Search the Community

As per the title, how are the two closest ports calculated for hostility mission availability. For example at present the two hostility missions available from Morgans Bluff are Williams Bay and Little Isaac Rocks. I can understand Williams Bay, but looking at the map Kemps Bay and Frozen Cay are a lot closer than Little Isaac Rocks even if you count sailing distance rather than as the crow flies. So how is this worked out and how are people supposed to know where they are vulnerable from without having to resort to using alts in another nation. Even if we discount Little Isaac Rocks and look at Kemps Bay and Frozen Cay, both show up on the trader map as being 22k from Morgans so how are people to know which one is actually closer the way the game calculates it. I accept that the game system uses certain parameters to calculate which are the closest ports and this may lead to some errors like pointed out, but it shows that we need some ready indication as to where the threat is from for each port if the front lines system is to work without having to use alts in other nations.

@admin @Ink I'm still confused as to why 1st rates are allowed to raise hostility against a shallow port. This should've been changed like a long time ago.

Some fellow clan members and I began hostility on the shallow port La Guanaja. Then the players DarkSun and SeagulGonaCumPokeMeInTheCoconut, both [BL4CK] clan members, joined the hostility mission with the intention of lowering hostility. [BL4CK] DarkSun didn't even bring cannons. This was a blatant, though failed, attempt to try and prevent VCO from setting a port battle. Below is a screenshot of the battle results showing both [BL4CK] clan members having been captured. I have also included a short video of the incident. In the video, from 20-40 seconds you can see player DarkSun attempting to get boarded by the npc Santisima. At 1:20, it can be clearly seen that player DarkSun did not equip cannons on his ship. At 2:12, DarkSun can be seen getting boarded by the npc Navy Brig. At 5:00, DarkSun loses the boarding action.

The change of wood distribution increased the focus of RvR, which was much needed. Doing hostility is still boring tho, any plans to change it before release?

Since I didn´t get an answer yet although asking several times: Is it a bug that killing AI fleets in OW without hostility missions count towards hostility for ports or is that intended? And if it is intended, then why the hell would you do that?

Change name from Hostility to Stability Invert meter - e.g. Stability in El Dorado dropped to 10% Review factor needed to drop Stability to 0% - now 1.0, change to 0.5 - to accommodate all playstyles Include port demand/supply in the Stability formula Details for each topic as needed 3 - Sum of all parts being better. Still possible to completely drop Stability to zero just with combat missions -or- by trade alone. Reduce Hostility Missions factor to accommodate with Trade Stability. Full cycle of X missions, drops by 100%. Reduce factor per mission. Full trade achieved ( supply and demand of NPC traders in town ), Stability drops/raises by 100%. 4- Simple ( and complicated ). Read... Port nation owner traders supply town with daily demand of products. Stability rises. "Population" is happy. They got access to the items they need. Port nation owner traders buys port npc produce - Stability rises. "Population" gets a influx of money. They are happy. Nation dedicated traders have a indirect impact on keeping the "empire" stable and "population" happy. Enemy smuggler supplies town with daily demand of products. Stability drops. "Population" starts to trust foreign power traders. They got access to the items they need. Enemy smuggler buys port npc produce - Stability drops. "Population" is happy with the influx of foreign cash more than own nation. Now to the Pros and Cons, the most complex part. Pros - direct daily influence on the empire stability (RvR) by non combatants - players more interested in the trader careers - as they also increase their personal fortune by being trader moguls - increase importance of trade in the game world to mimic age of sail - "The Spice must flow" factor. - opportunity to award marks to traders by amount of Stability secured by supplying goods ( only supply, not purchase ) in similar proportion to what combatants get with damage/kills in Hostility missions - trade vs privateering Cons - in some cases a overextended period to drop Stability ( raise Hostility ), mainly in the big ports where supply/demand items are expensive. ( can also be a pro ) - different favorite playstyle - pvp, pve, trade - may have to coexist towards the same "national" goal. - trade vs privateering Further clarifications Just to clarify some details which have been asked in private: - Each port has a quantity for offer and demands a quantity, for several products. So it is visible to any player. A port that demands 100 Wine, will only count 100 Wine delivered towards the effect, any surplus can be sold to port but counts for naught. Quota has been met already. - Same with offer. Port NPC offer ( across the entire day ) is 1245 Cider, it will only count 1245 towards the effect. Even if a player brings 2000 units to sell there, the NPC produce is what counts. Players cannot spam. Note: Only products that cannot be produced by players via buildings count.

With the current RvR rules after a successful port defense the there is only a 24 hour break before the attackers can build hostility again, this leads to a couple of issues. Firstly if you are a new defender of a port you do not get any reward for defending the port and have to wait till the end of the week to get your victory mark. But in this time there could potentially be two more port battles and if you are not present at them or are unlucky enough not to get a place in the port battle defense group you lose out on your victory mark because either the port is lost or you were not on the latest defense group if the port was retained. Secondly with only a 24 hour cooldown before hostility can be gained again it just leads to a repetitive grind to keep a port till either the attacking side or the defending side give up because people are burned out and cannot be bothered showing up anymore. It becomes similar to the days of port battle flags where a single port could be attacked night after night which led to burnout and people getting tired of the game. In reality after failing to capture a port it would take some time before a new attack could be mounted, so I would suggest that there be a maximum of 1 port battle per week per port (there are enough ports on the map that RvR would still be active), that way after a successful attack or defense the winners get a break to enjoy the port and receive their rewards and have time to rebuild their forces. It also stops people getting burnt out attacking or defending the same port over and over every couple of days. If it is felt that a week is too long then at least award the winners of the port battle a reward of victory mark immediately, but still increase the cooldown time after a successful defense to the same as after a successful attack.

The past month has seen a large decline in port battles and those groups who take the time and effort to create them. It seems every time I hear of someone saying "we should take X port" the immediate response is "will you grind it?" That may be acceptable and the effort required bring hostility to 100% allows both sides to engage in a fight whether that be to defend it, or the opportunity to kill players to make the PB happen faster through the hostility mechanic. I personally hear more folks dislike the current RvR mechanic and wish for change. I propose we drop Hostility missions and rework the old Flag mechanic to create something better. -------------------------------------------------- What I would keep 1. Time windows - the ability to leave it open, or to create a specific time window to defend in 2. Maintenance - I would adjust prices of maintenance, but still keep it. I would propose lowering the Time maintenance to 400k (so the maintenance is 500k and not 600k with a timer) 3. BR limits ------------------------------------------------- New Flag System: 1. Similar to the way Hostility works now, You must purchase the Flag a day before the intended port battle. You MUST purchase the flag within the port's time window as well. In order to Purchase a Flag, you must be the Leader, or Diplomat role within the clan. when the Flag is purchased, it is an item (like a book) and it is put into your personal warehouse in the port you are at, at the time of purchase. The flag can be place into the clan warehouse in order to allow Officers of the clan to gain access to it. A clan can only have ONE (can be adjusted) flag active at a time. I believe this does a few things. A. The moment you Purchase the flag, is the same time the Port Battle happens on the next day (24hrs from purchase) B. the limitation of who is allowed to purchase a Flag stops abuse of random flag purchasing. The limitation of Flag's active in a clan stops abuse of a clan activating tons of flags. C. Flag acting as an item makes it so it must be in a ships hold at the time of the port battle happening 2. The Flag itself makes the following happen: A. The "flag holder" must create a "Battle Group" in order to enter the Port Battle. B. The Flag is an Item that is "used" like a Book. You can ONLY use the flag after creating a Battle Group. you can ONLY use the flag on the DAY OF the Port Battle C. Only those players in the Battle Group made by the Flag bearer are able to enter the Port Battle. 3. If the Flag is destroyed (the player's ship is sunk) anytime BEFORE the Port Battle, the Port Battle is immediately cancelled and Whenever the PB would have happened, the defenders gain a 24 hour rest period (as it is now when a groups fails to take a port). 3A. If the Flag has been "used" and the Flag owner had created a Battle Group. the Battle Group is considered "the flag." This means Anyone in the Battle Group can Enter the Port Battle, This also means that in order for the Defenders to stop the attackers from entering the Port Battle, they must Defeat all enemy players in the Battle Group. This stops the "kamikaze" effect of killing the flag owner before the battle and forces the Defenders to make a real attempt at denying the enemy from entering (all of them). the defender is able to still kill the flag before the Port Battle. But the attacker can use the flag to still allow their battle group to enter. 4. Flags Cost Gold/Currency (for new patch) to create based on the Port's Battle Rating Limit. I don't know what the basis would be for price apart from BR limit. my initial thought is the following: 1,000 gold/currency per 1 BR. So a 2,400 Deep Water BR port's flag would cost 2.4 million. Side note - Shallow Water port flag cost would be reduced by 50% (so 500 gold/currency per 1 BR). ---------------------------------------------------- A port Battle works the same way it would now, you must achieve 1,000 points to win or last throughout the whole battle time (for defenders). If the FLAG bearer dies in a screen (OW) battle that just ensures the attackers are UNABLE to enter the port battle (Although I feel we could change this to something more agreeable if folks don't like this). ---------------------------------------------------- ABUSE CASES? Groups create multiple clans to create multiple flags --- Yeah ok, I don't really care. since Clans have a limited "friendly clan list" I don't see this getting bad or negatively affecting anything. Those who try and multi-flip will always try. Those who multi-flip can't win in a contested port battle so they will lose the port eventually anyway. Alt abuse? --- I don't see it. ----------------------------------------------------- Downsides? The one I can see is that since there are no more Hostility missions, you cannot "Stop" someone from trying to make a Port Battle happen on your port. But in the end, you can Screen the enemy out or win the Port Battle the next day anyway. EDIT all Underlined areas are Edited

Just fix it already @Ink, @admin this has beend mentioned countless times by now. Current example Spain grinding San Marcos & Las Sabinas in 1st rates. They cannot be stopped because no GB deep water port closeby and why the hell can you still grind shallow ports with 1st rates? This picturce shows Spanish hostility fleet in 1st rates at San Marcos yesterday with Brits deliberately trying to delay them: Surely it can be coded that shallow water port hostility missions can only be entered in 7th and 6th rates (maybe exclude Hercules from hostility, idk). An alternative suggestion would be to increase the shallow area around those ports, so that the defender does not wait outside the mission in deep water ships to intercept the attacker. This would also bring somewhat more diversity into open world pvp than the usual 1st rate battles happeneing everywhere by now.

Hello all powerful devs, As you know we have a fair few port battles tomorrow (04/03/2018). I understand that multiflipping is perfectly valid as a tactic as we know but as stated in "Alts for port battle activities - BAN WARNING" the use of alts to generate hostility is not permitted. I hereby accuse Christendom of using his American alt, ChristendomToo to flip RSC ports in the Bahamas, namely Marsh Harbour and La Desconcida (and perhaps Walker's Cay as well). So in short - Christendom/ChristendomToo Russia/USA Bahamas/Grand Bahamas Generation of hostility with the purpose of flipping the port. Evidence A thread with him stating that he did it on the forums

I have seen a lot of statements coming past in which we put PvP over PvE to show hostility. Even going so far as to remove PvE completely. Yet we when facing PvP to show hostility, we do not engage aka act out our hostility. That in itself is not a real problem, we can just count command of the sea to show hostility. you can't do that - due to no-shows or lower online in that nation And no shows or lower online are a reality and they lead to my earlier statement "no fun" on which we can all agree I think. So here we stand. At an impasse and out of ideas. So how would we want to show our hostility? (Yeah, yeah, I know the obvious "fun" way, but it must involve ships and cannons. )

I have a few suggestions for fixing the pirate nations. First off, a little bit about me, the most recent wipe will have been the 3Rd wipe I've been through. My first outing as a player was on the pve server getting my sea legs. Soon after I transferred over to global to start sinking players! I'm not by any stretch an expert at pvp and I rarely participate in rvr as I find it rather boring so take the following observations and suggestions for what they're worth. 1. The Pirates as a "national power" is simply absurd. How this managed to make its way in to a game rooted in so much realism is simply beyond me. This should not and can not be. As it stands, smaller nations act more as pirates (or privateers if you rather) than the Pirates do themselves. They should be based around open world pvp with the occasional sack of a town here and there. - Suggestions: - Pirates should be a faction based solely around pvp where only the most veteran players find success and Profit, thus pirates should receive higher rewards for capturing and or sinking ships. Furthermore pirates should also receive a significantly higher sell price for ships back to the port. To offset this, pirate pve missions should remain open and visible for the duration of the mission, as any ship being attacked would certainly be signaling frantically for help while being attacked. Player engagement timers are fine the way they are. Other national factions should receive a slight buff in income of pve missions, and a significant buff in income from sinking pirate players as they are a scourge on the open seas. (maybe also receive a slight buff to income for sinking war targets if the alliance system were to come back, which I think it should, pirates would not be able to participate in diplomacy) 2. Pirates should neither be able to capture nor lose ports. - Suggestions: pirates should not be holding regional capitals, that's absurd. Instead the Pirates should have a total of 4-6 ports spread across the map from which to base out of, free towns would be a good idea, they would also be the only faction able to teleport between free towns so they may move around and plunder different areas with impunity. Raising hostility would do 2 things. First stolen or contraband good would be produced only in ports that the Pirates have raised hostility in. The goods would be extremely cheap and have very high sell prices in other portions of the map which does 2 things, brings more traders to the are where the hostility is raised and offer more gentle players in the pirate nation a valuable trade good to generate cash. The amount of these goods available should reflect the amount of hostility in the region. Another interesting thing would be to raise pvp rewards for killing pirates where the hostility is above a certain percentage. The weight of said goods should reflect the value. Should the Pirates set a port battle, the port battle should be a "raid". If the Pirates succeed in the raid, they should hold the port for 3 days after which it reverts back to its original nationality prior to the raid. After the port reverts, the port can not gain hostility for a week and the hostility will drop x amount per day back to 0 before the 7 days has elapsed. During the occupation, pirates receive a 25% discount on all resources in the port both npc and player contract items. This could extend to ships on sale as well. Pirates also would have free repairs and crew replacement in the port during the occupation. 3. Pirates in lineships -Suggestions: pirates should be limited to the construction of a level 2 shipyard. With a discount on the amount resources for crafting 5th and 6th rates. I would say that pirates should have no access to lineships at all but I feel that would take out a lot of fun for the faction, perhaps pirates sailing a sol would suffer speed, reload, and maneuverability penalties. National powers should receive a discount on the crafting of 1St, 2ND, and 3Rd rates. These discounts would also vary a slight amount based on the amount of regions held by the nation. 4. Victory marks Suggestions: since pirates would have no way of obtaining victory marks, I think a variant of the conquest mark system should be implemented. Once a region reaches 100% hostility, pirates should get an injection of x amount of combat marks instantly, however only players that get a certain percent of the hostility will receive them. Also, if the port battle is won they should receive x amount of additional combat marks each day the port is in their possession which would again apply to only the players present at the pb. This would hopefully encourage the Pirates to open up multiple fronts against multiple nations. These are a few of my suggestions and ideas. Let me know what you think.

What percentage does hostility in regions go down by per maintenance?

As one of the admins posted in another thread : " the conquest is still being discussed/reworked. Current ideas are 1) return conquest flag - sell it for pvp marks and create PB on purchase removing all exploits potential 2) change (bring back) hostility missions to only generate for regional capitals and be open all the time (allow missions to generate only for nearest 2 enemy regions - to create some form of frontlines " These are the only possibilities to achieve sustainable conquest in the game. Why? 1 .FLAGS: Pos : Surprise, unpredictability, Conquest around the map(FOR THOSE WHO LIKE IT)Gather players,purchase flag and go. If you want to throw away the PVP marks,by not showing up in a PB, thats your problem/nations, and most important thing(NATIONS NUMBERS DO NOT MATTER), forces players to sail the f..k out Neg : Conquest around the map(SOME MIGHT NOT LIKE IT), Abuse through alt accounts,(who is this guy who bought the flag, wtf is going on) Abuse through multiple flag buys(although this is the only way of confusing enemy and forcing him to sail out)--imo this could be prevented by 72 hours cooldown on regions to avoid player attrition,and buying simultaneously ONLY 3 flags. 2. HOSTILITY : Pos : Idea of FRONTLINE, PvP self explanatory due the presence of friends and foes,(which are considered as such:) ) focus on certain areas. Neg: Blockbuilding(again),danger of "forever trying to rise hostility" ,NATIONS NUMBERS MATTER,unability to operate "mapwide",absence of surprise and unpredictability leads to static, in long terms boring conquest. Myself prefer FLAGS because of the named positive aspects. I would like to dicuss with my fellows in clan, and other clans in nation which areas are needed,and we can decide on our own where to go. Dynamic conquest does not force me to focus on regions which are useless,have no resources,but because of the game mechanics HAVE to be taken.Blue,red or yellow dots on the map DO NOT MATTER, silver,gold and refits do.:) With a given cooldown of AT LEAST 96 hours, it is worth for a nation to make an effort,conquer the region,AND gather resources in case of being defeated after cooldown by previous owner. Player attrition is not given, because the conquest can be organized by anyone,anywhere,for whatever the reasons.Take part or don`t. I hope one day there will be some sort of campaign for each nation.That is what i would like to see Thank you for reading.

When grinding up a port battle at Castries our missions was joined by 4 french players who after a moment of fighting proceeded to run away up wind for the full hour the fight had remaining despite requests to leave if they had no intention of fighting us. They ran away dragging our mission out for the full 1.5 hours despite repeated offers and requests to leave if they did not want to fight. I would like a ruling on if this is acceptable behavior, as if this is ok then we WILL start using the same to prevent flips at times we don't want. As it stands the result is the french get a battle late at night instead at the target time of 20:00 as i will not call of my hostility fleet for griefing. pics http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=880904905 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=880905081 video (45 min long of them running away until we slowly catch and kill them)

So, here's an odd idea I had. Premise: the gripe with port battles vis-a-vis nightflips and so on does not look like it will be resolved in the near future (for reasons that have been discussed in boatloads of other threads, so let's not rehash this here). It appears to me that the root causes people get so emotionally worked up are that, currently, the culmination and decisive point for conquering a region is happening at one point in time, in a very narrow time-frame (two hours for the battle, more like two minutes for the join window). Thus individual captains are upset when they themselves cannot take part in the decisive engagement, and nations as a whole are aggrieved as ports can change hands because of awkward timing rather than combat success (whether with malice aforethought or not, that’s not my point here). The hostility generation on the other hand, is less problematic: for one thing, it happens around the clock, so everyone can have a go; and its separate engagements are not individually decisive, so adrenaline levels are lower. So – thought experiment – what if we turn this on its head? The port battle opens conquest, rather than closing it: there is no pre-requisite for declaring a Target Region, merely an advance warning window (48 hrs or so); a limit to the number of Target Regions a nation can declare in parallel; and the requirement to declare an Attacking Region. Then the opening PB happens after 48ish hours. Defender wins PB: nothing happens. Attacker wins PB: the region is now open for conquest. Think: the port defences have been broken, and a beach-head has been established. Now we have different kinds of missions to generate Superiority (rather than Hostility). These missions run parallel, for a period of time. PvP engagements in Target Region: to gain/refute control of the sea-lanes. (Superiority accrues like the scores in the Admirality Events) Player convoys: running trader ships with War Supplies from Attacking Region to Target Region. Similar to War Supplies now. AI convoys: both Attackers and Defenders are notified in Missions tab that: Fleet of [trading vessels] will leave Attacking Region Capital for Defending Region Capital on [date and time]. If those AI ships make it to the Attacking Region’s capital, attacker scores Superiority, if they are taken or sunk, Defender scores. Nail mission: both Attackers and Defenders are notified in Missions tab that: [AI Fighting Vessel] carrying important personage will leave Attacking Region for Defending Region on [date and time]. If this AI ship makes it to the Attacking Region’s capital, attacker scores Superiority, if it is taken, Defender scores. Minor Port battles: open the non-capital ports for port battles, the outcome of which will contribute Superiority [randomtaskkk's idea] Smugglers: smuggling contraband into or out of the Target Region contributes Superiority for the attacker [Wraith's idea] After a period of time (2 days maybe?), conquest operations cease, and Superiority scores are tallied. If the Attacker wins, the region changes hands. So, in a nutshell we go from “distributed Hostility opens decisive single port battle” to “single port battle enables distributed Superiority engagements, which will decide conquest”. Worth thinking about, or utter balderdash? Discuss (in a civilised manner, please )!

I may be a little behind the curve on this due to the time from the announcement of implementing raids and now, but I figured I'd share my two cents on the matter. Hopefully the community and developers like this concept enough to support and adopt it as future gameplay. Conquest: Taking Control of Counties. Conquest should happen by port battles as it does now, though how we get to port battles will be a little different - through raiding non-capital towns. A captain would be able to purchase a Raid token from the Admiralty (or Brethren Council). Once acquired, the captain would sail to the port they wish to raid and plant their Raid flag within ship-sight of the port docks. This functions much like the old assault flag system did with a few differences: 1) Purchasing a Raid Token does not send a notification to the entire server on which port it is intended for. In fact, Raid tokens are not assigned to a specific port at all*. Any non-capital can be raided at any time*. 2) Sailing through waters controlled by non-allied nations will highlight their territorial waters in red on the map if that port is able to be raided by the token the ship is carrying (see below). Doing so will send a chat notification to the nation that owns that particular port as well (e.g. "Admiralty Notification: Salina Point has spotted a Raid Fleet!"). 2a) Any town that is actively being raided or having a raid token planted will have its territory flash red (as contested ports do) on the map. 3) Raid tokens are differentiated between Shallow and Deep, with restrictions to prevent their being carried by under-rated fast ships. For instance Shallow raid tokens would only able to be held by 6th-rates, and Deep raid tokens could only be able to be held by 4th-rates and up. This fits with the theme of having a literal Flag Ship - the biggest and scariest ship in your fleet. Even if you intend on conducting a raid using, say, Privateers and Cutters, that Heavy Rattlesnake bringing up the rear should be the one with the flag. Raids tokens would also have enough weight that carrying one would preclude carrying more than one additional on board. 4) If a Raid is successful, the individual town in question will become Contested by the raiding nation for 48 hours. If the Raid fails, the port will instead be on High Alert and invulnerable to further raids for the next 72 hours. Upon exiting a Contested state, a town will enter a High Alert status for 24 hours, and Reconstruction for 48 hours during which its defenses will be lessened, but the Raid treasury will also be reduced. Reconstruction can be lessened by delivering War Supplies (or some other similar good) to the town in question to reduce its Reconstruction state by 6-8 hours. 4a) Once a Raid commences, all other non-capital towns enter High Alert for 6 hours and cannot be raided, whether the triggering Raid is successful or not. 5) If, at any point, the majority of non-capital towns (>50%, not =50%) are Contested by the same nation, a Port Battle is scheduled for the following day (or so) around the time that the last town became Contested. This could be done similar to the present means, 22 or 46 hours afterward, or a randomized time +/- 2-3 hours around the time the last port became Contested. 5a) Once a port battle is scheduled, as above, any non-capitals that are Contested will remain Contested until the port battle. If the aggressors in this conflict successfully raid the remaining uncontested ports (if any), the defenses of the capital will be reduced by a certain percentage for each town (minimum half normal strength). 6) If the attackers in a Port Battle are successful, all towns immediately become Contested and change to the victors following maintenance and follow the same pattern as Raided towns (High Alert for 24 hours, Reconstruction for 48). If the defenders of a Port Battle are successful, all towns in the county immediately enter High Alert for 72 hours. Raids: Sacking and Looting Once a Raid begins using the above flag-planting method, attackers will then have 90 minutes to sail in and take the town. Joining a Raid is similar to joining a Port Battle now - an inner Defender circle, and an outer Attacker circle. Attackers usually have the advantage in the element of surprise, but Raiding a town is a tough sell in any case; the objective in a Raid is to sail up to the town and defeat all of its Militia, either by bombarding with cannons or "boarding" the town - there are no capture circles or zones, though sailing too far from the port (5+ km?) will force an attacker to immediately exit (if they are otherwise normally able to) in order to prevent "holding the battle". If the Raid is successful, the town becomes Contested and all attacking participants are distributed a share of gold (and/or other rewards, including admiralty/council vouchers) from the town's coffers (Shallow towns as small as 2 million, perhaps - 80k each for a full 25-ship battle). This sounds easy, but it is complicated by the fact that the forts and towers are still present and will prioritize any ship closest to the town. The towns are also tough nuts to crack - Shallow ports could have up to 500 militia with up to 10% of those as Marines, while Lineship Capitals could have as many as 5000 milita, up to half of which are Marines. Bombing the town with mortars and ball are the most effective at killing defenders, but they also damage the town and will reduce the gold share from the coffers. Captains that engage in boarding will need to be careful with crew setups and boarding commands to avoid being taken by the town. Defenders will need to sink, capture, or drive off all attackers to be successful, but they will receive Admiralty awards if they are. A Raid, like a Port Battle, remains open indefinitely, but the defensive victory condition will engage after 15 minutes; if there's no live attacking ships after 15 minutes, the defenders win. Additionally, War Supplies will become a purely defensive tool; supplying a town, capital or otherwise, with War Supplies will increase the number of town militia, fort guns and militia, small increases to the range of the forts and towers, and potentially even additional Martello towers. At no point should the forts and towers cover the entirety of the combat zone, however. War Supplies: Reinforcing your Defenses Each War Supply will provide the supplied town with 1% Equipment, 2% Supplies, and 0.5% Defense Fleet. Each town starts with 0% Equipment (base values, existing fort defenses and guns with no bonuses), 0% Supplies (base values, existing fort/tower crews and town militia - 250/10%, 800/20%, and 2000/30% respectively), and 20% Defense Fleet (4 random typical ships, most likely 1 2nd rate and 3 3rd rates for a Lineship port). At 100% Equipment, the number of Martello towers is doubled and all fort guns and towers receive a size buff (up one or two weights), a 20% range bonus, a 20% reload bonus, and a 20% accuracy bonus. At 100% Supply, all fort/tower crews are doubled and have increased marines (doubled, up to 50%), and the town's militia and marine percentages are doubled (max 50% marines). At 100% Defense Fleet, the fleet will total 20 and be weighted such that about half of the ships are the best possible for the fight (Heavy Rattles, Aggies/Connies/Waffles, Vics/Oceans/Santis). Towns with high defenses need to keep them maintained, however. Equipment will decay at 2.5% per day when above 50%, Supplies will decay at 5% per day when above 25%, and Defense Fleet will decay at 2% per day when above 40%. This guarantees that not -all- War Supply contributions will be wasted, but maintaining the best possible values for defense will require continuous effort and Labor Hour usage. A single player could supply enough to keep a town's defenses high, but it'll heavily cut into their other crafting. If a Raid or PB are successful, then the defenses reset to base values. If the town is successfully defended, defenses instead reset to the maximum for non-decay. Port Battles: The End Goal Port Battles would be conducted rather similarly to how they are at present, with a few key exceptions: Instead of three circles, one large capture circle, 2.5-4 km in radius, centered on the port. The goal is to have one large combat zone that is approximately half-way covered by fort guns. Defenders would start in this zone and have the initial advantage. Victory Points would be accrued by the BR difference of ships in the combat zone as well as ship captures/sinks/escapes and fort/tower destruction. VPs would instead be accrued at a rate of 1 VP/second per 100/200/400 (6th/4th/1st rates) points of BR difference, capped at 10 VP/sec. Victory for either side would occur at 10,000 VP. Defenders could also win by driving off all opposing ships, while Attackers would have to destroy all land defenses as well as take control of the town (see Raids above). After 60 minutes of battle, the point rate will double every minute (2 VP/s for 60-61, 4 VP/s for 61-62, 8 VP/s for 62-63, and so on). This way, a fight that is dragging out with one side only having 4,000 VP, having had a steady, but slow advantage, will quickly start to wrap things up as the battle draws to a close, ensuring that a port battle will almost never end without one side being victorious. As with Raids, War Supplies will affect the defenses of the town in question similarly. It should be noted that the BR difference is truncated; with one side only having 350 BR greater for a Lineship battle, no VP would be accrued. If the difference is instead 700 BR, it's still only 1 VP/sec. BR of a ship should be dynamic and based on crew - That big L'Ocean with 1,100 crew that suffers a few solid rakes down to 400 crew will not have nearly as much BR to contribute. This victory method is known as the Show-of-Force victory and is useful if only a few opponents show up to contest the battle or attempt to harass and drag out the battle by skirmishing in and out of the combat zone. On the other side, an unopposed battle will only last under 17 minutes. Since the VP rate is also capped at a base of 10 VP per second, that means that having more than 1000/2000/4000 BR will have no additional effect beyond the maximum rate. The accelerating rate after an hour of fighting is multiplied off of this base amount. Let me know what you think, and as always: numbers presented are for the purpose of illustration - they are details that can be adjusted. The concepts are more important than specific numbers.

I wanted to split this topic off from the announcement thread that promises to reach epic length and drown individual queries... Hostility system will get dropped and port battles will be arranged by purchasing them in the admiralty (simliar to the old assault flag system but without exploitation). Lord protectors might return to provide some clarity for port battle timers. 1. Okay - I *think* this is aimed at making it possible to trigger port battles more spontaneously - like *asap*. But then I realized I was assuming that there wouldn't be a 46 hour countdown from buying the PB flag to when the PB starts like there currently is with hostility. @admin Could you clarify this please? After buying the PB flag, will there continue to be a minimum advance warning/prep interval that a PB is coming (22/46 hr... whatever) or do you intend to allow the PB to start asap? 2. If the intent is for no warning/prep interval, then the Lord Protector windows are an absolute must-have from day 1. Otherwise the current controversy over night-flips will seem trivial compared to the nuclear meltdowns that will erupt when people wake up to find their region has been conquered without warning while they slept or were at work. Part of me likes asap PBs as it might mean wider PB participation as the same-o same-o PB elites (sorry - they definitely exist) can't react to every flag unless they live in Naval Action (which is entirely possible ) 3. There have been more than a few knee-jerk reactions against hostility being dropped. I don't want to overreact but I'm afraid I'm in that camp too. I don't agree with dropping the entire hostility mechanic either. While I sincerely did not like the PvE Combat Mission implementation, I did like the concept of a national campaign effort towards a PB. IMO a good move would be to have the Admiralty PB flag mechanism for an uber-expensive PvE road to PBs like War Supplies without the crafting grind or potential for traitorous Alt griefing, and implement the Blockade Zone suggestion for a PvP based mechanic.

I would suggest reintroducing the warbombing or flags as well as port battle timers. The reason why is that the current mechanic isn't working as intended and I doubt that a meaningfull solution can be created on basis of the current mechanics. Atm the bombs have merely changed from warsupplies to a combination of warsupplies and hostility missions.. The tactic: Make missions in the target area - enough to produce 50% hostility. Don't leave battlescreen before the warsupplies have been dropped. The points for hostility creation doesn't count before you leave battlescreen and thereby you avoid those nasty ppl who wants to prevent your hostility creation.. The dutch have done it twice now and even though I relish the chance to sink them in PB it doesn't change the fact that it's a bit cowardly and above all - against the intended purpose of hostility missions. As far as I know there's no real way to count hostility points created in battle instance before battle ends and therefore this mechanic can be used again and again. I applaud btw the dutch for finding this gap in the mechanic and I will greet them in appropriate fashion from my weatherdeck cannons So as I don't recon there's much chance to fix this I'd recommend either returning to flagsystem (I'd be a bit dissappointed) or reintroducing warsupplies as a means to bump hostility to 100% as well as hostility missions.. Above all I think the defending side should be able to decide the window in which the PB can be created - a return to port timers that is. I know some aussies and US players will find it difficult, but the majority of the playerbase cannot - and should not - be forced to stay up at wee hours in the night to fight PBs at the attackers leisure.

Gaining hostility on a region has a problem with group play. Right now it is way to efficient to push hostility by doing fleet missions alone. It does take around 12 - 16 Kommendör (186xp) missions going solo to push hostility up to 100%. If a group of players do missions together the hostility gain through missions is not as fast. Group play is discouraged with this mechanic right now. The overall hostility gain does seem a bit high right now but I suspect that this is one of the things accelerated in the current test phase.

So Guys, this idea doesnt come from me, i stumbled upon in the forums, but think it is time to advertise it here because it may solve many problems with Hostility Generation Solution for broken Hostility system: ---> UNREST system !!! ---> When Ships / a fleet is in enemy waters, it generates "UNREST" (Hostility) over time !!! The more and bigger the ships are, the longer they manage to stay, the more ships they sink, the nearer to Port they are ---> the more hostility is generated !!! ---> Unrest (Hostility) is ONLY generated when the ships are in the Open World near the contested Port or fighting in a Battle !!! If they just log off in enemy waters or wait in Battle Screen, etc. ---> NOTHING gets generated !!! ---> The defender has time to rally ships to combat them, know where they are and can try to drive them away !!! We would get what was intended with the Hostility system: ---> PvP !!! Only ONE premise has to get changed: ---> Make EVERY port attackable, so the area in which the enemy fleet can generate hostility is limited and they can be found easily !!! maybe's changes: ---> to conquer a whole region, you have to begin with smaller ports, giving you a beachhead in the region ---> the moment, an enemy has conquered ONE Port, the regional Bonus isnt available to any of them: nor the defender and the attacker ---> only if a country owns EVERY port in the region, they get the regional bonus !!! This way, we will get massive PvP and fairly generated Hostility !! And Traders are affecting Hostilty also when delivering Cargo to those Ports !! /discuss

I believe hostility system is a step into the right direction, however it’s not working now. Fixing it may improve the game significantly. I’m saying this as a guy who proposed the system in the first place ( afaik ). Sometimes systems don’t work as you intended, or are modified to not to work as intended Edit: The newest version of this post is available under link below. It's constantly updated and allows you to put your comments on top of the text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QReWu6p7LJ3hhKpi4Lf5pbKQrK9NeqDVZU8NdTJtm5c/edit# What doesn’t work: hostility mainly generates PvE, not PvP system of entering PB’s is prone to exploits (log off screen, wave of screeners jump out of harbour) without using exploits, a decently organised defender has a huge advantage, making capturing a port extremely hard and costly system generates 1-2 battles per nation per week, with no meaningful encounters in between (not counting PvE) larger nations gain big advantage in both hostility generation, as quantity is quality now war supply hostility bump is not limited, allowing for a hostility bomb tactic What is important to notice: RvR is completely a domain of clans, and as such every system related with RvR should support clans people want screening encounters, it’s worth to give it to them people want more or less fair fights, which balance out nation size difference and which require skill, not numbers players raising hostility are PvP, not PvE players. It’s hard to convince PvE player to join even a PvE hostility generation mission. That’s why hostility should focus around PvP port battle system should value people's time, giving them interesting, meaningful and fair encounters quickly, without tedious work Some ideas to improve the current system: remove PvE missions completely. Instead, when attacking fleet reaches the mission, launch a notification that the fleet is raising hostility. Allow for any defending captain in an attacked region to teleport to a battle, filling in defending fleet to a BR limit of an attacker. In case defenders don’t show up, raise hostility by X and allow to launch next mission eg. 10 minutes later. this still allows for uneven screening tactics, however it also promotes PvP battles of different fleets in even encounters it saves time of players to get a good PvP In case players won’t show up on a regular basis, you could tweak mechanism to fill in defender’s fleet with AI up to attacker’s BR create war supply encounters, where eg. 4-28 hours in advance (chosen by attacker) there’s a notice that war supplies will be delivered to a harbour. Delivery ships would be allowed to deliver goods only in the specified time (eg. 1 hour), raising hostility eg. only by 50% if all goes well. This would allow for a large screening operations and delivery operations. it makes economy significant for war effort it could be launched both by a defender and attacker it would create more of meaningful encounters at times when port battles are rare, and often happen once per week it empowers organization that clans offer multiple other types of missions could be created with a similar mechanic. Eg. raids could be set 4-28 hours in advance, requiring attacker to sail his ships into the harbour within 30 minutes. Any ship that would get in would have to reach a certain area and eg. stay there unattached for 2 minutes to raise hostility, while defenders could join battle only to a limit of attacker's BR already in the mission. This could raise hostility eg. by up to 30% adds variety allows for experiments with different mission mechanics, defining which are fun, in the same time not influencing player's experience so much creates another opportunity for screening encounters Those are more or less rough ideas. If they were thought through and modified in search of corner cases and exploits, I think after implementation they would improve experience a lot. They would also make game available for much more players who don’t have time to sail for 3 hours in search for PvP, however would likely invest 30 minutes in order to do so. It would make organized even PvP battles more often, which is probably the best side of NA. ps. My first post wasn’t noticed probably since it was in on 5’th page of a large thread, and as such TLDR. That’s why I create this one in a separate thread.