Fortress problem

[King of Crowns]

PROBLEM 

devs the amount of fortresses in this game is retarded. you have to have a mortar brig captain in your pvp fleet if you want to pvp. nations like sweeden and france and Denmark are impossible to pvp around. to many fortresses. how many pvp fights end in this?

 

Solution.

if clans want fortresses at their ports make them pay the upkeep costs for that fortress. slap another 50k on port cost. you can make it so that they are always there in pbs if you want to keep that as an obstacle for port battles. but for open world its a major content killer. 

[Teutonic]

git gud

 

EDIT - in all seriousness - it's been like this for a while and I agree to maintenance for forts - but then I would ask for a completely different way to maintain ports and revenue.

overall it's fine the way it is.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Teutonic

[King of Crowns]

1 minute ago, Teutonic said:

git gud

we killed him a follow up battle because he tried to make it into port instead of hugging fortress. so ...... yea..... 

Edited February 13, 2018 by King of Crowns

[King of Crowns]

1 minute ago, Wraith said:

And so the moan about fortresses is invalidated. Thread closed?

I'd suggest a rework of safe zones and putting in some content to encourage to get away from the safe zones (and the forts).

forts are everywhere.... everywhere..... not just safe zones. go try to hunt the sweedes.... 

Edited February 13, 2018 by King of Crowns

[Christendom]

awwww man.  You gotta work for your ganks?  those pesky ports getting in the way of lopsided pvp,

what. a. shame.

[King of Crowns]

12 minutes ago, Christendom said:

awwww man.  You gotta work for your ganks?  those pesky ports getting in the way of lopsided pvp,

what. a. shame.

look at mr night king.... who supposedly cant play late. making a post at 130am your time.  impressive how bad you are at lieing. 

[Barbancourt]

This thread again?

[King of Crowns]

1 hour ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

This thread again?

how many threads were made about a server merge before one happened? 

[Percival Merewether]

Many players have escaped me under the forts, last time was yesterday when a Wappen got away. I was in an Aggy and my mate was in a Trinc - we definately had the advantage. I consider this to be fair - it was somewhat of a "gank".

Thinking back to before we got the forts I'm pretty sure they have worked in my advantage - ESPECIALLY now with changing winds. More players are willing to do PvP than before because they have the security of a massive battery behind them - in the past they would have run into port.

It is not impossible to beat a player sitting under a fort.

[King of Crowns]

43 minutes ago, Percival Merewether said:

Many players have escaped me under the forts, last time was yesterday when a Wappen got away. I was in an Aggy and my mate was in a Trinc - we definately had the advantage. I consider this to be fair - it was somewhat of a "gank".

Thinking back to before we got the forts I'm pretty sure they have worked in my advantage - ESPECIALLY now with changing winds. More players are willing to do PvP than before because they have the security of a massive battery behind them - in the past they would have run into port.

It is not impossible to beat a player sitting under a fort.

impossible... no... almost impossible if they know what they are doing... yes... it would make sense that the clan owning the port should be able to decide if they want the fortress active or not. 

[Thonys]

4 hours ago, King of Crowns said:

PROBLEM 

devs the amount of fortresses in this game is retarded. you have to have a mortar brig captain in your pvp fleet if you want to pvp. nations like sweeden and france and Denmark are impossible to pvp around. to many fortresses. how many pvp fights end in this?

Solution.

if clans want fortresses at their ports make them pay the upkeep costs for that fortress. slap another 50k on port cost. you can make it so that they are always there in pbs if you want to keep that as an obstacle for port battles. but for open world its a major content killer. 

there is no problem !

Just to give you an example how many forts and towers a port had 

-for example willemstad had 14 forts.  (and those amounts aren't even implemented yet)

try to concur that !  

forts have a meaning, if you want a port >> you pay ....(the solution is the mortar brig and the surprise)

 

-for the upkeep i agree, there should be a paymand for the upkeep of the individual port , but that is a research question for the devs in the future i guiss... @admin

- perhaps something like this,:

0 forts = garizon 15 k a day

1 fort 25k a day (1 fort)

3- forts upkeep 90 k a day (1 fort  2 towers)

4 forts 150 k a day  (2 forts  2 towers )

5 forts 250 k a day  (2 forts  3  towers)

8 forts 750 k  a day (3 forts  5 towers)

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Thonys

[Jake Newport]

20 minutes ago, Thonys said:

there is no problem !

Just to give you an example how many forts and towers a port had 

-for example willemstad had 14 forts.  (and those amounts aren't even implemented yet)

try to concur that !  

forts have a meaning, if you want a port >> you pay ....(the solution is the mortar brig and the surprise)

 

-for the upkeep i agree, there should be a paymand for the upkeep of the individual port , but that is a research question for the devs in the future i guiss... @admin

- perhaps something like this

0 forts = garizon 10k a day

1 fort 25k a day 

3- forts upkeep 60 k a day

4 forts 120k a day 

5 forts 150k a day 

10 forts 450 k  a day

 

Hmm be carefull what you ask for. A port like Carthegena will be flooded with forts and almost incapturable.

If you want to implement something like that you should incorperate items like supplies for the forts e.g. food supplies (for the soldiers), rum (they need to drink), cannons (these need to be repaired), muskets (soldiers need to have weapons), stone (for rebuilding the fort),oak (for the beams of the fort), heavy carriages(for placing the guns) etc etc. And every time a fort gets damaged these supplies need to be shipped to the port otherwise it doesnt get repaired.

This would give a bit more meaning to some of the supplies that are around

[Jake Newport]

5 minutes ago, rediii said:

Forts in PBs do more good for the attaxker than the defender.

Its just pointgeneration and produces almost no valje for defenders

Agree on that however to follow up on what Banished Privateer just wrote the player who owns the fort should be able to place the fort where he wants. Sometimes they are in a stupid place for some ports and are really in excellent places for other ports. If i would design the defenses of some ports i would not put the square forts in a place that can not get defended.

[Thonys]

15 minutes ago, rediii said:

Forts in PBs do more good for the attaxker than the defender.

Its just pointgeneration and produces almost no valje for defenders

they can implement a point system for the amount of forts the defenders have 

for example if a port owns 3 forts it is like +20 %  damage points  for a port   (for example )

if a port has 5 forts it is + 33 % damage points( damage points per port)  (for example)

if no forts selected you have 0 + damage points for the port 

 

and you have to shoot at least 67 % of the port defences to concur the port in the end face of the battle 

just my 1 cent

Edited February 13, 2018 by Thonys

[King of Crowns]

Yet another pvp content ruined by a fortress. this guy ran to a fortress just to have his own ship sunk by enemy fortress.

[King of Crowns]

I will just daily post these horrible encounters. maybe @admin will see how stupid this is. 

[Landsman]

On 13.2.2018 at 6:20 AM, King of Crowns said:

if clans want fortresses at their ports make them pay the upkeep costs for that fortress. slap another 50k on port cost. you can make it so that they are always there in pbs if you want to keep that as an obstacle for port battles. but for open world its a major content killer. 

I already suggested this mulitple times. Let forts outside of the greenzones only fire outside of PBs, if the clan pays for it. Also 50k seems rather cheap looking at the retarded amounts of gold in the game. maybe +100k for a fort ( 2 maximum ) and + 20k for a tower ( 3 maximum ). Maybe it should be possible to sink even more gold to improve the forts stats slightly... This way clans can fortify their important ports at a cost but not every backwater port sports 2 forts and 3 tower by default....

Forts are just another obstacle that kills potential PvP with max rank players always hiding below them on the rare occasion of them leaving the greenzone...

[Landsman]

On 13.2.2018 at 7:13 AM, Christendom said:

awwww man.  You gotta work for your ganks?  those pesky ports getting in the way of lopsided pvp,

More like carebears can't get the easy way out of a fight.... the forts rather get away of balanced pvp, because in a real gank you get hello kittyed up and chained / demasted before you even reach the fort? Unless you actually sit right below the forts 24/7 but we have greenzones for that, no?  Also forts can still be bought but at least it nerfs zerg nations that want them everywhere a tiny bit...