Poll: Port battle limitations - formerly known as port battle diversity.

[Bart Smith]

Both yes of me.

[Latron]

I don't think this would do much for shallow port battles, so it would be great if Niagaras and 7th rates(with the exception of basic cutters) were able to join them again. It could add a little more variety.

[Archaos]

I voted YES to first and NO to second.

Not because I want to see small clans die out, but because I do not like the idea of the port owner deciding the size of port battle they will fight. The BR setting for the port battle should be independently set, maybe based on the ports income as was suggested previously, or personally I would like to see it based on the size of the port where a port when captured from neutral starts at a basic size and can be built up to various levels, each port would have a maximum level, so say for example there are 5 levels to a port, smaller ports could be limited to a maximum level of 3 while region capitals could be developed to level 5 etc. Each level has a BR limit for the port battle and that way a clan can decide the level they want to develop the port to and you cant get a very small clan capturing and holding a very large port just because they set the PB to small BR. If you want to be a small clan then restrict yourself to small ports, I dont see why people like being small yet want to compete on the same terms as bigger clans.

There is so much scope available to enhance the game by introducing port development. There were plans previously to limit the number of building slots in a port and the port owner would have control over who could use those slots, those plans were shelved due to peoples outcry, but maybe they could be revisited now that there is individual port ownership as it would give more reason to own and operate smaller ports.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Liq said:

 at least thats an optimistic point of view ;p

With 15 clans on a clan's friends list, yes, probably quite optimistic 

[Archaos]

1 hour ago, Anolytic said:

A small step for Naval Action

...a big step towards lobby based PB entry.

I have to say that I have always been against a lobby based PB entry, but as things have progressed the more I think that this may be the only solution to port battles, but only if there was a feasible way to make the creation of a PB reliant on PvP, i.e. you would still have some sort of open world battle that would decide the screening action to see if the port battle goes ahead, not just a PvE hostility generation to set up the port battle.

[Hawkwood]

What about screening?

Lower the BR for ports, and you can easily be screened out, even if you create a battlegroup.

[Jacob Elston]

1 hour ago, Havelock said:

Voted YES and NO.

 

Yes because i think diversity will improve the longevity of NA. NO because i think a button to change BR is not a smart system, especially if it costs money (moneysinks in RvR have proven to be hidden PvE content in the past). Also i think the Devs should introduce more variable systems instead of fixed mechanics.

I'd rather see a "breathing" BR system which is not tied to actual values. In the original thread i saw an basic idea i liked: Making BR dependant on the revenue of that port. Eg (just playing with numbers here) BR rating of the port is BR = (revenue of the last 7 days)/500 for regional capitals, 50% of that for deep water, 10% of that for shallow water. That would be a way to ensure that a fleet never has the same composition. With these numbers, we reach the maximum (25 1st Rates, Wasas or Mercury/HRattles) at 6-8kk revenue/week. Right now, only Cartagena reaches that cap.

Only problem i see when (hopefully) on release many players join the game again and too many ports reach high revenues. This could be adjusted by not using the absolute revenue but the relative revenue to the server and adjust the formula like that (asuming that maximum is reached at 5% of server revenue): BR = (port revenue/server revenue)*300 000 (and then multiply with 100%, 50% or 10% for PB type).

I like this idea, or at least something similar to it.

I think the problem with a fixed system is that people would be able to come up with the optimum fleet composition for the different BR variables and it would be two almost identical fleet set ups again, only sometimes with less ships and this time with frigates introduced, so it might appear to be varied to begin with but over time a pattern to fleet structure will appear.

The cool part about this concept of fleet size depending on the value of the port with a minimum BR to at least support 5 or 10 ships with values increasing depending on revenue can add some interesting and varied battle fleet compositions and tactics.

[Simon Cadete]

This will no go down very well in my clan where me and at least half of them want to be in a 1st rate.

As of right now, many only log in if there is a 1st rate port battle going on

Edited October 9, 2017 by Simon Cadete

[Hawkwood]

58 minutes ago, Archaos said:

I voted YES to first and NO to second.

Not because I want to see small clans die out, but because I do not like the idea of the port owner deciding the size of port battle they will fight. The BR setting for the port battle should be independently set, maybe based on the ports income as was suggested previously, or personally I would like to see it based on the size of the port where a port when captured from neutral starts at a basic size and can be built up to various levels, each port would have a maximum level, so say for example there are 5 levels to a port, smaller ports could be limited to a maximum level of 3 while region capitals could be developed to level 5 etc. Each level has a BR limit for the port battle and that way a clan can decide the level they want to develop the port to and you cant get a very small clan capturing and holding a very large port just because they set the PB to small BR. If you want to be a small clan then restrict yourself to small ports, I dont see why people like being small yet want to compete on the same terms as bigger clans.

There is so much scope available to enhance the game by introducing port development. There were plans previously to limit the number of building slots in a port and the port owner would have control over who could use those slots, those plans were shelved due to peoples outcry, but maybe they could be revisited now that there is individual port ownership as it would give more reason to own and operate smaller ports.

Good idea developing the port.

 

[Hawkwood]

2. Allow port owners reduce the BR limit (for money) in the ports they own - creating smaller port battles giving some space to small clans/nations

 

No. It will not save smaller clans or give them any significant role, since the screening problem remains the same. It does not matter how big is the fleet,when you defend, if you have enough friend clans on the list, and with introducing alliances with another clans from other nations, there should be no problem, finding enough defenders.

What about attacking the port? 10 ships as attackers, with 2500 BR limit, need probably same or maybe even double BR on screening fleet to make it possible entering the PB.

[Slamz]

I've always liked this idea but previously it was a non-starter due to the way port battles were "first come, first served" by the entire team. With no way to control who can enter, BR limits wouldn't work.

With the clan-based takeover idea, it can work and I think it's worth a try.

Someone should work up some 3rd party tools that help commanders plan their fleet within a BR limit, if such a tool has not already been made.

[SeaWolf_]

3 hours ago, George Washington said:

25 frigates will smoke 10 lineships... so whats the point?

wrong... there has been battles where 7 lineships beat 21 frigates/few lineships in it. aftermath,  start.

this will let smaller clans/countries be able to compete with much larger clans/countries.

[vazco]

This is a great improvement, can't wait to see it happen. Still, you need to find a way to fix a very likely fireship spam. The best composition will be probably 4-5 fireship 5-6 rates, and rest a mix of 1-4 rates.

[Stilgar]

The two options do not exclude each other. So, voted both. However, the new BR-limit system should have a comprehensive structure, which would integrate both options and also takes into account the total nr of ships that can enter the battle.

For instance, line ship ports could have a slider that would allow 3 choices:

(1) 25xBR of the highest rated 1st rate (max 25 ships)

(2) 25xBR of the highest rates 2nd rate (max 25 ships)

(3) 25x of the highest rated 3rd rate (max 25 ships)

In this way 3 reference points are created, with options (2) and (3) allowing mixed fleets. Importantly, line ship PBs better be limited to 1st to 4th rates (+mortar brig of course). I am not sure lower rate ships should be allowed, to minimize the trolling options, but this is just my opinion.

 

By analogy, the "4th rate" ports would allow (at least) 2 options:

(1) 25xBR of the highest rated 4th rate (max 25 ships)

(2) 25xBR of the highest rated 5th rate (max 25 ships)

with 3rd, 4th, and 5th rate ships allowed. 

 

Don't care much about the shallow ports :), but two BR levels could be created in similar way.

Again, the whole point in above example is provide a comprehensive structure to BR-limit feature, but still allow enough diversity.

 

Finally, players posting in this thread mention lobby PB as unavoidable or perhaps next logical step. As long as the attacking clan can control the composition of the PB fleet, there is no need for setting PB up in lobby. IMHO lobby PB makes sense only if there is a proper PvP-oriented hostility mechanics in place, which is not the case.

 

 

[Bart Smith]

1 minute ago, vazco said:

This is a great improvement, can't wait to see it happen. Still, you need to find a way to fix a very likely fireship spam. The best composition will be probably 4-5 fireship 5-6 rates, and rest a mix of 1-4 rates.

Nerf or remove fireship maybe?

[Hawkwood]

2 minutes ago, vazco said:

This is a great improvement, can't wait to see it happen. Still, you need to find a way to fix a very likely fireship spam. The best composition will be probably 4-5 fireship 5-6 rates, and rest a mix of 1-4 rates.

This is not going to work as intended. As usual.

[Batman]

Maybe test this feature on a few ports, before introducing it on the whole server.

[Hodo]

Why is this even a discussion?  This is probably one of few things EVERYONE in game agrees on.

[HoneyBaddger]

I like Turltes!

[BetaVape]

Instead of applying these changes across the board why not add a few port battles with this new mechanics. Leave 1st rate battles in county capitals. Mix in some new types of battles with the 4th rates battles for regular towns. It could be very interesting to have more options. Im also in favor of 5th Rate only port battles without any Indefats and Trincos.

[Hawkwood]

2 minutes ago, BetaVape said:

Instead of applying these changes across the board why not add a few port battles with this new mechanics. Leave 1st rate battles in county capitals. Mix in some new types of battles with the 4th rates battles for regular towns. It could be very interesting to have more options. Im also in favor of 5th Rate only port battles without any Indefats and Trincos.

This basically the same. You can mix up your fleet, or take a full fleet of same ships if BR is completed.

[Farrago]

6 hours ago, George Washington said:

Your idea is good, but we need small population 'insurance' mechanics. My idea was to make ALL port battles 10 vs 10 once the port is flipped. Then add 'bonus' as Port Battle size expansion based on extra work invested. 

ex. (Attacker) Nation Flipped port and now Port Battle is scheduled with 10 vs 10 (X BR) Default preset. Port Battle size Expansion is listed:

- 50% more contention points will unlock 15 vs 15 (X BR) Port Battle.

-100% more contention points will unlock 25 vs 25 (X BR) Port Battle.

I understand what you're trying to do but this could have the unintended effect of hurting a small nation defender: Big clan or nation raises hostility. BR limit helps small nation defend EXCEPT big nation can continue grinding allowing more and more ships to attack in the PB and overwhelming by sheer numbers the small nation.

[John Cavanaugh]

Birth of actual fleet composition doctrines as opposed to spamming 23-25 of the same ship brings a tear to my eye. When SLRN was building the first pavels and victories, seeing those mixed fleets fight was far more interesting than the monofleets of today. Think it will mesh very nicely with zone control as well - frigates and mid rate ships grabbing points, and the handful of SOLs being deployed where they can be most effective will bring a much looser style of fleet action

Makes me happy that we're going in reverse order of EVE- instead of starting with interesting fleets and devolving into tengu only fleets and 1 man bomber wings[BORING], we're starting with single ship doctrine and making our way to something beautiful. Gives me hope for the game, rvr has been a boring slog for a long time, this might make it fun again

[Corona Lisa]

Mixed fleets and diversity are cool, but I hope it wont be possible to lower the BR to so low  that you have something like a 5v5 or 7v7, because the gamemode with 3 cicles is very boring with that low amount on players and only works with 10+ ships imo.

 

Voted yes and no, the importance of the port should determine the size of the PB as @Havelock suggested.

[Landsman]

To all who voted against small clans: