Increase time before hostility can be gained again

[Christendom]

Yea we need to bring back chests for successful PB wins.  Give incentive back to RVR

[Batman]

2 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Yea we need to bring back chests for successful PB wins.  Give incentive back to RVR

Yeah, I remember @Redman29 offered me 150 million gold for a Live Oak Strong Hull Indefatigable I got from one of the Castries Port Battles

[Gregory Rainsborough]

15 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I guess I'm of the opinion that if you hold desirable ports then you should be prepared to defend them.  In other words, I'm against time limits on RvR in principle since they currently are the only end-game content, and while there are some practical and logistical considerations associated with the 24 hour hostility-port battle mechanic, placing limits on what you can attack and when beyond a very short cool-down window seems antithetical to an open world, war game.

If you are getting tired of the grind of holding desirable or difficult to defend ports then perhaps you let them go or negotiate a non-combat agreement with the aggressor?  I fail to see why all the "game" needs to be about the hostility and combat and if you're under continuous fire with a nation at your doorstep then perhaps it's time to negotiate a treaty or simply give up the port.

Now, if we wanted to change the way hostility or a port battle was generated then I'm totally on board.  Implement raids such that they are instant-action, instant-reward, and debilitating to the economy of ports, with only a port battle being triggered if there was a successful raid two days in a row?  No grind, no fuss, basically you conduct a raid which generates a system-wide notice and open battles, and the next day you better be there to defend a raid in the same spot during that window unless you want to fight a port battle...? Essentially extend port battles to a 48 hour cool-down, with the possibility for both instant-action generating content as well as 24-48 hour planned action, feints, etc.  It seems like a much better system than what we have now.

The problem though isn't an inability to fight, it concerns the timers. So for me, the timer is in the early evening so I can go spend time with the missus, that means that they will always flip the port every second day before we can flip theirs and I don't want to be at the same port every night killing the same people. By extending it gives defenders a chance to counter-attack.

There are loads of restrictions in this open world, war game. I can't attack British players who I don't like for instance. Games need restrictions in order to remain healthy I understand. It's in no-one's interest if people stop playing out of frustration. Cartagena for the Russians etc is an example of this. This is a game at the end of the day, not a job.

As for peace, lol. You've never been on the other side of the Spanish negotiating table. I asked for reasonable terms, which I was told they were considering. Then they multiflipped us. Yey for diplomacy.

[Christendom]

26 minutes ago, Batman said:

Yeah, I remember @Redman29 offered me 150 million gold for a Live Oak Strong Hull Indefatigable I got from one of the Castries Port Battles

I remember that.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Don't get me wrong, we'll keep fighting for it but it's just annoying having to do it so frequently.

[CeltiberoClearco]

3 hours ago, Christendom said:

Yea time needs to be increased after successful and unsuccessful battles.  IRL it would be months between campaigns.  I’d say 5 days for unsuccessful battles and 7 day cd for taken ports.  

The current time is short. But as soon as we increase it too much, we will have the problem of a port being able to "defend" itself by means of false attacks. And with the amount of alts we have.... we won't even need the allies.

Be careful what we ask for, don't let them give it to us.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Yeah, we don't want it to be too long as in a week but maybe to 3-4 days as when a port is captured.

Alts aren't the problem, it'll be friendly nations I think.

 

[Tiedemann]

Buuuuuu!

But it feels like we grind Little Cayman ever other day.. One day grind, pb next and then we grind again. So if we have 24 hour cool down now (I'm not sure what it is) I would support 48 hours cool, but only after Spain has reclaimed Little Cayman, the circle kiting is removed and all the premium ships are out of RvR.  

Edited July 20, 2018 by Tiedemann

[Gregory Rainsborough]

"reclaimed"

5th time lucky?

[Tiedemann]

1 minute ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

"reclaimed"

5th time lucky?

What ever it takes!

[Gregory Rainsborough]

We're still clearing your sunken ships from the last "attempt".

[Tiedemann]

It was a week fleet composition and we did some mistakes, so you guys actually won the battle for once! Congrats..! But we are getting desperate in our attempt to adapt to your fleet setup, so we have to keep experimenting.. That is why I like the 24 hour cooldown a lot! 😊

[Gregory Rainsborough]

"for once"

4 times.

We change our setup every time. Good luck with that.

 

[Tiedemann]

1 minute ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

"for once"

4 times.

We change our setup every time. Good luck with that.

 

Winning the battle/combat and winning the port battle is in my mind to different things. You guys usually lose the battle, but successfully defend you port.  

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Ah right so winning is losing and losing is winning.

Cool.

You're just lucky that I've only commanded one of the port battles and not one of the guys with no experience (the last one where you lost most of your fleet was my turn fyi).

Edited July 20, 2018 by Gregory Rainsborough

[Elric]

Many of the ports with timers can only be attacked on weekends.  A 7 day wait really limits opportunities to attack again.  Attacking on a Saturday for a Sunday PB, the completion of a successful defense is likely OUTSIDE the timer window - and consequently a cool-down time of 7 days would mean effectively 2 weeks.  If there are going to be changes - I would say a 36 - 54 hour wait to allow attacks 2 or 3 days after.

Personally, I would like to see port timers being set differently for each day of the week - with at least 2 days a week where the timer window is far wider - maybe a 6 or 8 hour window

The issue with some ports today, their owners set them during a time when few players play and hide behind the timer.  The excuse the time is in 'their' playing time really doesn't hold up - especially on weekends.   Many of the clans can play during a wider time frame on weekends, so why not allow a wider port timer on those days.

[Archaos]

9 minutes ago, Elric said:

Many of the ports with timers can only be attacked on weekends.  A 7 day wait really limits opportunities to attack again.  Attacking on a Saturday for a Sunday PB, the completion of a successful defense is likely OUTSIDE the timer window - and consequently a cool-down time of 7 days would mean effectively 2 weeks.  If there are going to be changes - I would say a 36 - 54 hour wait to allow attacks 2 or 3 days after.

I can see the point you make here, and would agree that maybe a 7 day cool down would be too long, but it still leaves the issue of people participating in a successful attack or defense of a port and getting nothing for it because there was another battle later in the week and the port was lost or they were not able to attend again. A 3 day non-hostility timer would probably be okay, same as when a port is captured.

As to the ports with timers set at low population times, that is another issue altogether and although I can see why people put some ports on those times (because it is their prime time) there are others who deliberately put them at awkward times for their enemies. The repetitive attacks are one reason why people would do this, to avoid having to constantly defend. It does not help either that certain nations are forming alliances to ensure they cover the various timezones and then handing over ports between themselves.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

One of the main criticisms I've had leveled towards me was when I was in RSC and the timers were just as you said, put at a time inconvenient to my enemies. As I said back then, empty PB's, repeated flips on an almost daily basis "forced" me to put it at an inconvenient time because we were just sick of "defending" ports. Had the timer been several days this wouldn't have caused such a burnout on our end leading me to do this.

Extending the timer will lead to MORE content, not less in my view.

[Fenris]

8 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Another thing that's bothered me as well is that there is no material reward for defending a port as hostility can be generated the next day, it's only on the day the port is attacked you don't have to pay tax. If the non-hostility timer was increased to several days there would be a gold bonus for the clan in question and it would encourage people to defend their ports. Empty port battles are the bane of everyone's existence.

Interesting point of view, and a valid criticism.

Like the idea. And if the port gets attacked several time in a row, without being contested, there might be tax lowering or even tax exemption..?

Why not?

 

[Fenris]

8 hours ago, Intrepido said:

In my point of view, any successful defense or attack should be insta rewarded with a gold or silver chest, received as redeemables the following day.

No.We had this crap in game already. Boring.

And considering Spain and Russia trading ports, but not only them, you would have even more empty port battles, just to get some chests.

F..k that.

[Fenris]

10 hours ago, Ketunpoika said:

@admin & @Ink

Protect GB! Please! They need your help!

 

Why this one nation is crying allways when somebody creates content?

Creating content by attacking weaker and disorganised nations? Gtfh........

Attack Prussia if you dare, then talk about content, or screw around with HAVOC maybe? Go for Sweden, although many not playing atm?

I guess you won`t.

[Teutonic]

4 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Instead of saying "this is crap, this too and that too" propose a better reward system.

Russia and spain traded ports in order to get the marks for building first rates, an essential ship for RvR. Those chests arent essential for rvr. I have never looted one and i can participate in conquest with no problems.

I'm surprised you still listen him and haven't ignored it yet :P

[Fenris]

9 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Instead of saying "this is crap, this too and that too" propose a better reward system.

Russia and spain traded ports in order to get the marks for building first rates, an essential ship for RvR. Those chests arent essential for rvr. I have never looted one and i can participate in conquest with no problems.

No need for a better reward system, this is not an issue in this thread. The issue is to reward the owner of the port which has been attacked several time, each day, if i get this topic right.

PVP marks and enemy defeat are good enough so far, but if the port needs to be defended each day, or gets attacked few times in a row, without being contested, then the defender has to become tax exemption, or lowered taxes, for example.

Read the freaking previous post, and don`t react like a headless chicken, everytime i write "Spain" somewhere, or answer to you.

In order to get BETTER or MORE port battles, you need ports which matter. and there are not many of those in Caribbean, it is not about rewards for a single PB, but WHEN and FOR WHAT.

And  those stupid chests won`t help for sure.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Fenris

[Fenris]

14 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

I'm surprised you still listen him and haven't ignored it yet

I just stopped ignoring you, but have to do it again.

If you think, ignoring opinions here helps, it says a lot about you.

Keep it up.

[Archaos]

41 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I read this as... "We hold too many ports, are lazy as fuck, and don't want to play the game."  If you don't want to defend the ports you let them go, simple.  Then, you create content by taking those ports back when you want to, right?

Everyone in this game wants content on their own terms and screw everyone else's play.  Sigh.

We had this before with the flag system where night after night people had to turn out to defend the same ports against the same people, and all that happened in the end was people gave up doing it and left the game because they were burned out. Just doing battle after battle is more suited to an arena game not an OW RvR game where taking and holding a port is supposed to have some significance. Yes Port Battles are end game content, but in most other OW games you dont do the same end game content day after day.

If as you say people hold too many ports then they can be attacked at another port the next day, but to have to repeat the same defense against the same people every second day just gets tiring and leads to toxicity.