pls change timers

[admin]

There are two ways were are considering

• Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).
• Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous

[TrackTerror]

13 minutes ago, admin said:

There are two ways were are considering

• Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).
• Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous

I think the upkeep of ports should be dynamic and scale with the total accumulated wealth on the server, each server restart. This way  it will auto correct itself in line future changes to income as well.

[Christendom]

7 minutes ago, admin said:

There are two ways were are considering

• Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).
• Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous

War supplies and items purchased to flip ports (aka flags) were universally disliked.  Skip this.

Option 2 is a better solution I think.  Maybe VMs instead of PVP marks?  Another thought would be to limit the amount of regions you can have timers on.  some arbitrary amount like 5.  

[Kloothommel]

2 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Another thought would be to limit the amount of regions you can have timers on.  some arbitrary amount like 5.  

I really like that idea. Force to pick the most important ports for timers. The rest is just fun time. less salt, more fights. I like!

[Wojtek]

17 minutes ago, admin said:

There are two ways were are considering

• Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).
• Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous

The second option seems to be better, but we can not lead to a situation where the clan will not be able to defend itself due to the playerbase from the given time zone.

Just think about that and ask community, and i belive that u would figure out a good and fair mechanic.

[z4ys]

1 hour ago, admin said:

There are two ways were are considering

• Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).

I prefer this in case the war would take place during a time both paties can be on and if its not like hostility bomb (sail once and get 100%). Otherwise it would just bring back boring night flip and ways to prevent pvp.

if this is to complex i prefer

Quote

Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by z4ys

[ScipioTortuga]

Just making the timer three hours longer would also solve stuff.

[Bloody Hound]

if you were going to use war supplies again can you not do it so you use war supplies just increases the Port timer window. So lets say the Defender sets it at 11:00-14:00 after every X amount of war supplies done in that window by attackers increases by 1 hour so it's then 11:00-15:00 you do another lot and it'll then be 11:00-16:00

 

Don't know if anyone understands what i mean or feel about this? As i was not around when war supplies were introduced as i was taking a break  

Atleast that way you're not outright changing the time the defenders set , you're just increasing it by 1 hour and eventually you'll get it to a point where it'll be in a better time frame for attackers in theory?

Edited March 2, 2018 by Bloody Hound

[Palatinose]

2 hours ago, Christendom said:

 Another thought would be to limit the amount of regions you can have timers on.  some arbitrary amount like 5.  

Everybody will found random clans with no use but to widen your territory.

The vm thing could work with every participant of a successful pb getting vm and IF the gained amount of vm is high enough to supply a reasonable amount of ports.

E.g. getting one vm per week per player - independent of the lord protectors leaderboard aka one vm no matter how many pbs one finished successful. setting the costs at one vm per week per port with a timer will allow a clan to maintain about 50% of the amount of players involved into rvr, considering the other 50% will be necessary to maintain a 1st rate fleet.

Ports without timers usually don't result in battles. At least not in battles in which both parties are actively participating. Sure now one could argue it's just dots on the map who needs them? Ask the casuals that don't participate in rvr but need the "safe" environment for what the hell do i know what to do. Okay while writing this i come to the conviction that it just makes damn sense to make maintenance expensive. If the port is necessarily needed it will be put a timer upon. If not, so be it.

[Rabman]

4 hours ago, admin said:

There are two ways were are considering

• Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).
• Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous

What is the goal of the timer change to force empty battles and more PvE? Granted there are some port timer shenanigans going on now, but as it stands, the Euro's will take every port we North American players have without timers, and we'll have no one online to defend. It's bad enough server reset is right in the Euro daytime, which prevents us from being able to be involved in retaking any neutral ports or defending allied ports, the timers will presumably shift in the Euro daytime and thus block us out of that as well.

We need a solution that accommodates all time-zones and is not partial to Euro hours.

This change will inevitably move toward a release of many ports and as such releasing of ports should be randomized throughout the day, or the implementation of the new proposed system you had regarding VM's being awarded based upon a scaling port holding system. Then no one has to play collect the dots.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Rabman

[King of Crowns]

3 hours ago, admin said:

There are two ways were are considering

• Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).
• Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous

so controlling port is nothing more than a expense already in this game. if you increase the cost it will be much cheaper to just buy the vic mark off of other nations that will have the lord protector status. 20 pvp marks per day per port is not practical. especially for the night crew that has to play the game with 180 people online. we search for hours every night to maybe find one good fight. if you want to make it gold sure that's fine. but pvp marks is not the right solution due to the fact that you guys have killed your USA player base. therefore, the night crew has a much harder time finding pvp than the day crew. 

[King of Crowns]

4 hours ago, admin said:

There are two ways were are considering

• Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).
• Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous

here is a little math for you. right now WO controls 12 ports. costing us 2.4 mil a day give or take and we wont even get a victory mark this week due to the fail of the daytime French. the going rate of victory mark at gustavia is 300k. so if you increase the cost. then we just relase all the ports except the one or two that acutally generate income or are in strategic positions. I'm sure the rest of the players would do the same once they realize how cost ineffective it is. you still haven't solved a major problem and that is that the majority of your ports in this game are useless. SADLY port battles are the only content we have still...... even after 2 years in this game. maybe your pvp missions will make it better I don't know.... but we are starved for content. port battling is barely worth it now. if you increase your maintenance cost it for sure will be a waste of time. 

[Palatinose]

12 minutes ago, Rabman said:

What is the goal of the timer change to force empty battles and more PvE? Granted there are some port timer shenanigans going on now, but as it stands, the Euro's will take every port we North American players have without timers, and we'll have no one online to defend. It's bad enough server reset is right in the Euro daytime, which prevents us from being able to be involved in retaking any neutral ports or defending allied ports, the timers will presumably shift in the Euro daytime and thus block us out of thatat aswell

Don't you think this is a global phenomenon? There also will be many euro ports which you guys could take.

In my Imagination there will be ports that will probably switch the owner constantly. Because theyre not important enough to be kept but also not good in the enemies hands. It's to be seen whether there will be any real battles upon those ports. 

Furthermore there will be ports noone needs and which will just be neutral or well, without timer but noone cares. 

And there will be those ports that are important and therefore protected by timers.

Idon't see a problem there? 

For example imagine the franco-souedois boarder lands: gouadeloupe dominica etc. They will be fought upon because the only reason sweden is holding these ports is that france doesnt own (some rude swedes might say deserve) them and to have a quick way into french core territory. On the other hand - what would france do with those ports as many are not valuable. Pay tremendous sums. 

It's just a thought, correct me if Im wrong..

[Rabman]

1 minute ago, Palatinose said:

Don't you think this is a global phenomenon? There also will be many euro ports which you guys could take.

In my Imagination there will be ports that will probably switch the owner constantly. Because theyre not important enough to be kept but also not good in the enemies hands. It's to be seen whether there will be any real battles upon those ports. 

Furthermore there will be ports noone needs and which will just be neutral or well, without timer but noone cares. 

And there will be those ports that are important and therefore protected by timers.

Idon't see a problem there? 

For example imagine the franco-souedois boarder lands: gouadeloupe dominica etc. They will be fought upon because the only reason sweden is holding these ports is that france doesnt own (some rude swedes might say deserve) them and to have a quick way into french core territory. On the other hand - what would france do with those ports as many are not valuable. Pay tremendous sums. 

It's just a thought, correct me if Im wrong..

I agree with you if they address the first underlying problem which is the need for maximum dots for the conquest game and VM's. Once this moves to a Lord Protector VM system instead, the need for all of these ports will go away and the wealth as it were can be spread around. Once that happens, these secondary mechanics are probably not necessary, and we could in fact have ports as designated battle grounds for fun. I know my clan would only hold one or two ports, because all others are unnecessary for our purposes.

[Christendom]

10 minutes ago, Rabman said:

I agree with you if they address the first underlying problem which is the need for maximum dots for the conquest game and VM's. Once this moves to a Lord Protector VM system instead, the need for all of these ports will go away and the wealth as it were can be spread around. Once that happens, these secondary mechanics are probably not necessary, and we could in fact have ports as designated battle grounds for fun. I know my clan would only hold one or two ports, because all others are unnecessary for our purposes.

brits will just pick up all the ports as they always do.  When the necessity for holding 50 ports goes away, I wonder how much action will be left in the game.  I look forward to the change....unnecessary ports for marks are the only thing keeping it afloat i think.

[SKurj]

and another option... 3 nations... not 11.. or whatever the number is now...   then all nations would have a more even population spread possible at all hours of the day and theoretically more potential for rvr.

[Slim McSauce]

5 hours ago, admin said:

There are two ways were are considering

• Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).
• Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous

Do both, you can either defend using economy or defend using PVP power.

Just having the 2nd option, people don't have a hard time getting PVP marks it won't change anything

[Landsman]

1 hour ago, SKurj said:

more potential for rvr

Doesn't really make sense to be honest... if your nation owns 1/3 ports of the map ( assuming perfect balance for the sake of this hypothesis ) then you have only 2/3 of the map to attack, while currently your nation would own 1/11, being able to attack 10/11... it's the same with PvP as redii already mentioned - less allies = more targets. Also having only 3 big players in the game would make it a bit boring imo...

[Christendom]

On 3/1/2018 at 5:38 AM, Gregory Rainsborough said:

And salt, don't forget the salt.

Oh the salt was flowing this morning.

 

Props go out to the other nations and captains involved in Operation Octopussy.  Way too many PMs and forum messages to keep track of.  

Edited March 3, 2018 by Christendom

[Palatinose]

Ohohohooomuhahahaha 

[Kloothommel]

2 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Let's see the prime fleet of RSC.

>sets all timers on what window and not even prime time for his clan

>gets mad about multiflipping

Indeed. They should all be full.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Cornelis Tromp

[Christendom]

my only regret is someone blabbed and they moved little harbor.  oh well.  There are a lot of unhappy US players that are upset we're generating content.  

[Abram Svensson]

10 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Props go out to the other nations and captains involved in Operation Octopus.

Screams for a new profile pic ^^

[Kloothommel]

1 minute ago, Abram Svensson said:

Screams for a new profile pic ^^

 

[Christendom]

1 minute ago, Abram Svensson said:

Screams for a new profile pic ^^

am I the morning king now?