[PVP2] Server "Health"

[Capt. Rice]

I don't see anywhere, anything about fights being even.  I've only said that port battle mechanics should encourage fighting, doesn't matter if it is even.  I will agree that in other games, higher levels mean better at PvP.  But are those fights won by just showing up?  No.  I would even argue the contrary since a well handled Frigate can beat a 3rd rate, but according to BR, 3.5 Frigates are equal to a 3rd rate.  That is flat out not the case.  Battles are being decided by an arbitrary and inaccurate number, not by fighting.  This is being exploited by people and encouraging players from all factions to grind fleets, which is boring, and they are not get better at fighting cause as it stands now, if you just show up with more big ships you win without a fight.  

 

I personally have fought countless uneven battles while on the small end, even won a fair amount of them.  I don't care.  Fighting is fun, win or lose.  Losing is not a big deal, which is surprising since it seems a lot of players are so risk-adverse that they go out of their way to avoid fighting even when they have the advantage.  PBs are not about fighting, they are about showing up.  That simple fact is discouraging players, in my opinion.  I could be wrong, but something is happening to the server population.  This is a "ship fighting game" were key battles are decided without fighting.    Get rid of your "they are just complaining cause they lost" attitude, and purpose why you think the server population has dropped by 50% in a month and this trend is still continuing.  I'd be happy to hear your input on that.  But if you are just going to posture, then gtfo.  

Like you said you dont know the real reason for the major loss of population but i guarantee its not because of people just losing in a port battle. (i believe it mostly due to people getting board because over all content or the fact new games come out.)  Ive been in port battles where i was out number and out ranked but that's because my nation wasn't ready or prepared for it.  i accepted the fact that they were better because they were allowed to get better.  Yet you rant about your opinion but the moment i put in mine its wrong so get off your high horse and get in mud like the rest of us because you are not different.

[Arbour]

Like you said you dont know the real reason for the major loss of population but i guarantee its not because of people just losing in a port battle. (i believe it mostly due to people getting board because over all content or the fact new games come out.)  Ive been in port battles where i was out number and out ranked but that's because my nation wasn't ready or prepared for it.  i accepted the fact that they were better because they were allowed to get better.  Yet you rant about your opinion but the moment i put in mine its wrong so get off your high horse and get in mud like the rest of us because you are not different.

 

I can accept the fact that someone or some group is better (cause they are bigger, stronger, or more skilled), but let them prove it with cannonballs, not some random BR number.  Your opinion was basically "yall are just upset cause you lost to someone/group that is a higher level" and as I've repeatedly said, I'm upset because fighting is not deciding battles in a ship fighting game.  Win or lose, even or not, PB should be fun fights, but they aren't.  Yes content in the game is limited but the combat mechanics are solid.  There is just little to no opportunities to use those combat mechanics outside of fighting, frankly, stupid AI.  My clan has been grinding fleets for a few days straight now.  That is getting old fast.  But I can not go out and find any sort of challenging fight against a player (even or not), not even in PBs where over 40 players show up.  People either run in OW (not that bad), hide in ports (surprisingly cowardly if they are in bigger ships), or get a free win in 15-30 minutes in a PB without even sinking a ship.  I shot back at you, cause you are completely missing the point of my statements, and instead think this is genuine concern for the future of the game is some coverup to make excuses to why a particular battle was lost.  

 

Let me make this clear to everyone.  I do not think that France should have won the PB at Fred.  I think the PB there should have been an actual BATTLE, not a 15 minute quicky and then done for the night.  This goes for any PB, no matter if I am on the strong side or weak side.  Let the fights happen because without those fights, there are no fights, and without fights, the one actually solid mechanic in the game is not being used and then this game is nothing.  

[Bach]

All i see here is people being up set at higher ranks players because they pve more then you?   I can then just say the same thing about a lot of other mmos then that are still doing great.  You say you want and even pvp experience but blame it due to some one else being in a higher ship then you.   What would be the point of ranks then if every one was even pvp and sailing 1st rates ... i see ranks a goal that can assist you and being better at pvp.  In almost every mmo being a higher lvls has advantages when it comes to pvp. The benefits of being higher lvl give you access to gear that helps you in pvp.  Yeah there are games that boost you in pvp to match  other players lvls but even those dont make pvp completely even as it give those who lvl up and grind rewards for doing so.

I don't believe Arbour meant it the way you took it. No one is looking for forced fair fights. I don't ever want to play a pvp game that does that. This is about no fights.

I hate to bring up the Fred's battle again because the emotion flying around that one isn't good. But it was the best example of the "no fights" game mechanic I can think of. I didn't make it to the battle. I was in route at the time listening on TS. The battle ended very quickly and was over before I got to it. However I heard it on TS. The British brought very large ships and average BR of 450 per player. The French got 18 or so into the battle in a reasonable amount of time to do something but not enough to stop it. The British were just hitting the towers while the French were hitting the British ships. The French chose to fight to the death even if they were losing the port in hopes of sinking the British Victory and some Pavels I think. This was the French plan and they were doing it as reported earlier a number of British ships were close to sinking. However, the French were denied this suicide battle of glory as the computer simply ended the fight based on BR before any of the ships had time to sink. This game mechanic prevented pvp that the players were more than willing to do.

I think the question is "What is the intent of the 2:1 BR victory condition?" Was that intent to allow a massively larger force not to have to fight a 2:.8 BR force that wanted to fight it? I'm guessing probably not. It also opens the door for a potential tactic of "PvT over pvp" by allowing an adversary to tailor a 25 man PB group that only needs to fight towers to win PB's. Now none of this says leveling is a bad thing and no one is saying opponents shouldn't be able to bring everything they can to a PB. But perhaps the computer shouldn't be ending fights at 2:1 BR. Maybe it needs to go back to 3:1 now that players are starting to get into 1st and 2nd rates.

To me that is the thing. We all talk about how there should be risk to bringing out a 1st rate. But that risk isn't really there if the computer ends the fight before a reasonable force has a chance to inflict that loss. Basically, the smaller force should be allowed to fight on to inflict losses to prevent a key ship like a 1st rate dura from getting into the next PB. Suicidng a 3rd rate to remove a 1st rate is still a tactic worthy of Lord Nelson.

[Capt. Rice]

I don't believe Arbour meant it the way you took it. No one is looking for forced fair fights. I don't ever want to play a pvp game that does that. This is about no fights.

I hate to bring up the Fred's battle again because the emotion flying around that one isn't good. But it was the best example of the "no fights" game mechanic I can think of. I didn't make it to the battle. I was in route at the time listening on TS. The battle ended very quickly and was over before I got to it. However I heard it on TS. The British brought very large ships and average BR of 450 per player. The French got 18 or so into the battle in a reasonable amount of time to do something but not enough to stop it. The British were just hitting the towers while the French were hitting the British ships. The French chose to fight to the death even if they were losing the port in hopes of sinking the British Victory and some Pavels I think. This was the French plan and they were doing it as reported earlier a number of British ships were close to sinking. However, the French were denied this suicide battle of glory as the computer simply ended the fight based on BR before any of the ships had time to sink. This game mechanic prevented pvp that the players were more than willing to do.

I think the question is "What is the intent of the 2:1 BR victory condition?" Was that intent to allow a massively larger force not to have to fight a 2:.8 BR force that wanted to fight it? I'm guessing probably not. It also opens the door for a potential tactic of "PvT over pvp" by allowing an adversary to tailor a 25 man PB group that only needs to fight towers to win PB's. Now none of this says leveling is a bad thing and no one is saying opponents shouldn't be able to bring everything they can to a PB. But perhaps the computer shouldn't be ending fights at 2:1 BR. Maybe it needs to go back to 3:1 now that players are starting to get into 1st and 2nd rates.

To me that is the thing. We all talk about how there should be risk to bringing out a 1st rate. But that risk isn't really there if the computer ends the fight before a reasonable force has a chance to inflict that loss. Basically, the smaller force should be allowed to fight on to inflict losses to prevent a key ship like a 1st rate dura from getting into the next PB. Suicidng a 3rd rate to remove a 1st rate is still a tactic worthy of Lord Nelson.

That why ive stated way before this that port battles should be more like normal battles where all enemies should be sank along with the death circle so we dont have those silly runners wasting the clock.

[spchancey]

I don't believe Arbour meant it the way you took it. No one is looking for forced fair fights. I don't ever want to play a pvp game that does that. This is about no fights.

I hate to bring up the Fred's battle again because the emotion flying around that one isn't good. But it was the best example of the "no fights" game mechanic I can think of. I didn't make it to the battle. I was in route at the time listening on TS. The battle ended very quickly and was over before I got to it. However I heard it on TS. The British brought very large ships and average BR of 450 per player. The French got 18 or so into the battle in a reasonable amount of time to do something but not enough to stop it. The British were just hitting the towers while the French were hitting the British ships. The French chose to fight to the death even if they were losing the port in hopes of sinking the British Victory and some Pavels I think. This was the French plan and they were doing it as reported earlier a number of British ships were close to sinking. However, the French were denied this suicide battle of glory as the computer simply ended the fight based on BR before any of the ships had time to sink. This game mechanic prevented pvp that the players were more than willing to do.

I think the question is "What is the intent of the 2:1 BR victory condition?" Was that intent to allow a massively larger force not to have to fight a 2:.8 BR force that wanted to fight it? I'm guessing probably not. It also opens the door for a potential tactic of "PvT over pvp" by allowing an adversary to tailor a 25 man PB group that only needs to fight towers to win PB's. Now none of this says leveling is a bad thing and no one is saying opponents shouldn't be able to bring everything they can to a PB. But perhaps the computer shouldn't be ending fights at 2:1 BR. Maybe it needs to go back to 3:1 now that players are starting to get into 1st and 2nd rates.

To me that is the thing. We all talk about how there should be risk to bringing out a 1st rate. But that risk isn't really there if the computer ends the fight before a reasonable force has a chance to inflict that loss. Basically, the smaller force should be allowed to fight on to inflict losses to prevent a key ship like a 1st rate dura from getting into the next PB. Suicidng a 3rd rate to remove a 1st rate is still a tactic worthy of Lord Nelson.

EXCEPT THE FACT BEING..... THE FRENCH WERE SEEN SAILING MULTITUDES OF 3rd Rates out of the Port after the battle...... The VERY SAME PEOPLE who where there in the battle with a frigate....... it had nothing to do with a GREAT BIG OLE BR DIFFERENCE........ Hell we saw Your victory sail away from the same port...... Guess what? that player was in battle with a frigate..... SO SORRY if We use a function that prevents us losing our ships because you want to tag a battle and drag it out for a hour and a half....

We used our time wisely instead of playing duck, duck goose..... 

And if they wanted that fight........ why after port battle did no one stay around to PVP?

All of these accusations about PvE and General "French Wine" are whats killing the game... people log onto the forums and see that and theyre like oohhhhh well this is a shitty game community

"Ive been trying to stay out of this but enough is enough" + ive been working on the swedish peace treaty the last few days

[Arbour]

That why ive stated way before this that port battles should be more like normal battles where all enemies should be sank along with the death circle so we dont have those silly runners wasting the clock.

 

I completely agree with that.  I don't see where you said that before in this thread but none that less that is exactly what I am saying.  I even made a suggestion thread about it.  However, people there still think that it is some excuse to cover up a loss.  The more fighting the better. 

[Mrdoomed]

I be a pirate arrrr and i wish to keel ye all . Yarrrrrr !

[cainn]

Okay at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me state again what happened at Fredericksted.

That entire attack came about in response to the French parading a victory and 2 pavels around outside of Vieques. This fleet was spotted moving into Fredericksted. Word was sent out and the British fleet was amassed to draw the French into battle. We had no way of knowing the victory would not be there or the other multiple third rates that were seen at sea would also not be there. I personally expected to be facing a fleet of 7-10k BR.

At the start of the battle we split our forces in two and charged the towers to get them out of the equation as fast as possible. (42lb sniper cannons are not fun to be on the receiving end of) While this was happening the French forces retreated away from the towers instead of defending them and thus the port was lost. Keep in mind once they put land in these battles sailing away will no longer be an option. If this was an open sea battle I could 100% see your point and would agree with you, but it isn't. The objectives in a port attack/defense are different. If your fleet abandons your port defenses then they have effectively given up the port. Maybe they should change the BR mechanic to only register the BR of the ships that are within a certain range of the towers?

[Arbour]

Guys, this thread is not about a single battle, get over it. This is about what mechanics in the game can be changed to make it more fun for everyone.  I frankly don't care, and neither does anyone else, about who won or lost a particular battle.  It wasn't the first battle and it won't be the last.  We care that there are game mechanics in place that discourage fighting.  I swear some of you just don't get it.  

[Capt. Rice]

I completely agree with that.  I don't see where you said that before in this thread but none that less that is exactly what I am saying.  I even made a suggestion thread about it.  However, people there still think that it is some excuse to cover up a loss.  The more fighting the better. 

it was not in this post but it was in older post about port battles and every one just showing up to kill towers. I for one would like to hear what the devs think. we do need a change and they have said it will change before but the masses seem to want some info on this as soon as they can.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Capt. Rice

[Bach]

EXCEPT THE FACT BEING..... THE FRENCH WERE SEEN SAILING MULTITUDES OF 3rd Rates out of the Port after the battle...... The VERY SAME PEOPLE who where there in the battle with a frigate....... it had nothing to do with a GREAT BIG OLE BR DIFFERENCE........ Hell we saw Your victory sail away from the same port...... Guess what? that player was in battle with a frigate..... SO SORRY if We use a function that prevents us losing our ships because you want to tag a battle and drag it out for a hour and a half....

We used our time wisely instead of playing duck, duck goose.....

And if they wanted that fight........ why after port battle did no one stay around to PVP?

All of these accusations about PvE and General "French Wine" are whats killing the game... people log onto the forums and see that and theyre like oohhhhh well this is a shitty game community

"Ive been trying to stay out of this but enough is enough" + ive been working on the swedish peace treaty the last few days

Everyone who could get into that fight and wanted too did. The Victory captain had just gone AFK before you pulled the battle flag. He did not make it into the battle in a frigate. On TS they were doing everything they could down to trying to get his home phone number to get him into the fight. The NPC hunting group he was in also had some 3rd rates that went AFK at the same time. That sort of thing is going to happen unless you would like to start scheduling battle times with your enemies. To be fair I believe there was on captain that bailed out of the battle once they were all talking suicide fight on TS. Again, that's going to happen. We don't control it and neither do you.

Why did no one stay after the battle for an OW fight? Because after the computer denied them doing it in the PB morale was gone. Many just sailed home and logged. However last night at St. John we gathered a force to meet the British after the PB and its reinforcements. The British scouted us and all teleported home to avoid that fight. So don't try to come off like your always looking for an OW battle either.

Ok I got a question on the Swedish Peace Treaty. Which I think is an admirable way to resolve this since they broke up as a nation. Last night the Swedes called looking for help. The said WIS had done a "Pearl Harbor" on them an attacked the port of St. John's during those negotiations to try to blind side the few Swedes left. Is there any truth to that?

My apologies to Arsilon as we are clearly off topic.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Bach

[Cav]

Ok I got a question on the Swedish Peace Treaty. Which I think is an admirable way to resolve this since they broke up as a nation. Last night the Swedes called looking for help. The said WIS had done a "Pearl Harbor" on them an attacked the port of St. John's during those negotiations to try to blind side the few Swedes left. Is there any truth to that?

My apologies to Arsilon as we are clearly off topic.

 

 

The "peace" treaty is nonsense, is not enforceable, and until formal ways of handling diplomacy are introduced amount to nothing more than a waste of time for all parties involved.

All it takes is for me, who was not part of this agreement, or one of the 300 other brits who were not part of said agreement to hit one person and that will be used as an excuse to return to the previous state.   Or perhaps I am wrong and everyone can sit around the fire holding hands while singing together... oh wait.

If the Brits want to stroke their epeens by continuing to attack a nation where there is at most maybe 10-15 people who are capable of sailing anything more than a surprise go right ahead, I for one impatiently await  your glorious boasts of superiority which will certainly warm the cockles.

 

hearts...

Edited March 17, 2016 by Cav

[cainn]

Guys, this thread is not about a single battle, get over it. This is about what mechanics in the game can be changed to make it more fun for everyone. I frankly don't care, and neither does anyone else, about who won or lost a particular battle. It wasn't the first battle and it won't be the last. We care that there are game mechanics in place that discourage fighting. I swear some of you just don't get it.

Your right it isn't, it's about a bunch of people that want to force others to play the game their way. Your entitled to your play style and I'm entitled to mine. Get off your high horse and quit trying to make villains out of anyone that disagrees with you.

[Arbour]

Your right it isn't, it's about a bunch of people that want to force others to play the game their way. Your entitled to your play style and I'm entitled to mine. Get off your high horse and quit trying to make villains out of anyone that disagrees with you.

 

So you think that a battle should not be determined by fighting?  Myself and others are just saying, in these recent posts, that it should be determined by fighting, and the current mechanic favors not fighting (BR).  If you like winning battles without fighting, then say so, but I doubt deep down you really think that, and no is saying that you do. This is not the fault of the Brits, it is the fault of the game.  I wouldn't even say you guys are benefiting from it at the moment cause I think it would be more fun to fight an actual battle instead of PvTower, but PvT that is neither right nor wrong on your part, it just is.  We are not saying that Britain is the villain because you guys won a port without fighting, it's a game mechanic....a game mechanic that I think should be changed to increase the fun factor for both the attackers and defenders.  Changed to make the game more fun, not changed to redetermine the outcome of fights.  If you feel that actually fighting for ports in battles you will prolly win is "forcing others to play another style" I need to remind you that this is a ship fighting game, and we are talking about putting more ship fighting into the game, cause right now there isn't that much.   Don't take this personally, just sit back and think about it as a player, not a Brit. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Arbour

[cainn]

How many times do I have to say this... A port battle is different than an open sea battle, if you don't defend the port you should lose. If you place a higher value on the fleet of ships defending the port than the port itself then that is your choice. The BR difference mechanic is there for a reason and I think it should stay there, at least until they introduce land and the new forts after that we will have to see. As it stands now without that mechanic you either have to shrink the size of the instance to the point that it won't be enjoyable for either side or there is nothing to stop people sailing around the edge of the map for an hour and a half to "defend" a port.

Having said all that I don't believe this discussion even belongs in a thread about server health. Port battle mechanics is not what is losing players from the game. If anything it's the lack of content outside of RvR. As it currently stands there is nothing to keep anyone playing this game besides grinding and RvR.

Edited March 17, 2016 by cainn

[Arbour]

You say a port battle is different than an OW battle, fair.  They should be.  But think about it.  IRL, if a fleet came up and bombarded a port, while there were still ships defending in the harbor (I know there isn't land yet, but this IS what this is supposed to be simulating) would those ships defending the harbor simply give up and go home once the bombardment was complete?  Even if the defending ships were not damaged themselves?  Or would they continue to stay and fight to the bitter end or at least until they were forced to retreat?  Yes they are different, but it isn't a "shoot the shore and then they will run away while we take the port" kind of thing.  Wouldn't fighting be more fun?  Who doesn't want more fun?  Again fighting is the best thing this game has going for it right now, so why not mawr?

 

I agree there is not much content outside of RvR, but like I've stated before the combat mechanics are the best part of this game.  So the BR determining victory instead of combat takes away from the ONE solid core feature that exists in the game.  To be honest, even this exploration stuff they are talking about adding is not that much more content.  This game will still be based around fighting, so anything that takes away from fighting takes way from the core strength of the game.  There are ways to counter the ships just running around avoiding fights.  Make the shrinking circle more effective to counter it.  Make it so BR determines victory based on the ships left at the end, not the ships at the beginning.  There, they can run around all they want, they still won't win and will prolly get killed by the circle.  BR is actually not needed to determine victory, except if the timer runs out and there are still ship sailing on both sides.  At that point is doesn't even need to be a 2:1 BR, it can just be the more BR wins.

 

You say there is nothing to keep people playing besides grinding and RvR....well what if we made the RvR more fun, win or lose?  Wouldn't more people stick around? yes.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Arbour

[HMCS Warrior]

Quote from Bach: "The British were just hitting the towers while the French were hitting the British ships. The French chose to fight to the death even if they were losing the port in hopes of sinking the British Victory and some Pavels I think. This was the French plan and they were doing it as reported earlier a number of British ships were close to sinking. However, the French were denied this suicide battle of glory as the computer simply ended the fight based on BR before any of the ships had time to sink. This game mechanic prevented pvp that the players were more than willing to do."

 

In the future, if you want this battle setup around one of your towers and protect it. Force the attacking fleet to come thru your fleet to get to the tower. You will have your glorious suicide battle. Hell you might even win. Sons of Britain has won these defensive port battles in the past. Most recently at Baracoa a few weeks ago. It is not mechanics in my opinion. Cheers.

[Renown]

lol. this thread.

 

This game's US server will die without ACTUAL battles. That's all that matters. Since there IS NOTHING ELSE to do in game but grind or pvp, why people focus on PVT without battling is insane. Sure, you guys won that particular battle, you can even be happy with it. Sooner rather than later, there will be no more PVT because you wont have anyone else to play against because no one wants to play the game because there is no game to play.

 

Mechanics/i.e. the developers are the ultimate fault here, but the players aren't making it any easier. Frankly, I'm sad about the game as it stands. It's heading the same way many other games did. Half-great idea, with half-great execution turned to shit, aided by a playerbase who prefers not to fight. ATM there is NO reason to log in. Every day it gets harder to want to get excited about this game because.... what are you going to do all day? Unless you are out on your own ganking newbs near their high-travel zones there is nothing to do 95% of the time. Becomes even more frustrating when that 5% of the time you do get something else to do, there is no reason to FIGHT.

 

Frankly, two months time and the hardcore gamers will be gone, and you'll be left with a bunch of people who aren't even sure why they are playing, because there is nothing to do and nothing to play for when RvR is a joke and a half.

[Bach]

How many times do I have to say this... A port battle is different than an open sea battle, if you don't defend the port you should lose. If you place a higher value on the fleet of ships defending the port than the port itself then that is your choice. The BR difference mechanic is there for a reason and I think it should stay there, at least until they introduce land and the new forts after that we will have to see. As it stands now without that mechanic you either have to shrink the size of the instance to the point that it won't be enjoyable for either side or there is nothing to stop people sailing around the edge of the map for an hour and a half to "defend" a port.

Having said all that I don't believe this discussion even belongs in a thread about server health. Port battle mechanics is not what is losing players from the game. If anything it's the lack of content outside of RvR. As it currently stands there is nothing to keep anyone playing this game besides grinding and RvR.

How many times does everyone in this thread have to say this to you? The issue is that the defenders in the battle were NOT ALLOWED to fight the attackers. Those guys weren't talking about running around on some 1.5 hour stall that DOESNT EVEN WORK since the battle ring now shrinks to prevent it. This is ALL about the BR MECHANIC stopping a fight when defending players wanted to continue. Which would have allowed the heavier attacking force the potential fun and xp from sinking them. It didn't save anyone from griefing as no one was trying to grief. You were in the battle like 15 min. That's like the opposite of being griefed. My belief is that the 2:1 BR mechanic worked well at the frigate level. But now that we're in the transition where some players are getting into heavy BR ships while others cannot yet that the old 3:1 ratio may make more sense. For the time being and until the port terrain changes come out that would probably be enough to keep everyone happy.

As to needing content beyond RVR. I happen to think you are correct. Others in this thread believe other things are driving people out. Who is to say which is true? Without the data it's just players saying what they think it might be. It's not a personal attack so much as all us of just feeling strongly about a game we like.

[HMCS Warrior]

See my post above your latest Bach. There is your answer of how to get the attacking fleet into the battle you want.

[Bach]

See my post above your latest Bach. There is your answer of how to get the attacking fleet into the battle you want.

I think your assuming to much. At that phase of the battle the defenders still thought they were going to get their victory and the other 3rds into the fight. They were calling off the frigates outside not to jump in. Assuming they had this BR coming the towers were irrelevant and sending ships directly to them would have been a bad move as it cost BR that would be needed at the end fight. Now if they had realized from the start that the additional high BR ships were never coming then yes I totally agree with you.

So to tie this back to topic about the BR mechanic.

Why did the battle close before the defending force of ships was beaten down = BR mechanic of 2:1 stopped the fights

Why did French hold off getting all frigates into the fight as soon as it started = BR mechanic

Why did French stay off tower defense = BR mechanic favors the sea battle but only if the defender starts that phase at max BR so it deters using the BR early to defend towers if a sea battle is the plan.

If the BR mechanic was 3:1 the entire French strategy would have likely shifted. The British would have decimated the French fleet. The French would have scored a few kills and none of us would be talking about this.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Bach

[cainn]

You say a port battle is different than an OW battle, fair.  They should be.  But think about it.  IRL, if a fleet came up and bombarded a port, while there were still ships defending in the harbor (I know there isn't land yet, but this IS what this is supposed to be simulating) would those ships defending the harbor simply give up and go home once the bombardment was complete?  Even if the defending ships were not damaged themselves?  Or would they continue to stay and fight to the bitter end or at least until they were forced to retreat?  Yes they are different, but it isn't a "shoot the shore and then they will run away while we take the port" kind of thing.  Wouldn't fighting be more fun?  Who doesn't want more fun?  Again fighting is the best thing this game has going for it right now, so why not mawr?

 

I agree there is not much content outside of RvR, but like I've stated before the combat mechanics are the best part of this game.  So the BR determining victory instead of combat takes away from the ONE solid core feature that exists in the game.  To be honest, even this exploration stuff they are talking about adding is not that much more content.  This game will still be based around fighting, so anything that takes away from fighting takes way from the core strength of the game.  There are ways to counter the ships just running around avoiding fights.  Make the shrinking circle more effective to counter it.  Make it so BR determines victory based on the ships left at the end, not the ships at the beginning.  There, they can run around all they want, they still won't win and will prolly get killed by the circle.  BR is actually not needed to determine victory, except if the timer runs out and there are still ship sailing on both sides.  At that point is doesn't even need to be a 2:1 BR, it can just be the more BR wins.

 

You say there is nothing to keep people playing besides grinding and RvR....well what if we made the RvR more fun, win or lose?  Wouldn't more people stick around? yes.

 

Finally a post i can agree with, at least for the most part. Here is my counter-suggestion. Make the BR difference needed to win stay the same that it is now at 2-1 however, the BR difference has no effect on the battle until the timer has expired. Upon the timer running out if the attacker has killed all towers and holds a 2-1 advantage they win the port. In addition to this make the "circle of death" start closing in earlier in the battle, say somewhere around the 45 minute mark and have it end up at its smallest around the 1 hour mark. This gives the attacker basically 45 minutes to take control of the center of the map and take down the towers. If they fail to do this then they have to make a decision to withdraw or close in and brawl with the defenders with the towers still up. On the other hand if the defenders get forced out of the center and lose the towers in the first 20-30 minutes the battle doesn't just end, but the defenders have to make the decision to come in and brawl with the attackers or abandon the port. The only drawbacks to this system that stand out to me is that this will make it nearly impossible for any attacking fleet of equal BR to the defending fleet to have any chance of victory assuming both sides have captains of equal skill and it opens up the possibility for a few ships to draw out the battle and waste the time of the attackers. 

 

As for Bach, I can understand your frustration however, you have already stated earlier that you did not even make it into the port battle so you literally have no idea what happened in there. If the French wanted a  bloodbath they had the opportunity. They did nothing to prevent the attacking force from having free reign on the towers. If they had managed to hold us off for another 30 seconds we would have lost the 2-1 BR advantage we needed to end the battle. 

[Bach]

deleted. Double posted

Edited March 17, 2016 by Bach

[HMCS Warrior]

The battle is not over until the final tower is destroyed. Protect the final tower or two. Prevent the attacking fleet from sailing freely to it. You will have your engagement.

[Bach]

The battle is not over until the final tower is destroyed. Protect the final tower or two. Prevent the attacking fleet from sailing freely to it. You will have your engagement.

Easier said than done.

Protecting a tower from drive byes from heavy rate ships is much more difficult than just fighting them at sea. Consider the cannons can always just hit the top of the tower that sticks up above any blocking ships.