Archaos
-
Posts
2,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Archaos
-
-
41 minutes ago, Wraith said:
I read this as... "We hold too many ports, are lazy as fuck, and don't want to play the game." If you don't want to defend the ports you let them go, simple. Then, you create content by taking those ports back when you want to, right?
Everyone in this game wants content on their own terms and screw everyone else's play. Sigh.
We had this before with the flag system where night after night people had to turn out to defend the same ports against the same people, and all that happened in the end was people gave up doing it and left the game because they were burned out. Just doing battle after battle is more suited to an arena game not an OW RvR game where taking and holding a port is supposed to have some significance. Yes Port Battles are end game content, but in most other OW games you dont do the same end game content day after day.
If as you say people hold too many ports then they can be attacked at another port the next day, but to have to repeat the same defense against the same people every second day just gets tiring and leads to toxicity.
-
9 minutes ago, Elric said:
Many of the ports with timers can only be attacked on weekends. A 7 day wait really limits opportunities to attack again. Attacking on a Saturday for a Sunday PB, the completion of a successful defense is likely OUTSIDE the timer window - and consequently a cool-down time of 7 days would mean effectively 2 weeks. If there are going to be changes - I would say a 36 - 54 hour wait to allow attacks 2 or 3 days after.
I can see the point you make here, and would agree that maybe a 7 day cool down would be too long, but it still leaves the issue of people participating in a successful attack or defense of a port and getting nothing for it because there was another battle later in the week and the port was lost or they were not able to attend again. A 3 day non-hostility timer would probably be okay, same as when a port is captured.
As to the ports with timers set at low population times, that is another issue altogether and although I can see why people put some ports on those times (because it is their prime time) there are others who deliberately put them at awkward times for their enemies. The repetitive attacks are one reason why people would do this, to avoid having to constantly defend. It does not help either that certain nations are forming alliances to ensure they cover the various timezones and then handing over ports between themselves.
-
5 minutes ago, Ketunpoika said:
1. Yes it does.
2. Take a look the map and resource's (like Little Cayman)
By that logic Cartagena de Indias should be attacked daily, but its not?????
-
29 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:
Defenders can counter attack the hostility missions with huge advantage
You know this is not true, because the attackers can have the hostility almost completed before the defenders even realize hostility is being gained by having multiple hostility missions and keeping last AI alive and co-ordinating so that hostility almost instantly reaches 100%
-
17 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:
Who here wants less content!? Seriously it is ridiculous
Its not about reducing content, its about giving proper reward for successfully winning, that reward should be the VM and a respite before you have to face the same thing again. There are plenty of ports on the map that there should still be plenty of RvR. Make the RvR more dynamic so people do not get tired of the same old battle again and again.
-
32 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
I like the idea but I think a week might be too long, the amount of time that you get when you take a port should be sufficient.
The problem with giving them immediately is that people would just get friendly nations to flip their ports constantly.
The thing is the only reward for RvR apart from knowing you won, is the victory marks which are given once a week. You could do 2 port battles in a week and still end up with nothing because the port was lost on a Sunday or you could not get into the port battle group for the last battle.
-
7 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:
If you own an attractive port either because of location, resource or the combination you must realize that this would bring a lot of content your way.
This has not really worked as intended in the game has it? When was the last time Cartagena de Indias or Esteros or any othere of the very profitable ports come under attack? People have just circumvented it with alts.
-
1
-
-
With the current RvR rules after a successful port defense the there is only a 24 hour break before the attackers can build hostility again, this leads to a couple of issues.
Firstly if you are a new defender of a port you do not get any reward for defending the port and have to wait till the end of the week to get your victory mark. But in this time there could potentially be two more port battles and if you are not present at them or are unlucky enough not to get a place in the port battle defense group you lose out on your victory mark because either the port is lost or you were not on the latest defense group if the port was retained.
Secondly with only a 24 hour cooldown before hostility can be gained again it just leads to a repetitive grind to keep a port till either the attacking side or the defending side give up because people are burned out and cannot be bothered showing up anymore. It becomes similar to the days of port battle flags where a single port could be attacked night after night which led to burnout and people getting tired of the game.
In reality after failing to capture a port it would take some time before a new attack could be mounted, so I would suggest that there be a maximum of 1 port battle per week per port (there are enough ports on the map that RvR would still be active), that way after a successful attack or defense the winners get a break to enjoy the port and receive their rewards and have time to rebuild their forces. It also stops people getting burnt out attacking or defending the same port over and over every couple of days.
If it is felt that a week is too long then at least award the winners of the port battle a reward of victory mark immediately, but still increase the cooldown time after a successful defense to the same as after a successful attack.
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, Ink said:
Example 3
- A Port Battle was planned at 15:00
- Server crashed at 15:20 during an ongoing battle. Server is restored at 16:00
- Players can join the Port Battle again right away at 16:00 despite the timer is still shown as 15:00 (All ships lost in the previous battle are restored).
If the server crashed 15 minutes into a port battle, where would people rejoin? would it be in the battle instance or outside? Would they still be limited to the join delay after log on? Or if they rejoin in the instance then surely the ones that appear first will have an advantage and you will get people joining to find themselves already sunk.
Unless you can guarantee that all players join at the same instant and are all able to operate at the same time then it is not wise to allow a port battle to continue like this as a minute difference could be huge in terms of damage taken.
-
1 hour ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
I won the boarding. Being pushed into the wind constantly is annoying with no attempt on their part to do anything else.
I'm not sure if they were just trying to push you into the wind to board, but I have killed a few Hercs with the Le Requin by just leaning alongside them and shooting, most of their cannons cannot hit the low Le Requin and with carronades I can outdamage their cannons that do hit. 1v1 I have not lost a battle yet against a Herc in a Le Requin.
-
3 hours ago, z4ys said:
Nobody wants to play with randoms. Let's look at world of warcraft. Doing instances with random grps was a pain. You died many times. Wow has no loss and it's still painful.
NA has loss. Imagine to do epic event with 6 randoms. You cannot retry. A Lose means lose. And now think again why you see no LFG...
Same for goes for portbattles. A random Grp will almost never succeed. So why try in the first place. And randoms don't care about a port. It has no benefit for a random player only drawbacks.
I agree with the current game mechanics that this is true, but this is more reason why there needs to be more protection for players levelling up and learning the game. Pick up groups are no good for end game content like PB's and Epic events but for missioning and attacking OW AI fleets a pick up group should suffice. The problem with current game is that if you shout out in nation that you are forming a group to do missions or attack OW AI fleets you are guaranteed to attract the attention of gankers who will either get you on the way to the mission or wait till you exit the mission to jump you.
I remember when there were regular shouts for attacking OW AI 1st rate fleets for people levelling, but at that time battles closed sooner and there was not as much ganking around capitals. There was not much fear sailing a 1st or 2nd rate solo to a mission South of KPR, but that changed and the game went more to the way the so called PvP'ers wanted it with easy targets and gank opportunities to what we have now where even the reinforcement zones are not safe. Those shouts for people to join 1st rate OW fleet attacking was where many of the current veterans of PvP learnt their SOL fleet skills and made the friendships and groups that still exist today. But this does not exist any longer for new players as they are thrown in at the deep end so even experienced veterans cannot afford to teach them without risking their own ships.
-
Its a war game, two sides fought, one lost, one won. I do not see what the issue is here.
-
57 minutes ago, Christendom said:
Last night the most esteemed VCO fleet was ganked outside tumbabo by a group of American and Spanish sailors from the clans of CSA & SANTI with a numerically superior and higher BR force immediately after the most honorable fleet of VCO let members of the same fleet escape from a battle minutes beforehand where they would of easily been sunk. This aggression and betrayal will not stand.
And the moral of the story here is gank before you are ganked. I do not understand why you are angry at this, are the Americans and Spanish allies of yours or are they enemies? If they are enemies then its fair game.
I just think the game starts getting a bit silly when only certain clans in a nation are targeted and it provides more reason why this game should change to a clan warfare game rather than nations.
As to creating content, I have no issue with that.
-
1
-
-
On 5/31/2018 at 3:16 PM, Oberon74 said:
If you want to go hard core even more, you can use a sextant to determine if another ship is getting closer or farther. Simply by comparing the angle between his mast head and waterline over time.
Why would you even need to do this??????? When you can simply look at the other vessel and if it is getting bigger it is getting closer and if it is getting smaller it is getting farther away. No need for sextant angles and any form of calculation. In actual fact the difference in angle would be so minuscule at long range that the error in the accuracy of the reading from a moving ship would make the readings worthless.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, ElegantWay said:
sorry for The chat system dropped, showing only the nation and clans.
but At the end of the battle, we divided the enemy into 3 parts, which is very advantageous.
when you escap,We are at a disadvantage.
I'm sorry but sending a Santi and L'ocean to kill a mercury and Wasa is a waste when we could have killed their 1st rates. We had two of their 1st rates down to almost no side armor but lacked the firepower to get the killing blow. You were asked in battle chat a few times to join the main force but did not respond. We also warned you that their first rates were starting to head for you to assist their Bellona as they could not get to us. Even if we had remained in battle the outcome would have been no different.
You choose not to communicate with us in battle, what are we supposed to do?
-
All the way through that battle Elegant Way and his friends were asked to stay together with the main group. They were not on TS and did not respond to team chat. They chased after and managed to sink a mercury and Wasa for the loss of a Santi, instead of remaining with the main group where we were having some effect on the bigger targets. In the end without the additional fire power of their 2 first rates we could not press home our advantage and close to the end of the battle decided to escape. It was announced in team chat with still no response, but immediately after we left they messaged us asking why we had left.
I understand there are language difficulties but to not have any communication through the battle and then once we leave they are suddenly able to message us??? In the end that battle was a waste of time for majority of us as all we ended up doing was keeping the first rates occupied while they killed easy targets.
-
Make the game clan based rather than nation.
-
3
-
-
I do not think they tested the Le Requin properly to discover all the likely issues before releasing it as DLC. Giving us only a single Le Requin to test and give feedback on was not the way to get good feedback as most people were too cautious with it and were not able to test different builds and setups and the ones that did push it to its limits most probably lost it quickly and thus were not able to test anymore.
Now that it is a DLC and people can redeem daily the true issues of this vessel are being reported, but it is difficult to make changes to it without creating an uproar from people who have purchased it.
Maybe in future for getting feedback they allow people unlimited ships to test, which at the end of the test period are deleted.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:
This is not one-sided, both sides experience ship being teleported. Thus, it's not ISP connection one-side issue. @TemplarCrusader
Its not very clear but to me it looks like your ship was the one that moved as the positions of the other two seem to remain the same relative to each other, so it could be an ISP connection issue on your side.
-
40 minutes ago, Wind said:
BS, visual look is always a priority in any game that strive to sell well.
Compare how many players play minecraft to NA and you have the answer to the question are visual looks a priority in any game.
-
2 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:
It's enough to shut down the game and they can do it 100% legally, but it's funny listening to people saying Devs can't legally adjust DLC content.
They may legally be able to change things but if they are not careful they can leave themselves open to people requesting refunds. There have been cases where games companies have been successfully taken to court regarding in game items that were purchased with real money. Its still a grey area as many judges do not see intangible objects as having value. but as precedent is set from previous cases the ruling will develop. There was a case in Holland if I remember correctly regarding purchased in-game items and another in the US with regards to Linden Labs and second Life.
-
2 minutes ago, z4ys said:
By the way thats how broken "elite pirate rig refit" for the xebec is
Elite pirate is wasted on it as it can reach cap with pirate refit. I want to test how if LO/WO one can reach speed cap.
-
7 minutes ago, admin said:
Did you use redeem button ?
If you did you should have X current slots + 10 new from the admiralty connection. ? Could you please check if you have them after you redeem?I used redeem and it only expanded to 25 slots total, I already had 20 slots open.
-
6 minutes ago, Thonys said:
expand the docks with gold and you have 2/3 more
i have a total of 25 ship slots
But the DLC should give 10 slots, so you should have 30 if fully expanded in game
-
2
-
Idea for a PvP kill trophy system.
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
As you found out at the Misti PB yesterday against my Herc 😁