Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About Silfarion

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/14/1995

Profile Information

  • Location
    Florida, US

Recent Profile Visitors

443 profile views
  1. Not to diminish your point about shortening the mod gap and availability between what elite players and newer players have, which is a valid one, but I have the following problems with your other arguments: No one is forcing the recreational players to come in expensive ships. In Chris' case, I understand the hesitation, since they were in Bellonas. But, I guarantee you that if Chris and his gang had been in frigates, the results would've been exactly the same--speaking from experience. 5 good frigates against 10+ store frigates would be a fun fight, and the recreational players do have a chance due to the sheer number of repairs on their side. Even in the fights which we find, nothing in my experience tells me that these recreational players are at all interested in actually fighting, they simply treat PVP like a chore. So then I ask, what are they "conserving resources" for? Am I seriously to believe they lose ships in PVE consistently enough to warrant conservation of resources? Because I have seen US players gank even the AI fleets. Fighting other elites is good, and we do. The problem that the US primetime players face, is that there are very limited sources of PVP at this time, and one of the few places are the capitals. What this means is that hunters congregate around the capital areas, and it's normally Charleston at this timezone for obvious reasons. Attacking other hunters around a mutual enemy capital is a bad idea, because it is likely these recreational players will join on one side to gank the other--turning what would've been an interesting fight into a boring gank chase. It is also likely that these recreational players will then turn around and gank the hunters that just helped them--or ignore them completely. So, not much incentive for hunters to hunt each other around Charleston during US prime time.
  2. Delaying actions are fine, in my opinion, but preventing people from otherwise fighting in the OW is just griefing. In the Patrol zones, this kinda stuff is even more annoying, especially when the guy literally says (47:32) that he is just keeping Banished and Wy in the battle so that they couldn't join my fight--which by this point was already gank in favor of the Brits, hence why I asked Banished and Wy to help--which would have been much more fun for everyone involved. Honestly just think logically, you have a better chance of getting damage in an even fight--and thus Patrol rewards--in like a 5v5 than a 14v2. Preventing an even fight in Patrol zone like this player did is in my opinion textbook definition of griefing. It ruins the fun for everyone, and does nothing other than waste time. I can understand how the line can get more blurry when it's just an OW fight like the second video, so admin can make that decision on whether or not it was griefing. Personally, since Ruby joined, tried to tagged a while and then gave up once he realized it's hard to when someone just drops sails, then I feel confident saying that it is attempted griefing at the least. If Banished hadn't already experienced the previous battle with Ruby in the Patrol, he probably would've raised sails and tried to fight like any normal player would--and like he did in the first video.
  3. Brits gank Reverse on his alt 17vs.1, then when other people join the fight after Reverse dies, and make the fight fair, the Brits choose to run. Some of those that ran were split into different battles--one of those battles was one I joined, since the big ~17vs.17 ship fight was full. I asked Banished and Wy to join my new battle as it was gonna be more fun and fair than chasing Brits that don't want a fight. In my battle were mostly British players, including some HAVOC. Before they could do this, the Renomme "Ruby the Reaper" tagged them as they were leaving the 17 vs. 17 fight, and said in chat in the new battle that his intent was to keep Banished and Wy from joining my new fight. Then, as more enemy Brits joined my fight-- same Brits that were fleeing the 17vs.17--me and my allies all sank. Reverse and his friend joined the battle against Banished and Wy around this time when it was gonna be a fun and even fight (3:28:14 on his video). However, some of the Brits from my fight, including HAVOC, got new ships and joined the battle on Reverse's side, making it less of a fun fight for Reverse and more of a gank against the Prussians. (If I were Reverse, I wouldn't want to help people who had just ganked me 17vs.1 either). Reverse can defend himself, since I don't speak Russian and don't know what he was saying on his stream. But choosing to leave a fight when it no longer becomes fun, or not wanting to participate in a gank, or frankly leaving a fight in general because you don't want to be there anymore, are not things that are against the rules. It gets a little weird in the Patrol Zone, since the leaving and join timers are not normal, but nevertheless there was still nothing wrong done here. You can argue that you didn't like it, or that it was mean or unfair, but you can't argue that it was against the rules or that it was any kind of exploitation.
  4. They wouldn't be throwing it away. There is no reason that lobby battles can't coexist with the OW. In fact, they did so quite well throughout 2016 up until they were removed. What we're talking about here is some kind of room to be used for practice purposes, not necessarily for competition--which is what they were mostly used for in the past. The combat for this game is hard to learn, and it takes time. The low pop and uneven distribution of skilled players makes it even harder for newer players to learn how to fight--notice I say fight and not play. Also, for what it's worth, taking away mechanics that work and that are helpful and convenient, in order to force people into the usage of another mechanic--i.e., removing lobbies in favor of OW--is a poor way to "promote" OW sailing.
  5. Because part of what Rocko was saying is that this kind of a room would be useful for teaching newer players how to properly fight. That being said, the skilled players are not equally distributed across all nations, and the ones willing to take the time to teach a new player are even more rare. So, if it was restricted to same nation only, it would be much less effective of a teaching tool.
  6. Assuming we can whisper of a dream, then it would cool if you did have to be in the same port and ship for a duel--ideally in a Free Town or Capital only--and you ask someone to duel just like you would ask them to for a trade in chat. You could even use a similar UI to the trade one, where you could see the ship, mods, and knowledge slots on each ship--or make this display optional, for the more competitive types. From there it would be just the normal duel scenario from the old Duel Room with no losses and no rewards. In a perfect world, the duel scene would resemble the area around the port you're in, but that may be difficult to manage. Honestly though, duels for competition's sake are largely long gone--I say that because the amount of veteran players who would agree to a 1v1 are incredibly few--so their primary use would be to help newer players actually try out all these ship types and mods using someone who isn't a robot. I know from experience that showing someone how to do something is easier than typing it in Help chat.
  7. As admin and the moderating staff have said on multiple occasions, they are human and make mistakes. The regular members of this forum are also human and also make mistakes. However, when the regular members make repeated mistakes they naturally face some kind of punishment or consequence as per the game rules. In other words, there is accountability for regular members which is well and good. Yet, when admin or the moderating staff (who are the ones who hold the players accountable) repeatedly make a mistake or overreact--as many people think they recently have done--there are very few ways for us to discuss it. To vazco's point, it is very bad from a PR point of view, but even worse from a community point of view. No one would be bothering to write in these forums if we didn't care about the game--and let's be real, even the people who troll and cry and moan, want the game to succeed, even if they have a less mature way of showing it. I do know admin has said, and I paraphrase, that kind words in PM will do the job well enough. But the problem is that it isn't enough. Look at it this way, would you conduct the Tribunals through PMs? No, of course not. You have someone make a post with a claim and evidence, and the staff moderates that topic to make sure it stays on course. Then, admin makes a decision if he wants to, and a post is made to indicate the decision where further discussion is closed. In other words; transparency. Would it really be the end of these forums if such a thread--or something like it--existed for appeals to moderating decisions? Wouldn't it be more convenient to have a localized thread for these kinds of decisions, instead of having several threads where everyone gets frustrated and nothing gets done? I'm gonna stress again, that both admin and the moderating staff have themselves said that they make mistakes like any normal person would. All I'm saying is that they be held to the same standard they hold the players to, by having some transparent accountability when they make mistakes. I honestly don't think this is a huge thing to ask.
  8. So admin bans someone for his alleged habit of attacking the person rather than discussing the issues at hand--cognitive dissonance anyone?--and then proceeds to delete the thread where players discuss the issue of whether or not that ban decision was justified? Can someone tell me why admin gets to live above his own standards for everyone else? Or perhaps he should maybe look at the definition of a double-standard, since he likes to throw that term around now.
  9. I hear this is a place to s***post, so here I go: Did I do it right?
  10. I was under the impression that Admin reads their own forum outside of Tribunal, but maybe I am mistaken. As it stands, if your own self-admitted reason for writing this as Tribunal post is to get Admin's attention for gameplay discussion--as the OP implies you don't want punishment and just want a discussion of the mechanic--then this has no reason to be a Tribunal (i.e., a place where you accuse people of wrongdoing within current game mechanics). The fact that you're now talking about SOLs in shallow hostility, just proves my point this has no business as a Tribunal post and will probably be locked soon--which is obviously a poor way of discussing a mechanic, don't you think?
  11. "I think he did something against the rules, even though I don't want him to be punished and I'm not entirely sure what he did was against the rules, but I'm still gonna accuse him anyway". That is what your argument is. I don't quite get it. If you want gameplay discussion about griefing, there are places for that, and if you want to accuse someone of wrongdoing with evidence, then there is a place for that too. So, which is it?
  12. I feel like if they change his name, then they would just insta-ban him after out of old habit.
  13. Well, DLC ships have no place in PBs, period. Regarding shallow ships, they are fine in port battles. If you can squeeze in a Mortar Brig for 80 BR and have the opportunity to score hundreds of points (on a deepwater PB) on an 80 BR ship, then there is no reason the opposing side should not have the ability to counter with their own 80 BR ship or ships. The fact you didn't bring one for this PB is in no way our, the dev's, or the game's problem. The more ship variety in port battles, the better. So, please adjust your tactics to have a realistic expectation of the enemy forces, and don't expect enemies to play by your rules. Thanks. ❤️

  • Create New...