Change Port battle BR before we comeback to 120 players online

[captain smile]

Please @admin@Ink, reduce the port battle BR by half, many clans try to create some content for players to keep them play the game , we want to make more port battles and keep our players, please help us !

We really expect you to listen your comunity and tomorrow have the Port battle BR reduced .

[Teutonic]

they have replied that the next big patch coming will have a look at port BRs and likely lowering them.

[captain smile]

6 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

they have replied that the next big patch coming will have a look at port BRs and likely lowering them.

Do you have the link ? But i guess change 3-4 numbers should not take 3 month, and we loose players every day, we come back more and more to the veterans who was there before the wipe, all the new players disconnect or change game...

We really do insist it needs to be changed now ! Why wait ?

Edited October 7, 2019 by captain smile

[Ferdinand de LaSalle]

Good idea,

and pls change also the BR-system in open sea. It must be again a risk to do a raid around enemy capitals.

So raise the time period for the defending Forces (auggestion 5 minutes) and allow a BR superiority for the defending Nation up to 2:1

 

[Beeekonda]

29 minutes ago, Immersive Ganking said:

Lowering BR for Port battles would only create new problems, like massive screening fleets. Russia can already screen multiple ports as it is now, imagine what will happen if BR is lowered.

at least we will be able to fill PB itself rather than be like "we dun have 25 people for pb"

[Teutonic]

30 minutes ago, Immersive Ganking said:

Lowering BR for Port battles would only create new problems, like massive screening fleets. Russia can already screen multiple ports as it is now, imagine what will happen if BR is lowered.

I have iterated multiple times in the past that when I advocate for lower BR I know it doesn't make it "easier" for the attacker.

I am advocating for smaller nations and smaller groups to have the perception of being able to Defend a port at full capacity instead of deciding to just not show up because they don't have enough BR to defend.

lowering BR is not about making attacking easier, it's about making smaller populations nation/groups having an easier time to defend their ports.

[RubyRose]

On 10/7/2019 at 2:51 PM, Teutonic said:

I have iterated multiple times in the past that when I advocate for lower BR I know it doesn't make it "easier" for the attacker.

I am advocating for smaller nations and smaller groups to have the perception of being able to Defend a port at full capacity instead of deciding to just not show up because they don't have enough BR to defend.

lowering BR is not about making attacking easier, it's about making smaller populations nation/groups having an easier time to defend their ports.

uh u realize lowering the BR doesnt change the number of players that are going to show up the only difference is the number of screeners for the larger side to bring more ships. so as an example we will use a 10k br port drop it to say 5k and u double the screen fleets in the process. doesnt change the fact that those smaller nations still wont have 25 players to fill the PB. all ur really changing is what ships are fielded not how many can join the battle.

and as a small nation or clan u shouldnt be owning that many ports to begin with, leave the larger amount to the larger nations or clans and join in on the screening if u want content. PB's arent the be all end all of the game yea their fun to a point but screening is just as important.

Edited October 8, 2019 by RubyRose

[Teutonic]

8 minutes ago, RubyRose said:

uh u realize lowering the BR doesnt change the number of players that are going to show up the only difference is the number of screeners for the larger side to bring more ships. so as an example we will use a 10k br port drop it to say 5k and u double the screen fleets in the process. doesnt change the fact that those smaller nations still wont have 25 players to fill the PB. all ur really changing is what ships are fielded not how many can join the battle.

but in fact, it does change the number of players showing up for defensive groups.

i'll take your example - 20k county capital BR, I only got 10 guys to show up for defense, even in all in 1st rates that's 9k BR. Instead of entering the PB and defending against the enemy that brought 20+ players, we will just leave the area.

if the 20k county capital was 10k BR instead, now my 10 guys can say "hey, we can defend this with all of us and not feel like we are at 50% possible strength."

if it's a regional port of 10k to 5k, same thing - my clan/nation/group that has a significantly smaller pop, now feels more emboldened to be able to defend our holdings and actually giv a fighting chance to those that attack us.

Again I stated before that lower BR can have the effect of more screeners outside screening and PvPing outside. But I'd rather have more screeners outside than going to fight a PB where the defenders decide not to show because they don't have enough people.

lower BR = more content. it may not be the content you're looking for, but it's certainly the content small groups/nations are looking for in the form of defending their shit knowing they can fight on even terms.

EDIT: a nation with a large population will certainly change the ships fielded IF they choose to do so.

The problem with 20/25k BR ports is that there ISN'T a ship variety and players find that shit boring. i'd much rather be in a PB that has more ship types than the current Ocean/Santi brick fleets we have now. The large group can go for a diverse setup, a small group can get the biggest ships they can field to max BR. the players not in the PB now have possibly MORE people to fight outside, both defenders and attack now have more possible content around the PB - sounds like a winning combination for everyone.

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Teutonic

[[MCC] Die Antwoord]

2 hours ago, RubyRose said:

uh u realize lowering the BR doesnt change the number of players that are going to show up the only difference is the number of screeners for the larger side to bring more ships. so as an example we will use a 10k br port drop it to say 5k and u double the screen fleets in the process. doesnt change the fact that those smaller nations still wont have 25 players to fill the PB. all ur really changing is what ships are fielded not how many can join the battle.

and as a small nation or clan u shouldnt be owning that many ports to begin with, leave the larger amount to the larger nations or clans and join in on the screening if u want content. PB's arent the be all end all of the game yea their fun to a point but screening is just as important.

It also allows lower ranked captains to have more significance. Right now port battles are a 1st-2nd rate only thing for the most part. If the BR limit were lower, but number of players stay the same, you'd get a lot more participation from newer captains/lower ranked ones.

Perhaps a solution would be to convert more ports to shallow water (I know at some point the exact opposite was done, there were many more shallow ports back in early alpha).

[Staldu]

I agree with Captain Smile. We need less BR. Or maybe a new category of Port Battle. Where attackers launch a flip or a mission 24hours before the battle and choose the rank of ships. I think is good for a new gameplay. And the defenser don't lost the port, but just a big battle. 

 

 

[Miaowi]

You're all barking up the wrong tree when correlating pb BR with low player numbers.

Naval Action is a slow game, you dont get your quick fix. The time investment is high as is the difficulty curve. It will always remain a niche game and it will never be as popular as something mainstream.

The population decline is normal too. There is no max exodus due to pb BR rates.The decline is fine. Its not even an issue. It was never an issue. Even when we were all waiting for the final release it wasn't an issue. Why?

We can all still pvp, pve, RvR, trade and do all the things we want to do exactly the same as in day one. Be that with 1000 players or 300. There is no difference. zero

Now if all the keyboard game developers would stop for one moment. Start defending or flipping a bit more we'd have some good fights. There is a 1500 br port battle this evening. V tiny. Exactly the sort of thing folks are clamouring for on this thread. So I'm assuming you'll all get involved?

One last thing as far as i can tell no one is fielding 25 man 1st rate fleets. It is always a combination of clans that form a main pb fleet. Lowering the BR does absolutely nothing. You need big 25v25 1st rate battles for the climatic end of game 45-55 point ports as it is exactly that... end game...the juiciest ports will need the biggest ships to defend and it feels silly to have that represented by anything less than 25 boys n galls in 1st rates

If you want to play lower br play about with the shallow water ports or alternatively jump onto your relevant communal nation Teamspeak and get organised, team up and fight as a group like the rest of us

 

[captain smile]

19 hours ago, JG14_Cuzn said:

[2 Weeks after PB Patch] 

" Bring back 25 Ship Lineship Battles!!!!!"  

It is hightly possible if we reach 1000 players online again .

[Miaowi]

3 hours ago, captain smile said:

It is hightly possible if we reach 1000 players online again

Ehm it's completely possible right now. Yesterdays fight at Baracoa is one example.  Cartagena is another. You need only 50 people minimum to make that work. Not 1000

Also there are plenty of low BR battles happening everyday. Yesterday 1500BR shallow water port battle @ Mangrove. 

[captain smile]

12 hours ago, Miaowi said:

Ehm it's completely possible right now. Yesterdays fight at Baracoa is one example.  Cartagena is another. You need only 50 people minimum to make that work. Not 1000

Also there are plenty of low BR battles happening everyday. Yesterday 1500BR shallow water port battle @ Mangrove. 

Try a Nation that cant afford 25 players and ever less 25 1st rates you will understand why we cant keep our players .

[Serk]

6 minutes ago, JG14_Cuzn said:

BTW: 

I’m in total agreement to lower the BR of port battles.... make them a bit more random to get a better mix into the PB’s  

 

 

I hope they will do that too. Or else, all those new shiny 3rd rate will be a huge « fake feature. »

[Teutonic]

10 minutes ago, Serk said:

I hope they will do that too. Or else, all those new shiny 3rd rate will be a huge « fake feature. »

preeeeeeetty much

[Gregory Rainsborough]

I can think of at least two port battles where because there were not enough people to fill them, no-one bothered at all to defend (Mangrove and Walker's).

[van stiermarken]

a deep water port battle should be mixed - ships from 1st to 5th rate should be mandatory by numbers - so that you have all types of ships in it - would be more fun to fight and more room for tactics.

[WilsonMG]

Lowering the BR for port battles without adding any mandatory rules should accomplish the goal of adding more variety by itself.  If you can still have 25 players per side, but the BR is substantially lower than it is now, say something like 6,500 BR, then you'll want a few 1st rates, but you'll also want to get more players into the port battle as well, so you'll need to balance those factors.

Just as a quick example, at 6,500 BR, you'd have to choose between having 7 Santísima Trinidads/L’Océans, or 16 Wasas, or 19 Rättvisans, or 24 Trincomalees...

[HMS Victory]

12 hours ago, van stiermarken said:

a deep water port battle should be mixed - ships from 1st to 5th rate should be mandatory by numbers - so that you have all types of ships in it - would be more fun to fight and more room for tactics.

I like this suggestion. Big Battles never had just 25 1st rates. Also, I think there has to be a limite for how many first rates a player can have

[Sea Archer]

In my opinion the defender should define the maximum size of ships. So there won't be the 1st rate battles, only.

Still, it would be better to add real water depth to the battles, so that more ship types might be required. 

[Capitalism]

37 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:

In my opinion the defender should define the maximum size of ships. So there won't be the 1st rate battles, only.

Still, it would be better to add real water depth to the battles, so that more ship types might be required. 

lol because defenders need even more advantages? Why do you think there has been so few successful, defended attacks? 
 

No, the BR should be dynamic and changing day to day. 

[Guest]

On 10/18/2019 at 8:11 PM, WilsonMG said:

Lowering the BR for port battles without adding any mandatory rules should accomplish the goal of adding more variety by itself.  If you can still have 25 players per side, but the BR is substantially lower than it is now, say something like 6,500 BR, then you'll want a few 1st rates, but you'll also want to get more players into the port battle as well, so you'll need to balance those factors.

Just as a quick example, at 6,500 BR, you'd have to choose between having 7 Santísima Trinidads/L’Océans, or 16 Wasas, or 19 Rättvisans, or 24 Trincomalees...

true, we tested it and it worked great apart from the meta got showed over to bucentaures, but they are now rebalanced in br so it wouldnt be a problem again and we would see much more diversity.

Id would actually go the distance to say let the port owner decide where the fort should be placed (hey sandbox am i right?), also let us choose between different fort designs so it would hopefully be able to defend a ports harbor.

Also buff the forts (yes i know what you're thinking but hold your breath) come back with flag engagement for Port Battles because it never happened that the enemy would know beforehand of an invasion unless they had spies calling it (nation chat alts). letting people with outposts in that certain port let known that the port is under attack or something.

If im not completely out of my way this would make the game feel much more spontanous and people wouldnt have to feel it more of a grind and struggle to attack a port, which is infact a problem these days considering people cba doing rvr because of screening, hostility and not the best ships compared to the enemy

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Guest

[Thonys]

3 hours ago, Capitalism said:

lol because defenders need even more advantages? Why do you think there has been so few successful, defended attacks? 
 

No, the BR should be dynamic and changing day to day. 

an example how dynamic! a port can be

every owner of a port slot is  represented by  50 br points(example*)

if 150 players own a particular port =150 x 50br =7500 br pb

just an idea and example how dynamic a port can be .

if 400 players own a particular port slot it will be 20000br

if only 50 players have a  particular port slot it will be the equivalent of 50x50 =2500 br 

 

if a port gets  more or less abandoned.... the dynamic number will go down automatically and it is  more attractive to attack it  by enemies.

 

* devs know the numbers  and can make a nice br number for a dynamic br port.

but it can also be a static number...to have as a starting number :  static br number + dynamic br number..where big ports have a static number of something like 5000 br + a dynamic br from players who own the port .there are many possibilities   

 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Thonys