Quarios
-
Posts
73 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Quarios
-
-
I logged of in OW in the middle of nowhere, when i logged back in I was in front of Shroud Cay, needless to say i cannot move at all, since its 100%shallow and I am in a Renomee. Can u tp me back to MT pls?
-
What exceptions, how can u be judged by a law which wasn't in place at the time of the offence, if veteran or not. Here was the response of the admin to his first offense:
We are aware of issues like this and such incidents will be solved in the forthcoming patch or a hot fix by design.
We will disable entry of unrelated nations (which has already became an outdated feature).
Nothing about a 3 Strike system. They implemented it after the second offense which is all fair and square, if he didnt had gotten his first strike already.
So I stand by what i said it's just unfair towards DesMoines.
-
While i think declaring straight rules is good. I fail to see how it is fair to punish DesMoines with a ruleset which didnt exist at the time of the offense.
Also you should really look into this smuggler exploit. Pirates should be free to join whatever nation they like, if the engine doesnt support 3rd parties like Bougain suggested, than leave the choice of side to the pirate.
-
green on green not allowed.
desmoines will be warned and if repeats transferred to pirates which side he just loves to join
Cmon, i have been asking to be transferred to pirate. Why didnt u tell me this back then! Good to know there is still a way to become pirate without deletion.
-
Than just remove the child-proof lock, and let us attack each other again, pretty pls <3
I get that you shouldnt be able to switch nations, but becoming pirate should still be possible ingame.
-
Would it be possible for the devs to change an account to pirate, since we cannot become pirates anymore by attacking friendlies ?
And deleting/recreating is a big hassle.
-
I think you may be missing the fact that the cap of 10 per day could only be met if all nations trigger a hostile port take over on the same day. There is also a 48 hour lag between hostility trigger and the port battles.
The odds of there being a day with all 10 nations triggering hostile port battles in the same day, is I suspect, rather small, especially since to trigger one, you need to be engaging the enemy actively. Having all nations fighting a two front war at the same time seems... difficult to imagine.
Hey kraken,
where do you take your information from? Im refering to this thread: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14816-update-on-the-port-battle-set-up/
If you read this carefully, according to the dev there is no limit to how many hostility zones a nation can create. So one nation can create 10 Hostility zones and block all other nations out. (Talk about defensive tag ;D) And if you continue reading carefully u will stumble upon this
Hostility levels
Player actions generate hostility levels
- PvP kills, by means of free hunting or pvp missions
- PvE kills by means of hunting or pve missions
- Smuggling and Sabotage - delivering war supplies to support increase or decrease of hostility
- Potentially - Raids
So in contrary what you are writing I just need to sink enough NPC fleets to triger hostility. Which is as i stated before much easier if u have double the population than other nations.
I would also argue that high pop nations will not spread faster. On PvP 2 I just watched the pirates sweep the Florida coast area (>15 ports) in the period of a week, only to be pushed back those same 15+ ports a week later. That was at the least 2 ports every 24 hours. In the new model the best the most aggressive and populous nation will be able to take in a week is 3 ports, due to the one port at a time and 48 hour port battle trigger.
We are going to be playing the RvR game over the course of months/years, instead of the current days/weeks model.
It is to be seen if this will be too slow for people to feel a sense of accomplishment.
Not that a underpop server is really a reference, but basically u agree with me even tho u say u disagree. According to you only the most aggressive and populous nation will be able to take 3 Ports. So what about the low pop nations? Yes they spread more slowly like I said.
The potential for abuse is there if u deny it or not, hope the admin will implement some protection mechanism there.
P.S. I'm not saying hostility system is bad, but the global 10/day limit is. Make it 3/day/Nation i.e. and it will be much better.
-
One thing to consider, with the map wipe + the new hostility system which is limited to global 10 PBs a day (stated in the other thread). This will make the low pop nations even weaker. The high pop nations can spread much faster.
In the time France puts one Neutral port into Hostility, Britain will have 3 already. In the worst case the high pop nations might even block the little nations from taking ports at all. i.e. Aussie sqds filling the 10 slots before europa even wakes up, depending on how fast you can raise those hostility levels.
On the other hand if you would make those limit let's say 3/day/nation, you might actually encourage people to even out the nations.
-
I think you miss my point completly, right now we have unlimited supply on every island. Which is totally unrealistic. The idea is to restrict that a little bit so you actually have a reason to take that juicy iron port from the dutchies.
-
Did u even read my post? Not rly sure what you getting at.
Another incentive could be to spawn NPC Traders at a captured port which supply the capital with resources from the captured port.
-
So right now there is no real reason for conquest, since every port produces unlimited resources. To give us a real reason for conquest the resources need to be limited.
So lets say you can have max 100 Mines on one iron ore port. This would be heavily unfair to new players, and to clans who cant concentrate their ecos. Instead you could tune down the effectivness , so if there are 120 Mines everyone gets only 90% of the possible ore per day. So you can build unlimited mines but the effectivness will go down.This would allow people to group up with their friends (ecowise), while still giving an incentive to conquer new ports.
In the same move you could give lower pop nations a boost, so if they half the size compared to the biggest nation they can have 200 mines with 100% effectivness.
All this values are just made up to show the idea.
-
Wouldn't it also be sensible to have the tournament on a weekend.. much easier to schedule people from the far ends of the globe into one match that way?
I don't expect this top be over on a weekend, Group Stage alone means 3 Matches lasting about 1.5-2h(with queueing, ppl coming late, restarts etc.) for each team. If you continue to the finals add another 4 Matches on Top of that. Not considering delays through different TZs between the teams.
I'd suggest do the Group phase at one weekend and the KO phase on another one. Or over a week 1 Match each evening.
-
1
-
-
Only applies for elimination rounds:
- Team with highest BR at the end wins, if same BR it is sudden death(first team to loose a ship looses)
Might be abit late, but this punishes teams which dont utilise the full BR, wouldnt it be better to count the BR destroyed?
i.e.
3x Renos vs 2x BP 1x Surprise
The Renos manage to sink the Surprise but still loose due to BR 330 vs 360
-
1
-
-
Why should I as a captain not have the choice to decide the fate of my ship??, there are many exsamples in history where captains has destroyed there ship, to stop it for falling into enemy hands. So if you want to stop a captain destroying his ship and denying you your price. then my advice is, dont do as much damage, and board sooner.
Could u link me one or two of that many examples where an captain managed to keep his crew from putting out the fire on his ship to deliberatly eploxde it?
-
1
-
-
The title says it all make survival mode mandatory, not deselectable. Alot of people use it for denieing the prises and exploding on purpose. I don't think this tactic was used much IRL, since it was kinda permanent. (And we are not talking about proper fireships here)
Alternativley add an after death penalty, for killing yourself and your whole crew on purpose. (i.e. take 2 dura instead of one, or take a substantial amount of gold to pay for the widows)
-
1
-
-
Unrestricted you say.
You know other then relatively safe empire space were attacking players you were not at a declared war with their empire with would you get you insta squashed by the npc responders.
Other then the gates and their focal points and cloaking fields. Other then having the ability to see everyone in local at any time and if they were affiliated with your alliance. "If it ain't blue it's goo, if it's red it's dead." became a saying for a reason.
Yeah.. really unrestricted restrictions.
Not really sure what your point is, even in Highsec u can kill anyone u like but have to bare the consequences. Are you really trying to argue that there is a restriction in Eve like. there is already 1 capital in system u cannot enter because BR too high?
*cough* Right, lets make this game EVE.
If you want a game like EVE you should go play EVE.
This is Naval Action, and we don't want it to be EVE.
Well thats your opinion, my opinion is the closer this gets to the basic Eve mechanics the better, if u want another failed sail game for carebears go play Potbs?
-
A scout is not a tackler, a tackler prevents the enemy from leaving the fight.
So if you use a frigate to scout ahead to find the enemy you can do that ingame, but he will need to wait for his fleet to catch up before he starts the fight, or did those scouting frigates start the fight before its fleet catched up?
Yes they did to keep the enemy busy until the fleet arrives.
-
...back in that time period a battle fleet sailed together not seperate. There were probably no scouting back then and no Tacklers. Think about it would a frigatee attack a fotilla 100s of miles away from his fleet?
To my knowledge they spread out over miles, especially when looking for enemies. The frigate would have signaled the main fleet and they would have closed in on it.
-
I don´t think there was such thing as tacklers in the age of sails.
Aha so I guess the frigates scouting around the main fleet just didnt exist.
-
What it prevents is this:
An enemy squadron spread out across the horizon. A tackler tackles an enemy ship. ...
But isn't that exactly what they did in RL?
-
what they have done is a horrible idea. they need to take off the limiter, none of this 1.5 or 2.0 stuff.
several pirates began ganking brits the other night off port morant, brits responded by sending a big fleet of ships. we caught the pirates but then only a certain amount of our brit fleet could get in, many of us waited 20 minutes for that fight then could not even engage. so the ganking crews can go anywhere they like including outside nation capitals and just gank away knowing if they are good and the defenders that manage to get in are not the best ships against them well they can just keep ganking. all this while people are forced to wait outside.
the more they make this game like potbs the more unattractive it is. i like how this game is when it was unrestricted, if 5 pirates want to come in brit territory or vice versa, 20 defenders should have the right to engage them.
Thats exactly what I predicted a few days ago. Just look at Eve they allow free uncomplicated unrestricted PvP and it worked for 10 years and will for more. Don't listen to the crying carebears.
-
This part of the patch is really bad. And in my opinion it makes it even easier for the gankers.
Before the patch we used to roam in enemy waters with 2-8 Ships, after a few kills normally we get swarmed by 10-17 enemy ships which spread out around the last known battle. With this patch, we now can take them out one by one thank you admin.
In general this 1.5BR nonsense just overcomplicates the pvp, and makes it too artifical for a casual user. It also destroys the feeling of the chase on OW, which was stated by you, you would like to have in the game. IRL Ships didnt sail side to side, there were miles between them especially when they were looking for enemies.
tl;dr Pro Players will have it easier to gank, while casuals will fail miserably and quit the game(pvp)
-
3
-
-
We once said here: We consider all features from the 1000th use perspective. After 1000th time if it is fun its a good feature. If it is fun an interesting only first 10 times but becomes boring and bad after 1000th trip its not a good feature.
New players always complain that teleport is unhistorical and is crap. Worth-a-buy review confirmed it
- lots of players wrote to us that we should listen to him. But after 1000th travel we agree it could get tedious. But position on the teleport changes once you craft a santisimaLets be honest - shorter teleport makes things a bit better, because after 1000th time of sailing for 30 mins from Cayman to Il-a Vache is not very fun.
Teleport with cargo should be removed (but again - we know many crafters will stop crafting because of that).
But teleport from outpost to outpost could be faster.
Just speed up OW speeds, right now its way to tedious to get to the fun parts of the game.
-
What alot fail to realise is , that while we have a major shortage of HN right now, that won't be the case in about a month, when enough people leveled up to 35. It will nearly be the same as it was pre patch. So this is just a temporary thing.
If the goal of the devs was to make golden SOLs rare, this course of action is not the right one. The better way would be to make note requirements exponential, and even change the base number depending on ship class. i.e. Mercury (1,2,4,8), Victory(4,8,16,64).
- lots of players wrote to us that we should listen to him. But after 1000th travel we agree it could get tedious. But position on the teleport changes once you craft a santisima
2 Officers Please
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
I personally would vote for having 5 or even more officers, but only one can be active at a time.