Shallow Water Port Battle Mechanics need a change

[Sarversauce]

After several Shallow Water Port Battles with even a moderate defense by the Defenders, it's nearly impossible to take the port, because of the game mechanics, as compared to Deep Water Port Battles. 
 Even when defending it feels too easy to just sit there and pelt them and sail around and just win.

 

When the port is fully defended, it IS impossible to take a Shallow Water port.

When the port is weakly defended the Attackers have a slightly better chance of winning, however, just 10 defenders in mixed boats can still successfully defend the port by simply sailing around and keeping up their BR.

 

To me, either the BR functionality needs to be fixed/adjusted/changed, or there needs to be some "favor" for the attackers, like capping the number of Defenders that are able to join the battle.  OR, start the "Ring of Reduction" sooner, so that the Defenders *looks at France* can't simply sail away and uphold their BR rating by not getting sunk. 
OR, base the BR on Damage done to the enemy instead of a Ratio. There have been several times when the Defender ships are just barely afloat, and the Defenders still get to win because their ships simply didn't sink sooner than the Attacker's ships.

 

Regardless of my opinion, and the opinions of others, it feels like it needs a change.  Shallow Ports should be easier to take than Deep Ports. This has already been established by the Devs because Deep Ports have 5 towers, and shallows have only 3, and they have a Ship Size Limit.

 

Thanks.

[Arsilon]

Pedernales will never fall until you get the devs to make it fall for you.

 

In all seriousness though, until they fix the population balance issues the current shallow port mechanics are the only thing that will keep small nations from being completely rolled over by larger ones.  This is a game that will automatically gather much larger populations for US, GB and pirates especially on a US server which you play on.  Given what is happening between the French and Pirates you are seeing what happens when there is no population balance and is the reason you are posting this.  The pirates run away from the bigger US/GB zerg and in turn zerg France who have really no where else to run unless they all want to make a 5 hour sail to Lousiana.  Even if they did want to make the sail, choosing to deal with the pirates with a 5:1 population advantage is still better than dealing with the US directly who have a 50:1 advantage.

 

Is it really really hard to take a shallow port if the defenders really don't want you to have it as is the case at Pedernales on PvP2 US, yes.  Should the mechanic be changed?  Perhaps -- they already reduced the BR multiple from 3x to 2x.  The issue probably has more to do with the fact that currently there is no difference between deep and shallow ports.  If a small nation has the option to save a shallow port where they can not be outgunned due to hard 25 captain limit and hard BR limit (Mercury/NavyBrig) at the expense of 2 or 3 deep ones that are attacked at the same time (25x 3rd rates vs. 10-15 Cerbs will never win) then there is some offset. Right now that offset is really meaningless since there is no difference.  Lets see what the new building mechanics do and see if it makes things a bit more meaningful.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Arsilon

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Block Basic Cutters from entering the Shallow Port Battles.

 

There you go. The rest has nothing to do with the mechanics we have at the moment.

[Dharus]

Disagree. If are referring to Pedernales attacks, France has been losing deep water ports at the same time. Shallow water should be easier to defend. Lack of heavy naval bombardment and fixed cannons on land should make it very hard to take by force. Game mechanic-wise shallow ports give under powered and populated nations a fighting chance. You destroy that and you destroy the game. Then it'll be a zergling game.

[Arsilon]

Shallow Ports should be easier to take than Deep Ports. This has already been established by the Devs because Deep Ports have 5 towers, and shallows have only 3, and they have a Ship Size Limit.

 

Thanks.

 

Why should they be easier to take?  There is strategic importance to shallow ports, especially for pirates that don't want to run away from the Bahamas.

 

Also the 5 vs 3 towers isn't because they think it should be easier.  It's an accomodation to the fact that the most you can bring into a Shallow Port battle is a Mercury/NavyBrig.  You are dealing with 3rd Rates, Constitutions, etc. in a Deep Water one and 3 towers wouldn't even be a bump in the road.

[Bach]

I think the mechanic will be the same for deep water ports once everyone is driving rate ships. Right now I suspect most DW ports are taken out of shear BR advantage. This will only hold as long as everyone is leveling and some have out leveled others. Once we're all top leveled out the DW ports will be the same as shallow but with more towers. Perhaps at the 1st rate level the towers will Become inconsequential.

Anyway, I wouldn't get to worked up about any of this yet. When port battle terrain comes out this whole dynamic us going to drastically change.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Bach

[Vllad]

For the good of the game the attackers should have no advantages. Taking ports should be a grind otherwise this game will struggle keeping players. If you want this many teams you have to guard against Zergs just over running everything.

 

The shallow water concept is an excellent choice by developers. It neutralizes level and size advantages and makes it come down to strategy. Their is no doubt it is very hard to take a defended shallow port. Their is nothing wrong with that.

 

However how did the US take all those shallow water ports from the Pirates on PVP2? It is being done but it involves some careful planning to pull it off. The reason Pedernales is so difficult to take is the French has no place left to defend. The Pirates should have thought of that before.

 

Having Shallow water Ports and a BR mechanic is good for the game and gives Naval Action flavors that don't exist in other games.

 

Eventually the same thing is going to happen in Deep Water ports as well. When the game finally matures and everyone is the same levels. This is also good for the game.

 

Go read all the threads of people complaining about Zergs just taking over the map. You need as many mechanics as possible to counter act this. The first line of defense is the Shallow Water port mechanics and the x2 BR for port battles. I still think it should have been x3.

Taking ports should be difficult. Otherwise this game won't last.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Vllad

[Æthlstan]

The pirates fighting in perdenales are using very primitive strategies, with poor execution. Its not a game mechanic problem. The game isnt broken.

[Sarversauce]

Every single one of these posts are from French players who have openly said that they are not interested in Ports. (on the server that I'm on.)

Notice how they have flooded in here to make a case about ONE port? 

I'm referring to the Shallow Ports in general, not just one.

Please stay on topic. This is not the place to discuss tactics. This post is about functionality only.

 

My point is that the mechanics, overall, need another look. I'm sitting here considering the things you all have said. Like, sitting here trying to reason why Shallow ports should be harder to take, but the mechanic for both Shallow and Deep ports is the same mechanic.  Should it be different between them? I think so right now.  
I'm not referring just to Pedernales.  I'm talking in general. I've been on both sides of a Shallow and Deep water port battle. It just feels too easy to defend Shallow.  Obviously like what was said above, the Port Battle Terrain will change things. It'll probably make it harder, because of less ability to maneuver around.  I guess we'll just wait and see what we get.

[Arsilon]

Please stay on topic. This is not the place to discuss tactics. This post is about functionality only. 

 

I'll put aside the comments made specifically by you about the French in which case it becomes about a single port since there is only one shallow port being fought over that is highlighting the concern over the mechanic in the first place.  But, I agree this should be about the mechanic and not about the politics here which is why I added the 2nd post but between the two of them I wasn't so clear in my comments so I'll try again.

 

 

Aside from the number of towers which has more to do with what ships you find in the battles and nothing to do with the port itself there is no difference between Deep and Shallow ports mechanics wise.

 

They produce resources needed to make ships and fittings

They allow you to produce the same ships you can produce in deep water ports.

They allow you to buy conquest flags and give you a launch point for attacks

 

Why should they be easier to take if they currently serve the exact same purpose as their deep water brethren?  Until they ARE different why should they behave different?

 

Looking at this from the opposite direction part of the problem is Deep Water battles have not hit their BR limit yet in common practice (at least on our server).  We have yet to see port battles where you have 25 v 25 with everyone in top level ships.  In shallow you do see 25 v 25 (ish) with everyone in Mercury and NavyBrig.  So Shallow Port battles "feel" much harder than deep water ones where there is still a lot of "bigger zerg wins" battles going on.  Once both sides are able to fully load a deepwater battle, you will probably see a lot more stalemating in those as well.

 

 

That being said there are several mechanics that are being introduced that will change all of this like land, actual forts, buildings that may very well make the ports actually different in how they function.  Until then, my original question remains....why should they behave different if they aren't different?

[Bach]

I would suspect, and I am just guessing here, that this whole thread is sort of moot.

There are actually different classes of ports beyond just shallow and deep. There are also going to be terrain eventually and mega forts with dozens of guns that can easily handle a single sacrificial 3rd rate leading a charge. When these changes hit the dynamics of port battles will change greatly. Just the fact a stretch of land may force a tower to only be assault from one specific side can be a game changer. Shallow water PB's will likely have the smaller forts, ship movements about the terrain will likely be easier and the towers won't be so neatly spread out. Shallow PB are probably going to generally be the easier PB's but soon terrain will most likely dictate what is actually easy and what is not.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Bach

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

I really hope the shallow/deep ceases to exist once the majority of custom design ports are in place and that decision comes from the players in relation to the ports layout and presence of shallows, sandbanks, etc.