Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Slamz

When will we give up and declare port battles a failed feature?

Recommended Posts

On 8/3/2017 at 5:19 PM, Dharus said:

You can still have an RvR game without PBs.  We have contention already.  We just need some to be player and pvp based.  Something like "patrolling" a regions adds contention based on BR (to some cap).  When the "flip" happens, then there is some three day scoring event for pvp sunk or "patrolling" time.  After such time, ports flip or not.  Obviously there needs to be tweeks, timers on patrolling to prevent dock humping, balance of patrol points vs kills, etc.  A lot of these mechanics seem to be in game already.

This proposed system definitely puts all the fights on the open sea.  The open sea is where the DEVs want the players.  This would do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP is a complete nonsense. If you dont play conquest game in the conquest game thats your problem. We enjoy 25 n 25 fights, because its all about team work, pure tactics and execution on a team level. Its diferent from oportunistic OW pvp, but still no less pvp because its 100 times more challenging than sitting in battles ambushing traders and lone targets.

If hunting is all about finding your prey and finding the right prey the PBs are a pure fight. Its a challenge of a skill as a team, organisation and discipline. Frankly you suck at all of these qualities hense why you dont show to defend your territory. Of course you are hinding behind these posts (remove RVR no one likes it) and your attitude in global - who cares about the dots on the map. But every one knows the truth. You are scared that there will be a red vs green screenshot showing of the lack of all of the above.

Edited by koltes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah it's sadly another regurge of the 8 nations is a failed idea. Current thinking seems to be moving us towards many more Clans / Companies & Nations rather than fewer IIRC

 

The dots on the map are needed for us to fight over or are we all supposed to be in a fish bowl searching for each other, sounds like a lobby based game like Legends to me. That's not going to appeal for any real hunters IMHO

 

People have a hard time grasping that fact , that Content they themselves don't really enjoy ( but other people do ) is content. Removing any of today's content won't help the game, it will help destroy it.

 

Fighting between companies or clans will help, no more not being able to try and slap the people / players you don't get on with sounds great to me. 1v1 on the open seas is fun to me, 3v3 or 5v1 or whatever. Losing my trader to a Pirate because I went out on my own is fun to me or my mistake. Part of the game is me trying to run a blockade in my no cannon trader

 

no longer having to accept other peoples treaties , decisions sounds to be like I am going to enjoy myself more than now, and my first 3 months have been good or I wouldn't bother playing

 

IMHO forcing people to give up what they enjoy is a bad move, telling people what they enjoy is stupid is also a bad move. Trying to impose a play style on others .. also a bad move

Share this post


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

We enjoy 25 n 25 fights, because its all about team work, pure tactics and execution on a team level. Its diferent from oportunistic OW pvp, but still no less pvp because its 100 times more challenging than sitting in battles ambushing traders and lone targets.

How is a PB 25x25 different from an OW 25x25?

Share this post


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

How is a PB 25x25 different from an OW 25x25?

Cant remember when last time I had 25x25 in OW. Can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know in real life, hunting done in caged/fenced in areas prestocked with the 'right prey' is shunned by real hunters that enjoy hunting for the hunt- regardless of the antler size or weight of the prey.  No skill involved when you know the when and where.  More variables are at play on the Open sea than inside an arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, koltes said:

Cant remember when last time I had 25x25 in OW. Can you?

Yeah, I think we can only theorize as any 25x25 is becoming rarer.

I have seen a lot of good OW action though: http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/14676-pvp1-june-the-british-honduras-campaign-pirate-perspective/

So we are both seeking an ideal which may or may not come about again.

But if I were to make the statement: PB and OW battles are essentially equal. What would you say to counter this?

More specifically am I making a false presumption by saying: A 25 (PB) Fleet must be able to defend/hold a region, unless defeated directly in a 25x25 fight?

If not, then I can continue my suggestion write-up for a fleet-in-being.

Share this post


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

We enjoy 25 n 25 fights

Well that must suck for you because you almost never get them anymore.

Stop trying to embrace a game element that's effectively dead. I like battles that are exactly 8v8 with exactly 2 Bellonas on each side but I don't propose we destroy the game by trying to force everyone into a stupid configuration that's so specific, it almost never happens. Just like port battles are today.

What have you had, 1 real one in the last month?

(And then you have groups like the Chinese and the Aussies, who joined the same nation and now have literally nobody to have a PB against. Tell me again how much everyone loves a good PB fight? They obviously don't.)

It's busted.

Put a bullet in it and come up with a plan more people actually like.

Everything I see in game is ways to avoid having port battles anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Slamz said:

Well that must suck for you because you almost never get them anymore.

Stop trying to embrace a game element that's effectively dead. I like battles that are exactly 8v8 with exactly 2 Bellonas on each side but I don't propose we destroy the game by trying to force everyone into a stupid configuration that's so specific, it almost never happens. Just like port battles are today.

What have you had, 1 real one in the last month?

(And then you have groups like the Chinese and the Aussies, who joined the same nation and now have literally nobody to have a PB against. Tell me again how much everyone loves a good PB fight? They obviously don't.)

It's busted.

Put a bullet in it and come up with a plan more people actually like.

Everything I see in game is ways to avoid having port battles anyway.

Have a look at my suggestions for port battles in this thread, I think it could bring some variation to port battles and make them more interesting.

http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22095-some-thoughts-on-improving-the-game/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really really really... hate tanky ships, RVR, politics and port battles but I'll post a suggestion that I heard from @Bach last night.  Now that war companies are maybe coming, you will be able to decide what ships show up to a port battle. Besides a max ship limit, add a BR limit.  Let's say it's a 1st rate port battle, make it so that by BR you can have 10 first rates or up to 25 ships (or when BR is reached, whichever comes first) of mixed type.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Trafalgar!    Truth is there was only ever one battle of Trafalgar and it broke the back of both the French  and Spanish navies cementing in British sea dominance for the next decade plus.  However, NA players seem to think these epic battles are just a Tuesday night.  The problem is that expectation is unrealistic but the logistics are very realistic.  An in game decisive 25v25 does the exact same thing it did in real life. It established dominance of one party and costs the nation more economic value and loss of pride than they are actually willing to repeat next Tuesday. So the PBs are over or just become one sided participation things.

The game simply can't have a top end game piece, like 1st rates, become the standard Tuesday PB weapon of choice. It doesn't even work on a psycological level.  Players rarely continually risk top end gear.  

So:

Problem #1 is that over use of first rates actually stifle PB play and weaken it greatly. The use of first rates need further restrictions.

Problem #2 is the battles are all or nothing ways to capture a port.  They are the only ways to capture ports in RvR. Add in secondary methods to capture ports and the game dynamics will expand with more ways to RvR.

Problem #3 is time zone effects on RvR by one all or nothing battle system. This results in bad or stagnant RvR.

Sugggested solutions:

Problem #1 Limit players to one active First rate per account. One active second rate and two third rates. This will reduce the number of maxed 1st rate fleets moving around the board and players will not be able to teleport from battle front to battle front and have 1st rates defending the whole carribean.  Will add to diversity of ships seen in Port Battles.

Problem #2 Add invasion fleets to RvR game. Player buy an invasion flag.  Sails the flag like under the old flag rules to a beach near the target port. If he makes it there and plants the flag a 24 counter for the invasion takes place. In that 24 hour the attacker nation and defender nation must bring in troops to the port. At the close of the 24 period the invasion battle takes as an AI boarding battle based on the numbers of troops delivered. Winner gets the port.  Add in garrisons, defenses and tactics the owning Lords can purchase and pre-program. Add raiding to weaken port garrisons and rob tax base for that week.  Add in port Morale that is effected by tax rate and luxury items given to colonists like Assam Tea.

Problem #3 Make some RvR aspects cumulative over time. (See troop delivery above) This will allow off hour teams to have a way to combat each other.  Let's say the defending player patrols off the coast during the 24hr period before the 3AM battle. For every 1000 points generated an AI ship will attend the port battle in an available slot not used up by players. This way a 25 man EST nation has some defense against an 8 man Oceanic nation. Plus it makes it more interesting for the Oceanics than an empty PB.

Edited by Bach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To make port battles more interesting and accessible you have to remove the requirement for them to be 25v25 top rated ships of a certain class. Not all ports are worth risking 25 first rates on or 25 aggies on. So change how the ports are graded, give them different levels. Important ports will be first rate battles, but lower ranked ports will require less ships on each side and can even be based on BR limits.

With the planned new War Company mechanics you can set it so the attacking PB fleet has to assemble at a port and sail with the flag, if you make that fleet (and any subsidiary screening fleet they have from same WC) only attackable by the defending WC and applicable WC screeners, then you could set up BR limits for the port battle fleet to comply with. The same for the defenders, as they all have to be at the port to defend it they could set up their defense to meet certain BR requirements.

With different BR's set for different ports you could have varying sizes of battles, you could even have ones where small War Companies could compete in especially against other small War Companies. There are many ports on the map I am sure some small WC would'nt mind having a small out of the way port to call their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With war company mechanics, I think the war company should be able to set the min BR to actually have the PB take place.  This makes screening still viable to prevent the PB and keep pvp happening and gives the war company the control.  Also the max BR should be an offset of the min by a reasonable amount more, such as an additional 100 BR.  The two things together would make it so that there are no empty PB's and the PB would be a better battle if it does take place.  If screening prevents the min BR from being attained that's a good thing.  If it doesn't prevent it then you still have a good PB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until ship rate/br limits are made for pb's they are dead to me. The block of tankiest build 25 santilotions/ Agas with odd mortar brig are so dull with no immersion at all, and the Resources for said tank builds are a 2-4 hours smuggle sail away for some nations. But im just a captain that prefers sailing frigates over tubs.

Share this post


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

The OP is a complete nonsense. If you dont play conquest game in the conquest game thats your problem. We enjoy 25 n 25 fights, because its all about team work, pure tactics and execution on a team level. Its diferent from oportunistic OW pvp, but still no less pvp because its 100 times more challenging than sitting in battles ambushing traders and lone targets.

If hunting is all about finding your prey and finding the right prey the PBs are a pure fight. Its a challenge of a skill as a team, organisation and discipline. Frankly you suck at all of these qualities hense why you dont show to defend your territory. Of course you are hinding behind these posts (remove RVR no one likes it) and your attitude in global - who cares about the dots on the map. But every one knows the truth. You are scared that there will be a red vs green screenshot showing of the lack of all of the above.

You can't force players to 25v25 PB.  All that OW vs PB stuff aside, it requires 50 willing participants to get a maxed out PB. This is generally the problem.  For an open world hunter to have fun he just needs to find one guy in a cargo ship willing to risk moving cargo.  The crux of this arguement isn't really OW vs. PB. It's simply what are players willing to do?  Clearly the current system isn't really attracting 25v25 PB participants in any large numbers in any regularity.   About the only difference in OW battles is that the opponent doesn't necessarily need to be willing to fight.

i would like to see more RvR and I would like to see more ways to do it. I think the current system is simply to narrow to attract a wide enough willing crowd.

Share this post


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

With war company mechanics, I think the war company should be able to set the min BR to actually have the PB take place.  This makes screening still viable to prevent the PB and keep pvp happening and gives the war company the control.  Also the max BR should be an offset of the min by a reasonable amount more, such as an additional 100 BR.  The two things together would make it so that there are no empty PB's and the PB would be a better battle if it does take place.  If screening prevents the min BR from being attained that's a good thing.  If it doesn't prevent it then you still have a good PB.

If the BR is set by the defending WC they will always set it high to make it difficult to be attacked, if the BR requirement is set by port size then you have different sizes of PB's that can suit different clan sizes. 

Share this post


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

If the BR is set by the defending WC they will always set it high to make it difficult to be attacked, if the BR requirement is set by port size then you have different sizes of PB's that can suit different clan sizes. 

That's a very good point, you are right about that.  Then why not a combination of the two requirements, so that smaller size war companies have something to aspire to over time?  Everything doesn't have to be available to everyone all at once IMO, it should be a progressive thing.  What to prevent is a monopoly type board where no one ever has a chance at growing.

Share this post


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

That's a very good point, you are right about that.  Then why not a combination of the two requirements, so that smaller size war companies have something to aspire to over time?  Everything doesn't have to be available to everyone all at once IMO, it should be a progressive thing.  What to prevent is a monopoly type board where no one ever has a chance at growing.

I suggested a system in the suggestions section, linked in an earlier post in this thread, where ports can grow in level as a War Company builds them up, so a small WC would only build as big as they could defend in BR terms. You could have small port battles that would be filled by 10 ships or even less depending on BR, with some lower limit of course (you dont really want 1v1 port battles).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with RvR is that only 5% of people do it (devs numbers not mine), yet i get feeling that 95% or devs resources are spend on developing RvR instead of giving us great OW PvP game.

EDIT: BTW similar thing happened to WildStar. Hardcore guilds in WS screamed raids, raids, raids, so WS devs spend all their time on raids. Problem was that everyone who in not interested in raids left, and coincidentally that was 95% of their playerbase. Don't make same mistake.

Edited by Zoky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zoky said:

Problem with RvR is that only 5% of people do it (devs numbers not mine), yet i get feeling that 95% or devs resources are spend on developing RvR instead of giving us great OW PvP game.

EDIT: BTW similar thing happened to WildStar. Hardcore guilds in WS screamed raids, raids, raids, so WS devs spend all their time on raids. Problem was that everyone who in not interested in raids left, and coincidentally that was 95% of their playerbase. Don't make same mistake.

^ This may be the thing.  With those 5% that want to do Trafalgar like battles spread across x8 nations.  Perhaps if only the British, French and Spanish nations were allowed to sail 1st and 2nd rates we could get the Trafalgar players consolidated enough for more consultant large battles. Make only those nations ports be lines ship fights and make all other nations ports 4th rate limited.   Might encourage more RvR and get more of the OW players spread around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm beating a dead horse....  but here goes.  Bathymetry.

 

There NEEDS to be a way to add to ship diversity in PB's to make them any kind of interesting.  

 

There NEEDS to to be areas that are capturable only by shallower vessels.  I REALLY liked the idea of Port Battles when they brought land into them...  The first few were really fun.  Then it got dull.  Quickly.   

Mixed fleets and I might be convinced again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skully said:

Yeah, I think we can only theorize as any 25x25 is becoming rarer.

I have seen a lot of good OW action though: http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/14676-pvp1-june-the-british-honduras-campaign-pirate-perspective/

So we are both seeking an ideal which may or may not come about again.

But if I were to make the statement: PB and OW battles are essentially equal. What would you say to counter this?

More specifically am I making a false presumption by saying: A 25 (PB) Fleet must be able to defend/hold a region, unless defeated directly in a 25x25 fight?

If not, then I can continue my suggestion write-up for a fleet-in-being.

Not sure what you are on about. We have enough people to show up for any PB and the only real reason they are not showing up is because they have more insentives not showing up rather than fighting.

With the new mechanics when clan / company invested in a certain region they will fight to defend its home town.

With small ports coming to play again, I suggest make size of a port reflect size of a PB, e.g. 25, 15, 10 or 5 per side. This way small clans will be able to choose ports that they are able to fill in and defend. Large clans will choose bigger ports and it will take bigger clans to attack them.

Solutions are simple no need to invent another bike. OW on the other hand is opportunistic place. Ganking, running, chasing, ambushing is all good and fair game.

We can easily have both aspects of fighting gameplay in one game thus making it attractive to a larger audience and player base. And thats what we want a larger and happier player base aren't we?

Edited by koltes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vernon Merrill said:

I know I'm beating a dead horse....  but here goes.  Bathymetry.

 

There NEEDS to be a way to add to ship diversity in PB's to make them any kind of interesting.  

 

There NEEDS to to be areas that are capturable only by shallower vessels.  I REALLY liked the idea of Port Battles when they brought land into them...  The first few were really fun.  Then it got dull.  Quickly.   

Mixed fleets and I might be convinced again.

 

Edited by koltes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vernon Merrill said:

There NEEDS to be a way to add to ship diversity in PB's to make them any kind of interesting.  

That could actually work with this new clan based system, too.

The old problem with BR limits was that you had no control over who entered the fight so you'd never know if you showed up in a Santi and got in or, oops, BR too high, guess I'm stuck outside in a 1st rate now.

With the clan based combat though, BR limits could work. The clan doing the battle can work out ahead of time who is going in what ship.

Share this post


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

Not sure what you are on about. We have enough people to show up for any PB and the only real reason they are not showing up is because they have more insentives not showing up rather than fighting.

With the new mechanics when clan / company invested in a certain region they will fight to defend its home town.

With small ports coming to play again, I suggest make size of a port reflect size of a PB, e.g. 25, 15, 10 or 5 per side. This way small clans will be able to choose ports that they are able to fill in and defend. Large clans will choose bigger ports and it will take bigger clans to attack them.

Solutions are simple no need to invent another bike. OW on the other hand is opportunistic place. Ganking, running, chasing, ambushing is all good and fair game.

We can easily have both aspects of fighting gameplay in one game thus making it attractive to a larger audience and player base. And thats what we want a larger and happier player base aren't we?

We have enough players to show up for PB now. And yet they don't show.

The new mechanics will force invested companies to defend ports.  I doubt it. A 10 man war company isn't going to fight a 25 man war company and a 25 man war company without 25 first rates isn't going to fight a 25 man war company with first rates. The same problems that exist now will exist then just on a port by port basis.

I like the small ports idea. It would make the outer edge frontiers a place small clans can play.

I think we can certainly have both. In fact we need both and more. Perspective new players each have a different idea that attracts them to a niche genre game like NA.  Some want to do be Horatio Nelson fight grand scale fleet battles. Some want to be Stephen Decateur fighting the Barbary pirates in a Constitution. Some black beard. Some to role play a Johnny Depp like character.  Some want to be rich merchant of the East India Co.

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

×