Cmdr RideZ

Henk. koht. en Aseveljien VP laivastossa seilaa. Istun toki tessussa usein turisemassa sankareiden kanssa, mutta... Näkisin että ennen wipeä voisi olla ok morjestella, pitää ns. yhteyksiä noin yleensä. Wipen jälkeen tiedä vaikka saataisiin kasaan hieman isompikin laivasto jonkun lipun alle. Itse jonkun verran kansainvälisissä klaaneissa ollut ja... Kansainvälinen vs Rommilla(Kossulla) kevyesti marinoitu suomi huumori ... Onhan se jälkimmäinen tietysti täyttä skeidaa, mutta parempaakaan ei ole keksitty. Ehdottomasti suosittelen Aseveljien kanssa yhteyttä pitämään.

Paint job for Cherubim as well. I have the name for it already -> "Intimidating Black Pirate Paint"

The event wont work as it is, simply way too many issues. Relations to other features etc. One big thing is, btw... This big thing is far from the only big issue... You do not know who has the chest. If you attack a wrong target, thats it.

BR Screen, I actually like this one. We are humans, we have to eat and do stuff. BR Screen is a very good place to end your sailing for example, or have that 30-45 min break. BR Screen is only annoying, if you are in a revenge fleet. It is only annoying, if you are waiting guys to come out from a battle, so that you can gank them. For the rest, I think none actually cares. ... So I tried to cap a trader, but I failed. Now I am waiting him to come out from the battle, so that I can attack him again. imho, You failed with your initial attack, the trader succeeded. Give a break for the trader, he earned it. Traders should not be able to tag btw. Without defensive tagging the trader cannot force the situation in the BR Screen. Instead it is left for the aggressor to succeed in OW, to get in position from which he can cap the trader. If your gank squad of 5 is tagging some solo combat ship, and he uses defensive tagging. I think this is ok. 5vs1, I could not care less if this kind of gank fleets miss their target.

It could be, that if you leave from your national port, you could join a battle 1 minute longer, in case your nation is participating in that battle. (Attacker or Defender) 1 minute, means that if the battle is right next to the port, you can jump out and join the battle. But probably wont have enough time to sail your trader to a port, teleport, and join the TP gank. Maybe would be enough to create a feeling of national waters/ports. I think we had a talk before, but... It is stupid, that if you are right next to an enemy, trying to board -> You forget to tag him, and he vanishes. So the magical area control, is kinda fixing this issues. The range is probably way too big, that much I agree. Maybe should be even the standard behavior. Sociable, well, this was bad. Not going to defend in any way. Determined defender could be removed after the new boarding mechanism. If not merged with the new mechanism.

Craftable exceptional and master crafted regular upgrades should have durability. MC should have high durability value, but it should be there. Exceptionals should have "reasonable" durability. Fines or lesser qualities should not have durability. A money sink that hits end game players, but does not affect new players.

I believe that this will be better than the 1st event, but I agree with the issues pointed in this thread. Like... The nation/clan size is probably in too big role. The fights can take anything from few minutes to 1.5 hours. So if you start a fight, in purpose to capture a trader, well.. If you attack a wrong trader, that was pretty much the event for you right there. The map is big, and the change to hunt a wrong trader, is relatively high. So indeed, I believe you actually should show the chest location on map. If nothing more, in case you are near enough. Or if nothing-nothing more, when you have visuals, something has changed in the outlook, green glow or a flag or whatever, but something.

So you cannot build any buildings in the green area? For example pirates should not be able to build anything in MT, LI and Islet? GB Should not be able to build any building to KPR, OM, Carlisle. Else there would be surplus of materials for the green area, right? I am also sure that the more experienced players will leave the materials at the green area for the beginners. Anyway.. I think I agree to disagree here.

Traders should not be allowed to tag. Just by removing this, you fix a big issue of defensive tagging and BR Screen.

Todbringer... Maybe there could be Capital, and regional towns around it, that cannot be captured, and the water ways to those town would be all green zone. None of those towns could be captured. This way the n00bs could be there safe and do their trade etc. Or could it be... So you can trade, without ever taking your trader out from the green zone. You can build all the ships, without being attacked, just safely transport your goods. This kinda ruins the whole idea of PvP server and OW PvP and piracy, and -> There is a PvE server already for this. I also think you misunderstood the alt part. The more experienced players who have 50 million already in their pocket, they can just sail their low level alts, protect their goods with n00b protection barrier. I do not like the idea. So... How to provide money for new players, for people who are doing PvE missions. Well, just return 75% from the lost crew if lost in PvE missions. How to stop an exploit where people board ships in PvE missions, and sell those with amazing profits. Then you do not even lose the men? Well, these are 2 separated things. The later pretty much is there because boarding is broken, badly. If nothing more, drop the admirality sell reward. Indeed, boarding has to be redone, but shall we test a Duel week first? We are now only delayed by 3 months, shall we make that 6?

btw. he would not need to do the trade runs, if the crew were cheaper. The crew is a huge money sink when leveling, especially for a new player. I would say even that the mechanism is a bit broken. But yes, the n00b protected area is not a good idea. Nor n00b protection. Alt accounts can then be used to transport the goods etc. The other issues that lead to this, should be fixed.

Wrote to another thread before, and Pete is mentioning here the same fact. Which he seems to have mentioned already in 2015. The issue is in the conquest mechanism. Players are unable to make alliances, wars, in manner that it benefits the game. There is nothing bad in this, I think it is kinda natural for humans to do so. Still, this is the reason why the current voting mechanism does not work, and wont ever work. There has to be a king who says how the situation is. "Played a game of golf with the King of VP, and I lost. That was humiliating, and because of that, there shall be a war between GB and VP!" When was the last war between GB and VP? Kings make the things interesting.

4 to 1st rates should have some BR protection, as basic cutters can attack them and force out of port battles. 7 to 5th rates should not have any BR protection. Traders should not have BR protection, traders should not have fleets. If there is a trader with fleets, it should be Indiaman only. ... Most of us are playing on PvP server, we are not looking fights vs AI. But shall we test these obviously broken mechanisms a month or two more? Or maybe 6 months, just to make sure that these broken features are obviously broken for everyone. edit... Hmm.. Maybe we should add AI ships in port battles as well? Just to make it even more obvious. The port battles are PvP fights, that is cool. The OW battles are not, that is not cool. ... The combat ships should only be able to take ships with smaller rate in their fleet. Like you personally, are always in the "flagship". ... edit. one more thing.. If the battles stay open until BR is balanced, for the weaker side only. AI ships should be calculated to this BR. This could probably fix alone the fleet issue. As if you go with a big fleet, and attack one player. You know that your fleet of 1+2xAI can later face two additional players. So in the end, the fleets can be probably fixed/tested with other options as well. edit3.. Actually, if in port battle, the situation is 10vs25. Maybe we can add 15 AI ships on the weaker side?

If there is going to be a launch date. Well, they will lose 1 week, in case they really do not have some other good reason to do so. Personally I think this kind of time trashing makes no sense, and if I were the product owner of this product, I would deny nonsense like this. Also, this whole, "Lets run a broken perk for a pretty long time". This has not been a smart move. If they want to test something that makes sense, then I suppose it could be ok. In this case, they should let us know what we are testing. If nothing more, to motivate the people to test it. Time trashing I am afraid. When was the release date? "Jodgi's singleplayer week" With most I have talked about this, they agree... The BR protection for traders was not a good idea. Basically a small ship could alone attack a trader, then stern camp and finally board. The boarding is broken, so if the attacker has boarding setup, he can "I win" the boarding. The BR protection is actually a horrible idea. It is more like a protection, because of other broken mechanisms. Just like defender perk. Consider as a test, can you let us know what we are actually testing then? And indeed, it is a crazy idea.

The game wont probably be an OW duel game in the future, so this makes me to think, why to test it? We could test something that has a change to be in the final product? The current sociable perk stuff is broken, and we are still testing it. They could have changed the perk time to 5 minutes and test that, instead of just running the obviously broken 30 min perk. They could implement some other system, that has a change to succeed. But a duel week? Just because? Only reason could be to find the OP ships & setups. But like duel tournament could probably do this even better.

What are those two things?

What is the purpose for this duel week? What are we testing?

Option to show also clan tags in the chat.

I place a contract to buy product X, 100g each. After me, someone else places a contract to buy product X, 100g each. His name is on the top, and I am right under him. I suppose it should not be like this?

Do not know exactly how things work, but... We vote, and it defines the allies and enemies. If group A is always voting for alliance for VP and GB, and if it is clearly the biggest group -> VP & GB will always be allies. What if.. The next round, only the votes of current allies and enemies are removed from the grid. It can be that VP & GB will be allies most of the time, but the smaller groups will get a bit more voice this way. Maybe the VP&GB will be allies the next 2 rounds, but then the alliance with VP&SE has stacked so many votes, that it will be applied for one round. And after that the same VP&GB will continue. I suppose it could make things to change a bit more, providing different scenarios more often.

Outlaw mechanism could in itself create Privateer mechanism as well. As one outlaw could agree with a nation, that we do not attack you, etc. Or then some kind of pledging mechanism, and if you break it you go back to brotherhood. But, I'll be waiting your wall of text

I do not know the history too well, but was there really pirates who attacked other pirates? I have understood that at caribbean there was privateer ones, and also "brotherhood" like pirates. I have nothing against Outlaws, but more like would be interested to know was it really so? In Black Sails, they fight against each other, but that is a tv-serie. Not sure if it should be pirates and outlaws, or, pirates and privateers. Personally I would drop the outlaws if they did not exist in the first place, and implement pirates and privateers instead.

So 2 issues here.. 1. Solo newbie Bellona, BR rate wont allow any help. 2. Experienced player humiliating x2 BR rating of n00bs. So after the battle is closed, it allows people to join on the weaker side, equalize the BR ratings. Notice, that it would work like before the Sociable perk, but also keep the door open to help the side with BR disadvantage. ... 1. So the guy has 3rd highest rank in the game. He has never been told that taking a SOL for a walk alone, is not a smart idea. He can still be in a group, everything works like before the Sociable Perk. Is this really an issue? 2. Experienced guy(s) humiliating n00bs. The n00bs can still arrange 1vs10 just like before, and try to gank the more experienced player. True, in this case the more experienced player can get help after the battle has closed. So you can win easily. What if there are 5 experienced players ganking a n00b? Would it help, if 4 players could join the n00bs side? Maybe 4 all star players, from which all could actually solo the 5? But then it would be unfair and we need to have some automatch here, and combat rating... or.. I recommend that player skill levels wont affect to this feature. ... One point here is that, skill > mass. Gankers would be the only ones directly suffering from this, Right? Would be really hard to understand why a n00b would not like to have this feature. Like, I would rather be on a side of 4 other noobs vs 5 experienced players, than fight alone vs a gank fleet. ... I have a good feeling about the BR based system.

BR limited is the best imo, but I think it should be how it normally behaves. Sociable could make the initial timer a bit longer, but maybe just 1-3 minutes. If the battle is open until equal BR is reached. What would be the issues? Would we get players saying... "I have got used to gank with my friends, fleet of 5. This BR equalization is ruining our gameplay, we cannot anymore sink easily solo players. They BR system is always equalizing the battles, and we keep sinking. Well done devs, you just ruined the game."

Taller ships should see further.