Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Slamz

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

Recommended Posts

I think the nation capital regions should be non-PvP zones to allow new players the safety to learn the game, missions in these areas only give xp and gold for the first few ranks after which you can still do missions up to any rank but get no XP, gold or loot, it would be purely for training purposes. e.g. someone sailing a first rate for the first time dosent want to risk losing it in PvP so they can train in missions in safe area. The importance of National capitals to trade and resources would need to be reduced.

All other ports and regions should be capturable. Ports should have different levels that have different BR requirements to attack so small War Clans can have chance to get some smaller unimportant ports. There should be a bonus if a single War Clan owns all ports in a region, maybe something like increased production rates or less port upkeep costs. Only players from the War Clans involved in the port battle can screen and participate in the port battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Archaos said:

I think the nation capital regions should be non-PvP zones to allow new players the safety to learn the game, missions in these areas only give xp and gold for the first few ranks after which you can still do missions up to any rank but get no XP, gold or loot, it would be purely for training purposes. e.g. someone sailing a first rate for the first time dosent want to risk losing it in PvP so they can train in missions in safe area. The importance of National capitals to trade and resources would need to be reduced.

All other ports and regions should be capturable. Ports should have different levels that have different BR requirements to attack so small War Clans can have chance to get some smaller unimportant ports. There should be a bonus if a single War Clan owns all ports in a region, maybe something like increased production rates or less port upkeep costs. Only players from the War Clans involved in the port battle can screen and participate in the port battle.

yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 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.

Or simply run back to Capital.

I think we need to look better at why people do not show up, but I think it is an easy guess: they stand no chance of winning (either real or imagined).

Ergo, your tactic of holding with 25 high skilled Port Battlers needs an Achilles heel, which in its very essence would be given the enemy an unfair advantage.

For example:

  1. Defense in numbers. Just throwing low rate fleets at your enemy wearing their assault down.
  2. Night-flips. Attacking when your enemy isn't looking.

It would need tuning though. In the first case the low rate fleet must really have an agenda to truly attack an assault fleet, say bringing down the supplies/flag.

The second needs a counter as well, so your home base (/ clan warehouse) is always protected by a fleet-in-being. Effectively it can then only be attacked on your primary time slot.

But with the recent battle group tuning it has become too much of a strong force having the ability to hide behind mechanics. Instead of enticing folks to fight, it has taken away their capabilities and/or willingness to fight.

9 hours ago, koltes said:

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.

You end up with one Charter controlling the center and a lot of bystanders.

9 hours ago, koltes said:

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?

Exactly, which means bringing counter-tactics to every strength that are realistically executable by anybody. Otherwise they will choose the only realistic option left: quit playing NA.

Share this post


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

You end up with one Charter controlling the center and a lot of bystanders.

You can control this by making it more difficult the more ports you control e.g. increasing the port upkeep costs the more ports you own. To counter a large War Corporation splitting in order to control more ports, then you make sure only the War Corporation can take part in the port battle and screening operations. Make it hard to be a super large War Corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Archaos said:

You can control this by making it more difficult the more ports you control e.g. increasing the port upkeep costs the more ports you own. To counter a large War Corporation splitting in order to control more ports, then you make sure only the War Corporation can take part in the port battle and screening operations. Make it hard to be a super large War Corporation.

That's taking the incentive away from a large Charter to advance, which is probably not very good. (Although it is in line with the perpetual notion of the game.)

Share this post


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

That's taking the incentive away from a large Charter to advance, which is probably not very good. (Although it is in line with the perpetual notion of the game.)

The thing is you dont want to make it too easy for a single Corporation to control all the ports, it needs to be possible to control a lot of ports but it should scale in difficulty. Like in real life the bigger a corporation becomes the more difficult it becomes to maintain a monopoly, controlling an empire is not easy. Create opportunities for smaller Corporations to get in on the action.

They could also introduce things like, each port requires so many goods per week in addition to a gold upkeep, this would require trade runs to meet the demand and more traders on the seas the more targets for raiders. Ports that did not get their quota of goods for the week could face a penalty of lower production or unmanned forts. Trade supplies could be things like grain, rum, gold and silver coins to pay the garrison etc. These could be scaled on the size of the port, smaller ports requiring less supplies.

Share this post


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

Ergo, your tactic of holding with 25 high skilled Port Battlers needs an Achilles heel, which in its very essence would be given the enemy an unfair advantage.

For example:

  1. Defense in numbers. Just throwing low rate fleets at your enemy wearing their assault down.
  2. Night-flips. Attacking when your enemy isn't looking.

The real Achilles's heel will be when your side will bring up a generation of fighters with fighting mentality. Everything else will never matter. Player skill > game mechanics no matter how much you will slow skillful players down artificially  

Share this post


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

Only players from the War Clans involved in the port battle can screen and participate in the port battle.

Why exclude the 'national' players from particitating (screening?)? I don't think it is a good idea to divide the groups so much. The warclans get the benefits, and also the responsibilities, true, but a port might be of so much importance that 'nationals' have an interest aswell, so why would you exclude them from doing their part?  I'm pretty sure that there can be formed a few groups of players that could stomp anybody ingame in any pb if all they had to was show up (invulnerable from screening)?

I expect that nationals can still attack other nation's rvr-players at the very least then?

Or do we want, pve'ers, rvr-players, just pvp-players, and each of them operate under their own rules, their own little 'bubble', restricted in interactions and coöperation, they just happen to sail in the same world?

Edited by Eyesore
typo's

Share this post


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

The real Achilles's heel will be when your side will bring up a generation of fighters with fighting mentality. Everything else will never matter. Player skill > game mechanics no matter how much you will slow skillful players down artificially  

So you'll stick to giving the following options:

  1. Fight the high skilled 25 fleet in a doomed battle.
  2. Quit playing.

I'm not seeing what other options you are providing. What, if any, would those be?

Share this post


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

Why exclude the 'national' players from particitating (screening?)? I don't think it is a good idea to divide the groups so much. The warclans get the benefits, and also the responsibilities, true, but a port might be of so much importance that 'nationals' have an interest aswell, so why would you exclude them from doing their part?  I'm pretty sure that their can be formed a few groups of players that could stomp anybody ingame in any pb if all they had to was show up (invurnerable from screening)?

I expect that nationals can still attack other nation's rvr-players at the very least then? And if the nationals aren't allowed to help

Or do we want, pve'ers, rvr-players, just pvp-players, and each of them operate under their own rules, their own little 'bubble', restricted in interactions and coöperation, they just happen to sail in the same world?

The only reason I would exclude them from the screening is that if the attackers can only be from the War Corporation it will become too easy for nations to screen them out from Port Battles. This is also tied into the idea of the PB fleet being limited to a certain BR depending on the size of the port and that way it can be made up of various ships, and to do this they would have to sail from a departure port to the target.

I would like a system where small War Corporations could also engage in RvR and be able to take some small port to call their own, port battles that did not require 25v25 but smaller numbers, and they only way I can see to achieve this is not allow the whole nation screen. 

I would hope in the longer term that it would be worthwhile for everyone to be involved in some form of War Corporation and if you are a solo player you would basically be a raider, hitting traders and other opportune targets.

Share this post


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

The real Achilles's heel will be when your side will bring up a generation of fighters with fighting mentality. Everything else will never matter. Player skill > game mechanics no matter how much you will slow skillful players down artificially  

yes I don't understand why some people don't get this , having 25 players be able to co-operate and play nicely with each other is as hard as the players themselves make it. Sure the Klingon cloaking device that the Nations don't have access to has caused issues but lets not pretend the Pirates are always a single clan in a Port Battle. Bound to be changes to the way Pirates can hide themselves going forward but right now having 25 committed to a cause and acting as a Nation / Corporation is far more than the Nations can muster

 

I don't want to see PB be diminished,  we could look at flexible numbers of combatants or any number of ways to try and get more of the 200 players interested but reducing content that people enjoy isn't going to help. If we average 200 players at any one time and we can get 25% of those into a single battle of 25 vs 25 ... that would indicate it's more popular than many are likely to admit. I'm not sure what's happening on EU server in these regards or whether it's purely a time zone issue ?

Share this post


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

So you'll stick to giving the following options:

  1. Fight the high skilled 25 fleet in a doomed battle.
  2. Quit playing.

I'm not seeing what other options you are providing. What, if any, would those be?

Dude, your nations lacking good leadership. There is no excuse that two largest nations that are ALWAYS largest due to most new players always go US or GB have not enough good fighters or  proper fleet. Thats what I mean. No matter how much you twist game mechanic you wont change a thing until your nation changes mentality.
There is what needs to be done:
1. Your nation needs a  leader who is known on the server as a good fighter;
2. He starts recruiting quality people with the fighting attitude and good personality, strong willed;
3. This person has leadership skills, people skills, he looks after his own;
4. He can organize and make people do things for the clan;
5. He trains newbs and Re-train veterans;
6. You train regularly as a fleet;
7. You attend to all PBs as a fleet;
8. The whole clan works on econ together;
9. Little time will pass and you will start being formidable force.

No change of game mechanics involved.

...or they can quit playing of course, but there is no other way to be competitive in PVP game
 

Edited by koltes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small warclan in homewaters has more chance to defend against a foreign invader if 'national' players can help to screen. Sure, it's harder for the attacker, but that's how it should be, no?

If your warclan has a bad reputation (taxes, not protecting, whatever), you get less help, or the other way around.

Why would I help support a warclanowned port, if i get nothing back?  They don't support the 'nationals', but the 'nationals' have to trade and pay taxes?

How will you make a port strong? I would think that you need a warclan to operate it, but if that port also has a lot of traffic from nationals why would it make sense that they can't do anything to atleast influence things that happen to it? They have also invested, an interest in that port?

Share this post


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

1. Your nation needs a  leader who is known on the server as a good fighter;

On 7/22/2017 at 8:05 AM, Skully said:

Maybe a satisfying GB leader will emergence if someone steps up from behind the shadow, but I fear that is unlikely to happen.

Every group needs a good leader to be able to participate on the top level.

These however do not magically appear, neither do players in certain timeslots and certainly not at the moment you want/need them.

The game must have allowances for leaders to grow and evolve at their own pace. Not at a pace dictated by the competitor.

In fact, I would see more honor in defeating an opponent that is of equal level (or above) as opposed to stomping one that is not, just because I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Eyesore said:

A small warclan in homewaters has more chance to defend against a foreign invader if 'national' players can help to screen. Sure, it's harder for the attacker, but that's how it should be, no?

If your warclan has a bad reputation (taxes, not protecting, whatever), you get less help, or the other way around.

Why would I help support a warclanowned port, if i get nothing back?  They don't support the 'nationals', but the 'nationals' have to trade and pay taxes?

How will you make a port strong? I would think that you need a warclan to operate it, but if that port also has a lot of traffic from nationals why would it make sense that they can't do anything to atleast influence things that happen to it? They have also invested, an interest in that port?

The issue I would see is, how could a small War Company have any chance to capture a port if they could be screened out by anyone in the defending nation. Remember that with the proposals all ports are open to capture not just region capitals so there will be many ports up for grabs.

Last time they allowed all ports to be captured there were so many port battles of 25v25 that people got burned out, people stopped turning up for non-relevant ports. Reducing the numbers required for many port battles I feel will open it up for more people to take part. The regional capitals and important ports can still remain the maximum 25v25 but even with them I think they should do it by BR rating so that it is not possible to get 25 first rates into the battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would give home-advantage, ofcourse smaller warclans will have a more difficult time controlling a foreign area, It is the same for the big warclans. Foreign waters are not so easy to keep under control. 

The 'nationals' are perhaps somewhat of a chaosfactor, they also supply new blood for the clans.

Because all ports are attackble, that's exactly why you need the nationals to be able to 'defend' their homewaters. Why would the 'nationals' want a foreign entity holding one of their homeports because the warclans didn't deem it worthy enough? After the attackers controle the port, more enemy-ships will sail the homewaters, why would a 'national' be fine with that, especially when there is nothing he can do about it? Also, not all 'nationals' will join such screeningefforts, all you expect is perhaps a randomnumber, or maybe there has been some drama before, so everybody is aware and more people show up.

I'm not argueing about the number of slots in a pb or brlimiters. More variety brings more content, more options. I agree on that.

Share this post


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

You can control this by making it more difficult the more ports you control e.g. increasing the port upkeep costs the more ports you own. To counter a large War Corporation splitting in order to control more ports, then you make sure only the War Corporation can take part in the port battle and screening operations. Make it hard to be a super large War Corporation.

 

5 hours ago, Skully said:

That's taking the incentive away from a large Charter to advance, which is probably not very good. (Although it is in line with the perpetual notion of the game.)

 

4 hours ago, Archaos said:

The thing is you dont want to make it too easy for a single Corporation to control all the ports, it needs to be possible to control a lot of ports but it should scale in difficulty. Like in real life the bigger a corporation becomes the more difficult it becomes to maintain a monopoly, controlling an empire is not easy. Create opportunities for smaller Corporations to get in on the action....

 

While both of these arguments do have merit, the problem with both arguments here and the problem with port battles is the exact same problem we have always had in NA.  The problem was before, is now, and will be under war companies, that THERE IS NO END GAME.

For port battles to actually mean something in a game of conquest, you simply must have an end game.  As long as we keep blowing in the wind any which way the game takes us then port battles will continue to be the 5% participation level and disinterest that most players have made them.  Make it VITAL to the game's conquest, introduce an ultimate end game goal, and then you will begin to peak interest and participation.

An end game does not mean disallowance of a sandbox atmosphere.  It just means the sandbox is the means to the end.

Share this post


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

 

 

 

While both of these arguments do have merit, the problem with both arguments here and the problem with port battles is the exact same problem we have always had in NA.  The problem was before, is now, and will be under war companies, that THERE IS NO END GAME.

For port battles to actually mean something in a game of conquest, you simply must have an end game.  As long as we keep blowing in the wind any which way the game takes us then port battles will continue to be the 5% participation level and disinterest that most players have made them.  Make it VITAL to the game's conquest, introduce an ultimate end game goal, and then you will begin to peak interest and participation.

An end game does not mean disallowance of a sandbox atmosphere.  It just means the sandbox is the means to the end.

The question is what would you class as end game? I have previously suggested that nation annihilation be possible where once a nation was reduced to its home region that came open to attack and if defeated the members of that nation got forged papers and the ability to transfer nation. Once a point was reached where one nation became all powerful or owned more than a certain percentage of the map a victory was declared and the map reset. That would give an ultimate end game but they would have to make that very difficult to achieve to give each round some longevity. 

Share this post


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

The question is what would you class as end game? I have previously suggested that nation annihilation be possible where once a nation was reduced to its home region that came open to attack and if defeated the members of that nation got forged papers and the ability to transfer nation. Once a point was reached where one nation became all powerful or owned more than a certain percentage of the map a victory was declared and the map reset. That would give an ultimate end game but they would have to make that very difficult to achieve to give each round some longevity. 

 

Pretty much exactly what I mean right there, or some similar form to that.  However, the new devs proposal indicates eternal balance in lieu of an end game.  So port battles will go nowhere just like they do now.  Without that end game, it is apparent that most players find that port battles are an optional (not vital), boring (not exciting), inconsequential (not something necessary for your nation) part of gameplay.  Why would participation increase or change significantly if now you change clan names to war companies and restrict participation even more?

I vote for keeping nations alive.  Once a nation is no longer viable it should be able to vote as a nation for surrender to another nation, or just be annihilated and absorbed.

Edited by Jean Ribault

Share this post


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

 

Pretty much exactly what I mean right there, or some similar form to that.  However, the new devs proposal indicates eternal balance in lieu of an end game.  So port battles will go nowhere just like they do now.  Without that end game, it is apparent that most players find that port battles are an optional (not vital), boring (not exciting), inconsequential (not something necessary for your nation) part of gameplay.  Why would participation increase or change significantly if now you change clan names to war companies and restrict participation even more?

I vote for keeping nations alive.  Once a nation is no longer viable it should be able to vote as a nation for surrender to another nation, or just be annihilated and absorbed.

I agree that conquest eventually becomes pointless if there is no final victory goal, for example look at Global server where pirates go on offensive against the Brits and eventually have to stop because if they continue they feel they would totally demoralize the nation and cause people to quit, so instead they back off and let people rebuild. The Brits did similar to the USA. In the end you can only do this so many times before people get bored of it whereas if you have ultimate victory and reset, people will be more tempted to try different tactics and alliances to produce a different result next time.

Share this post


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

I agree that conquest eventually becomes pointless if there is no final victory goal, for example look at Global server where pirates go on offensive against the Brits and eventually have to stop because if they continue they feel they would totally demoralize the nation and cause people to quit, so instead they back off and let people rebuild. The Brits did similar to the USA. In the end you can only do this so many times before people get bored of it whereas if you have ultimate victory and reset, people will be more tempted to try different tactics and alliances to produce a different result next time.

Part of that I think is because we are in a "testing" mode, but yes, exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that instead of fixing the single 25v25 issue the devs are trying to make RVR about smaller clans compared to the nation as a whole.

If they find a way that an entire nation can be involved in siege against a port, in multiple battles, with options to your approach, and not be limited to a single 25v25s that are almost always decided on points. then count me in. 

Until then its too much of a limited niche to be worth the investment of assembling a super meta PB ship, grinding out the hostilities, making the long sail, and then either missing out because you couldn't join the exact hour the PB fell on, or your slot gets filled by someone else.

I hope devs don't try to force underdeveloped these PBs down our throats.

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


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

Seems to me that instead of fixing the single 25v25 issue the devs are trying to make RVR about smaller clans compared to the nation as a whole.

If they find a way that an entire nation can be involved in siege against a port, in multiple battles, with options to your approach, and not be limited to a single 25v25s that are almost always decided on points. then count me in. 

Until then its too much of a limited niche to be worth the investment of assembling a super meta PB ship, grinding out the hostilities, making the long sail, and then either missing out because you couldn't join the exact hour the PB fell on, or your slot gets filled by someone else.

I hope devs don't try to force underdeveloped these PBs down our throats.

The issue with trying to involve the entire nation in a single port battle is that the bigger nation will always have the advantage. For example British have 300 players and are facing a nation with 100, how do you have a battle or multiple battles that all can be involved in unless you have 3:1 ratio in battles.

I think the War Company idea could help break it down a bit more by making it War Company against War Company it can even the odds a bit, and with opening up more ports to be attacked there should be more port battles so more people can get involved in RvR. If handled correctly and they listen to suggestions then they will be able to make it so it is not an absolute requirement to have a super meta PB ship. I remember it the days of flags for port battles you rounded up who you could get in whatever ships they had, of course you tried to get the best possible to enter the PB but that was not always the case. The current system of battles being for regions and 22 hours notice of battle is what has caused the PB meta ship.

Share this post


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

The issue with trying to involve the entire nation in a single port battle is that the bigger nation will always have the advantage. For example British have 300 players and are facing a nation with 100, how do you have a battle or multiple battles that all can be involved in unless you have 3:1 ratio in battles.

I think the War Company idea could help break it down a bit more by making it War Company against War Company it can even the odds a bit, and with opening up more ports to be attacked there should be more port battles so more people can get involved in RvR. If handled correctly and they listen to suggestions then they will be able to make it so it is not an absolute requirement to have a super meta PB ship. I remember it the days of flags for port battles you rounded up who you could get in whatever ships they had, of course you tried to get the best possible to enter the PB but that was not always the case. The current system of battles being for regions and 22 hours notice of battle is what has caused the PB meta ship.

It balances itself out. If the British want to war the French with 100 people, they'll take ports but it'll constantly get harder and harder the farther away from they go from their capital, and closer to the French's, until they either can't get enough logistics to take the next port, or the french wear down their PB ships enough until they don't have a fleet to continue.

Edited by Slim Jimmerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OW is to be the focus of the game while leaving Legends to the more arena style, then we should really move away from PBs as the main driver.  Don't get me wrong, they aren't bad but they are sort of silly to think about.  Ships that sailed around rarely were built tweaked for PB conditions ei wood types, mods (except a Bomb brig of course) and really it was the landing of troops or taking of forts that determined the "ownership" of the ports.  A nation in this game could rule the OW fights most of the day but because a team off hour flip with enough players means they probably lose ownership.  Having sea control in areas really doesn't mean much.  Additionally, the whole "tactics" to get into a port battle instance has cause lots of problems.  How about not making things more chaotic but simplified?

How about dropping PBs all together for port ownership.  Then establish a system where a player(s) have a "patrol" button with some sort of dock timer that when pressed add points (contention) to the region (or if call backs to the server sucks then drops some item in inventory like fish do and can be turned into port for that said contention like war supplies). Contention done through passive means should be capped at some sort of rate so that super larger nations cannot overwhelm smaller ones to skip PvP (or if you used an item, only so many can be turned in per hour).  Then when a port is "flipped" a three day event takes place where players can "patrol" said region for points, PvP for the most points, and at the end the most point winner flips the port.  Passive points should be much lower than actual PvP.  Sort of 1 point per 15 minutes vs 100 BR ship sunk = 100 points.

Then you can make "Raids" like the old PB system perhaps with the flag mechanic.  Raids create a PB in 24hrs or whenever.  Ownership doesn't change from a "raid" but some type of reward is.  This could be a % tax of crafted goods or similar.

To me this is much simpler answer and creates a player focused RvR mechanic.  No PvE grind for RvR, no off hour ownership flips, and still retain PBs but in a less RvR but possibly a more rewarding way.

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

×