[PVP2] Server "Health"

[HMCS Warrior]

But can be done and has been done.

[cainn]

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.

 

You act like just because we are British we have never fought a battle with significantly less BR than the opponent. We have and we have won them on more than one occasion. The first defense of Little Inagua we started the battle down 1.7-1 in BR and ended up sinking all but 6 of the attacking force. It is possible you just have to know your objectives.

[Æthlstan]

Look. I was at frederikstead, We were going to concentrate at the 2nd tower, because we thought the 1st and 5th towers were being boarded. We were fighting the wind the whole way to the 2nd tower and would have had better wind headed to the 1st tower. But, by the time we realized the british were doing drive-bys, the 1st and 5th towers were down and they had beaten us to the 2nd tower. We were moving to engage the fleet at the 2nd tower, and as was said, we almost sank a few brits. I fired 1-3 broadsides the entire engagement, one of those at the victory, tho it didnt appear to scratch it. I was behind the main lines, ceding front line space to the bigger ships. 

 

While still en route to the 2nd tower, it was destroyed, as well as the 4th tower. As we were just starting to get into close quarters engagement distance, the opposite group of brits destroyed the center tower, battle over. 

 

Yes, we could have played it differently, but 20/20 hindsight is everything.

[Æthlstan]

Now, aside from accusations of french cowardice, the port battle mechanics were not put in place to prevent a battle. It would have been a tough fight, but there is a  real possibility France could have won that fight, even with inferior ships. We did so at Kingston versus the pirates back when BR was 3:1. 

 

The argument that my fellow frenchies are making, if I understand it properly, is that perhaps people are growing discouraged and leaving due to these mechanics, as they are preventing them from even attempting to fight to the death in RvR port battle fights. 

[Arbour]

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. 

 

I have not suggested anything other than this, perhaps it's my fault that I didn't express it well enough.  I even suggested what you specifically stated in this thread (http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12095-remove-br-as-a-requirement-for-victory-in-port-battles/) where you shot it down, but that is neither here nor there.  I think another obstacle throughout this whole conversation it that people were opposed to changing the PB mechanics because they felt that this was just a ploy to cheat the system to make a smaller weaker force beat a larger stronger force.  This has never been about changing the ultimate outcome, it's about making the process fun.  If this is an idea that both large and small, weak and strong can get behind as something to improve the fun factor of the game, then we need to make a separate solid post suggesting it, and give it all the likes we can.  I already tried that, but you can see how that worked out, so maybe someone else can post it so it doesn't bring the "you are just saying this cause you lost" comments. 

[Lord_Howe]

Look. I was at frederikstead, We were going to concentrate at the 2nd tower, because we thought the 1st and 5th towers were being boarded. We were fighting the wind the whole way to the 2nd tower and would have had better wind headed to the 1st tower. But, by the time we realized the british were doing drive-bys, the 1st and 5th towers were down and they had beaten us to the 2nd tower. We were moving to engage the fleet at the 2nd tower, and as was said, we almost sank a few brits. I fired 1-3 broadsides the entire engagement, one of those at the victory, tho it didnt appear to scratch it. I was behind the main lines, ceding front line space to the bigger ships. 

 

While still en route to the 2nd tower, it was destroyed, as well as the 4th tower. As we were just starting to get into close quarters engagement distance, the opposite group of brits destroyed the center tower, battle over. 

 

Yes, we could have played it differently, but 20/20 hindsight is everything.

 

Aethlstan, once again you are one of the most reasonable people on here.. *Salute*

 

For me it's really interesting hearing a straightforward description of how the other side viewed the events of the fight.

I hadn't heard a real enemy perspective up until now.

 

Reading this I can see where the French were frustrated.

I understand that they believed they could get the big fight, and I'm equally confident it would have been brutal for both sides.

 

I think its important though to take a step back and realize that it wasn't ultimately the 2:1 BR rule, but an unfortunate sequence of events that lead to the Brit victory.

1) There was no boarding happening... simply close range bombardment of the towers. Misreading the proximity of the Brit ships as a boarding caused a French decision to set up at the second tower... costing lost time in a close haul.

2) The Brit force had initially planned to stop ships at each tower, which certainly would have given the French more time.... but the movement of the French fleet backwards, first to the left and then reversed back to the right (attackers perspective) caused us to change our plan and run fast towards you before you could solidify in a position.

3) The fire from the French line at tower #2 was actually very effective. I was lead 3rd Rate on that side, and my armor basically melted off very fast. However, the French line was still moving at a backwards oblique... dropping further back from the #2 tower, so that ships following me were able to blast the tower before fighting the French ships.

4) The French failed to finish off ships like mine that had been severely damaged. A single Brit 3rd sinking would have locked us into the fight they wanted.

5) The late French reinforcements that spawned right next to the spot i had evaded to also failed to concentrate on me.. and instead sailed downwind. That allowed me to stay afloat and ultimately sink a French Cerb (Which was what actually ended the battle).

6) We (the Brits) got lucky... the Cerb sank about 20 seconds before I would have.

 

So... many things conspired to end the fight.

 

I really don't think this one was in any way an indication that the 2:1 rule is bad. 

In a battle with a real port and a coast there will be no chance that the defender runs back (deliberately or otherwise) too far beyond the objective. 

A defender placed further forward will both block/interfere with the attacker, and likely inflict losses on the attacker earlier in the battle before the towers (or whatever they become) are down.

 

How about we all calm down and just chalk this one up to 'stuff that happens in war'?

[Arbour]

But the battle at Fred isn't the only battle that ended too quickly, it's just the most recent.  There is still a problem.  This whole discussion has not been about correcting one battle (despite what you think our motivation is), it's about making all future battles more fun.  Fred is just an example of a problem with game mechanics leading to less fighting in a fighting game.  The mechanics should encourage more fighting not less, and again it is not about changing the outcome, France should have lost the battle (no one is arguing otherwise)  Tactics could have been better, yes, but the battle should have been more than 15 minutes when there are 40 player gathered for a fight.  

[spchancey]

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.

@bach

The Swedes had a little truth to it however it was resolved beforehand

By standards the swedish and british are at peace...... we traded amalienborg with st johns as part of the peace deal

[Bach]

But can be done and has been done.

I don't doubt it but the sea fight seems a better option. Granted the sea fight is all I normally do and I haven't actually dealt with that many towers. So it may just be a case of going with what I am used too.

[Bach]

You act like just because we are British we have never fought a battle with significantly less BR than the opponent. We have and we have won them on more than one occasion. The first defense of Little Inagua we started the battle down 1.7-1 in BR and ended up sinking all but 6 of the attacking force. It is possible you just have to know your objectives.

I'll give you this one. It's possible. I hit Captain de Pavlion last night (French third rate captain) after sinking a British player Belle Poule off St. John. That is nearly all pvp xp and really didn't include many port battles. I don't think because your British that you haven't fought many defensive PBs. To be honest I hadn't thought that much about it but as you mention it it does seem logical.

Now I'm admitting you have a point. But I still think I could run a battle line that could still gun down the towers on a long range pass with hvy ships. We should test it sometime and you could show me what that defensive set up would look like. Is there a test sever or we could just jump to another server as the same nation.

[Arbour]

The really sad thing about this whole thread is that we can't have a frank discussion about the game without some people getting offended and insulted over a battle that happened days ago.  That, beyond any game mechanics that can be fixed, my be the ultimate downfall of this game.  This thread should never turned into a "he said, she said" about a battle and filled with "you are just upset cause you lost" type responses.  If we as players can't maturely talk about and listen to others from opposing sides, then nothing will change and the server pop will drop and drop and drop till it's just 10 men screaming at each other. 

[ID I]

I warned the devs about multiple servers prior to EA. The problem is population retention. My response from the devs was they seemed more interested in attraction than retention. Makes sense with a game that only generates revenue on purchase.

Given the multitude of nations and map size they should of invested in server size. I would consent to 1 PvP and PvE servers given the sandbox nature of the game. If we are this point now in population the six month mark looks dismal. They should merge the servers now and work on capacity. Worry about adding servers when you get closer to launch.

[Dharus]

Its not all doom and gloom. Star Citizen has the same issue. After their arena battle came out, it was busy then it slowly faded as well as the persist universe stuff.

So, honestly there is a happy middle ground here. On one side, we are testers that need to give feedback on problems in gameplay. Winning by BR without a fight is a problem. We are probably going to run into other issues too. Our job is to suggest better solutions. If people can't handle playing an unfinished game, then they can leave. Nobody should be forced to play something that isn't fun. If the devs resolve these issues, then people will come back. Let's be honest, even now this is the best age of sail combat on the market.

Unlike the previous mentioned game, i think these devs are really working hard to solve problems.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Dharus

[Fletch]

I warned the devs about multiple servers prior to EA. The problem is population retention. My response from the devs was they seemed more interested in attraction than retention. Makes sense with a game that only generates revenue on purchase.

Given the multitude of nations and map size they should of invested in server size. I would consent to 1 PvP and PvE servers given the sandbox nature of the game. If we are this point now in population the six month mark looks dismal. They should merge the servers now and work on capacity. Worry about adding servers when you get closer to launch.

 

Lets not forget the pvp 3 server was created as mirror of pvp1 because it was becoming impossible to log in.  It would of been much worse having people buy the game then not being able to log in and play it without being number 200+ in a waiting lobby as was the case for me when I tried to play on pvp1.

It is still early access and the fact your experience is the same on all servers means migration is not too painful should you feel the need, lets see how it pans out in the future.

[ID I]

Unlike the previous mentioned game, i think these devs are really working hard to solve problems.

I'm sure they are and that's not the point I'm making. I've been playing before EA and the game needs a larger pop even more than the current 2400? Cap that is in place now. I think you misunderstood my statement. I didnt say the game sucks but the servers are not healthy. More population is needed well beyond the current maximums.

Lets not forget the pvp 3 server was created as mirror of pvp1 because it was becoming impossible to log in.  It would of been much worse having people buy the game then not being able to log in and play it without being number 200+ in a waiting lobby as was the case for me when I tried to play on pvp1.

It is still early access and the fact your experience is the same on all servers means migration is not too painful should you feel the need, lets see how it pans out in the future.

I remember the ques and is why I stated increased population cap. This is an issue I brought up a few times prior to EA.

My experience is the same in all games. Your highest pop is when you first open the game up. After that it drops and starts to stabilize around 6 months. Just because it's called EA doesn't change anything. Games like this go static when they die. They need constant change/development to keep new people coming in and for retention. Just like POTBS this game appeals to small market of players. Its never going to have a large following. Open world PvP games need population to thrive. Ever wonder why EVE is just a single server? It's assinine to start off splitting your player base from the start.

[Dharus]

I'm sure they are and that's not the point I'm making. I've been playing before EA and the game needs a larger pop even more than the current 2400? Cap that is in place now. I think you misunderstood my statement. I didnt say the game sucks but the servers are not healthy. More population is needed well beyond the current maximums.

 

 

 

Remember, this game is still in development.  They had much of it closed out until this year but there was a big push to open it up along with other things.  So, while on one hand a population helps a game stay healthy, a low population (especially for a alpha) isn't all bad.  It reduces overheard for servers for example.  Additionally, if a higher population is present but 95% of them are docked up with nothing to do, that's also not going to help make the game "fun" nor would it seem like a PvP game.  Conversely, that 5% could make the game feel well populated if it was concentrated in a localized "hot zone".  Sometimes maps (especially this one) being huge make the world seem empty.  That's always a good and bad thing.

 

However, if we are talking player based economics, then yes population could be a problem.  The people in the population could also be a problem.  Too many attitudes can ruin games.  That sort of thing needs policing and there again is another level of overheard needed by Game Labs.

 

Give it time.  Let the devs work on the mechanics and then once its near a Beta stage then we can start thinking population problems.  I wouldn't mind a single server but they may not have the backbone code, optimization, or hardware.  Then there is dealing with port capture windows ect.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Dharus

[cainn]

Ever wonder why EVE is just a single server? It's assinine to start off splitting your player base from the start.

Eve online is not a single server, Eve online is hundreds of servers that are interconnected. Every time you jump a gate you are being handed off to a different server. That model simply doesn't work for this game unless everyone is okay with loading screens on the open sea.

[Bach]

Eve online is not a single server, Eve online is hundreds of servers that are interconnected. Every time you jump a gate you are being handed off to a different server. That model simply doesn't work for this game unless everyone is okay with loading screens on the open sea.

I have often wonder if they could adapt a similar method for future expansion. Say we sail through an area of sea thar represents a gate and poof we come out in the north and Baltic Sea zones or the Mediterranean or Indian oceans. It would allow for some really wild expansion potential. If you think about it, all EVE ever offered us were ports, resources and vast areas of space to fight in. The two games in concept are very similar. So why not gates to the rest of the worlds oceans eventually. However, I think we should all be one big server in that event. No need for pvp1,2 etc...

[ID I]

Call it what you like but EA'S are the new betas. Port timers will always be an issue. How long was WoT in "beta" till it went gold...

Past experience has proven that the more you fracture the base only to consolidate the more players you bleed off. This point isn't about just now but the future too. If single server or 2 server (PvP & PvE) isn't a goal from the start the game will follow the same path as POTBS among others.

Just wait till the economy is 100% player based. How do you balance low pop and high pop production w/o each server having it's own code for production.

[ID I]

I would gladly give up some immersion for a single server. I'm sure I'm an outlier when it come to that...

Not sure what is possible on a single server. I do know that given current map size(travel time) the max pop is too low. Maybe that is what a dev ment by hoping after 6 months I had moved on to another game. Why have a paid customer taking up space vs one that has yet to pay?

[Taralin Snow]

It's possible to have a multi-server game without any zone 'loading' screens.  The original Asheron's Call did this (I suppose technically Asheron's Call 2 did as well since it used a similar engine) and I am mystified why the technique isn't used in other games as well.  I suspect this is a feature that 'large world' MMO engines would have but 'small map' FPS engines would lack, and since the FPS engines generally have better graphics those are the engines that end up getting used.  So for the sake of pretty FPS-style graphics, we end up with annoying FPS-style loading screens.

 

As for the economy, I doubt it will ever be 100% player based.  Just "mostly" player based.  As things are now the devs have said that NPC production won't go away entirely, it will just be reduced to make player production more important.  As long as we keep in mind that resource buildings are intended to be used to address resource shortages I think we will be all right regardless of population.  If NPC production can keep the shops supplied with enough Lignum Vitae logs, then players don't need to make any.  But if there are resources that are constantly sold out due to excessive demand, then those are exactly the things that players should be using resource buildings to make.  These buildings basically put the tools needed to remove supply shortages into player hands.