Archaos
-
Posts
2,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Archaos
-
-
45 minutes ago, Anolytic said:
It is better that people can converge into 2-3 war companies that compete over controlling the majority of the map. Every now a new war company will arise and challenge the big ones, maybe replace one of them, or if there is enough players and resources join in the tug and tow.
Do you really think that the RvR game will develop into 2-3 big war companies? I doubt it very much, all you have to do is look at the Brits for example and although they are the most populous nation they also have more clans in relation to population than most other nations. Why do they not just have 1 or 2 big clans doing RvR? because there are differences in their aims and goals and differing personalities leading them. I think much the same will happen with War Companies. A lot will depend on how they finalize the mechanics.
-
4 minutes ago, Anolytic said:
If War company participation is not nation-specific this would allow us to forego nation balancing and just let the War Companies balance themselves. Make it so that the War Company founders need to distribute the wealth that the Company generates from taxes, and make it harder to distribute the more clans are part of the Company. Thus bigger companies will cause internal conflicts and factions will split off.
I do not like the idea of War Companies not being nation specific, it totally removes the need to have nations, you may as well start the game with no nations and everyone just joins a clan.
-
1
-
-
I will link this post here as well as I think some of the ideas would fit well with a War Company type game.
-
21 minutes ago, Bach said:
I can deal with the ocean outside the home port being filled with cutlasses. That is more a function of missions being to close to home ports anyway.
I prefer game fixes that allow players to make choices and adjust their play to solve their own problems. Hard coded mechanics, no matter how well intended, often just lead to secondary problems. Like the anti-revenge speed/invis mechanic being used as a gank tool that we are talking about now. Increasing join timers till everyone on half the map gets in, teleports at ends of battles become transportation tools and positional exits become hidden movement methods.
Simply let us see the battle, see the color red change to know players in it are not engaged in combat and then let us choose if we risk it or not. These are things we should be able to see on the OS anyway for realism. Spotters in the ports would see the x6 ships anchored off the port. They would know if they are engaged in combat or not.
But wont that lead to another gank issue, where someone else then camps the crossed swords waiting for you to come out.
-
On 8/2/2017 at 2:57 PM, admin said:
War corporations can fight other war corporations in the same nation ONLY in port battles
How will this work in respect to screening if both War Corporations are in the same nation, how can persons friendly to a War Corporation help in screening, or does the attacking fleet have unhindered access to the port battle?
-
On 8/2/2017 at 2:57 PM, admin said:
-
Hostility changes will be done
-
Hostility grinding will be removed
- Some kind of flag will return - but the placing time will be increased to 30 mins to give time to respond
-
Hostility grinding will be removed
- Potentially we can bring back timers set by governors
How about a mixture of hostility and flags. Hostility has to be raised in a region to over 80% before a flag can be pulled. That way you get some warning something is happening in the region and gives you time to lower hostility to prevent the port battle, rather than having to quickly gather defenders at short notice.
-
2
-
Hostility changes will be done
-
On 8/2/2017 at 2:57 PM, admin said:
War corporations will be able to change tax rates in ports (for example if the standard national tax rate is 15% war corporations will be able to reduce it to 0 or raise up to 30%)
Can you please clarify how this will work in game.
My current understanding of this using an example of lets say Oak harvesting - it currently costs around 72g to harvest 1 log, so I assume this includes the 15% standard tax rate so rounding up it would be 63g base price and 9g tax. If the port owner increased the tax rate to 30% on a base price of 63g the new price to harvest 1 log would be 82g with tax of 19g.
If they reduced the tax to 0% the price would be 63g to harvest one log.
Am I correct in my assumptions and does the tax take go direct to the owning clan?
-
On 8/2/2017 at 2:29 PM, Zoky said:
In order to build in unexplored regions you must first conquer them, duh. To conquer region one must first build port in that region if port is not present. Ports can be build only is specific location. Basically use current port locations. To build port one must bring lots of resources to that region. Something like war preparation but more varied. That process should take 48 hours to do. That operation should be separated in 2 steps. Stockpiling of mats and building. Enemy nation can raid building spot in order to slow down construction of port. If enemy conducts raid during stockpiling then they can take portion of mats with them, that owner must bring again. If enemy raid is conducted during building then building time is prolonged but owner don't need to replace mats. After two raid successes during port construction enemy can trigger port battle for that region. If port is already finished then enemy must conduct 5 successful raids in 7 days period in order to trigger port battle for that region. Enemy can chose to raze enemy port after second successful raid in last 48hours. Razed port must be repaired before it can be used again. Repairing is same as building but is conducted faster with smaller mats requirements. If port is not repaired after 72 hours it becomes free port and anyone can start repairing it after they bring mats required. First nation that repairs port after it becomes free port gets ownership of that port. Owner is elected among captains that contributed in port construction and port defense. For every beneficial action every captain will receive certain amount of votes. Voting is conducted every 7 days. Owner can hire AI patrols and AI port defenders and can construct forts (2 max) in order to boost defenses of port and region. Owner becomes official member of nation council. Council is responsible for nation defense and offence. 10% of every transaction made in nation ports goes to nation budget. Council can use that gold to hire privateers and to help port owners to build defenses. In addition another 5% tax is collected in every port and split between captains depending upon their shares of votes in those ports.
I like the general idea of this and have added some of it to my suggestions, developing a bit more on port building, in this thread
-
With all the talk of new War Clan mechanics and after reading some other suggestions that have been put forward I jotted down a few of my own thoughts on how I think the game can be improved.
Please forgive me if they seem a bit haphazard, and I do not believe all my thoughts would be workable or not have flaws that could be exploited. They are just my thoughts so please reply constructively and not just dismiss them outright. A lot of it would have to be fleshed out further but I am sure some of them may be applicable to the new mechanics they are currently discussing so I am posting it now.
IDEAS FOR NAVAL ACTION
All ports are capturable
Clans can capture ports
Clans belong to nations and cannot fight clans from same nation (no civil war)
Port battles are between clans of different nations, clan indicates intention to attack by some mechanism (maybe flag, maybe hostility build up some way) at time of attack the attacking PB fleet sails from a clan port (or other nation port for clan without port) PB fleet has special designation and can only attack and be attacked by defending clan. (maybe allow other clans/pirates to be brought in to assist, sort of mercenaries). As the PB fleet is fixed from when it sails to attack they could be limited in size by BR and have limits on classes of ships.
PORTS – all ports apart from nation capital region start out as neutral. All ports can be captured individually. Ports start off at level 1 and need to be built up (need to decide maximum town level). National capitals have abundance of basic building materials (e.g. Oak, Iron, Stone). Once a clan claims a neutral port the port now flies the flag of that nation, the clan can start developing the port using building materials shipped in. Shallow water ports cannot reach maximum level.
Various buildings can be constructed to level up the town. Things like dockyards for shipbuilding are not built by individual players but by the clan owning the port. The clan builds the dockyard and any crafter of that nation can use it. Dockyards will still have different levels for production of different ships. The level of the town limits the level of the dockyard i.e. a level one town can only have a basic ship yard. Only maximum level towns can have dockyards building first rates. Maximum level should be difficult to reach, by needing lots of resources and lots of upkeep. Can have more than 3 levels of dockyards allowing ports at a level below maximum to build 2nd and 3rd rates. The difficulty in reaching these levels could dictate the availability of such ships.
Forts require to be constructed up to a maximum number (maybe allow positions of forts to be decided by clan building them). Forts have to be built and gunned up. Upgraded forts could have options like heated shot.
Port battles sizes are determined by the level of the port, with level 1 ports only having maybe a maximum of 10 vs 10 (or XXX BR vs XXX BR)and the maximum level port having 25 vs 25.
When a port is captured the attackers have the option of sacking the port which reduces the port back to level 1 and the port becomes neutral again, or they can take control of the port with the structures within requiring repair. Building and repair takes time, so basically you provide the materials and once all materials are in place it takes XX amount of time to build or repair. This could allow a quick counter attack before the port is up to full strength again. Port will probably drop some levels due to the attack and damages.
The port owners decide what the port produces within the limits of what is available in that port e.g. Port Morant has available silver, teak, cotton, the owning clan decide how much of each is produced by building mines or plantations (similar to production buildings now). Each port has a certain limit on maximum number of buildings possible and these are tied into the port reaching maximum level. The production of resources provides the items to the open market, so anyone with access to that port can buy them. Prices could be made to vary based on the amount in stock starting with a minimum price. Port owner could switch on and off production to control stock supply.
The owning clan can set tax rates between certain limits and this is applied to all purchases. Maybe towns could have a dissatisfaction index partly affected by tax where the higher the tax the higher the dissatisfaction and consequently the lower the production of resources. Dissatisfaction could also be linked to how many players of the owning clan or nation are sunk within certain radius of the port. (could also do it with NPC, but this may allow too much griefing of a clans port). The idea with taxes is to try and force the owning clan to keep them low, while allowing short periods of high taxes to quickly build funds.
All buildings have a weekly upkeep which must be paid by the owning clan. All upkeep is totalled to a weekly upkeep for that port. If upkeep is not paid a random structure or building could be lost due to local riot or production reduced. Continued lack of upkeep will require buildings to be repaired or rebuilt and eventually the port starts losing levels and eventually can go back to level 1.
Port owners can set a 3 hour window during which they can be attacked. A clan can attack only one port at a time. Maybe have to set the maximum number of attacks that can be arranged against a clan at a time i.e. a single clan should not have to face too many battles at the same time. This could be based on clan size so smaller clans are not overrun by bigger ones. Port Battles can take place round the clock within the limits of maintenance and the times set by defenders. With so many ports up for grabs I am sure people will always be able to find action in their own time zone.
PIRATES – Not too sure on pirate mechanics, I am sure people that enjoy playing pirates can come up with some good suggestions. My thinking is that playing pirate should be hard mode, the reason for this is that pirate faction has the ability to attract more players to it due to the romantic notion of pirates portrayed in Hollywood films and this can distort their numbers in relation to history. It should not be easy to play a pirate, they should have some unique abilities but not be too attractive for the average player.
I do like the ideas of Outlaws and Privateers. Outlaws could be small clans able to attack anyone, raid shipping etc, while Privateers can operate under letters of marque to work for a nation (or a clan). Outlaws can become Privateers by obtaining a letter of marque.
Pirate clans should probably be limited in size to maybe a maximum of XX members, just so they cannot be as powerful as a national clan.
Pirates cannot own ports but they can raid and sack ports up to a certain level. (it would not be logical to allow pirates sack top rate ports in first rates).
Pirates could be limited to certain classes of ships.
Pirates could have an infamy system where bounties build up on them in various nations depending on how many of that nations players they sank (the infamy should build up based on the type of battles and BR involved, i.e. zero infamy for sinking cutters to maximum infamy for sinking a first rate in a cutter if you can), captures wouldn’t count to avoid the obvious exploits. Bounties would be paid by your nation i.e. if you are British and you sink a pirate you get paid the British nation bounty. Once a bounty has been paid the pirate infamy is reset for that nation and can then start to build up again. Bounties should not be excessively large to avoid abuse of the system but large enough to make them interesting.
FREETOWNS – these should be neutral ports and trading hubs that any nation can use. You cannot have an outpost in a neutral town. Maybe area around neutral town is a no fight zone (size of area to be decided).
PORT BATTLES – Size of port battle is decided by the size of town with the still included limitations of shallow and deep water. The smaller the town the smaller the battle (eventual sizes can be decided) this allows smaller clans take and hold smaller towns as long as they do not develop the port bigger than what they can defend.
Only the owning clan and attacking clan can participate in the actual port battle. (still not sure about allowing mercenary or allied clans help screen as this can lead to too big an advantage for bigger nations).
The attackers have to form their port battle fleet in their clan port or home nation port if they do not own a port. (if they do own a port they must form there, this is to stop big clans from quickly snapping up critical ports spread out across the map). As a clan once you own a port that is where you must start your operations from.
If the battle limits are set by BR then the attackers and defenders decide which ships they want up to the maximum BR, this will allow for flexible battle fleets with different tactics. Once a port battle fleet sets out it can only be attacked by the defending clans forces. Normal RoE will apply for tagging with screeners etc. The attacking force cannot decide to attack other targets.
At the end of the port battle the same protections still apply to allow the remains of the attacking force return to their home port if they were unsuccessful. They can still be chased by the defending clan.
If they are successful in winning the port battle then they have to repair the port. The port is not open to attack for a certain amount of time to allow the new owners settle in.
The defeated port owner has similar amount of time as present to evacuate their ships and possessions from the port.
As ports gain higher levels the BR for the battles increases and thus the range of ships that are viable increases. Maybe there could be something like 10 levels of ports for deep water and 5 or 6 for shallow water. I’m sure people can come up with some viable limits for different port battles culminating in the ultimate maximum size port battle.
ECONOMY – All crafting base materials are produced from the owned ports and players can alter the amounts depending on what buildings they construct. The base resources availability should be seeded round the map with some historical reference but not so that any area is totally devoid of a needed resource.
Control of rare resources should be possible but very difficult to have absolute control.
There needs to be a system in place that makes it worthwhile for traders to transport goods around the map.
I’m not an economist, but I am sure people can think of some good ideas for the economy so it is balanced and inflation does not run riot. I would like to see an economy based solely on goods manufactured in game rather than random trade goods that appear in ports. Maybe a system that relies on interdependence between ports, so that a single port on its own cannot make everything but needs imports from other ports.
National Capitals – I think I would be in favour of national capital regions (i.e. the capital and a few ports round it) being non-PvP zones to allow new players time to learn the game mechanics. PvE Missions in these zones could be limited to the first few ranks and although you can still do missions in these regions at higher ranks you would stop earning XP and gold from them but still be able to use them for training.
National capital regions would only produce the base port building materials and nothing else. They can only produce 6th and 7th rates in the national dockyard that crafters can use.
Basically they would become safe regions to start from and learn the game, but have little significance after that apart from being a ready supply of base building materials.
HOSTILITY – Maybe we could have a system of hostility similar to what we have now but one that is generated slower. Hostility is still generated on a regional basis and once hostility has reached 100% in a region, the region becomes vulnerable to port battles. The port battles can then happen using the flag mechanic with maybe 30 minutes notice that a flag has been pulled.
With a region at 100% hostility from PvP the hostility will remain at 100% unless it is reduced by PvP, and all the time it remains at 100% the ports within are open to attack flags being pulled. To stop the abuse of a region being held at 100% without any intention to attack and no nation players entering the area to allow reduction, PvP hostility could be wiped after maybe 3 days at 100%.
Hostility generation via AI should be very slow and hostility generated this way should decay relatively quickly. PvP hostility does not decay and can only be reduced by PvP. You should not be able to flip a region solely by PvE in one day, this is to give enough warning that a region is liable to attack. PvP hostility can flip a region quickly.
To encourage PvP in an area a clan wishing to attack a port in that area could post a mission that people of the same nation can take. This could conversely create a mission in the opposing nation stating that there are rumours of hostility build-up in a region by a certain nation and that national players should head there and defend. The rewards for the attacking nation should be paid by the clan generating the hostility mission while the defenders are just paid from their nation like normal missions. The missions should reward PvP kills only.
FOR SOLO & NON-CLAN PLAYERS – For people not interested in RvR but just wanting to PvP there could be missions as stated earlier in the hostility section that they could take to assist their nations expansion or defence.
They still have the option to just go raiding enemy nations traders and warships or go pirate hunting for the bounties.
These are just some thoughts, I hope people find them interesting or expand on them. Please also let me know what wouldnt work and why.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Blackjack Morgan said:
Let's just get that Naval Action Legends testing underway and good luck with the Guild Wars meets EVE meets RNG lottery system!
I have to agree with you here to a certain extent. At least if they get Naval Action Legends underway then the people left in the OW game will be ones interested in helping develop a good open world game rather than a duel type lobby game with an open world aspect.
Dont get me wrong, I hope both games are successful and I hope I can enjoy playing both styles, its just that there are a lot of people trying to influence the OW game direction that would be suited to the lobby style game Naval Action Legends will be.
-
1 hour ago, Cornelis Tromp said:
You mean the train of thought they already abandoned?
All they have abandoned is the ability of non RvR players to enter any port in any class of ship. They are trying to take onboard what people are saying so if you have a valid point then raise it in that thread. Its in that thread where they mentioned about the 3 hour defense window and thats what led to this thread.
I hope they develop the thoughts there further and it helps improve the game, there are some interesting ideas. I know some things seem like a backward step but with some changes it may work out totally different. I personally was never a fan of the nightflips/workflips situation but the current solution made me leave PvP1 because even though I am in UK the timers did not suit me.
-
1 hour ago, Bart Smith said:
Can we lock this here? There is no solutions for healthy RvR in global enviroment. Playerbase may suffer but again what the point to play when you will loose ports during your nightime? Or you will be limited from RvR because locked time slots. Remember before server split few here yapping how to Global will be great. People had a choice and most pick server and same times slots suit them. Do not dig it again in this grave.
You are missing the point of why this has raised its head again, its because of the preliminary announcement for new mechanics in relation to War Companies. In that thread the Devs raised the possibility of bringing back the flag mechanic and also that the War Company that owns a port can set a 3 hour window to suit themselves when they can be attacked. So you will not be able to lose your ports during your night time, you can only lose them during the time you have set. The only issue you have then is arranging a time to attack other ports that are not in your usual play time, and I am sure a War Company could organize themselves to maybe have a late night on a weekend to do their attacks if required, remembering of course that if there are enough people who also like the same time slots as you (i.e. other players who currently want the limited slots on EU server) then you will have the same opportunities for port battles in your usual play time as you do now.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mrgoldstein said:
I hope so, but i dont think so..it will probably come out of the player pockets,otherwise every clan can just raise it to the max (they can anyway but it might keep people from going to that town is taxes are to high)
If the players dont pay for it what is keeping the war companies from making deals so each one has a few ports and they will just get money for nothing?
There is gonna be some many exploits i cant even phantom, its also way to complicated for new players
Remember they have also mentioned about the War Companies having to use tax to develop the region. They have not elaborated on this but you can bet it will cost some money to do this, so it will not be just free gold for the company. If they get it right it could be quite an interesting feature, they could for example have no forts at a port and you have to build them as a War Company, or after a fort is damaged in an attack you have to repair them or they are not available for the next defense.
With the right mechanics it will not just be an easy time for the port owner it will require some management to maintain your port empire.
-
1 minute ago, Bobzillah said:
a alt can start its own clan and then enter warcompany how is that anyones fault .... and not just talking about entering a PB but about the screening aplications...
Again such an alt is just acting the way any other player would or could play, they are not taking a place in the port battle, they are not able to drag the attacking force into a false battle by being in the same nation, all they can do is screen for the attacking or defending War Company which is a lot better than it is at the moment.
-
3 minutes ago, Mrgoldstein said:
Its just bad, so the already rich,big clans will get more and more and the lone player or smaller clans will have an even harder time to make money because of taxes...
How is this good for new players?
But the way I see it (and I may be wrong) it will not cost you any more than you currently pay to harvest and buy goods, its just that the port owners get a cut of what would go to the gold sink. At least I hope thats how it works.
-
2 minutes ago, Bobzillah said:
lets see hmmmkaaay
- Potential results: This will completely eliminate alts from conquest and will stabilize the map for new players who will have an equal experience irrespectively of the nation chosen.
- Captains who are not a member of a chartered war company will be able to enter any port in any ship.
not if the alt choose to enter a warcompany but then again the alts wil be more effective with no warcompany ,since then they can enter each port in each ship ....
so lets see i know the port where the enemie has its first rate pb fleet we stick a pvp (non warcompany) fleet in there with enough firepower and we can start screening from the beginning port instead of waiting at the port of the pb .
this system can be a HUGE step foward but i have my doubts wether this wil be implemented correctly. hope it wil work out cause atm i just sit idle in a port .A War Company is just a clan that participates in RvR, so if you allow a alt to join your War Company then its your own fault, I am sure if someone in your clan was messing up your port battles you would soon kick them out of the clan.
The access to all ports is going to be addressed according to the Devs post.
-
1 minute ago, Mamen said:
Im not sure since when you sell ship 10% of what that tax would be... if tax is 10% and I will sell 9 logs then tax collector will get 0 or 1
of course Im messing now... but I think they've meant gold...
As the game is at the moment you pay gold to harvest from your buildings, you pay gold to place a contract, and you pay gold to the market to buy items, so and all that gold goes to the game as a gold sink, with the new mechanics I would assume that instead of all that gold going to the sink that a percentage (i.e. the tax rate) would go to the port owner, so the prices should stay the same as they are now. The only item not currently taxed is the selling of items to the market.
-
8 minutes ago, Mamen said:
you can also add in conqerable ports where rare woods are spawning to make possibility to build rare forest buildings to War Companies members who own that port...also cobat mark income cause just gold tax income is not really attractive...
I think the tax income in ports that have rare materials and materials in high demand will be very attractive. Remember the tax is on production too so if someone has an Oak forest in that port at the tax rate is 10% and it costs 72g to harvest 1 log then the port is making 7.2g per log harvested. That soon mounts up to a hell of a lot of gold, I dont think you need other incentives to own ports.
edit: at least I think that is how the tax system will work.
-
1 hour ago, Tiedemann said:
We have tried this before and last time it killed of the legendary 2500+ player base. So stop fooling your self.
GAME HISTORY (from the D-N perspective):
Back when we where fighting over single ports instead of regions, we had Lord Protector and defence timers we could set our self. The British nation set most of their ports defensive timers at Aussie/US prime time. They did this "to ensure the Aussies and US time zone players game content". Then they gave 1 or some times even 2 ports EU prime time defense timers. so they knew where to expect attacks during the EU prime time. The British was the largest nation by a huge margin back then so the zerg screening was real! So this was starving the RvR players in other nations from game content. It forced EU time zone players to attack the British during aussie/US prime. Do you think the US/Aussie players showed up to defend the British ports!?! No, empty PB in the middle of the night all over the map.. Then during the EU prime time the British would use shot gun attack to take back ports. Attacking 3-5 ports. If we defended somewhere, they entered with 1 or 2 ships to spot, then they split up the rest of their fleet covering and winning all the undefended pbs. That way the could take back more ports during the day, than they lost during the night. This as a winning strategy no doubt, but at the cost of the healthy player base.. Because they where just denying the rest of us content.
Then the regional pbs where implemented to help remedy the situation. Of course by then the US nation (you guys mostly) had understood what kind of damage their skeleton crew could achieve. So in the end the US nation held the entire EU player base hostage by harassing the server with the night flips. Killing off even more of the EU player base. We warned you guys that if you continued the night flip you would force a server split. We told you that we do not need your player base at all to survive. We knew the global would not work with the Asians and the US night/day flipping each other into oblivion. You guys made this happen all on you own, now deal with it on you own!
If you somehow mange to cry so hard that they merge the servers I have no doubt you guys will repeat history at first chance. You guys just want to win by any grifing means necessary. Some times it is useful to have players like that but you guys don't know when to stop. You are self destructive, toxic and ignorant. It is not a charming combination of properties. So if you wonder why we do not want to play with you guys, after reading this you can consider your self educated @Christendom, @Aventador, @Wraith.
Now go "bite the bullet".
The thing is that they are talking about bringing back the defense timers in their latest suggestion and to do that I doubt that they will still limit the time port battles can be held as well. But I dont see many arguing against it in the other thread. If you feel that it will be as bad as it was before then best make that clear in the discussion thread regarding the new mechanics.
Personally I think it will make a big change having War Companies rather than nations, as now your War Company will only have to defend your own ports at times that you set and not have to worry about ports that other War Companies own. As long as they also include good mechanics that limit how many ports a single company can own and how many can be attacked simultaneously then you should not get the empty port battles.
I understand that you believe that it has all been tried before, but sometimes with a slight change what did not work before could work now.
-
11 minutes ago, Mamen said:
so I'm not in war company... sailing to Mortimer as swedish (or to Danes, Dutch wherever)... grief new players then hide into port because I can go into every port as long as Im not in war company... or what open waters means? Not within certain Nation County?
The Devs have admitted they may have to rethink the entry to any port for non War Company players.
But if you were only allowed to enter ports of your own nation and ports owned by companies of your nation, this would give a big advantage to nations such as Spain and Britain who have large initial holdings. So the whole issue of which ports can be entered for non RvR players needs to be sorted out.
-
13 minutes ago, Alado said:
Of cuorse, attack in your timezone, and in your server, we happy here and dont need back to the shit of nightflips, i hope you are happy there too
But there wont be any night flips as defender you set the 3 hour window you can be attacked in.
-
The thing is that all this argument wont matter a bit if they bring back the mechanic of port owners setting a 3 hour window when they can be attacked. I personally would move back to the EU server as then I would be able to help defend ports in a time that suited the War Company I was with. I live in the UK and used to play on PvP1 but decided to change to Global because the PB timers did not fit my game time. With the proposed new mechanic I can join a War Group that can set PB defenses at a time that suits me. For attacks I am sure we can arrange a suitable day when we can attack even if it means a late night or early morning once in a while, because if we win we change the time to suit ourselves.
The only other issue then would be the ping issue, but I guess I am one of the lucky ones who does not have a problem whether the server is in EU or US. As it stands if they bring in the changes I think Global server will die.
-
5 hours ago, Bearwall said:
@admin Would you explain how this new system is supposed to relate to the historical pretext of the 18th century? As far as I know (and I reheeeally do know a lot about history) at no time did "companies" such as the ones you describe exist. Please don't refer to the british east india company as a individually based entity as it operated with a charter from the crown - and the british east-india company did at no time own and operate colonies - the takeover of India was made by proxy rulers and with the endorsement and considerable weight of the british crown and military. As I see it this radically removes the need for national factions, the need for a carribean setting (let's face it you would have a hard time coming up with a map that is worse from a gameplay perspective) and removes any historical pretext for the game - something that was the one of the direct reasons why I bought into the game.
It think we have to stop trying to put this game into a purely historical context because although it is set in a historical age and we use ships spanning probably 100 years or so and the starting nation map positions are historical, once we start playing history changes. There were never this many first rates in the Caribbean, the Swedes never captured Bermuda, and the list goes on, so to a certain extent we are creating an alternative universe. I do like the national pride and I would always choose to sail under the White Ensign, but if there is truly national pride then you will not have civil wars between war companies of the same nation, if you do then you would have the same discord within the nation with no possibility of resolution short of bullying them with personal abuse until they leave the game or change nation.
I know many people play this as a historical game and like to have national pride, but I think that most can agree that nations forcing people with radically different views together is not working. There is no King or President or Emperor of a nation exerting his or her will, there is no command structure like the admiralty dictating the agenda. There is no way a wayward clan or person can be brought into line by the rest of the nation, so how can nations work. At least with the clan system you have a leadership and a group of like minded people working towards the same goal so they can act more like a nation would.
I think the Devs have taken this step because it is obvious that Nations as they currently are is not working, I think it will alienate the pure history buffs and put the game more into the realms of fantasy, but it may be a solution to the games problems.
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, Christendom said:
Don't want your corp/war company to lose it's holdings? Better recruit around the clock support. Conquest restrictions have zero place in the new proposed system IMO. So why do we need 2 servers?
I am afraid this comment spoils the whole argument you make. The main reason for the split was because people could not recruit round the clock support especially the non-English speaking nations and this will be the same with the War Companies that have been proposed.
The only way I can see it working is if the bring in the ability for the port owner to set a 3 hour window when they can be attacked, if not you end up with the same old empty port battles except now people will be more annoyed to find they wake up or return from work and find their port gone along with the contents of their warehouse.
of course Im messing now... but I think they've meant gold...
Preliminary discussion of the changes to conquest - clan wars are coming
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
The thing is if you have different clans that can come together in a War Company, they may as well be in the same clan, if not you will get the same disagreements as you currently have in nations and it will create confusion if a War Company breaks up, who gets to keep the ports and income etc. If you look at nations as big War Company you will see the problems of having different clans in a War Company.
The way any clan or war company works effectively is if they have proper leadership who are all of the same mind, rather than different leaders of smaller groups trying to come to consensus.