Why are there deep water ports with less BR than shallows

[Slim McSauce]

I just don't get the point, why have deepwater ports with sub 3k BR, that's only like a 10 ship battle. Is that seriously what RVR is suppose to be? That's a small raid at best.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Archaos]

It was to allow smaller clans to compete in RvR and not just restrict them to shallow ports.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Archaos said:

It was to allow smaller clans to compete in RvR and not just restrict them to shallow ports.

That's dumb. There are other ways to give small clans content without completely bludgeoning RVR with the short stick.

[Jake Newport]

You can also fill the BR with 20 small ships. Some shallow water ports are also just more important then some deep water ports so does make sense to me

[Archaos]

4 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

That's dumb. There are other ways to give small clans content without completely bludgeoning RVR with the short stick.

I think the general conversation that went on at the time was that it was hard sometimes to generate enough enthusiasm to get 25 people to turn up for some of the smaller worthless ports and with the battles becoming more clan and friends I think it was logical to have some smaller port battles. Plus if all the deepwater ports were large BR battles then you would only have 1st rate port battles, the smaller BR allows battles for lower rated ships.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Archaos said:

I think the general conversation that went on at the time was that it was hard sometimes to generate enough enthusiasm to get 25 people to turn up for some of the smaller worthless ports and with the battles becoming more clan and friends I think it was logical to have some smaller port battles. Plus if all the deepwater ports were large BR battles then you would only have 1st rate port battles, the smaller BR allows battles for lower rated ships.

That's funny because back then we had rate limits for shallow, 4th and SOL ports so there was no issue.

Maybe there wasn't much enthusiasm because RVR just isn't that great? It certainly isn't any more spectacular than a regular 25v25 battle near the coast. 

Bad move, instead of adding small clan content that isn't capturing/holding massive ports, they made everything small and forced everyone into 6 man teams which makes no sense scale wise for a game.

[Sir Texas Sir]

52 minutes ago, Archaos said:

It was to allow smaller clans to compete in RvR and not just restrict them to shallow ports.

This is flawed though cause that same fleet can be screened out of the PB every time by a much larger fleet over and over so the limit doesn't really help them it actually can hurt them.  Before folks say they should get friends and screeners, if they had those numbers they wouldn't be hitting small BR ports in the first place.  Though I don't want it to go to lobbies either so stick to what we got.  Though would be nice ot have  a few more deep water big BR ports.  Seems a lot of the ports are in the mid rang.  Than again when was the last time most of us gather 25+ players  of a port batte.  I think only a few nations can do so.

[Slim McSauce]

Just seems like intentions were misplaced, having small clans be able to do something in RVR is honorable. But small and RVR are ideologically opposite. You've punished RVR on the large side while not really doing anything for the small (they just get screened out like nothing's changed)

[Sir Texas Sir]

@Wraith but we seen small clans try that only to get screened out by some third party buddy that wiped the fleet out on the way.  I also think there should be designated small clan ports.  That you can't own those ports if you have 10 or more ports all ready.  That leaves ports for the small clans and nations to fight over and not worry about some big nation or mega clan wiping them out.

Cause I thought the whole reason for the lower BR was to give those small clans and nations a chances, which they still don't get in OW.  I don't want lobby rooms, but by doing some ports (and we are talking about none important ports) set a side for small clans.  That are make the port owner cap 25 so one clan can't own half the server.  They have to pick which ports are important to them after all.  I think the port maintenance is helping more with this as they have to keep some ports open, but other than for VM's why would I want a useless port?

[Guest]

The only real complaint Im seeing as that there isnt enough space in the port battles for some of you in big nations to participate. We certainly dont have that problem in prussia.

Screening is effective but beatable (Americans brought 40 to New Smyrna against 12 prussians but look at who owns the port now.) 

If you want big battles attack big BR ports. If your small like Prussia and the danes then attack managable ports. The system serves everyone. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Guest

[Slim McSauce]

Less important ports? Almost half of the US coast is sub 3k BR which although you insist is fine and dandy MAKES NO SENSE GAMEPLAY WISE!

[Elric]

Generally I think the current system works.  I would like to see 4th rates and smaller in some of the smaller deep water PB's.  Or maybe 2nds rates and smaller to give some love to the 3nd rates.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, ElricTheTwo said:

Generally I think the current system works.  I would like to see 4th rates and smaller in some of the smaller deep water PB's.  Or maybe 2nds rates and smaller to give some love to the 3nd rates.

It worked better before. We had 4th rate battles where you couldn't do 5 1st rates, you had to do 15+ 4th rates which is much funner and appropriate.

If pb's are being run by 5 guys the system is bad. That's a joke for RVR.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Wraith said:

Why is that a joke for RvR?  RvR is not just about the port battle and I think that's the thing you're not appreciating. Good 25 man screening battles were far more common and fun surrounding Russian battles for Cartagena, etc., and if successful made the port battle fleet twiddle their thumbs while we had all the fun wrecking a couple of 25 man screening fleets and the port battle ships.

For smaller BR ports and a small clan that might own that port, there's content there.  I just don't see the gripe holds merit when you start to examine the diversity of battles, strategy involved in ship selection and fleet composition is absolutely critical now. It generates far more interesting PvP in this system than we had before.

So we can have 25v25 screening battles but only 5v5 PBs? Why does that make sense? these are all deep water ports.

5v5 PBs of 1st rates is not fun or interesting. You could have limited ports by how many SOLs they can have. How the heck is RVR suppose to get any better when it's limited to 10-15 people? You're killing RVR this way by choking it to only 1% of people can actually participate.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Wraith said:

You do realize there are 25 v 25 RvR ports out there right? Why can't there be a diversity of BR limits that forces some of that strategic thinking and planning?

Every PB should fit 25v25, or else it's a sham not worth any serious person looking for a game with conquest. If we pride ourselves on being an accurate representation of 18th century age of sail, we should stop making conquest of all things into a CSGO type 5v5. 

I will never see the sense in making RVR even smaller than the engine limits it to. That's just reprehensible.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Wraith said:

LOL, why?  That's like saying all basketball should be played 5 vs. 5 or not at all... or there's no room in life for anything other than card games meant to be played with four players.

Plenty of ports were taken/captured with one or two ships landing marines and blockading the port while the fort was taken.  I fail to see why we can't have RvR prosecuted with fleets comprised of fewer than 25 ships.

Hell, most nations have a problem putting together 25 man port battle-ready players as it is!  So what you're basically prosecuting here is let the biggest nation win.

Name one nation with less than 25 players.

Now name one instance where any side would bring less ships to the battle if they could

Now take 100 players in a nation, make their regional capital a 2500br port.

100 people show up to the PB, only 10 can join.

Why not let all 100 in if they all showed up to defend and there is enough space within the battle to fit them?

[Liq]

5 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Now name one instance where any side would bring less ships to the battle if they could

 

Prussia?

Smaller battles are more enjoyable IMHO, since you got more direct impact on the battle result.

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, Liq said:

Prussia?

Smaller battles are more enjoyable IMHO, since you got more direct impact on the battle result.

 

This sums up my point perfectly. A US main port, in deep water can only be defended by...7 guys? That's sad for what NA is. If you wanted small scale combat, there should be other content for you. Don't make ports only rely on a handful of players out of potentially hundreds. These ports aren't your personal arena, they are players ports who would rather not have them easily swiped away by what can hardly be considered a fleet.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Slim McSauce]

15 minutes ago, Wraith said:

New Smyrna is hardly a main port.  And honestly, the U.S. can't really field 25 full, port-battle ready, capable captains either.  And I think that's probably the case for many of the other nations in any one time zone.

This game is not what you think it is.

not your personal arena.  You don't speak for the US (which has well over 25 players at any given time)

You want conquest to be dictated by the same small group of players. You don't want RVR to be big and nation-wide event. You want to pander to yourself and your elite clan. You dont think about if/when this game grows and each nation as 100 players online at anytime. You only want a small % of anyone to participate in RVR.

We need content for small groups, rvr is not it. (it wasn't until recently)

You probably, and I'm not being ironic, would fit better in NAL to get your competitive 5v5s without affecting the map for everyone else

Edited March 20, 2018 by Slim Jimmerson

[Christendom]

I'm kinda on the fence of the new BR port battles vs the old 25v25 style with rates being limited.  On one hand the smaller BR allows smaller nations and clans to compete and given the current population of the game I'm not sure many nations could field 25v25 battles right now....so it's kinda given this game a life line as it circles down the drain.  On the flip side I still feel like some ports should be 25 v 25 with types of ships locked so port battles don't always turn into the big ships follows around small ship type of fights.  I'd prefer some sort of hybrid system for both.

For example, lets say each region has 5 ports.  The capital of that region should be a 25v25 battle with varied rates depending on how important the region.  Important region, 25 1st rates (like cartagena).  Moderate importance, third rates (think George Town), low importance 4ths or shallow ships (something like San Augustin).  Then the rest of the ports in that region could be determined by BR. 

During my time in Russia we had quite a few 25v25 1st rate fights against @rediii and sweden and to be honest, I miss those.  A full 25 has more chess pieces to move around and I feel like there is less "sailing around bored" when it's 25v25 rather than 9 people vs 7.  The epicness of those fights has yet to be recreated I think with the BR PBs.  For example at New Smyrna last night, which is more or less a useless port, I think it was 6 vs 7/8 people.  One side had 4 1st rates in a 2600 BR PB.  Just feels wrong.  Sure you could still bring 25 ships of a certain type, but if one side is rolling 1st rates and all ships kills matter equally.....it would be very easy to get a circle and 10 kills to just end the fight.  I think if we're going to do the BR in PBs method throughout the map, the points lost for each ship needs to be adjusted based on the BR.  Losing a MB vs losing a 1st rate is the same.  Makes no sense.  

Edited March 20, 2018 by ChristenTrash

[Christendom]

2 minutes ago, rediii said:

I thnk 1sts and 2nd should just have more HP and DPS and not also more thickness than 3rds. Making 3rds the most effective ship in PBs and also OW should be a goal. 1sts and 2nds are also way to cheap compared to a 3rd rate.

Also for OW I think that lineships shouldn't be buildable in fir or bermuda. That would buff frigatetraffic in open world. (A fast lineship allways destroys a heavy built frigate)

Safezones are too big and you can do too much stuff there. Players dont care about RvR anymore because they know their nation is safe anyway I think.

Also they don't receive realy a reward for taking a port. Admirality should give them something they want to have.

These big battles would happen still if regions would be important and if more players would be interested in RvR in general. Right now I would start to say RvR is dead. I can't even motivate 5 people to do hostility somewhere.

 

I just hope atm devs do the right thing with pvp missions,  tweak something rvr related to motivate players to do rvr and change 1sts and 2nd rates to make 3rd rates the most used ships in portbattles.

Problem with the BR battles is that people are always gonna bring big ships.  Especially now that 1st rate BR was lowered a bit.  Sometimes I just want to be in a 4th rate and fight other 4th rates and plan battles along those lines.  

But yea this latest patch has pretty much killed RVR.  Why bother grinding hostility when you can just sit back and collect your 1 mark a week

[Jarlath Morrow]

26 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Yeah, but there are 32 capturable ports on the map where BR limits are above 10k.  Sure, you might only be able to get 13-15 first rates in there, but personally there was nothing more boring than 25 v. 25 first rate fights.  Mixed fleet battles are far, far more interesting to create battle and strategies around, and for 10-13k BR ports you can easily construct 25 person fleets that are viable for attacking or defending, depending on the wind/port layout/attacking/defending, etc.

I agree maybe the BR limits could be pushed up a little bit but I say keep the mixed fleet port battles in the game because it makes it possible for small nations and clans to compete.

+1 Some really good points! Especially about mixed fleet battles being far more interesting.

[Thonys]

i think it is a good thing to have some diversity ,and give smaller nations a opportunity at least

but , an also screening is not included in the port battle rating, so there is no problem i think ,you can field as much br as you want there.(for the people who are against the all situan)

 

i rather would say/and see  also  give every ship his own value rating points in a pb  battle..

also losing a victory or loosing a mortar brig at the moment has no impact on losing or winning of the port battle it is treated in the same points (its circle based)

if a pb is shortened on br,  and a certain type amount of ships is fielded (for example a battle : 6 ingermanland  (defenders) against 3 locean (attackers))

then i think losing a victory should have more impact on points than losing a ingermanland  in a battle . 

 

in this example it gets complicated of what decisions you have to make ,for bringing in a ship you can afford to lose without losing the entire battle/ port

here you can field 2250 br on  max ship br [ 2250 br /1575 prr] 

every port battle should have his own (  resistance) rating of a port,  for example:  2250 ship  br max  / and : 1575 points resistance rating PRR 

where 75 % of the total br brought in ship br  is a threshold for ( a resistance /  victory or loss> )  on the port. (the closer to a capital port the more resistance rating )

if a l'ocean  is sunk it cost the pb (let say ) 800 points ( there in this example  you can afford to lose only one locean )

and when you lose a ingerman land it cost 100 points (you see the gap)  and where you  losing a bellona it cost 400 points

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Thonys

[IndianaGeoff]

The balance between big and small ships will not be realized until you have a real advantage for a shallow drafting ship in the battle. Being able to sail a small ship directly to a capture point in a snow while a 2nd rate has to sail around the sand bar and island would do it. Like in historical battles, the big ship would have to sail in the channel while a smaller ship could dip in and out anyplace in the mouth of the port. Some ports should be like this.

[SKurj]

22 hours ago, Christendom said:

Why bother grinding hostility when you can just sit back and collect your 1 mark a week

This my beef with current system... 

I wonder what would happen if you only got that VM the week you became lord protector, not every week until you don't show up to defend that port again...

Well I know what would happen game wise... but how would community react

Edited March 21, 2018 by SKurj