Barbancourt
-
Posts
1,629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Barbancourt
-
-
5 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
I don't know VCO and BLACK had some pretty nastie past and we are now fighting side by side since they rolled over to Pirates. Some folks will just never give up old grudges and others are fine with switching who they fight every week. This is why we keep telling the other nations if they just drop old past grudges and maybe ask us to screen/help them they can get a powerfull clan to back them, but now pirates are evil and they must all die....lol
Grudges are founded on the result of past behavior, which with the same personalities involved is the most likely indicator of future behavior.
-
1
-
-
So, what would be the point of it then?
-
I don't know anything about Port of Spain you're referring to. If clans are able to be at war inside nations there are no safe zones for anyone, and it provides an easy avenue for enemy alts to do their PvP raids on you right out of your own national ports.
-
14 minutes ago, Rebrall said:
I have one thing to say about all this BS, Clan wars mofo's
that would solve all the problems
To me that sounds like a new era of alts ganking everyone everywhere, working to kill nations from within.
-
51 minutes ago, Aegir said:
The only remaining objective, and thus the only significant source of OW PvP, is now RvR. Let's see how long that one lasts.
If you think that people need a clear incentive to venture out, why do you then say that it will happen even when there is still none provided just as long as there's just more people playing?
What's going on now doesn't seem like RvR - some groups are just taking ports to have something to do, but possessing the ports doesn't really matter in itself except perhaps to cut travel times across the map.
More players in the game means you have a much greater chance of getting people together to go out as a group and possibly survive PvP. which is where the enjoyment is. If only say 5 people in your clan/friends list are online it its unlikely you can get even 3 of them together to do the same thing for the same period of time. If 15 are online the chances of getting a group together for an hour or two are far higher, and people will be able to venture out of their home bubbles. A game reason/motivation to go somewhere to battle would still help keep people interested, but you have to have the numbers to even consider it.
The RoE is a bit of a problem. I really don't understand the RoE, based on my past experiences. I can't predict what I can tag and who can tag me.
-
10 minutes ago, victor said:
I would rather go to the substance, exteemed members of the jury. And the substance is that hardcore patch has proven to be a total failure in just two months. That's the undeniable truth!
I wonder how it would have gone if we didn't have the capital camping, initial complaints about "extreme grind", and a better population distribution (timezones) to prevent the nightflip/workflip cycles. It would also help if somebody had prevented Albion Online from happening, LOL. Those are the things I remember losing players to.
-
1 hour ago, Aegir said:
In the previous 90% of the game's development, I'd agree with you.
But at the moment, I don't see how having a higher population even helps, when 90% of the players stick top 10% of the protected areas of the map, and mostly do trading, crafting and mission-running on their own anyways. There's so few reasons to venture outside of it, and you'd need 1000+ players to reach the point where the few that do are enough to provide reliable PvP encounters for others to do the same instead of wasting yet another evening finding no-one.
But bringing the population back at their own pace is the first step. As has been said, there is no clear general incentive for PvP beyond just "PvP", which for most players usually means losing badly. People want a clear reason to sacrifice their time and ships, not just because it's called "PvP server" and the wolf is waiting for his dinner. There's gotta be a carrot to risk the stick for. Building the population base, with more players getting either confident or cocky or maybe bored, means more will venture out. More population also means more people to venture out with.
-
15 minutes ago, Aegir said:
Doesn't that also mean that there's fewer hunters around as well?
No. The hunters move in when the numbers are lowest.
-
-
It would likely be pretty ineffective for those of us who don't play during peak times.
-
Just now, Slim Jimmerson said:
Hostility missions introduced.
It takes 5 missions to flip a port. Each mission is 10 aggies. A skilled group can set the port in the time it takes for a single battle to finish
10 aggies?
ouch!
-
Just now, rediii said:
With 12 people "grinding" these fleets take 20 min
With 24 people "grinding" these fleets take 12 min
Just FYI
I remember spending days chasing AI fleets to set up port battles. Then having to grind them again after the region got flipped back..and again, and again, and again... Maybe some of the details have changed, but nobody's interested in it anymore.
-
Stop with the missions already. Missions suck. Just go jump AI ships sailing around the Open World.
-
4 minutes ago, rediii said:
Thats why you either dont participate in portbattles or your nation sucks in RvR
The nation doesn't like RvR as long as it's based on grinding AI fleets.
-
14 minutes ago, vazco said:
Clearly you don't know the game so well... You haven't played RvR yet, only RvE. This is what NA is turning to. Dumping it's best parts to promote the worst.
To explain - a council is how players fix what game is not providing them in terms of game mechanics - a system to synchronize clans, to create a meaningful RvR.
LOL, whatever.
I'm laughing at the idea of an official "Council" - we don't do that.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, vazco said:
It matters, as on average 5 or more clans are needed to man a single PB now. It requires a lot of organization, on nation level. Usually it's done thorough a council.
Once we introduce new nations and players divide, it will be impossible to organize enough people to do a PB.
What is this "Council" of which you speak? That sounds so official, LOL. It depends where things go with the PB system or whatever replaces it. The only PB I've done during the current system was about 9 players vs the 6 AI, which was more than enough players. The last one before that pre-Patch was 3 players vs 2 players, LOL. Since the port conquest is now a clan-based thing it really needs to take on more of a clan-based scale.
-
20 minutes ago, vazco said:
Then we're all doomed. Instead of giving us a good options to find each other in an OW to fight PvP/RvR, you will try to divide the community further and call it a test. It will surely fail. If it's a problem to gather 25 people with 6 nations, it will be impossible with more nations.
We need a content for groups of 3-10 instead, which would allow for such groups to also find each other and fight.I'm not sure whether it matters much, since we're already self-dividing into clans. It is true that a compelling motivation for PvP on the 3-10 scale would help.
-
23 minutes ago, Rickard said:
then I don't know why you wanted to play this game (about shooting at other players) in the first place.
If you never take any risk you will never get anywhere( unless the devs provide you with your very own server ahhmm).
ow and just so you know I am not advocating for a PVP only server, I want a server for every type of player.
As I said, I'm a PVE player in ANOTHER game. The PVE content/mechanics in Naval Action sucks IMO. I'm trying to relate to you why PVE players will usually not be satisfied at being restricted to token "safe zones". Some people just want to sail pretty ships, go places, explore, imagine, or just do the game at their own pace instead of getting randomly curb-stomped. Different strokes for different sailors...
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Rickard said:
This is an MMO not a single player game, if you want to go everywhere you will have to leave the safe zone and meet other players no matter how scared you are.
That might be your game, but it's a completely different game to other players. Players are going to "vote with their feet" and leave if you try to force them into a box that doesn't interest them. It isn't a matter of being "scared". Nobody's "scared" of pixels. It's a matter of not wanting to waste your time trying to make progress at a goal that interests you, then having someone else screw it up and waste many hours of your time. PVE players usually love to meet other players - in a peaceful and cooperative manner.
-
4 hours ago, Rickard said:
PVPers hunt and fight outside the safe zone unless they think they can take on the reinforcements, PVEers trade, craft and fight AI inside or close to the safe zones. RVRers are basically everywhere.
The flaw in that is that PVE players usually want to go EVERYWHERE, not be locked into small "safe zones". They just want to sail, explore, see new things, and not get jacked and lose week's progress in their PVE game every time a bored PVP kiddie comes along. PVE in Naval Action is suck, but I'm a 100% PVE player in another game where the PVE is pretty good. I would not be playing that game at all if I was locked into "safe zones". Getting out and exploring the world at leisure is the whole point for many PVE players.
-
2 hours ago, Barberouge said:
The poll will be closed on friday.
10 ships with the most votes will make it to the final poll. Please vote for the one you prefer.
Since only one ship will be chosen, why not just narrow it to the top 3 which are already clearly ahead? There's a huge gap to #4.
-
I'm in Hawaii (-10).
-
3 hours ago, Rebrall said:
3 hours prior to its current time shouldn't affect anyone except nz a little
Hang on there, that would be 8PM for me.
-
What is this talk of "left" or "right" in discussing time?
It's going to screw up someone's time, whenever it happens.
-
1
-
ouch!
Player-selected ship 2017 - Final poll
in Shipyard
Posted