Port Battle cooldown timer

[Liq]

Regarding this

Yeah flipping a port to deny it being flipped by another nation to deny a port battle is an issue. But I dont believe removing cooldowns altogether is not the way to go (empty flips aka. noshows, I believe even Russia agrees with this one)

Instead, have seperate cooldown timers for each nation?

E.G. Nation A flips Nation B's port, Port Battle is scheduled. Nation C can still flip the same Nation B's port. Another Port battle is scheduled, after the initial one

• However, if Nation A manages to capture Port B, Nation C's port battle gets cancelled.
• If Nation A fails to capture the Port, Nation C's port battle is still on.

Edited March 19, 2020 by Liq

[Frosty]

Yes. I don't understand why the hell cooldown is going to be removed to be fair... I would keep it in order to think about a better mechanic (or maybe just punish people that exploit it by starting PBs only to get CD??? Too hard? It doesn't happen very often). Removing it before finding a solution is just pointless.

[Nixolai]

So the devs want to remove cooldown so we have PB's everyday... Interesting concept.

[Liq]

Having difficulties with the questions, not letting me put the whole phrases in questions so had to edit a bit.

[Liq]

5 minutes ago, Hr FrosT said:

Yes. I don't understand why the hell cooldown is going to be removed to be fair... I would keep it in order to think about a better mechanic (or maybe just punish people that exploit it by starting PBs only to get CD??? Too hard? It doesn't happen very often). Removing it before finding a solution is just pointless.

I mean it could be fixed if, say, Swedes attack Baracoa (hypothetical example, not even possible atm), a PB would be scheduled. But with the posted suggestion another nation that has ports nearby able to pull hostility misions are also able to flip the port and thus have 2 PBs scheduled. If Swedes fail to capture (which they will if they wanted to "block" it), the second nation's PB would still be scheduled. Keep cooldowns as they are aswell

[Anolytic]

First of all, the burnout is going to be real.

I'm not sure the consequences of this was fully thought through though. Without cooldowns. Unless something else is also changed. Any port that is captured will be immediately nightflipped the day after, because you cannot set timers on a port now until after maintenance the next day.

Scenario:

1. Port A is captured.

2. After maintenance capturer logs on to put a timer on the port. 

3. For 23 hours the port is attackable without a defence window. So at ANY time. 

Which means for most nations it is pointless capturing ports at all. Then it would be better to just stop RvR altogether until a solution is found.

Or keep the system we have now, albeit flawed, until a better one is found, but punish those who abuse it openly and admit to it as in the case linked.

TBF: Cooldowns should be longer than now, not removed.

Edited March 19, 2020 by Anolytic

[Guest]

I foresee a lot of empty PBs and a swedish crutch by the door that will no longer be used... poor tiny tim...

[Frosty]

13 minutes ago, Liq said:

I mean it could be fixed if, say, Swedes attack Baracoa (hypothetical example, not even possible atm), a PB would be scheduled. But with the posted suggestion another nation that has ports nearby able to pull hostility misions are also able to flip the port and thus have 2 PBs scheduled. If Swedes fail to capture (which they will if they wanted to "block" it), the second nation's PB would still be scheduled. Keep cooldowns as they are aswell

Solutions are easy to find... but yours doesn't take burnout into account. In the example you provided, pirates would have to defend the port twice? Or two days in a row, if 2 different nations are attacking it?

[Liq]

8 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

First of all, the burnout is going to be real.

I'm not sure the consequences of this was fully thought through though. Without cooldowns. Unless something else is also changed. Any port that is captured will be immediately nightflipped the day after, because you cannot set timers on a port now until after maintenance the next day.

Scenario:

1. Port A is captured.

2. After maintenance capturer logs on to put a timer on the port. 

3. For 23 hours the port is attackable without a defence window. So at ANY time. 

Which means for most nations it is pointless capturing ports at all. Then it would be better to just stop RvR altogether until a solution is found.

Or keep the system we have now, albeit flawed, until a better one is found, but punish those who abuse it openly and admit to it as in the case linked.

TBF: Cooldowns should be longer than now, not removed.

Problem is though, nations can still show up in crappy ships and then claim they "showed up and fought".. Don't see a 10 v 10 redoutables being tribunal approved

What do you think on the suggestion that several Port Battles (different nations) can be scheduled, and then depending if the first nation manages to capture the port, the second PB is cancelled (or not, see the vote options). All this while keeping the cooldowns (or have them increased as you suggested)

[Liq]

2 minutes ago, Hr FrosT said:

Solutions are easy to find... but yours doesn't take burnout into account. In the example you provided, pirates would have to defend the port twice? Or two days in a row, if 2 different nations are attacking it?

also true.

[Guest]

If we put away politics for a second I have an alternate suggestion:

 

When a port is captured it can't be given host before maintenance to allow for the winning clan to put a timer on. This could be capturetime.

A timer designates 3 days in a 7 day week with a 3 hour timer. In that timer the port can be set once a day for each nation.

I can't see it solving the issue of burnout tho.. and I still foresee swedes sitting in a PB with nothing to do..

 

[Mouth of Sauron]

@admin Removing cooldowns would be an incredibly poor thing to do for the overall health of RVR.  If anything they need to be longer.  I can see this leading to insane mutli flips, empty port battles and RVR burnout in a matter of weeks if not days.  Let's remember for a moment that this is a game....a leisure activity.....not a job.  

The other day Russia and Danes flipped like 6-8 ports against the swedes over a maybe 1-2 hour window.  This has happened on both sides multiple times.  I think 1 port changed hands.  The rest are all attackable again.  Zero cost or repercussions to doing this.  Removing the timer would magnify this issue and is sort of a wrecking ball approach and a light remodel is needed.

Increase the timers so multiple PBs and no show battles hurt the attackers penalize the attackers as well.....and start cracking down the offenders flipping ports to hide behind cooldowns or swapping ports with alts.

BAD IDEA

[Liq]

Would adding a cost of 10k doubloons (example) to a hostility mission help?

[The Rear End of Sauron]

1 minute ago, Lars Kjaer said:

If we put away politics for a second I have an alternate suggestion:

 

When a port is captured it can't be given host before maintenance to allow for the winning clan to put a timer on. This could be capturetime.

A timer designates 3 days in a 7 day week with a 3 hour timer. In that timer the port can be set once a day for each nation.

I can't see it solving the issue of burnout tho.. and I still foresee swedes sitting in a PB with nothing to do..

 

agreeing with the setting aside of politics for this

every solution i have tried to come up with i then play devil's advocate and can find a way that it can be abused

so atm whereas i don't have much to contribute, i am posting mainly to show that i believe it to be an issue of concern

[Frosty]

1 minute ago, Liq said:

Would adding a cost of 10k doubloons (example) to a hostility mission help?

No. In what could it help? In getting doubs price even higher and increasing the grind time for a PB?

 

[erelkivtuadrater]

1 minute ago, Liq said:

Would adding a cost of 10k doubloons (example) to a hostility mission help?

doesent help when people sit with full warehouses of doubloons though

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Liq said:

Would adding a cost of 10k doubloons (example) to a hostility mission help?

I got 400k dubs about now.. It won't change anything..

I don't see how making RvR more exclusive for the small casual player is going to solve the problem other than making RvR even more exclusive..

Let's face another issue - it's a playermade problem.

[Montagnes]

Removing cooldowns will lead to less activity and pop due to rvr exhaustion.

@admin you are going to do a VERY BAD CHANGE.

[The Rear End of Sauron]

6 minutes ago, Liq said:

Would adding a cost of 10k doubloons (example) to a hostility mission help?

i had thought of something similar along those lines but doesn't that just mean it favors the richer nations who can easily afford it themselves  and also bypass it by giving doubloons to their allies?

Edited March 19, 2020 by The Rear End of Sauron

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Rear End of Sauron said:

i had thought of something similar along those lines but doesn't that just mean it favors the richer nations can easily afford it themselves  bypass it by giving doubloons to their allies?

It would and let's be honest.. I have 5 alts.. I can make 30k dubs in a 3 hour window.. the casual player won't be able to do it and I don't feel that RvR will be improved by more grinding.. We'll see the dedicated players and the numbers push through and we'll still see the lower pop side being grinded down either by empty PBs or by "contested" PBs where the sole purpose is running down the clock..

[The Rear End of Sauron]

what is also of concern for example is currently sweden could ask one its allies (we haven't and won't) to raise hostility against plymouth every few days to block the russians from attacking from aves (we could have done the same at beuna vista having an ally start from dariena)

russians could do it for some of their ports that are close to freetowns and haven't done so either

am using nations as an example rather than because of affiliation or lack thereof

it's not been used yet but in general, as a grooup of gamers. we can get very creative as to what can be done within the existing game mechanics

[van stiermarken]

a hostility mission to gain a PB should not be done in 1 day (or 1 to 3 missions to reach the aim). it should take longer (several missions over a few days) and should be harder for the attacker.

even the cool down should at least stay 3 days so that a clan can organize to defend.

[Dave Hadley]

Thanks Spain for having done this. Now we are all hello kittied up. 

 

 

[The Rear End of Sauron]

Just now, van stiermarken said:

a hostility mission to gain a PB should not be done in 1 day (or 1 to 3 missions to reach the aim). it should take longer (several missions over a few days) and should be harder for the attacker.

even the cool down should at least stay 3 days so that a clan can organize to defend.

this was something else i considered 

my main counter to it was that it again favors the larger nation in that it will be alerted to hostility with enough notice to screen out the smaller from nations from completing a multi day requirement for raising hostility

[van stiermarken]

1 minute ago, Dave Hadley said:

Thanks Spain for having done this. Now we are all hello kittied up. 

 

 

that's nonsense, because of the fact that also the russian faction do this and only 1 has complained about this.