Remove BR as a Requirement for Victory in Port Battles

[Lord_Howe]

No, we really don't. Once balance gets out of whack enough, we will simply stop showing up and go do something else instead. This is exactly what we did against the pirates. They took every French port and after the first couple attempts to stop them, we just defended the one shallow port they couldn't outweigh us at and let them take the rest in PvT. It was not very exciting for them.

 

Is that the gameplay you want?

 

Because it's the gameplay you're going to get.

 

But I think you are again getting hung up trying to roleplay politics in a discussion about game mechanics.

 

The real question is:

Do you think that port ownership should be determined by which side brings the most number of heavy ships?

 

If your answer is yes then I'd love to hear your justification for it and how you envision that creating satisfying long term gameplay that attracts and retains players long term (especially in light of the fact that leveling up efficiently -- which means grinding bots -- is boring as hell).

 

If your answer is no, then quit roleplaying for a minute and agree that there is a weakness in the game mechanics that could be addressed. Step 1 of any sort of game improvement is likely going to involve attracting developer attention by actually establishing wide agreement that there is a problem.

 

Let me turn that question around...

 

Do you think that the side with the smaller ships should win? Because i don't see a suggestion as to the correct way to determine who wins a port battle.

 

With the current method, i agree that temporarily it can lead to one sided fights, that's exactly the same as on the open sea.

However, given some more time, there is absolutely no reason a defender would EVER be outgunned, and in fact I can see it being the opposite... there will never be a chance for an attacker to win. This is because there is a hard cap on the number of ships each side can bring, and a hard cap on the size of ship in the game, and its the same for both attacker and defender. If attackers and defenders both have 25 Victories... the defender should always win (I make the assumption of course that the players skills on average are similar... not guaranteed).

 

Is this the kind of fights i want? No (I don't care much for Port battles anyway, I prefer 5-8 or so per side in open sea).

 

Is there a way to improve... sure, and i think the inclusion of land and forts will certainly move us in the right direction.

 

Ultimately as a nation you must decide... do you want to own ports? if you do, you have to throw your ships between the ports and the enemy ships.

Otherwise, stop complaining and play the game without the ports that you hate so much anyway. Right now that's viable since you are given un-conquerable ports to base out of. It's not ideal, but at least its an option (all be it an unrealistic one).

 

I've said many times that i want to see some different approach to encourage people to stay in battles and fight even if out gunned. Further, Id like to see people who attack with significantly superior forces be rewarded less. i don't want losing a fight to have no consequences, as it does in some games...but  a balance has to be found that encourages more (and more casual) players to get involved in fights without feeling they are going to have to grind for weeks to pay for their loss. 

 

ps. I like the role playing, so long as its done in a friendly way. Much better than a lot of the e-peen stroking that happens here and in most PvP games.

i would rather have a fun and friendly fight and sink (and im pretty good at sinking ) than a mean spirited one where i win. But then im getting on in years, and Ive discovered how pointless it is to waste time on being nasty, no matter how easy it is to hide behind the internet.

[Arbour]

Let me turn that question around...

 

Do you think that the side with the smaller ships should win? 

 

This thread has never been about changing the outcome.  This thread if about making port battles involve fighting when there are ships there to fight.  I want the side with smaller ships to be able to fight the battle, not necessarily win the battle.  They will lose 95% of the time, yes.  But it will be more enjoyable for both sides if the battle mechanics allow for a fight rather than the "shoot the towers and bug out" that is currently happening.  It's not about winning and losing.  Removing BR as the main deciding factor will not change the outcome of most port battles at all, it will just make it so the battle lasts longer than 15-30 minutes if there are defensive forces mustered.  Fighting = fun.  Watching large ships stroll in and then leave without them even needing to shoot at you is not fun.  

 

There is no incentive for smaller nations to even show up to port battles as they are structured now. If smaller nations at least get a fun fight out of it, win or lose, they will show up more often, making it more fun for the attackers, as well.  Like Slamz said, when France was getting overwhelmed by the pirates, we just stopped showing up to defend ports cause there wasn't even any fighting going on when we did.  Didn't make it fun for the pirates either, which is one of the reasons a lot of them quit or re-rolled.  It's all about making the whole process fun, not changing who wins. 

 

You prolly agree with this sentiment, but wanted to make it clear that this is not about changing the game so that I can win, when I should have lost.  It's about making losing (or winning) ports a fun experience.   

Edited March 16, 2016 by Arbour

[mueganra]

What if the BR system was modified to be something like 4:1 at the beginning of the battle scaling down to 2:1 or 1:1 as time elapses?

[Lord_Howe]

You already cant win using the BR ratio.

Doesn't matter if you have 10:1, you still don't win... otherwise uncontested port battles would be instantly won.

 

The objective of the port battle is to defeat the port (those cannons on rocks for now).

 

If defending ships are present then they ALWAYS have the opportunity to defend and shoot at the enemy ships... they start in front to the towers for a reason.

If you have fewer/smaller ships defending, then obviously you are less likely to win, although the towers can make up a pretty big difference with their laser accurate 42 lb'ers.

 

I'm seeing a lot of complaining about the brits winning this particular battle with 2:1 points.. but that's only because they were allowed to kill all the towers first.

If anyone is really trying to tell me that the 5000 BP+ French fleet couldn't do any damage to the Brit fleet during the time they were taking out the towers then i really dont know what to suggest, other than learn to fight better.

 

Are port battles currently fun... not really.

Is this particular mechanic the reason... not at all.

 

Failure/unwillingness to actively defend the objective is one of the reasons.

Lack of incentive to fight as the outnumbered side in a battle is the major one, often leading to the first (also effecting OW battles even more often).

[Arbour]

You already cant win using the BR ratio.

Doesn't matter if you have 10:1, you still don't win... otherwise uncontested port battles would be instantly won.

 

The objective of the port battle is to defeat the port (those cannons on rocks for now).

 

If defending ships are present then they ALWAYS have the opportunity to defend and shoot at the enemy ships... they start in front to the towers for a reason.

If you have fewer/smaller ships defending, then obviously you are less likely to win, although the towers can make up a pretty big difference with their laser accurate 42 lb'ers.

 

I'm seeing a lot of complaining about the brits winning this particular battle with 2:1 points.. but that's only because they were allowed to kill all the towers first.

If anyone is really trying to tell me that the 5000 BP+ French fleet couldn't do any damage to the Brit fleet during the time they were taking out the towers then i really dont know what to suggest, other than learn to fight better.

 

Are port battles currently fun... not really.

Is this particular mechanic the reason... not at all.

 

Failure/unwillingness to actively defend the objective is one of the reasons.

Lack of incentive to fight as the outnumbered side in a battle is the major one, often leading to the first (also effecting OW battles even more often).

 

BR ratio is the only way people win.  I completely disagree.  Showing up to a uncontested port is a guaranteed victory.  The towers are not a challenge.  I've seen 1 Pavel take on all towers, on it's own.  I've seen 5 Cerbs take the towers on their own.  Defeating the towers is not hard and with the right ships can been done in matters of minutes.  How many ships can one side hope to destroy in 15 minutes, while defending the towers? One, maybe 2....not enough to force a fight.  

 

"Actively defend" you say?  Have you ever put your ship next to a tower on defense to stop a line of frigs and 3rd rates sailing in line to hit it?  I have.  Does it put significant damage to them or stop their momentum?  No.  The towers are destroyed at the same speed, they just shoot through my masts, hit the tower and sail along.  If i stay stationary like the tower, then I can't put enough shots on a single ship to do any significant damage cause they just sail past at full speed.  There is no way to defend the towers, other than shadowing the attacking fleet away from the towers.  If you stay stationary like the tower, they just sail right past you.  But if the battle is only allowed to be 15 or 20 minutes long, (I've even heard stories of some going down quicker)  how many ships can you sink in that time?  Maybe one, prolly none if the attacker is smart and protects it's wounded ships.  

 

There is no other defense other than "match the attackers BR"  and if you do that you will prolly win cause you have the towers.  If you don't, then there is nothing you can do about it.  As soon as they shoot the towers, they leave, and It's that simple.  BR is what is deciding port battles, my argument is that fighting should determine battles, not BR.  

 

Now again this isn't about changing the outcome, it's about making it fun.  Fighting = fun.  BR = no fighting. You admit that port battle are not fun, but still cling to the current system.  Something has to change, and it's got to be more than land.  Even with land, if the battles are still decided by BR then it's still broken....cause it discourages fighting in a fighting game.  

[Arbour]

What if the BR system was modified to be something like 4:1 at the beginning of the battle scaling down to 2:1 or 1:1 as time elapses?

 

This along with make the shrinking circle more effective may be a good answer.  Anything to encourage actual fighting.  

[Lord_Howe]

BR ratio is the only way people win.  I completely disagree.  Showing up to a uncontested port is a guaranteed victory.  The towers are not a challenge.  I've seen 1 Pavel take on all towers, on it's own.  I've seen 5 Cerbs take the towers on their own.  Defeating the towers is not hard and with the right ships can been done in matters of minutes.  How many ships can one side hope to destroy in 15 minutes, while defending the towers? One, maybe 2....not enough to force a fight.  

 

"Actively defend" you say?  Have you ever put your ship next to a tower on defense to stop a line of frigs and 3rd rates sailing in line to hit it?  I have.  Does it put significant damage to them or stop their momentum?  No.  The towers are destroyed at the same speed, they just shoot through my masts, hit the tower and sail along.  If i stay stationary like the tower, then I can't put enough shots on a single ship to do any significant damage cause they just sail past at full speed.  There is no way to defend the towers, other than shadowing the attacking fleet away from the towers.  If you stay stationary like the tower, they just sail right past you.  But if the battle is only allowed to be 15 or 20 minutes long, (I've even heard stories of some going down quicker)  how many ships can you sink in that time?  Maybe one, prolly none if the attacker is smart and protects it's wounded ships.  

 

There is no other defense other than "match the attackers BR"  and if you do that you will prolly win cause you have the towers.  If you don't, then there is nothing you can do about it.  As soon as they shoot the towers, they leave, and It's that simple.  BR is what is deciding port battles, my argument is that fighting should determine battles, not BR.  

 

Now again this isn't about changing the outcome, it's about making it fun.  Fighting = fun.  BR = no fighting. You admit that port battle are not fun, but still cling to the current system.  Something has to change, and it's got to be more than land.  Even with land, if the battles are still decided by BR then it's still broken....cause it discourages fighting in a fighting game.  

 

1 Pavel take a port?... sure, i've heard that too... of course it had to be completely uncontested, took over an hour, and it was done by capturing a tower and using it to kill the others. I've never heard of a pavel doing that in a contested port. Since it was an empty port, i presume it has nothing to do with your argument regarding defense?

Can your single ship stop an entire enemy fleet shooting the tower... probably not. But then we weren't talking about a single ship were we. Because a single ship in the 2:1 example suggests just 2 enemy ships (2:1), in which case YES i do think you could prevent them. In the cases previously mentioned we've been talking about defending fleets of up to 5000+ BP. I've been shot at by that fleet... trust me, it sure as hell makes a difference to an attacker, and every ship you sink means the attacker needs to kill 2 of yours.

When port battles have a coast and a fort, you had better get used to the idea of staying between the enemy and the port, because there wont be any sea to sail off into.

 

If your whole argument relies on there being barely any defenders, then why do you think the defender should win anyway?

I'm not seeing the logic of the argument here.

 

Or is it your belief that the defender should always have an equal BR fleet defending, and the attacker must kill it and all the towers? If that's the position, then wave bye-bye to port battles. I've seen attacking fleets that had over 1.5:1 get defeated in port battles, a 1:1 gives them almost zero chance if the defenders are competent.

 

Listen, I'm not suggesting the current port battles are much fun... I've already said i don't care for them myself. But we already know they are working on a major overhaul of them. If your complaint is about getting a fight, and assuming you are willing to have one on unfavorable terms (because  the attacker brought more ships than you), NOTHING is stopping you. You know where the enemy is... you know where he has to go. All you have to do is stay between him and his objective. Every time ive seen a defending force lose it's been because they couldn't grasp this simple concept... if you run away down wind you have given the attacker uncontested access to their objective. He will be happy to relieve you of your port without losing his ships. Stand, and you may all get sunk... but you will shoot at the enemy, and they will shoot at you, and some of them may sink, and that might be all it takes to win the defense.

[Arbour]

Again, Howe it's not about winning and losing.  It's about fighting, and not giving the attacker a game mechanic that allows them to bug out immediately without any possibility of losing a ship.  You keep asking if "the fight should be equal" and "should the smaller ships win" and to both I keep saying no.  I'm saying that if this game gathers up a large number of players into an instance, then there should be a fight, otherwise whats the point of a ship fighting game.  Cause fighting is fun, win or lose.  But when the attacker brings such a large BR difference, there is no fight at all, which is not fun.  It's that simple.  Port battle are not fun, we both agree to that.  I'm trying to find a way to improve that, not win when I should be losing.  I feel my proposal of making the "shrinking circle of death" more shrinky and more deadly accomplishes that and hold off on the arbitrary BR ratings as a victory condition as the determining factor till the end of the battle, not the beginning.  

Edited March 17, 2016 by Arbour