Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Stilgar

Members
  • Content count

    297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

329 Excellent

1 Follower

About Stilgar

  • Rank
    Midshipman

Recent Profile Visitors

754 profile views
  1. Nerf the Wasa (Poll)

    I do not problems with Wasa stats as such, but ... (1) ship w/o any sign weakness is too easily accessible in any build and (2) Wasa made with light woods (fir/bernuda) is particularly ""offensive" as far as role in OW PvP is concerned. The first issue will be solves soon enough I guess: devs will make wasa and a few other OP ships as premium/rare ships. As for the second issue, I'd say fir and bermuda logs should be available for building ships up to 5th rates. In this way the frigates will have better time to keep their place in OW.
  2. The two options do not exclude each other. So, voted both. However, the new BR-limit system should have a comprehensive structure, which would integrate both options and also takes into account the total nr of ships that can enter the battle. For instance, line ship ports could have a slider that would allow 3 choices: (1) 25xBR of the highest rated 1st rate (max 25 ships) (2) 25xBR of the highest rates 2nd rate (max 25 ships) (3) 25x of the highest rated 3rd rate (max 25 ships) In this way 3 reference points are created, with options (2) and (3) allowing mixed fleets. Importantly, line ship PBs better be limited to 1st to 4th rates (+mortar brig of course). I am not sure lower rate ships should be allowed, to minimize the trolling options, but this is just my opinion. By analogy, the "4th rate" ports would allow (at least) 2 options: (1) 25xBR of the highest rated 4th rate (max 25 ships) (2) 25xBR of the highest rated 5th rate (max 25 ships) with 3rd, 4th, and 5th rate ships allowed. Don't care much about the shallow ports :), but two BR levels could be created in similar way. Again, the whole point in above example is provide a comprehensive structure to BR-limit feature, but still allow enough diversity. Finally, players posting in this thread mention lobby PB as unavoidable or perhaps next logical step. As long as the attacking clan can control the composition of the PB fleet, there is no need for setting PB up in lobby. IMHO lobby PB makes sense only if there is a proper PvP-oriented hostility mechanics in place, which is not the case.
  3. Port Battles with limited BR

    Why do you think frigates would engage large ships from minute one? They would form reserve / special group to counter the enemy frigates, hunt the enemy mortar brigs, supporting bigger ships, chaise and finish damaged enemy ships etc.
  4. Port Battles with limited BR

    which is good imho. it would be sad to have too PB-centric conquest. With importance of screening more players will be involved in OW fun.
  5. Foreign clan alliances

    If nations are still in game, this makes little sense and could create quite a bit of confusion. This is nation alliances in disguise, with all the disadvantages of it. This could be part of pirate mechanics though. Strongly limit the pirates options for conquest (or remove it completely), but allow pirates to ally with clans of other nations, so they can have access to PB fun and influence the conquest.
  6. Owning NA before NAL release

    I do not mind paying for NAL at all, cause I will likely enjoy NAL and I want to support this studio. However, I would appreciate if as an NA player and long-term supporter, I could get a handsome XP package and perhaps a couple of ships, so I can start sailing 5th rates from the start instead of grinding on cutters again. This would likely encourage other NA players to try NAL sooner rather than later.
  7. If this is about re-shuffling of nations in NA, then best would be to have fewer rather than more nations (4 + pirates ?), but ensure that each nation has unconquerable ports in at least 2 (better 3) locations on the map. In this way, clan alliances (war corporations) can establish their kingdoms in different parts of the map. This would not require a perfect cohesion within a nation: the clan alliance will just have to be strong enough to defend own ports.
  8. Ultimate General Napoleonic ?! That would be nice !
  9. National Population

    lol Americans knew, but not the whole nation. Good diplo work, Scipio. And who are "we" anyway? Be more specific pls.
  10. National Population

    Does it help when a few clans (or perhaps just one) that care little about pvp make agreements in name of the nation w/o consulting the nation?
  11. Sending the rich boys in their Cartagena refit ships to the bottom of the sea will give me even more satisfaction.
  12. [PVP EU] battle results

    I sincerely hope this and similar events would spark an international conflict
  13. How about allowing recovering of perma upgrades by breaking the ships? This would provide a good (and farming-proof) way to reward PvP.
  14. No sails indeed, but there might be a chance for zombies Anyway, good luck with this new title. Graphics looks catchy indeed.
  15. Yes, this is kind of game to be played I guess.
×