Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Banished Privateer

Caribbean Invasion News

Recommended Posts

Just now, Banished Privateer said:

That would create 3x more dramas and toxicity. Many players want to be rebels or idepenedent from councils or "nation" decisions, rogues etc. Why try to force everyone to play as one? Let people play in clans which they have chosen to do so. We can also have "war companies". Spain in theory has one, Brits have one, many nations work like that in theory already, without the game mechanic.

That's what Pirates should stand for. Spain acts as a nation. Rogue actions disturb our game play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

That's what Pirates should stand for. Spain acts as a nation. Rogue actions disturb our game play.

Consider lack of nation unity historically accurate and as game feature. Not everyone wants to be a pirate and even pirates are a nation now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banished Privateer said:

Everything for the past years proves that nations don't work, create toxic environment and lots of dramas, because simply no one has official power to control or steer the nation, but we do have tools to control clans ourselves :) Nations are depiction of anarchy and chaos.

Nobody say it cant't work as a clan based game. I just prefere and like the nations. For me it gives some depth in the game. I like to sail under the danish flag. But to belive the game will be less toxic, don't really think so.

If it is  was clan based, I guess it will only be acces to your own port ore friendly ports. So the solo player without a clan, will have a tougher time. The small 1-2 man clan will also be in problem. I honnesty don't think they can make a good enough mechanic for those players. But agaib devs just need to deside what game they want, then it is up to ppl to find out if it is a game for them. I just hope it stay nationbased, even I am not sure it is a benefit for my nation ore the gameplay I like.

Edited by staun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2018 at 2:57 AM, Davos Seaworth said:

The issue with this game is for the new and casual player to expand beyond their capital area and this attraction these capital areas have for large hunting fleets. These large hunting fleets or more correctly consistent hunting around the capital regions where new and casual players are locating have not helped the servers population. This is not the complete faults of the experienced hunters who are only going where there is a high chance of a battle to occur. It is also not the faults of the casual and new players for staying in those said regions which they start from, resources/trading are located, and quick means of entertainment against ai and rewards. The game development needs to solve some of these issues. One individual stated making the capitals less of a trade hub where you can take goods from and sell for high prices but rather make them places where you can sell goods at removing the desire of holding that as a permanent outpost. Spread those trade resources out. Remove the reinforcement zones. They are not useful. Otto said it best where the only reliable protection is another player. If the devs want to make a protected area for these new and casual players like they probably should do they need to create a certain zone around the capital where PvP is not possible and that PvE rewards are only experience and limited gold. Just an idea quickly mashed together for this post. Majority of games similar to Naval Action have such a thing that divides the PvE sections from PvP. Do not agree it should be as significant as most of those games but there needs to be something. There also needs to be a better incentive for these new and casual players to move out from the capital areas such as better RNG in crafting, better resources, better content, etc. This would reduce the contact of the hunters around the capital regions and actually help the growth of the server and potentially see vacant parts of the map populated slightly if not significantly depending on the increased value of those regions. Also another idea since I was interrupted mid-writing of this and just started rambling losing my place, I apologize, is have players activity in areas be more of a significant impact of the values of ports and definitely fix taxes which has hurt RvR for a lot of people.

Davos

i see the issue.

but for about the reinforcement areas ,...if the reinforcement arias  do not help , there is also no need to remove them.

so in my eyes if it has some effect to those who needs them at a particular point,    it is of great value ..

there is no need in removing the reinforced area 

for the port to have and the possibility to move around in different areas

i think that the capital port and the uncaptural ports need NO slot , so there are more slotsto own for other ports around the map so the exploration of players be more out to the world instead of at a certain area around capitals because of shortage of port owning 

you only need a warehouse where  the nation owns the port 

 

Edited by Thonys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that 1-2 men clan can ally witj stronger clan :) Of course, if they have something reasonable to offer, not just ally for benefits and give nothing in return. Clan based mechanic would make it fair and logical. That's where the war companies idea came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Consider lack of nation unity historically accurate and as game feature. Not everyone wants to be a pirate and even pirates are a nation now :)

Of course. Pirates is only for people who prefer to play in a clan based community like you described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Remember that 1-2 men clan can ally witj stronger clan :) Of course, if they have something reasonable to offer, not just ally for benefits and give nothing in return. Clan based mechanic would make it fair and logical. That's where the war companies idea came from.

So small labdogs, that have to bidding of there Masters. And if they don’t, they get destroyed. Sure Sound less toxic. All to the strong, screw the rest?

Even the the big companies had to answer to nations. Even the British east india Company ore the Dutch Voc. With all is ships and soldiers had to answer to a King. We don’t have a king in the game.

Edited by staun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

Excuses, excuses. If you are strong you can always attack and you got multiflipped not because you were unbeatable but because you put the timers at disgusting times.

Sweden was laughed at 1,5 years ago because they were so weak, yet they still kept playing and attacking (10 attacks on Castries as a prime example).

 

So plz stop kid yourself

If that was the case the French and Americans would have been multiflipped as well. The giveaway was the bullshit on the forums about wanting fights in the Bahamas and lo and behold, there are no fights there. It was a convenient excuse. You're getting it the wrong way around, the timers were there to discourage attacks because everyone kept multiflipping us, in truth it was the MAD guys more than anyone who caused us to decide to do it (that was down to broken hostility mechanics).

Putting timers at "disgusting times" where "no-one" can attack yet you manage to flip 8 ports in that time and attend 4 PB's. Gimme a break lol.

Oh wow, we're referring to Sweden since before the wipe then... Which is totally irrelevant to this server.

Edited by Gregory Rainsborough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

If that was the case the French and Americans would have been multiflipped as well. The giveaway was the bullshit on the forums about wanting fights in the Bahamas and lo and behold, there are no fights there. It was a convenient excuse.

Putting timers at "disgusting times" where "no-one" can attack yet you manage to flip 8 ports in that time and attend 4 PB's. Gimme a break lol.

Oh wow, we're referring to Sweden since before the wipe then... Which is totally irrelevant to this server.

Instead of writing here useless posts about the bad life in the British nation, you should take some of your newbies at your hand, sail with them out in OW and teach them how to fight in PvP. Out there you don't have the right to win immediately. But you get the  chance to turn your noobs into proper players who will be able to defend your nation successfully one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what we did in RSC for many months, we had no PB commanders or players when we first went to the Bahamas. Thanks to that there's now a decent number of us, about 3000 BR at any one time that can form a decentishfleet. The main problem for GB is people leaving the nation, it's a regular cycle now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the older guys are just burnt out now. Let the newbies learn the hard way because they don't listen to us. This is a game, not a job. I'm not going to spend my free time babysitting any more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, staun said:

So small labdogs, that have to bidding of there Masters. And if they don’t, they get destroyed. Sure Sound less toxic. All to the strong, screw the rest?

Even the the big companies had to answer to nations. Even the British east india Company ore the Dutch Voc. With all is ships and soldiers had to answer to a King. We don’t have a king in the game.

Yea, remember kings were chosen by God or sometimes through bed ;) We should certainly implement that into the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Yea, remember kings were chosen by God or sometimes through bed ;) We should certainly implement that into the game. 

We do actually have a King in the game. He is called admin. For now he wants nations, so to Call for bring Down Nations is treason against the King. He should strip you of rank, proberties and send you to the erxecutioner. Think at that time they used a sword, to chop of the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staun said:

We do actually have a King in the game. He is called admin. For now he wants nations, so to Call for bring Down Nations is treason against the King. He should strip you of rank, proberties and send you to the erxecutioner. Think at that time they used a sword, to chop of the head.

If he wanted nations, he wouldn't propose and try to implement war companies :) Nations can exist, no problem with that, but they shall not be united. All nations were divided and had different factions and camps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

If he wanted nations, he wouldn't propose and try to implement war companies :) Nations can exist, no problem with that, but they shall not be united. All nations were divided and had different factions and camps.

Even devided they fought for the commen goal in the end. The King. Pretty sure you wouldn’t see to squadrons from the same nation, fight each other ore them join the enemy against there own nation. Pretty sure they thought as such action as high treason.

All I can say. Hail the King.

For the rest. Chop chop 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, staun said:

Even devided they fought for the commen goal in the end. The King. Pretty sure you wouldn’t see to squadrons from the same nation, fight each other ore them join the enemy against there own nation. Pretty sure they thought as such action as high treason.

All I can say. Hail the King.

For the rest. Chop chop 

Hmmmm... 🤔

The Dutch Revolt (1568–1648)[note 1] was the successful revolt of the northern, largely Protestant Seven Provinces of the Low Countries against the rule of the Roman Catholic King Philip II of Spain, hereditary ruler of the provinces. The southern provinces initially joined in the revolt but later submitted to Spain.

Let's look some more:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadian_Civil_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fronde

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubomirski's_rebellion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée

And.... We have much more. Please continue speaking about loyalty and unity :) Chop chop chop...

Edited by Banished Privateer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Hmmmm... 🤔

The Dutch Revolt (1568–1648)[note 1] was the successful revolt of the northern, largely Protestant Seven Provinces of the Low Countries against the rule of the Roman Catholic King Philip II of Spain, hereditary ruler of the provinces. The southern provinces initially joined in the revolt but later submitted to Spain.

Let's look some more:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadian_Civil_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fronde

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubomirski's_rebellion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée

And.... We have much more. Please continue speaking about loyalty and unity :) Chop chop chop...

Oh you can find plenty of fight for the Throne in each nation. But th time periode this game cover, pretty sure most nation was stable under a ruler. Even France, has tho to be said they had a small revolte.

But even then as recall fight was to form the country, not to abandon nations ore hand it over to another nation.

Edited by staun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, staun said:

Oh you can find plenty of fight for the Throne in each nation. But th time periode this game cover, pretty sure most nation was stable under a ruler. Even France, has tho to be said they had a small revolte.

But even then as recall fight was to form the country, not to abandon nations ore hand it over to another nation.

The time period this game covers is exactly what I linked - the biggest civil wars, revolts and rebelions. We are speaking pretty much 1700-1820. So... let's all live in peace, chop chop chop :)

not to abandon the nations or hand it over to another nation? Damn... You must be really bad at history.

Edited by Banished Privateer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 1:29 PM, Aster said:

Indiaman pvp best pvp. The amount of Indiaman I see that do not run guns on their ships causes me so much pain. At the very least an Indiaman is a big frigate, and in good hands its actually a really powerful 5th rate due to it having 68pnd carros which are op as hell for demasting. Anyway ALWAYS put guns on your Indiaman!!!

PS. Finally a good post for the Indiaman pvp shots

 

PPS. #Indiaman Refit!

I never understood why folks don't carry guns, it is maybe .2-4 knts different in speed which won't make a difference when fully loaded any way and well you can actually defend your self. Every one of my trade ships has guns and while I might of lost a ship here or there I have actually fought off more attacks than lost ships.  Than again I don't do trade runs at stupid time. I thin the last person that caught my trade alt was BOOM and even he didn't get my ships. One was sunk full of food supply but some one was able to get every thing off it and hand it to me back in port after the battle (we didn't sink him).  What I did in that fight was I sent my AI to run and I used my main ship to attack him.  He did sink me but by than my AI escaped and my main ship was able be looted by some one that joined late from the chase.  The point though was I gave him a good fight for his reward instead of making it an easy kill. I sunk other players in the past that tried to take one of my trade ships, simply cause I had cannons and they where fir/fir and I wasn't.

On 7/5/2018 at 4:25 PM, Banished Privateer said:

The Brits usually have 2 full screening fleets (50 players) + PB fleet. It's like 3 nations itself 🤣

Last night they had around 20-30 players at the Omoa port battle. US had about the same 20+ players too.  I know me and a clan mate was there as Spanish with one or two others in light ships just to tag and harass ships.  We didn't come in some big fleet, just a little skirmish (had to run as we had to many folks to fight in the battle we where in).  British was able to screen them out of the battle (think some on both sides got into the PB but not enough to make a difference) and keep there port for another day. 

On 7/6/2018 at 9:40 AM, Mrgoldstein said:

yeah its getting pretty sad, spain taking ports in belize (to coward to fight the french) the us cannot fight anyone so they ally with spain and start nightflipping ports at belize too, the we got the french ganking kpr from la navasse and the danes up NE ..everyone vs GB...while GB atm only has newb players, wich are leaving the game atm because of all the ganking.you wanna keep the game alive? Then after a while go attack another nation instead of picking on the weak with yall

You do know there is no such thing as a night flip.  You either have timers on a port and it can only be flipped in that time or you leave it open and it can be flipped at any time.  You don't want off time flips than put timers on your port.  If you can't defend it in off times than maybe you shouldn't own that port in the first place.  You want to keep them safe you put timers on it and defend the port in your prime.

21 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

it doesn't matter if we lose all our ports! It was silly having so many in the first place.  

I'll have to agree with this and this goes for many nations not just GB.  Right now I think it's actually good US has no coastal ports (wait we still have two of them folks keep forgetting about).  It made them get off the coast and go other places.  US and GB skill wise are very well matched up as was seen last night if ya'll actually show up to the fight you will 50/50 or more of the time prob beat the US, but you don't even try to show half the time and folks end up getting empty port battles.

8 hours ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

Excuses, excuses. If you are strong you can always attack and you got multiflipped not because you were unbeatable but because you put the timers at disgusting times.

Sweden was laughed at 1,5 years ago because they were so weak, yet they still kept playing and attacking (10 attacks on Castries as a prime example).

 

So plz stop kid yourself

After that weekend all the other ports we hit and took was in a timer they set.  They showed up for some and others they didn't even show until he dropped all the ports.  If they where so strong they wouldn't of dropped the ports and they would of been able to hold them in the timer they had set.

 

6 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

If that was the case the French and Americans would have been multiflipped as well. The giveaway was the bullshit on the forums about wanting fights in the Bahamas and lo and behold, there are no fights there. It was a convenient excuse. You're getting it the wrong way around, the timers were there to discourage attacks because everyone kept multiflipping us, in truth it was the MAD guys more than anyone who caused us to decide to do it (that was down to broken hostility mechanics).

Putting timers at "disgusting times" where "no-one" can attack yet you manage to flip 8 ports in that time and attend 4 PB's. Gimme a break lol.

Oh wow, we're referring to Sweden since before the wipe then... Which is totally irrelevant to this server.

We set timers to our prime time and we have a lot of open window ports in the Bahamas that we have defended when they have been attacked.  So how is that the same as you setting all your ports to a retarded time that was proven you couldn't even defend when we flipped one port on a weekend in your prime time and you only had about half the BR show up to defend it?   I think it's funny you keep saying every one keep multi flipping you, OCTOFLIP was the only time mulit nations did so and well it proved a point..  After that all ports where flipped in your time zone set by you and was the only battle at that time.   So what was your excuse for all those other ports you lost?  

PS great showing last night. I think I even notice a few names I haven't seen in a while on the combat news which is good.  Maybe the problem is more folks are bored and don't show up to game when there is nothing going on.  Give them something to do and folks log in and show up.  Like you know give them a goal and fight.....oh and have any of the Brits even thought about coming to talk to the US about what is going on?  Maybe a deal can be worked out, peace and such come to an agreement.  Nah one could never think of doing something like that?

Edited by Sir Texas Sir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banished Privateer said:

Hmmmm... 🤔

The Dutch Revolt (1568–1648)[note 1] was the successful revolt of the northern, largely Protestant Seven Provinces of the Low Countries against the rule of the Roman Catholic King Philip II of Spain, hereditary ruler of the provinces. The southern provinces initially joined in the revolt but later submitted to Spain.

Let's look some more:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadian_Civil_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fronde

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubomirski's_rebellion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée

And.... We have much more. Please continue speaking about loyalty and unity :) Chop chop chop...

And what was the result? Are the Netherlands now a clan or a nation? Is the United States a clan or a nation? Is France divided in clans or is it still a nation?

Have a look on the definition of a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

Your idea of a clan based game play is in reality nothing else than a split of a few big nations into an high number of mini states. Since every entity which has political control over a territory is a state by definition.

The problem with existing nations is that we don't have a mechanic to rule them efficiently.

Edited by Graf Bernadotte
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

And what was the result? Are the Netherlands now a clan or a nation. Is the United States a clan or a nation? Is France divided in clans or is it still a nation?

 Have a look on the definition of a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

Your idea of a clan based game play is in reality nothing else than a split of a few big nations into an high number of mini states. Since every entity which has political control over a territory is a state by definition.

It's an entity which

Are you serious or just trolling? There is always one winner that dictates the conditions. If I don't like someone in my nation, I should have an option to fight him or rebel/revolt. This game enforces 100% nation unity, but players still have nation chat for many, many hours of chat PvP :) Best game mechanic ever.

Edited by Banished Privateer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Are you serious or just trolling? There is always one winner that dictates the conditions. If I don't like someone in my nation, I should have an option to fight him or rebel/revolt. This game enforces 100% nation unity, but players still have nation chat for many, many hours of chat PvP :) Best game mechanic ever.

And if you have a player in your clan you don't like? You can kick him if you're an officer and he doesn't have support. But as ordinary member you can do a shit like in the nation. Your problem is not the nation. Your problem is your intolerance to other people. Just ignore people you don't like. You don't have to sink everybody.

Edited by Graf Bernadotte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

If that was the case the French and Americans would have been multiflipped as well. The giveaway was the bullshit on the forums about wanting fights in the Bahamas and lo and behold, there are no fights there. It was a convenient excuse. You're getting it the wrong way around, the timers were there to discourage attacks because everyone kept multiflipping us, in truth it was the MAD guys more than anyone who caused us to decide to do it (that was down to broken hostility mechanics).

Putting timers at "disgusting times" where "no-one" can attack yet you manage to flip 8 ports in that time and attend 4 PB's. Gimme a break lol.

Oh wow, we're referring to Sweden since before the wipe then... Which is totally irrelevant to this server.

You still salty about that octoflip huh.  

Fact of the matter is you owned the majority of the ports in the bahamas and set timers to just after server up time to ensure that you kept them because most people work and can't attack that early.  People were tired of this and it was easy to find friends willing to help break the timer wall.  Set all your ports to the same timer, don't cry when you lose them all at once.  After breaking the timer wall there have been considerably more fights in the bahamas after the change in management than there was previously.  This is good sport and the bahams have been a fun playing ground for several nations now.  Now we just need to fix that little swede area.....       

You put timers at unreasonable times to ensure your holdings, people got pissed and banded together to to create an op where you lost most of your ports, you didn't even bother showing and your clan died.  

Get over it already. 

Edited by Christendom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Christendom said:

You still salty about that octoflip huh.  

Fact of the matter is you owned the majority of the ports in the bahamas and set timers to just after server up time to ensure that you kept them because most people work and can't attack that early.  People were tired of this and it was easy to find friends willing to help break the timer wall.  Set all your ports to the same timer, don't cry when you lose them all at once.  After breaking the timer wall there have been considerably more fights in the bahamas after the change in management than there was previously.  This is good sport and the bahams have been a fun playing ground for several nations now.  Now we just need to fix that little swede area.....       

You put timers at unreasonable times to ensure your holdings, people got pissed and banded together to to create an op where you lost most of your ports, you didn't even bother showing and your clan died.  

Get over it already. 

And if I remember right most of us that joined together to flip him that weekend was more cause of all the BS crap he was posting on the forums more than anything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

The time period this game covers is exactly what I linked - the biggest civil wars, revolts and rebelions. We are speaking pretty much 1700-1820. So... let's all live in peace, chop chop chop :)

not to abandon the nations or hand it over to another nation? Damn... You must be really bad at history.

Havent tjecked all your links. Was to a bithsday with my nice. You highligh the Dutch war. It was from 1568- 1646. Game time from 1700-1820.( with USA in closer to 1783 and not 1700). To me it looks like two different time periods. But the fights was not to destroy the nation, But about the control over the contry.

But as said, you can easily make it clan based. Personnaly I dont think it will give a better gameplay and I like the historically aspect with nations.

Edit;

You might be right that my history knowledge is limit. But I have a question for you. If you was to a history exam, and stated two different time periods, with no overlap in time, is the same period. You think you would get an A+. If you at the same exame stated that the wars in the periode 1700-1820 in Europa was about destroying nations and hand over the power to a warlords, do you think you would get an A+. Why Europa, well thats where the nations in the game in generally are from. The time can’t be before 1783 where the  USA as nation was regonized  if I remember correct. But i can live with you very expanded timeperiod.

Edited by staun

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

×