Anolytic

What about the 1,5 hour timer? Does it still exist, ending the battle early if no side gains the 1000 points? Nice! I was hoping for this. PBs are the ultimate PvP events after all.

Thanks to Lenin for discovering this.

It was probably a fun fight for you and therefore not useless, but you are in the wrong topic mate. You don't even have a video of the encounter.

Danmark-Norge occupied Port Morant long before SORRY was at Carlisle. Danes were in Jamaica before it was cool...

As pirates you could attack practically anyone. As brits you're allied with 70% of the server population.

I feel like deja vú. A pirate clan picks a fight with Danmark-Norge. They try to take Samana/Macao. They make deals with Great Britain. They hit a wall and eventually figure they need to be part of a big nation to get anywhere. Whatever did happen to the FTS clan? <---- **Rhetorical question** Good luck to you in your endeavours as a clan.

That's a ridiculous solution. It would remove any strategy and make numbers the only thing that matter, which would again mean nations with more numbers could always get into port battles, and nations with low numbers of players could never get into port battles. In Cartagena at least I saw the Dutch/Brit PB fleet logging in inside the bay only a minute's sail from the port. And our alliance has never, at least as long Danes have been nearby, employed the screening tactic of undocking in waves. We always instruct our screening fleet to let the port battle fleet pass through, preferably after a short delay, and we've never employed a screening fleet with maximum numbers. You may not see the issue, but that doesn't mean it's not there. It just means we prefer to fight port battles than to avoid them.

Unfortunately I missed this fight, but the clan was well represented.

Defensive battle starting with 0,6 BR? I think you're in the wrong topic... This one is named "Good Fights".

Nice! Can't wait to get home. Too bad we won't have Land in Port Battles yet. Was really looking forward to testing that at Bridgetown tomorrow.

Your speed is calculated server side afaik, so this is not on your ISP. However I've seen this before and the way you describe it I believe I know what happened. When you pass by so close that cannons pass through each other, there's often a soft ram or bump between the ships that means they actually get entangled for a few seconds. Even though it is not a head on ram they will both loose speed. If you've ever tried two ships ramming each other head on while both are turning the same way, you will often see both ships loose momentum for a half second before regaining it as they turn. Looking at the speed on the compass it will be a bit erratic in that short time and may sometimes drop by quite a bit before going back up to about the speed you had before impact. If your speed dropped down below 3,5 for even a fraction of a second, the AI will be able to capitalise on that. I recommend never sailing so close to enemy AI.

Btw we did. Though we prefer to attack. More of a challenge.

No. Except if you change nation your rank will be equal but corresponding to another navy.

It's easy to sail to the Port Battles and ignore the problems with screening coming from the new ROE and conquest rules when you know that our side wants port battles and 9 time out of 10 won't have screening at all, and the rest of the time only some half-arsed screening to provide the players who didn't get into the PB with content.

Indeed. We were all very disappointed that we didn't get to shoot at anything. I wouldn't mind if the devs made up for this bug by rescheduling the PB tomorrow or Monday same time.

The Port Battle at Santo Domingo today ended before the attacker had any conceivable chance to enter. With the new mechanics giving the attacker less control over the Port battle this is a serious bug and needs to be addressed. I will add screenshots and a video from within the PB to this topic once I have been able to upload them. Video of the bug: As you can see in the video, the battle was over the moment the cannot escape timer ran to zero. At 1:27

I mostly agree with you. And I too think that the importance of any specific region should be reduced, either by slightly nerfing the bonuses of certain trims or by spreading the trims around to more regions. And the same with resources. Ports went from too little importance to too much. You should always be incentivised to defend all your regions, but not so much so that loosing certain regions could conceivably reduce the war capabilities of entire alliances.

Getting to Rear Admiral rank is quite easy and that limit probably won't change that much. There's a Rear admiral in almost every group. I wasn't in Salamanca, but what I heard from the players who were there defending was that nobody entered from attackers before the battle ended. I haven't seen a screenshot of the tab-screen after Battle Over appeared, but if we assume that what is said is correct, then there is another reason. We know from Orinoco that if no attacker joins in 30 mins, then the battle is automatically over. But in Salamanca the battle was over long before 30 minutes had passed. So that is not the reason. While I don't know for sure exactly what happened at Salamanca, I do know for a fact that what happened could have occurred without any alts or noobs engineering it. On purpose or by accident. Back in the day when we had flags, there was lots of fake flags, and some exploits to go with it. An attacker could launch a flag, plant it and send 2-4 ships in. The defender could send in a full fleet and then the attacker would leave with their 2-4 ships and go to attack another port. The attacker would have all their players free for the other port, but the defenders had to stay in the battle till it ended after 90 minutes because if they left, the enemy could join, filling up the remaining 20 places and take the port with the defender having no way of getting back in. So we got a fix to that. The fix was that after 5 minutes was gone, if the last attacker escaped, the port battle was ended. This rule also applies if no attacker actually joins and escapes. If no attacker joins, the battle is over after 5 minutes even if there was no attacker to trigger it by leaving. But the rule only gets activated if there is a state change in the battle instance. One defender leaving the battle counts as that. I don't know if it's currently 5 or 15 minutes, but if there are no attackers in the PB after that time, any defending player leaving triggers the port battle to end. That player who leaves is technically leaving before the battle is over, so he won't get any loot from winning the port battle, but the for the rest of the defenders the port battle is over and they can leave to collect their loot. This mechanic is not good in my opinion. Especially now that delaying an attacker by 5 or even 15 minutes is so easy it's ridiculous. It is jet another mechanic that grants defenders a default win.

Justify our actions? Our actions are justified and don't need me to say anything. It's part of the game. And obviously I know our reasons better than you do. Regarding the mechanic being broken there is no argument. War Supply bombs circumvents parts of the gameplay and devs have already said that they will be changed. I have not expressed that I have any problem with War supplies being changed. However what you are accusing us of is moving on to deal with and point other issues instead of harking on about the same one over and over like you, even when we know it will be addressed. There are other aspects of the hostility mechanics that are just as problematic, and if they remove hostility bombs - the best way of generating port battles right now - they need to give us something else. You point out that port battles have been generated the old fashioned way, but all with barely any defenders having opportunity to countergrind. The hostility grinding vastly favours nations and alliances with greater numbers of players, players interested in PvE, and willing to shoot at cutters for a few hours instead of SOLs. Hostility was generated without counter-grinding in part because the would be defenders had logged off due to it being very late in their time-zone. How would alliances work if 3 was maximum? One nation would always be left out. And with the great imbalance in numbers between nations, the actual number of nations does not matter that much. But we are perfectly aware that you cannot trigger more than 6 port battles. Yes, because the would be defenders are tired of grinding down hostility for no actual reward or fun, around the clock and against other timezones. It's not about winning ports. Attacking 7 ports at once does not increase our chance of capturing either of them. The chance that the defender will be able to be 25 players everywhere is greater because of the ability to teleport in and not least because of greater numbers. It is not about capturing ports, it is about fighting port battles, and about involving a great number of players in port battles at the same time. There aren't enough "elite" players on either side to cover everything. Hopefully both sides prioritize in about the same manner, so that every port battle will be about an equal match.

You cannot say that just because sometimes we want to just have fun in the game, we are not serious about testing it. The other alliance was throwing coordinated hostility bombs at us, so we answered in kind. We were indeed testing the limits of the mechanic (8 is the limit btw), but by no means was that our main motivation. And demonstrating the cooperativeness needed to pull something like this off. It's not like when VP/US/Brits used 3 coordinated war supplies they were testing something either, as it had already been done first by us. And about the number of attacks. For weeks there has been complaints about elite port battle forces forming and about Danes showing up everywhere. Well, now you know that Danes won't be showing up everywhere. Now everyone gets battles. There are slots for 175 players in Port Battles on each side of the alliances. Port Battles are not just for a chosen few on Wednesday. Both our allies and our enemies should be happy. For defenders showing up is incredibly simple. It requires just teleporting in. And yes. Devs will change war supplies in just a few days. And until then we might as well burn through the war Supplies that we have.

RDNN ©

Just days ago *people* were complaining that Port Battles were too exclusive and only for elite players and excluded the majority of players. As I see it we gave you a gift. There are now 175 port battle slots to be filled for players of the Brit/Dutch/US(/Pirate) alliance. You're welcome.

Connies can be one hit explosion if shot perfectly with double charge into the bow.

One thing: Like any other area on the map, the Rookie zones can be captured (except for the rookie capitals). Hostility generation there is potentially easier due to the number of targets and confined space. Is the purpose here to forbid hostility raising activities (i.e PvP and yes, even ganking) in the rookie area? In that case we must first divide the regions equally between the alliances. Or devs must take them out of RvR. But Danmark has already held a port battle there in order to train and involve our non-RvR-players.

As a practical solution, just edit it and report it so that moderators can remove it for you.