Thonys
-
Posts
3,189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Thonys
-
-
4 hours ago, Smoothie said:
tl;dr
You got carried away. Did you ever consider to write a book?
did you ?
i found it a very good read for a weekly newspaper like the ws gazette ...
also we need more info on the matter its very difficult to understand the point of view from other sides sometimes
quote of the day: "Tables turn always by thoughts, but you have to put them on paper. "
-
On 2/5/2020 at 3:26 AM, Mad Dog Morgan said:
I'd just like to know why this community uses the term Green on Green instead of Blue on Blue.
or Black on black.... o.0
also not allowed
-
21 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
I did always wonder.
i always wonder why everybody is shooting at each other .... .o.0
-
On 2/4/2020 at 8:45 PM, z4ys said:
You still lose HP (sail/hull) = need to repair + you can even sink after battle is over
Its like hitting someone and say "Dont be such a sissy pain will go away" While its actual right pain will go away does it make hitting someone legal?
dismissed.
its about nothing
one only thinks of a scratch here and there, and not even sunk yet.
have you already thought of the one who lost his entire ship?oh well we all need a psychiatrist at times
this is also about nothing
just about big egos that are running around a bitbut everything is permitted in court.
do not forget :
The public prosecutor can decide, inter alia, on grounds of public interest to prosecute or not to prosecute. The case is then dismissed.
that can be changed at court, which can make you pay for the unlawful process.
case dismissed.
-
10 hours ago, Liq said:
^ video
i believe this kind of battles are ten times more enjoyable than doing battle with the big boys
even for the viewer this is fun
i also think development should be pushing more in doing battle with the smaller ships and also to be more rewarded for doing so...we see too little of this kind of extreme enjoyable battles to promote naval action to the new breath of captains who are not yet in NA ...
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, MassimoSud said:
better go back to writing in your newspaper
it clearly says battle OVER
GWC news with the real FACTS... , with the eye for detail..
at your service
-
8 minutes ago, Shocktrooper Basteyy said:
Naparima pb
Dutch won with points, was nice battle GGGenius text in the comments .....
i like that very much
must have been a great battle
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, gimli_balinson said:
The point is ... can u build a port with 4 lvl 4 port bonus?
i can
but i have to destroy something else,..... and that's my limitation also
i always said restrictions and limitations are not good for the game....said it years ago ...
-
2 hours ago, Genevieve Malfleurs said:
why? People should sail whatever they like to. From Cutter to Santi. What good will limitations do to the game?
- ------------------------------------------------------
Actually, the DLC's include a statement to the effect of "Game-Labs can make future changes to the DLC at their discretion".
just to throw in a loose stick ......
development can decide that dlc are not allowed in pb.....for example (low sec/high sec- high sec /low sec limitation eve(l) thoughts)
now i must go hide very quick..(at the back of the sun)
- -----------------------------------------------------
under what kind of blanket did you crawl underneath from
tell me .....how much ports can you make? how many buildings ? how many ships? ......or can you only count to 2 ?
its not about what you can sail...... it's about what you could not be allowed to in the future perhaps....
ps. it is not the case atm...... but can always be in place if necessary...let it be understood very clearly.
-
9 hours ago, GrubbyZebra said:
Actually, the DLC's include a statement to the effect of "Game-Labs can make future changes to the DLC at their discretion".
just to throw in a loose stick ......
development can decide that dlc are not allowed in pb.....for example (low sec/high sec- high sec /low sec limitation eve(l) thoughts)
now i must go hide very quick..(at the back of the sun)
-
1 minute ago, Hethwill said:
Reds vs Blues vs Greens ?
Knights vs Rooks vs Bishops ?
I think i've seen a few setup like that.
Actually i've seen NA like that during testing, with just 2 Alliances fighting each other.
So... what does that has anything to do with a privateer tag a rattvisan ?
yes lets get OT again and leave this for a later moment in time.
-
5 minutes ago, Hethwill said:
Same as many other players. See ? There's no need to change anything to fit you, because you, same as others, have no issue with the choices made.
said that :and you will en up with a 2 nation game ....or perhaps 3 ...
and of course there is nothing wrong with that
-
9 minutes ago, Hethwill said:
There's no balancing the players unless you want to be forced to play a nation/clan you don't want to play.
Would you like that ?
but i have no issue with the nation i have chosen... (i will never change)
for what you say in my eyes means: you are born as a girl and now you want to be a man and came out of the closet...or something...
also i am not using the forger .
i think the forger is the real devil in this game and give a lot of issues for the future existence
the men who invented this should be walking the longest plank we all can find.
-
10 minutes ago, Hethwill said:
You are mixing so many mechanics ideas that is hard to follow a thread.
There's a old solution that now and then comes up with port BRs being dynamic ( changed daily ) and tied to tax activity, but the origin of this thread is ship BR tagging ship BR, not port BR and massive fleets.
i agree i use a lot of mechanic ideas but thats only to come up with idea to fix a lot of issues for the future balance of the game in general.
remember this is naval action and not named the Battle of Hogland, game the whole world should be getting involved in this game,and not only rus vs GB. in the end
-
2 minutes ago, Hethwill said:
Correct. But that's not a mechanical limitation but rather a result of players actions "non limitation".
And i urge you to review your thoughts on that design. By proposing more liberty to a small group ( aka. nation aka. clan ) you will be imposing limitations to a big group ( aka. nation aka. clan ).
This is not a classic match-up wargame, but rather a power-creep competitive combat mmo. What does this means ? Pure min-max setups and outcomes.
oke let's abandon the thought ...
but do you have another solution...(we still have 11 nations an d 2 nations are already eliminated from being a part of the game .)
-
2 hours ago, Aquillas said:
If the BR of 3rd rates is the same than 1st rates, why using them in PB's? (Why not same BR for Privateers, to allow them entering in deep water PB's)
As @Hethwill ever told you, please be careful with what you wish for. It may actually occur!
i do not talk about small ships in general as if i want privateers in deep water battle... (don't fool everybody here with assumptions)
the limitation for using a 3 rate in a huge battle, is the limitation of the captains crew and numbers of a nation...and the overwhelming ocean fleets by the biggies ....on the other side.
fleet composition of the biggies look like 25 oceans doing battle .
what a horrible game if you see this happen in battle.....(my own opinion:to have only the big boys in battle and the small captains left out of it )[ts oke some times ,but not always..)
gregory was right on this one ...the br rating for ports needs to be balanced on fleet composition like as a
example 3450 br for a port x and for a other port x 4820 br and for other big ports 14630(just give a number) just to get a nice fleet composition . br should not be increased , it should be lowered ...at least for the big ports and the big ships.
something along the line went very wrong here.....at office....and was abandoned by forum talkers...just to reduce more harm than good..( .you know!!!! developers are not saints sometimes and make huge mistakes also ...that is why they are humans...too. )
but that does not mean,that small iterations cant be proposed . one way or the other you need to get to your goal .
this also means when you see a big pb fleet doing the silly walk to a particular port they cant be attacked by a privateer fleet to protect certain arias as well and just use the mechanic as a cheat.
-
1 hour ago, z4ys said:
Inventory 02.02.2020
i have been there this morning on the hunt for captains...
but what i saw was ridiculously expensive (stupid)
and i also saw different flag friendly captains sailing together out of range from forts to do battle ( 2 vs 1) (but let not talk about that)
if you ask me .....its a rotten game
-
1 hour ago, Ink said:
Bekijk het eens. Maar het feit dat vergunningen niet uit gouden en zilveren kisten vallen, druist niet in tegen de spelmechanica (misschien had je pech). Vergunningen vallen gegarandeerd alleen uit pvp-kisten
Но здесь небезызвестные и игроки PVE подвергаются дискриминации
если это идет вразрез с механизмами честной игры. ?
Вы также можете сказать, что уклон создается против игроков, которые могут или не будут этого делать.особенно когда речь идет о мелких фракциях, которые не справляются с форс-мажорными обстоятельствами.
(в отличие от того, откуда исходит жалоба,> более того.)несомненно, это разница во мнениях в моем опыте.
да ладно, немного не повезло - это тупик.)На мой взгляд, это должно быть в принципе доступно каждому, от мала до велика.
различие между pvp и pve на самом деле должно быть устранено, если вы посмотрите на это честно.это требует еще больших трудностей, что, безусловно, не приносит пользы начинающим игрокам, которые иногда даже не знают, что на корабле есть якорь.
также тот факт, что это не ведется на английском языке, и многие на сервере не рассматривают это в первую очередь
немного позора в эту погоду.Но здесь небезызвестные и игроки PVE подвергаются дискриминации
если это идет вразрез с механизмами честной игры. ?
Вы также можете сказать, что уклон создается против игроков, которые могут или не будут этого делать.особенно когда речь идет о мелких фракциях, которые не справляются с форс-мажорными обстоятельствами.
(в отличие от того, откуда исходит жалоба,> более того.)несомненно, это разница во мнениях в моем опыте.
да ладно, немного не повезло - это тупик.)На мой взгляд, это должно быть в принципе доступно каждому, от мала до велика.
различие между pvp и pve на самом деле должно быть устранено, если вы посмотрите на это честно.это требует еще больших трудностей, что, безусловно, не приносит пользы начинающим игрокам, которые иногда даже не знают, что на корабле есть якорь.
также тот факт, что это не ведется на английском языке, и многие на сервере не рассматривают это в первую очередь
немного позора в эту погоду.разница между PvP и Pve не должна иметь значения
но давайте не будем принимать это на свой счет, это мой взгляд на это.
But here the nebies and the PVE players are discriminated against
if it goes against game fair mechanisms. ?
you can also say that a bias is created against players who can or will not do this.especially when it comes to smaller fractions that cannot cope with force majeure.
(unlike where the complaint comes from,> more of that special.)it is certain that it is a difference of opinion in my experience.
oh well, not being lucky a bit is a dead end.)in my opinion, this discussed should in principle be accessible to everyone from small to large.
the difference between pvp and pve should actually be eliminated if you look at it fairly.it is asking for even more difficulties, which certainly does not benefit the starting players, who sometimes do not even know that there is an anchor on a ship.
also the fact that this is not conducted in English and many on the server do not view this in the first instance
a bit of a shame this .but let's not take it personal. it's just a view.
there should not be a difference between pvp an pve.
-
banners and art in general with the subject naval Action
-
4 hours ago, rediii said:
I think Santi is fine as it is already but agree on victory.
Same goes for:
- normal 3rd rate (give it 24 pounders too but maybe less HP than bello etc)
- Buccentaure. Once mighty, The christian is better in everything. It even has less BR
i agree
buffed and nerfed (ideology on players needs for victory .. bah...) : what a historical bloody shame... i say.. да ... как грязно, не забудь Павла
-
your banner : artistic masterpiece
welldone..
-
well i all agree with you guys
but the "do the silly walk" is just...well ...silly..
another throw in solution is : to have the same br for 3/2//1 rate. (or at least test...... @admin > a closer together br for the 3/2/1 rates)
-
2 hours ago, Hethwill said:
that game is seamless, NA is not. ( I wish, but not with seamless time dilation as in the game you refer to... )
Battle Groups obey same rules. Need BR to tag.
So make sure your Battle Group has enough BR.
Same rule, no br no tag.
and here the story continues
4 wasa attack + - 8 oceans ,and the br fails
8 oceans attack 4 wasa and it is granted
i do know how it works by the way... the br originally was used for and invented to protect fleets >>tagged by BC...
- in this scenario the big ocean number nation use this as a cheat:
but high ranked (single br count) numbers will be a issue for some nations you know (just saying )
if the big nations also came with 3 or 4 rates that br number would not become a issue (but who am i.... to tell the future.. )
((( in this scenario the big ocean number nation use this as a cheat ))) in favor of the biggest... in favor of the big groups.... in favor of the big bully....in favor of the biggest ...(i can continue but you see the little problem here , or don t you see it, if you don't see it >> well good luck in a other game because its a loss of time and effort with no gamy aspect (just do the silly walk) people are no interested anymore )
solution: as it still not working correctly as it should work: : (if br it above 1500 br total fleet group >> there is no limitation to deny a battle.
the ocean needs a other br number not only 800br but also the number 400 br(SOL thirt rate ) or something in that order
it is up to the admin to look in the matter. and to come up with a thought about it. he can leave it as is . but also give a opinion about it for future implementation aspects to come .(not finished game aspect)
this is just not perfect. the perfect game would be>>>> to get rid of limitations and restrictions as long as the game engine has no problem with it ..
also the br is a product of the" old listening to player input "what was a huge but also sneaky silent mistake ...(no blame for anyone the intention was good)
quote of the day: "creeners are screened out by a limitation and BR what is used as a cheat"
2e quote :" use 30 oceans to take a port by staging BR as a "do the funny walk" tactic"
3e quote : "" do the funny walk and take a port a day"
4e quote" NA "NO tactics involved."
5e quote "small nation? big loss on forehand? "
6e quote: let's stop quoting it makes you sick by the thought of it on the next version" (probably to deep for some)
-
22 hours ago, Hethwill said:
...right...
Careful what you wish for... it may actually happen. 😣 ... and then the same folk will be asking for the opposite...
Battle Groups work perfectly. BR difference for tag works good. I don't get the issue.
Yeah sure, at marginal BR difference a group of 4 or 5 Snows can tag a lonely rank 1 SOL. Tough luck.
just a small example: where the choice is taken by the game ..
group attacks and single attacks
if i attack a single player the whole group seems to be attacked in the circle
and that is the mechanism whats under fire here
actually development need to go to the EVE system where groups do not exist.
[Caribbean] Great battle results.
in Caribbean News
Posted · Edited by Thonys
those privateers where a blast i laughed from start to end
good show
The world has changed