vazco
-
Posts
1,919 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by vazco
-
-
23 minutes ago, Cabral said:
At night will be difficult to see at long distance.
Red with yellow outline would be visible at night and day. White are maybe visible at night, but not at day or fog, which is most of the game.
It's a simple modification, which would increase number of battles. More battles, more involvement, more players.
-
(With eg an optional yellow outline for color-blindness improvement)
-
1
-
-
Let's make battle swords red.
-
10
-
-
17 hours ago, William Death said:
I won't tag certain ships in OW if I think they're a better player than I am.(...) Similarly, when I go hunting I see that other players have the same mentality.
If everyone has the same mentality, this means that one of the players will always run and no battle will happen.
My experience is number of battles increased quite significantly after names were removed.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Coraline Vodka said:
not to mention if you find someone, we can no longer ask "hey wanna scap?" have to tag them and then talk in battle is a waste of time. OW coms need to com back even if its without names.
Comms are good as they are now, same with names.
No names in battle would make it unmanageable. Comms in OW would reduce number of battles.
-
2
-
-
It's just an annoying mechanic which doesn't add anything to the game. It should be simply removed. One more complexity without use is gone then.
It would also get rid of this stupid scenario where you move most of your doulboons out of a wallet, teleport to the end of the world with last ones you have, and sail back for hours to get to your main outpost.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Bumsebiene said:
Thanks for the nice fight
Respect. I hope this won't be the last fight
It's an honour to fight such an enemy, as always
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, RedPanther said:
they publicly complain about their tactics and set bountys on their Ports
I think you messed up threads. Please put your propaganda post in a link below, and discuss only game mechanics in this thread
-
5 hours ago, Palatinose said:
@vazco you recognize putting in a certain amount of dubs dir being allowed to only flip a port and being screened out penalizes the attacker twice. Most likely they will lose the entire pb fleet in the screening fight and additionally donate 30k dubs to the defender. In that case Hey would anyone aim to go for the pb if you can simply screen and get kills and extra dubs on top? Why would anyone attack "zerg nations"?
I principially like the idea, it's the players who would kill it though.
I understand this argument. Maybe let's think how to fix it... One solution that comes to my mind:
If you don't get at least 50% br into a PB, and if your nation doesn't participate in any non-ai battle for 50% PB br in close proximity to a port, after PB is finished, your closest port's timer is open for next 2 hours.
Would this work? If not, how can it be made to work?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, staun said:
I actually belive more in ppl to fix a situation than a mechanic.
If you - or anyone else - covince Prussia to change their timers, I'll believe you
-
1 hour ago, Banished Privateer said:
according to @admin , hostility mechanic has fixed "fake flag" issue
Yes, it has - you can't have fake-hostility generation. Now mostly timers are an issue. If a nation flips another and doesn't show up the next day, it's only timers which prevent a strike back.
Once we require for attacking nation to make their port vulnerable in a time when clearly they're active, problem will be solved. You want to troll-flip a port? Sure, but then enemy can flip yours in the same time. Content prevention will be fought by content creation.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, staun said:
So you are ok with punishing ppl for trying and faling. How do you think it might affect ppl's will to do pb, if they know they will be punished because some body screened you out.
People are already punished for this - you loose your ships and don't get a port. Your loss would be only a bit bigger if not even half of your fleet goes to a PB.
The only real difference would be that people who flip and don't plan to get to a port - for them a punishment would be much bigger.
8 minutes ago, staun said:Why then have a global server?
People could still participate and interact based on their availability, which is good. If you're in EU but play late at night, you would still have some action. Can you show me why such a solution would be bad for anyone? The only one I heard is monopoly ports, which could be excluded from this and could use current timer mechanisms.
-
3 minutes ago, staun said:
What happens if you are screned out, blocked in a habor by a supirior fleet?
You loose an equivalent of 3 1st rates - probably much less than you lost by being screened out.
4 minutes ago, staun said:With a global server, does that make sence. Lets say @King of Crowns want to take an Havoc port(Eu timer), he and his merry men get get up at there night time to do it, also for the PB the next day, Then they for the next 7 days also have to get up at night to defend there ports, because they have an Eu timer now. You actually think this will give more Pb ore contested PB?
I understand it is a problem, but a small one. A result would be better than using nighttimers to prevent content, which is happening right now. If it becomes a problem, even setting a closest port as capturable in a time of attack would solve the issue.
An alternative is to have night timers set by geography. Eg. all ports in Gulf of Mexico would be US time, all ports in Antilles would be EU time etc. It would make you choose targets based on your activity and would prevent tactics which deny content to others. Another bonus of this is it would focus RvR activity on a smaller area in a given time.
-
@admin Today for a second time Prussia attacked Monte Cristi and didn't field a proper PB fleet. It's a tactic focused on annoying their enemy, making people don't show up for battles in the future, or make them quit the game. In the same time they set all their timers to night time, so that their enemies can't retailate with port flip when they're griefed this way.
I don't blame Prussia for using this tactic so much, they simply use mechanics of the game. On the other hand making those tactics possible in the final game is going to bleed out the community fairly quickly. I suggest a few simple improvements to fix it:
- when you flip a port, you have to pay 30.000 doubloons to activate a PB. You get them back once half of PB's BR joins the battle the next day. If you don't join, doubloons are redistrubuted to defenfers.
- if you want to attack a port in a given timer, you need to set your own port to a given timer (if you have 0-3 ports, you don't have to). Make time switches have 7 days of cooldown
-
7
-
10 minutes ago, Intrepido said:
Doubloons based on killing or assists as rewards are not enough. I win more reals trading or doubloons sinking npc ships.
Being port battles part of the endgame its rewards should be better in order to compensate the risk of losing so expensive ships.
That's true. First step would be to make them weightless and always fairly distributed based on damage, second would have to be readjustment to balance risk and reward.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Christendom said:
To be frank, this system sucks. At the very least we need to bring back chests with paints and random ship notes.
I have a brillian and innovative idea! Let's give players doubloons after battle, based on damage they make, without a need for looting. Make them weightless and allow for a ship to carry as many of them as you want. A fair and painless distribution...
...oh, it may be not that innovative after all, as we had it with PvP marks already, right? It worked perfectly though
The only difference would be they'd be still lootable until you reach the port.
-
1
-
-
Nice that people start to see this as well
Now wait for a larger war and see what happens
-
4 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:
Prussians lost all their core ports and almost all of them quit. Same happened to Russia losing Kidds/Bermuda ports and Poland using their core bases at Barahona and Les Cayes (even if Vazco tries to disagree with that).
Dude, you're so full of shyt
It was Commonwealth which finally killed Prussia - after three battles Prussian decided to not to fight any more and lost Panama. Russia had to negotiate for Prussia to leave them last 3 ports. This was after Barahona was lost. Not everyone complains when they loose a port.
People didn't leave Commonwealth when Barahona was lost, they started being inactive during campaign against Britain, when VM's were needed to buy 1st rates.
If we wanted to annihilate you, we wouldn't attack Sweden during screening. You're not that important. We attack you when it's fun. Attacking a forum troll is fun.
-
Locking certain parts of map to certain timers would solve the issue and concentrate RvR better. It was suggested before, it's a pity it wasn't introduced.
Some key ports with monopolies could be excluded (eg Cartagena, Pitts Town etc.)
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
Where can I learn these stats?
They were quoted by admin at some point, as a screenshot from spredsheet. I don';t remember where though, maybe someone will find a link.
-
14 hours ago, Anolytic said:
How do you know my K/D ratio? I didn't see my name on any of the spreadsheets admin screenshotted?
And are you sure you didn't misplace a comma?
Maybe I did. In this case sorry. It was a complement btw
-
15 hours ago, van der Decken said:
I was quite surprised to see a 2 masted Herc have more speed than a damaged 3 masted Trinc: his sails at 32%, mine at 53%. Seems something is wrong here with a DLC sailing profile. (Image is just before his escape.)
AFAIK Anolytic is best at escaping in NA. His K/D ratio is 89. If you manage to score a kill on him, you can be proud.
-
1
-
-
Dropdown stopped working for me, selecting any item doesn't work. This affects eg. buy/sell contracts. Restarting doesn't help. Video below:
-
26 minutes ago, rediii said:
Chinese numbers are unlimited.
Chinese have ~800mil internet users, similar to Europe (~700 mil). NA still has India to tackle. Even if most of their users don't have conditions to play NA, it's a large market.
If GL prepare their marketing well, we will have "chinese scourge" in NA, similar to ATLAS. Good
[EDIT] One of data sources:
https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm-
1
-
It's an honour to fight such an enemy, as always
Stupid idea
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
One more stupid revolutionary idea - just give it black background