Teleportation - a few thoughts

[Liq]

The devs seem to be very clear on their opinion regarding Teleports. "They harm the game because noone actually sails the open world, hence noone is a target to anyone, so no PvP can happen".
I've collected a few thoughts regarding TPs / no TPs and the problems coming with it.

[edited, changed my opinion, patch prove it didnt work]

Where it will not work, in my opinion, are Port Battles. After a Port Battle attack, the assault fleet must leave to open world, where more than likely a welcoming fleet will be waiting for them. Even IF the fleet manages to score another win on that fleet, the ritual just repeats itself. Wave after wave the fleet will get attacked, and eventuall will run out of repairs / rum to cover their losses and has to surrender. There is literally no escape, they must sail back into port from enemy waters. I highly doubt any fleet will be willing to fight such a neverending battle series which will result in them having to surrender eventually. I think the battle result screen, for port battles, has to remain. (for those saying *duh you attacked an enemy port, live with the consequences* ... Think again. Port battles will be a thing of the past, Noone will be willing to fight those massive waves of battles after a port battle, hence no PBs will happen.)

No more teleports to freeport
In general I am a supporter of banning instant TPs on command. You shouldn't be able to instantly teleport to a freeport simply because someone in your nation called out a hostile fleet. This is a good way of reducing active ganking.
However, I think it should be possible to teleport to a freeport, if you planned it a few hours ahead. My suggestion is to start a cooldown of maybe 90-120min, and after it finished, you have a small window of 1-2 minutes to carry out the teleport. Also add a 4h cooldown until you can start the next 'TP-in-future' cooldown.
This would massively reduce the time of afk sailing required, without promoting ganking.
Some might say now that any TPs to freeports are a bad thing because of ganking near capitals. But, always consider the fact that the battleresultscreen is a thing of the past. Everyone will (or should) think twice if they want to attack someone in enemy waters. Revenge fleets in hostile waters are, in my opinion, to be considered as normal.

Teleports between national ports
Personally, I think the devs change of not limiting teleports between national ports is good. The area hold by a nation should also be in their control, so if an enemy fleet enters hostile water, they have to keep that in mind. If you reduced national TPs to one per 4 hours, that could result in many bad situations. On the one hand ganking in enemy waters would be easier (once again) since only the part of players currently in the area or those willing to 'waste' their TP could help. National waters should be considered as dangerous for any enemy and any battle initiated should be thought about twice.

Please let me know what you think and post your opinions.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Liquicity

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Regarding the PB issues, you have a Triangle effect.

Wargame planning and battles --- durabilities lost --- time to replace lost ships --- 

I'm totally not seeing "risks" becoming irresponsible to the point of throwing yourself another durability into battle just...because...

Valuable ships will need a purpose to be used - you won't throw away durability especially because they might be valuable for the Wargame of conquest or for some muscle in the OW.

When you set yourself to conquest you will measure all possibilities and play for victory, including the retreat in case of a defeat. If victory is achieved, well you control the region you can setup a new "naval outpost".

IMO teleports were simply not needed and we saw what they caused especially at the Conquest level if not at the raiding level.

 

 

[Fenris]

Being unable to TP to FP is the only way to prevent ganking fleets.

So either TP to Freeport AND 5 minutes battle stays open, or no TP at all

About PB fleets. You have a point.

I would propose that....

1.If the attacker wins, he should be able to enter that contested port and go to bed or replenish or sail out again.

2.If the attacker loses, remaining fleet should automatically return to their starting point.

I really do not know though if this is doable for Developers.

 

[Liq]

11 minutes ago, The Red Duke said:

When you set yourself to conquest you will measure all possibilities and play for victory, including the retreat in case of a defeat. If victory is achieved, well you control the region you can setup a new "naval outpost".

Yes, sorry, my bad. Was thinking of an unsuccessful port attack. The assault fleet would simply have no way to retreat other than having to surrender.
Would you think a lost port battle attack SHOULD result in also losing all the ships? Or should there be some way of trying to retreat? Because with the changes being made, there won't be any.

And also:

I'm totally not seeing "risks" becoming irresponsible to the point of throwing yourself another durability into battle just...because...

Valuable ships will need a purpose to be used - you won't throw away durability especially because they might be valuable for the Wargame of conquest or for some muscle in the OW.

I think you're missing my point. After an unsuccesful PB attack, the defenders will most likely do everything to trap the remaining attackers (given they are heavily damaged and outnumbered already), in order to capture them. So a loss will not just be a loss. It will be a totall loss, totally destroying any left-over morale for the attackes, and as a consequence PBs will become a rarity.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Liquicity

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

There will be a OW battle and losses will mount for both sides.

Conquest will be a planned thing.

What I see happening is way more screening fleets from both sides having a absolute crucial part to play.

[Liq]

1 minute ago, The Red Duke said:

There will be a OW battle and losses will mount for both sides.

What I see happening is way more screening fleets from both sides having a absolute crucial part to play.

In the british faction, PB participants (both screening and the actual PB fleet) varied heavily. On the day the Eastern-Alliance dropped their hepta-hostility-bomb (7 PBs at once, of which 6 were versus the western alliance), we managed to fill every single portbattle with 25 players. That's 150 players alone in the port battles on our side. Screening was also playing a big role on that day. However, attacking a port, you will never have nearly as many players. I think that's simply due to human nature. Defending something important is valued more than attacking something (equal important for the enemy).
Point being: The attackers screeningfleet will most likely never even get close to match the defenders screening fleet, in most occasions at least. Reinforcement for the defenders is closer, since you can't teleport to free ports anymore and literally have to sail to the Port Battle, which average joe player won't do.
Any surviving attacker ship of a port battle will most likely not see a home port again with the changes being made.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

You are presenting examples where teleport was active.

Let's return to the time before TPs everywhere, as example of wars KOTO vs US, Dutch vs France, Dutch vs Sweden, Danes vs Sweden.

You'd work with planning. You'd work with whomever was in the area to help to counter a squadron.

Oh, you had to play with the Nation.

( we had no production building back then if you remember, all resources had to be contracted )

[Liq]

As far as I know devs wanted TP between national ports to stay, or am I mistaken?

Edited April 30, 2017 by Liquicity

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Just now, Liquicity said:

As far as I'm know devs wanted TP between national ports to stay, or am I mistaken?

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/19703-forthcoming-changes-in-the-next-testbed-patch/

 

[Liq]

3 minutes ago, The Red Duke said:

You are presenting examples where teleport was active.

Let's return to the time before TPs everywhere, as example of wars KOTO vs US, Dutch vs France, Dutch vs Sweden, Danes vs Sweden.

You'd work with planning. You'd work with whomever was in the area to help to counter a squadron.

Oh, you had to play with the Nation.

( we had no production building back then if you remember, all resources had to be contracted )

This was also the time of conquest flags. PBs could happen spontaneously, you had to be very careful when to use your tp.
Now, PBs have a preperation time of 46 hours. that's plenty of time for the defenders to prepare themselves. And as I said, with the removal of tp to freeports, you'll have to sail there. In this case the defenders will, most likely, have the upper hand, since they'll have more 'casual' players. In the attacking fleet, you mostly only see the 'hardcore' guys.

[TommyShelby]

Very well thought out post Liq!. 

 

53 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

The devs seem to be very clear on their opinion regarding Teleports. "They harm the game because noone actually sails the open world, hence noone is a target to anyone, so no PvP can happen".
I've collected a few thoughts regarding TPs / no TPs and the problems coming with it.

No more Battleresultscreen nor teleport to port after battle
Ganking around a nation's capital or major trading hub was a big problem. At times you could barely leave the Safezone of your capital without getting attacked by an occasional Endymion Squad whose goal is to just have an easy-mode-battle and gank anything leaving the port to pieces. The current battleresult screen gave them the cover and backup they needed, so they would never even have to think about what would happen after they got their easy kill. They could either just log off in Battlescreen or teleport to port. Now with the upcoming changes, they'll think twice before attacking anything. Do we want to be here after the battle ended? Are we going to face a revenge fleet (which, in this case, is more than deserved)? The upcoming changes should hopefully fix that issue. However, it will also affect the non-ganking players who don't have ganking as their goal, instead just want to have nice, equal battles. After an 1v1 in enemy waters, there will most likely be a revenge fleet waiting for him aswell. After all, in my opinion, we'll have to live with that, even though it might not be a good change for solo players, but overall was pretty much needed so the game could finally get rid off its bad reputation regarding ganking

As for this subject, i am of the opinion that removing the Battle Result Screen / Teleport to Port after battle is a huge mistake. It is not just solo players who will be hurt by this. 
It is pretty much all the average players in NA. To explain i'll quote myself from another topic: 

6 minutes ago, TommyShelby said:

When able to log off Or TP to nearest port after a battle 2 hours is generally enough to go out, find a PvP fight, win or lose, and then log off. However without ability to TP/Log Off you might not be able to log off after winning. In fact you can be kept in game for several hours because the dude or group you defeated called for their buddies. 
So basically you will be forced to either;
1. Spend several hours ingame to reach a port, being tagged repeatedly in the process. 
2. Surrender and lose a ship. 

How many times do you think the average player will do the above before he quits the game? Not many.. 

This has nothing to do with forcing others to play down to my times and skills. It has to do with the fact that we are in the process of alienating something like 80% of the playerbase.
Do you think that is healthy for the game? I don't. 

 

[Liq]

14 minutes ago, TommyShelby said:

As for this subject, i am of the opinion that removing the Battle Result Screen / Teleport to Port after battle is a huge mistake. It is not just solo players who will be hurt by this. 
It is pretty much all the average players in NA. To explain i'll quote myself from another topic: 

I can see your point

Another suggestion:
Battleresultscreen stays, IF the attacking side has less or equal BR as the side getting attacked.
As soon as the attacking side has more BR than their targets, there won't be any battleresultscreen.

Not always the BR actually matches the 'equality' for that suggestion, as for examlpe two experienced connies could easily take out a Victory

Edited April 30, 2017 by Liquicity

[TommyShelby]

Something like that could work maybe. But like you say it gets complicated because in many situations "Equal BR" doesn't mean "Fair Fight".

Personally though, i'm a big fan of Signalling Perk. To me it seems like the best compromise out there. 

[Mrdoomed]

I think my opinion on tp are well documented lol.

[Sir Texas Sir]

With the port battles.  Shouldn't your anti screening fleet be taking care of those screeners?   It could end up in an even bigger battle out side after a port battle is over.   

Also when the port battle is over and if you win as an attacker both sides can enter that port.  Maybe have a nice window that allows folks to get to the port and enter it if they want to.  Gives them chance to restock up repair and what not.  

As for loosing attackers.  Sorry buddy you lost, you now have to fight your way home and it might not be pretty.  The same for the loosing defenders.  They have to now get there ship out of enemy waters and it might not be pretty.  

It's really going to be hard to judge Port Battles until we know more about the new hostility system and how they are going to be triggered.

 

Now here is something that you can try.  You think that a nation might have a very strong fleet and screeners at a port for a port battle.  Than scheduled two of them at the same time.  Leave a small fleet to go to the one your not planning to take as a distraction and to keep them busy.  Than take the other port.  If they don't have ship there ready or a fleet to stop you.  Remember we can watch ship movements and see where ya'll are heading towards to react before hand.  Since you have to sail from friendly waters to get there.  This is more real like how battles happend.  Not just poof ever one logs in and we have a battle.  Maybe not all your fleet will make it to the battle if any stray and falls behind.  Maybe there is a bunch of pesky Pirates around the area picking off stragglers on both sides?

[TommyShelby]

2 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

As for loosing attackers.  Sorry buddy you lost, you now have to fight your way home and it might not be pretty.  The same for the loosing defenders. 

Afaik the defenders can still enter the port untill next maintenance.

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 minutes ago, TommyShelby said:

Afaik the defenders can still enter the port untill next maintenance.

So can attackers if they win.   The defenders though now are in hostile water if they leave and have to make it to friendly waters or have there ship stuck in that port.   I can just see it again. When we took Port Antonio for the first time from the Brits we camped the out side of it cause they had 14 1st rates we didn't sink in the battle.   We caught 3-4 out side with our screeners after the port battle.  Some of us camped that port for over 12 hours and we caught another 3-4 1st rates leaving one at a time.  

Remember this is high risk game now.  You don't have to bring that first rate, but if your smart you better keep it in a good tight group with others.

That was before folks can tow ships so I'm going to bet it will go back to be effective in block aiding ports after battles if you can.  Remember not every one can just jump and telport there to right so it's going to cut down on the numbers unless your deep in hostile waters.  We will have to pick our fights smarter and maybe work with multi attacks.  Use verbal alliances to have more than one fronts.

And maybe not every dang ship will be the same meta to make port battle more interesting and not just the same meta.   We will see, the first few weeks and month is going to be interesting when the game goes live.

[TommyShelby]

Yeah but the defenders can log off in the port even if they lose. (And there is an easy way to get a ship out of an enemy port). 

The Attackers however, are forced into the OW where their fleet will likely be decimated. So the defenders have options, the attackers don't. 

 

[Cmdr RideZ]

2 hours ago, Liquicity said:

After all, in my opinion, we'll have to live with that, even though it might not be a good change for solo players, but overall was pretty much needed so the game could finally get rid off its bad reputation regarding ganking.
Where it will not work, in my opinion, are Port Battles.

 

2 hours ago, Fenris said:

2.If the attacker loses, remaining fleet should automatically return to their starting point.

So we should have revenge ganking for OW PvP, but no ganking after PBs?  I disagree here pretty strongly.

RvR players are fed up about solo or small fleets capturing their traders, or ganking at their capital.  So they want to make it easy for them to revenge gank these small fleets.  When the question is about RvR, that is not cool anymore?  The current development direction is "Mass > Skill".  I do not like this at all. But asking devs to implement revenge gank rules against solo/small fleet players because that does not affect you.  Then after that trying to remove this option for your own playstyle?  This is not cool.

 

This all started because of those 4 Surprises at the front of KPR, and brits were too scared to challenge them in anything smaller than 25x 1st rates.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Cmdr RideZ

[Liq]

19 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

But asking devs to implement revenge gank rules against solo/small fleet players because that does not affect you.  Then after that trying to remove this option for your own playstyle?  This is not cool.

Actually, at this point, I don't do any RvR anymore, nada, only solo/small group pvping. But I realized we, the solo players, had to take a hit (removal of battle result screen) in order for there to be no more silly ganking 5v1 etc right outside a nation's capital.

In my opinion port battles have to be treatened differently, because they're something totally different.
25v25, the side with better tactics / battle idea wins. No ganking involved whatsoever. IMO you shouldn't punish a loss with ultimately losing the ship (as it would result in with there not being anymore battleresult screen). The effect on players morale will be MASSIVE and and attacks would barely happen anymore (just a guess.)

Edited April 30, 2017 by Liquicity

[azu]

the only issue i see is bermuda and as one of few player who ever had to attack bermuda let me tell you how it will go. 3 hours sail to bermuda one and half hours in port battle, possible 1 more hour of fighting screening fleet outside and then 3 hours sail back home. total time spent between seven and half hours and max let say 9 hours.

now i want the teleport to go away and i know it cut both ways so it will hurt me as well being a rather hardcore rvr player from a small nation but i still think it would be better for game to remove it. we are supposed to be testing the game so let try it and see how it will work 

16 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

In my opinion port battles have to be treatened differently, because they're something totally different.
25v25, the side with better tactics / battle idea wins. No ganking involved whatsoever. IMO you shouldn't punish a loss with ultimately losing the ship (as it would result in with there not being anymore battleresult screen). The effect on players morale will be MASSIVE and and attacks would barely happen anymore (just a guess.)

i feel the same but i don't want to ask for special treatment before we tried it out, and i know alot of ppl feel that the only action they get is in the screening fleet because they cant join the port battles. if it turns out to be to lopsided because of the screen after the port battle then i am sure the devs will figure out some solution         

[Fellvred]

If a force attacks a port and loses they should absolutely be attacked and harassed on the way back to friendly waters. I think we're going to see the end of a single 25 man fleet attacking a port, players will have to control the waters around the area and screen properly with their nation.

One thing I'm not a fan of is the instant nation teleport from anywhere on the map, especially it's impact on RvR. There are a few ways to limit this which I'd be interested in testing such as only allowing national teleports to neighbouring (or within 2) regions. So a french player would be able to teleport from Saint Nicolas to Les Cayes but wouldn't be able to teleport to New Orleans. This would have the added benefit of helping out the smaller nations and pushing players towards creating home regions where their clan would defend.

-edit- hopefully when raids are implemented they will affect any future port battles in that region.

 

[Cmdr RideZ]

35 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

IMO you shouldn't punish a loss with ultimately losing the ship

I do agree with you, we should not punish.  But do you think that we should punish winning side?  Revenge gank is basically just and only to punish the winning side.

There will be an arena version of this game as well, that is told to be for fair fights.

I think development took a wrong direction here in general.  I just hope that RvR guys get ganked a lot after PBs.  After that they may understand OW PvP players a bit better as well.  Could create a bit better dialog between these two parties.  But to be honest, I hope devs understand this sooner than later, and we can skip this useless test.

...

Or what do I know, maybe everyone will have a jolly good time sinking each other in screening fleets.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Cmdr RideZ

[Liq]

1 minute ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

I do agree with you, we should not punish.  But do you think that we should punish winning side?  Revenge gank is basically just and only to punish the winning side.

Here's my problem.
"extreme" ganking, such as attacking a lone ship in a group of 5, yes that should very much be punished in my opinion, especially if it's in national friendly waters.
However, "fair" battles should not be punished. But where to draw the line? Here lays the problem.
A bit above I suggested for battles where the attacking side has less or equal BR as the side being attacked, there to be a battleresult screen. if the attackes have more BR, there should be none. But with that there come a few additional problems. Equal BR isn't always equal chances. Also I dont think there is actually a way to implement that.

[azu]

2 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

I do agree with you, we should not punish.  But do you think that we should punish winning side?  Revenge gank is basically just and only to punish the winning side.

There will be an arena version of this game as well, that is told to be for fair fights.

I think development took a wrong direction here in general.  I just hope that RvR guys get ganked a lot after PBs.  After that they may understand OW PvP players a bit better as well.  Could create a bit better dialog between these two parties.  But to be honest, I hope devs understand this sooner than later, and we can skip this useless test.

i don't think you know what you asking for because i have tried it back before the teleport was introduced. when rdnn and rus attacked panama we had our 1 rate fleet being attack by 15 to 20 Constitutions and after we killed them they wound all be waiting for us outside the battle to drag us in again, they keep doing this 4 or 5 times and they had no chance of winning but i guess they had fun wasting our time. what should have been a 15 minute sail became 2 hours of killing noobs