Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

PaladinFX

Members
  • Content count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About PaladinFX

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wellington, New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

320 profile views
  1. @admin we should be able to raise hostility outside of the port battle timer window as set by the port holder. Assuming the holder of the port has set the window to the best time for them to defend a port, what's wrong with being able to raise the hostility outside of that time, they still get to defend in a PB at at time convenient to them? In my mind not being able to grind for hostility outside of the PB window is just reducing content for a lot of players around the world in different time zones now we have one global server. The hostility grind is tedious, its the PB people want so why not make it so the PB can happen. As said the defenders will still have the window set for the time that suits them for a PB!
  2. Just played first match for today, seems to be working fine now, good job devs
  3. yep still broken, still perma battle load screen map picture!
  4. Cant get back in now, just keeps returning to the same battle load screen with the map and Ally/Enemies player names. still no Join button and Esc key not working.
  5. Mini patch just deployed, relogged, Top Secret Level map now showing Player names but still no Join button and Esc key still not working to leave screen; F11'd it.
  6. Combat feedback topic

    The new norm of usually around 5 minute queue times is too long; too much waiting about for a battle. It needs to go back to 2mins or 3mins max.
  7. Creating the Cayo Biscanyo PVP Hub

    So as I expected the US don't want Cayo Biscayno to stay neutral so lets face it they will take it if no one else does. Hence there will be PB/PBs for that port so it's irrelevant whether the US take it or ARMED, or VSCO! It's ok to talk about having a port neutral to promote pvp but if you haven't the agreement of the nation whose doorstep its on then its kinda a waste of time to even bring it up in the first place isn't it!
  8. Creating the Cayo Biscanyo PVP Hub

    But have the US agreed to it staying neutral???
  9. Creating the Cayo Biscanyo PVP Hub

    @Christendom I think you're missing the bigger picture; the US for the most part do not want any of us on their doorstep, they are tired of getting attacked all the time (ok yeah i would agree its a shame more of them aren't into pvp) and I personally would be shocked if they do not take the opportunity to take back Cayo Biscayno and try to hold it.
  10. Yeah but the reasoning of why the Wasa needs to have BR at or just above a 3rd rate, ie broadside & side armour, when applied to the Vic/LO/Santi means that those three 1st rates shouldn't have same BR I would say. They need to be different but not by much, they are three different ships with three different strengths as you say, but when it comes down to the basics they are different on broadside and armour HP.
  11. Creating the Cayo Biscanyo PVP Hub

    The US did not want to lose Cayo Biscayno in the first place; if ARMED don't flip it the US will I'm sure. I guess Christendom want ARMED to always have to sail past lots of pirate ports to get to the US east coast lol! Key West is a long bloody sail for us to get anywhere and back so actually if we did manage to take Cayo Biscayno IMO that would promote more pvp. Secondly although ARMED, the Pirates, and Dave like to pvp around Florida etc I would guess that a lot of the US players may not actually want even more pvp on their doorstep, theyre getting hammered as it is so why would you expect them to be happy with the Prussians or whoever being in Cayo Biscayno? There aren't that many US players who are hardcore pvpers! Maybe a few more pirates need to switch to Prussia and take Rio Seco @Atreides @Christendom
  12. Nice job! What you've done with the H Rattler, Wasa/3rd rate/Bellona makes a lot of sense. I think rating Vic/LO/Santi all the same doesn't make sense tho, need to be a small difference between them, maybe leave them at 600/625/650 respectively.
  13. I voted double Yes. PBs are stale and fairly boring now and need variety of ship types to make them more interesting and fun as I have stated elsewhere in this forum. IMO both options put forth by @admin will bring the needed variety to PBs that is sorely needed. I also like the fact that varied ship types in PBs mean that newer players have a chance to be involved in Line Ship PBs because they could be involved in a lower rated ship under this new system. This will make our game more inclusive and fun for newer players and hopefully help with player retention.
×