Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

New port battles feedback

Recommended Posts

rediii    3,062
4 minutes ago, koltes said:

You did not read it properly.
Attackers will lose if they just gonna go straight for landing. Few hits at a ship will disturb landing and put it on cooldown for 5 mins, while outnumbered troops are dying under fort's fire.
Before going for landing attackers will have to fight screening fleet of the defending players.

yes seems like i didnt.

but still, another new mechanic for the dev's to develop. just tweak the existing mechanic, raise the point cap and you get the effect that you have more losses and time in the portbattle without spending too many ressources of the devs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koltes    1,982
18 minutes ago, rediii said:

yes seems like i didnt.

but still, another new mechanic for the dev's to develop. just tweak the existing mechanic, raise the point cap and you get the effect that you have more losses and time in the portbattle without spending too many ressources of the devs

And what do we do if we hate that type of fighting even if it will work as intended?

@rediii the point is that for battle to have any chance of being fun in the long run years ahead the battle should allow us to FEEL that we are attacking and raiding the fort or defending our home land. As long as it stays arcade and we simply imagine that we had an epic port fight after chasing circles the game play will stay arcade.

Its like you are in a high detail 3D model spaceship in which you can open doors, access engine room, be in the control room, everything shines with super details etc and using this spaceship to play Galaga Wars. And while we understand that there are certainly players amongst us that just love Galaga Wars and that we quietly agree to accept their differences, it does not mean that we will give up on driving this game where it deserves to be.

Edited by koltes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/12/2016 at 4:20 PM, Wesreidau said:
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.

 

This >9000%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rediii    3,062
33 minutes ago, koltes said:

And what do we do if we hate that type of fighting even if it will work as intended?

@rediii the point is that for battle to have any chance of being fun in the long run years ahead the battle should allow us to FEEL that we are attacking and raiding the fort or defending our home land. As long as it stays arcade and we simply imagine that we had an epic port fight after chasing circles the game play will stay arcade.

Its like you are in a high detail 3D model spaceship in which you can open doors, access engine room, be in the control room, everything shines with super details etc and using this spaceship to play Galaga Wars. And while we understand that there are certainly players amongst us that just love Galaga Wars and that we quietly agree to accept their differences, it does not mean that we will give up on driving this game where it deserves to be.

i want a game which i can enjoy in my evenings, i dont care too much if i have to stay inside a circle to win as long as it works. and it does work. get yourself some more aggressive fleetcommanders if you lack sunk ships in portbattles.

i dont hate the type of fighting we are doing at the moment. the points should be increased to 1500, yes, but there shouldnt be another huge change to the portbattlemechanics because they work at the moment and there are things that are more broke right now.

see the circles as a blockade or imagine something else. Result of the circles is that the defenders have to fight as well as the attackers and winning a battle is decided how good your ships are doing.

with your "landing troops" thing there will be for example another problem. what if the ships "landing troops" just get shot the whole time from a distance from some kitingships? a mortarbrig behind a island? heavy use of fireships in waves so the defender comes over the timelimit?

 

ok i got it. see the battle like this: You are fighting the enemy fleet for sea superiority so you can land your troops after the battle. Points signal a tactical/moral victory and the loosing fleet retreats.

 

If you want it realistic. Was there a navalbattle in this century where 2 full fleets fought each other while 1 was landing troops on the shore at the same time?

If you want it to work so ships get sunk etc.: Why not just tweak the current mechanics to a point where they work perfectly? Tweaking is way easier/faster/more effective than developing a complete new mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fletch67    285
3 hours ago, koltes said:

But where do you draw a line? Unlimited supply of payers is utopia. This means even further penalizing a small nation. You have 100 people in small nation and 500 people in large nation. Is small nation ever gonna have a chance to win anything? 

The line is drawn when one side reaches 1000 points. Until then entry should be possible by either side as long as they don't have 25 ships already in.

The port battle should be an open conflict zone for the duration of the fight in my opinion. At least something needs to be done to brake way from the boring old 25 of the heaviest ships allowed into the port. Even limiting port battles by BR rather than number of ships would help at least the side with the cheaper ships could have more inside and attempt to hold the circles with numbers rather than quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, koltes said:

What would be a simple solution to the problem that people dont want to chase circles? They just want to fight and sink other players?

You dont have to chase circles, they dont move. That means people have to fight in that area or they gonna lose. More fights, less kiting. 

17 hours ago, koltes said:

No PB lasted more than 30 min. To me that is an issue.

If you lose a PB in 30 mins that means that the enemy capped all 3 circles for a long time and you deserved to lose.

17 hours ago, koltes said:

I posted a screen which shows all green ships and the end of the battle. Both sides had 25 ships and were equal so PB was full. To me that is an issue.

Thats true jeah, the bigger the shipclass gets the more unlikely it gets that ships sink. They need to work on that.

17 hours ago, koltes said:

They should simply mix the teams with available ship slots to join.

For example SoL battle should have similar setup to this:

x 3 first rates slots

x 5 second rates slots

x 7 third rates slots

x 10 fouth rates

 

There you have it. You will have to really work on your tactics to ensure that SoL are supported and each captain will naturally have his own task in the battle. Battles of this setup would give way more divercsity than some circles

I like that, 50 ships of the same type is boring.

Edited by JonSnowLetsGo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rediii    3,062
1 minute ago, Hodo said:

I agree with this, increase the cap.  

I also like the idea Koltes put forward about different ship ratings in the battle.   

 

 

If slots make it into the game something has to be done to give the attackingfleet a bigger chance to not get screened away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prater    5,325

No matter what happens, PB join time should be left open for 90 minutes on both sides.  The time being limited is an artifact left over from flags.  Let's allow anyone in the alliance to join as long as there are less than 25 ships and any amount of time left.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rediii    3,062
12 minutes ago, Prater said:

No matter what happens, PB join time should be left open for 90 minutes on both sides.  The time being limited is an artifact left over from flags.  Let's allow anyone in the alliance to join as long as there are less than 25 ships and any amount of time left.

And points needed maybe to 1250-1500 to win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeRuyter    724

From what I have seen so far on PVP1 (and watched on Jeheil's reports!) it is very hard for the attacker in a full 25/25 PB. I think to an extent this is intended to make it hard to flip a port, and some ports are harder or maybe some are easier to take.  A couple of observations from the ideas above:

1. Forts and towers should play a larger role.  Attackers should get more points for destroying forts and they should cover more of the cap circles with fire.

2. @koltes If we can't have depths in PB I'd say test something like slots for ship classes as you suggest. For Lineship PB go with most slots for 3rd rates as that was the most numerous class, then some 2nd and few 1st followed by support ships. If you look at the Battle of Copenhagen (1801) the attacking fleet was mostly 3rd and 4th rates with frigates and support ships (mortars) while the 1st rate(s) stayed offshore. However the problem with slots is possible player conflict as to who gets what slot and between clans and a pubbie dropping in to take a slot, etc.

3. @Prater I agree increase join time - That would make it harder for the defender to screen the battle. You'd need a decent sized screening fleet to keep the attackers out and the attackers could still get in later. Makes for more pvp both in and out of the PB. The defender would still have an advantage if the attackers were too delayed by accruing points.

4. @rediii Not sure we need to raise the points to win. Maybe tweak the timing, make all circles neutral at start, more points for forts and sinking ships.

 

Now to bring in raids and other ideas for PVP to raise hostility - but I am going OT!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yar Matey    760

We need more port battle type content.  There should be ways to raise hostility through forming blockades on ports and raiding ports where there are objectives to complete to that make the game more engaging and enjoyable.  You have land in port battles now, how hard would it be to modify port battles a little bit so we have raids and blockades? 

A blockade can be as simple as, attacking team needs to stay within a certain area to keep the blockade going, and the defending team of the port tries to push the ships out of the area by attacking them.

Raids can be as simple as sailing to the town with a small fast ship and doing a boarding type action against the town, then sailing away with some type of cargo.  Defending team tries to stop the person attacking the town, and if the boarding action is successful, then stopping the ship from escaping the battle with cargo. 

Having 2-4 port battles scheduled every day is really not enough engaging PvP content and the PvP event is just a band-aid over a gaping wound of a problem.  I am not the only one who has brought this topic up and I have also posted on this topic several times.  My hope is that it will eventually get addressed because PvP content is severely lacking in this game right now.

PvP content needs to have objectives to give meaning to the battle.  Port battles do this very effectively.  Please find ways to add more of this content using the hostility system. 

Edited by Yar Matey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prater    5,325

Ultimately this game is about open sea battles.  Port conquest should never become the focus of the game.  Going away from the Flag System insured that Naval Action was no longer Port Battle Conquest Action and instead became once again Naval Action.  Especially when the ramifications and losses can be tremendous.  Map conquest needs to be slow.

Edited by Prater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yar Matey    760
19 minutes ago, Prater said:

Ultimately this game is about open sea battles.  Port conquest should never become the focus of the game.  Going away from the Flag System insured that Naval Action was no longer Port Battle Conquest Action and instead became once again Naval Action.  Especially when the ramifications and losses can be tremendous.  Map conquest needs to be slow.

I am not sure if you are directing this comment at me or not, seems like you are so I will respond. 

Open World (open sea) battles will never work well to support a community of players.  This is because OW battles will almost always be lopsided towards one side, thus, OW battles will almost always consist of a chasing fleet and a fleeing fleet.  Very rarely will you get a good evenly matched fight in OW where both sides are willing to engage in a fierce fight.  Objective based PvP is what is needed to make the game engaging and fun.  When players do a port battle, the objective is to stay within the circle area to capture the area, or defend the circle.  These objectives are important to maintaining healthy and challenging PvP content.  In the old port battle system it was to destroy the floating towers and gain a higher BR than your enemy, and it worked surprisingly well at bringing players together and competing. 

My ideas for raiding, blockading, and NPC trader fleet escorts to ports are ways to have meaningful objective based PvP events.  No Objective based PvP, and you will have no player base to play the game. 

Edited by Yar Matey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prater    5,325

Prior to port battles we didn't have objective based PvP.  We created our own wars and our own objectives, and we had a playerbase.  A good portion of my pvp is relatively fair, but that is what I mostly look for.  Port battle type battles don't insure fair pvp, as this weekend showed in several of the port battles.  It definitely was not fair for the Danes or the Spanish in any manner.  Raids are good.  Blockades are good.  I'm fine with those.  What I don't want is the map drastically changing every night and we get back to Map Conquest Simulator.

Edited by Prater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yar Matey    760
6 minutes ago, Prater said:

Prior to port battles we didn't have objective based PvP.  We created our own wars and our own objectives, and we had a playerbase.  A good portion of my pvp is relatively fair, but that is what I mostly look for.  Port battle type battles don't insure fair pvp, as this weekend showed in several of the port battles. 

That is not true at all.  I used to log on at prime time hours and their were flags being pulled everywhere.  We had battles where the objective was to destroy the ship carrying the flag (or defend the flag carrier), we had screening fleets where the objective was to prevent ships from getting to the port battle, then we had the objective of destroying the towers in the port battles or defending the towers.  The point is, there was always an objective, and it brought fierce and bloody PvP every night, and it was so much fun.  I couldn't wait to get home from work to jump into the action when the flags started getting pulled. 

Now, I am lucky if I can get into a port battle on a weekend.  I log on and sail up and down the coast of enemy capitals hoping to find a fight.  I go the admiralty event looking for fights every night, and its just terrible.  There is no objective based PvP anymore when I log on after work, and it sucks.  Chasing traders around outside enemy ports gets really old fast and chasing or running in a battle in the PvP event is getitng old fast as well.

Edited by Yar Matey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prater    5,325

No, you didn't read what I said.  Prior to Port Battles.  Before there were any kind of Port Battles.  We created our own wars and objectives.  We created our own content on the OW.  There were no objectives, no map conquest, and we had a player base.  Numbers dropped before EA even after objective based gameplay.  Not all gameplay needs to be objective based, and we don't need map conquest every night.  Having to log in every night to defend your ports or lose them, your ships, your resources, your warehouse upgrades and buildings to the enemy gets old real fast.

Edited by Prater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wraith    1,348
22 minutes ago, Prater said:

Port conquest should never become the focus of the game.

I agree, but it must remain as one of the possible focuses players might have in-game.

5 minutes ago, Yar Matey said:

Objective based PvP is what is needed to make the game engaging and fun. 

Again, I think ideally "objective" PvP needs to intersect with the desire that open world supports multiple objectives, one of which is sailing, hunting, and finding randoms to fight. I think the balance is very difficult to find for any multiplayer open world game, but to support a diverse player base, one that includes both RvR and random encounter fighting, and people that like a bit of both on any given day, that balance must be struck. 

The reason it must be struck is that without one the other is meaningless except for a very niche player base, one that's smaller than I think either end of that game playing spectrum desires. I think to facilitate that balance, there needs to be both reductions in restrictions on what is possible, leaving it up to the players to provide content.. but with the facilities and tools provided to the players to create that content!  

Right now, the Alliance mechanic, the PvE/PvP Event mechanic, and old weekend wreck mechanic... etc. etc. do nothing to provide tools to players to create content. The port battle flag mechanic was a mechanic that did provide a tool to players to create content.. it just had terrible shortcomings, just as the current hostility mechanic does.  One can only hope that these are further rectified and we get further refinements to allow for this, otherwise this game will forever fall in the severe niche category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Louis Garneray    580
37 minutes ago, Prater said:

Ultimately this game is about open sea battles.  Port conquest should never become the focus of the game.  Going away from the Flag System insured that Naval Action was no longer Port Battle Conquest Action and instead became once again Naval Action.  Especially when the ramifications and losses can be tremendous.  Map conquest needs to be slow.

I agree with you. I mostly enjoy fighting in the open sea. As for port battles I don't really care for but raids or blockades would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koltes    1,982
28 minutes ago, Yar Matey said:

The point is, there was always an objective, and it brought fierce and bloody PvP every night, and it was so much fun.  I couldn't wait to get home from work to jump into the action when the flags started getting pulled. 

Yeah, I hear you mate, but what you really want is fun involvement and PVP play that keeps you wanting to comeback. Conquest is a separate issue and doesn't have to be PB fights and conquest that makes you eager to play more. Its just should be part of something bigger than that. Like Prater said too much of it was also bad and people burned out like my clan did.
 

22 minutes ago, Prater said:

Not all gameplay needs to be objective based, and we don't need map conquest every night.  Having to log in every night to defend your ports or lose them, your ships, your resources, your warehouse upgrades and buildings to the enemy gets old real fast.

I agree. Everything in NA needs to be Interesting but also Fun to do. Crafting process should be fun, trading should be involving and fun, hell even looking for targets needs to be fun. Conquest also needs to be fun, but be part of something bigger. Like global economic balance of the Caribbean. Clans needs to have homeland and that alone willmake you wanting to comeback to help to grow your land and make it prosperous, to defend it from the attackers etc.

 

20 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Again, I think ideally "objective" PvP needs to intersect with the desire that open world supports multiple objectives, one of which is sailing, hunting, and finding randoms to fight.

This. I think the same. The alliances needs to be subjective driven by the story line that brings content. Conquest needs to be clan based (better call Company based) so clans can take territories and make them their home or base of operations.


But than again we are going away from the actual port battles discussion. While its hard to talk about conquest without discussing politic system and other mechanics the actual PB and what happens inside PB instance is a separate issue. It is more of a team combat issue so no point discussing OW mechanics.

Prater and I at least agreed that PB needs to more like, hmm Port Battle. Where objective of the attacker is to capture the fort and for the defender not to let the enemy to take it. Sinking all ships also grants victory obviously.
This simple PB mechanic would allow to have very involving PBs. They will be much more realistic and are easy enough to implement.


 

Edited by koltes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prater    5,325

I agree, Port Battles and Port Conquest are important, but...

Right now we have 1 port battle to conquer an entire region.  We can push a nation back to one region very easily, causing massive damage, and massive damage to the player base.  Constant defending wears a nation down, especially if it is every night for an extended period of time.  Having several port battles every night when so many ports switch according to one battle is not good.  I know I don't want to have to log in every night like I used to or risk having my ports be lost.  Again, port conquest needs to be slow.  It needs to be hard to reduce a nation to one port or one region.  Maybe several raids and blockades need to happen before you can attack the region capital, or like Koltes has suggested with several port battles leading up to the region capital battle.  But we need to be careful that it doesn't become once again where the players of the smaller nations have to log in every night to defend their ports or risk losing them all without a fight.  Maybe there can be a pvp mission where you hunt down players of that nation, no matter where they are, and it adds hostility to the region you select the mission to be for to add more objective based gameplay.  But please don't go back to a system that allows several port battles against the same nation multiple times a week.  What I advocate is the addition of additional pvp content, not the same old port conquest content multiplied every night so people aren't bored.

 

Also, we need to come up with a way to get more players involved.  25 players per nation is not enough when we have 500+ players on (weekend primetime numbers).  Even in the US we have more people wanting to get involved and screening isn't always the answer.

Edited by Prater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yar Matey    760

@koltes Look, I like your port battle ideas, I really do.  and I also liked your idea of using multiple port battles with shallows, deep, then regional deeps before the area is conquered even though I think it would be nearly impossible for the attacking team to win.

The thing is, your ideas from a development point of view are difficult to implement and could take months to do.  I would love to show up with my marine outfitted first rate and do a landing to capture the fort.  But, coding that into the game right now is time consuming.  Modifying port battles a little bit for blockades where the attackers need to simply stay in one area to form a blockade is a much easier thing to implement and can be done much faster to give us more PvP content now.  The changes to port battles to make them more realistic can come later once we have good meaningful content in the game. 

 

8 minutes ago, Prater said:

Right now we have 1 port battle to conquer an entire region.  We can push a nation back to one region very easily, causing massive damage, and massive damage to the player base.  Constant defending wears a nation down, especially if it is every night for an extended period of time.  Having several port battles every night when so many ports switch according to one battle is not good.  I know I don't want to have to log in every night like I used to or risk having my ports be lost.  Again, port conquest needs to be slow.  It needs to be hard to reduce a nation to one port or one region.  Maybe several raids and blockades need to happen before you can attack the region capital, or like Koltes has suggested with several port battles leading up to the region capital battle.  But we need to be careful that it doesn't become once again where the players of the smaller nations have to log in every night to defend their ports or risk losing them all without a fight.  Maybe there can be a pvp mission where you hunt down players of that nation, no matter where they are, and it adds hostility to the region you select the mission to be for.  But please don't go back to a system that allows several port battles against the same nation multiple times a week.

This is exactly why I specifically state that blockades and raids need to be tied to hostility generation, and defenders in port battles have a huge advantage over the attackers. 

Edited by Yar Matey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koltes    1,982
1 minute ago, Yar Matey said:

Modifying port battles a little bit for blockades where the attackers need to simply stay in one area to form a blockade is a much easier thing to implement and can be done much faster to give us more PvP content now.  The changes to port battles to make them more realistic can come later once we have good meaningful content in the game. 

Mate have you really read this?

I have reworked on PB mechanics and this is the latest proposition. I agree that the previous was much harder to do, Doable but harder. This one is much easier, in fact not harder than yours. Instead of blockade line, there is landing line and while you are doing landing you are unloading troops that are fighting the fort which gradually loses its garrison.

This landing mechanics will keep people fighting and give proper objective.
Ever since PB were introduced people were kiting and running because there was no proper objectives and to tackle that I think we have seen all sorts of circles, Small, large Medium, Reducing size over time, 3 Circles etc etc etc. Personally I'm done with circles or objectives that are not the ACTUAL fort! I came there to take that building, to claim the victory, fighting away from it is not what my intentions were.
The landing on the other hand achieves the goal of making people fighting. There is just no other way to win this. Don't fight and you will lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Here is my suggestion for an adjustement to the current PB mechanics.

Leave the current battle mechanic the same, increase the points to 1500 required to win.

I would make it so there is 4 PB during the day of the PB.  One in each major peak time. 

Start at 0800 Server time, 1300, 1800, and 2100.  

This puts the battles well within the playerbase peak times for all the major timezones.  

The side that accumulates the most points, not just wins, but points for the whole day wins the port.  

So even if you lose one battle but it is close say 1500 to 1400, and you lose the next one 1500 to 1400, and lose the third one by 100 again... but win the last one by a landslide, 1500 to 500.  Then you will win the region because your total points will be 5700 out of a total  6000, vs 5000 out of 6000.   So you won by 700.  

This makes EVERY battle matter.  

maybe this but scale the value to reflect the servers current population.  So during the EU primetimes there are 500 ppl on but the North American there are 250.  The Nor American PB would be worth half as much. 

I am not sure your proposal would work though but it has merit and should be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prater    5,325

Problem with that:  nations whose population is primarily North American can never win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Intrepido    2,182

I recently did a PB.

The enemy didnt even consider bringing a mortar brig, the coastal defenses didnt bother them.

It turns into somekind of engagement near the coast with some decorators at the background instead of a proper PB.

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

×