Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Anolytic

Members2
  • Posts

    2,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by Anolytic

  1. I see several potential pitfalls, but I am excited to test this system in game.
  2. The difference is-I think-he wants to be able to see a list at the end of battle that ranks players according to all these stats. So you can see your teammates' stats (and your enemies'), and compare without asking on teamspeak. I don't disapprove of the idea, though I think one would have to be careful how one designs a list like that or it gets confusing and useless to most. But just the kills and assists doesn't say that much. You can be the guy who runs around the battle and shoots at everyone to get 20 assists. It looks great on the results screen but you may have been the most useless guy in the fight if you didn't help focus fire at all, just concentrating on your own stats and personal rewards. While if you go in and straight up board 5 enemy ships to take them out of the fight, you get no kills and no assists, but you may be the most useful guy in the fight. I'm not sure battle results statistics can ever truly reflect this in a meaningful manner though.
  3. I like those ideas. Though I'm sceptical about the crew experience. If two players meet in equal ships, and one player's ship is inexplicably very OP and skill or strategic choice of modules has nothing to do with it, then that would be bad for PVP I think.There are ways that crew experience could be implemented, but it needs to be done very carefully so as not to ruin PVP engagements for a lot of people.
  4. This seems like an interesting suggestion. I'm on the fence about if it would work well in this game, but allowing everyone to jump into the lobby once the port is reached and the flag planted, and then for the flagcarrier or whoever lead the assault to be allowed to select who actually gets into the battle seems like a nice idea. Of course this would increase the importance of being in a well connected and port battle oriented clan, but that is a good thing in my view. It would give well organised groups of players the opportunity to utilize this advantage without being sabotaged or accidentally blocked by randoms so easily. Someone will always feel left out and slighted of course, but clans could rotate and organise to remedy this and keep their players happy.
  5. With the new damage models I really miss the dangerousness of leaks. It should be hard to give leaks, and it should take a lot for them to be really dangerous, but I loved it when if your enemy was foolish and showed the entire belly of his ship, and you took your time to aim and wait for the perfect moment, and then you could give 15 leaks and he would just sink instantly. It was one of my favourite things. I'm also curious about how you intend to tweak the marines regarding 3., because they give a lot of penalties to dps, so they have to be effective enough that if you are skilled enough to get an enemy into a boarding position your marines will actually pay off the risk. Other than that I don't mind the damage model testing and tweaking. It needed tweaking, which we've gotten, but I loved the idea behind the new damage system. Tanking with your sides and ships in general being more tanky was a great improvement. And the importance of angling your ship as well.
  6. I think he means that US players on PVP1 should for the time being play on PVP2 and prepare materials there for when the server will eventually be merged with PVP1 and you are then ready to fight back on PVP1. Just my interpretation.
  7. Cost me 2 duras and 450k for the Tiburon flag, made a few mistakes in the 2nd battle and got capped, but it was loads of fun. I make Ingermanlands myself, and I used the money I got from sinking Swedes a few hours earlier.
  8. Of course not. This tactic has been used by Danish forces many times. Mostly on ports that we captured in the same window, but with the current system it is a logical tactic, however one that my clan tries not to use. We do not care about port holdings, only about fighting against other players in port battles with players on both sides. But to facilitate this we have make the effort to expel those port timers from our front. He is not in my clan, and he doesn't speak English. Also, of course he can set it to whatever timer he likes. I have no right to deny him. And your players in BWTC are free to do the same. British have stopped making the excuse that the Aussies are going to defend, so all I can say is that it is a somewhat dirty tactic, whoever does it, and it is a bad tactic because we will take the ports back. My real objection is to the game mechanics which not only allow this, but encourages it. They are killing the game. It is no fun, so we have to make our own fun, hence this topic.
  9. Yes, because the current PB mechanics means that a port can be captured in 24 minutes by two ships. I look forward to when this will change. Untill then, see ya. Maybe I should have posted this topic in Gameplay Discussions rather, to direct it more at the developers. However that would not have been as much fun. If I had been aware that this patch did not change anything at all I probably would have though. EDIT: Sorry for double post.
  10. ..set by veha, who actually lives in a timezone where that timer makes sense, and who always joins us in taking ports set to the same timer. While I do not personally like that we have that timer, since the patch we cannot change it. And that is just a single port. If attacked our players from different timezones are enough to mount a defence if they organise. It is different from setting all of southern Hispaniola to that timer and not defending anything.
  11. Feel free. I have said my piece. The facts are easy. I have no intention to engage in a pointless discussion about rumours and baseless accusations. It is obvious that you were looking for a way to start a war, and you got your war. We've taken all your ports around Gusavia a couple of times. Now lets talk about ending this whack-a-mole conflict like the French so reasonably suggest. Neither France nor Denmark-Norway were looking for this war in the first place. But you know the words, "in times of peace, prepare for war". We are not naive. Be reassured, Plerrick is always well informed in my experience. He has responded in this topic previously. But now the topic has devolved into a he-did-she-did discussion about Sweden and Denmark-Norway, which doesn't even concern France and is frankly a bit off topic here. Why would he need to read all this? If something relevant should hide among the rest, someone more willing to waste their time in National News will surely keep him informed. I think we just got our answer to what this war is about. You want the whole server to speak only English? But 2 weeks earlier than what? And I didn't know that we sent you any doctor to negotiate on our behalf. If you're going to insult people's english, do a better job. If you are referring to two weeks ago, and the note that I wrote, you are misrepresenting what happened. I was in the TS. Due to the questions that were posed we assumed you were struggling to understand the language of the note. And to my memory, the note was not read to you you were asked to read it, and then asked politely to read it again.
  12. I had no intention to engage in this thread as I view it as pointless. Apart from the OP which is a repost of a statement from before NN was reopened, there is nothing but rumours and assumptions here. But please do not lie to me about what I myself have said or written. Please... I was the diplomat who handed that note to a Swedish diplomat, and I was the one who wrote that note. There was another diplomat of ours who led the talks, but I was part of them. You can see from the note that it has not been edited since May 3rd, but if you're going to twist and misrepresent the words that I myself wrote, I am going to edit that note to say just "fuck no". The note was made to be handed to both Dutch and Swedes. It was at those talks we were informed that Les Cayes was considered by both Dutch and Swedes as a dutch port even though Swedes held it. I guess this was some sort of smokescreen to confuse the French. So it was pointless for us talking to the Swedes, because they claim no independence of their own, just following their puppeteers be they Dutch or British. But as a sidenote: How were we supposed assume that a port held by Sweden was not to be considered Swedish, yet you keep telling us at every turn that if a nation holds a port it is to be considered their ports. Please answer me this: Why, if Road Town is "borrowed" by Pirates without permission, is it suddenly and instantly a pirate port to be claimed by Swedish, or if the British are helped to take southern Ile-a-Vache area from Denmark-Norway, and then abandon it to pirates, these are pirate ports with Danish claim relinquished. But if Sweden holds Les Cayes, Les Cayes is still a Dutch port. And if Denmark-Norway holds Marigot and Fort Baai, these ports are still Swedish, not Danish? It is impossible to deal diplomatically with nations that hold other nations to different standards from what they hold themselves. Back to the diplomatic note. It speaks for itself. I advise people in doubt to follow the link and read it. We explain there in a reasonable tone why we need the ports in question back, and referencing earlier discussions why we consider it ungentlemanly of our presumed friends to hold these ports unnecessarily and blocking all of our Danish players from having their PVP and Port Battle fun. We know that the Dutch and the Swedes like to talk for a long time, so we insist on the urgency, because we cannot ask our players to stop playing the game for a week or two just for us to talk about this fairly obvious thing. The last part of the note expresses that Denmark-Norway in no way wished to blockade the Swedish or the Dutch, our friends, from having their PVP and Port Battle fun. We are not ungentlemanly like that. We wanted to let the note stand for itself and considered it pretty self-explanatory, but both the Swedes and mostly the Dutch wanted to talk to us for hours and hours about it. We obliged. It was explained repeatedly and explicitly in the talks - you could not fail to grasp this - that any action, reaction or decision regarding these three ports would not in Denmark-Norway's view affect our overall relationship or extend to the home waters of any nation. If an agreement could not be made about these ports quickly, our conflict over these ports would not extend to Swedish or Dutch home waters, or even to the ports on the north side of Haiti. We would reclaim possession of the three ports, and defend them from any attackers, but not attack Swedish or Dutch home waters. There was no talk of ports that "might" change hands if the Swedish joined our coalition. There were concrete promises of ports in that case. We would give Marigot and Fort Baai. The latter as quickly as we could evacuate it. And we would find further ports to offer the Swedes in our home waters because of their isolation in the east, and Sweden would of course be allowed to keep ports in Cuba and Haiti for further conquest. Later, as we realised Sweden were uninterested in the offer of alliance, and even that the Dutch and Swedes seemed eager for an excuse to attack Denmark-Norway because the pirates were not fighting back and not giving them enough fun, we initiated talks to offer Marigot and Fort Baai to Sweden even if they stayed neutral and kept fighting the pirates, because we wanted to better our relationship with Sweden and by extension their apparent masters the Dutch. Danes and the Pirate Coalition cooperate about attacking Britain. They are our mutual enemies. We have no cooperation on anything beyond what helps toward that goal. In any case you cannot give away ports with the current system in this game. You gave the Pirates strong motivation to attack your home waters, so it is only natural that they should seize the opportunity. In the end the pirates failed to do anything significant out of Road Town in the time they kept the port. They did however take the opportunity to capture a lot of Danish-Norwegian traders. So just why would we "invite" Pirates to settle on our trade routes? You are blaming RUS for somehow "giving" Road Town to the Pirates, yet you have no proof, only vague assertions. The flag carrier have been sailing with RDNN and RUS for weeks. Look at the videos and screenshots from our Port Battles. That he would join RUS or RDNN at some point is not a shock. He came to our TeamSpeak earlier in the day to rally people to join the assault on Road Town, and a big fleet of Danes did gather. After the incident Swedish officials bragged on their own forums about intercepting the flag in the last minute as it was being planted. The words of Swedish captains themselves prove that the flag was not fake. Furthermore, Swedish diplomats are familiar with the flag carrier, as he was invited to be present in our discussion about the Ile-a-Vache area, with the stated reason he wanted to monitor the discussion to be assured that they would not lead to war with Sweden. See above. You cannot apply one standard to how port ownership is asserted in the case of one nation, and another standard for yourself. And regarding first aggressions. Intercepting a Danish flag to retake a port is definitely the first aggression. We were however prepared to overlook this, until Sweden started attacking the Danish ports Marigot and Fort Baai without preamble or warning. If you really believed that the flag was fake, despite being told in advance that it was real, you would have let it be planted, which would - in case you were right - have proven your assertions and been proof that Denmark-Norway was wielding a proxy. It would have been a lot more logical than all these baseless accusations to justify your attacks.
  13. Just tested first port battle since the patch against Fort Baai. We lost fair and square against superior numbers, but absolutely nothing has changed about port battles or timers with this patch only that we can no longer use our first rates.
  14. Lots of statements have been made here regarding Denmark-Norway, and I would address a few of them. 1. Road Town was not handed to the pirates. It was attacked around 4 am server time, and there was hardly anyone online to even attempt to defend. Sweden and Denmark-Norway is in the same time-zone, and I have sailed past Gustavia in my Le Grosse Ventre a couple of times at 4 am server time, and there was no players online there either. 2. Denmark-Norway did not threaten Dutch or Sweden, but expressed our displeasure at what we considered unfriendly behaviour in the Dutch helping Britain take our ports around Ile-a-Vache, then having them swapped to Dutch via the pirates taking them from Britain, and then the Dutch holding them while knowingly blocking Danish access to conquest and port battles. This is not the friendly behaviour of an ally. 3. Fort Baai and Marigot was not Swedish ports lent to Denmark-Norway. They were conquered during Black Friday and kept when all other ports captured from Sweden was generously handed back shortly after the conquest. They were spoils of the war, kept mainly because many players in Denmark-Norway did not trust Sweden to honor the truce. Those of us who trusted the Swedes recently initiated talks with Sweden to gift both ports as a sign of good faith and to improve relations between Sweden and Denmark-Norway. Those talks were cut short when Sweden decided to attack us and take the ports by force. In hindsight our trust was optimistic.
  15. This is how you capture British ports. We would have used just one Pavel, but having someone to talk to on TS is a lot better to pass the time. And 2 pavels cuts the capture time by half. Both of our Le Grosse Ventres supposedly got compass wood, so the flag more than paid for itself. It is the sincere wish of the Danish-Norwegian nation that today's patch gets rid of the trolling early morning timers. This is the time-zone of Denmark-Norway: For months now the British have zerged us with multiple flags by day and then put timers between 00 and 06 server time against us to avoid defending. It is frustrating having to look for players to stay up all night to capture empty British ports. We would have liked to do like the French and the Dutch do and post pictures of sunken fleets, but alas, ever since the battle for Aves brits have been unwilling to fight except for when they have our fleet split in half by having their Swedish puppets attack us in the east. P.S. This guide to capturing British ports will probably, and hopefully, be outdated by the time the server and patch comes online today. Though Babay's video of the capture of Aves might still be instructional to anyone seeking to capture a British regional capital. P.P.S. Nice to have National News back.
  16. The Tribunal has specific rules to prevent it from devolving into a mess of unfounded accusations. It was like that before, and it was not pretty or healthy to the community. The incident was F11-reported during the battle, and the developers can choose to investigate from there or more likely wait for possibly further incidents to substantiate the accusations. Stuff like this happens and we all have to just move on. Also, as LeBoiteux said. It is just as likely that this was a noob as that it was a deliberate attempt at griefing. This is what happens when we allow a front line to be established so close to our capital. Noobs don't travel far from the capital, but Aves is not a long journey. There was a battle right next to the PB at the time as well, so he might have just misclicked. The uniquely unfortunate strategic position Denmark has of having a freeport (Vieques) so incredibly close to our capital has had the unexpected upside of our noobs growing up fast under the pressure from all the british, pirates, swedes and others with ganking outposts there. That doesn't mean we won't have incidents like this with our noobs still. He probably won't do it again. If he does, then we have better evidence.
  17. If it's just a "port wipe" - should we make sure we keep all our assets in freetowns in case it is implemented on short notice?
  18. If you have any exceptional marines you don't want. Meet me at any freeport and I will gladly take them off your hands.
  19. I noticed this on my Victory. Suddenly I had all the firepower and range of 106 waterpistols.
  20. I have no problem with the Russians having their own nation in game. They will kick all of our asses, and it'll be fun. But this is a poor excuse: Denmark-Norway is already a nation with a vey mixed population. The only reason it might seem that there is a disproportionate number of Russians in the nation is because they are active players and committed PVPers. The RUS clans are the most active on the frontline, the most organised, and they are excellent players - many of them having played since well before Steam release. That does not make them the majority in the Danish nation, just the best part of it. I'm repeatedly surprised by the number of fellow Norwegians and Danes actually playing, but they are mostly sailing around Christiansted doing missions and fleets or trading. So why would you make two new small nations, just to deplete the forces of two of the currently smallest and most disadvantaged nations? Make an Aussie nation then, and a Hanover one for all the Germans playing in the British ranks.
  21. Don't allow spies in your clan, and don't write sensitive stuff in nation chat. Problem solved.
  22. Seems like this would be very time consuming for the devs. I rather want them to work on improving the game and fixing bugs. I would prefer a player driven system. Where clans act as political factions within a nation and as a coherent force against other nations.
  23. You don't board a surrendered ship, be it green or red originally. If it's surrendered it's white, with a white flag flying. There's no boarding involved, you capture it by going close and hitting X. I've salvaged a clanmate's ship/dura after he DC'd. In order to give it back to him if he wanted it. There's absolutely no green on green involved whatsoever. Not giving it back is a bit of a douchebag move though, but not tribunal worthy. EDIT: My comment was response to ShroudedRecluse. On my phone so didn't realize there was another page and all I wrote had already been said by Galileus.
  24. I do like your suggestion mindnet56. It would be a nice feature. Though I would point out that finding out who was tagged, and who was the attacker is already extremely easy. Just hit tab in battle. The player name on the top left is the attacking tagger, the player on the top right is the one who was tagged.
  25. Not a record. On the so-called Black Friday Denmark-Norway took 12 ports in the span of 6 hours. This was on PVP1 and I'm not even sure that's the record. http://m.imgur.com/zbFWqRu You can even see it on video on ov3rb's youtube-channel.
×
×
  • Create New...