Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Server merge   

108 members have voted

  1. 1. Do we need a server merge with the current player base

    • For
      63
    • Against
      45


Recommended Posts

koltes    1,982
2 hours ago, Skully said:

Define a clan's own land. All of their ports? Or just their main port (by choice)?

Not sure how it is done in this patch, but I believe that Clan should declare only one port as their HQ. Their home port. If / when clan grows to a second clan they can capture another port as HQ. All other ports are just captured, but are not allowed to build shipayrds, workshops etc, only production and teleport.. Thats how I understand clan vs clan mechanic.
When clan already has HQ there is no need to capture really, just raid
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rediii    3,063
3 hours ago, Skully said:

Why would this not work on EU?

because it doesn't work on global either.

It's just a mechanic so global becomes a bit more like eu server. We like our mechanics. We don't want to change global so stop your plans to change EU server for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koltes    1,982
32 minutes ago, rediii said:

because it doesn't work on global either.

It's just a mechanic so global becomes a bit more like eu server. We like our mechanics. We don't want to change global so stop your plans to change EU server for whatever reason.

I know it sucks mate, but it doesn't work like that. If the decision will be made to merge then its all player base that we have to work with, not just an EU guys.
When Global was made we (ex PVP2 guys) didn't like a character server has turned into with a new player influx who brought it with them from PVP1. But we had to leave with it and accept.
Not trying to make your game sucks. Please don't read it this way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,021
1 hour ago, koltes said:

Not sure how it is done in this patch, but I believe that Clan should declare only one port as their HQ. Their home port. If / when clan grows to a second clan they can capture another port as HQ. All other ports are just captured, but are not allowed to build shipayrds, workshops etc, only production and teleport.. Thats how I understand clan vs clan mechanic.
When clan already has HQ there is no need to capture really, just raid
 

There is nothing in this patch yet as such. A Clan HQ is mostly defined by its position of its warehouse, but even that does not have to dictate their HQ (or FOB).

Shipyards and workshops should be buildable just about everywhere.

I would only say, that the HQ (/ FOB) must never be subject to night flips. It must always be fought over in the owning Clan timeslot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebrall    87
10 hours ago, Skully said:

There is nothing in this patch yet as such. A Clan HQ is mostly defined by its position of its warehouse, but even that does not have to dictate their HQ (or FOB).

Shipyards and workshops should be buildable just about everywhere.

I would only say, that the HQ (/ FOB) must never be subject to night flips. It must always be fought over in the owning Clan timeslot.

The only thing is how do we define a "nightflip" in game?

 

we would need the ability to have a set time that the port is only available for hostility which means the devs would have to create time slots like on eu but more diverse as there is multiple time zones on global

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cornelis Tromp    1,456
On 31-8-2017 at 7:53 AM, Skully said:

So effectively the population has become segregated based on their (preferred) time slot.

Funny how this reminds me of a historical European concept framed within one Dutch word: "apartheid".

https://www.google.com/search?q=apartheid+define

I am curious what the EU solicitor of ECC would think of this. I might be tempted to find out. -_-

True, we must agree on the rules to play this game, for this game can only be

Once we agree, then we'll leave each player their own choice to play by those rules.

Nice straw man there. This isn't exclusion on race, nationality or religion. Thank you for voiding your agruement.

 

Player made a choice. They don't want nightflips.

Edited by Cornelis Tromp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Goldman    1,271
5 hours ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

Nice straw man there. This isn't exclusion on race, nationality or religion. Thank you for voiding your agruement.

 

Player made a choice. They don't want nightflips.

I could observe pure EU RvR without nightflips for last months since the wipe. My conclusion? This RvR is crap compared to what we had before the wipe. It's nothing, it's dead.

Edited by Peter Goldman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skully    1,021
7 hours ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

Player made a choice.

I have not made a choice (yet). But when I do, you may not like the choice I made. (Potentially neither do I.)

Edited by Skully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Louis Garneray    580

We are forced in making a choice between 2 evils... Which is not that great...

PVPEU is not good because of the short window for PB

PVPGlobal is not good because of day/night flip...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sea Nettle    50

Just remove port battles altogether and make port flips occur by trading and pvp or remove port nationality from mattering at all. No night flips, no time zone issues. Not like it really matters and it always ends up with a nation or two completely outnumbering another and endless complaints about night flips. Concentrate on open sea trade and pvp and let the impossible to balance die.

This is the same unsolvable issue that Pirates of the Burning Sea endured before it inevitably crashed and burned.

You will never balance population distribution and time zones, stop trying.

Leaderboards for wealth, production, kills, captures, etc is where the replayability should lie.

Edited by Sea Nettle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31.8.2017 at 12:49 PM, koltes said:

Re: Ship costs would also not be a big problem if we would have higher price difference. 7th rate dirt cheap, 6th rate cheap, 5th rate affordable to lose and still expendable, 4th rate where you start investing more money so they have to be about where they are now. SOLs go up a price progressively when 1st rates are just down right cost arm and leg 5-10 times more expensive. YES abolutely YES

Its like devs are making the game, but every time there is a patch they are not making it fully, to the end. Makes me sad to say..thats true

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sea Nettle said:

Leaderboards for wealth, production, kills, captures, etc is where the replayability should lie.

+1

Now that new rvr mechanics have been implemented and the effects will only show in a few weeks, it's dire time to work on trading. 

I still don't see reasons for clans to hold ports other than for bragging rights. 

Those ports need to get populated by "small players" (meaning casuals, non-clan affiliated, solo privateers) doing their trading, production and refurbishment. 

Otherwise you will just have a map that is littered with warlords sitting on their little patch of land. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×