered and therefore useless. 

 

Out of the alternatives available to us at the moment, it is the best one. For us at least. You might prefer PvE-but that doesn't mean we have to. And besides, the whole nation is invited to join the screening fleet at Bermuda, but it is a long sail for people who cannot spare the 3 hours to get there and then the 2 hours to fight.

 

The use of alts was not originally in the written rules of the game, but when it was brought to the Devs attention a warning was put out about it.

Screening fleets have been rendered almost useless by the ability to log off outside the port in advance, again another tactic developed by the Danes.

People keep mentioning about it being the only alternative available at the moment but same people do not suggest other alternatives, they just seem fixed on getting their port battle fix rather than help develop a better game.

[Anolytic]

5 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Screening fleets have been rendered almost useless by the ability to log off outside the port in advance, again another tactic developed by the Danes.

"Developed" by Danes. Don't make me laugh.

I've said my piece on that topic elsewhere. Repeating it here would be off topic.

7 minutes ago, Archaos said:

People keep mentioning about it being the only alternative available at the moment but same people do not suggest other alternatives, they just seem fixed on getting their port battle fix rather than help develop a better game.

We definitely are discussing and suggesting other alternatives. It's you* who keep derailing the topic by yelling exploit all the time.

*you and others

[akd]

Hostility "bombs" defeat the core design of the new conquest system and so must be reworked.  Increasing cost and/or weight is not a solution, as it just tilts the advantage toward the more powerful groups.

Bermuda should be set aside as it is a unique problem requiring its own solution.  Any system balanced to make Bermuda competitive will be unbalanced for normal ports.

Edited November 10, 2016 by akd

[Lobster2.0]

Perhaps the problem is not in the mechanics but in your laziness? While Danes Kraft  war supplies for the war, you craft resources for your own enrichment. While Danes sailing during 3 hours at 23 Indiamans with these war supplies to the port, you farm PVE for your own enrichment. Maybe you should do something that would protect the port? At least to start farming PVE around the port wich you want to defend? You can detect fleet of 23 Indiamans and intercept it ... You just need sink 1 Indiaman! No? Want to try ? Although certainly better  if game mechanics would  protect your interests in the game, while you do nothing ...

Edited November 10, 2016 by Lobster2.0

[Archaos]

1 minute ago, Lobster2.0 said:

Perhaps the problem is not in the mechanics but in your laziness? While Danes Kraft  war supplies for the war, you craft resources for your own enrichment. While Danes sailing during 3 hours at 23 Indiamans with these supplies to the port, you farm PVE for your own enrichment. Maybe you should do something that would protect the port? At least to start farming PVE around the port wich you want to defend? You can detect fleet of 23 Indiamans and intercept it ... You just need sink 1 Indiaman! No? Want to try ? Although certainly better than if game mechanics would  protect your interests in the game, while you do nothing ...

Obviously someone who does not read through the thread before posting their opinion.

Read through and you will see that there was people doing missions and patrolling in the area. It is not possible to intercept 4800 BR of indiamen with a single ship.

Please read the arguments already posted before posting.

[Lobster2.0]

3 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Obviously someone who does not read through the thread before posting their opinion.

Read through and you will see that there was people doing missions and patrolling in the area. It is not possible to intercept 4800 BR of indiamen with a single ship.

Please read the arguments already posted before posting.

You don't have chat ? You can't say to your nation about spotted enemy ?

Edited November 10, 2016 by Lobster2.0