Port Battle Mechanics

[stormridersp]

IMO, this new pb mechanics, the conquest circles and timers, killed the last remaining chance for good capital ships PVP in this game. How come that a pb battle should end before major cannon fire is exchanged and most SOLs are sunk?! It really makes no sense to me. Why is it so difficult to just get it simple at least once, instead of all these bs mechanics everywhere? I mean, you got the land in the port battles, that´s really nice, but along with it, came a bunch of stupid mechanics that just make no sense what so ever.

To be constructive, my suggestion is:

Keep the land in the port battles, give it a 1h30 battle timer, a 10 minutes join timer, allow defenders to spawn close to shore and attackers in a distance far enough to allow defenders to organize their line. When the battle starts, count the points of sunk ships and, after 1h battle, if there´s still anyone left, the team with more points win with the sole exception that a draw gives the win to the defender team. Just get rid of these arcade WoW conquest mechanics. If I wanted to play it, I would just play WoW instead.

EDIT: Adding @koltes suggestions and timer modified to 1h30:

Side are getting points equal to the BR of the sunk ships. In order to win one team needs to reach certain BR in points.

EDIT2: Adding @rediii suggestions:

Defenders and Attackers must stay inside the Battle Area, which is a circle, centered at the Port with a range big enough to allow 25 SOLs to comfortably fight. Every ship that exists the battle area, counts as a sunk ship.

EDIT3: Solution for the problem where Defenders would just leave the battle to win by draw:

Quote

Counting the kills, if no kills its a draw and defender will win it.  Defender takes suprises and sails against the wind, avoid battle for the duration -> Win guaranteed for defender. No wait, Lynx is the fastest ship!

The solution are the coastal defenses. They can´t run so if the defenders run, the attackers just need to take the coastal defenses out and win by points.

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by stormridersp

[Koltes]

Totally support. The new PB mechanics fail for the following reasons:
1. This is arcade mechanics
2. This kills most of the fleet tactics used to sink other ships
3. This is plain boring and no fun at all
4. This will NEVER be balanced, making BF3 style map needs to have other BF3 mechanics. Specifically - equal numbers and always equal positioning in relation to cap circles
5. Numbers will now always be > skills and teamwork

@stormridersp +1 with one addition. Side are getting points equal to the BR of the sunk ships. In order to win one team needs to reach certain BR in points. Thats it!
Oh, and timer should stay 1,5 hour mate. Sometimes its barely enough to sink all the bas..rds

[stormridersp]

20 minutes ago, rediii said:

You guys focus too much on realistic battles. Lets see how it is ingame.

Counting the kills, if no kills its a draw and defender will win it.  Defender takes suprises and sails against the wind, avoid battle for the duration -> Win guaranteed for defender. No wait, Lynx is the fastest ship!

 

The actual portbattlemechanic is realy realy good. the points needed to win should be a bit higher though. Maybe 1500?

 

If you do it with BR again the kiting will start all over again. Seems like you don't know what this means so i will explain ... Instawin for defenders because they just need to run.

 

I like it that it isnt balanced at all. it is so dynamic that you can have fun with the battles for years. the old portbattlemechanic with equal starting positions etc. was boring and the first moves were clear to everyone.

 

there are much more tactics involved in the new system than in the old one.

Thanks for the heads up, added your suggestion to OP.

[Redman29]

1 minute ago, rediii said:

best possible solution. Devs should take a look at this! oh wait..  

Yeah, but it also puts in you in a situation where there's a good chance no one will be able to win, especially in 4th rate Port Battles where the current stronghull ships are almost unsinkable.

[Redman29]

Just now, rediii said:

Oh i though he meant the mechanic like it is right now. doing it with points is realy perfect.

 

The mechanic right now is the best possible solution in my oppinion. only the points generated or the max points should be tweaked a little bit.

Yeah, would agree with that. Castries yesterday is a perfect example of how I think port battles to be and they really do mirror the historical battles of the time at least that one did. 

Both fleets made their opening moves as a fleet and once contact was made it quickly turned into several individual ship/area fights over the map, (which is what Nelson preferred). For fleet commanders it's harder true b/c it is impossible to micromanage the fleet but it promotes the use of area/squadron commanders. 

And that battle was won with a lot of ships sunk on the French side and quite a few ships sunk on the British side with several heavily damaged (I know b/c I spent the last 30 minutes of that battle trying to stay alive, lol) And, even though the Defender has the advantage slightly with the initiate point accumulation it is equaled out by the attacker having twice the area to chose their initial fleet position and usually starting with the wind. 

The system is not perfect, but it is a far step above the previous system.

[Elric]

I'd like to see reduced the points scored for just outnumbering your opponent.  Possession of the circle shouldn't give you that much benefit if you don't attack and sink the defending ships.  The current system would probably work better with the scoring adjusted to give more points for sinking/capturing ships, and less for just outnumbering your opponent.  With fortification capping or destroying not being required, it's allowed attacking fleets to just stand off if they have the numerical advantage.  

Personally, I think the fortifications should come into play more - either with the towers being in closer proximity to the capture circles, or as a required capture/kill requirement like before.

I know this has been posted in other threads before, but we need to have a better mix of ships in PB's.  Currently it is all 1st rates, or all 4th rates or all shallow ships.  It would be nice to force a mix of ships in each battle - and give 2nd and 3rd rate ships more to do... 

 

 

[SirSamuelHood]

Remember that Trafalgar-esque battles were incredibly rare. That's why it had such a huge impact on Britain's sea control for the next few centuries, and that's why it was treated with such awe at the time that it happened.

 

Battle of the Saintes, only 4/33 French ships were captured, the rest fled, yet this remained a decisive British victory and ended France's plans to nab the wealthy sugar-producing colonies in the Caribbean. Why? Because the French were hopelessly outmaneuvered. French Captains weren't following signals correctly, the British took advantage of the changing wind (France had started with the weather on their side) and split the French line and caused great disorder.

 

Battle of Chesapeake Bay. A decisive French victory where no ships were destroyed during the battle (though HMS Terrible, 74, had to be scuttled after the battle due to wounds incurred). Why did the British lose? Failure to follow signals correctly, the British ships dawdled and arrived in battle piecemeal, an entire squadron under Hood interpreted a signal for maintaining the line to take precedence above a further signal for close action, and thus never even significantly engaged with the enemy.

 

In naval warfare at the time, a lot more victories were accomplished by outmaneuvering, outwitting, and making capital of the enemy's potential failure to engage properly, than by actually annihilating their fleet. I think that should be kept in mind for any large battle mechanic like this.

Edited January 5, 2017 by SirSamuelHood

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

The land-in-battles are an improvement over the floating tower for sure, but here is what i suggest:

 

-No cap circles at sea: Circling in 1st rate to stay on virtual flag zone don't makes a lot of sense, one Pickle able to deny the control of a zone to an Ocean too.

 

-Instead move the 3 zones in land and make them in possession of the defenders (two forts one town or 1 fort one tower 1 town), each can be capped in boarding action (small circles near shores/shallow where ennemy ships can have a boarding option.) each zone can be destroyed from mortars (and each destroyed zone give 1/3 of the victory points required.) Zones can be recapped by defenders if not destroyed.

 

-Each owned land zone give points per minutes to the owner if not destroyed so that battles is win by the defenders if they keep each zone for 1,5hours.

 

-Sinking a ship give no victory points, if one of the teams have no one live 10, 20 or 30mn after the pb start, it's a loss.

 

 

That way:

--> No running for the defenders or attackers will just have to cap the zones (No running for attacking team for obvious reasons)

--> Defending fleet will not be able to just sit in front of their zone or the attacker's mortar will just have to destroy them from distance.

--> A fleet in better condition will not see his victory denied by a same number of wrecks floating in a cap circle in survival mode.

--> Fleets will clash either to destroy mortars or gain acces to boarding zones.

--> Defenders can have a slight advantage in that attackers may have to choose to come with some mortar brigs instead of full 1st rate or approach the forts.

 

What do you think ?

 

[SirSamuelHood]

7 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

What do you think ?

I definitely think that having to thwart the port's defences rather than hold two circles would be a good measure for victory. 

[Yar Matey]

I envision port battles being about taking control of the port and either capturing or destroying the towers.  If the attacking team manages to destroy or capture all the towers (or most of them) and take the port, they win.  Also, attackers should be allowed 2 more ships so they can bring mortar brigs to the battle. 

[stormridersp]

2 hours ago, rediii said:

Counting the kills, if no kills its a draw and defender will win it.  Defender takes suprises and sails against the wind, avoid battle for the duration -> Win guaranteed for defender. No wait, Lynx is the fastest ship!

The solution are the coast defenses. They can´t run so if the defenders run, the attackers just need to take the coastal defenses out.

[stormridersp]

1 minute ago, rediii said:

Just a little thinking about the "take the defences out and battle is won" thing.

 

25 Ships on both sides. I Only have to sail to the towers, ram the tower to insastop and board the tower/fort. I split my fleet into 5 groups, 5 ships each. can the defender even defend this?

No, your assumption is wrong. If the defenders flee, then by taking out the coastal defenses gives the attackers just enough points to win. If the defenders decide to stay and fight, then the coastal defenses represent points like any other ship, perhaps a bit more.

[stormridersp]

10 minutes ago, rediii said:

I dont even have to shoot ships anymore. everyone bring charge and sail in a single line at the coastline and destroy towers with some broadsides and forts with full boarding layouts

Even if that was the case, that would give the defenders a tactical thinking opportunity in such way to prevent such scenario, emphasizing a basic concept of naval combat and the purpose of a navy, according  to one of the greatest naval tacticians of our time, Mr. Wayne P. Hughes Jr.

At Sea (1) assures that ou own goods and services are safe, and

(2) that an enemy´s are not.

From the Sea, it (3) guarantees safe delivery of goods and services ashore, and

(4) prevents delivery ashore by an enemy navy.

The Seat of Purpose is on the Land

 

[stormridersp]

1 minute ago, rediii said:

No im away from the shipfleeing because you now said the battle will be only won if the objectives are taken.

my question now is: Is it even possbible to effectivly defend objectives with ships that are so tanky like we have them ingame?

 

We have no mechanic to zone someone, i basicly dont care to sail slightly angled towards a broadside because it doesnt realy do enough damage. as soon as the attacking fleet is close enough to shoot the towers they will and destroy it with a few broadsides (1st rate battles) and just sail on to the next objective to board / destroy it.

 

if the attacker decides to brawl the enemy he will probably loose so much time that, even if he wins, he will have troubles to get to the objectives far away from the brawlposition. if the wind is bad it even is impossible because you maybe need 30 minutes to even reach the towers far away with bad wind

 

mechanics need always a deep thought and i think dev's did a good job with the zones. like someone already wrote, fleets didnt fight until the last ship sank and this is pretty much the mechanic right now. 

 

so what you suggest is:

- remove the zones

- remove the points

- battle is won for attacker if he takes or destroyed every fort/towe

- battle is won for defender if 1 objective is alive at the end of the battletimer

 

worst possible outcome: attacker focuses entirely on forts/towers, destroyes all of them. Ships sank on attackerside: 20; ships sank on defender side: 0; outcome: attacker won the battle because...

Or did i get something from the suggestion wrong/left something out?

 

Or is it with points and killing all objectives is not equal to winning the battle? But then again, why should i attack ships?

 

if attacker destroys 1 fort and has point advantage, does he only needs to run because at the end the one with more points wins?

 

please write down the exact winningconditions for attackers/defenders of your suggestion  

 

My suggestions are updated in the OP as people provide new ideas.

Currently they are:

1- Remove the silly king of the hill mechanics, that is, to race towards a marked area and stay there until winning points are reached, even if that means that no shots are fired.

2- Points are calculated by ship sunk + coastal defenses sunk or survived.

3- Stalemate is broken by a 1.5 hours battle timer or either team is destroyed or left the battle, whatever comes first.

4- Points draw gives the win to the defenders, which cant just flee from battle because of the fact that Forts also give points when destroyed or damaged

5- Defenders have just enough time to position its ships before decisive engagement, let´s say that defenders are allowed to join in the port battle 10 minutes before it opens to the attackers.

 

What to think now is how to calculate the points, in such a way that a decisive battle is the only and most rewarding path to victory.

 

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

 

38 minutes ago, rediii said:

Just a little thinking about the "take the defences out and battle is won" thing.

 

25 Ships on both sides. I Only have to sail to the towers, ram the tower to insastop and board the tower/fort. I split my fleet into 5 groups, 5 ships each. can the defender even defend this?

Isnt the best practice then to bring a 25 ppl boarding fleet, ram with 5 ships in each objective and board it? is there anything the defender can do except fireshipping the 5 ships clumbed up at the objectives?

 

I don't think full boarding attacking team would be that viable, ofc if you could damage and sink your ship by running aground in game that would work even better, but in my idea, boarding zones are very small ( like for 2 or 3 ships max in ) and in the field of fire or the forts and towers, that way if attackers split in 5 x 5 groups, defenders can split in 3 groups forming a wall to deny the acces to the zone for rage boarders, plus don't forget forts have some punch and capping a fort is not insta win, just a capped zone producing victory points defenders can recap. And it is as you said very wind dependant. If the shores cause a problem to you let the zone be just next to the shores so a grounded ship can't board.

Same for a 25 mortar brigs attack, if such fleet pass through screening action and survive long enought to destroy the 3 zones, i think let it be. 

Zones hp/marines ratio/firepower can be adjusted if necessary, same for the global br.

[Jorge]

What if we limit the number of ships per class? In fact, there has never been a naval battle of 25 first against another 25 first. I think tactically it would be much more fun and with more options. Multiple strategies and finally we would give to use to SoL of 2 and 3 class.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

6 minutes ago, Jorge said:

What if we limit the number of ships per class? In fact, there has never been a naval battle of 25 first against another 25 first. I think tactically it would be much more fun and with more options. Multiple strategies and finally we would give to use to SoL of 2 and 3 class.

But even the whole french fleet did not have 25 first rate by that time so no need to compare. I would prefer more diversity, but limiting the 1st rate slots would cause too many problems and frustrations inside each nation i think.

1 minute ago, rediii said:

i dont care about shipwalls, i just punch trough the front or rear of a ship and im ready to board the tower/fort.

 

If defender can recap them it will be too difficult for attackers to win because attacker only has to kill mortarbrig and wins the battle by fighting in fort range.

even more in favor of the defender.

I still don't see how full boarding team would be more viable than when it was the floating martellos system, rageboarding them was possible and when doing so you was invulnerable, yet you didn't win them by bringing 25 rageboarders, towers and forts are not capped on just a round plus if you cap a fort, you still have to defend it and survive, seems fair to me.

Plus you seems to forget boarding is being reworked.

[stormridersp]

12 minutes ago, rediii said:

I dont like the idea to be honest.

as soon as the defender has enough points gathered to have more than all forts+towers combined give they just have to run again. 

Attacker = 0 points

Defender = 305 points

2 Forts available to kill = 300 points

 

Defender runs away because many are close to death. Attacker takes the forts, battle is still lost.

Thatd be a decisive victory already, with far more combat action that current system, isn´t?

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

 Re-read what i've said in my first post, obj gives points - attacker have to kill or cap obj to stop defenders to win (they start with the 3 obj) - Destroying one obj give 1/3 of total required and deny the possibility  for def to recap but def is still gaining points from the 2 last obj so def is still going to win, just slower - Boarding give you control of the zone and so you start to gather points. I let you imagine multiple combinations leading to the victory of one side or another. 

I don't see how running would be viable, if defs runs attackers can cap or destroy all zone and will win, if attackers run, defs win by default. Defs can still win with one fort if attack simply destroyed two obj or capped them too late in the game. If attack cap all zone while defenders are 1 point from the victory, attack can win, they just have to don't lose a single zone from now and until they get the required victory points. 

[Koltes]

9 hours ago, rediii said:

You guys focus too much on realistic battles. Lets see how it is ingame.

Counting the kills, if no kills its a draw and defender will win it.  Defender takes suprises and sails against the wind, avoid battle for the duration -> Win guaranteed for defender. No wait, Lynx is the fastest ship!

 

The actual portbattlemechanic is realy realy good. the points needed to win should be a bit higher though. Maybe 1500?

 

If you do it with BR again the kiting will start all over again. Seems like you don't know what this means so i will explain ... Instawin for defenders because they just need to run.

 

I like it that it isnt balanced at all. it is so dynamic that you can have fun with the battles for years. the old portbattlemechanic with equal starting positions etc. was boring and the first moves were clear to everyone.

 

there are much more tactics involved in the new system than in the old one.

Again your solution to minor mechanics flaw was to remove the entire mechanic. 

Goal. Defenders should NOT leave the battle and flee. Why? Becase that leave the city unprotected. In fact no one should leave the battle and win.

Solution. Leave one middle A circle which gives 1 BR point every second if no enemy ships are in the circle. The circle needs to be a little bit bigger to allow for some manuevers, but in no way near as large as previons PB. If both sides are in the circle in any numbers (even one ship) then no one is getting any points. Also If no enemy ship present in the circle after 5 mins it gives 5 points every second.

Winning condition still - accumulate more BR. If defenders will run and no fires were exchanged they will lose on 1 BR every second for the first 5 mins and 5 BR points per second after that. L

Gain first hand BR advantage and then running leaving behind one ship in the circle also will not work as exploit. The ship will be sunk quickly and ship's BR will be accumulated + BR points gaining per second. If running team was winning way more on BR difference this means they were killing more ships anyway and should be in stronger position not to run. 

Captain can choose to escape the battle if he is low on HP and about to sink, but leaving the battle counts as a kill for the enemy and the enemy gets the BR points.

This mechanics is like a roundabout in England/Aussie/NZ. It sorts itself out depending on the traffic with no need of artificial regulatory of the traffic lights.

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by koltes

[Fletch]

Has anyone actually thought a few smaller faster ships might be useful in a ship of the line port battle when comes to capturing circles. Seems people still think of the 25 of the biggest ship meta is the way to go. I was hoping we could get away from 25 of the same ship battles.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

I understand your point of view, that's why i've said the cap zones are an improvement over the previous pb system.

 Problem is they don't communicate, they make polls, ask feedbacks but we never heard with precision what they choose for the game or were they are heading, they say: "pirate & boarding rework" "land in pb coming", and one day poof, we discover someone somewhere decided pb are now ow battlefield cap zone game, poof: boarding will be HoMM-like, crew and officer are nothing but magical perks, we can just gess what pirate will become.

If it's final let's be it, topic is closed. But like many things in naval action, it's not that far from perfect in my opinion, in fact it's very close but it's hard to find if devs know that, if they are pleased with the product as it is, if the last effort is too much for them or if they have no idea were they are going. 

I'm sorry to say that but looking 1 years back, the game didn't change that much for the players, i see a lot of dev work, a huge work from a small dev team in such a short period of time so i am patient.

 But one year back, with my friends who backed the project from the start we were telling ourselves: "it's the start of the ow, it's placeholders, look what they said, exploration, land in port battles etc.."  What i see now is i am the last who play it, and every single change  are "placeholders tuning" and few major technical improvement (land in battles) Trade & eco is still broke, we got more and more arcadish additions (events, perks, cap zones, hostility bombs) , but we get away from the promised immersive and coherent world (eco / trade / craft still needing a lot of work) Combat is the most advanced feature of the game atm, that's why i was expecting port battle really standing out.

 Yes cap circles are better than floating martellos towers, but it is just a slight improvement who will please the actual pb playerbase but will never bring new player (or old) to take a look into naval action, play and pay for it. So making the extra effort could be worth it no mater how long it takes but it better be now than later, end things one after one, don't change something, then go to another then go back to the first, take thing one after another. PB is now the thing that keep everything live, so don't take it too lightly, or you will end with 25 total active players per nation, the 25 vets who liked floating towers and now can enjoy cap circles. 

 

 

[Angus McGregor]

5 hours ago, rediii said:

furthermore, i think a change to the portbattlemechanic again would suck too many ressources from the dev team. with the time to change the portbattlemechanic (which are not a problem atm in my oppinion and way better than what we had before) they could work on other real problems (Hostility, RoE, Crafting, alliance bug, OW sailprofiles) or new content (different missionstypes (like attacking a fort or something), raids, [instanced?]treasure fleets, some kind of pirate mechanics, bountyhunting, clanflags, clanmechanics, better warehouse, UI ... ).

Geez yes. First - there hasn't been enough time, the jury should still be out. Suggest *tweaks* sure, but man we have got to stop asking the devs to change the world when something isn't *exactly* what we'd hoped or wanted. Guess what, they listen and then we're back to square one on figuring out what went wrong. I don't even do PB's but the video's I've seen look like a much more interesting mixture of planned tactics and utter mayhem. There's MUCH bigger and better fish to fry than an overhaul of PB's yet again.

The only flat note for me is the inability of the attackers to actually begin the PB at a specific moment. Waiting for wind advantage? Not sure what admin was thinking when discussing that. Ain't gonna happen when the timer has started and points are accumulating from an exact moment determined 46 hrs earlier. For attackers to be able to wait, the defenders shouldn't be able to join and the timer shouldn't start until the first attacker enters the PB. Just limit the time window beyond the 46hr point to something like 15 minutes so the attackers can't dilly-dally waiting for *perfect* conditions.