Port Battles - Should they be longer ?

[Jeheil]

I am working from a position that I very much like the new land in port battles, accepting tweaks to come for fortifications and some geography, I think they are HEAPS better than 3 towers in the middle of nothing. I accept the wind is a dominant factor..coz ya know...sailing ships.

My criticism is that the 90 minute timer is too short. This is exaggerated most at 4th rate level, where a combination of regional build bonuses, perks, mods and the change 3 months ago to a much improved penetration model simply means it takes a long time to sink a reasonably well sailed ship. This is true of all PB divisions (Shallow --> Deep).

So, for the sake of debate, my proposition is :

1) There is no time limit to enter a PB, if there are slots open, they stay open

2) There is no time limit on the battle itself, it ends when someone hits 1,000 points

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jeheil said:

1) There is no time limit to enter a PB, if there are slots open, they stay open

Like it, made the same suggestion in the hostility & flags thread. There's no need for a PB entering limit now that the circle system will end any uncontested battles regardless (unlike the old system where sometimes you sometimes had to wait for up to 45 minutes or thereabouts).

4 minutes ago, Jeheil said:

2) There is no time limit on the battle itself, it ends when someone hits 1,000 points

Do you think that there is a risk that for example each PB fleet defensively hugs one circle each and then try to just send one ship after another to wrest numerical control of the final circle?

Because that would drag the battle on for a very long time. Asking for people to do more than 1.5 hours of dedicated fighting sounds like a tall order and since the circles have already turned most fights into short-range brawls - making defensive sailing more difficult - the answer is most likely in tweaking the ship balancing rather than adding more time, alternatively increasing the fighting ranges somewhat so that several ships can focus on individual targets again.

Not to mention that for many casual players that 1.5-2 hours of gametime might be all they've got for the day, so PBs would probably be seen as becoming even more elitist if it was even longer.

[Kloothommel]

No time limit would be horrible for the reasons @Aegir already stated.

The entry part seems fine to me.

[Angus McGregor]

1 hour ago, Jeheil said:

1) There is no time limit to enter a PB, if there are slots open, they stay open

2) There is no time limit on the battle itself, it ends when someone hits 1,000 points

I see no downside to #1

Yep - for #2 Aegir is right. A prolonged stalemate is a definite threat. So what would be wrong with experimenting with slightly longer PB times? Bump it to 105 minutes instead of 90.

[van der Clam]

1) No time limit on enter is good, but also increasing the number of slots to 35 would be even better. (especially with the 2nd point of increasing PB time)

2) I like the 105 minute suggestion by Angus. Start there and then increase as needed. But I would agree that keeping the 1k points would most likely prevent most PBs from going past 105 minutes.

[Elric]

+15 min - I've only been in 5 or 6 port battles - but in all of them, the first 15-20 minutes were sailing to get into a circle or engage the enemy.   So I would like to see them a little longer.  In one PB, it was probably 30 minutes before any shots were exchanged.

I would like to see the initial starting positions be a little close to the action.

 

[monk33y]

Would nuteral wind not be a bad idea? Turning in the favour of the defenders but always turning so it will help and hinder both sides! Instead of the crap of guesswork and witchcraft we use now.

What would be a good addition is allowing the battles to have a 30min extra time window if neither team has scored 750+ points.. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by monk33y

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 hours ago, ElricTheTwo said:

+15 min - I've only been in 5 or 6 port battles - but in all of them, the first 15-20 minutes were sailing to get into a circle or engage the enemy.   So I would like to see them a little longer.  In one PB, it was probably 30 minutes before any shots were exchanged.

I would like to see the initial starting positions be a little close to the action.

 

The bigger ones that are closer in numbers I found have been getting down to the last 5-20 before won. I think they should be about 2 hours long.  The PB maps are way bigger than they use to be and some times depending the ships and fleets it takes a while just to get to circles or across the map.  The problem is they figured the distance traveled with a frigate that prob can go up wind better than any SOL.  You throw them in and it's a very long time to get to the other circles unless you have good wind.    So I'm guessing 2 hours would be a better mark. IF you can't get Cap points by than than your doing it wrong or you didn't bring enough.   We actually been wining most of them with the sinks more than the cap circle now that numbers are getting more closer.   It's when the numbers our not close we run out of time trying to sink more and they either out cap us cause they know we can't sink them in enough time for the clock to run out.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Sir Texas Sir

[E.P. Juel]

Its almost impossible to win a PB as attacker.

When getting through screening you might have 20 ships attacking a PB. Defending team quickly take 1 circle(where they start) and begin moving the main part of their fleet towards circle 2. Sometimes a few ships go for circle 3 but anyways; the defender get 2 circles from the beginning and a lot of points before the battle even begin. If only 20 attackers go in, they will be unable to take a second circle because of sheer number, it takes a long time to sink ppl defenders have half points before the battle even started.

- Longer battle timers; Gives attackers more time 

- New "capture circle" mechanic; change 1:1 capture power so a 3rd circle containing the main battle, would be neutral (not giving points )as long as almost even numbers are fighting in it. 

 

[Yar Matey]

Can we just get a thickness nerf across all ship classes and call it a day?  Seriously, mahogany or live oak with build strength or stiffness combined with either regional thickness or strong hull make ships too damn tanky.  I dont care if they nerf base thickness or the strong hull and regional thickness trims, but the thickness on these ships needs a good solid whack from the nertbat.  I have seen entire broadsides against these ships at moderately close distances just bounce off like the hull was made of solid steel.  It makes port battles drag on for a really long time because so many of your shots simply do not penetrate.

Also, I dont want to see the time limit increased too much, maybe 1 hour 45 min, and leave the battles open until the very end so if you manage to get through the screening fleets, you can always join the battle.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Yar Matey

[PIerrick de Badas]

Port battle should start when at least 5 opponent are in. It's stupid to make it start before anyone come around... If noone is there how to call that a "battle"?

[Sir Max Magic]

3 hours ago, Yar Matey said:

Can we jget a thickness nerf across all ship classes and call it a day?  Seriously, mahogany or live oak with build strength or stiffness combined with either regional thickness or strong hull make ships too damn tanky.  I dont care if they nerf base thickness or the strong hull and regional thickness trims, but the thickness on these ships needs a good solid whack from the nertbat.  I have seen entire broadsides against these ships at moderately close distances just bounce off like the hull was made of solid steel.  It makes port battles drag on for a really long time because so many of your shots simply do not penetrate.

Also, I dont want to see the time limit increased too much, maybe 1 hour 45 min, and leave the battles open until the very end so if you manage to get through the screening fleets, you can always join the battle.

Nononono !! 

I cant hear the cry for "nerf this, nerf that" anymore...can we just let numbers as they are and adapt our playstyle instead of always adapting the game ??? 

If ships are too "bouncy" for your taste at distance, what about going nearer ?! 

 

On the topic, i am too for a 2h long Battle Timer !

...or alternatively decrease the rate of assembling Victory Points ?!

Because in every PB i was lately, the timer runned down so far that it was mostly over before the real action started

Maybe weighting kills much more than capping points ???

Edited January 23, 2017 by Sir Max Magic

[Corona Lisa]

I think 1,5 hours for a battle is long enough, they should instead adjust thickness values so that its actually possible to kill someone.

Especially Aga vs Aga is disgusting and its really hard to sink atm when you dont get boarded or make some really big mistakes.

Edited January 23, 2017 by JonSnowLetsGo

[JollyRoger1516]

26 minutes ago, rediii said:

I think more damage for canons or a nerf of the aga should do the trick

This bloody nerfing needs to stop!!! Half the upgrades, perks and ships have been nerfed so much nobody sails/uses them anymore. And quite frankly the buffs of subpar ships like the inger need to end as well. The devs also need to start testing their intended changes prior to putting them on the big server... Regional boni are compeltely overdone and while carpenter teams and co were already powerful strong hull made killing these ships past 50m nigh on impossible. I will honestly say that for me the game took a big turn for the worst when the armor mechanics were itnroduced rendering some ships into the meta and impossible to sink unless faced by other meta ships.

Constantly ahving to chase after the flower of the month is currently killing more RvR playerbase then anything else.

2 hours for a port abttle should do the trick and maybe some changes to the wind system.

2 hours ago, PIerrick de Badas said:

Port battle should start when at least 5 opponent are in. It's stupid to make it start before anyone come around... If noone is there how to call that a "battle"?

That would return us to the griefing empty port battles we already had. Either side was at fault at that so I don't think either alliance can be trusted to not go there again. I agree its hardly a battle if no one shows up but on the other hand its not a battle itself - its area control. And with no enemies brave enough you control the area. SImple as that.

Edited January 23, 2017 by JollyRoger1516

[Guest]

Not to mention how it would negate alot of the screening effort - if the PB doesnt start until 5 guys are in, then the attackers can simply hold off from entering until they know that their entire 25-man crew is standing outside and ready to do so, and would still require some sort of cut-off time so that the defender aren't just sitting there waiting while the attackers have decided to not enter until an hour later.

[The Spud]

Maybe ditch hull repairs in a PB, rendering the hull repair mods useless, shortening the battle duration? Would make these repair mod stacking also useless.

I think right now we might as wel try out the longer timers? Start with 2 hours, reduce to 1:45 if deemed too long? Why not right?

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, JollyRoger1516 said:

This bloody nerfing needs to stop!!! Half the upgrades, perks and ships have been nerfed so much nobody sails/uses them anymore. And quite frankly the buffs of subpar ships like the inger need to end as well. The devs also need to start testing their intended changes prior to putting them on the big server... Regional boni are compeltely overdone and while carpenter teams and co were already powerful strong hull made killing these ships past 50m nigh on impossible. I will honestly say that for me the game took a big turn for the worst when the armor mechanics were itnroduced rendering some ships into the meta and impossible to sink unless faced by other meta ships.

Constantly ahving to chase after the flower of the month is currently killing more RvR playerbase then anything else.

2 hours for a port abttle should do the trick and maybe some changes to the wind system.

That would return us to the griefing empty port battles we already had. Either side was at fault at that so I don't think either alliance can be trusted to not go there again. I agree its hardly a battle if no one shows up but on the other hand its not a battle itself - its area control. And with no enemies brave enough you control the area. SImple as that.

...Wait what? You want any nerfing to stop yet in the next sentence spell out the issues that are 'completely overdone', which also happens to be the things that people now want to nerf...

Granted, the devs might need to test the ships more (loss-less trafalgar battles would be a good way to test new ships without ramifications, people tend to be too hasty with demanding changes when their digital assets are at risk), but they cant exactly set up 25v25 PBs behind closed doors before releasing it to us - let's not forget that we are their testers. And how exactly is 'flavour of the month' even remotely close to being the main thing that is killing RvR? It's not a even a new issue.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Guest

[The Spud]

I think if we start to fiddle with the cannon damage it'll unbalance the game in other places maybe.

[JollyRoger1516]

I said the regional boni needed to be looked at before they got introduced. Then there would be no need to nerf them now. Stop introducing stuff that is compeltely overdoing certain scenarios (this couldve easily been seen and prevented considering all the upgrades give like a 2.5% bonus but regional boni give 10%).

Yes the ingerman is useless in comparison to the aga but it still performs a thousand times better then it should (just remember what we all had to sail prior to the aga being introduced).  Flower of the month chasing might not be the main thing but it excludes a buttload of palyers who don't have the time to do it every bloody week and it renders every other ship compeltely useless destroying any variety in port battles. THe chase itself isn't the only area this effects the players.

And Aegir I do agree - we are the testers but we are also their ONLY playerbase. There isn't a big server behind us waiting for the tested stuff to come out. If you throw the current palyerbase through such turmoils you will ehavily bleed and recovring isn't guarenteed. I like your idea of Traflagar without losses for testing certain ship compositions, Maybe there could be a similar thing for the secret island to test port battles on it.

Edited January 23, 2017 by JollyRoger1516

[Kloothommel]

18 minutes ago, Hodo said:

I stand by my suggestion of turning Port Battles into mini-events.

When a Port Battle is scheduled to start, it will run every 3 hours for 90 minutes, and the side with the most points at the end of the day wins the port.

Still won't prevent nightflips. 

[PIerrick de Badas]

The screen is nothing about controlling an area but how to hold port battle fleet with 5 frigates... I don't want to negate the second the S teen but to make it something else than stupid kite and suicide squad.

Screening are not design to intercept and sunk any ships but just to delay the fleet untill the pb is finished. Put a limit for example one hour before the tile it may start and the time it's too late like with the flags and let attackers decide when they attack. On with defender starting is is so stupid... Against what are you defending when your 5 surprise have tag 25 aga ? You're just capturing the area against no-one.

As in nightflip we see the same people saying that same things. We are there to test, just try to forget the nation you play and speak there to make a better game and not advantage one more time your situation or nation.

[Jeheil]

Some excellent stuff in here, lets keep it going and be lovely about it.

Hodo, I would love some sort of 24 hour event where folks can all contribute from a inclusive aspect, it could be truly epic. It would of course (before Kloot toes into me) favour nations with a broader playerbase

[Kloothommel]

On 24-1-2017 at 0:08 AM, Jeheil said:

Some excellent stuff in here, lets keep it going and be lovely about it.

Hodo, I would love some sort of 24 hour event where folks can all contribute from a inclusive aspect, it could be truly epic. It would of course (before Kloot toes into me) favour nations with a broader playerbase

Jesus Christ, am I that notorious? XD

I feel kinda honored

Just to put it out there, I'm not an unreasonable fellow. I'm just very passionate about the game and the state it is in.

(What I do in NN is a totally different thing though)

 

But yes, the broader userbase would have an advantage at low usercounts.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Kloothommel

[Wolfram Harms]

The Port Battle system, as it is now, contains a big disadvantage for some nations.

There is one nation with players, who live in a time-zone with a difference of 6 - 9 hours to Europe - the USA.
So, any NATION that is allied with the USA has a huge advantage.
This alliance can generate hostility and fight PORT BATTLES almost 24 hours a day.

So, while the enemy NATION's players must sleep (we have a job, families etc.), the alliance with the US can flip anything.

Now, I am really glad that there are a growing number of US players in the EU server;
I wouldn't want to have the Carribean without the USA - I even encourage them to grow.
But something must be done about the PORT BATTLE times.

The times for PORT BATTLES must be in a time which is acceptable for all NATIONs - European and American.
Or the whole thing will turn to a very bad angle.

There is no use, no chance anymore for those NATIONs, which are opponents of the USA.
Players are already retreating because of this - and that cannot be in anybody's interest.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Olham

[Snoopy]

I like the idea of 24h PBs, and I shall steal it to incorporate in a post i made somewhere else:

How about opening every port in a region again for conquest? This time, however, until the the Regional Capital has been flipped, conquered ports in that region stay contested and in working order for both factions. The original faction can recapture the port and make it uncontested.
This will dampen the negative effect on non-RvR players getting screwed over by RvR land grab and also slow down effective RvR speed while providing more PB opportunities.

Once the majority of ports in that region is in contested state, the Regional Capital can be attacked and this is where the 24h PB idea comes in: it could be an 'epic' event over the course of a day that determines the ownership of the capital (and it would only be scheduled on weekends so that everyone can participate).

After the RC has been flipped, ports in the region still stay contested for a day to allow for "git yer shit out".

This will slow down conquest a lot, and be more localized, and if hostility missions remain a thing maybe even generate OW PvP when hostility runners run across each other.

With so many ports open again, and unless a better alternative can be implemented, we could have port battles classes extended from line/4th/shallow to line/3rd(!)/4th/5th/shallow making use of more ship types, especially the 74s and the Frigates.