Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Raxius

Members
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About Raxius

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. perhaps PVP server should do a vote.. on what they want. my suggestion.. is simple restrict safezones to a specific rank (eg post captain) all ranks above would have completed tutorial by then and be used to game mechanics and therefore should not be protected by AI reinforced safezone of multiple 1st rates. second rule is captains above post captain that are attacked in CAPITAL AREA (so the inner safezone) there battles remain open indefinately for more players to join as word of the attack spreads throughout the nation. the attacker cannot be reinforced in this instance but the defender can. the reason behind this idea is to allow players incentive to use other coastlines of the map and not remain restricted in the protected zones. the current issue is too many players including veterans remain in the safezone to completely avoid PVP why should this be a mechanic on a PVP server? players complain to me about there low ranks being sunk , the problem is that the veterans are amongst the new players so they are caught in the firing line. one thing is clear.. server pop has made this problem worse and players are encouraged to remain in protected areas which only reduces content and makes pvp hunting silly taask as if you are pvping alone.. be expected to always fighr 10+ players.. is this the direction naval action wants to take in its pvp content?
  2. so your saying do not take them? well that clearly shows inbalance since pre-map winners have clear advantage and WILL bring them whilst others have to farm like a pig for same privilege. thanks for pointing that out
  3. back to the overall subject.... we play naval action for fun and a past-time and it is NOT fun to sink 40 players to obtain a permit (yes i know their is other ways but in terms of converting marks you will need to sink a lot of players). please revert the conversion back to combat marks as this will create equal opportunity and create more RVR. new players especially suffer from this update as they would need to sink 40 players to even begin opening slots on a 1st rate. not to mension risk it in rvr just to repeat the whole process. i am not inagreement with this patch i think it hasnt been thought through at all. if you want 1st rates to be more valuable make them more expensive to craft or introduce a consumer if you dont want too many sailing around at once for example an item that is consumed whilst sailing in OW such as provisions... or rations. or even make them 1k combat marks per permit.. but atleast allow it to be equal as new players will not use 1st rates even if they have the marks to convert to victory marks because they are too VALUABLE with the current conversion. with high hopes i wish you change it. Raxius
  4. 100 pvp marks for 1 victory mark.. i dont think your getting the point.. devs
  5. to elaborate rather than a weekly mark reward for ship permits you change to this: successful participants in portbattles obtain 1 conquest mark! conquest mark rewards include elite upgrades, labour contracts, potentially even ship notes for insta crafting. victory marks can again be converted by combat marks (so no restriction on ships) not only will this help with balance but you get what you want too.. More portbattles simultaniously as port BR limits restrict amount of players.. so this being said nations will do more than 1 or 2 portbattles at a time.. depending on their population and coordination to aquire the conquest marks to keep reinforcing their ships and portbattle fleet, adding ship notes as a potential item to purchase with conquest marks allows fast replacement to pb fleet. as this can also be an issue where people dont wana risk their ships for the rest of the fleet. hope this clears up my idea. please let me know what you think
  6. why not just revert to conquest mark system. change the mark requirements for ships so players CAN fight with same ships. However the marks provide other benefits such as access to elite upgrades, labour contracts not only will this encourage RVR and PVP but it will also add some balance to the overall map so players who participate in RVR and WIN can then improve their ships performance, this way players with elite upgrades in some respect DESERVE them and will use them effectively. therefore successful RVR provides a PVP advantage which is its own reward as you have set rewards for PVP marks well. just an idea. but restricting ship access to RVR winners in my oppinion is ridiculous as this will only discourage RVR and furthermore discourage time spent on the game.
  7. i think the devs may need to revert back slightly and add some AI economy. what i mean by this is: currently port makes money based on player econ eg they buy/sell in a port percentage is taxed and added to the cwh of owning clan. clearly looking at the ports on the map this isnt enough. most players are usually operating around the safezones and this is the safest place to have shipyards (excluding the nations without a capital). in essence here the safezones are preventing port income across the map. so i can only see 2 quick solutions. 1) add some AI driven econ to add to port tax ai traders generate money in some ports (plenty of good trading ports on the map) 2)restrict safezones for a specific rank eg post captain or flag captain, any rank above this in safezone will be unable to call reinforceents and shipyards are limited to level 2 in capital or safezone area's. this does 2 things. 1, improves vulnerability to all players and promotes pvp and non safezone hiding, allows players to explore the map and get out more because it will be in their interest to do so. ports will then generate money from both player and AI this way ports will make money most of the time and will be worth fighting for. please let me know what you think of these suggestions and discuss. i hope something somewhere changes in the current RVR/port system around econ which will promote pvp and competition. thanks
  8. that is an interesting point. the global mergers are majority non european, so rather then close global server why not use its hardware as with the eu server and create a virtual server situated somewhere like i dunno.. with a relative distance to eu players and american. therefore we all have a similar and fair ping. just an idea tho i am not sure on how realistic this suggestion is. but im thinking of you Mike
  9. i think we will know when you refresh on the shard selection screen to find no global server hurry up devs we all cannot wait,
  10. i like a lot of these idea's. tie them in with raids and then it provides purpose to counter-grind hostility, (though i would add a mechanic whereby if hostility isnt counter-grinded up to a certain point eg 25% then attackers can join pb on the inner circle as a penalty to defender, yes a clan needs 100% to generate the pb. but national hostility for defender can be used to mechanise access to inner circle) as well as screening. i like wyy's suggestion unlimited battle timer for pvp battles surrounding the constested port with 1 single join circle in the centre similar to outlaw battles of old. raids i think have been something everybody wants and yet to receive, clearly by the issues highlighted and the solutions suggested raids can be something implemented to plug the gap between uncontested hostility and purpose for defender to be protecting its port up until beginning of portbattle. penalties for defender when they dont show up as well as reward for aggressor by raiding/grinding for portbattle. money is no reward in these things, it must be pvp marks.
  11. Ship Loss on battle over

    any outcome/solution to this? waiting patiently for your investigative conclusion.
  12. National Population

    good you post video;s of victories... tho you need to to argue vs your losses. your bad... it will take too many years for you to be good.
  13. National Population

    i think cabal will always move to a side they think has the upper hand. they claim to be amazing. yet all i see is cabal in the shadow of any dominating nation. believe what you want voice all the oppinions you think i care to hear. but it was cabal who ran from GB pvp fleets. it was cabal who sided with swedes over its own nation. and now it is cabal playing swede... whilst things are good. soon they likely will go pirate if situations change.. and longterm.. cabal clan will always be a mercenary to any nation of which they belong. nuff said!!!
  14. National Population

    hmm.... interesting statement from a clan who just moved to sweden.. wasn't dutch enough?
  15. National Population

    the swedes fought well at navasse, redii you are right, Navasse was not a focused effort by GB. but i fear you will meet the same today. infact it could be worse because of navasse more should of been present and wasnt so it may be less likely we risk ships now. i agree with you on the danes.. lots of talking to other nations when they want a "challenge". but as players of naval action aside from nations. we all play to have fun. so lets keep it fun. my only fear redii. is attacking GB will not be fun maybe the danes can provide you with a more interesting fight... at least for now.
×