Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Rabman

Members
  • Content count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

About Rabman

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

224 profile views
  1. If only this came a few months ago, but better late than never I suppose.
  2. [Serious] Server Health

    @Duncan McFail While I don't disagree with your above sentiments regarding player driven opportunities, lets also add a touch of reality to this. You've told me on a number of occasions, you don't care about the newbs around your capital, much less care about the lesser pirate clans. You've never come across as a troll or a liar in any of the chats we've had, and I generally consider myself a decent judge of character; I've always taken you at your word. I appreciate that people can change their minds, but thus far this has not been your stance up until now. If you truly think those things you mentioned are worthwhile, then you should implement them for yourselves. _______________________________________________ With all of that said, my opinion on the OP. I disagree with the premise. The game has long since had a rapidly declining population for a variety of reasons. Grinding, time required to engage in content, player base size, learning curve, appeal, shifting development goals, radically changing major systems and how they interact with daily gameplay (teleports, freeports, 1 dura ships, materials, ship capture, mods). There is nothing we can do to fix or bring players back at this point. A server merge would only temporarily abate the dwindling population, while causing the Euro's to have a coronary. They don't want us back, the community would be more toxic than ever. As for my clans part, we agreed when we came back after the wipe, we would play as long as we have players to sink in the open world. On day 1 we were hunting in the redeemable surprises up and down the coast, and it was glorious with 400 people online. We have put in I'd wager more hours than most clans, sailing across the map looking for players to fight. We've definitely have been committed to our goals. Can we continue on when the population is sub 200 or sub 150? I can say for sure, when the population is less than a 100 I won't be playing anymore.
  3. @Duncan McFail my comment was addressing @Jean Pual Vilvenue saying, WO had broken some agreement with Black, which we have not. The remainder is fine, everyone enjoys their own aspect of the game, happy sailing.
  4. This is an excellent idea. How will teleports be handled for non-war company players? Will they be able to outpost in non-national ports?
  5. @Jean Pual Vilvenue @Duncan McFail Unfortunately you are incorrect. There was no NAP with BLACK post the Haiti loss. Le Grand/Lone Wolf asked KoC point blank and he was told point blank (the day after the loss) that our agreement existed while we held Haiti. WO will honor any agreements that we make, and will honor them today, if you can provide some separate agreement I'm not taking into account. Following Duncan helping mediate the Chailang NAP we discussed moving on a British Les Cayes, I wanted to come take Les Cayes as a forward base against the Brits, but the other clan leaders didn't have any interest, so we shifted direction and that new potential pact never materialized. This scuffle we are having is nothing personal, we just want to sink the big aggressive nation, since Pirates are king of the hill right now, the bulls eye appears to be on your back. I'm sure everyone's figured out by now that France enjoys being the wild card, and we don't care about the dots, or the PB's. We've all been there and done that on EU1. We just want to fight in the OW; the bigger the fight the better. The Danes moving on us, is just another proxy war that will result in massive AI grinding, with no content. They never moved on the previous British Aussies, who were their only real source of engagement in their timezone. Now that they have formed a giant oceanic block, they've relegated themselves to PvE and trading due to the time zone differences with the rest of the player base. In any case, I've had more fun sinking the pirates this week than I have sinking the brits in the last two weeks, you guys have so many more ships concentrated in one area than anyone. See you on the ocean, o7.
  6. 26 of the 38 ships in the game can now be capped on the PvP server. This makes no sense from an econ perspective. Previously a nation could capture or sink a clan or nation into submission or at least apply a lot of pressure on them economically, forcing them to continue to buy ships sold in ports or continue to burn crafting materials building new ships. Now they can just cap some Indefats/Endymions/Surprises, and it costs them nothing to lose. Isn't that the whole point of 1 Dura ships, is there is a price to lose a ship. Mods are built in now, you lose even less than before. If the aim was to help new players, allow 6th rates to be capped, and T-Brig, and T-Snows. Opening 70% of the ships in the game to capture is to much. ________________ Just found this in another thread from the admin. Looks like ships that require permits will not be able to be captured. Better, but I still disagree with this direction.
  7. The marks will buy you the blueprint. The other materials will craft one of said refit. You will retain the blueprint and will need to gather the materials again to craft another one.
  8. With all due respect, myself and Teutonic negotiated with the CCCP Danes who negotiated on your behalf, and the only area that extends to Sweden is a port agreement, for Bovenwinds, and Leeward. The NAP exists between Denmark and France alone. All open world PvP is still fair game, all trading is still fair game. No provisions for Sweden were made beyond this from your Danish Diplomat. You are welcome to go back to the first page and reread the agreement. If you have a new proposal you wish to discuss you can contact a French Diplomat, myself, Teutonic or Landomatic to have your proposal brought before the clan heads for discussion.
  9. Because people are irritated in the moment, that the ink wasn't dry on the agreement, on its fourth iteration because of some silly demands, and we have more activity from the Danes, after the initial false positive, that was they accepted, then they declined all in the span of three hours. It'll take time for things to settle down and cool off. While I'm sure to the Swedes and the Danes it made perfect sense, but for the French who have been trying to strike a reasonable deal with them and being countered with silly demands for over a week, its frustrating to say the least. Nevermind the pirates, dutch, and Danes from EU1 coming in here and stirring the post.
  10. Lets have some clarity of mind here. My clan small that it is, has had 4-7 guys on the front line against the Brits since day one. The only reason we recalled is because we have no way to counter the Aussies and a lack of support from the home front because of this internal squabbling. KoC approached your clan unprompted to try to build a bridge with you guys on more than one occasion, because we all know that we need a unified front to face the British behemoth. We tried to have PB drills, and PB commander training exercises to which only a smattering of people showed up. All of the internal squabbling needs to end, and everyone needs to be on the same page. No more bullshit, each clan on the council will get their vote for the fate of the nation.
  11. All of this because they want marks. Who knows when they will turn them over to Sweden and even if they will, what with the tacked on "when the alliance system comes out" clause they added to the original ICS deal. It's behavior that is not written in the agreement, and is clearly a violation of the agreement. Rather than trying to build a bridge of understanding, its more rhetoric. We can all be losers to GB if that's your preference @chailang
  12. @chailang The agreement you signed stated that those counties would be swedish controlled. There is no provision to have a Danish buffer state in Sweden. Since there is no Sweden and Denmark is administering Sweden, this is your method to get around the terms of the agreement, and create a forward Danish base in the buffer state. You and I both know this is unacceptable. The four or five swedish players that exist can take control of those territories, but Denmark cannot per the terms of the cease-fire.
  13. WO signs, the spice must flow.
  14. Bring back pvp rewards and pvp exclusive content and increase pvp financial rewards by 100% Remove speed caps and reduce stacking benefit of speed stacking mods. Remove conquest marks and replace them with additional labor hours per day
  15. I agree with the echoed sentiment above. Marks should be awarded for sinking ships, it's all a territory grab to snap up the most mark generation as far away from the front as possible and sit on your bank account as it were for free PB ships. I thought they idea of it was to make it a limited resource, but a steady income of 5-10 marks a day, every day for every person in the battle. That's abundance right there. I thought the goal was to have more mixed fleets, not 25 Agememnon -4th rate battles, and not 25 1st Rates - Lineship Battles. I'm content to sail frigates, but what happens when we have speed fitted Bellona's, and Bucentaur's roaming the seas? You're going to have to have a speed fitted Bellona or Bucentaur, and that brings us back to where we began.
×