[Suggestion] A slightly different hostility mechanic

[Sella]

Since the room to mauneuver -regarding new mechanics-  is limited, i am proposing a port hostility mechanic that will be slightly more PvP orientated.

So, what if the ships in the hostility missions were player made and captained?

 

After a succesfull portbattle versus the AI(assuming the map has been reset and the port was neutral), the players will have to "garrisson" the newly captured port using the ship that they have captained in the PB. This will hopefully lead to a bigger variation in PB fleet for reasons that will be explained below.

• The ships that will appear in the hostility missions, will be the ships that the players have garrissoned.
• When a hostility mission starts the people that have garrissoned a ship, will get a notification saying that the have 10 mins to join that mission and take the place of the AI. If not, the AI will keep sailing the ship.
• Players that got sunk during the victorious PB will still be able to garrison ships after if there are slots available. (The will have to sail the ship there- Debatable).
• Teleporting to the town where the hostility is being raised is allowed from any friendly port but towing a ship there is not if the mission has already started.
• Garrissoned ship cannot be swaped at any point. Repairs can be added/removed.
• Amount of ships that are garrissoned could be limited. That amount could be raised by delivering a resource/ accomplishing a task or something else. (Debatable)
• If no ships are garrissoned and the attacker starts a mission, they automaticly get 25% after the empty instance says Battle Over. (Or they just raise it to 25% instantly).
• The less the ships that are garrisoned, the bigger the percentage they will give after they get sunk (out of 25%). Example: 5 ships are garrissoned, the are worth 5% each
• Extra reinforcments that join the defender side - besides the garrissoned forces- could give extra %.  (Debatable)
• Cooldown for the next hostility mission should be added to allow the defenders to re-garrisson the town.(Maybe a day?)
• Attacking forces can only use ships depending on the port type. Example: You cannot use 1st rates in a 4th rate hostility mission and so on.

 

Hopefully i havent forgot anything   What are your thoughts/improvements ?

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Sella22

[z4ys]

Just an idea. I like the player choice how to garrisson a port. That's customization I would like to see more instead of adding more stupid upgrades and books.

Back to topic: what if it would be possible to station ships there at any time (Ofc only before the port is contested). Maybe even scratch the idea of 4 missions for hostility.

By a battlgroup permit to found a bg sail to the port. Open an instance similar to the pb one. Give 10mins prepair time. Defender can join and take over their AI ship or take an slot.  Defenders can join till 30mins of battle or till their AI ship is sunk.

 

What about port br is defined by ships stationed and tax?

Edited December 15, 2017 by z4ys

[Sella]

2 hours ago, z4ys said:

Just an idea. I like the player choice how to garrisson a port. That's customization I would like to see more instead of adding more stupid upgrades and books.

Back to topic: what if it would be possible to station ships there at any time (Ofc only before the port is contested). Maybe even scratch the idea of 4 missions for hostility.

By a battlgroup permit to found a bg sail to the port. Open an instance similar to the pb one. Give 10mins prepair time. Defender can join and take over their AI ship or take an slot.  Defenders can join till 30mins of battle or till their AI ship is sunk.

 

What about port br is defined by ships stationed and tax?

I am not sure that i understand what you mean by stationing ships there at any time. Can you rephrase it?

I would be in favour of reducing the amount of missions. The percentage of hostility should be generated by the amount of ships that are garrisoned and the extra people that join and get sunk. Or maybe you are proposing something else?

I like the battlegroup idea.

Could be done, yes, but maybe a bit too hard to calculate and define.

[monk33y]

We need player funded forts and towers...

The more money the defending nation upgrades the forts/towers the harder it is to generate hostility in those waters..

Easy... Money sink + restrictions on hostility generation.

Top tier forts/towers could only enable missions to be taken in front of the port..

The more upgrades the smaller the mission width is available...

The more upgraded the forts the closer to the docks the hostility missions become 

[Nelsons Barrel]

35 minutes ago, monk33y said:

We need player funded forts and towers...

The more money the defending nation upgrades the forts/towers the harder it is to generate hostility in those waters..

Easy... Money sink + restrictions on hostility generation.

Top tier forts/towers could only enable missions to be taken in front of the port..

The more upgrades the smaller the mission width is available...

The more upgraded the forts the closer to the docks the hostility missions become 

Your idea would make money making ports like cartagena absolutely unconquerable. The game has just a few very important ports that need to be kept, would we have a slightly better distribution of rescources it might work, but not like it is right now.

[monk33y]

9 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Your idea would make money making ports like cartagena absolutely unconquerable. The game has just a few very important ports that need to be kept, would we have a slightly better distribution of rescources it might work, but not like it is right now.

Cartagena is only profitable because the Devs keep spawning in 1000's of tar in....!

If it costs a billion gold to max out the port is that a bad thing?? You mean to tell me a nation like the British with triple the numbers of players as any other nation, couldn't capture it!!!