Beat to quarters: Port battles return to War Server

[Lord Gud]

Could you consider letting players somehow max out their port bonuses on their ship after crafting them? Such as upgrading it with materials/etc. It will help smaller nations and poorer players. Owning the port would decrease the amount of time and reals/doubloons/etc but players should still be able to get 5/5 port bonuses after the fact.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, admin said:

Dont keep neglected ports in your portfolio. If Raiders see a neglected port they take it back. You have a counter - invest. If you invest more than others your port is safe. I know some don't like it. But i don't like lazy port owners too. Dont capture the port if you dont want to invest in it. Leave it to other nations. 

Sure, but the playerbase isn't there to keep all ports occupied and invested. I guess you want to see more neutral ports which is okay too I guess (more ports for me to hide when running from coastguard). 

Edit: Doesn't take away the fact it's a boring mechanic having to fight against NPC raider fleets. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Je maintiendrai

[van stiermarken]

5 hours ago, admin said:

Dont keep neglected ports in your portfolio. If Raiders see a neglected port they take it back. You have a counter - invest. If you invest more than others your port is safe. I know some don't like it. But i don't like lazy port owners too. Dont capture the port if you dont want to invest in it. Leave it to other nations. 

I hope that this is addressed to the Russian nation, or isn't it?
Because other Nations don't have that numbers, so why do they have to be bothered with it.

[qw569😳]

43 minutes ago, Riot stick said:

How much pve do you imagine we are willing to take?

The result will be more and more free towns, wich in turn will lead to more and more crafting hubs under attack. But wtf do I know right!

imho.

This made for player retention.

[Archaos]

5 hours ago, admin said:

Dont keep neglected ports in your portfolio. If Raiders see a neglected port they take it back. You have a counter - invest. If you invest more than others your port is safe. I know some don't like it. But i don't like lazy port owners too. Dont capture the port if you dont want to invest in it. Leave it to other nations. 

Although I agree in principle, the issue will eventually be what happens when all ports are fully developed? Who do the raiders attack then? Do they attack a port with a lower maximum development e.g. attack a 25 point port rather than a 55 point port? Or if maximum developed ports are not attacked by raiders and all ports are developed to max, what happens if you capture a port and the infrastructure is reduced, are you suddenly opened up for attack by the AI as your first defence of the port?

[Farrago]

8 hours ago, admin said:

Dont keep neglected ports in your portfolio. If Raiders see a neglected port they take it back. You have a counter - invest. If you invest more than others your port is safe. I know some don't like it. But i don't like lazy port owners too. Dont capture the port if you dont want to invest in it. Leave it to other nations. 

Perhaps if a port is captured by neutrals, it should then able to be recaptured by any nation, not just those within the regular close distance of being able to create a port battle. Surely that will spur more desirable PVP activity rather than just PVE grind activity for one or two nations. It might help shake up the map a bit. 

[Nixolai]

Fix RAIDERS

they have over 1k BR in 900 BR port battle... if this was like a 20k BR port battle it would have been +2 Oceans or something

It has been stated, that raiders will fill up all the BR, not overfill the BR.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Nixolai

[Anolytic]

13 hours ago, admin said:

Dont keep neglected ports in your portfolio. If Raiders see a neglected port they take it back. You have a counter - invest. If you invest more than others your port is safe. I know some don't like it. But i don't like lazy port owners too. Dont capture the port if you dont want to invest in it. Leave it to other nations. 

The problem with that philosophy is that once again you're actively discouraging RvR. Anyone who has actually played the game, tried to create content - for themselves and others - and participated in RvR, is being punished according to how successful they are. And who wants to do RvR now, and take ports from their enemies, when all it means is they get punished more by the game, and have to do more PvE? This is supposed to be a war game, but the AI is trying to enforce peace.

I admit, that for the moment these raids don't feel so bad, but only because they're a small break from the horrendously repetitive HDF-fleet grind that we've been doing for months now.

But the game should encourage and reward active RvR and PvP, not punish it. 

NPC raids is essentially a tax on RvR. And the rule of taxation is to tax more what we want to discourage. NPC raids is a discouragement to RvR, which leaves the game stagnant and removes the end-game content.

 

Btw: as @Nixolai said above, the Arcas port raid was bugged. According to previous patch notes Raiders are supposed to try and fill the BR with as many ships as possible (up to 25), but importantly they are still supposed to follow the BR limit. In Arcas the raider fleet was 20% over the BR limit. Now, that had nothing to do with why the raid was lost (wrong positioning of one of the fleets and a careless approach to the battle) but it's still a bug that needs to be fixed.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Anolytic

[admin]

8 hours ago, Nixolai said:

 

Fix RAIDERS

they have over 1k BR in 900 BR port battle... if this was like a 20k BR port battle it would have been +2 Oceans or something

It has been stated, that raiders will fill up all the BR, not overfill the BR.

not a bug.
We stated before that NPCs will try to fill 25 ships limit - this limit can exceed BR due to changes in BR over time or because they cant find a lighter ship in this category. 
Brig is the lowest low of the ships in this category. There is literally nothing worse than a brig. There is nothing else to pick as a low rated 6th rate.

Does it mean the brig is the new king of the shallows?? 

 

 

[Busterbloodvessel]

21 hours ago, admin said:

Dont keep neglected ports in your portfolio. If Raiders see a neglected port they take it back. You have a counter - invest. If you invest more than others your port is safe. I know some don't like it. But i don't like lazy port owners too. Dont capture the port if you dont want to invest in it. Leave it to other nations. 

What counts as investment into a port? Is it just items under this tab

or does it include forts and towers? buildings? trading income? port points?

Buster (stone lugger)

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Busterbloodvessel

[admin]

16 hours ago, Archaos said:

Although I agree in principle, the issue will eventually be what happens when all ports are fully developed? Who do the raiders attack then? Do they attack a port with a lower maximum development e.g. attack a 25 point port rather than a 55 point port? Or if maximum developed ports are not attacked by raiders and all ports are developed to max, what happens if you capture a port and the infrastructure is reduced, are you suddenly opened up for attack by the AI as your first defence of the port?

We are not looking on the problem the way some players are looking.
The game should have a system to clear the map if nothing is done by the players (for example not defended) 

Imagine if everyone is not doing anything RVR wise or investment wise. In this case we want the map to go neutral over time for example 3 months (A LOT OF TIME). In our case the map will go neutral in 6 months (300 ports 2 ports a day) 2 ports a day is NOT enough. Raiders should attack 2x more ports.

We understand what players say about raider attacks but the only way raider attacks 
Previous system was bad (it was attacking highly defended ports nobody could capture) current system is perfect - raiders attack ports nobody want - (no investment) giving other small nations a chance. + IT CLEARS THE Map over time.

We might also need to find the way to attack inactive clans but hope players

[Frosty]

1 hour ago, admin said:

not a bug.

It's a feature!

[Aquillas]

12 hours ago, Anolytic said:

The problem with that philosophy is that once again you're actively discouraging RvR. Anyone who has actually played the game, tried to create content - for themselves and others - and participated in RvR, is being punished according to how successful they are. And who wants to do RvR now, and take ports from their enemies, when all it means is they get punished more by the game, and have to do more PvE? This is supposed to be a war game, but the AI is trying to enforce peace.

I admit, that for the moment these raids don't feel so bad, but only because they're a small break from the horrendously repetitive HDF-fleet grind that we've been doing for months now.

But the game should encourage and reward active RvR and PvP, not punish it. 

NPC raids is essentially a tax on RvR. And the rule of taxation is to tax more what we want to discourage. NPC raids is a discouragement to RvR, which leaves the game stagnant and removes the end-game content.

Maybe, the only problems with this coming back of raids are:

• the frequency: 2 per day might be too much, especially because raids, attacking undeveloped ports, are presently focusing on Nations in redevelopment. To be noted that Denmark/Norge suffered more raids since implementation than RU, more than SWE, more than GB, and this is a real pain for this small nation compared to the 3 biggest ones, because this almost cancelled DK/N efforts to make RVR. If players fight NPC's, they can't fight Players. Energy, time and resources placed in NPC Raid defense is lost for port development. And if a port is taken, it has to be redeveloped from grass-root.
• NPC raids are attacking undeveloped ports. Nations with big populations will easily develop ports on the frontiers. The other ones can stay undeveloped and even undefended when attacked, because they cannot be taken by any other faction. As a recent example, Arcas, but any of the dozens of port from Selam to Vera-Cruz, La Nouvelle-Orléans down to Gasparilla (except the four ones around El Rancho) would give similar result. To be compared to Bimini, attacked this morning at a time when almost no DK player is in game, and on the frontier with RU and US.
• If a rule is set to prevent repetitive attacks on the same nation (I know that this is not announced), this will lead to more pressure on smaller nations: the number of ports that can be attacked by Raiders would be devided by two as soon as RU was attacked the day before, increasing pressure on smaller factions. 
• Bigger BR by NPC's, tremendously high crew on raiders are no problems as soon as defenders can sink traders first. But yes, this makes raids really dangerous for small factions who cannot lose ports (the biggest can lose most ports at no risk).

However and up to now, I feel more concerned by "oblligation" to attack HDF Fleets for flags and loot than by return of NPC raids. Clearly, the addition of these two obligations reduced my PVP time to almost zero. Not a single PVP kill in July so far. I spend all my playing time in PVE (Raids and HDF).

In last HDF battle I made, I was obliged to go afk during some time during the battle: I was  so bored that I was about to surrender to NPC, to shorten my suffering . I stayed afk some time, making something fun out of the game for some minutes, then I could go back and finish this over-boring-pseudo-battle. To be noted that we were originally planning to make 2 HDF hunts, but after the 1st one, all players decided to go back to port: HDF did reach the "ad nauseam" level. To increase our de-motivation,  we got no flag in spite of having successfully sunk all HDF ships.

Another player went afk as soon as we went on Open World, even not noticing that he got re attacked by another HDF on the way back. Other players around did not enter in this second fight. Only the 3 ones in this battle stayed in, up to the moment when every one can safely leave (the afk player came back after 10 mins). As a resume, we were in battle with enough players around to fight this HDF fleet, but the consensual decision (just everyone agreeing on this), was just to run out, in spite of having the numbers and the ships to do the fight. We were all totally demotivated.

So maybe, two battles per day, that would preferably spawn on the same reconstructing nation are too much.

Taking into account my personal experience in Denmark/Norway, I can't see how Spain (as an example) can come back from the poor present status (with regards to Spanish players who tried "something" that did not give proper results, this is another question).

Edited July 8, 2020 by Aquillas

[BlameKK]

23 hours ago, admin said:

Dont keep neglected ports in your portfolio. If Raiders see a neglected port they take it back. You have a counter - invest. If you invest more than others your port is safe. I know some don't like it. But i don't like lazy port owners too. Dont capture the port if you dont want to invest in it. Leave it to other nations. 

Carriacou was clearly a well invested port,yet it got attacked.  its very counter productive to even have raiders on PVP server!

[Archaos]

1 hour ago, admin said:

We are not looking on the problem the way some players are looking.
The game should have a system to clear the map if nothing is done by the players (for example not defended) 

Imagine if everyone is not doing anything RVR wise or investment wise. In this case we want the map to go neutral over time for example 3 months (A LOT OF TIME). In our case the map will go neutral in 6 months (300 ports 2 ports a day) 2 ports a day is NOT enough. Raiders should attack 2x more ports.

We understand what players say about raider attacks but the only way raider attacks 
Previous system was bad (it was attacking highly defended ports nobody could capture) current system is perfect - raiders attack ports nobody want - (no investment) giving other small nations a chance. + IT CLEARS THE Map over time.

We might also need to find the way to attack inactive clans but hope players

As I said I agree with the principle of what you are trying to achieve, but I am concerned that as nations try to develop their ports in order to avoid being attacked by the AI, we will reach a situation where it is only the same few ports that get attacked constantly. Say for example all the ports on the map have at least 3 investments, the raiders will then attack a couple of the ports with 3 investments. If they are successful then those ports attacked drop to 2 investments and if players retake them they will now be down to 1 investment which leaves them as the obvious targets for AI attacks.

Maybe I have misunderstood how the AI actually choose their targets, but from the information given my example is a real possibility.

[Vibrio Cholerae]

45 minutes ago, BlameKK said:

Carriacou was clearly a well invested port,yet it got attacked.  its very counter productive to even have raiders on PVP server!

Not really I went in Carriacou and there were no investment beside the 2 towers and the fort

[Barents]

4 hours ago, admin said:

not a bug.
We stated before that NPCs will try to fill 25 ships limit - this limit can exceed BR due to changes in BR over time or because they cant find a lighter ship in this category. 
Brig is the lowest low of the ships in this category. There is literally nothing worse than a brig. There is nothing else to pick as a low rated 6th rate.

Does it mean the brig is the new king of the shallows?? 

 

 

What does it mean by Category?

Do wo have to expect 25 1st rates in a 5k BR deepwater pb?

[Teutonic]

4 hours ago, Vibrio Cholerae said:

Not really I went in Carriacou and there were no investment beside the 2 towers and the fort

by that logic - there are ports with literally no investments that haven't been raided yet....

[mikawa]

3 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

by that logic - there are ports with literally no investments that haven't been raided yet....

I think it had changed and from now on these ports are raided first-hand.

[Nixolai]

7 hours ago, admin said:

not a bug.
We stated before that NPCs will try to fill 25 ships limit - this limit can exceed BR due to changes in BR over time or because they cant find a lighter ship in this category. 
Brig is the lowest low of the ships in this category. There is literally nothing worse than a brig. There is nothing else to pick as a low rated 6th rate.

Does it mean the brig is the new king of the shallows?? 

 

 

Then how come the danes get Pickles in their NPC PB?

This NPC setup fills the BR to exactly 900 BR, Pickles has 55 crew and the snow with 120+ crew, means i would not have been rageboarded and died that PB.

[Frosty]

3 minutes ago, Nixolai said:

This NPC setup fills the BR to exactly 900 BR, Pickles has 55 crew and the snow with 120+ crew, means i would not have been rageboarded and died that PB.

Pickles had 110 crew in that fight, 'cause why not.

[Aquillas]

2 minutes ago, Nixolai said:

Then how come the danes get Pickles in their NPC PB?

This NPC setup fills the BR to exactly 900 BR, Pickles has 55 crew and the snow with 120+ crew, means i would not have been rageboarded and died that PB.

I don't remember exactly the numbers but Raider Pickles had around 115 crews and Raider Traders more than 120.

Taking into account Raider perks and upgrades (eg. Elite), they could rage board any player easily if this player loses a few crews

[Nixolai]

25 minutes ago, Aquillas said:

I don't remember exactly the numbers but Raider Pickles had around 115 crews and Raider Traders more than 120.

Taking into account Raider perks and upgrades (eg. Elite), they could rage board any player easily if this player loses a few crews

i would still have more than them with port bonuses

[Nixolai]

27 minutes ago, Frosty said:

Pickles had 110 crew in that fight, 'cause why not.

Then i expect to see an Ocean with 2000+ crew next raid...

[mikawa]

6 minutes ago, Nixolai said:

Then i expect to see an Ocean with 2000+ crew next raid...

Omg, that's an invasion fleet. 🙂