Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

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

Introduce Battle Rating limitations to port battles allowing clans bring diverse fleets within a total Battle Rating (BR) limit  

353 members have voted

  1. 1. Introduce Battle Rating limitations to port battles allowing clans bring diverse fleets within a total Battle Rating (BR) limit

    • Yes - We want diverse fleets in port battles
      302
    • No - full freedom should remain
      51
  2. 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

    • Yes - allow clans to decide on the total size of the port battle
      288
    • No - full freedom should remain in game (let small clans die out)
      65


Recommended Posts

http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22704-idea-mixed-fleet-port-battles/


@admin

Use a larger BR Devisor, it'll give more control over the mixed fleet. Too narrow a bandwidth won't have the desired effect imho.

If you are going to allow the defensive or owner clan influence, like BR limits then surely they must be able to set "Time Windows" for battle as well...?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spitfire83 said:

So does that mean we go back to ships bought from shop fire ship fitting all frigates targets players hard earnt 1st rates you won't win the port but you've trolled the enemy and let's be honest if enemy has full 25 and you have 10 players your probably going to lose so why not troll your enemy ( happened  before and leads to people crying on forum)

 

1 hour ago, George Washington said:

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

That can still happen with current mechanics so I don't see what the issue is with this change, and that situation could be avoided by just bringing more smaller ships rather than 10 1st rates. There can be actual strategy to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about screening?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Simon Cadete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Simon Cadete said:

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

well sorry to say. You and your guys will probably sit in 3rd rates and lower in portbattles with limited BR or you make your own thing and get screened away by more 1st rates than you can handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sven Silberbart said:

The same today with 4th rate PB groups. Can be tagged easily by bigger lineships (but don't happens). No difference in my opinion. I dont think that will be a big problem.

Thing is, it does happen. It only doesnt happen RIGHT NOW because the serverpop is so low.

It happened in the east vs west alliance for the most part. Remember bridgetown?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

well the reason for why we even are able to go that far and vote whether or not there should be a BR limit in PBs is because PBs are now fully controlled by clans - Clans will have to discuss which member is going to sail which ship internally - if a member is not happy with the decisions he will eventually leave the clan and look out for a better one. And clans will probably want to evade this, so they will try to keep it fair - at least thats an optimistic point of view ;p

well, very optimistic :P

I would say most fleetcommands will be quite serious about it who takes a 1st rate and it will not be the guys who only come if they can sail a 1st rate - because these are the guys that don't use a 1st rate as the 1st rate could be used. People that are stuck at a certain skilllevel will have a hard time I think. They don't have that now and they will realize when it's implemented I guess.

 

a 1st rate inside a limited BR PB will have a way bigger impact than ships do have now. The game will be very elitist after this change I fear... I will be as far as I can say now and I bet the clans that are not that serious about it will very fast moan about it and dont go to portbattles anymore or something like this.

 

But lets test it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...