Liquicity

Members
  • Content count

    460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Liquicity last won the day on March 13

Liquicity had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,022 Excellent

2 Followers

About Liquicity

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant
  • Birthday 02/14/1997

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

1,095 profile views
  1. Here's my problem. "extreme" ganking, such as attacking a lone ship in a group of 5, yes that should very much be punished in my opinion, especially if it's in national friendly waters. However, "fair" battles should not be punished. But where to draw the line? Here lays the problem. A bit above I suggested for battles where the attacking side has less or equal BR as the side being attacked, there to be a battleresult screen. if the attackes have more BR, there should be none. But with that there come a few additional problems. Equal BR isn't always equal chances. Also I dont think there is actually a way to implement that.
  2. Actually, at this point, I don't do any RvR anymore, nada, only solo/small group pvping. But I realized we, the solo players, had to take a hit (removal of battle result screen) in order for there to be no more silly ganking 5v1 etc right outside a nation's capital. In my opinion port battles have to be treatened differently, because they're something totally different. 25v25, the side with better tactics / battle idea wins. No ganking involved whatsoever. IMO you shouldn't punish a loss with ultimately losing the ship (as it would result in with there not being anymore battleresult screen). The effect on players morale will be MASSIVE and and attacks would barely happen anymore (just a guess.)
  3. I can see your point Another suggestion: Battleresultscreen stays, IF the attacking side has less or equal BR as the side getting attacked. As soon as the attacking side has more BR than their targets, there won't be any battleresultscreen. Not always the BR actually matches the 'equality' for that suggestion, as for examlpe two experienced connies could easily take out a Victory
  4. This was also the time of conquest flags. PBs could happen spontaneously, you had to be very careful when to use your tp. Now, PBs have a preperation time of 46 hours. that's plenty of time for the defenders to prepare themselves. And as I said, with the removal of tp to freeports, you'll have to sail there. In this case the defenders will, most likely, have the upper hand, since they'll have more 'casual' players. In the attacking fleet, you mostly only see the 'hardcore' guys.
  5. As far as I know devs wanted TP between national ports to stay, or am I mistaken?
  6. In the british faction, PB participants (both screening and the actual PB fleet) varied heavily. On the day the Eastern-Alliance dropped their hepta-hostility-bomb (7 PBs at once, of which 6 were versus the western alliance), we managed to fill every single portbattle with 25 players. That's 150 players alone in the port battles on our side. Screening was also playing a big role on that day. However, attacking a port, you will never have nearly as many players. I think that's simply due to human nature. Defending something important is valued more than attacking something (equal important for the enemy). Point being: The attackers screeningfleet will most likely never even get close to match the defenders screening fleet, in most occasions at least. Reinforcement for the defenders is closer, since you can't teleport to free ports anymore and literally have to sail to the Port Battle, which average joe player won't do. Any surviving attacker ship of a port battle will most likely not see a home port again with the changes being made.
  7. Yes, sorry, my bad. Was thinking of an unsuccessful port attack. The assault fleet would simply have no way to retreat other than having to surrender. Would you think a lost port battle attack SHOULD result in also losing all the ships? Or should there be some way of trying to retreat? Because with the changes being made, there won't be any. And also: I think you're missing my point. After an unsuccesful PB attack, the defenders will most likely do everything to trap the remaining attackers (given they are heavily damaged and outnumbered already), in order to capture them. So a loss will not just be a loss. It will be a totall loss, totally destroying any left-over morale for the attackes, and as a consequence PBs will become a rarity.
  8. The devs seem to be very clear on their opinion regarding Teleports. "They harm the game because noone actually sails the open world, hence noone is a target to anyone, so no PvP can happen". I've collected a few thoughts regarding TPs / no TPs and the problems coming with it. No more Battleresultscreen nor teleport to port after battle Ganking around a nation's capital or major trading hub was a big problem. At times you could barely leave the Safezone of your capital without getting attacked by an occasional Endymion Squad whose goal is to just have an easy-mode-battle and gank anything leaving the port to pieces. The current battleresult screen gave them the cover and backup they needed, so they would never even have to think about what would happen after they got their easy kill. They could either just log off in Battlescreen or teleport to port. Now with the upcoming changes, they'll think twice before attacking anything. Do we want to be here after the battle ended? Are we going to face a revenge fleet (which, in this case, is more than deserved)? The upcoming changes should hopefully fix that issue. However, it will also affect the non-ganking players who don't have ganking as their goal, instead just want to have nice, equal battles. After an 1v1 in enemy waters, there will most likely be a revenge fleet waiting for him aswell. After all, in my opinion, we'll have to live with that, even though it might not be a good change for solo players, but overall was pretty much needed so the game could finally get rid off its bad reputation regarding ganking. Where it will not work, in my opinion, are Port Battles. After a Port Battle attack, the assault fleet must leave to open world, where more than likely a welcoming fleet will be waiting for them. Even IF the fleet manages to score another win on that fleet, the ritual just repeats itself. Wave after wave the fleet will get attacked, and eventuall will run out of repairs / rum to cover their losses and has to surrender. There is literally no escape, they must sail back into port from enemy waters. I highly doubt any fleet will be willing to fight such a neverending battle series which will result in them having to surrender eventually. I think the battle result screen, for port battles, has to remain. (for those saying *duh you attacked an enemy port, live with the consequences* ... Think again. Port battles will be a thing of the past, Noone will be willing to fight those massive waves of battles after a port battle, hence no PBs will happen.) No more teleports to freeport In general I am a supporter of banning instant TPs on command. You shouldn't be able to instantly teleport to a freeport simply because someone in your nation called out a hostile fleet. This is a good way of reducing active ganking. However, I think it should be possible to teleport to a freeport, if you planned it a few hours ahead. My suggestion is to start a cooldown of maybe 90-120min, and after it finished, you have a small window of 1-2 minutes to carry out the teleport. Also add a 4h cooldown until you can start the next 'TP-in-future' cooldown. This would massively reduce the time of afk sailing required, without promoting ganking. Some might say now that any TPs to freeports are a bad thing because of ganking near capitals. But, always consider the fact that the battleresultscreen is a thing of the past. Everyone will (or should) think twice if they want to attack someone in enemy waters. Revenge fleets in hostile waters are, in my opinion, to be considered as normal. Teleports between national ports Personally, I think the devs change of not limiting teleports between national ports is good. The area hold by a nation should also be in their control, so if an enemy fleet enters hostile water, they have to keep that in mind. If you reduced national TPs to one per 4 hours, that could result in many bad situations. On the one hand ganking in enemy waters would be easier (once again) since only the part of players currently in the area or those willing to 'waste' their TP could help. National waters should be considered as dangerous for any enemy and any battle initiated should be thought about twice. Please let me know what you think and post your opinions.
  9. Ich glaube ich war schon in dem ein oder anderen Port battle vertreten, wenn sich nicht genug Spieler fürs PB finden und es zu viele Screener hat bin ich auch gerne bereit im PB zu helfen. Nur generell lass ich denen den vortritt, die die PBs auch geniessen. Nach ca 100+ PBs hat man das auch langsam gesehen
  10. Nee ich nehme an die werden die Anforderungen für die Blueprints (Conquest marks) lockern wenn sich da genug beschweren. Ist normalerweise die Herangehensweise der Devs. Extremas testen und dann anpassen je nach Community feedback. Anfangs wirds wahrscheinlich noch schäbig aussehen, was lineships angeht, aber spätestens nach ein paar wochen wirds wahrscheinlich wieder das übliche 25v25 1st rate gebrawle sein. Gehe auch schwer davon aus, dass sie sich von der 'kein battleresult screen' Parole wieder lösen werden. Nach einem Port battle zum Beispiel wäre jede Flotte ausgeliefert, und wenn sie eine weitere Schlacht gewinnen sollten, wartet draussen schon wieder die nächste Wave. Das macht keiner mit.
  11. Ego tripp, lol Man kann auch als Solo Spieler der Nation sehr behilflich sein. bei Port Battles gehört screening auch dazu, da kann jeder mit machen. Ich persönlich bevorzuge kleine Fregatten Gefechte nunmal über diesen 25v25 brawls bei welchen mesitens keine klare Taktik zu erkennen ist sondern einfach nur drauflos gebrawlt wird. Aber eben wie gesagt, jedem das seine.
  12. Muss ja nicht jeder im RvR aktiv sein oder? Einfach zu sagen das Spiel sei nicht für alleingänger ist nunmal schlichtweg falsch, da es auch andere Aspekte neben dem ganzen RvR Kindergarten gibt. Deswegen bin ich ja meistens alleine unterwegs Macht mir persönlich am meisten spass.
  13. Nicht unbedingt Bis jetzt 3660 Stunden gespielt, das meiste davon ohne clan bzw alleine Kam ganz gut zurecht.
  14. I think not being able to capture npc bots ships is fine, as long as they're just random ai fleets in the open world or missions. But a player's fleet should be captrurable to avoid any exploits such as taking valuable ships into fleet so the enemy cannot capture them. For the pvp server at least.
  15. I think it shouldn't be impossible to teleport to freeports. But it should also not be possible to teleport on command, and TP as soon as you read "teleport to La Navasse, Swedish are leaving for Jamaica". How about a 'teleport-in-the-near-future' feature? Start a 1h or 90min cooldown or whatever, and after the cooldown finished, you got a small window (maybe a minute or two) to carry out the teleport. This would disable any "ganks-on-command". Also add a 4h cooldown until you can start the next tp-in-future cooldown.