cainn
-
Posts
37 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by cainn
-
-
I think we were a bit flustered about our Victory being nearby, but AFK in port, when the battle for Frederiksted kicked off. The timing couldn't have been worse. By the time he got finished with his phone call, the battle was already over. There were also errors made on the French side, I think we can admit that.
Initially they said run for the 5th tower, so most of our frigates took off full speed with the wind to engage Lord Roberts in the Victory, and then our bigger ships called us back but the wind was blowing straight in our faces and with the changes to the frigate's point-of-sail penalty we had to cut further back to make any headway back to our Pavel and 3rd rates.
If I had it to do over again, I would have YOLO'd ahead into the British Victory hoping to catch fire with survival turned off.
Sadly that doesn't work as well as you'd think, been there done that got the t-shirt. I would have been better off putting out the fire and fighting the old fashioned way.
-
I may be incorrect but I am fairly certain that none of the third rates we brought to that port battle or any others in recent history were under crewed. If someone has proof otherwise I'd like to see it.
-
2. i am unaware of any ports being hit outside the 2hr window they have to be hit. i feel you are confuseing these events with us continueing our Op into the zone after the port window by captureing the last 3 ports that had no windows at all. so no exploits were used on my watch. we have noted that there may be a option to do this but it was seen as a exploit and has been outlawed in the french nation to prevent slander of us using exploits as you have thus attempted.
No one is accusing anyone of exploiting, what Mr.Howe was referring to was the port assault on St. Johns. The window was set for 00-02 according to the in game clock. The flag was not actually purchased until around 0250 according to the in game clock. Whether or not you knew this to be possible and planned for it or not isn't really the point. The point is the in game UI led us to believe the window had expired and thus over half of us waiting in the port to defend had either logged out for the night or decided to use our teleports to go elsewhere. As far as setting port times you need to realize that we can not even see the times on our own ports or who is lord protector unless we actually sail to every single one. Also half of our port timers cannot be changed due to the people that set them are no longer playing the game. That is what I personally am frustrated about, i don't care that we lost ports I care that we couldn't even put up a fight due to a poorly designed "placeholder UI" that should have been the first thing in this game to get finished, but instead people voted just to add more crap to the temporary UI that honestly doesn't seem to be adding much.
-
Why don't we just give every nation one or two ports in that area and have a battle royale
-
Not especially, no.
Oh well, was worth a try. I'm sure we will be back someday regardless in this map or the next
-
So St. Johns is fair game then yes?
-
Hmm looks like french ships to me, well done frogs.
-
1
-
-
The thing is Roberts, a basic victory is a hell of a lot better than a basic cutter.
that's debatable, basic cutter best cutter
-
Ever wonder why EVE is just a single server? It's assinine to start off splitting your player base from the start.
Eve online is not a single server, Eve online is hundreds of servers that are interconnected. Every time you jump a gate you are being handed off to a different server. That model simply doesn't work for this game unless everyone is okay with loading screens on the open sea.
-
1
-
-
Easier said than done.
Protecting a tower from drive byes from heavy rate ships is much more difficult than just fighting them at sea. Consider the cannons can always just hit the top of the tower that sticks up above any blocking ships.
You act like just because we are British we have never fought a battle with significantly less BR than the opponent. We have and we have won them on more than one occasion. The first defense of Little Inagua we started the battle down 1.7-1 in BR and ended up sinking all but 6 of the attacking force. It is possible you just have to know your objectives.
-
You say a port battle is different than an OW battle, fair. They should be. But think about it. IRL, if a fleet came up and bombarded a port, while there were still ships defending in the harbor (I know there isn't land yet, but this IS what this is supposed to be simulating) would those ships defending the harbor simply give up and go home once the bombardment was complete? Even if the defending ships were not damaged themselves? Or would they continue to stay and fight to the bitter end or at least until they were forced to retreat? Yes they are different, but it isn't a "shoot the shore and then they will run away while we take the port" kind of thing. Wouldn't fighting be more fun? Who doesn't want more fun? Again fighting is the best thing this game has going for it right now, so why not mawr?
I agree there is not much content outside of RvR, but like I've stated before the combat mechanics are the best part of this game. So the BR determining victory instead of combat takes away from the ONE solid core feature that exists in the game. To be honest, even this exploration stuff they are talking about adding is not that much more content. This game will still be based around fighting, so anything that takes away from fighting takes way from the core strength of the game. There are ways to counter the ships just running around avoiding fights. Make the shrinking circle more effective to counter it. Make it so BR determines victory based on the ships left at the end, not the ships at the beginning. There, they can run around all they want, they still won't win and will prolly get killed by the circle. BR is actually not needed to determine victory, except if the timer runs out and there are still ship sailing on both sides. At that point is doesn't even need to be a 2:1 BR, it can just be the more BR wins.
You say there is nothing to keep people playing besides grinding and RvR....well what if we made the RvR more fun, win or lose? Wouldn't more people stick around? yes.
Finally a post i can agree with, at least for the most part. Here is my counter-suggestion. Make the BR difference needed to win stay the same that it is now at 2-1 however, the BR difference has no effect on the battle until the timer has expired. Upon the timer running out if the attacker has killed all towers and holds a 2-1 advantage they win the port. In addition to this make the "circle of death" start closing in earlier in the battle, say somewhere around the 45 minute mark and have it end up at its smallest around the 1 hour mark. This gives the attacker basically 45 minutes to take control of the center of the map and take down the towers. If they fail to do this then they have to make a decision to withdraw or close in and brawl with the defenders with the towers still up. On the other hand if the defenders get forced out of the center and lose the towers in the first 20-30 minutes the battle doesn't just end, but the defenders have to make the decision to come in and brawl with the attackers or abandon the port. The only drawbacks to this system that stand out to me is that this will make it nearly impossible for any attacking fleet of equal BR to the defending fleet to have any chance of victory assuming both sides have captains of equal skill and it opens up the possibility for a few ships to draw out the battle and waste the time of the attackers.
As for Bach, I can understand your frustration however, you have already stated earlier that you did not even make it into the port battle so you literally have no idea what happened in there. If the French wanted a bloodbath they had the opportunity. They did nothing to prevent the attacking force from having free reign on the towers. If they had managed to hold us off for another 30 seconds we would have lost the 2-1 BR advantage we needed to end the battle.
-
How many times do I have to say this... A port battle is different than an open sea battle, if you don't defend the port you should lose. If you place a higher value on the fleet of ships defending the port than the port itself then that is your choice. The BR difference mechanic is there for a reason and I think it should stay there, at least until they introduce land and the new forts after that we will have to see. As it stands now without that mechanic you either have to shrink the size of the instance to the point that it won't be enjoyable for either side or there is nothing to stop people sailing around the edge of the map for an hour and a half to "defend" a port.
Having said all that I don't believe this discussion even belongs in a thread about server health. Port battle mechanics is not what is losing players from the game. If anything it's the lack of content outside of RvR. As it currently stands there is nothing to keep anyone playing this game besides grinding and RvR.
-
Guys, this thread is not about a single battle, get over it. This is about what mechanics in the game can be changed to make it more fun for everyone. I frankly don't care, and neither does anyone else, about who won or lost a particular battle. It wasn't the first battle and it won't be the last. We care that there are game mechanics in place that discourage fighting. I swear some of you just don't get it.
Your right it isn't, it's about a bunch of people that want to force others to play the game their way. Your entitled to your play style and I'm entitled to mine. Get off your high horse and quit trying to make villains out of anyone that disagrees with you.
-
Okay at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me state again what happened at Fredericksted.
That entire attack came about in response to the French parading a victory and 2 pavels around outside of Vieques. This fleet was spotted moving into Fredericksted. Word was sent out and the British fleet was amassed to draw the French into battle. We had no way of knowing the victory would not be there or the other multiple third rates that were seen at sea would also not be there. I personally expected to be facing a fleet of 7-10k BR.
At the start of the battle we split our forces in two and charged the towers to get them out of the equation as fast as possible. (42lb sniper cannons are not fun to be on the receiving end of) While this was happening the French forces retreated away from the towers instead of defending them and thus the port was lost. Keep in mind once they put land in these battles sailing away will no longer be an option. If this was an open sea battle I could 100% see your point and would agree with you, but it isn't. The objectives in a port attack/defense are different. If your fleet abandons your port defenses then they have effectively given up the port. Maybe they should change the BR mechanic to only register the BR of the ships that are within a certain range of the towers?
-
1
-
-
I actually don't care that much about losing. Sink, get sunk, doesn't matter. The point is the ability for one side to win without actually engaging anything other than the towers. You made some good points in the other thread Howe, and it was interesting to read it from your perspective. Cainn, grow up.
We literally sailed straight at you. How is that not engaging anything? You ran and abandoned your towers and thus lost the battle without a fight. That was your decision not ours.
-
Oh I'm sorry I wasn't aware opinions that disagreed with you weren't allowed, my bad.
-
If you ask me there is nothing wrong with the current rules in port battles, the current port battles are merely placeholders anyway. With that being said the port battle for Fredericksted that you are referencing in your original post was lost because the 18 French ships did NOTHING to protect their towers. The objectives in a port battle are very clear and very simple. The attacker must kill 5 towers and maintain a 2-1 BR advantage and the defenders must prevent this. The French chose to run and abandon their towers doing nothing to defend or protect them, that was your choice and why you lost. You did not sink a single British ship in the 15+ minutes it took us to kill your towers. Quit blaming mechanics for your tactical blunders.
-
"Our entire fleet". Many of us were in the south last night. You had 1 french clan and the swedes. Many of us were around Guayaguayare in the port battle.
I love how you put quotation marks around a statement I never made. Maybe you should read more carefully. I said "an entire fleet" pretty sure Third rates, Consitutions, Trincomalee's and the 15 other assorted ships that showed up counts as a fleet.
-
I will admit that I have engaged in unfair fights before.
However, I have NEVER lost a durability on a ship without attempting to get at least some XP out of it, regardless of the odds against me. Watching those two British trincs intentionally ram each other for a suicide-sink was hilarious. They did more damage to each other than they did to the enemy.
Indeed it was hilarious, and turnabout is fair play. I just wish people wouldn't try to twist events so much on the forums. Yes the 8 of us attacked a lone swede with the intention of stirring up trouble. Seems we stirred up a bit more than we could handle though sadly. We did not set sail last night with the intention on ganking solo players. We wanted more good fights with Bork like the few we have had over the last few days. Hopefully tonight will be different, sadly i have to go take a final now but after that hopefully there will be good fights to be found.
-
LOL. ^^^ This is exactly what I'm talking about. ^^^
6 trincs versus 1 Swede was okay, but when the Swedes and French brought 25 ships against 6 British, there seems to suddenly be a problem. Turnabout is fair play and all that.
You guys aren't interested in "good fights". You just want to gank 24/7 in grouped fleets like you were about to do to that Swedish player. If you want a "good fight", there's about 500 Americans up north who are getting bored with capturing uncontested ports.
So then it is fair to assume that an upstanding gentlemen such as yourself has never engaged in a battle in which you had your opponent outmatched? I highly doubt this to be the case. You seem to have the false impression that I am somehow upset by the events that took place last night, which i can assure you is not the case. I am definitely surprised however that the Pirates... oh wait sorry the "French" felt the need to sail an entire fleet north to counter a fleet of 8 people. For a group of people that claim to want PvP you seem to do everything you possibly can to deter it. If the Swedish cannot muster a fleet within sight of their national capital to defeat 8 frigates then I'm not sure what to tell you.
-
Personally I'm flattered that you feel that the 8 of us required a fleet of over 25 people to repel. Maybe next time show up with a group that is less than 4x our BR and we can actually have a good fight.
-
I wouldn't mind losing the durability system due to ship loss, the most painful part of losing a ship to me is losing the upgrades on it and not even the loss of the actual ship itself. I really hope with the upcoming economy changes they change the current crafting note system. The fact that it takes 1000 labor hours and a max level crafter to make an exceptional upgrade seems a tad rediculous to me.
-
I'm not speaking on SoB's behalf, i just personally know you have no power and don't care what you think
-
1
-
-
So the guy that hasn't even been British for 10 days can declare war on behalf of the British nation... seems legit.
-
2
-
"Such is a lord" - Simple politics and alliances part 1 - HEAVILY MODERATED
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
With a little more fleshing out I think this, would be the way to go. The power of politics and land ownership should be put in the hands of clans and not individual players. This encourages like minded people with the same goals to consolidate and organize. Would give the opportunity to add a lot more into clan mechanics as well, which seems to be sorely lacking at present. Overall any political system is better than no political system and I look forward to testing whatever system may come.