Minor Font Lines Adjustments

[Mouth of Sauron]

I would have probably put this suggestion in the patch notes thread...but that has devolved into yet another Nation vs Nation Drama.

Overall I feel like the recent change was a good one, perhaps a little heads up would have been in order...but what's done is done.  I'm not necessarily sure all the recent port battles will or intend to be filled, but this definitely has rekindled the good ole land grab mentallity we see after every wipe.  RVR does seem to finally be going in a better direction that what was given to us at release.  I would however pefer a more restricted and planed approach consumate to what I would call a front lines system.    

So I'm suggesting a couple of changes.  

- No more capital pulls from freetowns
- Pirates can pull any of the closest 3 ports (no restrictions)
- Nation must own 2 ports in that region before being able to pull the capital.
- Must own Capital port before pulling missions for other regions.  To elaborate on this, we were able to pull and flip Santa Cruz from Cayman Brac last night.  While great for us, it's a little cheezy in my opinion.   
- Ports show on the tool tip on the map what ports can be pulled (for that nation)
- Smaller port timers need to change to reflect BR of the port.

The above would allow nations to save on capital timers, while still being required to put timers on the smaller ports.  Attacking nations would also have to work their way into a region rather than randomly just pull ports.    You would also need to conquer that region before moving on to the next making this a true front lines approach.  

Anyway, just some thoughts.  

 

[Custard]

Everything but being able to pull hostility from a Free port 👍

 

Prefer these changes to be made to front lines though or we are all going to be using different fonts

[Capitalism]

2 minutes ago, Custard said:

Everything but being able to pull hostility from a Free port 👍

Prefer these changes to be made to front lines though or we are all going to be using different fonts

If you can't pull hostility from a free port how do impossible nations establish a foothold?

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, Capitalism said:

If you can't pull hostility from a free port how do impossible nations establish a foothold?

They already have it.  We're not going to be wiping the map.....Are we??

[Capitalism]

3 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

They already have it.  We're not going to be wiping the map.....Are we??

And if they're eliminated?

I guess I don't see a problem with people being able to pull hostility from free ports.. these should be hotbeds of PvP and RvR action... if you want safe, then you need to insulate yourself by taking ports in safe parts of the map.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Capitalism

[Archaos]

4 minutes ago, Capitalism said:

If you can't pull hostility from a free port how do impossible nations establish a foothold?

There was suggestions put forward regarding this a long while back. All that needs to happen is that a nation with no ports on the map can take hostility from a free town but once they capture a port then this is no longer possible. So basically if you have no ports then you can choose which area on the map you want to start your RvR from and choose the appropriate free port to start from.

[Elric]

timer costs should be in line with port BR with capitals getting charged more - for example:

• 20k - 250k / day for capitals, 200k for other ports
• 10k - 125k per day for capitals, 100k for other ports
• 5k - 75k per day for capitals, 50k for other ports
• 2.9k - 250k / day for capital
• 900 - 75k / day for capitals, 50k for other ports.

Without this, we are going to see more and more empty port battles.

[Malcolm3]

37 minutes ago, Mouth of Sauron said:

- Ports show on the tool tip on the map what ports can be pulled (for that nation)
- Smaller port timers need to change to reflect BR of the port.

Completely agree - and @Elric made quite good suggestion on prices

[Archaos]

4 minutes ago, Capitalism said:

And if they're eliminated?

I guess I don't see a problem with people being able to pull hostility from free ports.. these should be hotbeds of PvP and RvR action... if you want safe, then you need to insulate yourself by taking ports in safe parts of the map.

The problem with free towns is that it defeats the whole mechanic of having front lines. Take for example the current situation with GB, they own nearly all the ports along the coast from Tumbado down to Great Corn and with the new front line system the front lines are the three ports to the North (Tantun Cuzamil, Tulum and Xpu Ha) and to the South (Grindstone, Blufields and Haulover), but if GB wants to expand further along these coasts they are limited by the fact that these ports or others close by still remain vulnerable to attack from Tumbado of Great Corn, so they are always on the front line and there is nothing that can be done to stop that.

Russia now has a problem in the gulf of mexico because they have El Rancho smack in the middle of their coast line, so they always have a front line there which ties up peoples outposts. 

Without hostility from free towns we could have a true front line system for RvR. Free towns could still be used for raiding.

[Capitalism]

3 minutes ago, Archaos said:

The problem with free towns is that it defeats the whole mechanic of having front lines. Take for example the current situation with GB, they own nearly all the ports along the coast from Tumbado down to Great Corn and with the new front line system the front lines are the three ports to the North (Tantun Cuzamil, Tulum and Xpu Ha) and to the South (Grindstone, Blufields and Haulover), but if GB wants to expand further along these coasts they are limited by the fact that these ports or others close by still remain vulnerable to attack from Tumbado of Great Corn, so they are always on the front line and there is nothing that can be done to stop that.

Russia now has a problem in the gulf of mexico because they have El Rancho smack in the middle of their coast line, so they always have a front line there which ties up peoples outposts. 

Without hostility from free towns we could have a true front line system for RvR. Free towns could still be used for raiding.

Free towns are simply a check on a nation's size... what's wrong with that?

[Archaos]

21 minutes ago, Capitalism said:

Free towns are simply a check on a nation's size... what's wrong with that?

If that is the case then they are limiting RvR as they become barriers to expansion.

[Capitalism]

3 minutes ago, Archaos said:

If that is the case then they are limiting RvR as they become barriers to expansion.

Huh?  If a nation is large enough then it can sustain fighting on more than two fronts.  Free towns are checks on that ability to expand beyond the borders imposed on them by hostile nations *and* attacks at any time out of free towns.  Seriously, what are you really arguing for? Nations that can essentially maintain complete invulnerability once they take places like the Gulf?

[Archaos]

Just now, Capitalism said:

Huh?  If a nation is large enough then it can sustain fighting on more than two fronts.  Free towns are checks on that ability to expand beyond the borders imposed on them by hostile nations *and* attacks at any time out of free towns.  Seriously, what are you really arguing for? Nations that can essentially maintain complete invulnerability once they take places like the Gulf?

Is that not the whole point of having a front line system? By your logic they may as well remove front lines and let any port be attacked from anywhere.

[Custard]

1 minute ago, Capitalism said:

Huh?  If a nation is large enough then it can sustain fighting on more than two fronts.  Free towns are checks on that ability to expand beyond the borders imposed on them by hostile nations *and* attacks at any time out of free towns.  Seriously, what are you really arguing for? Nations that can essentially maintain complete invulnerability once they take places like the Gulf?

Stop talking utter garbage they would be vulnerable at 2 points only that's not invunerable

 

[Angus MacDuff]

Just now, Archaos said:

Is that not the whole point of having a front line system? By your logic they may as well remove front lines and let any port be attacked from anywhere.

For me, that is the choice that Devs should make.  Either remove the entire Front Line concept, or remove the ability to generate hostility from Free Towns.  This half way approach is very unsatisfying.

[Capitalism]

35 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Is that not the whole point of having a front line system? By your logic they may as well remove front lines and let any port be attacked from anywhere.

A nation with two edge-case borders and a free town in the middle would have to maintain timers at the boundaries of  three locations instead of two. That's not "anywhere" so stop being obtuse.

All it allows is that nations would have an inroad for any location on the map, and more RvR is good, no?  Especially now that BR limits have been reduced and smaller clans can potentially hold the low BR ports.  I really fail to see where all the whinging and moaning is coming from? Why should a nation like Poland have to take every port from Puerto de Espana to Santa Marta before they can attack Russia?