Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
  • 9

New Feature Proposals - RVR



Please propose your ideas in the following way.

  • 1 Post = 1 Proposal.
    • Players will vote on 1 proposals only. Multiple proposals will mix different subjects and confuse.
    • Multitiered or multi subject proposals will be removed.
  • Keep the proposals on the topic subjects
  • Do not comment. The thread is for proposals only
  • If you want to improve on other people proposals contact them so they can update the post. 
  • Best proposals will be brought up by the system based on likes and we will comment on them once in a while. Proposals which dont get community attention will be ignored and will sink to the bottom.


Example of formatting 
Correct example

  • Cannon crafting proposals
    • Cannon crafting change rationale
    • Cannon crafting current version and whats wrong
    • Proposal on cannon crafting change

Incorrect version

One post 

  • Cannon crafting proposal (should be a separate in a economy section)
  • Trading proposal (should be a separate post in an economy section)
  • Hostility proposal (should be a separate post in RVR section)
  • DLC ship proposal (should be a separate post in DLC section
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 47

RVR proposal

Civil war
The risk is that thanks to the forged papers (I state that I have nothing against them) many players join the stronger nation simply because it is simpler, or as for some, just to avoid fighting. This is not good for a war game, where war must remain the main purpose.

Add a list of enemy clans (rogue) that belong to your nation to clans. If a clan is added to this list it can be attacked in OW and its ports can also be attacked. The clans that have the rogue clan in their friends list must decide who to side with within 30 days (it is not possible to be friends with two clans who are enemies to each other) or they can delete both clans from the friends list and therefore form a third neutral faction (with all related consequences, loss of port bonuses etc.). In fact, two or more factions are automatically created within the same nation (Civil War). This would give the possibility of triggering alliances and wars within the great nations, it could help balance the game. This would also encourage greater mobility and use of the forged papers themselves. I believe that adding a clan to the list of enemies should require a 30-day cool down and a warning signal to the clan being added to the list to allow forged papers to be used.

  • Like 30
  • Thanks 6
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 26

Make the Mortar Brigg important again. Increase the range of mortars. 

By now the Mortar Brigg is a totaly useless ship. 

If the range of mortas will be increased over the range of guns on towers/forts, the Mortar Brigg can then be again an additional tactical Instrument in port battles.

As the kill of towers and forts doesn't gain high points, it will not be the meta than it was in old times but a tactical weapon against the "gold-S-Wood" metaships. 

The damage model of a mortar should be:

Towers and Forts:

  • Mortar strikes reduces number of active canons 
  • Mortar strikes causes damage on the building
  • Mortar strikes kills crew, the lower the crew on towers/forts, the higher the reload time


  • Mortar strikes reduces number of active canons
  • Mortar strikes causes damage on masts
  • Mortar strikes causes damage on ship structure
  • Mortar strikes kills crew
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 20

Proposal for PvE (No enemy players)

The purpose of this proposal is for the removal of enemy players in the PvE server. Instead everyone in the server can see each other's names and interact as if we are all the same nation (Battle Group, Friend adding, Trading in open water, etc). 

Rationale of change

As PvE server have nothing but peaceful cooperation, many of us from the different nations are friends. However, we are not able to coop with them in a manner that is more user friendly. Being the PvE server, it helps that we can identify each other especially for helping in RvR port battles or hostilities. 

Current flaws
As this is not a war server, the enemy player system creates too much restrictions for cooperation. Eventually, we resort to PvP methods for cooperation but does not improve quality of life. 

To summarize:

1) All PvE players will be able to see name of player

2) We can perform action previously restricted to nation members only but this time  to everyone on the server. 

Thank you for reading ^^

Edited by Yachteru
The unfinish post uploaded for some reason xD
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 16

Let me delete hostile(not free for all) outpost with my ships inside PLS. Im always active/inactive for some time and usually end up with the ships locked all over the map. It takes forever to sail there, tow them and delete outposts. Thats not gamebreaking or something just an idea how to make the game better.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 13

Mechanism for port handover/takeover within nation without losing investments

There needs to be some mechanism to peacefully move a port between clans in a nation.   It's the nature of the game that sometimes key ports will be held by a clan that has left either the game or the nation.    There needs to be a way for that clan to voluntarily hand over their port to a friendly clan without destroying the investments.  A peaceful change of 'regional governors' shouldn't involve enough cannonfire to damage the shipbuilding infrastructure of a seaport!   

I also wish this could be coupled with SOME mechanism for taking back a port when the owning clan has gone inactive, such as 'if the clan creator and diplos have not logged in for a week, the port becomes available  for any same-nation clan to takeover, if they choose to initiate that.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11

in PB's only: Player controlled forts with different fort health layout and designs , different parts on the fort breaking making that part unusable instead of the fort having a big healthpool = hitting the middle of the fort shouldn't dismantle it totally, it should rather disable cannons and crew

Edited by erelkivtuadrater
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8

Port Battle defense participants

  • Ad hoc mechanism to fill all defense slots ( theoretically ) in battle for port
  • Currently a battle for port is accessible to Clan owner and Friends list
  • Proposal - After PB starts proper ( not during the wait timer inside the battle ) Officers (only!) of port owner Clan have the command to "open battle to nation" ( can be similar to F7 - Control ) which results in any captain from the defender nation to be able to enter battle, not only owner and friends. 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7

Hostility Missions and Port Battle:

Hostility Missions can be based on total accumulated points in a timed period attacking NPC/AI ships at that port. For example Port Hostility Battle opens from 1:00 pm to 1:45 pm , Date. Location, etc. 

Most accumlated points by any specific set of missions by the Hostility mission Owner(s), (can be located in the Q-menu drop down) and a certain group will win the hostily for a given port.

For example:

La Mona (just an example), Hostility Missions starts at 1:00:00 pm UTC/GMT and will end 1:45:00 pm. Accumlated points by Clan A- 3500, Clan B- 3340, Clan C-2700, Clan D-1500, and so on. 

Winner is Clan A at 3500 acc points within stated time period. After the port battle is completed that will secure the port(s). After it can be the option of the Clan Leader, Diplomate, officer to accept or deny posession OR Transfer port title to Friend Clan Listed by Nation, Clan B, Clan C, Clan D etc. You get the idea. 

This hostility missions accumlated points suggestion will take the missions and resulting port battles out of a quick click after mission start and put the factor into the players hands, so to speak. Smaller clans can ask for help with any missions and will be just as viable as bigger clans. If they're very small, other players can be asked to help. 


This is a copy and paste as I realized after posting this suggestion, it was supposed to be in a this area. Forgive me. 


Edited by Bubba Smith
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5
  • Make RvR clan based instead of nation based
    • Why current nation RvR doesnt work:
      • As we have seen recently with Britian, nations can experience national disputes to even civil wars without a clear solution to it other than bullying away your internal enemy
      • No defined alliance is possible, only 'hand-shake agreements', which can be too easily broken and lead to very easy backstabs and that sort of toxic diplomacy. Without alliances, smaller nations can be too easily stomped by the bigger. leading to the ultimate zerging by players from smaller nations to bigger nations.
      • Gives the option to deny your enemy content by joining their nation, meaning they cant attack you anymore.
    • Why clan based:
      • allows clans in the same nation to fight eachother. This eliminates the 'hiding under the same flag as your enemy' system we have now that some clans use.
      • Will give a direct option for clans to solve national disputes between clans.
      • will allow a good and working return of the alliance system. broaden the use of the clan alliance system and not only keep it in the nation, but also for clans in other nations. F.E: Clan X from France allies themselves with clan Y from Sweden. So returning the old alliance system, but without the flaws of stationary alliances (because you have many clans with changing motives and goals) and without the flawed voting system (could be with officers and diplos only in clan voting)
      • Alliances would give smaller clan alliances/nations a chance to unite and fight the bigger clans alliances/nations together, leading to a more equal playing field.
      • All in all, it will improve the diplomatic aspect of RvR in NA as well.
Edited by ScipioTortuga
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5

Limit the number of the same type of ship that can be used in port battles. It might not be realistic but atm  port battles will always have 25 of the current meta bar one or two Reqs or circle takers. If there was a limit on the number of ships of a certain type or even rate  we might get some interesting fleet set ups. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3

Dear Devs,

I would firstly like to say I am totally happy with the direction that the game is going in and I love the game as a whole but there is a few points I believe there is room for improvement in the following ways.

1.Hostile missions for port capture- I believe that the current format of port capture being the one with the lowest ping or the fastest mouse click is a total let down and doesn't allow the good players to show the skills and so I would like to suggest a time span total of say an hour in total and the wining nation for the port in question is the one who has accumulated the most combat points during that one hour time span. If a points accumulation suggestion is required then take the pvp areas you currently have for combat medals would be a great way to resolve the substandard port hostile mission.

2.I would love seeing you have so many different resource avenues to choose from I would love to see cannon crafting ability and also the ability to have a dedicated points system for the captain and the gunnery sarg but you only continue to hold those points if you don't lose your ship in any way.


Edited by ser muffleton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3

Currently a nation can multiflip by setting max 5 ports, now when the devs are implementing the flag thing. 

I would like to suggest that the numbers of portbattles a nation can set, is reduced to max 2 portbattles. If one of them finishes, there is a open slot to set a new portbattle.

This would reduce the multiflips that people are scared about.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2

Port Battle order of battle

in relation to Port Owner clan and friendly clans & Port Attacker and friendly clans

  • right now an owner/attacker clan is just a entity. It may or not send ships to battle and rely entirely on friendly clans while retaining the power over the port.
  • ---------------------------------
  • Proposal is about having a order of battle for both Port Battle sides, whether the clan is defending a port it owns or being the attacker clan in a Conquest.
  • Port Owner MUST participate with at least 50% of ships/BR for the Port Battle. Friendly clans may participate with the rest.
  • Port Attacking clan MUST participate with at least 50% of ships/BR for the Port Battle. Friendly clans may participate with the rest.
  • example: some clan attacks a port. for each 1 ship/BR they add to the battle, the friend clans can add 1. Same with defense, allies will add 1 ship/BR to the battle for each one that the port owner adds to the battle. So for a battle with 10 ships/BR there will be 5 of the main Clan and 5 of friendly clans.
  • ---------------------------------
  • This provokes intention of action and protects genuine clans from false ones ( false in the sense of being just a name with little force and simply wanting to control/deny a port to its own nation aka. meta alt clan )
Edited by Hethwill
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1

War Server
As per July 2020 Conquest system

- Possibility of Flag drop as loot from sunken enemy ships during a Port Battle of whatever nature ( raiders or pvp conquest); flag bound to player. If player is sunk, flag is lost.

- Possibility of ONE flag per Port battle, can drop from any ship involved ( if RAIDER it will drop from AI ships only ), but only 1 flag will be dropped no matter the winner. 

- Possibility of Wooden Chests as loot from sunken enemy ships similar to present system of Home Defense fleets, 1 chest per sunken ship.

- Flags Applicable only to ships of rank 3, 2 and 1

- Chests Applicable only to ships of rank 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1


Edited by Hethwill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

RvR proposal.

RvR balancing using the number of active players per faction for make hostilities with a limit. For example, if the number of active players in a faction is 20, you can only do an offensive port battle against that faction. If the number is 100, 5 of its ports can be attacked.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -1

With flags coming back, they could be used to balance the cost of RvR a bit I think.

You could tie the cost of flags to the power of a fraction:

- increased cost for nations with a big population / decreased cost for those with few players

- increased cost for RvR high ranked fractions (places 1 to 3 for example / the better the more cost) / decreased cost for those at the end of the ranking (last 3 or even 5 places)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...