Remove BR as a Requirement for Victory in Port Battles

[Arbour]

As the title states.  Port battles of 10+ ships vs 10+ ships are being won without a single ship sinking on either side.  This is not realistic or fun.  

[Balsafer]

In real life SoL's never sank unless they blew up lol

[Galileus]

As the title states.  Port battles of 10+ ships vs 10+ ships are being won without a single ship sinking on either side.  This is not realistic or fun.  

 

Neither is using 10 renos to run all around the map in defense to win it that way.

[Arbour]

In real life SoL's never sank unless they blew up lol

 

And ports were not captured without landing troops either.  This is a ship fighting game though.  Don't tell me you are arguing that battles should be decided without fighting?  

 

Neither is using 10 renos to run all around the map in defense to win it that way.

 

That is a good point, but they can make the "shrinking circle of death" more effective to deal with that problem.  Or the attacking force can bring chasers, as well. 

Edited March 16, 2016 by Arbour

[mirror452]

Or the attacking force can bring chasers, as well. 

 

You simply cannot chase speed fitted Renos, no matter with which ship, unfortunately.

[cainn]

If you ask me there is nothing wrong with the current rules in port battles, the current port battles are merely placeholders anyway. With that being said the port battle for Fredericksted that you are referencing in your original post was lost because the 18 French ships did NOTHING to protect their towers. The objectives in a port battle are very clear and very simple. The attacker must kill 5 towers and maintain a 2-1 BR advantage and the defenders must prevent this. The French chose to run and abandon their towers doing nothing to defend or protect them, that was your choice and why you lost. You did not sink a single British ship in the 15+ minutes it took us to kill your towers. Quit blaming mechanics for your tactical blunders.

Edited March 16, 2016 by cainn

[Arbour]

If you ask me there is nothing wrong with the current rules in port battles, the current port battles are merely placeholders anyway. With that being said the port battle for Fredericksted that you are referencing in your original post was lost because the 18 French ships did NOTHING to protect their towers. The objectives in a port battle are very clear and very simple. The attacker must kill 5 towers and maintain a 2-1 BR advantage and the defenders must prevent this. The French chose to run and abandon their towers doing nothing to defend or protect them, that was your choice and why you lost. You did not sink a single British ship in the 15+ minutes it took us to kill your towers. Quit blaming mechanics for your tactical blunders.

 

Well, this is unnecessary.  If you have  a problem with something I said in another thread then reply to that other thread.   But I still believe that if you have a game mechanic that throws up to 50 players into a single battle against each other, then that battle should be decided by more than how fast one side can shoot at stationary targets.  If you are going to gather players together to fight, then let them fight.

[Lord_Howe]

If you ask me there is nothing wrong with the current rules in port battles, the current port battles are merely placeholders anyway. With that being said the port battle for Fredericksted that you are referencing in your original post was lost because the 18 French ships did NOTHING to protect their towers. The objectives in a port battle are very clear and very simple. The attacker must kill 5 towers and maintain a 2-1 BR advantage and the defenders must prevent this. The French chose to run and abandon their towers doing nothing to defend or protect them, that was your choice and why you lost. You did not sink a single British ship in the 15+ minutes it took us to kill your towers. Quit blaming mechanics for your tactical blunders.

 

The port battles will undoubtedly improve as time goes on, but as Cainn said the rules are pretty clear to both sides.

 

The attacker goes there to win the port... if they just wanted to fight ships they would stay outside and do that where they arent getting shot by 42 Lb sniper cannons. Of course in that case you would likely not have engaged, because without the towers you know you would have lost all your ships.

 

The defenders job is to protect the towers (proxy for the port). If you relinquish the towers so that you can fight  on your own terms somewhere else on the map, then you lose. The french fleet in this case made an error... they sailed to the left (attackers perspective), then reversed direction and dropped their line way back past the second tower. Had you held your original position (or somewhere close) you could have forced a fight.

Certainly annoying to lose a port, but you cant blame this particular mechanic when you have plenty of ships present in the battle to block access to the towers. A more weakly defended port I might see your point more, but not when you have a fleet defending. Plus, I don't think you realize how close this came to being a huge and costly brawl.

[cainn]

Oh I'm sorry I wasn't aware opinions that disagreed with you weren't allowed, my bad.

[Arbour]

The port battles will undoubtedly improve as time goes on, but as Cainn said the rules are pretty clear to both sides.

 

The attacker goes there to win the port... if they just wanted to fight ships they would stay outside and do that where they arent getting shot by 42 Lb sniper cannons. Of course in that case you would likely not have engaged, because without the towers you know you would have lost all your ships.

 

The defenders job is to protect the towers (proxy for the port). If you relinquish the towers so that you can fight  on your own terms somewhere else on the map, then you lose. The french fleet in this case made an error... they sailed to the left (attackers perspective), then reversed direction and dropped their line way back past the second tower. Had you held your original position (or somewhere close) you could have forced a fight.

Certainly annoying to lose a port, but you cant blame this particular mechanic when you have plenty of ships present in the battle to block access to the towers. A more weakly defended port I might see your point more, but not when you have a fleet defending. Plus, I don't think you realize how close this came to being a huge and costly brawl.

 

I actually don't care that much about losing.  Sink, get sunk, doesn't matter.  The point is the ability for one side to win without actually engaging anything other than the towers.  You made some good points in the other thread Howe, and it was interesting to read it from your perspective.  Cainn, grow up. 

 

Note: We prolly would have engaged fleet to fleet without the towers in OW.  Sink, get sunk...it's all about the fun and challenge.  The same battle in OW would have lasted over an hour rather than 15 minutes, and would have been enjoyable on both sides, win or lose.   It's hard to get groups to commit to OW battles, so ports are really the only place you see those kind of numbers, so why not take advantage of that and let the battle just happen.  

Edited March 16, 2016 by Arbour

[cainn]

I actually don't care that much about losing. Sink, get sunk, doesn't matter. The point is the ability for one side to win without actually engaging anything other than the towers. You made some good points in the other thread Howe, and it was interesting to read it from your perspective. Cainn, grow up.

We literally sailed straight at you. How is that not engaging anything? You ran and abandoned your towers and thus lost the battle without a fight. That was your decision not ours.

[Arbour]

And what I'm saying is that large battles for ports should be more about having large battles.  I actually was caught outside the battle by screeners myself, so I don't have a first hand account of the battle to say one way or the other.  But none the less, you put 10+ people vs 10+ people into a battle in a video game, no one dies, and victory is declared based on some arbitrary number assigned to each player (BR) there is something wrong. 

[Slamz]

the 18 French ships did NOTHING to protect their towers.

 

Okay, General Custer, what's your strategy for winning a port battle with 5000 BR vs 10500? You seem to propose that the French stand in blockade and brawl, which I hope you realize would be a very stupid plan. It would result in the same British victory but with far more losses for the French and a lot more gold and XP for the Brits. French did absolutely the right thing by hanging back and trying to pick off a couple ships without losing any -- it was their only chance.

 

The REAL alternative is to not show up to defend at all, which you're probably going to see a lot of. Instead, the defenders should be out grinding NPC fleets, which is so boring that most people just quit playing the game instead. So, again, the real, actually proven effective counter is to let your ports fall, ignore them entirely and just go PvP.

 

 

We need a better port flipping mechanic -- one that doesn't simply hinge on BR.

[Arbour]

What is BR anyways?  How is it decided? Is a 3rd rate (500BR) really in a fair fight with 2 Trins (200BR) and a Cerb (100BR)?  Are those really even?  I'd rather be on the Trin and cerb side, than be that 3rd rate.  BR is purely arbitrary, and unjustifiably high for some ships.  Why does this arbitrary figure, that is literally pulled out of thin air, decide our fights, when we should be deciding them with cannonballs. 

 

Should have named this post "BR what is it good for? Nothing."

Edited March 16, 2016 by Arbour

[Galileus]

What is BR anyways?  How is it decided? Is a 3rd rate (500BR) really in a fair fight with 2 Trins (200BR) and a Cerb (100BR)?  Are those really even?  I'd rather be on the Trin and cerb side, than be that 3rd rate.  BR is purely arbitrary, and unjustifiably high for some ships.  Why does this arbitrary figure, that is literally pulled out of then air, decide our fights, when we should be deciding them with cannonballs. 

 

Should have named this post "BR what is it good for? Nothing."

 

Oh god no... someone call police... I think they are... they are...

 

GASP!

 

USING GAME MECHANICS!

[Quineloe]

As the title states.  Port battles of 10+ ships vs 10+ ships are being won without a single ship sinking on either side.  This is not realistic or fun.  

This is incorrect. Unless you were fighting 10 victories in 10 third rates (9000 vs 5000) , there's no way that a 10 - 9 ships would be declared a victory for the attacker.

[Lord_Howe]

What is BR anyways?  How is it decided? Is a 3rd rate (500BR) really in a fair fight with 2 Trins (200BR) and a Cerb (100BR)?  Are those really even?  I'd rather be on the Trin and cerb side, than be that 3rd rate.  BR is purely arbitrary, and unjustifiably high for some ships.  Why does this arbitrary figure, that is literally pulled out of then air, decide our fights, when we should be deciding them with cannonballs. 

 

Should have named this post "BR what is it good for? Nothing."

 

I agree, they are completely arbitrary numbers, and ideally wouldn't be used for anything other than as a guide to general power level for the new player.

That said, it's use in the Port battles is pretty much required at the moment, at least until the ports are real ports, not some rocks with cannons out in the middle of the ocean.

A port defense requires that the "Port" be defended. If the defender doesnt want to defend the "Port" (ie rocks with cannons) then they shouldn't be there.

 

The arbitrary BP's (and required 2:1 ratio) are to force the defender to defend the towers and not just run off to the edge of the battle (running the timer out).

It's a poor proxy for a real defense, but until terrain, forts etc are in the game its probably the best we are going to get.

 

Slamz.. with all due respect, you just confirmed what Cainn said. You felt it would be foolish to incur the ship loses that would have resulted from fighting the British ships, but then you think the British shouldn't be awarded the win when they go for the towers. If the port was important to you, you had to be willing to fight for it and lose ships. I can assure you there would have been British casualties too (my 3rd rate for one, lol). Port defense has a pretty big advantage, and can certainly be won even when the other side has more BR. i dont know if you would have ultimately won this one (probably not), but you could have made it a much tougher fight.

[Arbour]

Oh god no... someone call police... I think they are... they are...

 

GASP!

 

USING GAME MECHANICS!

 

BR is not a mechanic.  It's a number with very little rhyme or reason to why it is assigned.  I get that bigger ships have bigger BRs, but are the ships really as comparable as the BR says they are, no.  So why use this arbitrary number to decide victory when it really doesn't mean anything? 

 

Added: Howe has a decent explanation of this, and I agree with some of it, except in regards to keeping guys from just running around.  The devs can just make the "shrinking circle" actually play a role, while it currently doesn't affect battles in any way now.  

 

I'm hoping land will help this, but in the mean time it's not working at all, as is.  When they add land, if it's still a game of killing towers and having higher BR, it will still be broken.  My proposal is a short term fix admittedly. 

Edited March 16, 2016 by Arbour

[Galileus]

BR is not a mechanic.  It's a number with very little rhyme or reason to why it is assigned.  I get that bigger ships have bigger BRs, but are the ship really as comparable as the BR says they are, no.  So why use this arbitrary number to decide victory when it really doesn't mean anything. 

 

Rules are arbitrary. And rules are needed in any game.

 

If you have better rules, please do share. Otherwise, what is your point? "OMG, there are rules in this game!". Yes, shocking, sure... so what?

 

BR difference makes sure there won't be situations where one defender Reno just runs away whole time and "defends" the port. It makes sure there won't be a situation when defenders are devastated, but one of them sunk too slow, so the barely-floating corpse "defends" against fully operational armada of 25.

[Vllad]

BR is not a mechanic.  It's a number with very little rhyme or reason to why it is assigned.  I get that bigger ships have bigger BRs, but are the ship really as comparable as the BR says they are, no.  So why use this arbitrary number to decide victory when it really doesn't mean anything. 

 

So maybe it isn't the BR system that is broken but the BR ratings themselves. Is a 3rd rate really 55% better then a Tricom? I would bet on 5 cerbs over one 1 3rd rate any day assuming all other things are equal.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Battle Ratings are not finished yet. They are flat. They do not take into account captain rank, build quality, trims, upgrades, gun complements, etc.

[Arbour]

Rules are arbitrary. And rules are needed in any game.

 

If you have better rules, please do share. Otherwise, what is your point? "OMG, there are rules in this game!". Yes, shocking, sure... so what?

 

BR difference makes sure there won't be situations where one defender Reno just runs away whole time and "defends" the port. It makes sure there won't be a situation when defenders are devastated, but one of them sunk too slow, so the barely-floating corpse "defends" against fully operational armada of 25.

 

Better rule:  Make the shrinking circle collapse all the way down to the towers themselves and have it start shrinking sooner than it does now.  With 30 minutes left in battle, the circle is already at the towers and it's smallest radius, so if you have a superior force, you can pick off any remaining ships without them able to run.  That will  solve the issue with speed ships running around the outskirts of the battle.  Any ships left in the circle at the end of 1.5 hours, you can calculate victory based on BR then.  

Edited March 16, 2016 by Arbour

[Justme]

There is something to be said for making the end have a phyric victory.

[Lord_Howe]

Better rule:  Make the shrinking circle collapse all the way down to the towers themselves and have it start shrinking sooner than it does now.  With 30 minutes left in battle, the circle is already at the towers and it's smallest radius, so if you have a superior force, you can pick off any remaining ships without them able to run.  That will  solve the issue with speed ships running around the outskirts of the battle.  Any ships left in the circle at the end of 1.5 hours, you can calculate victory based on BR then.  

 

I agree that an earlier start on the circle shrinking might  help, but im not sure how much comfort a fleet of 25 victories would take in winning after waiting an hour or more for the circle to shrink enough for the single enemy renno to be forced close enough for them to shoot it

 

Again, ultimately a port battle is about 'Defending' the port assets, not protecting the defending nations ships.

Either put your defending ships between the enemy and the port itself, or don't come to the battle at all.

(with land in the battle you wont have the choice of falling back behind the port anyway).

[Slamz]

If the port was important to you, you had to be willing to fight for it and lose ships.

 

No, we really don't. Once balance gets out of whack enough, we will simply stop showing up and go do something else instead. This is exactly what we did against the pirates. They took every French port and after the first couple attempts to stop them, we just defended the one shallow port they couldn't outweigh us at and let them take the rest in PvT. It was not very exciting for them.

 

Is that the gameplay you want?

 

Because it's the gameplay you're going to get.

 

But I think you are again getting hung up trying to roleplay politics in a discussion about game mechanics.

 

The real question is:

Do you think that port ownership should be determined by which side brings the most number of heavy ships?

 

If your answer is yes then I'd love to hear your justification for it and how you envision that creating satisfying long term gameplay that attracts and retains players long term (especially in light of the fact that leveling up efficiently -- which means grinding bots -- is boring as hell).

 

If your answer is no, then quit roleplaying for a minute and agree that there is a weakness in the game mechanics that could be addressed. Step 1 of any sort of game improvement is likely going to involve attracting developer attention by actually establishing wide agreement that there is a problem.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Slamz