Increase time before hostility can be gained again

[Archaos]

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.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

I like the idea but I think a week might be too long, the amount of time that you get when you take a port should be sufficient.

The problem with giving them immediately is that people would just get friendly nations to flip their ports constantly.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Gregory Rainsborough

[Sir Texas Sir]

What I never understood was why is a successful defense you only get a 48 (or is it 24?) hours cool down while a successful attack and capture it's something like 72 hour cool down?  2 vs 3 days shouldn't both have the same cool down?  In fact a successful defense should really have a longer cool down as they all ready just buckled down and defended that port so they are ready for any other attacks.

[Tiedemann]

Who here wants less content!? Seriously it is ridiculous! RvR brings so much PvP content to this game and defenders have so much advantage it's insane. Defenders can counter attack the hostility missions with huge advantage, they can screen out enemy PB fleet, in the PB defenders have towers and forts, they do not need to bring mortar brigs and they do not need to get 1000 points to win, just deny the enemy to get to 1000 points.

If you own an attractive port either because of location, resource or the combination you must realize that this would bring a lot of content your way. If your enemy want to keep throwing content at you even though they are have lost 10. time row, why should you slow down their possibility to do so?

If all you wanted was victory marks, you should have taken a less popular port. 

 

   

[Archaos]

7 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:

If you own an attractive port either because of location, resource or the combination you must realize that this would bring a lot of content your way.

This has not really worked as intended in the game has it? When was the last time Cartagena de Indias or Esteros or any othere of the very profitable ports come under attack? People have just circumvented it with alts.

[Archaos]

32 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

I like the idea but I think a week might be too long, the amount of time that you get when you take a port should be sufficient.

The problem with giving them immediately is that people would just get friendly nations to flip their ports constantly.

The thing is the only reward for RvR apart from knowing you won, is the victory marks which are given once a week. You could do 2 port battles in a week and still end up with nothing because the port was lost on a Sunday or you could not get into the port battle group for the last battle.

[Ketunpoika]

@admin & @Ink

Protect GB! Please! They need your help!

 

Why this one nation is crying allways when somebody creates content?

[Hethwill]

No CaribbeanNews comments/logic, please.

Correct board for that is not on Suggestions.

Carry on.

[Archaos]

17 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:

Who here wants less content!? Seriously it is ridiculous

Its not about reducing content, its about giving proper reward for successfully winning, that reward should be the VM and a respite before you have to face the same thing again. There are plenty of ports on the map that there should still be plenty of RvR. Make the RvR more dynamic so people do not get tired of the same old battle again and again.

[Ketunpoika]

5 minutes ago, Archaos said:

1. Its not about reducing content, its about giving proper reward for successfully winning, that reward should be the VM and a respite before you have to face the same thing again. 2.There are plenty of ports on the map that there should still be plenty of RvR. Make the RvR more dynamic so people do not get tired of the same old battle again and again.

1. Yes it does.

2. Take a look the map and resource's (like Little Cayman)

[Archaos]

29 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:

Defenders can counter attack the hostility missions with huge advantage

You know this is not true, because the attackers can have the hostility almost completed before the defenders even realize hostility is being gained by having multiple hostility missions and keeping last AI alive and co-ordinating so that hostility almost instantly reaches 100%

 

[Archaos]

5 minutes ago, Ketunpoika said:

1. Yes it does.

2. Take a look the map and resource's (like Little Cayman)

By that logic Cartagena de Indias should be attacked daily, but its not?????

[Ketunpoika]

6 minutes ago, Archaos said:

You know this is not true, because the attackers can have the hostility almost completed before the defenders even realize hostility is being gained by having multiple hostility missions and keeping last AI alive and co-ordinating so that hostility almost instantly reaches 100%

 

Yes, you can but not from KPR/Belize

[qw569😳]

50 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:

Who here wants less content!? Seriously it is ridiculous! RvR brings so much PvP content to this game and defenders have so much advantage it's insane. Defenders can counter attack the hostility missions with huge advantage, they can screen out enemy PB fleet, in the PB defenders have towers and forts, they do not need to bring mortar brigs and they do not need to get 1000 points to win, just deny the enemy to get to 1000 points.

If the attackers wrote in the global chat that they are going to perform missions at a given time, then it would form more PVP content.

I don't know any clans who did it.

If you look at the Mishka tweets, you see that the defender sometimes does not have the ability to intercept missions.

some of them

• [18-07-2018 19:10 UTC] The hostility level of the clan BCC (Great Britain) on the port Great River (Pirates) increased to 54.9%. The previous value was 0%
• [18-07-2018 16:15 UTC] The hostility level of the clan 7UP (España) on the port Little Cayman (Great Britain) increased to 45.9%. The previous value was 0%
• [16-07-2018 20:30 UTC] The hostility level of the clan BF (Russian Empire) on the port Caño Macareo (France) increased to 75.3%. The previous value was 0.8%

[Christendom]

Yea time needs to be increased after successful and unsuccessful battles.  IRL it would be months between campaigns.  I’d say 5 days for unsuccessful battles and 7 day cd for taken ports.  

[Spitfire83]

Who here wants less content!? Seriously it is ridiculous! 

 

Its not that we want less content I have helped defend little Cayman twice and not received any victory marks just the fun of a win..

I'm kinda ok with it as I have Vm in stock not all players are as fortunate though...

Also as said it takes some time to organise a invasion force also who wants to defend same port every couple of days eventually people get Fed up or find other things to do like real life..

Also fairly certain GB is only nation having same port flipped every few days..So might have something to do with why it is GB raising the concern..

 

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Spitfire83

[Christendom]

This isn’t less content. There are 200+ ports in the game. Go attack one of them while others are on cool down.  Personally I don’t think defenders should have to defend the same port 5x a week.  You attack, you lose...you wait.  Want more content?  Hit the enemy elsewhere.  

Not many folks have experienced repeatedly having to defend a port 3/4 times a week.  I know back when Russia held Carta we were defending it so many times every week it simply just got exhausting.  I think between Sweden and Russia losing so many ships we actually couldn’t get the wood fast enough from contacts.  It was stupid 

Being able to generate hostility a mere 24 hours later is absurd.  

Edited July 20, 2018 by Christendom

[Gregory Rainsborough]

1 hour ago, Tiedemann said:

Who here wants less content!? Seriously it is ridiculous! RvR brings so much PvP content to this game and defenders have so much advantage it's insane. Defenders can counter attack the hostility missions with huge advantage, they can screen out enemy PB fleet, in the PB defenders have towers and forts, they do not need to bring mortar brigs and they do not need to get 1000 points to win, just deny the enemy to get to 1000 points.

If you own an attractive port either because of location, resource or the combination you must realize that this would bring a lot of content your way. If your enemy want to keep throwing content at you even though they are have lost 10. time row, why should you slow down their possibility to do so?

If all you wanted was victory marks, you should have taken a less popular port.

 

 

It's hard to counter hostility even when you're rarely prepared. Not everyone has the numbers to counter an instaflip. The other day was a case in point, by the time we had enough players to counter you the port had already been flipped.

In the Little Cayman battles time has only been the cause of victory once and even then, had the battle gone on for a couple more minutes you would have lost two ships and pushed us over 1000 anyway.

If you want rare resources then please explain why Cartagena hasn't been attacked in God knows how long? Or Little Harbour or one of the other many ports that produce decent materials? Clans and people attack ports because they think they can win against the opposition they're facing. When they lose, even repeatedly, it takes some time to accept that they are in fact not as good as they'd like to think. When you lose a port battle it's because you've failed in some regard and have failed to understand how port battles are fought. If you want a straight up fight, there's the patrol zone. Port battles are about maintaining control over certain areas of the sea around the port.

The defenders don't have that much of an advantage because of towers and forts as they are a liability because of points and it's basically free points to counter the early captures. Let's take the original conquest of George Town from RSC by the Russians, we were winning the fight by a long mile yet because of the loss of the forts we failed to defend the port. We were better fighters but we were not a good port battle fleet.

Why should I be bored to death by an inferior opponent? It's not content if it's not entertaining and repeated attacks by the same people every other day is a bit tedious. In the meantime I could be facing a worthwhile opponent.

And as for mortars, the only major kill you got in the last Little Cayman port battle was because of a mortar brig so please don't pretend they're a liability.

I just find it funny that you didn't attack BF with the same fervour

Edited July 20, 2018 by Gregory Rainsborough

[Teutonic]

21 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Yea time needs to be increased after successful and unsuccessful battles.  IRL it would be months between campaigns.  I’d say 5 days for unsuccessful battles and 7 day cd for taken ports.  

 

6 minutes ago, Christendom said:

This isn’t less content. There are 200+ ports in the game. Go attack one of them while others are on cool down.  Personally I don’t think defenders should have to defend the same port 5x a week.  You attack, you lose...you wait.  Want more content?  Hit the enemy elsewhere.  

Not many folks have experienced repeatedly having to defend a port 3/4 times a week.  I know back when Russia held Carta we were defending it so many times every week it simply just got exhausting.  I think between Sweden and Russia losing so many ships we actually couldn’t get the wood fast enough from contacts.  It was stupid 

Being able to generate hostility a mere 24 hours later is absurd.  

if I could give more than 1 upvote... Simply put, @Christendom says it best - cooldowns for ports should be longer. I would personally do 72 hours for defense and 96 for offense (3 days and 4 days respectively).

I won't point names, but player diplomacy also limits content, should just be at war with everyone, you suddenly realize how enjoyable it is to be able to go anywhere and attack everyone free of restraints.

[Batman]

1 hour ago, Ketunpoika said:

 

Take a look the map and resource's (like Little Cayman)

Here is a link to a picture showing all ports that have Teak available:

https://picload.org/view/dldcgwgw/teak.jpg.html

Now, according to this post (not even 24 hours old post), your sorry nation is at war with the following nations who own a teak port:

• Great Britain (Little Cayman)
• Sweden (Grand Anse, Terre-de-Bas, Plymouth, Saint John's, Nassau)
• Denmark (The Settlement)
• Prussia (Blondel Cay, Grand Turk)

This leaves you with a choice of NINE (9) teak ports to attack. Now, as you keep failing at Little Cayman every time you try, you maybe should go for one of the other ports I mentioned before frustration level gets to high on the spanish side. Sweden alone has FIVE (5) teak ports. Take your Russian and US allies and go for a multiflip on swedish ports if you are in desperate need of teak. Which you are probably not, because everybody has alts in important ports like Cartagena and Little Harbour for convenience, so your resource argument is invalid (Yet, I would rather have all alts removed from the game still).

 

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Batman

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Is it possible to do this sooner rather than later @Ink or @admin? I think many people have thought this for a long time and it seems silly that people should be rewarded not for being better players but because they're boring the opposition to death.

[Christendom]

7 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

I had the same feeling of exhaustion when brits attacked, every day, the same ports (conttoy, mugeres, corrientes, baja).

This isn't about brit vs spain or whatever drama certain people keep trying to drag this into.  IF you hold a lot of ports, expect to be attacked at multiple ports every day.  Just the facts.  Spain has traditionally held an absurd amount of ports relative to what they have been able to defend, so has GB.  Hold a lot of territory, expect others to want to constantly take pieces out of it.  

It sounds like this post is defenders who would like to move on to other things and not defend a port every other day.  The cooldown is too short.  If spain held little cayman and was constantly being attacked every other day I'm sure they'd feel the same way.  I mean the defenders on a weds won't even get a victory mark the next week for their efforts because the same port can be attacked 2x more.  It's stupid.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Christendom

[Gregory Rainsborough]

1 minute ago, Christendom said:

This isn't about brit vs spain or whatever drama certain people keep trying to drag this into.  IF you hold a lot of ports, expect to be attacked at multiple ports every day.  Just the facts.  Spain has traditionally held an absurd amount of ports relative to what they have been able to defend, so has GB.  Hold a lot of territory, expect others to want to constantly take pieces out of it.  

It sounds like this post is defenders who would like to move on to other things and not defend a port every other day.  The cooldown is too short.  If spain held little cayman and was constantly being attacked every other day I'm sure they'd feel the same way.

 

I think he's just giving examples as am I.

I'm sure every nation has experienced this at some point and it's really boring having to defend the same port repeatedly when for once, you want to attack someone else. The Danes and us have been wanting a salt free battle at Misty with no schenanigans or multiflips, a fair fight but we're prevented from doing so.

If the reverse was true they would no doubt agree. Not all content is equal, some fights are more enjoyable than others.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Another thing that's bothered me as well is that there is no material reward for defending a port as hostility can be generated the next day, it's only on the day the port is attacked you don't have to pay tax. If the non-hostility timer was increased to several days there would be a gold bonus for the clan in question and it would encourage people to defend their ports. Empty port battles are the bane of everyone's existence.

[qw569😳]

In my opinion increasing the cool down is a good idea.

But there can be a problem when two friendly clans from different nation lose each other port battle.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by qw569