-
Posts
2,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Archaos
-
This may be the way you play the game, but for a lot of players it is the other way around, they see 1v3 Brits vs Spain they join Spain for easy kill and possible loot so it becomes 1v4, at least this will stop that happening too often and loot stealers from a third nation will not be so keen to enter battles.
-
I am not sure how it limits PvP as you are still free to go out and attack any enemy nation without affecting your reputation. As I understand it your reputation is only affected if you join on one side of and already started battle. e.g. you are GB and you come across a Russian vs Swedish battle and you join on the side of Russia, then your reputation will be negative against Sweden, so after that battle you would not be able to join as Swedish against another nation in another battle. Seems quite a good mechanic to me to stop other nations joining on your side just to open up BR for others to join against you. To me its like declaring your position as to which side you are friendly with or not, if you are allied/friendly with a nation why would you jump in a battle against them. If you are neutral to both nations then why would you bother interfering with their battle, just sail on by and find your own battle and leave others with the dilemma whether to join or not.
-
I like the change you are proposing and I think that despite a lot of complaints it will work out quite well in practice. I think it will lead to a lot more even fights without people jumping in on the side of the nation that already has greater numbers. The one thing I would say is that maybe bad reputation could decay over time rather than just be paid off. Still keep a payment option for low bad reputation so people who make a mistake can repair their reputation, but for persistent offenders a slow decay would be good to prove that they have changed their ways. This will help people who do not regularly change nations (I am assuming that using prolific forger will have to reset reputation). The decay could also be accelerated by not attacking any of that nations vessels at all, that way as alliances change you could go through a period of non-aggression to get rid of reputation before becoming allied.
-
I do not see what your issue is with this. If you, as a pirate attack every other nations vessels then you are declaring that all other nations are enemies, so why would you want to join one of their battles to help one of them? You still have full freedom to attack other nations ships and help other pirates in battles, so you are the owner of your actions.
-
If you were aware that this type of thing can happen, then why were you not more cautious. As you say you were finishing off killing the ship so there was no need to get close, or maybe you were just trying to ensure you were in a position to loot it first.
-
Seasoned woods are so yesterday, the new meta will be the new woods that they have added and they do not drop from redeemed ships nor can redeemed ships be made with them.
-
And how did Russia get so strong? Its because people would not work together to stop them. I remember people laughing at poor old Prussia when Russia decided to eject them from the Gulf of Mexico. Didn't people then realize that this would give Russia complete control of the Gulf. No, everybody was too busy creating their own little empires and squabbling among each other as Russia became stronger. In fact it was only because Russia held off attacking GB ports that GB got as big as it did, if not we would have been in this position months ago. Anyway, this is the great battles thread so I will stop my rant here.
- 4,801 replies
-
- 4
-
- trolling will be removed
- information only
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Havoc may be a small clan but it consists of mostly capable players who work together. On their own they cannot build a nation but they can have a great effect on a nation. I saw the difference Havoc made when they joined GB before the release I also saw the difference Llama made when they joined GB after release, but I have also seen what happens when these types of clans leave nations. After this happens a few time people in these nations stop bothering because they know the clans will move on again. This was why there was so much distrust in Llama when they came to GB, yes they helped win port battles but everyone knew that at some stage they would move on again. Look round the map at how many ports are still owned by clans that have moved to another nation or have only recently changed because they were captured by another nation. Clans moving nation every few months creates a mess. If BF or Reds left Russia, it may bring some server balance for a short while but in the end clans would migrate to the stronger side and we would be in the same position. BF and Reds may be strong, but you cannot tell me that there are not enough other strong clans on the server that could take them on if they worked together. Concentrate on one Russian clans ports, drive a wedge between them, do what they do to alliances against them. Biggest problem is getting clans to work together.
- 4,801 replies
-
- 2
-
- trolling will be removed
- information only
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
But can you not see the problem with your statement and how it to causes issues with the game. You complain about the Russian zerg and how they control the map, but would you be happy if they all changed to a nation like Poland and again took control of the map? It would be no different and people would then be complaining about the Polish zerg and how they control the map. In Havoc you have a strong core of capable players but moving nations every few months just messes with the game. The nation a strong clan moves to becomes stronger attracting more players and eventually becomes the zerg, the strong clan then leave and start again somewhere else probably even attacking the nation they just left and so it goes on. Personally I like that the main clans in Russia have remained Russian (I accept that some clans joined later to be on the winning side), but at least they have set themselves up to be challenged, the only problem is the rest of the server cannot get organised enough to challenge them, but would rather squabble among themselves and pick on easier targets.
- 4,801 replies
-
- 1
-
- trolling will be removed
- information only
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Improve Port Investments
Archaos replied to Gandalf The White's topic in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
If it is a large well used port it can probably self sustain on income. The bigger issue is clans having left the nation but still maintaining an alt in the old clan to keep the ports, thus being able to funnel funds out of a nation from a profitable port and restrict what a nation can do with that port. But even if a clan leaving the nation wanted to hand over to another clan, it is not possible without losing some of the port investments. So in some cases the leaving clan keeping control through alts can help the nation they left as they can still allow the nation access to the investments as before. -
Its not hard to understand, just because a nation has 130 players in TS does not mean they are a strong nation. Players gravitating to a strong nation is totally different. GB may have 130 players online but Russia may have 300 and Spain only 50 but if the 25 Spanish in the PB fleet are experienced players they can still easily defeat the Brits if the Brits do not have experience.
-
Numbers does not mean anything. I am currently not playing the game but I did watch the Spanish stream the other night when they were trying to get to Belize, and constantly through the battles they were fighting they were constantly commenting on how easy it was to fight Brits. They know the Brits are easy targets and that is why they are attacking them and then try and justify it by saying the Brits have plenty of players. But my comments were not specifically directed just at Spain, but I was using that as an example of how people nearly always choose an easy target. Spain suffered the same on game release where they were down to almost only their uncapturable ports. GB were always punching above their weight because although they have the numbers and they did control a lot of the map for a while they never really had the battle experienced players in sufficient numbers to hold the territory they had. Russia always knew if they seriously attacked GB that they would implode and they held off, but when GB did the dirty on Sweden and Sweden pressed home their attack the nation imploded. If Llama have returned to GB then they may be a better fighting force, but it will mainly be them supporting the nation as happened previously. Anyway I still do not think having historically accurate nations would make any difference to the game as you would still have majority of players gravitate to the stronger nation and that nation would own most of the map and people would be on here finding some excuse as to why they should be curtailed.
-
I don't think the problem is that Russia owns most of the server, I think the problem is that majority of players take the easy route and like to bash on weaker players and nations. If Russia were not in the game then some other nation would own the server and many would flock there for an easy time. Even Spain who for months were a dead nation have now come out of their shell, but instead of fighting a strong nation like Russia prefer to fight a battered and depleted British nation. If you really have a problem with Russia owning the server then do something about getting other nations together to counter them rather than fight against weaker nations. The problem is most alliances against Russia have failed as soon as Russia concentrates on one nation out of the alliance and they lose a few ports, which causes them to switch alliances to Russia and back stab their original alliance.
-
If it was F2P then imagine the number of alts there would be compared to now when there are already many alts. It would be easier to create a new alt and do the exams rather than craft repairs. People would have alts in every nation. Need more dock space then just make another alt. The list goes on......
-
Patrol Zone - National playercounter + more variety
Archaos replied to Liq's topic in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Do you not think that this will prevent some players going to the patrol zone. e.g. you log on and want to go to the PZ but see that it has 20 players from one nation in there, do you go there if you cannot gather enough players or do you just not bother? -
What will that achieve? All it will mean is a new rush for ports and a frantic couple of weeks doing AI port battles followed by the grind to rebuild by the end of which we are back in the same place. Map wipes are not the solution, there needs to be another way to limit how big one nation can get and how much of the map they can control.
-
otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve
Archaos replied to CHARLIE V's topic in Tribunal - Трибунал
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. -
otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve
Archaos replied to CHARLIE V's topic in Tribunal - Трибунал
If it would not have made a difference then why did you do it? -
otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve
Archaos replied to CHARLIE V's topic in Tribunal - Трибунал
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. -
otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve
Archaos replied to CHARLIE V's topic in Tribunal - Трибунал
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. -
otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve
Archaos replied to CHARLIE V's topic in Tribunal - Трибунал
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. -
otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve
Archaos replied to CHARLIE V's topic in Tribunal - Трибунал
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.