Port Blockades (Large)

[Captain Jack]

Sometimes the squeaky wheel doesn’t necessarily need to get the grease.

While a few have argued against this feature and/or provided suggestions to “better” it. I disagree that “we get to choose”. I do love the fact that you take our feedback into consideration, but ultimately the decision is yours.

You purposed a pretty kick ass feature in my mind. You even approved your own suggestion. You have argued for it on its original merits.

I say move forward with this idea if you choose. If you think it needs more discussion then move forward with Plantations while this idea is being finalized. But both deserve to be in the game.

What we are trying to get here, is an entry version for the feature, then we can build on it.

If you look at it from the dev perspective, playerbase approval is quite important for any major feature. I am referring to valid points though. If someone disagrees just for the sake of it or disagrees without anticipating the whole picture, then such cannot be taken into account.

We also take in mind various playing styles. We always want to prolong every playing style while we create more on the way. Danik for example, has been forced to change styles I believe, quite many times already. That's not something I look after specifically but I take it into account when he grumbles about something. He raised a point that he wants something more for defenders and reasoned about it.

During the conversation after my last post here (about 200 posts later, some of them were poor spam though) these points were raised either directly or indirectly:
1)Risky returns for attackers -> This comes in the form that many may choose to avoid the blockade
2)Defending all the way is not exciting - there must be something in it
3)Defending should be easier -> Too much danger for participating defenders
4)Repetitive and repulsive gameplay for those trying to avoid blockades
5)Too intrusive to hand ship cargo of an incoming fleet without battle or chance to escape.
6)No considerable negative effect for the port owner -> ineligible port tax income
7)No post battle earnings (plunder) -> unrealistic

These points (or more) were addressed at the proposed changes. I am still in need of your feedback on the proposed changes.

The feature is approved and it is bound to happen in the near imminent future. The quicker we resolve all the details, the quicker it will come.

-----------------------------------OFF TOPIC Starts here-----------------------------------Do not attempt this - I reserve this practice only for Admins/Mods---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding some discussion -that I find out of topic- earlier -please do not quote me back at this part - if you do, your post will be removed- feel free to quote me/reply in a new topic- I have to say the following:
1.Voodoo are part of the game
2.There is no previous game before voodoo. Before voodoo, there was nothing of note going on here.
3.The game always resolved about naval. Voodoo helped to this. This feature will help to this.
4.The game is always realistic. But it is a game. You cannot be brute-real down to the detail you selectively speculate. We simulate reality at this part. For example, we simulate ship wrecking at blockades post battle by adding the plunder bounty. Here is the simulation example:
-Russia engages the Ottoman Empire at a Blockade
-Russia destroys and sinks 45 Ships while it captures the remaining 5 at the cost of 10 of its own ships
Here, we will neither destroy 45 ships nor we will give the 5 to the victor.
The simulation of the above event will be the following:
-The Ottoman Empire came with an agreement with the Russian Admiral Pavel Nakhimov, by offering 10,000,000 GC. The agreement stated that the Ottoman Empire could in return keep all its ships while they will be allowed to salvage the lost ships.
You still get to repair every salvaged ship, so simulation is 100% acceptable.
5.Voodoo although non-existent in real life (some might object) are still conducting realistic actions in game. Beasts of course, are part of the game too. Haven't you heard the stories matey?
6.Danger is the game's way to simulate stealth of enemy fleet. There are also many other factors that can be reasoned here, such the range of fire, fleet position, etc. Danger simulates all these.
7.Next time you think something is not realistic enough, think of simulation. If you find the simulation bad or you cannot understand it, open a Game Discussion topic. Do not derail development posts about it.

-----------------------------------OFF TOPIC Ends here--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sXs]

CJ, I still like the original posted version. The main point of contention with it was "motivation to defend". Several of the things you propose in your second option would work.

The participation fee combined with the blockade "pool" is similar to what I was thinking. This gives defense a monetary incentive.

I also like the influence add-on. this would give the port controlling nation a direct incentive.

I am excited to see how this feature will play out for both offense and defense.

[Haron]

During the conversation after my last post here (about 200 posts later, some of them were poor spam though) these points were raised either directly or indirectly:
1)Risky returns for attackers -> This comes in the form that many may choose to avoid the blockade
2)Defending all the way is not exciting - there must be something in it
3)Defending should be easier -> Too much danger for participating defenders
4)Repetitive and repulsive gameplay for those trying to avoid blockades
5)Too intrusive to hand ship cargo of an incoming fleet without battle or chance to escape.
6)No considerable negative effect for the port owner -> ineligible port tax income
7)No post battle earnings (plunder) -> unrealistic

These points (or more) were addressed at the proposed changes. I am still in need of your feedback on the proposed changes.

1) The attackers should be willing to run a risk. They should expect the cost of the operation to be high (maybe higher than suggested so far; only krakens, some danger and "locked" fleets are the cost so far). However, they should also expect high payoff if they succeed. I think a blockade should be a high cost, high payoff operation. So high risk is not a problem (indeed, it could be higher), but the payoff if successful must be high, too.

2) In my opinion, Defenders should defend in order not to lose something. They should not gain anything directly from successfully preventing a blockade (there are actually several additional reasons for this, one being that "mock blockades" most likely will be established as distractions, so several blockades will be initiated for each "real" blockade). However, the nation controlling the port should stand to lose a lot if the blockade succeeds. THIS should be the reason for them to defend; to avoid loss, not to gain profit.

3) In my opinion, defending under the current rules is NOT too difficult. More probably too easy, but time will tell. As for danger, my opinion is that every fleet in a blockade which is completely defeated, defender or attacker, winner or loser, should gain 18 danger once the blockade ends. Those fleets which are NOT defeated (except the MoW fleet that initiated the blockade) should be able to leave the blockade without any danger.

4) If the cost of attempting a blockade is high enough, I think this should not be a problem. However, I think the "effect lasts for 3 days, then ends unless a new blockade is attempted" is a weak point in the suggestion. I would personally prefer a "continous" blockade (as has been suggested here, see also separate post). In lieu of this, perhaps once a blockade is successful, it is in place until defeated? It can be defeated by simply reversing the roles of attackers and defenders: To break the blockade, someone starts a "break blockade" attempt. This follows the same rules as a blockade, but now those breaking the blockade are the "attackers", and the Admiral of the initial blockade is the "defender". 3 days is a very short time in this game, after all. If a fixed time limit is "the only way", then maybe 3 days should only be the starting point, something which could be extended in later versions.

5) I think the Blockaders should only make 2 lists: Those who are Blocked (may not enter marked; ships on auto-trade simply continue to their next destination), or those who may trade (but trade tax is now paid to the Blockaders).

6) This has to change. The increased trade tax, which now goes to the Blockaders, is one thing. In my opinion, the port owning nation should also lose influence. I think 10% each day is sufficient to make them want to defend their port. This also makes blockades a tool in port control battles, which in my opinion is a good thing. This may be enough benefit to an attacker to actually want to start a blockade with only 3 days effect.

7) Not sure exactly what this means. Perhaps gc could be won/lost in blockade battles just as in normal battles?


Also, I think it should cost turns to enter a fleets into a blockade. For both sides. 4 turns per fleet (the same cost as a plunder) seems fair. I also think fleets should need to be in the port in order to participate. This slightly increases the cost for establishing a blockade. But maybe even more cost is needed for the attackers. GC cost to enter fleets is a very simple solution. Special requirements (like fleets must have bless/drums) is another way to increase the cost.

Finally, I think this feature will be a nice addition to the game, although it is very different from my original suggestion (which I still prefer, but which is a much more drastic change to the game, and thus more unrealistic): viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2151&hilit=wars+and+blockades. I hope to see the initial version of this feature soon, realizing fully well that it will be only a first version, prone to changes after a test period. My most important issue with the current suggestion is the "time limit" of the effect of a successful blockade. I much prefer a "continous" blockade in some way or other.

[Sir Thalius Hayle]

+1 To Haron's thoughts on the issue.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Back we come to my original issue then : if the only reason to defend without any recompense is not to lose something, why is it worth having it in the first place? What profit that is not already at risk of loss lies in owning a port anyway? The time to recoup the investment required is already substantial, regular blockades, even if successfully fought off, will not decrease that time by one iota, rather, it will increase it : defeat will increase it further again. I dont see any willing defenders in this scenario : its lose-lose-lose for them, even if they win : so, I do see a scenario developing where no-one actually wants to own a port, well, no-one who could actually defend it if they didnt care about the cost : result : an income stream for villains plundering ports which no-one is inclined to defend, or own. Progress?

[Haron]

Danik, in my opinion, this is remedied by making it more lucrative to control a port in the first place. In my opinion nerfing the NPC tax was a mistake, but that's a long story. More importantly, introducing a substantial trade tax paid to port owners will increase the income of those controlling the ports. This will, in my opinion, MORE than compensate for the risk of blockades, as blockades will only happen a small part of the time, and the tax income benefits the port controllers each day without a blockade.

Let's say the daily trade tax in a port is 10M gc per day. 300M gc each month, 3,65B gc each year. How often do you think a port will be blockaded on average? Even if a port is blockaded as much as 3 months a year (VERY unrealistic on average, perhaps possible for one single port under very special circumstances, depending on the rules), that's still 2,7B gc in trade tax income for that port for the remainder of that year. More than sufficient to make holding the port lucrative, and to help pay to fend off blockade attempts. More likely, no ports will be under blockade for more than one month each year.

So holding a port should simply become more lucrative. This will mainly benefit port holder nations, but will also make room for possible profit for those attacking ports, while still making port control profitable. Also, it will make fighting over port control more tempting.

[Most Lee Harmless]

How long is a piece of string? We can pull such figures out of thin air all day long and prove ten different things with them : we dont know what the regular income will be for all ports, we dont know what the current trade is into each : we dont know how Plantations will affect them : we dont know how plantations will affect incomes for port owners, or for the plantation owners : we can guess with varying degrees of hopefulness at best. Some ports will generate a high trade tax, most will be average, some will be mediocre, but we dont know what the average is, or might be. Only 9 ports will be plantation ports : the high levels of imports needed will make them more vulnerable to blockade but the additional income will make them more worthy to defend : but the other 12 ports? What will make them more worthy?

Who will join the blockade? Well, I can see a reason to join the blockade initiators : plunder to be had, shiny shiny for the purse. but who will willingly join the port defences? At their own cost? No reason to be doing that, is there? So, some-one will have to recompense them for their fleets and time : the port owners? Ah, yes.. the deep pockets will need to get plumbed again, and again. For during all this, all the traditional tools of warfare are still in play, all the traditional costs of defending your port remain.

I'll agree, the trade taxes proposal may make some ports worth defending : but not all : in my estimation, very few will justify the potential risk : but thats just a guess, another piece of string of indeterminate length.

Port ownership is already a lottery : you pays up your stake and hope to hold it long enough to recover the stake and make a bit more on top : its true, once you are over the break-even hump, they can be lucrative : but only if your ownership remains uncontested : once contested, ports are total money-pits : and whoever succeeds in the contest, now hopes for another period of uncontested ownership to recoup their costs and then, maybe, make some serious coin. Its a contest in which far more gets lost than is ever gained : you just hope its you that does the gaining and another bears the losses.

As such, its delicate balance : and its a myth too, a necessary one to keep the punters putting up their stakes, taking their chances and, of course, some bearing the losses. Dont upset that balance, dont destroy the myth, then the lottery aint worth winning, and nobody will play it.

[Haron]

If the attackers wins what the defenders lose, then certainly the defenders has as much reason to defend as the attackers have to attack? And the attackers have to share any winnings among all attackers; it's not unreasonable that defenders have to pay outsiders if they want aid, too?

Ports not worth defending may not be worth attacking. And although attacking a port which is not worth defending may seem like a good idea on paper, how do you know which port will be defended? How do an attacker know how much effort a defender will put up to defend his port?

I think that defenders should not gain anything directly, just prevent the attackers from establishing the blockade. This means that the attackers and defenders are fighting for the same thing; that which the port holders would get if there was no blockade at all.

[Haron]

Compare it to a nation takeover attempt. Trying to take over a nation requires a lot of effort, but there may be a good profit if successful. Those already controlling the nation will not gain anything "extra" from defending their nation. They will simply prevent the attackers from taking over the nation. Still, most nations choose to defend in such cases. Sure, there may be exceptions, but I don't see a problem with that. If the defenders in certain special cases deem the cost of defending higher than what they stand to lose, they may elect not to defend.

My experience is that many players are willing to spend an insane amount of gc to prevent anyone from stealing a much smaller amount of gc from them, though, so I doubt there will be many cases where defenders opt to "surrender". Especially with influence on the line, which may end up costing them the port in a following port takeover attempt.

[Grimrock Litless]

Everyone writing speeches long post that repeats the same idea.

I thought blockades are very simple, you use fleets to block a port and if anyone gets near, the fleets attacks the following fleet. But everyone keep complicating the idea for some reason.

So I am gonna put out what I think it should be, every fleet can use blockade on any port they like, they have the following cycle, they spend 1 hour out at sea, after which returns to port for 10 mins. Every fleet that enters the port has a fleet ships level / 2 chance to fight one of the blockading fleets, every cycle will cost the fleet food or rum, all full cargo of it, this cost no turns.