Archaos
-
Posts
2,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Archaos
-
-
28 minutes ago, Ink said:
Your messages were not hidden, please can re-check your post history via profile?
I have checked in the threads and on the history in my profile and there are at least 3 responses to different posts missing.
-
4 hours ago, koltes said:
The TERMS
I. BLACK will NOT attack Cartagena de Indias and Belize regions giving GB resources and place to rebuild;
II. BLACK will take Portobelo as a jump point for our hunting in the area;
III. US to take Penzacola and Gasparilla regions in order to rebuilt. GB not to show up and let US to take them, else BLACK will take them and then pass it to US later. If we will have to take them we will accidentally take more than originally intended;
IV. After this weekend BLACK will give back to GB Savanna la Mar region to boost their morale and give them some space. GB can start grinding hostility on Monday. After this weekend BLACK clan will not defend this port;
V. BLACK will take or allocate to one or more nations the rest of the Northern Gulf territories to ensure its leading position on the Conquest Leaderboard and that other nations have means to build up.On behalf of BLACK / BLOOD clan members I would like to thank all GB players for giving us a great fight in Port-au-Prince. This is what makes NA so great. The battle was fantastic. The fight was fearsome and very very tactical, strategic and challenging. We wish GB the best of luck to rebuild which we are sure will happen in no time.
I'm sorry but I have to laugh at the terms you are putting in. You say for the sake of the game you are ceasing your hostilities against the Brits to let them rebuild yet you keep a port deep within their region so you can raid them and frustrate them as they try and rebuild, you say you are going to distribute ports to other nations thus allowing other nations to do the same. You do all this but at the same time you ensure you stay top of the conquest leaderboard.
You say they are terms as if it was some form of negotiation yet just about all benefit the pirates. All you are doing is protecting yourselves from becoming overextended like the Brits did while at the same time retaining control and dictating how things will be done. Why even bother, just one region the Brits if you can and see what happens it will be a good way to show how the conquest mechanics are broken in a game where there are no overall victory conditions. Every nation once they have a bit of success against another nation ends up having to ease off or it destroys the game. The Brits did it in their war with the USA and now the Pirates are doing it in the war against the British, and each time it seems to swell the Pirate ranks, maybe because they are seen as the faction that people would play if they did not play their favorite nation.
I understand you want to give nations a chance to rebuild so that you can have good fights in future, but I personally do not think it is good for the game in the long run and the only way the game can improve is to prove how broken some systems are.
And before anyone asks, No I am not an active player at the moment as I work away from home and do not have the internet bandwidth to play and I have only managed to get about 2 weeks play since the wipe. But I do try and follow what is happening in the game and make suggestions good or bad.
-
2 hours ago, Ink said:
Forum did not crash, it was maintenance by forum provider.
Okay, but this should not delete forum posts. I dont believe any of my posts were controversial, off topic or against forum rules. Its not that important, I'm just wondering what happened.
-
3 minutes ago, springby said:
I believe the forum has gone through an upgrade/modernize process which I welcome and also like the look/feel of.
This was after the upgrade. Last night the site was down and this morning some of my posts in threads have disappeared.
-
I noticed the forum was down for a while last night and now not that my responses to a few threads have also disappeared. Was there a forum crash and rollback last night?
-
8 hours ago, Peter Goldman said:
Or force PvE players to accept the fact that PvE is not safe bubble for them on PvP server...
Real privateers don't need PvE to get ships and gold.
The thing is that pure PvE'ers are happy enough with the PvE server. The problem is with the people who enjoy a bit of both PvE and PvP but dont want to be interrupted when they want to do PvE, e.g. I want to go grind some PvE missions and I dont want someone jumping in and spoiling my fun, or I need to transport those materials to build my PvP ship but I dont want to be jumped by some raider.
PvE on a PvP server should never be a safe bubble.
-
9 hours ago, Slamz said:
One easy idea for this would be to make it so that the outer edge of the circle translates to about 650 yards in the battle. This guarantees that even an edge of the circle tag puts your target within Control range. @admin? I bet he could hotfix this as an experiment. It's probably just one number in the code.
I'm not sure what the current translation is but edge-of-the-circle today seems to translate to at least 1000 yards in battle. May even be more like 1500. Right now it's possible for a tag to put someone out of any sort of cannon range which is a bit pointless.
Please this is a bad idea, it takes all skill away from getting a good tag. Sort out the defensive tagging issue another way but leave it so that if the attacker decides to tag and be at the edge of the tag circle when the time expires then they have to work to get their prey.
The simple solution to the defensive tag is an off centered tag circle, which I assume should be relatively easy to change.
-
1 hour ago, Vllad said:
Second: There are no titles to date that have even successfully built a PVP and PVE game on a single server. Either the PVP or PVE sucks when you combine them. This is no simple feat. That is not to say some came close but you make it sound so simple when in-fact it is very difficult. You are a perfect example of why PVP and PVE doesn't fit together and most of the time is mutually exclusive.
I agree with what you say, but a game of pure PvP is difficult in an MMO because in general MMO's tend to simulate so kind or real or fantasy world and to do this they have to have some real world style elements like crafting and trading. In NA if you had a pure PvP game you may as well do away with OW and just have a world of warships type game. The trading and crafting aspect of NA gives more interest to the game and allows people who enjoy doing other things rather than just PvP.
In the end all these things should work together and if they are done correctly you should have a better game. The PvP'ers rely on the crafters to make them good ships to use for PvP, the crafters rely on the traders to supply them with the materials to craft, and the traders rely on the PvP'ers to protect them from raiders. Now all of this should happen in a PvP environment. Trading is boring if there is no risk, crafting is pointless if every material is easy to obtain and every crafter can churn out the best ships and PvP just for the sake of PvP can also sometimes be boring, hence the need of something to fight over whether in be region conquest, raiding traders or protecting traders.
Now the crafting and trading side of the game are classed as PvE activities and in terms of a successful game this aspect of PvE should be catered for with a robust economy and distribution of crafting materials. If you lose the players who enjoy this side of the game then ultimately you destroy PvP content. The reason many PvP games fail is they do not get the balance correct.
As to the PvE mission side of the game well that should be okay for leveling up and practicing but should have minimal importance on a PvP server.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Vllad said:
As long as you are winning the battles you don't need the ports. Eventually you create enough attrition that you "might" win without ever taking a single port. If you are a small nation you have to think of it in terms of attrition not PB's that you have won.
Let's be honest here, Pirates, US and Brits will always be the "winners" in the context you are talking about. The rest of nations will win by trying to survive against larger nations. You only survive if you continue to sink ships of the bigger nations.
Ask the Brits on Global last night, would they have rather won the PB or the battle outside of the PB last night.
Actually I see now that from another thread that you not entering the PB does not give the defending side additional points towards the map win, they only get the original point for having the port. That may be a bit lopsided but lets see how it plays out before asking for changes.
-
1 minute ago, Peter Goldman said:
PvE in peace happens on PvE server. Do you know why PvP scream for more PvP? Because very often it happened that they sailed for 5-6 hours looking for a fight and then had to quit the game without having any PvP. That's why they very often come to capitals and are called "sealed clubbers" because that's the most common place to find a fight.
I was not advocating that either side was right, I was just stating how it is. But pure PvP'ers sometimes forget that you have to encourage the other people out into the OW to create targets for PvP. Traders will not come out if they know they have no chance of making a successful run or no chance of profit. You also have to encourage people out to PvP by making PvP more attractive than PvE.
By "PvE in peace" I mean more the sort of person who does'nt mind PvP now and again, but when they want to do PvE they dont want to have someone jumping in on their mission. I agree thats just tough luck if you play on a PvP server, but you still have people that are like that and they put demands on the Devs.
-
Don't you get anything for the defense of the port or is that already classed as the point you get for having the port?
-
30 minutes ago, Vllad said:
Then players will adapt to that as well and come up with tactics to counter 1st rates acting as screeners. We in France are already preparing.
NA has built a counter to every meta as long as people are willing to put it into practice and don't get lazy.
I think its good that people think outside the box to come up with new strategies, it helps keep the game fresh and people on their toes. I just hope the new conquest mechanics don't end up giving you issues. You may win the battles but eventually lose the war if you don't take ports as you will be gifting the other side wins towards VM's.
But nice to see some people trying to shake up the game and create content themselves rather than expect it provided for them and just moan that there is no action.
21 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:It's not that new... I remember on PVP1 server before the wipe it was standard to have big screening fleet.
I was referring more to the new battle group mechanics and how a 4th rate PB fleet could be nabbed by a 1st rate screening fleet setup as a battle group. I have'nt been able to play since last patch so not sure how the Battle Group changes are working out.
-
NA like most MMO's is a timesink, there is no way round that as it is the only way to simulate a persistent world. The people who have more time will always have more advantage to progress. The ability to have alts is not a bad thing as long as they are not used to cheat. They can help to balance things out a bit if you dont have much time to devote to the game or you wish to experience different aspects of the game.
I personally have only been able to play for about 2 weeks since the wipe due to work, I missed the first few weeks and I am currently away again, so I learn not to get to attached to things in game, for all I know by the time I get back all my outposts will be in enemy hands and I will not have access to my ships and whatever I had stored there. I just make the most of what time I have in game to do what I can. But I would say join a clan, let them know your time is limited, most will do what they can to help you and if they dont then find another clan. The clan I am in builds ships for their members and I was just due to take delivery of a PB Aggie with upgrades before I had to head off to work, so I let someone else have it. As long as you are willing to put something back into the clan like donating labour hours then you should be okay.
Basically if you try and do everything with limited time you will find the game frustrating.
-
Although the OP may raise valid points I think the problem sometimes is the Devs have tried to satisfy too many playstyles and that has led to a lot of back and forth in the game and in the long run even less people happy. The trick is finding the balance that keeps majority of people happy.
It is the same argument in every online game that I have played with people being classed as PvP'ers and PvE'ers the latter usually called "carebears", what most of them fail to realize is the biggest percentage of players are somewhere in between and they are usually the silent majority. The PvP'ers are always screaming for more PvP and for the game to force people out into the OW so that they have to fight, while the other extreme wants to do their PvE stuff in peace without being interrupted.
-
1 hour ago, Slamz said:
Well I think France answered that question tonight: we ignored the port battle and killed the screeners. Then when the port battle was over we caught a number of Aggies headed away from the port, going home after winning the port defense (because we never went in) and we killed them outside where we could use heavier ships (and presumably some of the aggies just stayed at port so we caught the ones who didn't live there, basically splitting their fleet).
I think a lot of people hugely overemphasize port battles. It's really not about the ports. It's about killing ships.
Start a contention grind and then ambush whoever comes to counter-grind it.
Schedule a 4th rate port battle and then show up in Bellonas and just blow up everyone you can find outside of the port. Take that, screener fleet.
Go setup outposts, bring a spare warship or two using fleet perk, loaded with extra repairs and go hunt their back lanes for a couple days or until they sink your ships.Size can be important but bringing the right force to bear in the right place at the right time and being aggressive matters more. A small team can sink a lot of ships if they're just aggressive about it and that actually hurts your enemy more than taking their ports does.
A lot of people are fixated over 1st rates and victory marks but the real game as I see it involves going out and sinking enemy ships every day, anywhere you can find them, in whatever you can afford to sail (...rigged for speed).
Congratulations on your OW victories and tactics used, but don't you see that this is going to become the new meta for 4th rate port battles. The screen will be 1st rates to take out the port battle fleet. Should make for some good OW battles but if you cant get into the port battles then how are you going to get VM's with the new conquest mechanics? Eventually the larger nation will be screening with L'Oceans and Santi's and the best first rates you can bring will be Victory's.
-
3 hours ago, Pagan Pete said:
Long term Kill/Death ratio is the only meaningful measure of performance. RE: Because if you can play 8 hours day, you can get more kills accumulated than a person who played for 90 minutes after work. Since the current system doesn't take deaths into account, it gives a false impression of achievement. Also, the number of players in your gank fleet, should reduce the achievement. e.g. If you have 3 ships and you attack 1 ship, you should get 1/3 of a kill. Just like REAL military kill tracking.
.
This is the type of ranking system I am proposing, some formula would have to be worked out to calculate points based on kills, assists, numbers, BR difference etc and the same formula would be used to deduct points for being killed or captured. And rather than a leaderboard that is displayed somewhere you get a star or some indication by your name in game.
But obviously from the tone of most of the responses here, people would not be interested in such a system so I guess its a bad suggestion
.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Vllad said:
It harms everything that is broken that could actually be fixed. They have limited resources and I want them fixing things that matter to everyone. Once the game is more playable in area's that count then people can ask for the things that simply mean nothing.
Just read most of the replies to my suggestion and you will see the type of things most people seem to want. They dont seem to care about getting stuff fixed its all "gimmie paints" "throw me a few trinkets" "I wont PvP unless I get paint".
I started this thread after debates in another thread about people crying that they did not get rewards for being on the leaderboard. From the discussion there I got the impression some people wanted some sort of recognition of their efforts at PvP, I thought it could be a system that would not be abused by cheaters as there was no point in cheating and it would be genuine PvP. But I guess I was wrong and people just want their shinies no matter if it encourages cheating and gaming the system. People dont want the system fixed, they just want it to suit them so they can get what they want.
-
3 minutes ago, Vllad said:
Why does your suggestion even matter? Who cares if you never lost or you killed 20 people yesterday? It has zero impact to anyone in the game so why do you want NA resources coding such useless items that does absolutely nothing for the game?
Why not ask for something we all could use?
What harm would such a system cause? The same could be said for a lot of things in the game, why bother having ships paints they have zero impact on the game, what about updating the ship models on certain ships to make them look better, does that have any impact on the game? People are requesting being able to name their ships, design their own flags etc, lets not bother with any of that.
-
It has probably fully sunk by the time you are getting to it. The availability to loot only lasts for a certain amount of time, it was increased recently but I am not sure how long it is.
The secret is to slowing down somewhere on his quarter as he sinks ready to move in immediately you get the kill message. Once his side armor and mid structure are gone there is no point continuing to shoot as he will eventually sink.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, monk33y said:
His idea is required for the smaller nations that will now die, thanks to the most stupid development idea yet.
Reward the biggest, punish the smallest..
At least give the smallest a fighting chance!
The OP's idea was for excess XP to be used exchange for combat marks, I think what you are referring to is Victory Marks.
If VM's were obtainable in exchange for excess XP the larger nations would still have the advantage as they would be able to exchange more.
The VM system may have problems for smaller nations but this would not be a solution.
-
2 hours ago, monk33y said:
So you have made a thread asking for the table of pvp that we already have!!!!!
Clap. Clap. Clap!
Maybe I did not make my original post clear, but what I am proposing is not a leaderboard like you have in game at the moment it is a rank you get similar to how you get a greater rank as you level up in game. The current leaderboard is only visible for one day and then it restarts, I propose ranks that remain visible when a player sees you in OW. If ranks are to confusing they could add stars or something similar.
After getting so many points you get one star and this can be worked on till maybe a maximum of 5 stars, but you lose points by the same formula when you are sunk so your stars can go down as well back to zero stars. So basically if you see a 5 star rear admiral you know you are facing a skilled PvP player that has won a lot more battles than he has lost.
Such a system would also benefit the skilled players who do not have as much time to play like some others. Say for example you are a skilled player who is so good that you never lost a battle, but due to real life work/family etc you only get time to play a couple of hours every weekend, most people wont know you and you will not appear regular on leaderboards but at least if you are winning all your PvP battles you will eventually rank up over time and get your stars or whatever they would be called.
People can still have their daily leaderboards and reward events for paint etc, but this would just be another system that gives some recognition to skilled players.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, monk33y said:
I'm responding to your comment regarding, why does everyone want rewards, with the biggest example yet of receiving a reward for no reason!
If you want to continue being a dick I'll join in....
And my response was to the people whose first comments on the thread were to make it all about rewards rather that what I proposed. The thread has nothing to do with rewards or VM's it was purely a suggestion to give recognition to people who are good at PvP. But some people have their knickers in a bunch because the Devs didnt give them rewards for being on a leaderboard so they decided to hijack this thread.
-
2 minutes ago, monk33y said:
Are you for real, this new victory mark CRAP gives everyone in a high population nation rewards for the actions of the few!!!
What does this have to do with the topic, the topic is nothing to do with rewards, why does everyone who replies keep talking about rewards. The topic is about a system that gives people recognition for their skill at PvP. You want rewards then go ask for them in another topic. The devs already said there is no rewards for being on the leaderboard so I just thought of a system that gives more lasting fame as a PvP'er rather than a fleeting one day leaderboard.
I am not a great PvP'er and I may never get anywhere in the ranking system I propose but there are others I feel may enjoy such a system.
-
4 minutes ago, Otto Kohl said:
I am recognizable enough, i worked 1,5 year for that...
Let me ask you a question Archaos, do you even PvP ? Because you have a lot things to say about PvP and rewards for it, but i hever saw you in OW...
PS:
Deadmen chest event is shit and i will not waste my time on it.
I could say the same about you, just because you have not met me it does not mean I dont play.
I agree deadmens chest event is rubbish, but if that was where the paint was would you do it? This is the same logic you are putting to the PvP leaderboard and getting paint as reward for being on it. It becomes not about the PvP but about the paint and if it was that important you would do the deadmans chest for it.
Real privateers don't need PvE to get ships and gold.
.
For the People Wanting to Quit the Game
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Although I like your suggestion, the problem is some people will just jump from the game rather that be forced to play a nation they dont want to play in.