Anolytic Posted May 6, 2019 Posted May 6, 2019 This is nothing new, it is well known, and it has been noted before in the forum. It is a feature or a bug depending on how you see it. However it is worth to mention it again to let Devs consider before release. The issue, if it is one, is this: In Port Battles against neutral ports it is possible for a nation to get an almost endless number of captains into the PB and earn Lord Protectorates. And thus earn Victory Marks. In other words, while normally a port would earn a nation up to 25 Victory Marks, it is possible for a nation to get 30-40 Victory Marks generated out of a single Port. That is per week. The system that makes this possible is a feature that was added some time ago: If a player leaves battle in the first 20 minutes of a PB without having inflicted or received damage in the PB to that point, his Battle Rating and his «slot» in the PB is restored to his team in the PB. In other words his side can join another ship to replace his BR and number without exceeding either the BR limit or the 25-player limit. Case in point, if you have 25 players in a PB and you are exactly at the Battle Rating limit for that PB. One player in Agamemnon can leave the battle, and another player can join the battle. But only if the first Agamemnon did not fire at anyone or get shot at, and it is within the first 20 minutes. So this would never mean that one side could have more than 25 players on their side. Nor would they be able to have more than the BR limit in the battle at any time. So it cannot be used in that way to gain an advantage in a contested battle. The feature in itself is a great and much used one. Introduced to us because it did, and still does, happen that someone joined a PB who was too eager and not supposed to. Or he was in the wrong ship. Then you can kindly convince him to leave the battle, and let the original member of your party join. Also there are, and were, cases where a player who was supposed to be in the PB, would discover in the beginning of the battle that he was experiencing particular lags or connection issues, or a ship could even disconnect and drop out. Then this player could, in the first 20 minutes, be replaced by someone better able to fight in the battle. This is a much appreciated feature. But it can also be used, in battles for Neutral Ports, where there is no dangerous opposition, to generate more Lord Protectorates than originally intended. Because a player that was in a PB, whether he left after 2 minutes or stayed till the end, will get a Lord Protectorate as long as his side won. The situation is demonstrated in this screenshot from Harbour Island: Note that in the screenshot I took, my character’s name is not on the list of the first 25 players to join the battle. He is way down the list from that. Now, we have been discussing between ourselves whether the core mechanic at work here, the replacing of ships in the first 20 minutes of battle, could be abused in some way. In theory an attacker could join an entire PB-fleet at one position in the PB, and after the defender has started sailing to that position, the attacker could literally replace their whole fleet for another PB-fleet that would spawn in a different position, unanticipated by the defender, who now may have sailed too far in the wrong direction. Personally I tend to believe there would be little or no possibility to gain any real advantage from this. Just a great risk of abject failure. To the problem of Lord Protectorates, there is an easy solution if we want this possibility removed. As this can only be done against neutral ports or in traded ports, and nobody is harmed by it, I am not sure a solution is really that urgently needed. But the simple solution would be to only count Lord Protectorates for players that stayed past the 20-minute mark of a Port Battle. 3
Barbarosa Posted May 6, 2019 Posted May 6, 2019 In Sweden we did this to maximize VM gain, yet it was not enough to properly build a single 45 point port. I agree, we need more snowballing effects for bigger/active nations. More PB = more VM, less BP = change nation (Russia). Bigger PB BR, insane port upgrades, crazy amount of resources needed to upgrade ports are not enough. Better recommendation would be to open 25 lobby based PB so at least you can test RvR with fully port upgraded ships. No nation except Russia have proper resources for players, port upgrades and ship building. Many people already started to take break till the issues are fixed. I truly understand that many Russian players are longing for RvR success since they couldn't had it by themselves at the places they are coming. Still fair-play could benefit this game more. Justice in healthy society is established by protecting the weak against the strong. It is beyond my understanding why gamelabs insist on rewarding winner side immensely and punishing defeated side very harshly. You win a PB, sinking 10 1st rates. Depending on PB upgrades, defeated side also lost "irreplaceable, insane" amount of victory marks, combat marks, doubloons and may be strategic resources. You don't need to be genius to understand that very few can recover from such serious loss. Recent RvR patch ideas were great, but terrible with implementation, as usual. 5
Licinio Chiavari Posted May 6, 2019 Posted May 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, Barbarosa said: In Sweden we did this to maximize VM gain, yet it was not enough to properly build a single 45 point port. I agree, we need more snowballing effects for bigger/active nations. More PB = more VM, less BP = change nation (Russia). Bigger PB BR, insane port upgrades, crazy amount of resources needed to upgrade ports are not enough. Better recommendation would be to open 25 lobby based PB so at least you can test RvR with fully port upgraded ships. No nation except Russia have proper resources for players, port upgrades and ship building. Many people already started to take break till the issues are fixed. I truly understand that many Russian players are longing for RvR success since they couldn't had it by themselves at the places they are coming. Still fair-play could benefit this game more. Justice in healthy society is established by protecting the weak against the strong. It is beyond my understanding why gamelabs insist on rewarding winner side immensely and punishing defeated side very harshly. You win a PB, sinking 10 1st rates. Depending on PB upgrades, defeated side also lost "irreplaceable, insane" amount of victory marks, combat marks, doubloons and may be strategic resources. You don't need to be genius to understand that very few can recover from such serious loss. Recent RvR patch ideas were great, but terrible with implementation, as usual. One of the best analysis of the effects of game (un-) balances that could (are on the verge of) totally destroy a game. Any MMO needs a playerbase. An HEALTHY playerbase. In real world warfare it's fair and right to keep pushing when winning to transform victories in the Final Victory. But this is a warGAME. The aim is not the Final Victory: the pleasure lays in the battles. If a side, surely thanks to a mix of personal skill, leadership and game features (and luck, that's part of warfare in all history) can rule the whole game, 'de facto' overrunning any opposition, they surely 'win' the game, but getting the most Pyrrhic victory in history. It's beyond my understanding how Devs could think to have a living and striving MMO on these basis. As stated: great ideas but terribly shortsighted implementation. And the most incredible part is: every experienced captain and leader recognized all these problems at first glance, as anyone knows perfectly who's the alphadog and that the same alphadog will be only stronger and stronger every day widening the gap to the point that's already right now is probably too big to close. And the same alphadog looks really dumb: when almost the whole map will be under the same flag and every enemy ship will be a shop one, will they enjoy the game? Are they already really enjoying hours in PZs 20+ vs almost nobody and surely no competitive opposition? BTW, an unseen extra side effect of port upgrades and today game features: in the past the overgrowth of a nation often lead sooner or later quite some veterans swapping nation being unable to find a fair amount of enemies and so battles. Now? who will drop ports fully upgraded, granted the bonuses got and the amount of resources spent, to restart elsewhere? 7
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now