BR Port Limits Poll

[Gregory Rainsborough]

No-one I speak to seems happy with port BR limits at the moment.

Would like to see what everyone else thinks.

[OjK]

 

[z4ys]

Would like to have a 4th option that its actual bound to economic wealth and/or port bonus/ points

[Teutonic]

if Devs wanted an incredibly easy change.

just reduce ALL port BRs by 50%.

boom, you solved it.

[Guest]

I really enjoyed how variable port BR used to be. Sometimes a port was strategic only because its BR was small enough for a small clan to hold it with low BR. Now every single 45 point port is a first rate battle.

[Slim McSauce]

If you lower BR you lower the size of PBs.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[OjK]

1 minute ago, Slim McSauce said:

If you lower BR you lower the size of PBs.

The ship size. Not the fleet size.

People will just bring more 3rd rates instead of L'Oceans only

[Slim McSauce]

Just now, OjK said:

The ship size. Not the fleet size.

People will just bring more 3rd rates instead of L'Oceans only

There are already ports with BR like that. 
From what I've heard, no one is happy with RVR period.
Not sure if your poll offers the improvement people are looking for.

You can reduce the BR and go back to some ports only fitting 6-10 players a side,
but that's not really what RVR sounds like it's suppose to mean.


 

[OjK]

14 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

There are already ports with BR like that. 
From what I've heard, no one is happy with RVR period.
Not sure if your poll offers the improvement people are looking for.

You can reduce the BR and go back to some ports only fitting 6-10 players a side,
but that's not really what RVR sounds like it's suppose to mean.

Due to Frontlines system, You always have to go for Capital.

In Capital You always have to bring 25 L'Oceans.

It doesn't matter there are ports with 10.000 BR as they are not the targets.
If they would - that would be probably really nice place for battles with all SOLs, mostly 3rds.

But it does not matter, cause You fight for 25.000 BR ports. 
Because Frontlines.

[Teutonic]

7 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

There are already ports with BR like that. 
From what I've heard, no one is happy with RVR period.
Not sure if your poll offers the improvement people are looking for.

You can reduce the BR and go back to some ports only fitting 6-10 players a side,
but that's not really what RVR sounds like it's suppose to mean.


 

If the "Goal" is to make smaller ships more viable, but still "suggest" that port battles should be 4th rates or higher. The goal is also to allow for more variety, do you want a smaller group but heavier ships, or a max 25 group "standard?" something I believe @rediii has consistently asked for was to make 3rd rate ships the "standard" type of ship we use for most, if not all RvR scenarios. We don't want to make 1st rates the only viable end game option for RvR....but currently they are THE only option for successful RvR. lets change that

We are not suggesting having ports where they fit "only" 6-10 people.

 

but again here are some numbers and theoreticals.

reducing Port BR limits by 50%.

55 point ports would go from 25,000 BR - to 12,500 BR

first off, 25 1st rates don't even cap the BR, it's 22,500 BR for 25 900BR ships.

second off, 12,500  BR equals 25 Bellona class ships. In this instance every nation/group could come up with a fleet formation they want, and STILL steer on the lineship side of things. the nation wants to fight with heavy ships? plug in 10 1st rates and then small support...you want a more unified fleet? you can mix and match really nicely.

 

All capital counties go from 20,000 BR to 10,000 BR. 

Again, similar example to the 55 point ports, we go from ports that are basically exclusive to 1st rate fleet, to a more varied approach. 

 

All county ports go from 10,000 BR to 5,000 BR.

lets be honest here, I haven't seen a single port be contested after the county capital gets taken and I'm not sure that will every happen. currently if you lose the capital, the mentality is that you lose the county. So why not make these ports be for smaller rvr fights anyway? 5,000 BR is 14 aggies and some change. want to mix it up a little better? could always do  mixed 4/5th rate fleet, or of course go for the old 5 1st rate fleet.

-------------------------------

I'd 100% much rather have the option to choose the type of fleet the nation could do, instead of be told "we can only accept 1st rates." The reality is that we aren't there yet, but by god we will be soon enough.

Smaller BR also increases the ability for more groups and nations to participate period, whether offensively or defensively, I don't know about you, but I'm thinking people would prefer to be able to have the option to do more instead of knowing that can't even participate.

 

[van der Clam]

BR should be related to the port's economic production value and number of forts. The following is just random number association:

• 1 Fort = 1000 BR
• 1 Tower = 500 BR
• 1 Clan Warehouse = 800 BR
• 1 Production Building = 200 BR

So if a Port has:

• 2 Forts = 2000 BR
• 1 Tower = 500 BR
• 2 Clan Warehouses = 1600 BR
• 1 Oak Forest = 200 BR
• 1 Teak Forest = 200 BR
• 1 Coal Mine = 200
• TOTAL PORT BR = 4,700 BR

Of course, these numbers could be different, but would change based on the number of things available at the port that is created by players of that nation.

EDIT: Also, prime/special wood forests should be valued more, say 300 for White Oak Forests, or maybe twice as much as regular woods. Just somehow related to the cost of investing in these things.

Edited July 3, 2019 by van der Clam

[FKL 1982]

We don't need a new system, the previous BRs were perfect, just revert to those

[Slim McSauce]

6 hours ago, Teutonic said:

but again here are some numbers and theoreticals.

reducing Port BR limits by 50%.

55 point ports would go from 25,000 BR - to 12,500 BR

first off, 25 1st rates don't even cap the BR, it's 22,500 BR for 25 900BR ships.

second off, 12,500  BR equals 25 Bellona class ships. In this instance every nation/group could come up with a fleet formation they want, and STILL steer on the lineship side of things. the nation wants to fight with heavy ships? plug in 10 1st rates and then small support...you want a more unified fleet? you can mix and match really nicely.

 

All capital counties go from 20,000 BR to 10,000 BR. 

Again, similar example to the 55 point ports, we go from ports that are basically exclusive to 1st rate fleet, to a more varied approach. 

Ok I'm convinced. I do not like mono-first rate fleet battles. There should be some sort of cap either directly with a ship rate limit, or through BR.
BUT I do like having 25 1st rates within the battle if that makes sense. I really do not like how cracked down PB's are to only allow a max of 50 players.
If there was a more open ended approach to port battles, like tonnage war on the OW near the port or something I would be pleased. The single instance approach severely limits possibilities. I like everyone being able to be involved and bring whatever. I don't like how the previous BR made 6v6 1st rate battles a thing. Ports are too important for a nation to be decided by a miniscule group of people like that, which is why I would not let clans decide BR.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Farrago]

6 hours ago, Intrepido said:

It is sad to see a game so unique uncapable of reaching its full potential cause of badly balanced features.

Yes. My thoughts exactly. 

[AeRoTR]

11 hours ago, van der Clam said:

BR should be related to the port's economic production value and number of forts. The following is just random number association:

• 1 Fort = 1000 BR
• 1 Tower = 500 BR
• 1 Clan Warehouse = 800 BR
• 1 Production Building = 200 BR

So if a Port has:

• 2 Forts = 2000 BR
• 1 Tower = 500 BR
• 2 Clan Warehouses = 1600 BR
• 1 Oak Forest = 200 BR
• 1 Teak Forest = 200 BR
• 1 Coal Mine = 200
• TOTAL PORT BR = 4,700 BR

Of course, these numbers could be different, but would change based on the number of things available at the port that is created by players of that nation.

EDIT: Also, prime/special wood forests should be valued more, say 300 for White Oak Forests, or maybe twice as much as regular woods. Just somehow related to the cost of investing in these things.

Wow, what a great idea !

So port should have some set BR according to port points or other stuff. And you can add these additional BR coming from investments on top of that.

Edited July 4, 2019 by AeRoTR

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Either way, seems we're all agreed that the current system sucks and people would rather go back to the previous one at the very least.

[Teutonic]

7 hours ago, rediii said:

BR's of 2600 sucked. They exclude a lot of players.

A bit less BR would be fine but rather work on a alliancemechanic

Agreed yes.

Unfortunately BRs of 20k -25k also exclude entire nations when it comes to port contestion against other players.

A 50% drop in all deep water BR right now would solve my gripes about it. 

Reduce BR on shallow ports by about 500 would be great too.

[Gregory Rainsborough]

@admin is halving the BR until an improved system can be put in place a possibility?

[Vizzini]

I'm firmly of the mind that the clan themselves should decide what they want the BR to be, same as their timer and their tax

[Guest]

The real struggle is that all the smaller PBs are locked behind capitals which are always big BR pbs.

Theres no room for small elite RVR clans cause they cant RVR till a capital is toppled.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, rediii said:

They wouldnt exclude entire nations anymore when a alliancemechanic would be in place.

 

small BR portbattles just lead to elite groups again that exclude a lot of players. Actually HAVOC only started recruiting again because of portbattle limits. Else we would have stayed a small group

thats because it was more value with 5 l'oceans over 13 4th rates though

Edited July 4, 2019 by Guest

[Slim McSauce]

4 minutes ago, Flinch said:

The real struggle is that all the smaller PBs are locked behind capitals which are always big BR pbs.

Theres no room for small elite RVR clans cause they cant RVR till a capital is toppled.

Small elite groups can already dominate pvp. Why should they dominate region V region? 

Edited July 4, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Slim McSauce said:

Small elite groups can already dominate pvp. Why should they dominate region V region? 

Why shouldn't they be able to claim a low BR port specifically designed to be low BR so small clans can contest??

Oh right, frontlines is arbitrary.

You didnt even make an argument. You asked me to give points as to why elite pvp clans should be able to do something. But actually you should be telling me why they should be arbitrarily barred from small port RVR.

 

[van der Clam]

4 minutes ago, Flinch said:

Why shouldn't they be able to claim a low BR port specifically designed to be low BR so small clans can contest??

Oh right, frontlines is arbitrary.

You didnt even make an argument. You asked me to give points as to why elite pvp clans should be able to do something. But actually you should be telling me why they should be arbitrarily barred from small port RVR.

 

They're not excluded from PB RvR. They just have to do it with other clans, then they can go RvR by themselves on the smaller ports.

Edited July 4, 2019 by van der Clam

[Slim McSauce]

1 minute ago, Flinch said:

Why shouldn't they be able to claim a low BR port specifically designed to be low BR so small clans can contest??

Oh right, frontlines is arbitrary.

You didnt even make an argument. You asked me to give points as to why elite pvp clans should be able to do something. But actually you should be telling me why they should be arbitrarily barred from small port RVR.

 

Small BR parts that only allow a handful of elite players, or clans being allowed to set low BR so only 10 or so players per side can join IS the arbitration, and you're the one defending it so I ask you why should a small group of elite players be able to set the playing field small when the area of the port can easily fit hundreds of ships.