Minor port battle changes next patch

[SteelSandwich]

The ships the attacker will have in current situation:

1^st rates 25

 

The ships the defender will have in current situation:

1^st rates 25

 

How do port battles look currently?

 

So, let’s look at the goals in the ideal port battle.

 

The inherent goal of the attacker is:

Attacking the fortifications

Taking the capture zones

Destroying the defenders

 

The inherent goal of the defender is:

Defend the fortifications (optional)

Defending the capture zones

Destroying the attackers

 

What features are in the port battle:

Heavier fortifications

Capture zones

The raiding of resources (Only in raid battle, see end of post)

Land in battles, including shallows.

 

How does this look like in the battle itself?

Land is green, shallows are lighter blue

 

When including the fortifications and capture zones:

Red circles indicate the zones, the yellow squares the fortifications

 

So, what does this to the fleet composition?

Fortifications -> Attackers will bring mortar brigs -> defender will bring frigates to attack mortar brigs-> attacker will bring frigates for defending the mortar brigs.

 

Shallows -> Deep drafted ships can only operate in certain areas -> the usage of shallower draft ships.

 

So, what does the fortification do to the fleet composition?

 

The ships the attacker will have in current situation:

1^st rates 17

Frigates 5

Mortar brigs 3

The ships the defender will have in current situation:

1^st rates 18

Frigates 7

 

When shallows are taken into the calculation, the usage of 4^th rates and 3^rd rates will increase.

 

The ships the attacker will have in current situation:

1^st rates 10

3^rd/4^th rates 7

Frigates 5

Mortar brigs 3

The ships the defender will have in current situation:

1^st rates 12

3^rd/4^th rates 6

Frigates 7

 

When raiding of resources is also taken into account, this will result in the following:

 

The ships the attacker will have in current situation:

1^st rates 10

3^rd/4^th rates 6

Frigates 4

Indiamen 3

Mortar brigs 2

 

The end result is a very tactical approach to a currently linear engagement. The attacker can position himself for the most optimal appoach, whilst the defender is incentivized to sally with the frigs to take down the MB's. Also the fleetcomposition plays a massive role in the strength in battle, no longer will 1^st rate on dominate.The whole cat-mouse game starts there and then.

 

 

For more extensive and detailed proposition regarding the draft of ships in this game, look here:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12020-redefining-deepshallow-ports/

[Musuko42]

Here is a challenge for you

Propose 3 ideas to make frigates viable in a port battle consisting of 25 first rates, without limiting the entry rights, without talking about depths and without creating additional goals done specifically for frigates (because it is not going to make them more viable it will just force people to pick frigates as they wont be able to win the PB without them. 

 

Goal: make 1st rates expensive to run (as real world), rare (as real world), and only used occasionally, and with great care (as real world)

 

1: Require crew to be hired, fed, and for widows to be paid when they die, meaning larger crews are expensive to maintain, and even more expensive to lose (as per the other thread about this subject).

2: This one seems unpopular when I've mentioned it before, so perhaps it only applies to line ships; cause players to lose XP if they lose a ship. The larger the ship lost, the greater the hit. Real captains who lost a first rate were, I imagine, less likely to be offered command of one again. If you lose a 1st rate in the game, you may lose ranks to the point where you'll need to work up to getting one again.

3: When officers are implemented, require numerous, or high-quality officers to run larger ships effectively. Without them, the ship's functions (sails, reloads, etc) will be slower. Perhaps, if you really skimp on officers, you may find the crew mutiny in the face of the enemy, stopping you dead in the water, surrendering, or turning the ship to flee.

 

Those are my three suggestions.

[Hethwill]

Making 1st rates expensive to run is not the same as making frigates viable in the same scenarios.

[Musuko42]

Making 1st rates expensive to run is not the same as making frigates viable in the same scenarios.

 

Are you going to explain why not?

[Hethwill]

Yes.

 

Let's suppose a player does not play 1st rates. He plays frigates.

 

Making the 1st rates more expensive ( to make frigates viable...)  has no effect for him as he already plays frigates all the time all the way, yet he likes the changes that are announced where frigates can have their use in Conquest battles.

 

Yet this player would enjoy to have battles where all rates would be able to play to their strengths. There will be Regional Capitals but these will be full of 1st rates.

 

Given Admin requested a original way to make frigates viable in a battle where 1st rates are also present and without resorting to specific frigate objectives nor (sadly) using shallows how come the only thing that could be shown was... to make 1st rates this and that... !?

 

It is a good request from the devs.

[Musuko42]

Yes.

 

Let's suppose a player does not play 1st rates. He plays frigates.

 

Making the 1st rates more expensive ( to make frigates viable...)  has no effect for him as he already plays frigates all the time all the way, yet he likes the changes that are announced where frigates can have their use in Conquest battles.

 

Yet this player would enjoy to have battles where all rates would be able to play to their strengths. There will be Regional Capitals but these will be full of 1st rates.

 

Given Admin requested a original way to make frigates viable in a battle where 1st rates are also present and without resorting to specific frigate objectives nor (sadly) using shallows how come the only thing that could be shown was... to make 1st rates this and that... !?

 

It is a good request from the devs.

 

Okay, I can see where you're coming from. I'll try to clarify what I was aiming at. In short, my answer is to make it almost impossible...or at the very least, extremely risky...to fill a port battle up entirely with first rates, encouraging players to use other ships types instead, hopefully meaning your frigate captain can join the battles without expecting to be hopelessly outclassed.

 

I guess the flaw in this idea is there'll always be some super-motivated clans who won't let the additional cost and effort stop them, and will get their 25 first rates anyway.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Musuko42

[Nalyd]

Also, making 1st rate more expansive doesn't change anything in the long run.

You'll need 3 months instead of 1 to build your deathball of 25 Santissima from scratch, then what ? They'll still piss in the mouth of hundreds and hundreds of frigates before you could even destroy one of them in a port battle.

In fact, the more expansive 1st rate are going to be, the more pack of full 25 Santissima you'll encounter, because this is the safest way to travel and not lose one of them. So you'll either see a full 25 Santissima, or none of them.

 

Now talking about your point 2 and 3.

Like I said a deathball of Santissima will utterly destroy hundreds of frigates before you even manage to get 1 of them. Mainly because the game force you to fight 25vs25 and snatch away one of the 2 only advantage normally given to a weaker force which is supposed to be numerical advantage. The other advantage which is their speed/maneuverability also being non existant because the point of a port battle will soon become to "take and hold" your position. Emphasize on the "hold" part where running away and guerrilla tactics won't work.

So yeah, for 1 player losing XP/officiers/crew on a 1st rate, you made 25 frigate's captains lose XP/officiers/crew multiple time on their 5th rate.

 

In the end who's on the short end of the stick ?

Edited May 6, 2016 by Nalyd

[Ledinis]

But it is still better than only 140+ gun creep like right now

 

Guys - get reasonable and think things through. 

• Current system only 1st rates are valid (only 2 choices in any port battle)
• New system - at least some frigates and 4th rates will be useful (2x better than old one). And it gives choice to those who hate ships of the line. And dont like sailing them.

Comments that there are only going to be constitutions and ingers in some of the battles; Yes it might happen but it is a better situation compared to today. It is making consitutions and ingers and other heavy frigates finally viable in port battles which are not fit for ships of the line because of depth. 

 

Regarding ship differences

The only way to make all 135 best angle frigates viable is to make them all 12 knots and 5000 hp

If we go for at least some historical performance people will choose the ship with most guns and speed for OW and most guns and planking for PB.

Taking WW2 analogy - what is the point to drive Pz -2 with machine gun if everyone else drives a Panther

 

The main difference in ship performance was crew and motivation related. (it is hard to manage 300+ men) and better leaders fought better even when their ship was worse. It is impossible to replicate crew management psychology and motivation without adding a football manager game and a lot of RNG removing skill (gunner fell on the blood during battle broke leg and started asking to send him back to his wife on land). 

The part that is better with this is the fact that lower rank captains will be able to participate in PB, witch specially in a testing stage is good on that i agree. But as you said they will always choose to sail the best that they can so why not limit the availability, be it through remaking crafting so that everyone can craft only the most basic ships, and get rare one time use BP's by some means to craft any better ships, or making them so resource intensive that people will actually start to reconsider whether its better to field 15 frigates or 1 1sr rate. Another popular option from the forums would be to add shallows, though that i would imagine would require quite extensive work so i guess it wont be here to soon even if you decide to implement them, but if you actually make punishing shallows, like not the open world kinda shallows where you stop but, actual shallows where you would wreck or get stuck in your big ass ships if you didnt pay attention, then in these kind of Ports i would assume smaller ships would become quite more useful.

 

But as i said in terms of more ships used it changes very little, but gives access for more people to try this feature out, so its not a bad change, it just doesn't affect the core diversity of ships that get used by that big of a margin. The negative thing about this change for me personally seems that, after you made NPC ships uncap-able, last week, i felt for the first time at least a hint of war attrition, big as British clans that have well established crafting branches were contacting outside crafters cause they could not keep up their production with the losses, now when you change the meta so that 80% of the ports require ships that take 2 times less labor hours to craft, at the same time having 4 lives instead of one, at the same time reducing the frequency of port battles (this in itself is a good thing, since all people were getting burned out but 20 port battles a day, but it does at up to the problem im pointing out), you are returning to a point where attrition is once again non existent.

 

To sum it up i would much rather prefer Line ships being limited by - Crafting (needs an entire crafting system overhaul though); Expenses (needs an economy overhaul, inflation has reached such a level in pvp1 that i stoped selling stuff for gold in most cases of how useless and easily acquired it is); Actual gameplay limitation (needs an entire battle map, game mechanics overhaul).  

[Bigvalco]

you are talking about the outside

i am talking about the inside (once battle started)

inside the battle with all other things being equal you need 25 first rates right now to win (if both sides have equal skill)

 

and your proposal "if you want frigates to be viable then make them viable" is ridiculous and does not belong here on the forum!

I AM making them viable creating a greenhouse - space  for them where only frigates participate. You on the other hand propose NOTHING to make them viable.

 

Here is a challenge for you

Propose 3 ideas to make frigates viable in a port battle consisting of 25 first rates, without limiting the entry rights, without talking about depths and without creating additional goals done specifically for frigates (because it is not going to make them more viable it will just force people to pick frigates as they wont be able to win the PB without them. 

 

 You can make them viable with a BR limit that doesn't allow people to use 25 1st rates in the battle.

[OTMatt]

Provisions and crew replenishment will probably solve a lot of this stuff. It will be difficult feeding 1k crew per ship while trying to get to enemy ports. Not to mention if crew deaths were counted per ship sunk then players might really give it some thought on what to bring to the battle.

 

edit: oh and variable winds too

[Hethwill]

 You can make them viable with a BR limit that doesn't allow people to use 25 1st rates in the battle.

 

read: without limiting the entry rights

[DEK]

What will happen with ships and outpost after this patch ? Example, in Samerset i have 1st rate and outpost, after patch i will lose it ?

Edited May 6, 2016 by DEK

[Arsilon]

you are talking about the outside

i am talking about the inside (once battle started)

inside the battle with all other things being equal you need 25 first rates right now to win (if both sides have equal skill)

 

Here is a challenge for you

Propose 3 ideas to make frigates viable in a port battle consisting of 25 first rates, without limiting the entry rights, without talking about depths and without creating additional goals done specifically for frigates (because it is not going to make them more viable it will just force people to pick frigates as they wont be able to win the PB without them. 

 

 

also remember the general perspective guys

• 800 users participated in port battles last month
• 20000 users logged in and played

 

 

I think we may be trying to solve the wrong problem.  

 

It's great to ask how to make Frigates more viable inside a port battle.  The better question would be why are we so focused just on inside the port battle itself where your options are severely limited when you say things like entry limits, water depth, gamey objectives, etc are all off the table.  Isn't it telling that only 800/20,000 participated?  That is the problem that needs addressing.  This problem will get even worse when you slow the amount of port battles that can happen.

 

If you can create an environment where the port battle isn't ONLY about what happens inside the 25v25 battle instance but also what happens leading up to it, how it is triggered in the first place, etc. then you have an opportunity to both increase the ratio of players that can participate in the first place as well as the level of investment the player base feels in the success/outcome of a port battle even if they weren't in the last 25v25 battle itself.  Your opportunity to expand the number and types of ships that are needed to make that happen is much more flexible as well.

 

There have already been some concrete suggestions along these lines.  As I've said elsewhere in my feedback, we get so caught up in the specifics of a given mechanic we lose sight of the bigger picture and how different mechanics need to work together as part of broader gameplay.

[Bigvalco]

read: without limiting the entry rights

 

 You can still bring in a first rate, just that it takes up a larger chunk of the team than a frigate would.

[Nalyd]

read: without limiting the entry rights

 

The BR limit is not "limiting the entry rights". In fact it's quite the opposite since it makes a wider range of people able to participate without feeling like utter trash if they don't use the best ship.

 

a limitation to the entry rights is something that flush out/only concerns a certain category of players.

 

The BR limit is something that would apply to everybody no matter if you started to play or if you were there for the last 4 months.

Just like the hard cap of 25vs25 which also applies to all, this rule won't change because you're a veteran or a newbie.

 

If you want to see what a real limitation to the entry rights is, take a look at the announced port system with deep/shallow/regional water where you can't participate unlike other players if you don't own the right ship for a port in particular.

 

To make a parallel with the real world, just because a rollercoaster only have 30 seats available or a maximum weight charge of 2400kg doesn't limit anybody to use it (well, unless you alone weight more than 2400kg but you should probably be more concerned about your health than getting in a rollercoaster at this point). You'll get in eventually if you're patient enough, nobody else is more or less entitled than you to use it.

However specifying that you need to be taller than 1m40 to get onboard is something that'll alter entry rights for a certain category of people.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Nalyd

[Red October]

I disagree with any artificial mechanic to limit ship sizes in battle. There should be tactical reason to bring smaller ships eg shallow capture point, low winds or capture point that is significantly upwind from starting position.

The high cost can limit the dominance of 1- rates, its appearance in the battle should cause fear and respect.

Sorry for my bad english

 

Goal: make 1st rates expensive to run (as real world), rare (as real world), and only used occasionally, and with great care (as real world)

 

1: Require crew to be hired, fed, and for widows to be paid when they die, meaning larger crews are expensive to maintain, and even more expensive to lose (as per the other thread about this subject).

 

 

 I entirely support your idea!

Edited May 7, 2016 by Red October

[Destraex]

The BR limit is not "limiting the entry rights". In fact it's quite the opposite since it makes a wider range of people able to participate without feeling like utter trash if they don't use the best ship.

 

a limitation to the entry rights is something that flush out/only concerns a certain category of players.

 

The BR limit is something that would apply to everybody no matter if you started to play or if you were there for the last 4 months.

Just like the hard cap of 25vs25 which also applies to all, this rule won't change because you're a veteran or a newbie.

 

If you want to see what a real limitation to the entry rights is, take a look at the announced port system with deep/shallow/regional water where you can't participate unlike other players if you don't own the right ship for a port in particular.

 

To make a parallel with the real world, just because a rollercoaster only have 30 seats available or a maximum weight charge of 2400kg doesn't limit anybody to use it (well, unless you alone weight more than 2400kg but you should probably be more concerned about your health than getting in a rollercoaster at this point). You'll get in eventually if you're patient enough, nobody else is more or less entitled than you to use it.

However specifying that you need to be taller than 1m40 to get onboard is something that'll alter entry rights for a certain category of people.

BR limit will simply mean people still take the most powerful ship in each class. It is also not conducive to interesting battles where good strategy can mean you do have more power than the enemy. The most boring battles are in fact the ones where both sides are perfectly equal. So many games get so repetitive because you know that the other side will be made up of almost exactly the same weight as you. Regardless of your sides open world strategy or intended tactics. Regardless of whether you are defending, attacking or raiding. It's boring and another reason NOT to balance ships but instead to use incentives (notice I did not say the word incentivise). To have a captain love his\her ship even though it's the equivalent of the millenium falcon, a piece of well loved and nurtured junk that has got you out of trouble many times.... through your own brain power and planning!

[captain_andrey]

you are talking about the outside

i am talking about the inside (once battle started)

inside the battle with all other things being equal you need 25 first rates right now to win (if both sides have equal skill)

and your proposal "if you want frigates to be viable then make them viable" is ridiculous and does not belong here on the forum!

I AM making them viable creating a greenhouse - space for them where only frigates participate. You on the other hand propose NOTHING to make them viable.

Here is a challenge for you

Propose 3 ideas to make frigates viable in a port battle consisting of 25 first rates, without limiting the entry rights, without talking about depths and without creating additional goals done specifically for frigates (because it is not going to make them more viable it will just force people to pick frigates as they wont be able to win the PB without them.

No i am talking about inside port battles. For any major offensive there will be more than one simultaneous port attack. Not many clans or nations can field multiple 1st rate fleets. Many ports are still being taken with 3rd rates or even connie fleets.

And what is with the obsession with not having 25 first rate battles? If two opposing forces have the ability to field such a force why not let them? Even now it is not sustainable to field a 1st rate fleet every day as the losses can not be replaced by crafters. Look at Aves. British held it for a week but had to endure a daily attack. The losses were piling up on both sides and it was no longer possible to field a full first fleet.

With proposed crew hiring system such losses would be even more catastrofic. You have to let the game reach a natural equilibrium of risk vs reward for fielding big ships instead of bringing in artificial limits. Even the 25 player limit seems rediculous unless the servers cant handle any more. Let the game balance itself out instead of using bandaid features to limit gameplay. Other bandaid features were tried and failed to fix anything (1.5br anyone?) and the same will happen to this one. Players will find a way around the restrictions and will turn them to an even bigger advantage. Oh i see you brought 25 connies to attack my port. Here why dont you try to get through my 25 santi screening fleet first. You should have brought 25 santis of your own. Oh you did, thats cool.. remember when we had these fights in port battle instead of open water. Yeah but i like open water better at least we have land in it...

[Nalyd]

BR limit will simply mean people still take the most powerful ship in each class. It is also not conducive to interesting battles where good strategy can mean you do have more power than the enemy. The most boring battles are in fact the ones where both sides are perfectly equal. So many games get so repetitive because you know that the other side will be made up of almost exactly the same weight as you. Regardless of your sides open world strategy or intended tactics. Regardless of whether you are defending, attacking or raiding. It's boring and another reason NOT to balance ships but instead to use incentives (notice I did not say the word incentivise). To have a captain love his\her ship even though it's the equivalent of the millenium falcon, a piece of well loved and nurtured junk that has got you out of trouble many times.... through your own brain power and planning!

 

How did you manage to reach to that conclusion about the BR limit ?

 

With a BR limit in a regional battle you'd have the choice of picking a fleet composition ranging from an handful of powerful 1st rate to a swarm of 3rd rate. which offers you a large panel of strategy depending on what you've chosen and what you'll face. How come a team would feel more entitled to pick "the best ship" rather than "the ship I like" if in the end, the chances remain 50/50 to win in both case ?

On a second note, this has nothing to do with balancing ships, a shitty ship will still remain a shitty ship. The difference is that you will be able to field more of them against a lower number of good ships.

 

having equal forces fighting each others is different from having the same forces fighting each others. The later being the boring one, like what we currently have in the game with 25 santi fighting 25 santi.

 

Also, the strategic part still remain, since you will be able to raid ports if you're on the attacking side to worn out the port defenses or built up forts if you're on defensive side to tilt the balance of the fight in your favor. And add to that the land in ports which could drastically change the way you play from one port to another. Attrition will also remain relevant if for example you face a nation fond of 1st rate fleets. If you take out all of them, you'll force them to use a different fleet composition which they might not be accustomed to use.

You talk about tactics, but then you should know that it's in those situation in which the chances are 50/50 where the determinant factor for a victory is the tactic you'll employ and if it's better than the one used by your opponent.

 

You want to know what I find boring ? it's when the result of a war between nations is decided in an handful of battles. Where both nation bring their best fleets during the first days of a war until one of them can't anymore due to attrition and then just get stomped by the remaining ball of death from the "victor" against whom the "losing" side can't do anything.

 

The first day is fun, fighting with equal (well in fact, same) forces against your opponent.

The second day start to get stinky when all you find in front of you are suicide squads trying to ram you with their petty frigates with the hope of sinking one of them.

The third day is just boring as hell when the defenders finally decide that this is enough and just let you cap empty ports until you win the war.

 

Fighting against the odds is fun from time to time, especially when you manage to pull it off. But this has to stay reasonable, something like 40-30% chances of winning. And I can tell you that in a fight of 25 santi against 25 frigates, the chances of objectively winning the fight on the frigate side is probably around 5%

 

What is fun for me is when my nation and I have to fight like lions to grab every inch of territory against an opponent responding back with everything they have. Something they won't do if they don't have a reasonable chance of winning the war themselves.

I have no interest into grabbing 10 empty undefended ports because our opponent don't have the means to fight back or annihilate a dozen of suicide frigate's squads launched at us in despair while me and the 24 others captains are laughing like some nouveau-riche twat on our Santissima.

It's like using a cheat code in a solo game. You might laugh your ass off for half an hour and then you get bored again.

[Iratequaker]

Guys, Rule Number 1:  Keep it simple.  This has become mired in overtly complicated suggestions that do nothing more than limit the port battles. 

 

At no time should troops ever actually be considered as part of port battles.  The most important part being that no player has control of those troops and would provide an unnecessary and unrealistic mechanic to PBs. 

 

You cannot have BR limits to determine the size of a force, attacker or defender.  If done you exclude the casual player from ever joining in a fight without feeling like he's behind the bell curve or screwed it up for his team.  He just stays away to play it safe. 

 

The object of the Developers is to make the game fun for everyone yet in a way that can make sense to keep player frustration down.  To do this the system must be simple or it has a greater chance to break down. 

 

I believe what the Devs are proposing with this Thread is simply the best way to make PBs inclusive and more balanced. 

 

As you continue to debate what could or might work the suggestions become more complicated and intricate.  What the Developers need are suggestions that are simple and easy to implement.  And most importantly, that support the inclusion of the entire player base.  You have to think of those times where a clan is poised to take a port and an odd guy with the wrong ship shows up, smile on his face.  If you attack him for his mistake, you are wrong. 

 

1. Simple

 

2. Easy to understand

 

3.  Inclusive

 

I've already made my suggestion and some of it is part of the Dev's scope of changes.  I can't think of how to make the system better beyond what they are doing for the moment so I have to support what they are doing and test it out. 

[Zisme]

 

here is what i think of this proposal

Your idea does not describe the ? part

all ports have different harbors. where, how victory conditions,

who places markers, how this is all interconnected on servers, ai coding, routes.

the idea is only great when a. its sounds awesome b. can be implemented (the @?@ part is clear and can be done) 

 

 

simple solutions solving 80% problems are better than unfinished awesome things

your proposal is the car without wheels - impossible to implement 

we are making a 1 or 2 with a smiley face

 

thus

to make frigates viable = make some battles frigate only - simple, works, creates no confusion, gives options. 

 

also remember the general perspective guys

• 800 users participated in port battles last month
• 20000 users logged in and played

 

at the moment port battles are mostly clans and this will help the non clan players join in and its a great idea. lets get everyone involved

[Cragger]

It's a step in the right and the diversification of port battle allowances will help future ship additions to the game having a purpose such as the very famous HMS Leander 50 gun two decker etc. Further breakdowns are going to be necessary though or you will ultimately have the best of the best available only being used.

 

Regional Deep Ports will still be dominated by who can bring the most first rates and that actually takes away from the content port battles provide from being used. For example coming from the perspective of a U.S. nation player right now SORRY on PVP 1 can field at the same time about 20 Santismas. Which given the current mechanics of the game more power to them, I don't fault them for being able to. But when you don't have the capability to field a viable counter due to simple lack of players on at that time we in the U.S. just let them cap uncontested. Doesn't really hurt us, it's boring as hell for them and ultimately it's an event that instead of drawing people to PvP is pushing people away from PvP.

 

I really do think in the end you are going to need to implement a rate slotting system. Possibly allowing the Lord Protector's clan officers select who to put in those slots of a pool of joiners in the hour before it starts (Once the flag system is changed/removed).

 

Deep Regional could be:

 

5 1st rates with a BR maximal of say 4800 while raising the Santisma's BR to 1000. It is currently flat out better then the Victory and them both being the same BR makes no sense.

10 2nd rates with an appropriate BR limiter. I can't really give numbers right now because we don't even have a 2nd rate by the RN standards the Pavel being only 84 guns.

10 3rd rates unrestricted to fill any void above.

 

Such a system would also allow the Niagara to be part of Shallow battles by making it a limited '1st rate' of it's bracket. etc. etc.

 

I don't think anyone really enjoys 'map painting' uncontested battles for long but as long you are forced to bring your maximum force it is going to happen. For example SORRY could bring far less 1sts and more lower rates but that puts them at risk of an opponent showing up with all 1sts since there is no assurance they will be meet with a similar restricted force. 

Edited May 7, 2016 by Cragger

[Bigvalco]

Guys, Rule Number 1:  Keep it simple.  This has become mired in overtly complicated suggestions that do nothing more than limit the port battles. 

 

At no time should troops ever actually be considered as part of port battles.  The most important part being that no player has control of those troops and would provide an unnecessary and unrealistic mechanic to PBs. 

 

You cannot have BR limits to determine the size of a force, attacker or defender.  If done you exclude the casual player from ever joining in a fight without feeling like he's behind the bell curve or screwed it up for his team.  He just stays away to play it safe. 

 

The object of the Developers is to make the game fun for everyone yet in a way that can make sense to keep player frustration down.  To do this the system must be simple or it has a greater chance to break down. 

 

I believe what the Devs are proposing with this Thread is simply the best way to make PBs inclusive and more balanced. 

 

As you continue to debate what could or might work the suggestions become more complicated and intricate.  What the Developers need are suggestions that are simple and easy to implement.  And most importantly, that support the inclusion of the entire player base.  You have to think of those times where a clan is poised to take a port and an odd guy with the wrong ship shows up, smile on his face.  If you attack him for his mistake, you are wrong. 

 

1. Simple

 

2. Easy to understand

 

3.  Inclusive

 

I've already made my suggestion and some of it is part of the Dev's scope of changes.  I can't think of how to make the system better beyond what they are doing for the moment so I have to support what they are doing and test it out. 

 

The BR limit is the simplest solution in this thread so I have no idea why you think it is over complicated.

 

 Saying that a limit would prevent casual players from joining is absolutely silly, you think that they aren't discouraged from joining with the current system? The idea that the admin posted is better than it is currently, but still just more of the same. When you make it so that they are just 25 4th rates, how is that better than 25 1st rates?

 

 A BR limit would actually make casual players more effective in port battles because it will make it viable to have something other than the best ship for that tier of port battle. Casual players will not have a gold ingermanland with gold upgrades, but they might have a frigate which would only take up a smaller portion of the BR than an ingermanland. 

[Vernon Merrill]

The BR limit is the simplest solution in this thread so I have no idea why you think it is over complicated.

 

 Saying that a limit would prevent casual players from joining is absolutely silly, you think that they aren't discouraged from joining with the current system? The idea that the admin posted is better than it is currently, but still just more of the same. When you make it so that they are just 25 4th rates, how is that better than 25 1st rates?

 

 A BR limit would actually make casual players more effective in port battles because it will make it viable to have something other than the best ship for that tier of port battle. Casual players will not have a gold ingermanland with gold upgrades, but they might have a frigate which would only take up a smaller portion of the BR than an ingermanland. 

 

Because its POSSIBLE to assemble full 25 fleets of 4th rates, its NOT possible for all factions to easily assemble a full 1st rate fleet.

[captain_andrey]

 

I don't think anyone really enjoys 'map painting' uncontested battles for long but as long you are forced to bring your maximum force it is going to happen. For example SORRY could bring far less 1sts and more lower rates but that puts them at risk of an opponent showing up with all 1sts since there is no assurance they will be meet with a similar restricted force. 

I dont think you realize how many ex EVE players are playing this game. Yes I am very interested in map painting. Showing up with organized and unstoppable force that steam rolls your opponent because they are too scared to even undock is why I want to play this game. Nobody ever won a war by winning a close battle. You want to show your opponent that you have organizational skills to bring exactly 25 firsts in the battle, not one more or one less. You want to show them that you have industrial muscle to be able to replace those ships when they are lost. You dont just want to win and sink a few more ships than the opponent, you want to crush them until they dont even want to login the next day to defend. Thats how you win wars. 

 

Also all this talk about these or any other changes the devs could make would make anything more accessible to casual players. Why should it be? Why does someone who only logs in on a weekend and can barely crew their ship feel entitled to participate in a battle that was planned for days and weeks by dedicated players, players who play together every day, practice their lines, their communications, their fire focusing just for a chance to be able to show off their skills against a equally well prepared opponent. Any additional limits placed by the devs on top of existing 25 player limit will only serve to alienate the casual players in the eyes of the organized clans even more. Line battles with 1sts are very easy even for unskilled player to be effective in. Sail in line, dont crash into the guy infront and fire every now and then. Winning a frigate battle is a completely different story, skill will come into play a lot more. Skill that the casual player just doesnt have. Why should this player get in the battle ahead of skilled captain? There are plenty of things that a casual player can do in this game, but I dont think participating in port battles should be on the top of that list.