RVR options

[King of Crowns]

How about an option to pillage a port when a port battle is won. Pillage would do Three things.

1. Drop deadmans chests for the winners in the port battle. 

2. it would disable all production from the port for a set amount of time (7 days). 

3. Also it would increase the upkeep costs for clan owning the town (500K a day). Because the town will need to be rebuilt and that is expensive. (during the pillaged cost time period the port cannot be dropped to neutral.)

This was not possible before clan owned ports. This will also encourage people to defend their ports as they should. The cost of the clan being pillaged needs to be high enough to discourage arranged deals. If the cost cant be set then high enough then just remove the reward for the winners. A pillaged port does not change hands it is just pillaged. maybe even add a happiness factor so that if a clan has to many ports pillaged in a set amount of time the clans ports will rebel against the clan and go to neutral. 

 

[Slim McSauce]

this is actually a great idea. +1 to something like this.

[Christendom]

Interesting idea, but I think the port costs are already heavily oppressive in the current climate of the game.  This would just leave to more dropped neutral ports and it favors the attackers far too much.  A port battle should there to fight over the port.  You win, you get the port and the costs associated with it.  In the current state of the game there would be nothing to prevent a clan like KoCs attacking a different port on the map that does not have timers against EU nations that cannot defend them.....every single night.  These ports don't have timers because the 500k a day is far too high for the current population level of the game.  This will just ultimately encourage more off hours flipping of ports for free or barely contested loot.

This should be a raid and be a different type of battle.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Christendom

[Fletch]

I would go a step further and in certain areas of the map allow ports to be completely destroyed, and new ports built by players.  This would mean the map for some areas of the game would constantly change and exploration might become quite important.

[Glorgir]

King has just shown why he wants this, so he can ruin Nation economies at times when few players from those nations are online.

However, the idea is Sound if the raids were only able to be done on those ports in the protected zones.

If ports in safe zones would lose production for 48 or 72 hours after a raid, it might see an increase of players moving their production outside of the safe zones, because there they only have to deal with the current Port Battle Scenarios.

This would then have a knock on effect on PVP and OW fights, as goods have to be moved away from so called safe Areas.

 

[Nelsons Barrel]

12 minutes ago, Glorgir said:

However, the idea is Sound if the raids were only able to be done on those ports in the protected zones.

If ports in safe zones would lose production for 48 or 72 hours after a raid, it might see an increase of players moving their production outside of the safe zones, because there they only have to deal with the current Port Battle Scenarios.

This would then have a knock on effect on PVP and OW fights, as goods have to be moved away from so called safe Areas.

 

This would still suck for every nation that has no 24/7 PB fleet ready - every nation except France. France would gain huge advantages of this. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

25 minutes ago, Glorgir said:

King has just shown why he wants this, so he can ruin Nation economies at times when few players from those nations are online.

However, the idea is Sound if the raids were only able to be done on those ports in the protected zones.

If ports in safe zones would lose production for 48 or 72 hours after a raid, it might see an increase of players moving their production outside of the safe zones, because there they only have to deal with the current Port Battle Scenarios.

This would then have a knock on effect on PVP and OW fights, as goods have to be moved away from so called safe Areas.

 

Yah I think it's funny he hides all his own ports in very bad timers (1 am in the morning for US players) and than talks about flipping folks off hours.  I have yet to see him do a proper port battle in some ones timer and win.   Was kinda hoping he got the one they tried to flip tonight cause of being pissed off from being screen out of being screeners early tonight.   Sadly I wouldn't of made it cause that is my work night.  How much any one want to bet he will be out side in large ships for the shallow PB's we have with the Brits tomorrow or in nothing but Hercs trying to screen us out of a good fun fight with the Brits?   H'es very much a very sour player when he doesn't get his way.   

I wonder if he even though this through cause of all the ports his own clan now owns with no timers.....trash ports are there for a reason without timers.   It can go both ways if something like this was put in game.  We would see him drop a bunch of those ports real fast.  

One of these days we are going to just get sick of his crap and all stay up late and hit his ports any way, he just doesn't know when that will be.  Though I think it's funny as we notice he looses more and more folks at that time he comes on here trying to change the rules more and more.

[staun]

5 hours ago, King of Crowns said:

How about an option to pillage a port when a port battle is won. Pillage would do Three things.

1. Drop deadmans chests for the winners in the port battle. 

2. it would disable all production from the port for a set amount of time (7 days). 

3. Also it would increase the upkeep costs for clan owning the town (500K a day). Because the town will need to be rebuilt and that is expensive. (during the pillaged cost time period the port cannot be dropped to neutral.)

This was not possible before clan owned ports. This will also encourage people to defend their ports as they should. The cost of the clan being pillaged needs to be high enough to discourage arranged deals. If the cost cant be set then high enough then just remove the reward for the winners. A pillaged port does not change hands it is just pillaged. maybe even add a happiness factor so that if a clan has to many ports pillaged in a set amount of time the clans ports will rebel against the clan and go to neutral. 

 

1 Put all the rewards in to a port you will. Don't care to be honnest. 

2: You win the port and get a port with no use for seven 7 days. Don' t you think it will get less players to attack.

3: So make it even more expensive to have ports. You don't think the system we have now allready are to costly. PPl don't really want to own, because they are a waist of money. Allready ppl can't pay for timers on there ports, and therefore have little chance to defend them because of a 24/7 server. It will not make players defend ports, because no one will own a port.

[staun]

1 hour ago, Glorgir said:

King has just shown why he wants this, so he can ruin Nation economies at times when few players from those nations are online.

However, the idea is Sound if the raids were only able to be done on those ports in the protected zones.

If ports in safe zones would lose production for 48 or 72 hours after a raid, it might see an increase of players moving their production outside of the safe zones, because there they only have to deal with the current Port Battle Scenarios.

This would then have a knock on effect on PVP and OW fights, as goods have to be moved away from so called safe Areas.

 

Don't think it will give that more PvP ore OW. As is is for now most nations have to get its ressources outside the safezone. It is just the easy nations that will be affected by it.

[King of Crowns]

Just now, staun said:

Don't think it will give that more PvP ore OW. As is is for now most nations have to get its ressources outside the safezone. It is just the easy nations that will be affected by it.

literally every resource needed for crafting ships is available in safe zone. there is no reason to go do anything outside safe zone except pvp. 

[staun]

Just now, King of Crowns said:

literally every resource needed for crafting ships is available in safe zone. there is no reason to go do anything outside safe zone except pvp. 

Are you sure abouth that. Don't think we in Dk-Ng as an example can get all we need for crafting, unless you ofc take to account what are sold at the capitol by players that have sailed it there.

But if it only affect nations with safezone, well then we have some nations(hardcore) that axtually can't be touched by this mechanic

[King of Crowns]

every resource but gold and silver. for most nations. exception is sweeden and danes. ur right about that.

 

[staun]

1 minute ago, rediii said:

TBH denmark has a huge safezone compared to other nations because you reach a lot of ports with it.

Effective safezone of denmark is bigger than effective safezone of the dutch for example

We have 2 ports in the safezone. Granted that Amalienborg and Coral Bay are close. Can the Ducht actually reach less ports. Thought they have 4 ports in safezone. But haven't realy put an interest in it, so I could be wrong.

My response was that I don't think it will give more PvP ore OW than we have now. 

[Hethwill]

Do not veer the discussion to national news or personal feuds. Thank you.

[King of Crowns]

2 minutes ago, staun said:

We have 2 ports in the safezone. Granted that Amalienborg and Coral Bay are close. Can the Ducht actually reach less ports. Thought they have 4 ports in safezone. But haven't realy put an interest in it, so I could be wrong.

My response was that I don't think it will give more PvP ore OW than we have now. 

I think it will incentivize defending ports which in turn creates full port battles and anti hostility fleets. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

31 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

 

As for raids we been asking for them but not at a level as your speaks that hurts players, clans and nations.  Raids can be used a short ownership of a port that you stop production from for a few days, lets say 3-5 days at most as 7 is way to long.  While owning that port from the raid the clan would get goods that would normal produced.   As that is typically why some one raids a place.  Port battles should reward a chest but why would a raid?  Your chest maybe would be the goods you gather for that 3-5 day raid nothing more.  The cost to the owner is they can't use that port production while it's traded.   Making it cost more would just turn folks off to the mechanics even more and the whole goal is to get folks away from the protected zone right?

[staun]

1 minute ago, rediii said:

dutch have 4 safe ports with big gaps inbetween. Danes have 2 safezones that reach to amalienborg and coral bay and very close to the fort of roadtown which leads directly to the fort and port of spanishtown... in my oppinion denmark has 6 ports that are safe to reach

Not judging on any suggested thing here since I didnt followed it all... just talking about safezones

No they don't reach to Amalienborg and Coral bay. There is a nice little gab. Yes we have a lot of forts, but the deadliest place to sail in Dk-NG is actually From Coral bay past Road town and to Spanish town. But lets not discuss safezones then in the purpos of this idea.

1: If raid only can be made in safezone PB, there will be nations that won't be affected by it. The hardcore nations.

2: In general as it is now I don't think we should make it more expensive to have ports, If the pop goes up ore other mechanics are made better, then things may look different.

8 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

I think it will incentivize defending ports which in turn creates full port battles and anti hostility fleets. 

Yeah but look how many ports are without timer right now. I belive it is because ppl can't pay fore more than they allready are doing. I defend my port and get punished for winning. Clans will just drops all port, maybe have 1-2 that have timers on, as they allready have. So it will be the same ports to fight over as now. There will just be a lot of neutral ports on the map.

I win a port, and have to pay a lot extra for it, for it to be rebuild. I am already at my limit, so I actually can't afford to win the port. If we wan't to make this game more hardcore in terms of economy, it is a interesting way to do it. But where the game is now, Oh boy I think I would be a bad thing. But I am up for testing anything.

[Teutonic]

10 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

this is actually a great idea. +1 to something like this.

@Sir Texas Sir@Christendom@rediii Tagged you folks here as well for you opinions/suggestions. apologies for the long post

Something to the effect would be nice, but I agree with others in saying current port mechanics are already oppressive.

should a "Raid" type feature be in the game? Yes.
should a clan or nation be negatively affected if a Raid is successful? Yes.

should it be implemented just as the OP states? no - the suggestions are extremely harsh and players would rather just drop the ports than suffer the negatives.
Should attackers get Deadman's chests? lol....no

I like the thought of raiding or pillaging, but I disagree with the suggestions brought forth here.

Here is what I imagine would happen and past experience leads me to believe most clans would follow the same line
1. Attackers pillaging port would incur the negatives to the defender owning the port (production halted and increase maintenance).
What's your initial thought? well as the attacker it's a perfect way to hit the defenders hard, whether they show up or not. As for the defender, they make 2 choices which end the same way.
A - Defender decides to defend, if successful, nothing happens. If the defenders lose, they lose all the ships that were sunk and now incur production halt and increase maintenance? So the defending clan will be smart and just drop the port from their list - they lost the battle and the ability to "get anything out of it" for X amount of days so why deal with the negatives?
B - Defender decides to drop the port because they either can't defend (out of their timezone) or won't. The attacker gets port or chooses pillage and it doesn't effect anyone.

2. No incentives or bonuses for Defender Defending Successfully.
You want a good mechanic for raiding or pillaging? then the Defender should also get the ability to get an advantage by actively defending. IF the defender gets nothing out of defending except to say "we stopped the attacker from giving us negative bonuses" then there is not enough of a reason for the defender to "want" to keep the port after a raid.

A suggestion for a Raid/Pillage mechanic in the RvR setting could go something like this and likely would be more well received.

Raid/Pillage Mechanic:
- Raiding a Port successfully incurs the following reductions
A. 50% reduced resource production (from port and buildings) and a 50% increase in labor costs for X hours (I would say 48-72 hours is acceptable)
B. 10-25% increased maintenance on the port for X hours

- Raiding a Port successfully gives the Attackers the following
A. X% of Tax revenue from yesterday- each Attacker would get this amount
Example - tax revenue on La Navasse was 1,200,000. Attackers successfully Raid the port and get 75% of the value. So every Attacker involved in the Raid would get a BONUS 900,000 gold to their overall battle results.

- Defenders Successful in defending the port
A. 10-25% increase in resource production (from port and buildings) and a 10-25% reduction in Labor costs for X Hours
B. Z% of tax Revenue - Due to Defenders successfully defending the port - the port is happy to give out a small value as reward. I would argue 20-50% of tax revenue value.

I'll say it now, ALL these numbers and values could change and be argued on. But I would say that this would do a couple things:

1. Incentivize players who want to Raid/Pillage, to Raid high value ports instead of just blanket Raiding all the ports (but groups can still do that)
2. The point of Raiding/Pillaging is to "Take the wealth" primarily and then make it more difficult for the defender to "get wealth back."
3. Both Attackers and Defenders have a Reason to be engaged in a Raid/Pillage conflict as both sides now have a possible reward to look forward to.

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Teutonic

[Christendom]

I like it.  The CD on these things needs to be long.

[p i t]

Raids should be allowed for capitol regions, I always wanted to defend the great harbour of KPR

[King of Crowns]

11 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Yah I think it's funny he hides all his own ports in very bad timers (1 am in the morning for US players) and than talks about flipping folks off hours. 

I wonder if he even though this through cause of all the ports his own clan now owns with no timers.....trash ports are there for a reason without timers.   It can go both ways if something like this was put in game.  We would see him drop a bunch of those ports real fast.  

One of these days we are going to just get sick of his crap and all stay up late and hit his ports any way, he just doesn't know when that will be.  Though I think it's funny as we notice he looses more and more folks at that time he comes on here trying to change the rules more and more.

Your nation refuses to fight us. the reason the timers are staggered is because of your multi flip. (win without fighting) and if you think we cant defend san mateo or san Augustine then by all  means go set that port and see what happends. I just wish I knew what it would take for yall to get "sick of all my crap and stay up late to hit my ports anyway". tell me what would it take to provoke that texas? 

as far as the French presence in the Bahamas......... yea its coming.... infact anywhere CSA or VCO tries to hide you can  be assured that we will be right on your tail. there will be a fleet of Hercules to screen you out of the British ports tonight, maybe even some wassa or oceans. 

and the none value ports in the Yucatan would be droped instantly. as would any other port that people just hold in order to hold. 

Back to the original post. In the current system the defender is rewarded for doing nothing. if they don't show up then they loose a port that is just costing them money. which means there is no reason to attack the port unless it has strategic value. this has to change or rvr is dead. 

[Teutonic]

47 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

 

Back to the original post. In the current system the defender is rewarded for doing nothing. if they don't show up then they loose a port that is just costing them money. which means there is no reason to attack the port unless it has strategic value. this has to change or rvr is dead. 

To which... your solution is to penalize clans by further making it worse to own that port? Therefore the clan drops the port instead of incurring the extra penalty after a pillage? There would be even less reason to own ports and rvr would further "die."

I'm all for raids/pillage functions but lets be honest here, if we are trying to promote rvr, this will have the opposite effect, that is why I proposed an alternative option in my previous post that would give both parties a better reason to both attack and defend.

[King of Crowns]

39 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

To which... your solution is to penalize clans by further making it worse to own that port? Therefore the clan drops the port instead of incurring the extra penalty after a pillage? There would be even less reason to own ports and rvr would further "die."

I'm all for raids/pillage functions but lets be honest here, if we are trying to promote rvr, this will have the opposite effect, that is why I proposed an alternative option in my previous post that would give both parties a better reason to both attack and defend.

if the defender wins the PB they get deadmans chest. winner of the pb gets deadmans chest or some of the taxes doesn't matter. but pbs need to have a reward for the winner. and a punishment for the looser. the attackers have to go through a lot of risk with no reward to even make the port battle happen. 

[Christendom]

6 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:

if the defender wins the PB they get deadmans chest. winner of the pb gets deadmans chest or some of the taxes doesn't matter. but pbs need to have a reward for the winner. and a punishment for the looser. the attackers have to go through a lot of risk with no reward to even make the port battle happen. 

There's a lot of risk flipping EU ports around midnight US time?  The reward of doing the port battles is that you get to keep the port.  What you're basically saying is you want to create content so your specific group of players can stay busy during the evenings.  It might be good for you, but for the vast majority of clans in the game this suggestion is not.  

It's an interesting suggestion, but not really fleshed out.  It's amusing though that you can't even make suggestions on these forums without shit talking certain people.  

#Cancer.

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 hours ago, King of Crowns said:

Your nation refuses to fight us. the reason the timers are staggered is because of your multi flip. (win without fighting) and if you think we cant defend san mateo or san Augustine then by all  means go set that port and see what happends. I just wish I knew what it would take for yall to get "sick of all my crap and stay up late to hit my ports anyway". tell me what would it take to provoke that texas? 

as far as the French presence in the Bahamas......... yea its coming.... infact anywhere CSA or VCO tries to hide you can  be assured that we will be right on your tail. there will be a fleet of Hercules to screen you out of the British ports tonight, maybe even some wassa or oceans. 

and the none value ports in the Yucatan would be droped instantly. as would any other port that people just hold in order to hold. 

Back to the original post. In the current system the defender is rewarded for doing nothing. if they don't show up then they loose a port that is just costing them money. which means there is no reason to attack the port unless it has strategic value. this has to change or rvr is dead. 

We don't avoid you, the problem is your avoiding us by using 1am timers. Put one port in a prime time and that way they can't be multi flip and we will fight it out in the port battle.  Why should we stay up late to hit your port if YOU WANT RVR?   I don't get that logic, if you want RvR you need to set it to prime time or come have a fight with us.  We haven't avoid any fights with ya'll.  Why would we stop doing a grind to go to a port your flipping that we don't care about and can just defend?  We actually was hoping you flipped it since it's in our prime time.  The Brit port we can attack any time. Oh and we didn't even notice they had flipped deadmans cay so that is why it's an hour apart, there was no secret trying to put battles at same times.  In fact we was going to expect GB to flip it back even if we won so we can do RvR back and forth with GB in fair fights, something you seem to have no clue about.  If they wanted us to pull that fight cause they where busy at Deadmans we could do just that they just have to ask.  

You are just looking for more and more ways to be toxic and hurt other players.  Come flip every port if you think that will make you winner.  Hell bring your OP Hercs to shallows since you apparently can't win a straight up fight you just proved all you can do is gank and fight unfair fights.  Just proof you saying you will bring Wassa and Ocenas to screen a shallow water port....lol  

KFC, the master of skills, brings SOL's to screen shallow ports...lol

 

Again back on topic I would love to see raids, but just not in the means your suggesting.  There has been many suggestions about ways to do raids, but it would be up to the Devs to figure out how they would want to do them fairly if they are to ever put raids into game.  Remember this game is about having fun and if you run off the 99% of the majority of the players by making it to hard core you will have no players left to fight.