Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Gregory Rainsborough

PB BR limits too high

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry mate but some people had nostalgia of the 25 mono fleets in port battles.

Other considerations like the prices of first rates, nations population, fleet and tactics variety are secondary.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by Wraith
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raekur said:

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

Sure but that's what will drive RvR over the first part of the post-release game no?  I just feel like the gold rush of neutral port flipping is a massively stupid way to crystallize the map when you have such a restrictive front line system in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes 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.

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.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Gregory Rainsborough
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by LeBoiteux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

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.

I'd say all of this is symptomatic of one underlying issue: player numbers.

We've seen this coming for a long time, and have experienced it across multiple interactions with mechanics and nation dynamics. But mechanics must be designed to be responsive to player numbers in the game. And if you design mechanics that reward having the most players you will have a zerg that wins everything. The days of having 25 man port battle fleets and TWO screening fleets of 25+ players for each nation are gone. 

Will those days be back?  Optimistically I'd say yes.. but for an exceedingly short period of time, if we're honest and looking at the game's history. So what to do? Simply, you have to design mechanics that can respond to varying strengths of nations and alliances. It's not an easy problem to tackle but must make it so there are trade-offs to holding ports and flipping dots... game and goal design here is everything and I don't think flipping-dots-as-winning is deep enough.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

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

Just decrease the current BR by 3-5k and it will be much better.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Like

55 points - 25k BR

45 - 18-19k

35 - 14-15k

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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

 

45 points capitals already have 20k.

Your proposal wont change much.

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

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...