Preliminary discussion of the changes to conquest - clan wars are coming

[Skully]

Should we be able to see the size of each Charter?

[Archaos]

2 minutes ago, Skully said:

Should we be able to see the size of each Charter?

I think you should be able to see the size so you know what size force you can expect.

[Sir Texas Sir]

4 minutes ago, Skully said:

Should we be able to see the size of each Charter?

I can see  keeping clan info private but wouldn't be a bad thing to late have the Charter/Company roster known on a web page or something later on. At least so you can look up the Charter command.  Though we can at that time just make a post that is only for Active Charter/Company's on each server.  I use to run the Port Battle on on PvP2 like Tutonic does now for global. I'll make one up when this patch drops for GLOBAL so folks can post Company Names and info when they are formed.

[vazco]

I guess noone remembers what was a main issue with a flag system. It was boredom. Once people found winning strategies, the most powerful one was setting fake flag every day for 3-5 days before doing a real attack, and then using a few flags set for meaningful ports, so that enemy didn't know what to defend. The issue made NA a Naval Inaction game. If you plan to go back to an old flag system, at least counter it by not allowing a strategy of boring your enemy to death. This game won't be successful if this becomes a new meta.

 

Please don't repeat your own mistakes without even trying to address them...

[Anolytic]

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

I see your point and maybe I am still missing something, but if you have mixed nationality War Corporations then whose flag flies over the port and who can access the port from outside the War Corporation?

I sort of view it the way the Devs originally announced that nations will give charters to clans to go capture and run ports. To put that into role play "The European nations embroiled in war in Europe can no longer support the colonies, and thus grant charters to private enterprises to expand in the name of the Crown,/Emperor/Majesty etc." It gives us an alternative history timeline and still keeps nations involved as theoretically all War Clan ports come under the jurisdiction of the nation the War Company belongs to. This may go some way to appeasing the history buffs.

I see where we are making different assumptions. I wasn't clear about the fact that I still think devs should retain some of their idea from the original proposal that they have since abandoned. I think that ports should fly the flag of their starting nation. That ports should not switch nationality whatever happens in RvR. Instead, to make more ports accessible to all nations, make a lot of ports neutral, almost like they've done on the PvE-server. Regions that were not historically fully owned by one nation according to devs own map should belong to the neutral "faction" and as such function almost as freetowns. 

War corporations should not be mercenary military forces for nations too busy to fight their own wars, but rather businesses with military divisions to protect their profits. Nations have a monopoly on trade between Europe and the Caribbean, but allow War Companies to fight over the profit from trade between ports in the Caribbean. If Corporations get their flag on ports, it is not replacing national flags, but in addition to them, or the company ownership can rather be indicated in the port UI somehow. 

Instead of nations "grant charters to private enterprises to expand in the name of the Crown/Emperor/Republic", nations "grant charters to private enterprises to profit in the name of the Crown/Emperor/Republic". This keeps nations out of port ownership as far as ownership changes goes. It is only so far we should go to please the history buffs (who I count myself among). Concessions to history has already caused a lot of trouble for the development of this game and the RvR. 8 nations probably chief among the problems. Let's not make this new system that is being proposed too dependent on past mistakes. Keep nations out of RvR.

45 minutes ago, Skully said:

Although West Indian companies were very much on the decline in late 17th and early 18th century. I think all of them were more targeting trade as opposed to conquest as well.

The historical trading companies were often granted monopolies on certain trade routes or resources, and their chief concern was profit for stockholders. They did own forts and garrisons and have the support of national navies. So they also had a military component in most cases. However we should allow ourselves to reimagine them as i suits the purposes of the game rather than boggle down everything with historical accuracy.

[Archaos]

4 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

I see where we are making different assumptions. I wasn't clear about the fact that I still think devs should retain some of their idea from the original proposal that they have since abandoned. I think that ports should fly the flag of their starting nation. That ports should not switch nationality whatever happens in RvR. Instead, to make more ports accessible to all nations, make a lot of ports neutral, almost like they've done on the PvE-server. Regions that were not historically fully owned by one nation according to devs own map should belong to the neutral "faction" and as such function almost as freetowns. 

War corporations should not be mercenary military forces for nations too busy to fight their own wars, but rather businesses with military divisions to protect their profits. Nations have a monopoly on trade between Europe and the Caribbean, but allow War Companies to fight over the profit from trade between ports in the Caribbean. If Corporations get their flag on ports, it is not replacing national flags, but in addition to them, or the company ownership can rather be indicated in the port UI somehow. 

Instead of nations "grant charters to private enterprises to expand in the name of the Crown/Emperor/Republic", nations "grant charters to private enterprises to profit in the name of the Crown/Emperor/Republic". This keeps nations out of port ownership as far as ownership changes goes. It is only so far we should go to please the history buffs (who I count myself among). Concessions to history has already caused a lot of trouble for the development of this game and the RvR. 8 nations probably chief among the problems. Let's not make this new system that is being proposed too dependent on past mistakes. Keep nations out of RvR.

I see your assumption now but I am not sure who can use the port outside the War Company. e.g. Danish War Company captures a port in Haiti that was originally French, can French still enter that port? I understand from your point of view that the War Company is not really Danish and could be a mixture of nationalities, but how do they then react towards french traders still using that port?

My assumptions are based more on the hope that they dont just go with the center map up for grabs but go instead for National capital regions being non-PvP zones and everything else up for grabs in the name of your nation. Thus still fulfilling historical conquest by nations, just that it is done by War Companies not national navies.

I guess we will see which way they decide to go with it.

[Prater]

4 hours ago, Captain Lust said:

Why not give them Kidd's Island anyways? Thought you wanted the center to be conquest? Also making Nassau the pirate capital takes away a great shallow conquest combat zone and we need more of those not less... Since Captain Kidd was a pirate / privateer and the island in game named after him seems like a homage to Treasure Island it should always be in pirate hands anyways... anything else just seems wrong. All nations should have only 3-5 uncapturable ports maximum with greenzone around them anyways.

Cant capture bermuda by flag without kidds

[Anolytic]

37 minutes ago, Archaos said:

I see your assumption now but I am not sure who can use the port outside the War Company. e.g. Danish War Company captures a port in Haiti that was originally French, can French still enter that port? I understand from your point of view that the War Company is not really Danish and could be a mixture of nationalities, but how do they then react towards french traders still using that port?

My assumptions are based more on the hope that they dont just go with the center map up for grabs but go instead for National capital regions being non-PvP zones and everything else up for grabs in the name of your nation. Thus still fulfilling historical conquest by nations, just that it is done by War Companies not national navies.

I guess we will see which way they decide to go with it.

I'm still considering solutions to the problems you point out with my system. I believe only nationals and the controlling war company should have unrestricted access to ports. Maybe create a system or zone around each port to prevent war company members from ganking players entering their own nation ports. War company members should not necessarily get the same protection the other way around. In return war company members should automatically get outposts in every port their company controls.

The problem I have with your proposed system is that it will affect nationals heavily, and the problem of imbalance is only going to get much much worse than it is now. What happens in RvR will affect what ports non-company nationals have access to at any given time. And players joining Brits will have 3-6 war companies that from the start decide not to interfere with each other. Int once all ports are under british control and all other war companies crushed, british companies will start fighting each other for control over the most valuable ports to tax. This is exactly what we are trying to change. If we left it like that we would be much better off just leaving the sRvR and nation system exactly as it is now. No need to introduce war company mechanics. 

War companies would then only be a mechanic to prevent non-rvr nationals from at all helping to affect and protect what ports they have access to. They would get all the bad consequences of their national war companies' prowess or lack there off, and none of the benefits of RvR gameplay.

 

[Cmdr RideZ]

I wish all will go just fine for this plan, I really do, but not sure if this is going to be any better than the flag system long time ago.  The flag system had some issues, you could have fixed those.  We would be way further in development, but I suppose we test another system.

Make sure that people login after work and they sail to PvP.  Make sure they do not have to do PvE grind a whole evening, even if they lose a ship or two.  Make sure they get gear without days of PvE grind.  How damn hard it can be to make a PvP game?

Focus to PvP or announce that this is mainly a PvE game.

[Archaos]

2 minutes ago, Anolytic said:

I'm still considering solutions to the problems you point out with my system. I believe only nationals and the controlling war company should have unrestricted access to ports. Maybe create a system or zone around each port to prevent war company members from ganking players entering their own nation ports. War company members should not necessarily get the same protection the other way around. In return war company members should automatically get outposts in every port their company controls.

The problem I have with your proposed system is that it will affect nationals heavily, and the problem of imbalance is only going to get much much worse than it is now. What happens in RvR will affect what ports non-company nationals have access to at any given time. And players joining Brits will have 3-6 war companies that from the start decide not to interfere with each other. Int once all ports are under british control and all other war companies crushed, british companies will start fighting each other for control over the most valuable ports to tax. This is exactly what we are trying to change. If we left it like that we would be much better off just leaving the sRvR and nation system exactly as it is now. No need to introduce war company mechanics. 

War companies would then only be a mechanic to prevent non-rvr nationals from at all helping to affect and protect what ports they have access to. They would get all the bad consequences of their national war companies' prowess or lack there off, and none of the benefits of RvR gameplay.

 

The way I see it developing is that even if the bigger nation has 6 war companies a smaller nation with maybe a single strong war company equal in size to the largest one in the big nation can still take their ports. This of course would be dependent on the attackers and defenders and screeners for a port battle being limited to the war companies involved. So the smaller nation does not have to face the 6 combined War Companies of the larger nation but the War Company they choose to attack, thus leveling the playing field a bit. There would of course have to be some limits as to how many attacks a single War Company could possibly have against it at a time (this could be scaled to the number of ports they own).

If this is coupled with differing PB sizes for different ports, even smaller War Companies would become viable. The secret is making it difficult for a single large War Company to control everything, and I posted my thoughts on how to achieve that earlier.

I personally dont like the idea of civil war and same nation War Companies taking ports from each other, I think that can lead to alt War Companies being formed solely for this purpose as there will be no way to screen out someone from the same nation entering a port battle. Remember not all alts are low level.

[Captain Lust]

4 hours ago, Prater said:

Cant capture bermuda by flag without kidds

They could just increase the flag timer for bermuda to compensate for the sailing time... given a second thought tho bermuda should either be pirate safe zone too or one of the home ports / greenzones of some other nation like GB, because it is on the outskirts of the map and a perfect place for a safe zone for noobs to rank up without being bothered...

[Wigermo]

2 minutes ago, Captain Lust said:

They could just increase the flag timer for bermuda to compensate for the sailing time... given a second thought tho bermuda should either be pirate safe zone too or one of the home ports / greenzones of some other nation like GB, because it is on the outskirts of the map and a perfect place for a safe zone for noobs to rank up without being bothered...

Bermuda should just be a free port with bermuda cedar and not be a safe haven grind spot

[Sir Texas Sir]

11 minutes ago, Wigermo said:

Bermuda should just be a free port with bermuda cedar and not be a safe haven grind spot

Make it a neutral port like how PItt's use to be would prob work even better.  That way any one can come and trade there and get the Cedar but it's not exactly safe either.   Though I have to say bermuda cedar is something that some might think worth fighting over, but if some one takes that region and turns one of it's ports into a freetown?

[Captain Lust]

22 minutes ago, Wigermo said:

Bermuda should just be a free port with bermuda cedar and not be a safe haven grind spot

Yeah, might be good aswell...

[shaeberle84]

On 3.7.2017 at 0:03 PM, admin said:

Hello Captains. 

Here is the development roadmap for the next 3-6 months for your consideration. 

Significant milestones

• Move to Unity 5 (complex task with unknown ETA)
  • Current version of unity does not allow us to add more content due to several limitations of memory and the engine.
  • We cannot add new ships because of 32bit application (thats why a lot of ships were removed from game engine to just allow us to patch the game after the introduction of the new sounds.
  • Move to Unity 5 might also increase FPS across the board due to improvements to the engine in general. 
• Port UI complete rework - self explaining. 
• Open world UI improvements - once 1-2 is done
• Battle UI improvements - once 1-2 is done
• Localization into first batch of languages - once 2-3-4 is done
  • spanish
  • french
  • russian
  • german
  • simplified Chinese

During these milestones the development will slow down and there will be less patches and hot fixes. Especially during the Unity 5 transfer. Once transfer is made it will be provided to testbed for testing.

Tunings

1. Finalization of conquest and conquest rewards
2. Additional PVE content (missions, raids other improvements)
3. Finalization of PVP Rules of Engagement and PVP rewards

If you think something must be done asap and added to the tuning list please provide list of 3 changes most critical to you or to those who you play with. 

Example how it might look like

• Add speed increase during invisibility timer
• Remove conquest marks and replace them with additional labor hours per day
• Bring back pvp rewards and pvp exclusive content and increase pvp financial rewards by 50%

 

On 2.8.2017 at 3:57 PM, admin said:

Hello Captains.

We would like to share some information on the potential changes to conquest. 

Current Problems
New player experience is uneven and heavily depends on the nation you join.

• New players who come into the game have completely no information on what is the state of their nation they just joined.
• Sometimes they join a happy strong nation, but often they join weaker nations
• As a result players who joined a stronger nation have a much better experience than players who joined a weak nation and leave the game. 
• Current national conquest system (take everything from your enemy) reinforces this problem. 
• Fluctuating online increases the problem even further - if you nation has 10 captains left you cannot play normally because you become completely uncompetitive in conquest, which in turn reduces quality of other types of gameplay
• As a result most new players (who did not join a winning nation) become unhappy populace and leave the game instead of having fun.

Alts.

• Alts interfere with conquest. There is not much to add

Solution

Decree on the changes in the political systems in the Caribbean. Initial proposal

• European and North American (current nations or further Nations) powers will agree to not give away ports to other nations.
  • Updated version: Nations will not give away ports only in certain areas (main coast). The ports in the center of the map will be capturable by war corporations for their nation (but they will be able to tax them)
  • Captureable regions
    • Cuba (with the exception of havana)
    • Jamaica
    • Bahamas
    • Lower parts of florida
    • Hispaniola
    • Turks and Caicos
    • Puerto Rico
    • All minor island chains
  • Capitals for two nations might move to a more appropriate safe place
  • Port royal and havana will still remain secondary capitals but the spawns of new players Might be moved to 
    • Sisal
    • Bridgetown or Belize 
  • Pirate republic capital might move to Nassau (with a secondary capture able capital in Mortimer)
  • Hard/Easy/Medium descriptions will come back to nation selection
    • Pirates/Sweden/DK - very hard
    • VP/France/United States - medium
    • Spain/Britain - easy
• Nations will close eyes on the privateering activities in the Caribbean region allowing free combat in the region.
• Nations will start taxing all activities in the caribbean (stamp tax) on all purchases, mining or forestry and player to player trade
• Nations will grant charters (allow to create) for new type of chartered companies: war corporations or clans that will be allowed to establish control over regions in the Caribbean. 
  • current guilds and clans will remain the same
  • new chartered war company will be able to be created by players for the purpose of region control and taxation.
  • Current guilds will be able to enter to ally - forming war corporations
• Captains who are not a member of a chartered war company will be able to enter any port in any ship. 
  • Removed as it will create a lot of confusion and potential grief
• Members of a chartered war company will be able to enter the following ports
  • national ports
  • ports other chartered war companies of their nation control
  • all other ports where the governor allowed entry (this is still under consideration)
• Nations will allow such chartered companies/corporations to tax regions that they control 
• Chartered war companies will be able to change tax to lower or a bit higher than a government level. All tax collected in a port will go to a chartered war company for the development of that region.
• Only chartered war companies will be able to participate in the port battles. Only clan (war company) who is attacking the port and who is defending the port will be able to participate in the port battle.
  • so for example if East India Company will decide to take control of the region from the Hanseatic League only captains who are members of those companies will be able to enter port battles. They will be able to do it even both companies belong to the same nation.
• Nations will allow chartered war companies to freely attack each other even if they belong to the same nation. This will allow chartered war companies to settle score between each other if they believe someone is interfering with their chartered activities
  • This feature will make ROE hell. It is impossible to make it work while keeping it simple at the same time. To make it work nations mush be removed or pve player class created (NCO rank who cannot pvp and cannot be attacked)
  • To keep national unity War corporations will not be able to attack each other on the open seas if they are in the same nation
  • But War corporations will be able to fight each other for control of the ports (only in port battles) 
• Chartered war companies will not have a warehouse but will use a special port warehouse assigned to a war company by a port (1 warehouse per region)
  • Because warehouse is city based if another chartered war company conquers the city (takes control) it will gain access to that warehouse with all belongings including tax money. 
  • This means the chartered war company will lose all tangible assets (with the exception of ships) if they lose the port to another clan
  • Removed as fake feature - it is very easy to avoid losing assets in port by moving to peaceful friends or alts
  • to make this feature work we would have to reduce quality of life for other warehousing services and we don't want it. 
• Captains joining war companies will have to serve a minimum time period and will not be able to exit the company for certain time
  • After exit they won't be able to rejoin a company for a certain time (to avoid jumping back and forth between war companies).

Potential results: This will completely eliminate alts from conquest and will stabilize the map for new players who will have an equal experience irrespectively of the nation chosen.

Lets discuss.

Systems rework might take some time, but will be delivered with tweaks found during the discussions in this topic. In this matter we recommend captains to not sweat much about conquest until this feature is done because map will be reset to its original state once this is implemented. 

 

UPDATED SHORT VERSION (simplified based on feedback and discussions

War corporations and national unity

• Clans will be able to form war corporations
• Port battles will ONLY be available to war corporations
• War corporations will be able to change tax rates in ports (for example if the standard national tax rate is 15% war corporations will be able to reduce it to 0 or raise up to 30%) 
• War corporations can fight other war corporations in the same nation ONLY in port battles
• War corporations will be able to set their controlled port as free town (enterable by all nations) or as national town (enterable only by their own nation)
• War corporations will have to vet their members themselves but if they do it properly alts will no longer interfere with port battles
• Hostility changes will be done
  • Hostility grinding will be removed
    • Some kind of flag will return - but the placing time will be increased to 30 mins to give time to respond
• Potentially we can bring back timers set by governors

Regions

• Regions will split into individual ports for conquest (tentative)
• All ports will be split into captureable (all large islands in the center of the map and island chains) and non captureable - coasts
• All capture able ports will change status to neutral after reset
  • History fans can relax because in 2-3 weeks port captures will shape the nationalities of ports themselves. New players will come to a live fluid map, which will have stability along the coast and constant instability in the center.
• Rare resources will move closer to the center of the map.. the closer to center the more potential profit would be on trading
• Some resources required to ship of the line construction might also move to center
• Map will be reset

Coastal experience

• Some capitals might be moved (with simple ID change so you don't have to reposition your resources). Or we can just move all assets players have to redeemables to give more options. 
• Free towns will be removed from the coasts
• Reinforcements in coastal ports will come back to game (as fleets no longer give xp)
  • to those who don't remember this is how they worked
    • If BR of enemy was higher than yours if you were attacked near your national port, the port would send you the support equal to the difference between your BR and enemy BR.
    • For example - if you were in a surprise and were attacked by two surprises port would send you 1 surprise to support you in battle (which you could command)
• Potentially clans will be able to invest into improving port reinforcements class

 

Additional wipe announcement. There will be no asset resets/removals or wipes during this rework. Only map will reset (which will cause some inconvenience when moving resources).

So let me get this straight.

1. You bring a big patch to promote PVP and wipe the map

2. You tell us you move to unity5 and we should propose changes before you do that. Everyone tells you we need a solution for PVE grind and we need raids and what tunings we need.

3. You insert tunings that do not increase PVP, revert most of the changes you did in 1)

4. Three weeks later you change the whole RvR system, the map, bring back old systems like FLAGs and port reinforcement and further tunings that prevent PVP, which was your aim in 1).

WOW. You just failed game design 101.

[Anolytic]

5 hours ago, Archaos said:

The way I see it developing is that even if the bigger nation has 6 war companies a smaller nation with maybe a single strong war company equal in size to the largest one in the big nation can still take their ports.

The problem with this is that since the bigger nation has 6 war companies expanding their nation's territories, adding trade opportunities, grinding areas and fancy coloured dots on the map, the larger nation will be a much more desirable nation to start out in and to play in, on top of being a first choice already for historical and cultural reasons. Whereas smaller nations will be much less desirable, and their single war company will have a much more limited population to recruit from. It will maybe have the bare minimum players to keep going to begin with, but then it looses a few players and suddenly can no longer fill a fleet, no longer attack ports, no longer find RvR-fun and will quickly die out altogether. And then when the nation has no war company supporting or expanding it, the non-company players will start to flee also, as they can no longer craft, trade or grind freely. 

A nation with barely enough population to build one war company to put up a fight some days, but not when 3 or more people are unavailable for IRL-stuff, can never compete with a nation so stuffed with players that they can't all fit in 3 war companies.

 

5 hours ago, Archaos said:

Remember not all alts are low level.

Yeah. Most of my alts are max level.

[DrZoidberg]

This will be a sick patch! For better expirience u should let automatic movement with empty ships between outpost with delay, u should make much higher PVP reward in money and in ship XP, slightly higher PVE rewards, PVP zones (maybe at contested areas), and balance between nations, a repetable, well balanced conquest system.

Guyz, i have to say, i can create better system in every way, than u do at any time. U  made soo many faults loosing a huge gamer community, what has now 500 player at all (should be 10000?) thats sad. U dont learn, seems.

The map is empty, players just sailing around hours for nothing.

I wish best for ur game...

Best  regards ..

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by DrZoidberg

[Dharus]

After thinking on this for the better part of the week.  I think it isn't a good direction in general.  It still doesn't solve several issues in my opinion.

If the OW is to be the focus of the game while leaving Legends to the more arena style, then we should really move away from PBs as the main driver.  Don't get me wrong, they aren't bad but they are sort of silly to think about.  Ships that sailed around rarely were built tweaked for PB conditions ei wood types, mods (except a Bomb brig of course) and really it was the landing of troops or taking of forts that determined the "ownership" of the ports.  A nation in this game could rule the OW fights most of the day but because a team off hour flip with enough players means they probably lose ownership.  Having sea control in areas really doesn't mean much.  Additionally, the whole "tactics" to get into a port battle instance has cause lots of problems.  How about not making things more chaotic but simplified?

How about dropping PBs all together for port ownership.  Then establish a system where a player(s) have a "patrol" button with some sort of dock timer that when pressed add points (contention) to the region (or if call backs to the server sucks then drops some item in inventory like fish do and can be turned into port for that said contention like war supplies). Contention done through passive means should be capped at some sort of rate so that super larger nations cannot overwhelm smaller ones to skip PvP (or if you used an item, only so many can be turned in per hour).  Then when a port is "flipped" a three day event takes place where players can "patrol" said region for points, PvP for the most points, and at the end the most point winner flips the port.  Passive points should be much lower than actual PvP.  Sort of 1 point per 15 minutes vs 100 BR ship sunk = 100 points.

Then you can make "Raids" like the old PB system perhaps with the flag mechanic.  Raids create a PB in 24hrs or whenever.  Ownership doesn't change from a "raid" but some type of reward is.  This could be a % tax of crafted goods or similar.

To me this is much simpler answer and creates a player focused RvR mechanic.  No PvE grind for RvR, no off hour ownership flips, and still retain PBs but in a less RvR but possibly a more rewarding way.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Dharus
Added more clarity

[Sir Texas Sir]

5 hours ago, Anolytic said:

Yeah. Most of my alts are max level.

Most of the folks I know that have the majority are maxed out by now.  

[Archaos]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Most of the folks I know that have the majority are maxed out by now.  

Which makes the system of War Company civil wars open to abuse. All you have to do is create a clan of alts in a nation, supply them with ships from your main character and they can go take a port with no chance of being screened out, then set a time suitable for their mains to attack an empty port.

[Sir Texas Sir]

16 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Which makes the system of War Company civil wars open to abuse. All you have to do is create a clan of alts in a nation, supply them with ships from your main character and they can go take a port with no chance of being screened out, then set a time suitable for their mains to attack an empty port.

That is why war clans can fight other war clans in same nations.  Again what the diffrence if a bunch of players do the same?  It shouldn't matter if they are just a bunch of alts a big clan should be easly able to beat them.  

[Slamz]

On 8/4/2017 at 4:49 AM, admin said:

Some kind of flag will return - but the placing time will be increased to 30 mins to give time to respond

This will not be enough.

Remember in the old flag system there was also a window of opportunity which the defender could select. This was the only reason any flag ever got intercepted: we knew that in certain hours we had to be in the area and be ready in case there was a flag attempt.

Adding 30 minutes to the placement in a game where travel time can be 2+ hours and any battle can run for 90 minutes and the window for the flag attack is 24/7 means flags will rarely, if ever, get intercepted. Only in really hot areas that have players all the time will there be any flag interception action.

On PvP-Global it will just be night flags and night flips anyway.

[Skully]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

That is why war clans can fight other war clans in same nations.  Again what the diffrence if a bunch of players do the same?  It shouldn't matter if they are just a bunch of alts a big clan should be easly able to beat them.  

I would say easy, only if you managed to force the alter to multi-task. 

[Skully]

1 hour ago, Archaos said:

a time suitable for their mains

An unsuitable time for a player applies to all his characters.

47 minutes ago, Slamz said:

On PvP-Global it will just be night flags and night flips anyway.

There is no such thing as "night" on Global.

[admin]

On 04.08.2017 at 7:22 PM, Quineloe said:

I like how it's already impossible to sell repairs in the shop for decent profit because your contract might just get blocked by the AI by putting in a bunch of repairs at a ridiculous price of around 450 per item.

I like how you make up stuff out nothing and then get upset about something you just made up.I will repeat how the system works so you don't fall into that trap again. 

• AI DOES NOT MAKE ANY RESOURCE OR/AND MATERIAL. With the exception of trading resources and rare woods. 
• AI DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO CONTRACTS

As a result you cannot get blocked by AI or you cannot be outcompeted by AI. All resources/materials sold on market were brought there by players or listed by players.