RIP small nations

[Snoopy]

PB lobby would solve all that. *ducks*

[Sir Texas Sir]

39 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

 

Perhaps this is what they had in mind instead of everyone taking a giant bath-tub (1st rate) into the PB?....   A mixed fleet COULD have chased down those Endy's that probably raced to the circles?

 

I'm not sure one event gives us enough data points to warrant changes yet....

That fleet was set up for the old port battle system.  The problem is that it was over with before either of our groups could get to the circle.  They starting circle starts ticking off points as soon as the fight starts.  By time they got to the second circle they all ready where half way to 1K.   By time we got to the circle they made 1K point.  We brought a fleet for the old Port battle system and they brought what they could scrounge up prob not wanting to loose there best ships.   The match started 21 mins within the port battle start time so we had 9 mins from logging in to get to the outer circle to enter the port battle from OW while the defenders to to enter it straight off and was all ready collecting points and heading for the two extra zones.  Port battles should not for one be scheduled when server is going to be down for maintenance or patches.  We can't flip them in US prime time 8pm CST is the latest PB we can have so West coast can't even join them as they are still at work or school.  I get we would need to bring a mix fleet, but no one had a notice the patch was going to be this morning.  Would of been nice if devs gave folks updates with the actually info before the patches happen.   Now with the three way alliance between DUTCH, US and BRITS we won't be able to match there numbers and screening fleets like the OG is talking about.  We are having the same problems on PvP2 but it's been for a longer time.  Only folks that fight any one is the Pirates and we are getting burned out cause it's only about 15-20 of us that do it and now it's down to 10-15 max if we beg folks to log in.  We don't have alliance so we can't help French, Swede or Spain out to let them grow.   To be honest the system is very broke when it allows only power nations to keep alliances with one another over and over.

Old system we would prob beat that Port Battle.  New system with heads up it would of been more fair to have such so we could of brought different ships.  Wasted a lot of players times and many of them don't want to come back.  This was pretty much there last straw after the fine wood and stupid PvE grind to get fights.   By the way why is there only a 5 min window on the missions now?  You can't find them grinding cause the window does stay open long enough to find them.  There is a lot of very big regions out there you can search you heart out and never find a fleet grinding.

[Archaos]

1 minute ago, Kloothommel said:

@Archaos, I kinda agree on some, but strongly disagree wth other of your points.

I agree, respawning from port makes screening ridiculously easy for the defender. Combine that with large numers and it's unwinnable.

larger numbers issue: I disagree. The larger populated nations shouldn't win by defacto because they have more players. That would just result in small nations remaining small because of the demotivating zerg fleets stacked against you time after time again.

And even if your nation is 3x the size, you are bound to run out of opponents beacause there aren't any left on the other side to place against them.

I'm not saying that the larger nation should win by defacto, I am saying that they should have the advantage om paper, but as can be shown in many battles it is not numbers that win battles but skill and tactics. If you limit the larger nation from using all their forces then you may as well start limiting nations from fielding more experienced players than their opponents.

A large nation should feel suitably embarrassed when defeated by a minnow, but not if you tie their hands.

[akd]

1 hour ago, Aegir said:

That's the thing though, the last two times I screened I was part of the group that snagged the main fleet, without the slightest hope of killing or really delaying any of them, but rather to simply sit at maximum distance and keep them tagged for a few minutes because there's not nearly enough time for any of them to kill you before it's too late. The ratio isnt so much a problem as the time loss - being dragged into combat for 15 minutes is miniscule in NA terms, but so far it has determined whether an entire PB has been won or lost. If it was longer, there'd be time to deal with the screening fleet that attacked you and dissuades having one that is so small that it wont survive long enough.

Can't we just have something like, say, you have 30-40 mins to enter the PB before it's automatically lost, the battle wont start until X BR (say, half) has entered for the attacking side?

Maybe combine flag and schedule PB opening, i.e. PB window is scheduled by 100% hostility, but battle is opened by arrival of attacking fleet flag (which might not nessarily be tied to a single ship / player)?

[Chimera]

what are you even talking about?! you havent lost 7 PB because of screening. you have gotten into every one except one.

 

new patch probably made screening harder since you can enter from a distance and a zone around the port.
you just cant do your logg off thing anymore. get over it 

[Prater]

2 hours ago, admin said:

this can be fixed - current ratio is 5x. It can be reduced. In reality 3 frigates would never attack a lineship fleet and will only shadow it in the visibility distance. 

5x is just fine.  3x is too low.  Especially when AI escort adds to your BR.  Also, if you do this, this protects larger players from being attacked by smaller players, and it protects larger groups from being attacked by smaller groups.  But what is there to protect smaller players and smaller groups from being ganked?  Nothing.  So you protect the large groups and players when they are most vulnerable and do nothing for the smaller player/group at all.

[elite92]

38 minutes ago, Prater said:

5x is just fine.  3x is too low.  Especially when AI escort adds to your BR.  Also, if you do this, this protects larger players from being attacked by smaller players, and it protects larger groups from being attacked by smaller groups.  But what is there to protect smaller players and smaller groups from being ganked?  Nothing.  So you protect the large groups and players when they are most vulnerable and do nothing for the smaller player/group at all.

4x?

[TemplarCrusader]

3 hours ago, admin said:

The best design is making fun the correct strategy to win.
For example - someone might design a card for magic the gathering where beating your head against the wall wins until you bleed gives you a win. Its the rule, but its not fun. 

Thus
Logging off is not fun, being smashed is also not fun, raising hostility through pve is not fun. These things need to be addressed and changed before release (we call such unnecessary friction).  Sitting in BR screen or while logged off are one of such things. 

Хочу описать свое видение отцепа без излишеств.   Рассмотрим ситуацию с реальной точки зрения, собирается флот из 20 кораблей на захват порта, соперник знает об этом и для того чтобы помешать достичь цели, он должен либо организовать достойную защиту в порту, либо организовать перехват эскадры, но для того чтобы перехватить эскадру, нужно собрать не меньший флот чем у атакующих и разбить его на подходе до порта, никто не посылал в реальной ситуации группу перехвата, если она не способна была остановить и нанести достойный урон атакующей группе, а тем более атаковать флот превосходящий в несколько раз по силе, это было самоубийство,  максимум может быстрых разведчиков отсылали для отслеживания группы.

Есть предложение, чтобы не морочиться с БРом и разными зонами, привязать реальный дамаг по флоту к времени инстанса, я думаю это будет просто и логично. Смотрите допустим есть атакующий флот 25 1-рейтов с общим количеством HP 300 000, 300 000/90 (HP/время боя), получаем 3333 HP в минуту, чтобы утопить данный флот за 90 минут, 3333х5, (HP/5 минут боя), получаем 16665 дамага за 5 минут боя, так вот почему не привязать это время и дамаг, которое должны нанести защитники в отцепе атакующим за 5 минут времени, если этого не удается защитникам, бой заканчивается и атакующая группа продолжает плыть к ПБ, если удается нанести этот урон время боя продлевается, я думаю если им удастся нанести необходимый урон и утопить хотя бы 2-3 корабля, атакующая группа просто сама откажется идти на ПБ из за полученного урона. Но проблема в том, что это нужно привязать к чему-то, типа перка адмиралу, отвечающему за это ПБ, чтобы такой фигни не было в повседневно в море. Итого мы получаем, фан для атакующих и для защитников в виде боев с перехватом для прорыва блокады, даже если атакующие не пройдут на ПБ данная система поможет получить достойный ФАН на его подступах, а не этот глупый маринад, удручающий народ, а защитники получают достойную плату за свои усилия, предложенную в другой теме Вами. Цифры конечно может завышены но нужно подумать, как их лучше забалансить, но думаю это легко реализуемо.  Другая проблема - это отцеп на ПБ для фрегатов, когда 25 фригатов отцепляют 1-е, 2-е рейты, тут я думаю без запрета или зон для запрета 1-2 рейтов не обойтись. Согласитесь это глупо, когда на ПБ создано под фрегаты, а их отцеп встречает из 1-х рейтов.

Edited December 21, 2016 by TemplarCrusader

[Daguse]

Seems like a lot of speculation. Let's see what happens when we put it to the test, we may all be surprised. 

 

[Kloothommel]

3 hours ago, admin said:

The best design is making fun the correct strategy to win.
For example - someone might design a card for magic the gathering where beating your head against the wall wins until you bleed gives you a win. Its the rule, but its not fun. 

Thus
Logging off is not fun, being smashed is also not fun, raising hostility through pve is not fun. These things need to be addressed and changed before release (we call such unnecessary friction).  Sitting in BR screen or while logged off are one of such things. 

Just wondering: Is nighflips a way to make fun? Or is taking an empty port when the controlling nation and it's alliance partners are mostly sleeping to be considered not fun? Because i wouldn't call that a correct strategy to win. Can I have your opinion on this?

Edited December 21, 2016 by Kloothommel

[Wesreidau]

Frankly I look forward to getting into a port battle as a filthy casual. I'm going to take a Privateer up into the wind, get up to the attacker's mortar brigs, and grapeshot over the gunwales. Tee hee hee. Tee hee.

[BABAY]

Вход на пб можно сделать например таким - есть большой круг для нападающих, из него делаем лобби для пб примерно кораблей на 30, далее флот атакующих должен в течении суток дойти до лобби и зайти в лобби ожидая пб, оставить корабль на котором идем на пб и далее заниматься своими делами, и в день пб зайти в лобби сесть на корабль который там стоит и зайти на пб из лобби в 25 кораблей а те кто был в лобби и не попал портируется в дружественный порт. Вот такой вариант более менее будет проходной для малых наций. 

[monk33y]

This wont be a popular comment from and reformed ex pirate and now British captain, but the brits should not be allowed any allies! Once a nations population gets above 30% of server population it should loose the ability to get any allies but instead one neutral nation (use ports Only). As a superpower there should be a bonus but this two allies feature is just crap (lazy Dev work in my honest opinion)

I know lots of of my fellow brits will flame this down but come-on this game needs some balance. And to your next defense comment of they have allies why can't we! It's not fair! 

On pvp1 iv been very impressed with the numbers the brits get to a pb 

Devs you should at least try this before launch

all allies should be suspended to get war and pvp  going before wipe and launch anyway. We loose our ships anyway so why not open up war to everyone and let ships sink! It may actually give this game a lease of life it drastically needs. More pvp/rvr more war and more fun.

Come on Devs give it a try. We are testing afterall 

**edit** to stop redman attacking me in these forums I need to state the following - my above post is my own opinions and not a sponsored announcement for the British or toxic. All content is my own all humour is my own

Edited December 22, 2016 by monk33y

[hoarmurath]

18 hours ago, admin said:

The best design is making fun the correct strategy to win.
For example - someone might design a card for magic the gathering where beating your head against the wall wins until you bleed gives you a win. Its the rule, but its not fun. 

Thus
Logging off is not fun, being smashed is also not fun, raising hostility through pve is not fun. These things need to be addressed and changed before release (we call such unnecessary friction).  Sitting in BR screen or while logged off are one of such things. 

You're wrong, the best design is to make fun even defeat...

 

I played in MTGO pro tour tournaments, and lost, finishing only mid placed, but it was fun because my decks were fun to play... I came to tournaments with merfolk decks, infinite loop decks, and they were fun... 

 

Victory is fun in itself, what you should focus on, is make defeat fun as well.

[Kloothommel]

6 hours ago, monk33y said:

Once a nations population gets above 30% of server population it should loose the ability to get any allies but instead one neutral nation (use ports Only).

Would solve a lot of issues.

[monk33y]

I'd like to remove that suggestion as Im no longer allowed to post any ideas as I do not speak for the British empire 

[Kloothommel]

3 minutes ago, monk33y said:

I'd like to remove that suggestion as Im no longer allowed to post any ideas as I do not speak for the British empire 

Kinda proves your point, right?

I know you didn't speak for the brits, because you said so. You said it was your personal opinion. And I think it is a good idea.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Kloothommel

[Chijohnaok]

21 hours ago, Kloothommel said:

Just wondering: Is nighflips a way to make fun? Or is taking an empty port when the controlling nation is mostly sleeping to be considered not fun? Because i wouldn't call that a correct strategy to win. Can I have your opinion on this?

Having a situation where a significant portion of the North American player base cannot participate in RvR inhibits their "fun", now doesn't it?

Some East Coast and Midwest North American players can get home from school or work in time to be able to just make a "nightflip" PB, but for the most part, those in the Mountain and West Coast time zones will almost never make it in time for RvR.  And that goes for the Aussie/Southeast Asian players as well.  Shouldn't they also be allowed some "fun"?

[And before anyone tries to suggest moving to the PvP 2 server, the Conquest windows during which you can have PBs are exactly the same for PvP 2 as they are for PvP 1]/

[Kloothommel]

7 minutes ago, Chijohnaok said:

Having a situation where a significant portion of the North American player base cannot participate in RvR inhibits their "fun", now doesn't it?

Some East Coast and Midwest North American players can get home from school or work in time to be able to just make a "nightflip" PB, but for the most part, those in the Mountain and West Coast time zones will almost never make it in time for RvR.  And that goes for the Aussie/Southeast Asian players as well.  Shouldn't they also be allowed some "fun"?

[And before anyone tries to suggest moving to the PvP 2 server, the Conquest windows during which you can have PBs are exactly the same for PvP 2 as they are for PvP 1]/

Instead of repeating the entire agruement and the fact youguys blame the EU playerbase for all that is wrong yet again let me point to @TommyShelbys post. A small extract:

Quote

Timer stuff/Alienating US/AUS players: 
- Lets remove timers and not change anything else. What will the result be? 
- US/AUS players will get bored after a few empty port battles and "quit" the game. But i guess its okay then? 
- Well, honestly i dont think they will quit the game but they will complain a shitton because of empty port battles. But not only will the US/AUS players complain, the EU playerbase will complain about losing ports when they are sleeping simply because they aren't willing to get up at 3 in the morning (Or 4, or 5) to play a port battles. 
- Dont pull the "If they care enough about a region they will get up and play the port battle" Bullshit. It's ridicoulus. Been there done that and oh my, after doing that a few times you will be extremely frustrated. Even more so if you have work/school to attend. Its a horrible argument. 
 

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Kloothommel

[Chijohnaok]

6 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

Instead of repeating the entire agruement yet again let me poin to @TommyShelbys post. A small extract:

 

You introduced the subject of "night flips" into this thread.  I responded to it.

I respect Tommy Shelby and can appreciate his opinion.  I don't necessarily agree with him though.  That does not however change my opinion.

It's apparent that no one will change your mind on the subject of "night flips" and I am not willing to change mine at this point either.

So let the original discussion on "RIP small nations" to resume.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Chijohnaok

[Kloothommel]

1 minute ago, Chijohnaok said:

It's apparent that no one will change your mind on the subject of "night flips" and I am not willing to change mine at this point either.

So let the original discussion on "RIP small nations" to resume.

 

Agreeing to disagree is also a good thing in my opinion. I do understand your frustrations as well, but right now the alternative is to give up my gameplay to satisfy them. This is a game of tug-o-war that yields no winners imho.

But indeed, small nations have it extremely tough in the current setup since last patch(es).

To which I want to add the following point: With the new screening there is no real way of getting to practice the new PB system for smaller nations as any attackers will be intercepted at sea. Discuss.

[Kloothommel]

1 minute ago, Hodo said:

Here is the thing.  People are getting tired of either losing ports to "night" flips. (EU players) or they are getting tired of not getting the ability to fight a port battle.  (US/AUS)

It doesnt matter what server they are on, PVP1EU or PVP2US.   The problem is the port battle restriction time is the same between the servers.  

If they adjusted the RVR restriction timer 4 hours on the PVP2US server more US/AUS players would be there.   And PVP1EU would be dead because 1/3rd of the population would leave in hopes of actually getting Port battles.  

Last post on this subject from me in this thread: And what is 2/3 of the Eu players leave because they cannot defend at the times you want to pb? Let that one sink in. And conclude that this agruement is null and void.

[Salty Dog.]

5 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

Last post on this subject from me in this thread: And what is 2/3 of the Eu players leave because they cannot defend at the times you want to pb? Let that one sink in. And conclude that this agruement is null and void.

Kloothommel,

perhaps you should develop your own game.

 A game that you always have the advantage, can change at will to increase your advantage, and limit every other player to only play at times convenient to your own needs.  But I doubt anyone else would enjoy that game.

Love how you complain when exploits the Danes rely on are removed.  There is a reason exploits get removed.

 

[tonyxyx]

You guys are right,aliiances are the way to go.Port battle for Georgetown today proved it.Now try walking in Pirates shoes...

I feel like being pirate now its a death sentence,regarding port battles.

[tonyxyx]

2 hours ago, Hodo said:

Well it does say Pirates are hard mode.

I hope that's sarcasm,if not you must have missed the distribution of brains,check your redeemables.