RVR (port battles and territory control) feedback

[Hethwill]

We are all individual players that decide to play together.

But yes, i get what you mean. But no can do with the DLC, sorry.

[Thonys]

1 minute ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

We are all individual players that decide to play together.

But yes, i get what you mean. But no can do with the DLC, sorry.

so what you are saying is we can not change the conditions on the DLC?

i think development can give a handicap.  

[Hethwill]

I am saying DLC grants me the right to change nation every 30 days and captain name every 30 days.

Still haven't seen anything of what you wrote that relates to mechanics, but everything you wrote relates to player challenge.

Help me here...

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

18 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

no, this is biology/physics and you can observe it every day. If you think you can take on 3 people 1/3rd your strength in a fight you've never been in a real fight, those are dangerous odds even for someone trained.

 

In NA, the action you describe looks more like this fight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6xKN2K2R30

And that's by design.

[Slim McSauce]

36 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

 

In NA, the action you describe looks more like this fight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6xKN2K2R30

And that's by design.

That looks completely idiotic....by design?

Oh yeah, ships are samurai in NA. I forgot 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[van der Clam]

1 hour ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

I am saying DLC grants me the right to change nation every 30 days and captain name every 30 days.

Still haven't seen anything of what you wrote that relates to mechanics, but everything you wrote relates to player challenge.

Help me here...

How about the DLC changes to allowing you a change to each nation only once? You said you don't want the DLC changed because somone might not like a nation they joined, as though it is a legit and valid excuse to allow DLC buyers, but not others, to change nation. Well, how about giving you the option to change only once per nation. Once you have cycled through every nation, then the DLC is useless. This would prevent nation hopping clans after awhile.

[Hethwill]

DLC states I can change nation every 30 days.

[van der Clam]

Truly nothing is wrong with people who pay more into the game to get more than those who only pay for the game. I'm sure the only reason anyone is having an issue with disloyal nation hopping clans is because of the current low population. Once we get more people in the game I am certain there will be a greater chance for more "zerg" clans that could even the playing field for all nations. What will suck is when they all decide to join the same nation just to break the game for everyone else. But when/if that happens, at least those hypothetical 3 maybe 5 or more clans of 20+ people will be happy while the rest of the server quits and denies that massive zerg nation anyone to fight.

[Busterbloodvessel]

I seem to recall from the early alpha of NA that most newcomers bought the game and elected to become either Pirate or Brit. When forged papers came out people switched for all sorts of reasons:

• To make a name for themselves in a smaller pool of players.
• To be able to fight annoying players in their current Nation.
• To join friends who were in another nation.
• To join a nation where access to resources was better or trading easier.
• To be on a 'winning side'.
• To join a nation/clan with a good fleet PvP and RvR commander.

I think we need a few zerg nations particularily when numbers are low. Some of us have seen NA go from 2000+ players in the early days (when the login queue could last for 30 mins) down to a few hundred active captains now. For large PB RvR fights, which some of us enjoy, you need a significant number of players. Truly active player numbers are low and these RvR capable nations are declared to be zerg yet they must be this way if large fleet RvR is to take place. We need at least two larger nations to be able to build and fight a Rate RvR battle.

For all of the above we need to be able to change nation.

If you are in a smaller nation that's fine but you are going to suffer and all of you elected to go there at some stage.  

Buster (waiting for the Portuguese to enter the fray, where are they by the way?)

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Busterbloodvessel

[RKY]

@admin you will find below some suggestion for enhancement on RVR. At the moment it is not possible to enjoy the game.

 

1. Player behavior
   1. player Behavior for port battle
   2. Screening
   3. multiflip
   4. timers
2. Features
   1. hostility
   2. rooms
3. balancing
   1. frigates
   2. SOL
   3. BR

 

1.1

We see more empty port battles, and troll fleet in port battle. It is not acceptable.

People have lives, time spent on NA is time which could have been spent in other ways. When people flip a port they are basically inviting the defenders to a fun and balanced fight the next day.

If the attackers decide to come with a troll fleet or don't even show up, they ruined the evening of the defenders.

The game can't really do much about it, but some incentives to not encourage such behavior can be set in place (some examples):

- attacking Nation not showing to a port battle have increased taxes in non capturable ports of said nation by 300% for 7 days

- attacking clan not showing in port battle, will see the maintenance cost of their port increased by 10 for 7 days

- for clans owning no ports, the biggest and most valuable ship of each player in the clan is seized and sold in auction in a neutral port

 

I am sure Devs, can find a nice idea to make people want to go to the pb they initiated. As for troll fleet such as 8 prince + 2 mortars in a deep water port, a tribunal should be set and penalties the same as not showing.

 

1.2

It is time we see port battles as what they are: clan wars more or less. Players are at the moment given the ability to dodge clan wars by gathering a group of people to screen the attacking foe.

It is a sorry display to see all these players claiming to not care about pixel ports, and yet doing everything they can to not loose it. the attacker took the time to raise hostility, they should be guaranteed a chance to challenge the port ownership.

Beside port changing ownership can only induce a nice dynamic to the game.

how to do so? some examples:

- Attacking clan can create a port battle group which cannot be attacked or attack for 40 min before the port battle and until 10 min after port battle is over

- manage port battle through a port battle room rather than going into OW to get there

 

1.3

Change the port flip rules, make it so it is not possible to flip two or more ports of a single clan within a 3 hours window or about. This way a single clan defend all owned ports on his own.

This goes accordingly with the future RVR @admin mentioned would be more clan oriented.

1.4

Timers are not working as intended at the moment. We need a dynamic map where port ownership can be contested easily anytime anywhere.

Make timers free, but allow only one per clan of minimum 10 members. The only port in need of a proper timer is the port where a clan craft. Other ports should be challengable anytime of day.

Any change on a set timer would cost a million though.

 

2.1

Pve hostility is boring. How about a clan tells they are going to do hostility on x day at n time on z ship rate max.

a hostility battle can occur said day between the two parties.

 

2.2

Some people don't like ow, but like battle instance. Please reinstate battle room.

Make us loose repair, ship and earn nothing for it if you will. sailing OW is merely a waste of time to some of us, thus we don't play.

 

3.1

bigger mast model on requin and hercules.

less heel on trinc and constitution

3.2

less heel on wasa, pavel and victory or make the models sit lower in the water.

slight thickness buff on wasa, christian, and inger

slight hp increase on pavel, wapen and victory

yard speed increase on pavel and christian

santisima waterline, slightly higher or sitting slightly higher in water

set Santissima HP to 12.5K, reduce thickness by 2

reduce ocean HP to ~11.3k  and buff thickness by 1

 

3.3

Recalculate BR by class with a maximum per class.

6th - 110 - 200

5th - 210 - 300

4th - 310 - 400

3rd - 410 - 500

2nd - 510 - 700

1st - 710 - 900

 

 

Sorry for the earlier post, I made a mistake on my keyboard.

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by RKY

[Hethwill]

Merged

[RKY]

1 minute ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Merged

thx,I got confused for second not seing my post in suggestions

[Capn Rocko]

2 hours ago, RKY said:

- attacking Nation not showing to a port battle have increased taxes in non capturable ports of said nation by 300% for 7 days

- attacking clan not showing in port battle, will see the maintenance cost of their port increased by 10 for 7 days

- for clans owning no ports, the biggest and most valuable ship of each player in the clan is seized and sold in auction in a neutral port

would be nice but it would also punish those who get screened out of a PB. I personally like the idea of screening.. it creates content in a game that desperately needs it and it provides another layer of strategy. 

 

This is partly why I suggested to implement the flag system.. make port battles a money sink and players will take them more seriously (or go broke trolling). 

On 12/15/2018 at 4:57 PM, Capn Rocko said:

I think the flag of conquest should be tried again. Notifiy the whole server when and where the flag was purchased, then hold the purchaser of the flag in port for 10-15 minutes to allow the enemy to prepare a defense fleet. The flag expires if the purchaser does not leave port within 30 minutes. A port battle will be triggered for the next day if the flag reaches its target destination. Flag should be very expensive (reals and/or labor hours based on size/importance of port) and limited to 1 purchase per day/week to prevent trolling. 

No more PvE grind and it gives the defender a fair chance to deny the port battle. It's up to the attacker to determine how big of fleet to assemble to get the job done. 

 

[Hethwill]

PBs at the moment are a set piece scenario of a unknown quantity and quality of engagements.

- hostility drive with a number of engagements ( missions ) - weakest link imo

- battle setup is done and destination of attacker is known; also known is the time of the battle; also known is the Battle Rating points for the battle - in my opinion too much information

- unknown element is the departure point, but easily guessed. - can't do anything about this as anyone can have ships anywhere.

- there will be a number of engagements from the departure point to the objective port, plus the port battle itself - usually the defender fleet just has to sit put, and do nothing while allies and other nation friends battle outside.

So, in sum, the design to capture a port is a mini-campaign with lots of engagements and ending in a major scale battle ( not necessarily bigger than any of the previous engagements )

 

 

[Slim McSauce]

1 minute ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

So, in sum, the design to capture a port is a mini-campaign with lots of engagements and ending in a major scale battle ( not necessarily bigger than any of the previous engagements )

Eh, that's what it's suppose to be but in reality it's raise hostility in 30 minutes with a full fleet, leave, arrive to the area of attack a few hours prior to PB, hit an OW fleet, sit in invisible battle for an hour, hop out some time after the PB starts and gun run it into port, start PB.

All in all it's about 3 hours of content. and an hour or two of battling. Mini-campaign isn't that far off I suppose. It's very short and small and not all that exciting or varied.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Lord Gud]

7 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

PBs at the moment are a set piece scenario of a unknown quantity and quality of engagements.

- hostility drive with a number of engagements ( missions ) - weakest link imo

- battle setup is done and destination of attacker is known; also known is the time of the battle; also known is the Battle Rating points for the battle - in my opinion too much information

- unknown element is the departure point, but easily guessed. - can't do anything about this as anyone can have ships anywhere.

- there will be a number of engagements from the departure point to the objective port, plus the port battle itself - usually the defender fleet just has to sit put, and do nothing while allies and other nation friends battle outside.

So, in sum, the design to capture a port is a mini-campaign with lots of engagements and ending in a major scale battle ( not necessarily bigger than any of the previous engagements )

 

 

Check out my suggestion I made a few days ago. I believe my suggestion is the best way to get players into 3 main RvR nations while people who like to do other things can join the smaller nations. It will also make the game more unique rather than every nation being the same. forum.game-labs.net/topic/27998-nations-providing-different-benefits/

[Greysteak]

One problem I see with RvR is that the clan's friend list is too restrictive and insufficient.   Should there be another mechanic for clans to work together?

Maybe a solution could be an additional list of 2 or 3 other clans to represent clan alliances.  Where each friends list is shared and members can do hostility for any clan in the alliance.  Restricting the total size of alliance membership could be a way to encourage large clans to work more with small ones.

Also, giving clans more granular control over taxation should be a simple and effective incentive to seek port ownership.  Let clans control taxes based on who is being taxed.  For instance, let a clan choose custom tax rates for clan members, alliance members, national patriots, and different rates for each other nation.  Docking fees are a good idea, let that be controlled with granularity as well.

[Licinio Chiavari]

44 minutes ago, Greysteak said:

One problem I see with RvR is that the clan's friend list is too restrictive and insufficient.   Should there be another mechanic for clans to work together?

Maybe a solution could be an additional list of 2 or 3 other clans to represent clan alliances.  Where each friends list is shared and members can do hostility for any clan in the alliance.  Restricting the total size of alliance membership could be a way to encourage large clans to work more with small ones.

Also, giving clans more granular control over taxation should be a simple and effective incentive to seek port ownership.  Let clans control taxes based on who is being taxed.  For instance, let a clan choose custom tax rates for clan members, alliance members, national patriots, and different rates for each other nation.  Docking fees are a good idea, let that be controlled with granularity as well.

Definately yes.

[Celtiberofrog]

14 hours ago, Greysteak said:

One problem I see with RvR is that the clan's friend list is too restrictive and insufficient.   Should there be another mechanic for clans to work together?

Maybe a solution could be an additional list of 2 or 3 other clans to represent clan alliances.  Where each friends list is shared and members can do hostility for any clan in the alliance.  Restricting the total size of alliance membership could be a way to encourage large clans to work more with small ones.

Also, giving clans more granular control over taxation should be a simple and effective incentive to seek port ownership.  Let clans control taxes based on who is being taxed.  For instance, let a clan choose custom tax rates for clan members, alliance members, national patriots, and different rates for each other nation.  Docking fees are a good idea, let that be controlled with granularity as well.

Should there be another mechanic for clans to work together? Yes, national diplomacy system (common goals for the Faction community).

Also, giving clans more granular control over taxation should be a simple and effective incentive to seek port ownership. Could be, along with a maximum number of port ownership (like 3 max per clan ?), it will then push smaller clans to hope for port possession too. Swapping ports ownership between national clans could be a possible option. 

Docking fees are a good idea. Less port maintenance taxes, but rather docking fees. The more ships you own the higher fees you must pay, even in your own ports. That might be more realistic, it would discourage peeps storing many ships for no use and may boost ships market. (I used to make my living only being ship merchant in early NA times, without crafting any, with 1 account, and it was helpful for my Faction fellows).  

[Busterbloodvessel]

1 hour ago, Celtiberofrog said:

Should there be another mechanic for clans to work together? Yes, national diplomacy system (common goals for the Faction community).

Also, giving clans more granular control over taxation should be a simple and effective incentive to seek port ownership. Could be, along with a maximum number of port ownership (like 3 max per clan ?), it will then push smaller clans to hope for port possession too. Swapping ports ownership between national clans could be a possible option. 

Docking fees are a good idea. Less port maintenance taxes, but rather docking fees. The more ships you own the higher fees you must pay, even in your own ports. That might be more realistic, it would discourage peeps storing many ships for no use and may boost ships market. (I used to make my living only being ship merchant in early NA times, without crafting any, with 1 account, and it was helpful for my Faction fellows).   

I struggle to see any additional pleasure or interest fees add to the game. They are not enabling but restricting and ever increasingly tighten the game and make it more difficult to play in a variety of ways. There seems to be an obsession for people to want to curtail variety and impose more and more restrictive rules to a sandbox game!

Buster (#sunk_or_taxed) 

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by Busterbloodvessel

[Tiedemann]

I think RvR and port battles should be about fighting - by sinking ships and destroying fortifications, not gathering points from 3 imaginary circles. Now if attackers do not get 1000 points, then defenders win! So the current defender meta is to bringing more small fast low BR ships to sail into the circles that are conquered by attackers, and stop them form generating points. This is very effective and is why often even if the attacking team is killing winning the battle and has been owning the most circles, they do no get 1000 point and they lose the pb.
So defenders win because of a technicality, not because they did well in the battle it self..

This is not ideal imo and it takes the fun out of pbs for me at least. It is possible for attackers to adapt the fleet setup to bring more low BR fast ship, to match the enemy, but this is like "pissing on your own legs to keep warm" because defenders just bring more small ships and this escalates. So in the end we are all sailing Princes and Hercules in deep water port battles..  

Please consider these (Imo simple) changes to port battles:

• Team with highest BR in a circle will capture it and get points from it. It should not be about player numbers, but ships BR. With out this change it is to easy to for defender to deny attacker points with small low BR ships and kiting around in the circles for 90 minutes.
• Please consider reducing the number of circles. I would prefere 1 circle, but I get that in high BR ports this will result in chaos, so maybe have 2 circles for ports with BR higher than 5000. The 3 circles we have now forces us to spread to much out and sail far in battle, and is only really useful for the team with the most small/fast ships. 
• Reduce the size of the circles dramatically, to penetration distance, so kiting within the circles is not possible. So diameter about 400-500 ingame meters maybe.
• Increase the points teams receive when sinking a enemy teams ship, making sinking enemy ships more important that getting points from imaginary circes. And please consider the ship size, so we would get less points for sinking a mortar brig compered to sinking a 1. rate. I believe we get the same amount of point for all ships now.
   
• Mortar brigs should be used for destroying forts and towers, not moving ships!  I have seen many skillful captains do some amazing stuff in mortar brigs. They are so accurate they are used to target moving ships. It is normal the see defending team bring mortar brigs in PB, not to destry their own fortifications but to target enemy ships. And if the attacker are in line ships and have bad wind = RIP. The fact that a good mortar brig captain can seriously damage ships sailing at 9kn makes it OP. When we take mortar fire we spread out avoid line sailing and we change direction at random. But this is not always enough and we lose mast and internal structure when mortars hit.. 
  Please consider removing the mortar brig perk!  Giving it the ability to shot 4 balls is just insane! Or at least nerf its ability to shot fast moving targets some how  

[Busterbloodvessel]

2 hours ago, Tiedemann said:

I think RvR and port battles should be about fighting - by sinking ships and destroying fortifications, not gathering points from 3 imaginary circles. Now if attackers do not get 1000 points, then defenders win! So the current defender meta is to bringing more small fast low BR ships to sail into the circles that are conquered by attackers, and stop them form generating points. This is very effective and is why often even if the attacking team is killing winning the battle and has been owning the most circles, they do no get 1000 point and they lose the pb.
So defenders win because of a technicality, not because they did well in the battle it self..

This is not ideal imo and it takes the fun out of pbs for me at least. It is possible for attackers to adapt the fleet setup to bring more low BR fast ship, to match the enemy, but this is like "pissing on your own legs to keep warm" because defenders just bring more small ships and this escalates. So in the end we are all sailing Princes and Hercules in deep water port battles..  

Please consider these (Imo simple) changes to port battles:

• Team with highest BR in a circle will capture it and get points from it. It should not be about player numbers, but ships BR. With out this change it is to easy to for defender to deny attacker points with small low BR ships and kiting around in the circles for 90 minutes.
• Please consider reducing the number of circles. I would prefere 1 circle, but I get that in high BR ports this will result in chaos, so maybe have 2 circles for ports with BR higher than 5000. The 3 circles we have now forces us to spread to much out and sail far in battle, and is only really useful for the team with the most small/fast ships. 
• Reduce the size of the circles dramatically, to penetration distance, so kiting within the circles is not possible. So diameter about 400-500 ingame meters maybe.
• Increase the points teams receive when sinking a enemy teams ship, making sinking enemy ships more important that getting points from imaginary circes. And please consider the ship size, so we would get less points for sinking a mortar brig compered to sinking a 1. rate. I believe we get the same amount of point for all ships now.
   
• Mortar brigs should be used for destroying forts and towers, not moving ships!  I have seen many skillful captains do some amazing stuff in mortar brigs. They are so accurate they are used to target moving ships. It is normal the see defending team bring mortar brigs in PB, not to destry their own fortifications but to target enemy ships. And if the attacker are in line ships and have bad wind = RIP. The fact that a good mortar brig captain can seriously damage ships sailing at 9kn makes it OP. When we take mortar fire we spread out avoid line sailing and we change direction at random. But this is not always enough and we lose mast and internal structure when mortars hit.. 
  Please consider removing the mortar brig perk!  Giving it the ability to shot 4 balls is just insane! Or at least nerf its ability to shot fast moving targets some how  

I appreciate you do not mention Las Tortugas PB last night but the points you raise all occurred. This is YOUR circle !

Mixed fleet battles are a preference for me and your suggestions would, I fear, take us back to the mono fleets of old.   

However, I feel your pain. We were lucky to get away with that and I am not sure we would turn up with the same fleet at Las Tortugas again.

Nice to warm ones toes in the Las Tortugas hacienda whilst reading a congratulatory letter from the Clerk never the less!

 

Senor Buster  

Edited January 14, 2019 by Busterbloodvessel

[Tiedemann]

4 hours ago, Intrepido said:

The mortar sniping abilities has been reported long time ago. I also made a thread about the vulnerability of fortifications.

But it looks people only supports something when they begin to be affected by that.

 

Circles numbers should stay to provide a bit more tactical depth to port battles than any fleet action in ow.

Maria.. You need experience fighting in a PB vs someone who actually use this tactic to be able to share your thoughts on the mater.. You can not throw out arguments based on nothing but the nice feeling of sticking your wet finger in the wind! Tell your swedish friends to go flip a deep water GB port with around 2500 BR. After you done that PB feel free to enlighten us mate. 

But seriously think on this: What nations are fighting GB in small BR deep water port battles? Prussia maybe? Or are those all large > 5000 BR?

We have some GB players saying they like it the way it is. Then we have some Swedish players saying we like it the way it is. Soon some pirates will comes and say that we like it the way it is. These are all nations that are not fighting each other ffs! They have no idea of what they are talking about, they just like patting each other on the back. I see a conspiracy!!!! Conspiracy!!!! 🤣

[staun]

16 hours ago, Tiedemann said:

I think RvR and port battles should be about fighting - by sinking ships and destroying fortifications, not gathering points from 3 imaginary circles. Now if attackers do not get 1000 points, then defenders win! So the current defender meta is to bringing more small fast low BR ships to sail into the circles that are conquered by attackers, and stop them form generating points. This is very effective and is why often even if the attacking team is killing winning the battle and has been owning the most circles, they do no get 1000 point and they lose the pb.
So defenders win because of a technicality, not because they did well in the battle it self..

This is not ideal imo and it takes the fun out of pbs for me at least. It is possible for attackers to adapt the fleet setup to bring more low BR fast ship, to match the enemy, but this is like "pissing on your own legs to keep warm" because defenders just bring more small ships and this escalates. So in the end we are all sailing Princes and Hercules in deep water port battles..  

Please consider these (Imo simple) changes to port battles:

• Team with highest BR in a circle will capture it and get points from it. It should not be about player numbers, but ships BR. With out this change it is to easy to for defender to deny attacker points with small low BR ships and kiting around in the circles for 90 minutes.
• Please consider reducing the number of circles. I would prefere 1 circle, but I get that in high BR ports this will result in chaos, so maybe have 2 circles for ports with BR higher than 5000. The 3 circles we have now forces us to spread to much out and sail far in battle, and is only really useful for the team with the most small/fast ships. 
• Reduce the size of the circles dramatically, to penetration distance, so kiting within the circles is not possible. So diameter about 400-500 ingame meters maybe.
• Increase the points teams receive when sinking a enemy teams ship, making sinking enemy ships more important that getting points from imaginary circes. And please consider the ship size, so we would get less points for sinking a mortar brig compered to sinking a 1. rate. I believe we get the same amount of point for all ships now.
   
• Mortar brigs should be used for destroying forts and towers, not moving ships!  I have seen many skillful captains do some amazing stuff in mortar brigs. They are so accurate they are used to target moving ships. It is normal the see defending team bring mortar brigs in PB, not to destry their own fortifications but to target enemy ships. And if the attacker are in line ships and have bad wind = RIP. The fact that a good mortar brig captain can seriously damage ships sailing at 9kn makes it OP. When we take mortar fire we spread out avoid line sailing and we change direction at random. But this is not always enough and we lose mast and internal structure when mortars hit.. 
  Please consider removing the mortar brig perk!  Giving it the ability to shot 4 balls is just insane! Or at least nerf its ability to shot fast moving targets some how  

In general I thought the idea was to give the defender an advantage in a Pb, make it a bit harder to win a port than to defend it. It could easy be changed if you think the advantage should shift to the attacker. If the defense don’t get 1000 point, Well they lose the port. And kitning will not end up with us all saling in small ships. There is a limited of player allowed in a pb. You have been in enough pb’s. How many of those have you, both as an attacker and as a defender fought,  where there not have been a main fleet on both sides, and a couple of smaller groups fighting for the other circles. Most I been in has the one killing most ships also been the winner in the end. But yes it happens that you manage to drag it out so you don’t lose the port if you lose most ships. 

On the point on BR win the circle. I have always thought the idea was the defender should have a advantage in a PB. Are we giving up on that idea?

Number of circles. I have only done PB with 3 circles, but for me it never have been a problem.Always thought it gave some tactical dept to a pb. You are against because it favors the one with most small/fast ships. It is a tactical choise you have to work with in your setup. One circle will that not just limited the pb, to a brawl?

Reduce the size of a circle to penetrate size. It will remove the posibility for kitning, it will remove a tactical choise for the defender for sure. Again forcing one kind of fighting. Is limiting Pb to one fighting style better?

Increase the points a team receiver for sinkiang a ship. Have no idea if it is to much ore to little. Never seen it as a problem. But not sure it can be a fixed number for a ship. I mean in a low BR you proberbly won’t see many big ships. So somehow a scale taking in to account the BR of the port maybe.

Motarbrig, I done some pb on a motar. It is not that easy to hit a moving target. Atleast in those I been in the motar brig never was a deciding factor in sinking ships. But if ppl in general see motar as op, Well change it.

[Capn Rocko]

On 1/14/2019 at 5:17 AM, Tiedemann said:

I think RvR and port battles should be about fighting - by sinking ships and destroying fortifications, not gathering points from 3 imaginary circles. 

I always thought there should be different types of port battles and that the port owner should choose which one best suits their playstyle. For example, make one option a "fight to the death" port battle where you are in a shrinking circle (like patrol zone). 

I also wish there was a mechanic in place for clans to invest in their ports to build extra forts/towers or produce extra resources (for example) 

Edited January 15, 2019 by Capn Rocko