fox2run

Smart kid...

I do not have a hard time fitting into groups. I have a hard time to buy a game that has flaws which again is being exploited by small dictators taking over command of a nation I play! Its just - not ok.

What on earth does a fair diplomatic system has to do with testers anyway? All Im saying is that one vote is most fair for all. But I know Im up against a dedicated player-group that somehow feels they are more important or need some extra benefits than the rest of us. Even though they paid the same! The whole idea that we should have "national leaders" is upsetting for most, Im sure... Please devs - think this over!!!

I have paid money for this. So I very much like some kind of influence regardless of time spent. Its pretty simple. My wallet is the same as yours. There is no hippie-stuff involved in customers rights nor good customer service! And those testers who think they are something special? Give em some kind of a nice skin on that yacht of theirs or a nice banner on top of the mast. What do I care?

No. We are not neutral nor do we like any piracy. We just like to play the game "as is" - out of the box. Our nation is at war with all other nations - so we attack enemies when we meet them. Its not complicated, its not neutral, its not piracy. We fight for the flag. The thing is that some players in some clans make diplomacy with some other players in some other clans in other nations. They do this on BEHALF ON THE ENTIRE NATION!!!! They cannot do that. Its wrong. They can only do this for themselves. And players who like to play the game "As is" are getting really bashed and unpopular. Its completely wrong. It should be the other way around. I mean: I paid for this game. I didnt pay for someone to rule my sparetime!!! You must be nuts! So if this diplo-thing has to work, it must be: one customer - one vote! Please dont have old grumpy vet-players with 20 SOLs and millions on their accounts have more votes... It simply does not feel right from a customers perspective!!!

One player - one vote! Democratic system please. Im so tired being member of a nation that is tossed around by a few, dedicated players with their home-made-RvR diplomacy. Its really a turn-off and one of the major reasons for annoyance. "You cant attack that ship - we have a treaty with those guys - do this - do that" Damn! Lets ged rid of this once and for all! All byers have paid the same amount of money - all should have the same vote. All other factors should be left out completely! We are all customers here!!!!

Been there, done that. In my clan all members are officers and free and can play as they like. We are not popular among the big, mighty clans, though. Still I think that the roles of clans could and should be restricted somehow.

To be disappointed about the whole diplomatic set-up is not the same as wanting a entire solo-game. Im just pointing out some very bad flaws that needs to be handled. Its actually a matter in which ways the clans has to be used. I think they can be good for a social-tactical aspect in battles, crafting and stuff like that. But not when it comes to influence in diplomatics as there are a tendency that a few players grasp power in one way or the other. So please make solutions here!

What Im saying is, that an MMO sandbox could have a better and more appealing design. There are rules how to engage and disengage a battle. So there could be rules on how to solve which nations you are at war with. Now you have a few nation-leading clans (with maybe 5-10 officers in each) that tries to impose their will on hundreds of other players. And if you disagree, you simply get kicked out of those clans. And after that bashed on the chat forums (and also in here). Designers should avoid theses kind of things to happen out of the box. I have witnessed some completely nonsense secrecy on diplomatic talks and avoiding using the nation-chat of fears for spies... (!) I mean: its a game... Newcomers ask who "we" have peace with and when players states, that all nations is in fact at war with eachother and it is possible and ok to attack whom you like, those self-ruling bigger clans really use faulty language. I have been called a owner of "low IQ" and "idiot" among other stuff. Personal attacks. So the qeustion is: how could the game be redesigned so that ALL players - not those in clans, or their officers - but also the noobs, the beginners, the lonely wolfs can have a vote in the matter - or NONE at all!

I have to say that some framework has to be done in order to contain the worst armchair-"nationleaders" out there. They really try to rule and tell other players what they should - and not should - do. Some things simply shouldnt be left to the ever-shrinking player base. I mean: those leader-types really think, they are in a position to steer a game on other players behalf. Its bad game design to allow such things to happen - IMHO.

But still - only one guy per ball... a bit... unrealistic... and predictable

Maybe its just the one ball - one kille I do not like. It seems so much like the Brace... Really a boring aspect somehow. Beter with a bit of random in it. War is random. Cannonballs are random. As in real life.... Instead of one kill it could be like 2, 0, 5, 0, 0, 3, 10, 4, 1, 3, 0, 0, 2. - something like that. Better for the gamers heart I think.

I like the upredictable results in crew kills as is.... Raking a stern with cannonades makes sence and is great fun too - many things can go wrong... The reward is many deaths - in the new system it wouldnt really matter where to place the ship... one ball is one dead... A good game has aspects of both luck and skills.... Ive heard plp cheering when a single rake kills like 50 crew... and the opposite when nothing happens.... One of the most boring aspect in this game is the Brace-command in boarding mini-game that autokills one each time used. I find it worrisome, that you want more of that and less of the other stuff.

Taking the big things like PBs and "diplomacy" out of a few guys influence is not nescessary dumbing the game down. I think many players like to see a big furball battle in OW now and then without being a member of a clan with all those kind of selfmade rules and rants and raves that follows them. Maybe they could tweak the PB-mechanics so that ports are fought for at sudden times or make "Trafalgar-zones" at sea where people could join 24/7 without the limit of BR or time....!

Id say that this is a wrong approach. The fun has to be for all - I can only hope that devs takes this into consideration. Let alone the term: "this game is not for you" or "PBs is not four you" is really bad for buisness. PBs are so coll and fun - but the mechanics behind them are totally failed. Ive heard of players begging for more humane timers, Ive seen people get angry on TS, kicked etc.... its not good for anyone. It has to change. IMHO.

PBs should be for all! Also for the players you apparently dislike - or at least will have the devs to ignore... That way more would enjoy the game... ;-)

The problem is that you are talking as you are representing whole nations - but you do not. You represent some rvr-deals and thats about it. Let live they say...

I got kicked as I had a different point of view. That is correct. But that is still not my point here. My point will be - in the end - that clanmechanics and few clanleaders shouldnt be allowed to affect the overall gameplay as they do now. PBs could be a good example. How come that the game is so heavy that you cannot participate in one of the funniest aspects without being a hard-core player? There must be some ways to deal with these issues. Maybe you could acces PBs from menus so that no TS is required, etc... If this game has to suceed, the devs need to take measures to make it fun for the average gamer. They are the most. I wont comment on the flaming-accusations of yours, as Im met with these kind of attacks in nation chat on an everyday level. Even when Im trying to get new members to my non-diplomatic relaxed-clan. ;-)

"Stop whining", "leave", "deal with it" say no more

"Stop sabotaging", "Consequenses", "Cant handle those", "rethink your actions" - guess you just underline my points, pretty much here.

I dont think you get my point... at least not all of it. It must be possible to join a nation without few players has to rule things - it has to be controlled by in game mechanics - its not good when some players has "better" opinions than others and are trying to control entire nations in game. (That being outsie their clans). It goes two ways. The coding should trying to avoid this social power-mongering. It could be with a system that auto-enabled wars or something - out of gamers hand. It would make a better gaming xp in my book.

Yeah - it is my mistake - mine alone... never heard that one before I play the game from box - as is. And yet you are saying I chosed the wrong game??? Those diplo-guys are die-harders indeed.

To be honest all this home-made diplomacy is killing the game experience for many gamers. If you like to play the game as is from box then you get bashed on the forums in-game. Ive experienced people get kicked from clans, coupped from clans and stressed out becourse of the powermongering by leading clan-members. I think you guys really should consider if this is the way the game should be played. Luckily not all clans are into this and in most nations it is perhaps still possible to find free-playing clans. I think the devs should be aware on this topic as the climate can be poisoned on the nation chats. What I experienced was the following: 1) fun to get into with missions and pvp-duels with that little free cutter! 2) you get into a clan becourse you like to share game with others 3) the clan use a lot of effort to get into PBs 4) as newcomer you wasted a lot of time "screening" as they called it. Rarely you saw any action. 5) ganking was for us instead - more action at least - but the clan got divided about it. 6) the casual officers got kicked from the clan - even some of the founders - one was almost shocked on TS... that guys real life was affected - he will never play again! 7) the diplomatic talks (that being pretty few gamers speaking with eachother on other players behalf) ended up in alliances with pirate nation - that has taken I dont know how many of my ships... I disagreed and after some discussions - was kicked out as I got sceptical about the projekt. 8) I started a new clan for more relaxed players without diplomacy at all - but from time to other get bashed by the leading clans and their members for "destroying the nation" or "not doing the common best" or "you should be a priate" or "you are not in the right nation" etc... 9) I now play more silence and without TS - my clan is growing wth players who has similar experiences as me. ... These kind of experiences is not good for anyone and maybe its time to rethink the whole diplomatic aspect. Maybe not having clans at all or maybe use some kind of automatic system where you join a team or something...

To be honest all this home-made diplomacy is killing the game experience for many gamers. If you like to play the game as is from box then you get bashed on the forums in-game. Ive experienced people get kicked from clans, coupped from clans and stressed out becourse of the powermongering by leading clan-members. I think you guys really should consider if this is the way the game should be played. Luckily not all clans are into this and in most nations it is perhaps still possible to find free-playing clans. The above tread on how some clans are doing things "wrong" says it all. They are actually just playing the game as they bought it. Maybe you guys are on the wrong path here.

Cheap Access to basic ships will nullify the fear of pvp. Two basic constitutions has provided me with many kills, xp, upgrades and so on. One dura is about 20.000 gold. So if I loose one... I give a Damn and fight without fear... Try it...!