Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

New port battles feedback

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, sruPL said:

May we know what was fixed/changed today?

unimportant change - capture zones were slightly updated for all ports (73 regional capitals)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin said:

unimportant change - capture zones were slightly updated for all ports (73 regional capitals)

event schedule is changed, 11:30 server time instead of 12:00, do u forgot it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ink said:

Captains, there are two albums with the capture zones, the first one is somewhat complex cases, the second one - simple cases.

Complex
http://imgur.com/a/YnBG2
 

Simple
http://imgur.com/a/lNG3C

After looking at this images, I can be sure that the port defenses are useless due to the low range of their guns or the placement of the conquest areas. As you can see no conquest area is enterely protected by forts or towers. Towers and forts are just a dumie for the attackers to get easy points.

If you look at history, some forts were key to ensure the victory over the attackers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

After looking at this images, I can be sure that the port defenses are useless due to the low range of their guns or the placement of the conquest areas. As you can see no conquest area is enterely protected by forts or towers. Towers and forts are just a dumie for the attackers to get easy points.

If you look at history, some forts were key to ensure the victory over the attackers. 

This is a known issue, as we said in the patch notes:

  • Tower and fort placement will still be somewhat random but their number will depend on the city size. If new port battles will be fun some forts could be placed near objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Tower and fort placement will still be somewhat random but their number will depend on the city size. If new port battles will be fun some forts could be placed near objectives

 

In my view, to be really fun the port battles, the attackers should have in mind that he has to destroy the forts that protects a conquest area.  Right now, there is no difference between a OW 25vs25 near coast and a port battle itself. You can avoid all fort artillery by just keeping distance and, at the same time, you can hold all 3 conquest areas.

Before, the 5 floating towers did some damage to the attacking fleet, now you can leave the battle without being shooted by a fort.

 

For me, forts have the mission of protecting the city, if they are just a decorator, is better to dont have it. Please look at all the forts emplacements in the caribbean built by the spanish, british... did they waste their resources for nothing?

 

PS: sorry, if Im a bit passionate, Im architect and love history.

Edited by Intrepido

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, stormridersp said:

@Ink

Right now, there´s clearly a problem with the port battle timer and the points distribution. Battles are won without a shot being fired.

To clarify - are you referring to a port battle after today's hotfix? Since point's distribution has been tuned today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ink said:

To clarify - are you referring to a port battle after today's hotfix? Since point's distribution has been tuned today

Today there was Shallow Port Battle. To force people to fight, Defenders cannot win via points! Like in past Defenders could not win via BR!!! It was attacker that had to get BR, so now it must be the attacker to get the points. Defender can retake / secure points from attacker, make it like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest:

A bit smaller conquest circles to allow the devs to place them with more freedom, so more fun and strategical sense could be achieved in some ports.

Forts or towers placed in the way of the attackers to the conquest areas. 

Conquest circles more close to land or bays, whats the point of capturing an area surrounded by water?

Edited by Intrepido

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
  • Tower and fort placement will still be somewhat random but their number will depend on the city size. If new port battles will be fun some forts could be placed near objectives.

 

 
It would be better to realistically place forts, then tailor objectives around that.  Devs seem to be going about things backwards (although I understand procedural placement saves much time).
Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

I suggest:

A bit smaller conquest circles to allow the devs to place them with more freedom, so more fun and strategical sense could be achieved in some ports.

Forts or towers placed in the way of the attackers to the conquest areas. 

Conquest circles more close to land or bays, whats the point of capturing an area surrounded by water?

Looking at the port images I see there are some where the batteries/forts cover 2 objectives. Take San Juan for example, two objectives are covered. San Juan had a massive fort ("El Morro") which covered the entrance to the harbor and proved very difficult to assault. That one should be hard to take. With the layout now a defense tactic could be to leave the objective which is covered by forts alone or leave a token force and concentrate on the other 2 circles.

But I do agree with you forts were placed to cover harbor approaches and I think the devs will adjust the circles/fort placement. We should need Mortar Brigs to silence the guns of a fort to keep it from destroying the attacking fleet not just to get points!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal of a port battle should be to take one or two forts, that control the harbour and the city with their guns. That would be somehow historical and would make the difference to open sea fleet actions.

Everything placed around this is to increase the challenge or decoration.

Therefore I would like to see floating batteries, which are SoL without masts, that can turn some 30 degree left and right, that may randomly be placed in port battles, near the main target, to make the situation less predictable.

For small ports even a floating battery might be the main target.

I would prefer this and not some zones to control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to allow "stalemate" outcome to port battles?

-one objective is an open ocean "blockade" zone.  If attackers hold this zone, defenders cannot win the PB, but port does not change hands and PB loot is not awarded to either side.  Defenders must then defeat the attacking fleet for decisive victory (and the rewards that come with it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my feedback:  N/A.

I never get to participate in port battles because they either fill up and I never get a slot in the 25vs25 or I get on after work and dinner and other important life events and there are no port battles scheduled because of the ridiculous restrictions on when port battles can be scheduled. 

Edited by Yar Matey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Admin:

Points distribution

Kills/Sinkings

Sinking enemy ships or losing your ships grants points according the following scheme. 

  1. Lineships 40 pts
  2. All other ships 25 points. 

Simple, yes. A good start, certainly. Unfortunately, if a Bellona and a Victory square off, and by some miracle both sink the other, its a draw on the scoreboard. Likewise, if a Lynx and an Ingermanland square off, and both sink one another, its also a draw. Of course its a silly thought that a Lynx could beat an Ingermanland, so why then are they worth the same kill credit? If three Gunboats attack a L'Ocean, and by the grace of God sink the L'Ocean while losing only two of their number, the team that lost 80 men will be 10 points behind the team that lost a thousand.

Accordingly, all players will be urged to only take the strongest possible 4th rate, and the strongest possible 1st rate, into the port battle. The hope the Devs had of creating a diverse field of ships is being counteracted by their own scoring systems. Much like how 25v25 led to a race to exceptional first rates, assigning the same value to two very different ship ratings (3rd and 1st or 7th and 4th rates) will drive everyone to the best SOL or the best non-SOL. Why bring a gunboat when you can bring an Agamemnon for the same kill credit? Why target a Victory when sinking this Belonna is worth the same?

 

To resolve this, I propose either of two solutions.

1. The points earned for a ship kill is 10% of the BR. My Bellona is worth 40 points. A privateer is worth 3 points. Individual ships will still need to be maximized for their battle rating, but even such a gimmick as a boarding-fit crew-space gold-mods Indiaman tackling enemy SOL's will be welcome. I'd really love to see newbies in light ships dash for the capture points at the start of the battle while the professionals form up their battle lines and cruise toward the gunsmoke. Imagine being in your first port battle thinking your Rattlesnake was hot stuff when you see a L'Ocean run out the guns and make driftwood of a whole forest of unrated masts. Another advantage is that the BR is very granular and can be tweaked ship-by-ship; if the meta for whatever reason favors one specific ship for a great power-for-BR ratio, its BR can rise. If certain ships are considered useless in PBs, its BR can fall.

Problems; the battle goes one way or another on the basis of total ship kills, and with survival mods and enough strong hull/live oak/extra planking, 1st rates handled smartly are very hard to sink. We still see a meta toward these behaviors. Also with points based on ship kills, crippling an entire enemy fleet but not sinking one isn't going to be a victory against being completely unscathed, save for losing one. All-or-nothing scoring emphasizes team coordination against selected targets. A great majority of shots fired and damage done ultimately does not register in the final score.

Alternatively,

2. The points are earned by crew kills/captures. Every cannonball can influence the final score. Every individual dead man is worth one point. Every crewman brought into the battle is one more point for the enemy to earn, so the meta becomes efficiently using your manpower. It also creates a sense of "fleet morale"; if two sides fight to a stalemate and no ships sink, but the French are awash in blood and the British just have some rigging to fix, the French will be slipping away in the night and the British will take the port. Consider that a Lynx cannot be expected to kill a Victory, yet, getting grape and ball careening down the Victory's gun-deck by some extreme heroism could easily kill more than the forty men the lynx would lose. The meta becomes less about focusing fire on individuals and sinking them (although the tactically savvy will realize this is still viable), and more about blood, blood, blood. Get in, rake, sink, board or blast. Die at a price the enemy can't afford. This makes for a real melee. It also makes low rated ships viable against higher ratings, since one or two good rakes and running away is reflected on the scoreboard as your gain.

Problems; combat effectiveness versus crew capacity has not been a point of focus for balancing. It is presumable that some ships have too many or too few men for their combat power. Captains may focus on getting kills and wind up dis-masted, mostly a problem for them. Players will doubtlessly game things by sailing at reduced or skeleton crews for certain roles like fireshipping, which is fine, or "prepared perk carronade SOL with a bare minimum crew", which is silly.

It may also be possible to make a hybrid system with sinking bonuses on top of crew kills, but again, it needs to tie to the BR and not the line ship / other split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You orientated yourself on Battlefield Conquest. The key about this mode is to constantly rotate between objectives and doing decisions based on the enemy movement and your experience.

Here you cant do that, you basically have just one chance to push forward and after that the wind is too bad to do anything. So its probably just a big push for the middle circle and whoever wins control there wins the portbattle.

I havent participated in a PB yet, so not sure if thats accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both ideas could be on the PB win requirements. Control some key areas and to destroy the main fort or defenses near the city.

Why should a fort surrender without suffering any cassualties or damage?

 

An example of a fleet trying to conquest a city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Santa_Cruz_de_Tenerife_(1797)

Edited by Intrepido

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little point.

People who sink during the battle can't take the rewards because they have no hold.

It should be great if port battle reward drop from redeemable system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feedback from battle just happened in Puerto de Espana (1st rate):


First of, let me say that i think Gamelabs did a solid job on the new system.

Points of criticism: 
- North and South were flipped - 0 deg was about South, which led to some confusion in the start.
- I am not sure if the wind direction at the start was taken into the port battle, wind was close to 0 deg.
- Please let us zoom out more in the map, its not enough for the for the new system, you should see all 3 rings as defender.

It was a port battle i enjoyed, kiting is a thing of the past, tactics get really important - again, a job really well done.

thanks!


 

PS: for those of you who want to watch a recording: https://www.twitch.tv/kierrip/v/109214309 and


 

Edited by sveno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I participated in this mornings PB at St. George's Town.

The simple principle of the Portbattle is much improved upon the floating towers. We found that it was possible that the attackers could render in out of range and therefore out of sight. Either increase the render distance in the PB or shrink the outer limits of the outer circle by enough to eliminate this.

I also agree that the placement of the capture points in the PB must me more in tune with the harbor, tower defences and city. I also believe that the capture points should be at least a third smaller if not more. This would allow more strategic placement of the circles. We also thought that the capture time in a circle was to quick.

I think for a proper portbattle, the time allotted needs to be increased. I suggest 2 hours. This is primarily due to the wind. I believe it was meant to be, that the attackers could choose when to enter the battle or where based on the wind. In St. George's the wind was in their favor but if it had been coming straight from the land then the attackers would half to wait nearly a half hour to get a better wind vector, leaving them with only 1 hour to wage the battle. A two hour time limit would give the attacker more flexibility on when he attacks.

The spawn in circles on the Open ocean should not be the same size at all ports. They should be scaled according to the port in question. Consider Wilmington. If I was to place forts for that town, I would place two large ones at the mouth of the bay. The defensive fleet would also most likely park itself there or just inside the bay. I'd suggest the inner circle spawn in for the defenders be sized to fit the natural strategy of the geography. I'm hoping that over time, Portbattle maps will be individually constructed and not randomly generated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×