Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Storm Crow

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About Storm Crow

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

111 profile views
  1. I was the last one to join the battle, which was around 10 minutes after it began. When I joined, the Spanish forces were chasing the pirates down wind. Once I joined the battle the faster Spanish ships turned to join up with their Victory and the pirate forces grouped up-wind. As the battle progressed, the Victory and larger Spanish ships were slower to react to changes in position and repeatedly left the smaller ships alone. The pirates then quickly sunk the smaller Spanish ships, with Privateer boarding many of them. After a few of the Spanish support ships had been sunk, the remaining Spanish forces began to retreat. The Rattvisan escaped first and the Hercules second. Once the Spanish began escaping the larger pirate ships focused on the Victory, reducing its crew, while the Pirate 5th rates sunk the remaining Spanish support ships. Once the remaining Spanish ships had sunk I was able to board the Victory, which was sunk last.
  2. And I'm not sure how we're supposed to test the new PB system if, when we log on, ALL the PBs have already been set. If there was other RvR available we would have done that instead, but there wasn't. No there were not.
  3. When there are hundreds on neutral ports, it could be considered a flaw in the new system that this was the only way we could get some RvR content.
  4. I imagine capture-able ports that can't have timers could also yield good results for ships crafted there, like a higher chance of getting a 4/5 or 5/5 ship. Of course it would be very difficult to capture and hold such a port long enough to set up any significant crafting operations. I think this could certainly lead to increased/interesting content ☺️
  5. Um... I have no problem with pirates trading at the ports captured by XXXXX. The only issue I have is that I put a lot of time and effort into capturing and holding a specific trade port which I am currently making very little profit from because @no one decided he needs to trade at that port in particular as opposed to the others, some currently held by XXXXX, which I suggested he trade at instead. It is this reason only that I think clans which put in the effort to capture ports should be able to profit from those ports.
  6. My suggestion to solve this problem is: 1. Members of the capturing clan and those clans on the capturing clan's friendly clan list can set "buy" contracts in the port. For everyone else, entry to the port is not restricted nor is the use of the port in any way. The only restriction is the ability to place "buy" contracts. 2. Taxes can be set anywhere up to 100%. I don't think we need to move away from the nation based system any more than this. After all, my clan captures ports with the intent of furthering the pirate nation as a whole. In addition, there are plenty of pirates who help to do hostility, set PBs, screen, join PBs, etc. who have their own stake in the ports we capture. However, these pirates' clans are also on the friendly clan list for taking part in these activities. I am not looking for a way to hinder the commerce of my nation as a whole, but instead to help those who contribute to reap the benefits of their effort, encourage others to take part in conquests, and limit the negative effects of leaches such as @no one.
  7. I will elaborate on this issue. XXXXX captured a trade port. We put a timer on the port. We've applied the "trading company lvl 2" perk to the port. We've defended the port multiple times (stopping hostility attempts). This allowed myself to trade at the port and contribute the profits to the clan warehouse to cover the cost of the timer and trading company; a cost the taxes don't come close to covering on their own. Then about a week ago a player, [no one], a raider from some clan I've never heard of nor someone I've ever seen helping with any sort of RvR, one day decided "I want to trade at that port". So he suggests that he buy half the trade goods at the port and I buy the other half, cutting my clans profits in half while the cost of the port stays the same. This is somehow a "fair" agreement in his mind. Since then I've suggested other trade ports for him to trade at. Ones owned by XXXXX which I know are not being currently used. I've even offered to one of their clan leaders, ReaperpT, that XXXXX would capture a trade port of their choosing for their clan to use. To this the response was, "how about you stop being a little child worry less about pve and really start helping the nation doing pvp". I suggest this whole situation shows that clans which capture ports need more control over those ports.
×
×
  • Create New...