Tiedemann

I might be bius because I agree, but is this not spot on!?

Imo if a diplomacy system is limited so nations can only have 1 ally it should work. Then all game controlled alliances wil be 2 and 2 nations. The the casual/random players who have to shot at everything they come across should be able to survive not being able to attack players from 1 out of 10 nations..

If you grind hostility against a strong RvR nation in their prime time there is a very high probability that you get PvP while doing the hostility missions. If the hostility grinders are successful in killing the defenders the PB will be set by a combination of PvE and PvP. If the Grinders/attackers are defeated, at least they got to shot at players.. But if you grind an enemy port that is far away from their normal outposts or you grinding against an nation that are not capable at gathering around 10 players to counter attack, then it will be as you described there.

The issue here is the cost of owning the port, if it made you gold in sted of costing you gold, then you would not have to worry about getting rid of it. Treat the disease, not the symptom..

I disagree. The flag system was terrible! 1-3 hour notice for a port battle is not enough. If you don't have enough players, you do not defend = empty port battles. So this favors the nations with the most players. I like the current hostility system. If you want PvP withing the hour go try to flipp a strong nations favorite port. They will try to counter attack you in the hostility missions. If flags return I hope it is connected to Raiding ports, and not capturing them.

I totally agree, but this is very bad! If we all start to think this RvR dies..

From my point of view aggressive RvR is the main creator of quality content in this game. I'm not seeing that much new players in aggressive RvR (a lot of new nicks, but behind them is still the old RvR players that where here 1 year ago). I would like to lower the attackers need for screening, so a smaller group of players have a larger possibility to enter a port battle. If it becomes easier to get in to pbs I'm certain more players will try RvR. This would create more quality content for all.

If defenders and their allies come 1 hour earlier to screen than they do now, nothing changes. The attacking fleet still have to sail to and join the circles. The battles does not start 1 hour earlier, or when the attackers join the battle. The port battle instance is just open for entry! So if the attackers enter 1 hour before it is scheduled to start, they have to sit there and do nothing for 1 hour. A larger time window for entering the battle instance gives attacker possibility to sit and wait for darkness of night or a storm to cover their approach to the port. Also given the 1 hour time window the screeners might not have organized yet, and if attackers sail in then the few screeners that are there can't drag them into combat.. Nope, if the port is impotent for the defender and defenders alliance they will have screeners precent 1 hour before the port battle starts. And then attacker needs their own screening fleet like now. This would not help attacking the top most valuable ports in this game, because those are protected by hard core RvR players and they will adapt.

What's the "major one"? Nothing changes except the time the screeners need to invest in screening. Compared to what the attackers have invested, defenders do very little. All the screeners have to do is to sail out 1 hour before they normally would. So yes this might force the screeners to invest more time into screening, but that is the entire point! Now it is to easy. I'm trying to reduce the need for this.. You seem to be worried about empty pbs, I feel the same. I'm just focusing on buffing the side that creates the content for the defenders.. 1. That might also work, a huge sone where nobody can attack anyone.. I would like to see you suggest that mate, but i fear it would kill of screening 2. Would require a entire new feature worked out and kill of screening completely. My suggestion can be made with the features that are ingame, just need to change timers basically. 3. We had this, but they nerfed it. But it was still a numbers game, and not helping the little nation/clan when they are 6 players in ships to fir in a 2500 BR pb, vs 25 1. rates screening fleet. I really liked it this equal BR and it made screening battles better imo. 4. Don't agree because we used this strategy in the past because it was very extremely effective!

The point is to make small nations/clans capable of doing RvR on their own and not depend so much huge screening fleets and alliances to be capable in RvR. It would also make screening more of an effort that is is now. This would benefit all the attacking port battle fleet, but at the same time demand more effort out of the screners.

Sorry, misunderstood you. You make an excellent point there, and I just realized I stole the idea from the "hide in battle strategy". So it's basically integrating that into strategy into a special port battle feature. The idea was developed by RvR players in this game, it principle was tested and found quite effective, so I'm confident it would be used! Screeners will hate this no doubt. It would force them into investing more time in scouting and waiting. Also the devs did implement countermeasures for "the hide in battle" strategy, so I'm not feeling their love on this..

Eh, no! That's just not what I intended to suggest and would effect hostility grinding, not the port battle entrance and screening.. When we enter a pb at the moment the port battle is open (The time is is scheduled to start the day after it was grinded), we all have to wait 4 minutes until the battles actually starts. During this time we can not put up sails, reload cannons etc. Just like in OW battles this is 30 seconds. So in sted of this wait 4 minute wait after the battle have started, I'm trying to suggest that the attackers have a 1 hour window before the pb starts to enter and sit insite the battle and wait for it to start.

Now it can be impossible for attackers to get into certain pbs when the defender have an organized screening fleet. This is an option to help increase the attackers chances at entering the port battle. How can you say thats bad for the game? Two main reasons to do multiflips as I see it. You either want to stretch the enemy's forces, so they they are not capable at screening out the attacking pb fleet. We do this because we want to increase our chances at thereing the pb.. So my suggestion would actually help countering this if it proves effective.. The other reason to do it is to zerg a smaller nation/alliance and hoping they do not have forces to defend all ports..

Hey! Suggestion: Have the Port battle instance open for entry an entire hour before the port battle starts. Then the attacking fleet have a much larger window of opportunity to enter the PB. This would make it more difficult for defenders screening fleet to predict when they will arrive at the enemy port, and therefor making a bit more difficult to screen them out. We now have an 4 minute waiting period in the port battle instance, after it is scheduled to start. I'm suggesting that the port battle instance is open for entry 1 hour before the scheduled start, and that we have a 1 hour waiting period. The PB will not start 1 hour earlier or when the attackers join, the port battle instance is just opened 1 hour before the PB is scheduled to start. So if you enter 60 minutes before it is supposed to start, then you have to sit there and wait for 60 minutes. This suggestion is inspired by the "hide in battle strategy". This was widely used by most RvR nations and it was proven extremely effective for increasing the chance for attackers to enter the port battle. I have tried to base this suggestion on mechanics that are already in game mostly because I'm not creative, but also because there is no need to "reinvent the wheel". Reasoning: Now the attackers and defenders can only enter the port battle after it officially set to start. This time is available for all to see, so screening fleets for defending nation and defending nation allies knows where the attacking PB will be and they have a very accurate estimation of when they will be there. If they check the wind they can also figure out where it is most likely that the attacking fleet would want to enter and place screeners there. If the attacking PB fleet are late to join the port battle, their chance at winning will decrease. If they are more than 10 minutes late then they have a huge disadvantage because of the defenders by then have control of multiple circles and are gaining points. We now have smaller BR ports in game to give smaller nations and clans a chance to do RvR (I belive). But because the screening is so OP, smaller player groups/clans have no chance against a nation with more players or with more allies because they just get screened out of the port battle. So this would lower the "thresh hold"/need for player numbers for smaller groups of players/ clans, increasing the chance that they try out and join RvR. More RvR players = more RvR content = more quality content for all. If the attacking fleets are more successful in getting in to port battles then RvR outcome will become more skill based and not so depended on who has the biggest screening force at any given time. Issues: If attackers and defenders can enter an entire hour before the PB starts, then the defenders have 1 extra hour to look at the attackers fleet setup and adapt/change their own fleet setup to counter it. That is not fair imo so the early entry option should only be for attacking fleet, or the specific ships the players have in the battle should be hidden in the TAB battle screen until the PB starts. Also during this 1 hour wait the disconnection feature of inactive players/afk players should be disabled, or the game needs to active something to counter it because most will go afk for this long time period. This suggestion would make it easier in generell for all attacking fleets to enter pbs, because the screeners are highly motivated by the precise when and where aspect of attacking RvR fleets. If they have to sit some where for an hour it is not so tempting anymore.

What about making it gear based, but with transparency. So the loser can see the winners setup or both players can see each other setup, after the battle is done. Can be made very simple, just transfer the ship stats to a in game mail and send it to the contenders. Just get the permanent upgrades also in there, I can never see those when I loot ships. 😕

Unless we get have 1000+ players online at the same time there is no point in splitting the nations up even more imo. But to be honest I do not understand why Portuguese are not a nation in this game considering all the other nations we have.. 😐

😱

Maybe reducing what we get now to a half and then bringing the ships back to port would gain us 3 times as much! I'm never going to settle with "enough", but what would prevent me from using a feature like this is the fact that it would require a perk slot/point.. # make fleet ship 1 perk standard ROE for all players!

Oh, I like it a lot! Maybe there could be a way the admiralty could resell the ships it receives, so it brings content to the players in the nation also? I'm all about recycling and saving the planet these days.. But this would also benefit the nation. The ship with upgrades could pop up for sale in the capital at an affordable price, by the admiralty. For it not to be exploited it could have a 7 days delay from admiralty receives the ship, until it is ready to be resold in the capital, and when contract is put up for sale could also be random. Might be to complicated though

I still think the LE Requin should get weaker masts so it can be countered more easily, now they are just to hard to kill. They are like the cockroaches! I would also still like to see the BR of the Le Requin BR buffed to 5. rate level, to keep it out of shallow pbs and to make it more expensive to bring into deep water pbs. Because it gives the team that brings it a rather huge advantage for very little BR. The 250 base crew also makes it the best boarding vessel in it's current class, by far! So just focusing on the boarding vs other ships in the 6. rate class it is pay to win imo I bought it because it is "pay to safely escape" and I need that for safe transportation of skill-books.. 😄

I'm just comparing your suggestion to the removed diplomatic feature. If you where not playing back then you might not be aware how it worked. When two nations formed an alliance (based on player votes from both nations) these two nations could no longer attack each other ports or even each others players in OW. I don't think it was possible to join OW battle against each other in OW and you could not attack each others AI fleets. The allied nations could join on the same side in port battles also, so for the duration of the alliance pact (7 or 14 days) the two nations where basically in the same nation. Just using different flags.. The "rouge" players/clans cried their eyes out because they could not sabotage the alliances, forced on them by the majority opinion/voting! Result was that the rouge guys had to adapt, switch nation or quit the game.. In the end these massive alliances (I think the limit was 3 or 4 nations per alliance and we where less nations back then) ended up limiting who we could attack so much it got very boring for everyone. I think this feature could be brought back if it was limited a bit more. So a nation can only have 1 ally, no more! And then some logic to limit the 2 largest nations on the server to form one massive zerg alliance (because this will happen if it is possible!). Here I'm disagreeing with you: A in game feature that allows players to sentence/punish other players can and will be exploited. So I advice you to drop that part of the idea because I think it's a deal breaker for most who read it.

French did the exact same thing to REDS when I was Russian with Penzcola. Night french took it during the night, and then the daytime french declare that they do not control the night players, but if we would try to attack a french port they will defend it. After that I assumed the french now are not the same french we once appreciated to have as an ally.

1. part is opposite of what is correct. And the last part is correct but is made very difficult when french daytime "will defend all french ports". Nobody wants to fight french, but they make it impossible to avoid and they are not willing to declare that they are the aggressor here.

I'm just guessing your not a fan of the OP suggestion. And I know moderators are allowed to have personal opinions, even though for me it's a bit confusing when you have the staff label over your nick.. But I still think just maybe (I'm not looking to get a warning here form Powdercake or you) that those posts are borderline what you moderators normally have to hide/delete when threads are cleaned up after being derailed with off topic and troll post.. So should you guys not strive to lead by example, or is that just not how we do things around here..?

The points you make in 1. and 2., make the 3. point unnecessary. I also think you made the deciding/voting/democratic element way to complicated. Just give all nation players with a certain rank limit a vote, would be a lot easier. If you want to limit it more, then only let the lord protectors of the nation vote! Both of those options would make the 4. point unnecessary. I like the suggestion, but as someone should have pointed out already we had an in game diplomacy feature in the past. But there was not enough limitations on the alliances so the entire server got locked in 2 large blob alliances, team red and team blue. It was difficult to get out of those alliances and in the end the feature was just removed because it limited PvP way to much. This old feature could be reused with some tweaking. If it only allows nations to have vote for 1 allied nation, and denies the 2 largest nations to ally, then we can avoid the blob alliances that limited PvP and we can avoid a Zerg alliance.