Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Archaos

Members
  • Content Count

    1,896
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Archaos last won the day on February 21

Archaos had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,619 Excellent

1 Follower

About Archaos

  • Rank
    Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

1,638 profile views
  1. Thats like me cheating and sinking you in game and then justifying it by saying, well you can just come sink me to make it all right and if you dont then I couldnt have done anything wrong.
  2. If it would not have made a difference then why did you do it?
  3. Then why did HAVOC not just let the port go neutral and take it that way? Because they were afraid that a Danish clan or even some other Swedish clan would get it. The same as Truxillo, BASTD did not want to stop Sweden taking the port they just wanted to stop HAVOC getting it. Can you not see the similarities, in both cases people have played loosely with the game mechanics to get the outcome they desired.
  4. It is quite clear that the Admins do not have an easy solution to the San Juan issue and this is why they choose to ignore it and not comment either way about it. This has been their standard response when there is no easy solution. They may be looking at ways to solve it but will not acknowledge the problem till they have a solution. Whereas for the Truxillo case they feel they have a solution. If you note they never commented in the original tribunal thread about Truxillo till this thread where they proposed a solution.
  5. Why would Swedes want to capture a Swedish port? What you are saying is like saying that Denmark should have been able to capture San Juan from HAVOC before you switched nation to Sweden.
  6. But when you change nation you cannot take a port with you, you have to move all your stuff to free towns and you lose all your buildings when you change nation. So how did HAVOC manage to keep San Juan in this case? They abused the game mechanics to prevent other Danish clans the ability to defend the port. Your whole argument for it being different seems to be because you think it was done by a person with more than one account (e.g. an alt), but conveniently forget that the same abuse can be done without using alts, but using a friend in another nation or as in the case of San Juan, leaving some clan members in the nation till you have secured the port. The simple fact is that you knew the Danes could not defend the port because you had taken steps to ensure they could not by abusing the game mechanics.
  7. At least I know I was not involved in either abuse of the mechanics, where as you as a member of HAVOC have to try and defend what happened at San Juan.
  8. So where do you stop at realism when designing a game? Should we play the game in real time and take days to sail across the Caribbean? Should we have to load up food and water before we leave port? Does the food spoil on the journey? When we get killed in battle should we have to restart as a new character? You could choose any one of a million realistic things to complain about, but at the end of the day it is a game and certain things can be overlooked to make gameplay more enjoyable after all it is an escape from real life and not real life itself. If the OP was stating that having limited ammunition was a mechanic that would bring another dimension to gameplay and enhance the game, then I could possibly agree, but to say it should be in the game for sake of reality is a poor reason.
  9. Same as San Juan would have been okay if all of HAVOC had changed to Sweden and the port had gone neutral before they recaptured it. But they could not risk that happening in case someone else took the port. The game mechanics in both cases were used to ensure the port went to who they wanted it to go to and both cases are an abuse of the game mechanics no matter how you try and justify it.
  10. The problem is that the way the current game mechanics are there is indirect PvP on the PvE server because what a certain group of players do can adversely affect what other players can do. If I can capture a port and limit your access to it then my game play is affecting yours and we are in conflict with each other. This was always going to be an issue on the PvE server when certain features from the PvP server were requested.
  11. The proof is that HAVOC owned San Juan when they were Danish and when the clan moved to Sweden they left some clan members in Danish nation and removed all the other Danish clans from friend list. If the whole clan had moved then the port would have turned neutral. They claim that there were some players who were not playing that were still in Danish nation, but this does not cover the fact that there was a deliberate removal of clans from the friend list to prevent any sort of defense of the port. It is not exactly the same as the Truxillo incident, but is just as much an abuse of the game mechanics. You claim an alt was used at Truxillo, but what defines them as an alt? Would you say the Truxillo incident would have been okay if a player without an alt from BASTD clan had used forged papers to move to Sweden and raised hostility? You can see the similarity between the cases, in both not all the clan has changed nation and others were prevented from either attacking or defending a port by abuse of the game mechanics.
  12. And what about a ruling regarding what happened at ports like San Juan where a clan who owns a port decides to change nation but leaves at least one player in the former nation to remove all other clans from friendlist so no other clans from the nation can defend the port? What happened at Truxillo was not against the game rules but it was an abuse of mechanics the same as what happened at San Juan was not against the rules but is also an abuse of the game mechanics. Are we going to get a hotfix for this abuse so it cannot happen again?
  13. I agree that something needs to be done regarding the way that hostility was raised on Truxillo as it is an abuse of the game mechanics and this may solve that issue, but I do hope that you will also take a closer look at how ports are transferred when a clan changes nation. The removal of all other nation clans from the friend list to prevent them from defending a nation port is wrong and is just as much an abuse of the game mechanics as what happened at Truxillo. Even though ports are owned by a clan, in most cases many other clans have contributed to the development of the port and as such have a right to try and defend their investment when the owning clan decides to move nation.
  14. So you are transmitting information that you should not have been party to, I think that calls for a BAN. 🙂
  15. Wrong!! HAVOC were going to lose San Juan if they changed nation as you have to move all your stuff to neutral port before using forged papers and all possesions and buildings in nation would be lost. They knew this and took steps to keep the port.
×
×
  • Create New...