PB BR limits too high

[Gregory Rainsborough]

PB BR is too high in the vast majority of ports.

There have been less fights, less willingness to try having fights, etc... This seems obvious to me.

Content has been reduced by high BR limited and admins intention with the BR limit do not match intended results.

Please put it back to how it was.

[Raekur]

5 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I think the biggest problem is that the implementation of the front lines system has locked RvR behind a zerg wall. Hopefully with raids that might change things a bit and RvR content, if not port battles, will be more common. But if the composition of the nations and player populations doesn't change significantly it feels like RvR will become much more crystallized and the nation with the biggest numbers (and whoever wakes up earliest to flip neutral ports) will basically win the map.  

One thought I had is that on wipe/release the map should not start with neutral ports.  But instead, nations should start with a well designed starting map?  Could the community come up with something reasonable for this?

You know full well that will never happen. There will be disagreements over who should own particular ports (trade hub, location for raiding etc).

 

[Raekur]

The only way that the player base will not feel they are getting screwed over and avoid the start that occurred last time is to bring back the US server. The devs need to realize one very solid fact. If the game continues on a single server than it will continue to lose players from the american side of the globe as those players are getting a little fed up with waking up and seeing the map filled by the soviet side of the globe. There will be no way for the US side to ever get a fair shot at it just due to time mechanics. The game may get some new players upon release but their willingness to remain will be short lived as the game will be "complete" with little indication of any major changes to equalize the time differences. The only other way to stop the blitz of neutral ports upon launch is to limit the number of ports a nation can attack to 3 or less. While this may upset a few people it will in fact be good in that nations will have to be more selective on where they are going to attack. Plus it will ensure that ALL nations have something to go after from the start instead of just having to watch port after port fall to enemy nations sitting at your front door and not being able to do a damn thing about it.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Not all county capitals should have such a high BR. Christ I miss the small fights, far more interesting than the pew pew fest. If people wanted pew pew fests in the past then Carta would have been attacked more often.

You can tell what people preferred just by what they did actually attack.

I'm hoping the devs will appreciate that they can accommodate both groups as there's no need for every port to be such high BR. You want high BR pew pew, take port, drop it, then wait for someone to take it and then attack it again. HAVOC did it several times at Haulover. That's what folks should do if they're that desperate for big battles. Only large scale battles I've thoroughly enjoyed are shallow water PBs, the larger ones are meh.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Gregory Rainsborough

[LeBoiteux]

40 minutes ago, Raekur said:

it will continue to lose players from the american side of the globe as those players are getting a little fed up with waking up and seeing the map filled by the soviet side of the globe.

how adding nations can turn an Age of sail game into a sham "Cold War or WW3 in the Caribbean"...

Edited May 12, 2019 by LeBoiteux

[Teutonic]

1 hour ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

PB BR is too high in the vast majority of ports.

There have been less fights, less willingness to try having fights, etc... This seems obvious to me.

Content has been reduced by high BR limited and admins intention with the BR limit do not match intended results.

Please put it back to how it was.

 

16 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Not all county capitals should have such a high BR. Christ I miss the small fights, far more interesting than the pew pew fest. If people wanted pew pew fests in the past then Carta would have been attacked more often.

You can tell what people preferred just by what they did actually attack.

I'm hoping the devs will appreciate that they can accommodate both groups as there's no need for every port to be such high BR. You want high BR pew pew, take port, drop it, then wait for someone to take it and then attack it again. HAVOC did it several times at Haulover. That's what folks should do if they're that desperate for big battles. Only large scale battles I've thoroughly enjoyed are shallow water PBs, the larger ones are meh at best.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

All the 8-15 man Port Battles that happened are not happening anymore because a few people wanted their 25 man port battles back. Well, they got it and as result less PBs happen.

 

Funny how Nassau wasn't contested numerous times pre-frontlines patch when it was "still" a 25 man PB fight.

Funny how the 10-12k BR ports weren't ever fought over despite people asking "we want 25 man PB fights."

Funny how Cartaghena - arguably the most highly sought after port didn't have constant port battles.

Funny how all this was apparently and yet the port battles still did not happen frequently, and in fact smaller BR ports were being fought more often.

 

I'd say it's not just coincidence that the groups in question that wanted large Port Battles decided instead to just wait until all ports were too large for every nation.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

1 hour ago, Teutonic said:

 

I said it before and I'll say it again.

All the 8-15 man Port Battles that happened are not happening anymore because a few people wanted their 25 man port battles back. Well, they got it and as result less PBs happen.

 

Funny how Nassau wasn't contested numerous times pre-frontlines patch when it was "still" a 25 man PB fight.

Funny how the 10-12k BR ports weren't ever fought over despite people asking "we want 25 man PB fights."

Funny how Cartaghena - arguably the most highly sought after port didn't have constant port battles.

Funny how all this was apparently and yet the port battles still did not happen frequently, and in fact smaller BR ports were being fought more often.

 

I'd say it's not just coincidence that the groups in question that wanted large Port Battles decided instead to just wait until all ports were too large for every nation.

Too large and then added multiflipping on top.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

I honestly think the best way would be to just let clans choose the BR for their port. If they like big battles, let them put high BR battles for their ports.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

I honestly think the best way would be to just let clans choose the BR for their port. If they like big battles, let them put high BR battles for their ports.

the port owner needs 3 options. small 5k br medium 10k br and big 20k br 

[Suppenkelle]

1 hour ago, El Patron said:

the port owner needs 3 options. small 5k br medium 10k br and big 20k br 

I‘d like my battle medium-rare, please! 

Thank you, sir.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

1 hour ago, El Patron said:

the port owner needs 3 options. small 5k br medium 10k br and big 20k br 

That would be too easy to always choose small and keep all your 1st rates for screen ^^

[Angus MacDuff]

6 hours ago, Raekur said:

The only way that the player base will not feel they are getting screwed over and avoid the start that occurred last time is to bring back the US server. The devs need to realize one very solid fact. If the game continues on a single server than it will continue to lose players from the american side of the globe as those players are getting a little fed up with waking up and seeing the map filled by the soviet side of the globe. There will be no way for the US side to ever get a fair shot at it just due to time mechanics.

No weekday PBs...It's the only solution

 

[Gregory Rainsborough]

59 minutes ago, El Patron said:

the port owner needs 3 options. small 5k br medium 10k br and big 20k br 

Or just let them type in a random number, have a bit of variation!

[Beeekonda]

Maybe make capitals with high amount of points to have bigger BR?

Like

55 points - 25k BR

45 - 18-19k

35 - 14-15k

 

[Gregory Rainsborough]

4 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:

Maybe make capitals with high amount of points to have bigger BR?

Like

55 points - 25k BR

45 - 18-19k

35 - 14-15k

 

Maybe the amount of *used* points should impact BR rather than potential points.

[Beeekonda]

Just now, Intrepido said:

45 points capitals already have 20k.

Your proposal wont change much.

35 points ports have 10k atm, so your proposal make things worse.

 

these are just a reference,  some 55 point ports has 20k br.

1 minute ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Maybe the amount of *used* points should impact BR rather than potential points.

Some one *points finger on russian zerg* might just take all big ports and keep the BR low to prevent other nations from taking it by having small PB fleet of extremely good PVPers and a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE ZERG SCREENING FLEET

 

[Beeekonda]

Also, some counties have low total points than the others, which is also can be used to determine BR

[Tiedemann]

8 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

PB BR is too high in the vast majority of ports.

There have been less fights, less willingness to try having fights, etc... This seems obvious to me.

Content has been reduced by high BR limited and admins intention with the BR limit do not match intended results.

Please put it back to how it was.

No, no. When you are few players, GB has a tendency to kite! When your many, much easier to get a real fight out of you guys! xD

[Gregory Rainsborough]

15 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:

No, no. When you are few players, GB has a tendency to kite! When your many, much easier to get a real fight out of you guys! xD

Like La Nav? So many players turned up I heard. Oh wait. No they didn't. There wasn't enough people to fill the PB at the time, a lower BR port would have yielded you a fight rather than an empty PB.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

19 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:

these are just a reference,  some 55 point ports has 20k br.

Some one *points finger on russian zerg* might just take all big ports and keep the BR low to prevent other nations from taking it by having small PB fleet of extremely good PVPers and a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE ZERG SCREENING FLEET

But they have that already, they just get more VMs as more get in. The average Russian player is far better than the average *insert any nation* player so if you're against Russia, it really doesn't matter.

[Roadkill]

Wouldn't it make sense for the port owner to use points to set the battle limit they want.  There could be a standard size for each capital and, as with defences, alterations could be made using the points allocated to the port.  It might help reduce the points being used for shipbuilding upgrades.  A choice between holding the port with your preferred set up or adding upgrades at the penalty of not having a choice in the ships that can get in.

[Raekur]

12 hours ago, Wraith said:

That's bullshit and you know it. My proposal above would solve this problem without the salting of ground that a server split would entail.  We have already tested this and it failed. This game does not have a potential population large enough to support two servers. It is ultra niche, hardcore, and an outrageous time sink, and I think the population that has the kind of masochistic tendencies to play such games for anything beyond a hundred hours or so is already here.

If you start the map with a semi-historical but carefully crafted distribution of ports for each nation, then let things evolve over time, it creates a starting world that new players will find palatable while vets will set hammers and tong to gaining access to ports from the beginning that they know are strategically important.  Neutral starting ports is just a crutch for not doing the design work.

 

it actually worked just fine, guess either you don't remember or were not part of PVP2. Before the merger there was over 300 players online at a given time and it worked just fine. The merger is what hello kittyed everything up for those players that were from PVP2. At least on that server when maintenance happened most of the players were asleep. Now maintenance happens and the us based players get to wake up to a long list of port battles that they could not do an damn thing to stop. Then to make matters worse, lets add the frontline mechanics into the mix thus reducing the number of available targets a nation can go for. And lets not forget VCO's little bullshit move of taking Saint Marys. But I guess ever since VCO got booted from the US they have had a major hard on for trying to be a thorn in the US's side ever since. Hell you jokers even tried to pull Britain into it at one point until the British council told you to jog on. So as far as the player base not being large enough for 2 servers and that is the reason to keep one server, that is complete bullshit as PVP2 had plenty of players. But then again, I dont think you were there so how exactly does your uninformed opinion justify you calling my statement bullshit?

[Licinio Chiavari]

I would like to repeat.

Frontline concept is great and could add more indepth strategy. BUT it has been implemented in the wrong way.

Hostility missions should be from county towns to county towns (with far lower BR - closer to the past and thus more varied) and when you have 2+ (or 50%) of county towns you can open hostility to county capitol (with higher BR and usually higher port improvements points).

This way we'd have frontlines, varied battles and more room for different player groups (smaller clan and nations and up up to bigger ones - that will be able to attack and defend capitols having better port improvements, so a scaled endgame NOT closing the way to others).

Please note, as OT point: map is already fully conquered and there're limited chances to expansion for any.

 

AND FOR GOD SAKE reduce port improvements and building prices: it's too expensive for smaller groups... AND ESPECIALLY losing main port will not be embarassing and annoying (having to move WH and rebuild some crafting buildings) as in the past. It could cripple a small team into voidness to the point of giving up playing.

[Licinio Chiavari]

Just now, rediii said:

tbh if they put everything in there its not smart to have no timer next to a freeport

True.

Still the point stand.

What about a small nation slowly building up a base... they will be unable to defend anyway having no chances to fill up so high BRs?

[Licinio Chiavari]

20 minutes ago, rediii said:

I agree the port BR should be lower to not have 1st rate spam PBs and I also agree that portboni should be lower, dont missunderstand me.  But you will allways have it that people invest in something that is later lost. Be it CWH or port investment and thats good in my oppinion.

True that. Like investing in a ship and losing her.

The matter is how much investment (=time) lost. And how fast (time again) a clan/player could recover.

Aside that DLC owners (just aside requin) will have trash ships forever... P2L (Pay To Lose).

 

PS: on latter point, dont misunderstand me. I do agree that a redeemable ship should reasonably get no port bonuses... BUT if someone likes to sail an Herc or an Herm, give him option to redeem the full ship (no bonus) or a ship permit (tradable or not - the same) and built his preferred ship with all labor required and getting port bonuses. I'd say fair.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari