Bach Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) Allow clans to declare a home port in nationally owned non-regional capital ports. In that port declared clans get an option to deliver materials and labor hours to build up the fort defenses. Basically, they bring in stone block, gun carriages, furnishings etc... And donate them to the port along with labor hours. The port then uses these mats and hours to build the next larger fort defenses. They may also use them to build "reinforcement ships" to defend surrounding waters. Players of the clan making these donations receive extra warehouse space and material production from factories there. Based on level of clan donations. This will promote clans to capture, defend and utilize home ports that they claim in the game as well as improve Econ and cargo shipment in a meaningful way in game. Edited September 19, 2016 by Bach 9
Vernon Merrill Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 I like this idea... +1 Add some additional skin in the game.
Sir Texas Sir Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 I think it's been hinted at a few time and might of been the concept they where going to try with the Lord Protector/Govenor thing. 1
Sir Texas Sir Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 1 port per clan. I can see why to keep one clan from rulling all the ports, but maybe it could be they take over a region not just one port or they can have more than one port. Size might depend on how many prots maybe? It's hard to make it balance for the litttle guys. 1
Ledinis Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 Made a small topic myself a while ago about various upgrades to ports in the same manner you suggest, and a guy named Babble wrote an entire dissertation before me about port structures, upgrades and such. And as much as i would like to see stuff like that implemented the last i asked and heard from the admin on the subject was that they have no plans for it since they think it would just be another time/resource sink most players would dislike and whine about. We need to start a petition that would attract enough positive reinforcement to change their mind me thinks
Eishen Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 I think it's been hinted at a few time and might of been the concept they where going to try with the Lord Protector/Govenor thing. would take to BIG drama , but it is a drama I would like to see 1 port per clan. And 1 clan/port? ...
Bart Smith Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 I like idea but limited to 1-3 max ports per clan - maybe size matter. Clans up to 50 members can have 1 port, those 100+ have 2 ports and 200+ have 3 ports. I bet developers got other priorites now to do. But maybe after game release? I would like to see it at some point.
squedage Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) i would like to see it with the new regions. So 1 clan can capture/control a region and the ports in that region. could even make it to were the smaller ports are what make the resources for that region and the region capital is were all of it goes to be sold and trade to happen. That way you have to upgrade the smaller ports as well as the regional if you want to have a strong econ and defense for your area. Edited September 19, 2016 by squedage
Elric Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 I like idea but limited to 1-3 max ports per clan - maybe size matter. Clans up to 50 members can have 1 port, those 100+ have 2 ports and 200+ have 3 ports. I bet developers got other priorites now to do. But maybe after game release? I would like to see it at some point. The clan size would need to be much smaller - at least on PvP2. France as a Nation on PvP2 has nowhere near 50 active members - and the largest clan probably only have 10 active members... I do like the tiered approach though - it stops alts from setting up 1 person clans.
Hethwill, the Red Duke Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 i would like to see it with the new regions. So 1 clan can capture/control a region and the ports in that region. Nothing in the mechanics stops any clan from doing that. It is already done with large territory nations, with clans basing themselves in different areas. Conquest is Nation based not clan based.
Sir Texas Sir Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 One way to control the number of ports your clan can support is to have maintaince support cost that you have to upkeep. If your clan can't keep the resources to upkeep 1 or more ports than it goes to defualt and another clan can take control of it. This way if you don't have like on PvP2 where US has most of the ports and they aren't doing anything really with them. The ports they don't support and upkeep go back to being neutral or none clan owned.
Mrdoomed Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 Ive been asking for this since February so +1
Anne Wildcat Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 Sounds good. It would give more meaning to ports for nationals.
Ned Loe Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 I think 1 region per clan would be ok. It should not be cheap to maintain 4 ports and will require all members to pay fee to the Clan Leader who will pay for Port maintenance and/or upgrades. Leaders can collect sales tax and distribute back to clan members or keep to themselves. Drama oh Dear Drama....
Bach Posted September 19, 2016 Author Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) All war effort and ports development should be on a national level, not clan level.I considered this greatly when I first starting pondering this idea. On one hand the building of the port defenses could just as easily be left up to the nation as a whole. It would essentially work the same with each player making donations. On the other hand, we want players to gravitate to being members of clans more so than freelance players. So the game needs things to promote clan unity and some long term benefit to clans sticking with one nation. We saw late in POTBS how entire clans would often switch nations at map resets. Individual players switching nations seldom had much effect. But when whole clans defected the entire RvR game shifted drastically in short periods of time. This became known as nation hopping and it drove a fair number of players crazy. NA should strive to put in advantages to clans that specifically promote them to want to stay in the same nation. Edited September 19, 2016 by Bach 1
squedage Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 NA should strive to put in advantages to clans that specifically promote them to want to stay in the same nation. i think 1 of the best ways to do this is a full reset if you delete your character. That way if you go to change nations your going to start from the ground up. Yes you can still have an alt and move all the stuff you had over but you wont be able to use it right away and will still have to grind out your rank again same with how crafting is now.
Bach Posted September 19, 2016 Author Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) i think 1 of the best ways to do this is a full reset if you delete your character. That way if you go to change nations your going to start from the ground up. Yes you can still have an alt and move all the stuff you had over but you wont be able to use it right away and will still have to grind out your rank again same with how crafting is now. This would work as long as the game doesn't go F2P. It is, however, negative reinforcement. I was hoping for a more positive factor of encouragement. Besides, the game will occasionally come to situations where a dying nation needs a clan or two to switch to them. When that day comes we may not want to be as restrictive as to force re-leveling. So positive encouragement may be more flexible in the long run. Edited September 19, 2016 by Bach
Teutonic Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 This would work as long as the game doesn't go F2P. It is, however, negative reinforcement. I was hoping for a more positive factor of encouragement. Besides, the game will occasionally come to situations where a dying nation needs a clan or two to switch to them. When that day comes we may not want to be as restrictive as to force re-leveling. So positive encouragement may be more flexible in the long run. Agreed. Players are more inclined to enjoy positive reinforcement over negative. Negative reinforcement will just have players stop playing over time, positive reinforcement gives players a reward.
Mrdoomed Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 There have been dozens of people who have suggested this and included lots of great ideas ( including myself )on how port management could work. I wisb we could get them all put together and know if the devs can or will ever do anything on the subject. There has to be more to do in a carrebean war simulator than the navy combat and whether its port management or letting players gather in towns and interact with each other in bars brothels or farms or something else it needs to be done. Ive just remember if anything has ever beem officially said abut it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now