Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Gregory Rainsborough

PB BR limits too high

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


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

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.

Timers are there for a reason. Use them or stuff like this happens:

b70efa29d40d1c2fa89cb520cd562dd5.png 

Why are you bringing VCO or our history into this anyway?  The PvP2 situation was "just fine" because the two largest factions in the game refused to fight each other and the vast majority of the players on the server were just carebearing around most of the time.  BLACK made sure to point that out over and over again by wrecking all comers. And while I agree that the maintenance time shift basically screwed a large portion of the Global player base initially after the merge, and then finally eliminated any chance at Oceanic players taking part during their prime time, that was a huge let down. But let's not pretend that the game is "healthy" with 100 people online, which is what we had for the major portion of the time we played on Global.

And that's exactly where we're headed if a server split happens. And if you don't think I was there then you clearly haven't been paying attention, and your opinions are worth even less than ignoring them would be worth. 🙄

 

Edited by Wraith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

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.

 The clan EAR lost their main port and all investments yesterday at Bluefields, who knows how much long they will keep playing...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mascarino said:

 The clan EAR lost their main port and all investments yesterday at Bluefields, who knows how much long they will keep playing...

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Licinio Chiavari
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

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?

I agree.
Small nations (or beginners) should be a little protected.
But of course  - England is not one of the small nations     ;-)

Share this post


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

I agree.
Small nations (or beginners) should be a little protected.
But of course  - England is not one of the small nations    😉

The point should not be GB or any nation NOW.
Because NA "history" is quite cyclical.

An unbalanced game is dangerous for all. Also for those getting in a moment the upper hand.

 

PS: having numbers (GB case) is VERY different from having a proper PB fleet. It helps, but not solve eventual problems.
As noted I repeated speak about "small clan and nations".

Edited by Licinio Chiavari
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3rd Rates should be a benchmark for PB.

BR equal to 25x 3rd Rate should be a maximum. 

Edited by OjK
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Changes in game always to much.

 Also same mistakes again and again, go one way and back to where started.

 Is like watching dog chase own tail.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 Changes in game always to much.

 Also same mistakes again and again, go one way and back to where started.

 Is like watching dog chase own tail.

Every patch is the same.

They fix something like the wood prices and permits but they make the buildings extremely expensive.

Same with BRs. They were convinced of making smaller ships of the line more viable in PB and then they decided to increase so much the BR that a third rate is a waste in 20-25k BR ports.

 

Im getting exhausted of seeing the same cycle over and over. The game cant move forward if the devs keep repeating the mistakes of the past.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Every patch is the same.

They fix something like the wood prices and permits but they make the buildings extremely expensive.

Same with BRs. They were convinced of making smaller ships of the line more viable in PB and then they decided to increase so much the BR that a third rate is a waste in 20-25k BR ports.

 

Im getting exhausted of seeing the same cycle over and over. The game cant move forward if the devs keep repeating the mistakes of the past.

Shaving using a battleaxe.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Same with BRs. They were convinced of making smaller ships of the line more viable in PB and then they decided to increase so much the BR that a third rate is a waste in 20-25k BR ports.

Winter 2018 - we had such a cool PB's.

Every other was different with lineup, and with tendency that more 3rd Rates is better than spam of L'Oceans.

 

All gone. Poof! 
"We had a better idea"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OjK said:

Winter 2018 - we had such a cool PB's.

Every other was different with lineup, and with tendency that more 3rd Rates is better than spam of L'Oceans.

 

All gone. Poof! 
"We had a better idea"

It was FAR better a mixed lineup of Buce+3rd than Ocean spam (and without new damage model!)

BUT these BRs game an option too to smaller team to fill up BR and try with a smaller but heavier fleet (that would make more sense now with new damage model than 6 months ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, OjK said:

Winter 2018 - we had such a cool PB's.

Every other was different with lineup, and with tendency that more 3rd Rates is better than spam of L'Oceans.

 

All gone. Poof! 
"We had a better idea"

They didnt have a better idea.

Someone had a convinient nostalgia. Unfortunately, devs are subcribed to his twits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

They didnt have a better idea.

Someone had a convinient nostalgia. Unfortunately, devs are subcribed to his twits.

BTW usually "HIS" refers all the time to the same person. In a lot of cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

They didnt have a better idea.

Someone had a convinient nostalgia. Unfortunately, devs are subcribed to his twits.

pretty sure OjK was being ever so slightly sarcastic there :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

pretty sure OjK was being ever so slightly sarcastic there :P

I know.

I just wanted to outline that such bright idea of having PBs with 21-25 Oceans couldnt come from those who spent months trying to figure out how to achieve variety in PB.

  • 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...