Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Patch 19: Mega Patch with new patrol missions, new hostility, victory marks for small clans, and other changes.

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, BPHick said:

I'm sorry, but Eric Flint is a fantasywriter. Grantville Gazette is 'addendum'/addition to some book-fantasyseries. Fantasy, about an american village that gets transported back into time and ends up somewhere in medieval Europe (somewhere in Germany, can't remember atm) and obviously, being american and having some technological advantage they offcourse know what is best for everybody ;-) .

I would not call that a reliable source.  :-)

Share this post


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

I'm sorry, but Eric Flint is a fantasywriter. Grantville Gazette is 'addendum'/addition to some book-fantasyseries. Fantasy, about an american village that gets transported back into time and ends up somewhere in medieval Europe (somewhere in Germany, can't remember atm) and obviously, being american and having some technological advantage they offcourse know what is best for everybody ;-) .

I would not call that a reliable source.  :-)

Who cares why the article was written if the sources it is based off of are sound (doing so is to commit a logical fallacy, btw)? The sources are provided, as are the calculations. The math contained within the article also passes the "reasonable" test when compared to the provided source information, so therefore the article's conclusions on this specific topic are valid.

Also, my initial post only referred to the Grundner quote, which I had seen elsewhere but only put in about 5 seconds in google looking for it (hence the Grantville gazette link).

 

Edited by BPHick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only said something because that Grantville gazette thing is part of the story and he's quite liberal in what he's using as 'fact'. It only serves to help the story, not to give an accurate depiction. Cherry-picking stuff that is usefull for the story does not make it objective.

I understand what you're saying or trying to do, I'm only saying that I would not call that a reliable source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 12:42 PM, Eyesore said:

I only said something because that Grantville gazette thing is part of the story and he's quite liberal in what he's using as 'fact'. It only serves to help the story, not to give an accurate depiction. Cherry-picking stuff that is usefull for the story does not make it objective.

I understand what you're saying or trying to do, I'm only saying that I would not call that a reliable source.

He didn't write the article, for one.

For 2, the article wasn't written for the story, it was written to provide a historical basis for the future of the story (like many of the similar-themed posts here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Port Timer Costs are killing smaller clans. 

GB clan lost a bunch of ports in the bahamas due to running out of money. At least 1 dutch clan is at risk of the same thing happening. 

It's great that the map gets more dynamic, but having timer/port cost not scale to the port profitability means that smaller clans taking smaller ports can't hold those ports because they can't afford the timer cost and don't have the round-the-clock membership to defend in their off time, which then means the clan loses the ports and thus the associated victory mark(s) and is in the same situation as before when the VM's only when to the top 3 nations......

Either make the costs of a port/timers scale to the "value" of the port, or revert back to something more manageable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BPHick said:

Port Timer Costs are killing smaller clans. 

GB clan lost a bunch of ports in the bahamas due to running out of money. At least 1 dutch clan is at risk of the same thing happening. 

It's great that the map gets more dynamic, but having timer/port cost not scale to the port profitability means that smaller clans taking smaller ports can't hold those ports because they can't afford the timer cost and don't have the round-the-clock membership to defend in their off time, which then means the clan loses the ports and thus the associated victory mark(s) and is in the same situation as before when the VM's only when to the top 3 nations......

Either make the costs of a port/timers scale to the "value" of the port, or revert back to something more manageable.  

I guess my question is why set a timer then if you can't afford it?  The prices aren't that exorbitant and perhaps we should only be setting timers on the few, important ports that matter to us?

Now, I'm all for much more content surrounding port ownership.  For example, we could set up and manage goods production and AI trade routes between ports to generate port income, etc.  That would make owning ports meaningful, etc. But for now, the primary motivation being control of certain resources and turning dots your color, yeah.. it only makes sense to pay the port cost timers on the ports that really matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BPHick said:

Port Timer Costs are killing smaller clans. 

GB clan lost a bunch of ports in the bahamas due to running out of money. At least 1 dutch clan is at risk of the same thing happening. 

It's great that the map gets more dynamic, but having timer/port cost not scale to the port profitability means that smaller clans taking smaller ports can't hold those ports because they can't afford the timer cost and don't have the round-the-clock membership to defend in their off time, which then means the clan loses the ports and thus the associated victory mark(s) and is in the same situation as before when the VM's only when to the top 3 nations......

Either make the costs of a port/timers scale to the "value" of the port, or revert back to something more manageable.  

Is it more dynamic now? have this taxes change been good for the game?

I dont think so, it is boring as hell. The most static map I have seen lately, only one or two PBs each day by almost the same guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our clan is devoting a rather notable amount of resources to keeping a single port with a favorable timer on it. It's probably just a little too expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wraith said:

I guess my question is why set a timer then if you can't afford it?  The prices aren't that exorbitant and perhaps we should only be setting timers on the few, important ports that matter to us?

Now, I'm all for much more content surrounding port ownership.  For example, we could set up and manage goods production and AI trade routes between ports to generate port income, etc.  That would make owning ports meaningful, etc. But for now, the primary motivation being control of certain resources and turning dots your color, yeah.. it only makes sense to pay the port cost timers on the ports that really matter.

because they are trying to keep the port during a time when they can defend it for VM's.

VM's are the chief reason to own a port, more so than resources, at least for smaller clans.

Edited by BPHick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Is it more dynamic now? have this taxes change been good for the game?

I dont think so, it is boring as hell. The most static map I have seen lately, only one or two PBs each day by almost the same guys.

It's dynamic in that when a clan runs out of money, several ports go neutral at once. The comment was a little bit facetious.

Edited by BPHick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we have seen on Tuesday evening at San Mateo with the hostility missions there is something that needs to be looked upon:

Should the number of hostility missions against one port be limited to a max number if started at the same time?  Or should we have a minimum number of ship in a hostility mission?

We don't know exactly how many were created but it has been estimated that about 20 something were active in 1v1 fashion, the goal was evidently to deny the possibility for the defense to counter the hostility missions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

As we have seen on Tuesday evening at San Mateo with the hostility missions there is something that needs to be looked upon:

Should the number of hostility missions against one port be limited to a max number if started at the same time?  Or should we have a minimum number of ship in a hostility mission?

We don't know exactly how many were created but it has been estimated that about 20 something were active in 1v1 fashion, the goal was evidently to deny the possibility for the defense to counter the hostility missions.

 

While I understand your frustration it seems like neither of your solutions would be ideal. A ship minimum would hurt solo players, smaller nations and smaller clans. A max number of active missions could be exploitable by alts. “Hey everyone with a French Alt take a hostility mission at San Mateo.”

When you guys were trying to counter the large number of missions, did you try sending in one scout first to determine how much response was needed? That may be the only way to counter. Send in your fast tagger first. 

Edited by Farrago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Farrago said:

While I understand your frustration it seems like neither of your solutions would be ideal. A ship minimum would hurt solo players, smaller nations and smaller clans. A max number of active missions could be exploitable by alts. “Hey everyone with a French Alt take a hostility mission at San Mateo.”

When you guys were trying to counter the large number of missions, did you try sending in one scout first to determine how much response was needed? That may be the only way to counter.

Doing hostility for important ports is already dead for groups less than 10. The new hostility missions take ages to generate the hostility needed. In that time every unorganised nation has send enough random players to counter it by simply zerging. Do a proper nightflip or come in full fleet - we see how many great PBs we had in the recent past... not that many...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Louis Garneray said:

I don't think 20 simultaneous hostility missions should be the natural option.

Totally agreed, but its the most logical thing to do to prevent a full wipeout of the hostility generating fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we all know that the PVE to get to some RVR is not the best solution either.  And I don't know if there is a solution (beside the return of the flag).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

We don't know exactly how many were created but it has been estimated that about 20 something were active in 1v1 fashion, the goal was evidently to deny the possibility for the defense to counter the hostility missions.

Not at all.  You certainly had the opportunity to counter them, you just chose to do it in true ganker fashion, going 5-6+AI vs. 1 instead of taking the duel option presented to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Doing hostility for important ports is already dead for groups less than 10. The new hostility missions take ages to generate the hostility needed. In that time every unorganised nation has send enough random players to counter it by simply zerging. Do a proper nightflip or come in full fleet - we see how many great PBs we had in the recent past... not that many...

True. For important ports. But with the current Victory Mark system = ability to craft 1st rates, going for ports that are less important, especially those without timers, is the only way small clans and nations can ever attempt to grow in power and influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Farrago said:

True. For important ports. But with the current Victory Mark system = ability to craft 1st rates, going for ports that are less important, especially those without timers, is the only way small clans and nations can ever attempt to grow in power and influence.

We will have soon more ports on the map than average playercount. Unimportant ports simply get flipped with empty PB, because nobody really cares. Ports cost money but gain you only a simple victory mark that you get for important ports too that actually generate you money to pay for the unimportant ones you still own for... reasons nobody really can explain.

The new victory mark system made victory marks from a  stratetic good to a good every active players has in high numbers. 

Edited by Nelsons Barrel

Share this post


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

Not at all.  You certainly had the opportunity to counter them, you just chose to do it in true ganker fashion, going 5-6+AI vs. 1 instead of taking the duel option presented to you.

There are always more than 2 options in this situation. Lets say that the 6 French who were there they decided to do it the way you propose it. It could have been easy (as I am sure they were all on TS at the moment or in battle group) for the Americans alone in their mission to finish their 1v1pve fight and jump in the ones where each individual French were spread in. That's what I would have suggested if I had been on the US side.

We all know that a guaranty of 1v1 only exist when 2 opponents believe each other which is certainly not the case here.

So if I had been at San Mateo during that I would have advocated for all of French to jump in 1 mission only, finish quickly and get to the next if they are still going on. The only reason they could have decided to do 1v1 would have been only if they had enough people to get in each of them which we all know wasn't the case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

There are always more than 2 options in this situation. Lets say that the 6 French who were there they decided to do it the way you propose it. It could have been easy (as I am sure they were all on TS at the moment or in battle group) for the Americans alone in their mission to finish their 1v1pve fight and jump in the ones where each individual French were spread in. That's what I would have suggested if I had been on the US side.

We all know that a guaranty of 1v1 only exist when 2 opponents believe each other which is certainly not the case here.

So if I had been at San Mateo during that I would have advocated for all of French to jump in 1 mission only, finish quickly and get to the next if they are still going on. The only reason they could have decided to do 1v1 would have been only if they had enough people to get in each of them which we all know wasn't the case.

You don't have to justify your tactics, gankers do as gankers will and that's a perfectly valid play style. But the hypocrisy that y'all float around about OMGTHEZERG then feels laid on a little thick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple hostility missions doesn't make sense. Each time you jump and kill one of them they need 3-4 more to compensate due to PvP kills giving more hostility points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2018 at 2:40 PM, admin said:
  • There are 81 ports on the map that can make same or even more money than cartagena (in trading taxes)
  • There are 25 ports on the map with the hidden feature that no-one yet found - which can make EVEN MORE.
  • We just probably need to scale down on pve rewards to make people trade which will in turn make ports more profitable, which will in turn help timers.

So any one found any more info on these 25 magical ports yet?

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

×