Proposal to create 2 coexisting RvR sandpits (Portbattlesystem)

[z4ys]

A lot of what you will read are my opinions, my conclusions. My opinions are based on my observations, my experiences. Different people have different experiences so have different opinions.

Roughly summarised there are 3 groups of RVR player types within the NA community. The group of "Everyone else" is not taken into account for this proposal but those player might join the casual RvR'ler circle when this part of the game is more appealing to them.

What kind of player is a semi (casual) and dedicated RvRler?

Semi dedicated / Casual RvR‘ler	Dedicated RvR‘ler
he /she sometimes RvRs
RvR isnt main focus of his/her gameplay	RvR is main focus
„small“ clan & solo player	Part of a dedicated RvR clan
puts small effort into RvR activity	Invests huge amount of time into it

 

 

Currently the semi dedicated and the dedicated players share one playground. But because those players are so different especially in their mindset it leads to situations like this...

So in my opinon instead of trying to get both grps into the same sandpit and trying to make the casual RvR player play like a dedicated or a dedicated RvR play like a casual why not create 2 sandpits?

 

In the following i will focus on the semi dedicated /casual RvR side, because thats the grp I count myself to it. Maybe @rediii (when he has space and time) or someone else can contribute to the dedicated part.

 

So before I start the actual suggestion lets define the reasons why I RvR only sometimes. More specifically what I dislike/like.

What I like	What I dislike
·         The battle ·         Having a good time with a bunch of firends	·         The grp size ·         That a screening fleet of 25+ player is mandatory for the attacking side ·         That dedicated RvR clans can dictate RvR goals because (see points above) ·         Requirment of diplomacy (related to screening)

 

So what need to change to offer a more pleasant experience?

• Player number requirement has to change

Quote

(even 10 player are sometimes hard to gather for such an endeavor). So my proposed number would be between 6 - 10 people and therefore the equivalent port BR

 

• The way to enter the portbattle.

Quote

Currently the requirement of players screeners + actual pb player is so high that it can only be done by dedicated RvR players+ diplomacy + hired semi dedicated RvR players

When the hostility mission is succesfull an portbattle anchorage is created.

 

Function of Portbattle anchorage:

• Is created after a portbattle is set
• Spawns a symbol outside of the outer portbattle circle
• When a player of the attacking nation  + part of the clan Friendlist clicks on the icon his ship is added to the Portbattle ship roster (only for this port allowed ships can enter)
• A ship can only be taken off this roster for a fee (preventing the use as anti gank hideout)
• only 1 (maybe 2) portbattle anchorage can be active at the same time (preventing the use as anti gank hideout)
• Portbattle anchorage can only be left after portbattle started (for free)
• When Portbattle is over + 15min all ships of players that havent showed up are teleported to the open world (like when logging out in battle)
• Players that leave the Anchorage get a protection timer like they would leave a port

This Portbattle anchorage would make it possible even for small nations / player grps to paticipate in RvR. Ships still need to be sailed to the port and can still be screened but it reduces the stress on the attacker.

 

• Hostility missions (bonus change)

Quote

Instead of keeping the current system where max 10 attacker face 10 AI + 10 Players. The mission is closed for defender entrance. But player of the defending clan + Friendlist can take control over the AI (like loki rune)

Therefore they get in port screen an icon "Ongoing Hostility" which when they use it spawn as an AI.

• To prevent exploits Hostility missions offer no cash/ xp / loot
• Ships of the attacker get repaired and replenished after leaving the battle
• Used repairs are lost
• lost ships (attacker) are lost

 

Before I talked about 2 sandpits. So its important to understand that not all ports will be like the proposed changes (offer semi screening protection, hostility, reduced player numbers).

• During the conquest week ports cant change their status of being semi dedicated or dedicated
• Semi dedicated ports obey proposal above
• Dedicated ports have the Hardcore rule set (see this link)

What makes a port semi or dedicated? This could be achieved by port investments, revenue over the last week.

Furthermore I think that ports should get "micro investments". Micro investments are investments that can be fulfilled by a small player number in a short amount of time (within a week) that offer the player unique chances for mods / books etc. Those investments are a onetime thing. So that there will always be pressure to conquer new ports. And it would create a resource sink hole beside ship building.

 

A micro investment mission could look like this:

Deliever 2000 coal  + 1000 Iron + 3000 oak logs and recieve a Gold chest ( It have to resources that are not produced by the port)

A 4 star mission could look like: Deliever 10 Bull sharks  + 20 Parrotfish + 2000 coal  + 1000 Iron + 3000 oak logs and recieve 2 gold chests.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by z4ys

[erelkivtuadrater]

47 minutes ago, z4ys said:

A micro investment mission could look like this:

Deliever 2000 coal  + 1000 Iron + 3000 oak logs and recieve a Gold chest ( It have to resources that are not produced by the port)

A 4 star mission could look like: Deliever 10 Bull sharks  + 20 Parrotfish + 2000 coal  + 1000 Iron + 3000 oak logs and recieve 2 gold chests.

 

ill had to admit, looks promising just one thing i would suggest to add to the micro investments, instead of the hard resources like we have on everything, maybe delivering ingame goods would be a better thing than the resources, im not kidding when im saying there are probably 100 types of goods ingame that arent used for anything since we now have the delivery missions, bring these stuffs into the scene again imo

[Sir Texas Sir]

Small BR isn't always good too.  US had a hard time getting Litttle River back cause it was held by a small group of PvPers that could fight as a team when US could screen over 35 players at the time and some times more but they could only get in there best 5-6 players which meant you loose one guy and the fight was pretty much over.  Some nations should be allowed to use there numbers for certain ports.  Now that port was also behind lines and a very key port, but it's no longer one that could be capture.  Important ports should not have a low BR.  Specially the ones that make a lot of money.  Reason be you can put in your best elite 10 guys and no one would be able to beat you no matter how many screeners they bring and every one gets board and stops playing.  

To me honestly BR is not the issue, the issue is lack of will to fight and not being able to (for smaller nations) join up with others. That is why I'm all for the faction thing with forced alliance.  I do think some ports need BR changes or like admin mention at one time have all ports of a certain BR and than make the BR go up as Tax's goes up.  So a small clan can have a small none important port and defend it, but it takes the nation to defend a very important port.  

The other option is allow us to Adjust the BR as part of the port maintenance.  You want a larger BR than  you pay more for your timer.  No timer you start out with a lower base BR.  So have the maintenance tier with the BR for the port if you want a Timer.   Also could have a BR limit for none timers.