Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Yar Matey

Ensign
  • Posts

    596
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Yar Matey

  1. 11 minutes ago, Hodo said:

    You could say it is OP if a Privateer and a Rattlesnake jump the same LGV.  Both can run him down no matter WHAT point of sail he takes and both can easily stern camp him.

    Fact is a Surprise is a hunting Frigate, just like the Trincomalee, they both are pure built hunters and VERY good at that.  

    So I should just roll over and just give up when a fleet of player ships attack me in my LGV or Indiamen?  I never do.  I have escaped fleets of player ships chasing me with all kinds of variation in ship compositions and with enormous odds stacked against me several times, and I always manged to get away with my cargo.  Its all about conserving your sail HP and using your repair strategically timed and knocking down the enemy sails.  

    Much like the old pirate refit pre patch, these new bonuses are equally as bad.  Some of them are so bad in fact, I cannot see how anyone can defend them.  

    • Like 3
  2. 11 minutes ago, Hodo said:

    If a player in a LGV gets jumped by 2 surprises run by players then he shouldnt have been sailing through there.  

    Sorry but cargo ships should not be trying to out run anything if they are loaded with cargo.. they should play smart and avoid hotly contested or high traffic areas.  

    Yes yes, the you shouldn't do this and you shouldn't do that argument! (rolls his eyes)  Great way to keep casual and solo players active in this game, give them a strict disadvantage in any combat situation with their non-refitted trade and war ships.  I have been doing trade runs and building ships, outfitting entire clans running solo trade runs for hundreds and hundreds of hours.  What these refits do is make it so I stand no chance of ever escaping from a squad of players with these refitted bonuses.  I am at a strict disadvantage.

    Your argument holds no weight when put into practice.  A new player logs in does some missions in a cutter, finds out he needs to do some trading to get money and resources, gets an LGV, tries to do some trade runs, loses his ship and cargo to a small fleet of surprises, rinse and repeats this a few times, then quits the game after not making any progress in the game.  Joke was on him the whole time, he never stood a chance, hes using a ship with no refits!  HA!  

    • Like 5
  3. @Hodo  Its the combination of running a fleet of ships with these refits.  For example, 1 player is in a surprise with a pirate refit, and 1 player is in a surprise with a elite Spanish refit.  There is no way a player in a LGV or an Indiamen stands a chance of escaping.  Take it from the guy who has been doing trade runs for a long time in this game, and who has outrun fleets of chasing player ships vs my solo indamen or LGV.  I have never lost my cargo to a gank squad.  But have lost plenty of warships to them.  

    • Like 1
  4. Briefly looking at these, I can already tell that I am not a fan of some of these refits.

    1)  A 7% main sail force bonus is HUGE! and will give surprises and rattlesnakes designed for chasing an enormous advantage over players in ships that do not have an elite Spanish rig ship.  I haven't run any tests myself, I am sure there are people that are going to test this soon and it will become the new pirate refit go to standard.  I am going to throw out a number and estimate that its going to add ~1 knot to the top speed of a surprise or rattlesnake.

    2)  Same goes for the pirate refit.  Upwind speeds will be way out of whack in a pirate refit ship.

    3)  Cartahena and/or floating battery will be the new go to standard for port battles giving players without these refits a strict disadvantage to players that do not.  

    Elite ganking squads will now consist of 1 surprise outfitted with Elite pirate refit for fast upwind speeds and another surprise with Elite Spanish refit for downwind speed, and no trade ships sailing the open seas or solo player with a basic ship will ever stand a chance of escaping, let alone fighting their way out.  

    What I would like to see changed:

    1)  No changes to sail force bonuses

    2)  No crazy changes in the base hull or mast thickness or hit points of any ships with a refit.   

    Small Changes to reload bonuses, or boarding bonuses are fine.  Small changes to heal and turning speed are fine, and VERY small changes to hit points are fine (maybe 2-3% for structure or mast) and a big fat NO under absolutely any circumstances should their be any changes to thickness in hull or mast.  Thicknesses should be used strictly for balancing purposes.

    Remember, there is a fine line between progression and giving players who have progressed too much of an advantage in combat.  If I buy an NPC ship, and I run into a player with one of these constructed ships, the player with the constructed ship should have only marginal advantages of my NPC ship.  Do you think going broad side for broadside that my store bought ship of equal rate will stand a change against a ship with 7% increased hull thickness, or 20% more raw hit points?  NO absolutely not!  

    • Like 4
  5. 35 minutes ago, jodgi said:

    Whenever 1 dura ships have been tested they have been avoided by players after the new ship curiosity has been quenched. Look at the Admin quote in my sig, that came after they reviewed numbers after a 1-dura test. Whatever we say about it our actions betrayed that we didn't like the idea of 1-dura ships.

     

    31 minutes ago, Snoopy said:

    Personally, I wouldn't mind single dura ships provided all modules are craftable. It would make prizes and the prize taking effort meaningful. However, the perception of grindyness to build ships is a problem, for these reasons:

    • It actually is a grind
    • Multi durability lessen the impact and perception of that grind because you get several times worth your investment
    • Even if crafting costs come down proportionally for single dura ships that perception probably still remains and multi duras are easier to use (towing/teleporting to areas of operation only once for n durabilities)

    So, given those things, I'd rather have multi duras and remove module loss on the last durability.

    A 1 durability system does not have to be painful and grindy.  All that needs to happen is material and labor hour costs need to be divided by the number of durabilities ships currently have now.  All notes should cost 50 LH to craft (low, mid, high) and cost 10 copper, silver, and gold coins each, then remove the need to be at a specific region to craft a ship with a regional bonus and make all modules craft-able, and you now have a functioning 1 durability system that works for everyone with 4th and 5th rates plentiful in the game because it would only cost ~500 LH to replace my lost Trincomalee. 

    We gain so much from a 1 durability system, captures NPC ships will have more use making PvE a more enjoyable experience.  PvP will be much more meaningful as captured ships will have way more value.  The thrill and excitement of battle will be more exhilarating because losing your ship is now felt as a real loss.  The game will be way more immersive.

    • Like 1
  6. 6 minutes ago, _Masterviolin said:

    The game is already not very appealing to the masses for its grindiness and difficulty. One dura ships would improve PVP perhaps, but we all know a significant portion of players would end up cradling their precious ships. PVP is dry enough as it is, and I don't want to see half the server's new players hide doing PVE so they don't lose their ships. Most people talking here are players that are willing to sink a lot of time and effort into the game, who already have high ranks and crafting setups. For new players, it's already a long uphill journey to get to other ships. 

    I think a universal 1 dura system would be a fatal blow to activity.

    NONSENCE!  The game is dry of PvP because there is so few people playing the game now.  Its not appealing to the masses, or even myself anymore, because the game requires way too much sailing to build ships, way too much sailing to find PvP with no guarantee you will find any decent PvP, and way too much sailing to get to port battles with no guarantee you will get into one because of how rare they are now.  The durability has nothing to do with these other problems.

    • Like 3
  7. I think the overall consensus from the community was a 1 durability ship system was a better system.  There were only 1 or 2 vocal community members I can remember that spoke out against a 1 durability system.  Unfortunately, the devs seem to think a 1 durability system is a bad idea, and I do not think this is a battle the community can win.  The devs are going to do what they want to do and we are destined to have 3 durability first rates. 

    I already wrote a long explanation 2-3 times on why a 1 durability system is a much better system.  But the main reason for wanting one is immersion and the thrill factor where winning or losing a battle will actually matter.  What is the point of having this vast open world to PvP in if there is very little risk of losing your ships and your victories are shallow because you see your enemy sail back out in the ship you just captured or sunk?  I really hope the devs consider implementing it, but dont hold your breath waiting for it to ever come. The devs already said no, and they dont seem to ever be convinced to change their minds no matter how vocal the community is.  We still have PvP fleets FFS!  How vocal was the community on this issue alone about how bad PvP fleets are?  Yet we still have them!

    • Like 3
  8. 11 minutes ago, Rickard said:

    NOPE ! forts are just fine as they are, sometimes they are a bit on the wrong place but nothing to blame the games issues for it.

    the player base is the problem that escalated everything in the game ,every issue in the game became worse because of it.

    ect...

    I agree with you for the most part, but you dont need to  ask us to like your post if we agree because we will like it anyway if we agree. 

    You are right that forts have little to do with the player decline and forum threads such as this are a symptom of a much larger issue. 

    A few things; the players that are active on this forums are the ones that helped steer development decisions, but not entirely to blame for the developers decisions such as the hostility, for example, that many on this forum were vocal about how bad it was along with the terrible player added NPC fleets to accompany them on their ventures.  Today, we still have the terrible hostility grind and the fleets and we are still vocal on these issues on the forums about how terrible they are, but the devs seem to refuse to budge, at least on the fleets.  They did at least promise changes to the hostility system. 

    • Like 2
  9. 1 hour ago, Vernon Merrill said:

    This X1000....  I've said it before and I'll say it again...  The physics and combat areas of this game should be put on the back burner for now.  What they really need to focus on now is making this great Caribbean world they've created actually have a purpose.  I know they've said they've never promised more than a good age of sail combat game, but honestly they are only a few good additions short of a really epic game.  They need to hire a story teller who can add elements of Civilization and Pirates.  Both of which would keep you engaged for huge amounts of time, despite having nothing as far as graphic beauty.  Give me some goals other than turning dots on a map green.

    AKA, CONTENT!  The game needs content and in a very bad way.  I agree 100%.  It seems we have several posts now on this very subject of lacking content. 

    • Like 5
  10. 2 hours ago, Fargo said:

    No, youre missunderstanding sandbox. It depends on the content. This type of content is trying to force people to sail different ships and do certain stuff. The devs already tried similar with crafting restrictions and PB restrictions, forcing players to do certain stuff in the ow, without any good reasoning. In your case instead of restricting PBs for certain ships, you should work on an environment that makes people use different ships by themselfes. Of course thats not as easy as simply putting restrictions, but thats how a sandbox works.

    Just because the game falls into the sandbox category is not an acceptable excuse to not have content in the game.  The tools need to exist in a game like this for PvP to take place.  Before hostility, it was the flag system. 

    Also, when it comes to adding PvP content nothing has to be forced and soft restrictions can exist in the sense that if you bring the wrong ships to the battle, you are destined to lose.  For example, if the mission in a battle is to destroy the heavily armed square tower, but the tower is in a shallow water area where no non-shallow water ship can enter, the attacking team would be forced to bring at least one mortar brig, or they would lose the battle because shallow water ships will not stand a chance against a square tower and boarding one in a shallow water ship would be nearly impossible due to the difference in crew that the tower would have compared to the shallow water ship.  This is a non-forced restriction where you can bring any shallow water ship to the battle, but if everyone is in a heavy rattlesnake, you will most likely lose the battle.  The hard restriction of only shallow water ships makes sense because anything bigger will run aground. 

  11. 1 hour ago, Hethwill said:

    Generally put we do not engage unless we are almost sure of win. Just had a Constitution and Endymion retreating after pressing attack after noticed we were 2 instead of 1, a surprise and a rattlesnake. I rest my case. And I have no issues with that mind you :) It is what it is. War for the upper hand by use of the open world and kind of fair fights were not the norm then and will never be here unless arenas.

    Game might lack PvE content, totally agree no doubt there, but PvP content is us. Only us.

     

    The average player who buys any video game needs to be guided or pushed in one direction or another.  Some need very little guidance and then they are on their way and others just want to not think at all and follow a story line or grind easy PvE content (or hard).  Players like you Who find ways to entertain yourself out in OW are the exception not the rule.  This is why content is so important.  It gives players, especially new players, guidance.  The average player who logs into this game in its current state has no clue what to do.

    Conquest through port battles is the PvP content that is provided for us to create our own story.  We need MORE of this type of content very badly.  Not everyone likes to sail around in OW looking for pvp.  Yes it's great that it exists so people like you can enjoy whatever fight comes your way, but it's not enough, not nearly enough to keep people playing this game.  

    Everyone benefits from more content.  We need big battles, small battles, first rate battles, mortar brig battles and on and on...  All kinds of port battle like content big and small.  If the devs can do this, find ways to add more conquest type content people will come and play.  Just like if story lines are added and pve adventures are added, more people will come and play.  People need a reason to log in and start playing.

    • Like 3
  12. @Hethwill  Your argument that "we the playerbase" do not want evenly matched fights because small battles would be full all the time is a false assumption because the current state of the interface for small battles is inadequate.  We need a functioning and well laid out lobby for this to ever work successfully.  Its current state is completely inadequate and you must know this.

    Second, I am not trying to take away from what OW has to offer.  The hunt or even being the hunted can be quite entertaining at times.  The problem is, I do not think that is what most people who come to the game are looking for.  The name of the game is "Naval Action", thus, people buying this game think they are going to be engaging in lots of fierce combat against other players or NPC's.  This idea is even reinforced by the trailer which shows line formations and massive first rates going broadside for broadside against other first rates.  From the onlookers perspective, this implies that the game will be filled with action.  Unfortunately, when people log into this game, they are greeted with a massive open world with very little action going on, thus most end up just sailing around for a little bit, possibly get ganked by professional raider and privateer captain Hethwill and then leave the game and say "wow, that was stupid" and never come back.  Please do not take this as a personal attack on you and the way you like to enjoy the game, I am just pointing out how the newcomer to this game feels or perceives.  Of course there are other little things like the lack of a UI n' such. 

    When I first picked up this game, it had a lot to offer even though my first thought was "wow, no UI?".  BUT!  there were always port battles going on and the message that some nation was attacking another nation at xxx port was quite enticing and constantly popped up on my screen, and I said to myself "wow!  I need to get into a constitution so I can participate in these large battles", so I did just that, grinded to high enough rank to fully crew a connie, and participated in loads of port battles and with the old flag system, it was engaging and very entertaining as the race to sink the ship with the flag or to plant the flag begun.  It was loads of fun, if the flag managed to get planted, it was even better as a huge 25vs25 battle commenced.  I participated in loads of shallow water port battles as well, and it was a blast! 

    Unfortunately, developers decision making, for better or for worse, took that really enjoyable system away.  Yes, we had lots of drama in Nat News about pulling fake flags and other shenanigans, but I and I think many others were having loads of fun, and who doesn't enjoy a little drama with some popcorn? 

    The point is, the developers have taken away the only content that made this game worth playing, the port battles, I mean, they still exist, but they have become something that only the hardcore most dedicated players get to participate in.  I remember a time when people would join in 3rd rates into a first rate port battle, and no one cared because we desperately needed the people.  Now if you join a first rate battle even in a first rate and you do not have a slot filled in their list of who can join and who cant, you get scorned, even reported on the forums as a griefer if you join in anything other than a first rate. 

    We also have a crafting system that only the players with countless amounts of hours to play the game can participate in with the new regional bonuses, but this is a different subject altogether.  But the point is!,  This game became a game for the hardcore, but not just the hardcore, but the hardcore of the hardcore, and that is reflected in the numbers logging in to play this game every day. 

    I am sorry to say, but the game is in fact desperately lacking content and in a very bad way, both PvE and PvP.  Players need to log in and immediately see things on the map to do and battles to participate in.  The best content this game had to offer was with the old flag system.  You know it, I know it, everybody who was playing during that time knows it!  and there were tuns of players sailing around in trade ships to get mats to build new ships to keep the war effort going for you to attack to steal their precious cargo.  Today, sadly, there is nothing more than an empty OW, and it makes me sad, because I really do love the potential this game has to offer. 

    • Like 3
  13. 13 hours ago, Blackjack Morgan said:

    This might be a bit dramatic description of current state of affairs. Unless something changes the "things to do" portion of the game is supposed to come from players. I do think an expanded RvR system that gives more of a feeling for being at war would be nice and perhaps some other little additions. However, at the end of the day we, as players, are the ones who should be developing the interesting gaming world we play in.   

    There was nothing dramatic about my post whatsoever.  I just listed all the PvP and PvE stuff to do in this game.  I have waited or sailed around for hours with my group to find any PvP in the admiralty event or in open world.  Sometimes we go 1-2 hours without finding any decent fights that does not consist of chasing the enemy down and capturing their ship in a 1v5 gank or some other combination of unbalanced PvP.  Not saying that it is bad, its just the nature of an OW PvP based game like this.  most of the time you will not find a good evenly matched fight, unless it is organized by the players of enemy nations, which my clan in the past has done. 

    The only good balanced PvP that exists in this game right now is port battles, and the developers decided to throttle it hard with the hostility and region system.  Thus, getting access to a port battle today is really hard. 

    The game will never develop a solid player base without content.  Its not hard to do, there are easy ways to add content to this game with very little effort considering that the developers took the time to build a massive open world, which took far longer to add to the game than adding content to the game will take. 

  14. I made many posts on this very specific topic several times and so did some others.  Those of us who have been preaching this have given many examples of ways to add content to the game. @sruPL made a long forum post on this that many in the community agree with. 

    Currently the content in this game consists of either PvE missions, or the PvE daily challenges.  If your a PvP'er, level up to high enough rank to man a 4th rate and/or a 1st rate, then participate in port battles, or sail around in the PvP admiralty event and hope for some action that most likely never comes, but if it does come, either you are being chased or your chasing someone because of the uneven match-ups you are guaranteed to run into in OW PvP.

    • Like 4
  15. 1 hour ago, Blackjack Morgan said:

    Let's be perfectly clear on the matter of fair fights, honor, and code of conduct....all of this is in short supply on national side as well. It has absolutely nothing to do with sailing as a pirate or sailing as a Jamaican fish boat captain. The real truth is that 90% of ALL players are pretty gutless....no 1 faction has a monopoly on that trait. As to OCEAN I will say welcome and glad to see you flying the black!

    I respect that they have a code of conduct for operating on the open seas.  I was speaking more in terms of a role playing perspective.  I get that there are nats that do the same thing.  

    • Like 1
  16. 33 minutes ago, Johny Reb said:

    My role playing side is sad to see you all take the black but my practical side thinks its a good move for you considering your small group pvp only focus of your clan. The pirates need a boost as well atm. Cya around. We should arrange some small fights from time to time.

    This right here!  I also do not believe Pirates fit your play style and persona.  You sail around the open seas, and pride yourselves on having a strict code of conduct by not ganking players and are always looking for even fights.  You refuse to engage enemies that would be no match for you and your team, and thus opting for a 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 ect...  Pirates do not operate that way; pirates tend to only fight when they have the clear advantage, and most pirates I have gotten into fights with run away if the fight is too evenly matched, even if they have a slight BR advantage and hunt you down if they have a very clear advantage. 

    Are you sure the pirate’s life is for you?

    or perhaps the developers broke the game making it hard for nations to find good small group pvp, hard to say.

    • Like 1
  17. 33 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

    What I'm not so sure about is whether I like the limitations it imposes on surprises and hidden agendas.  We sort of have that now, and we can go wherever we want whenever we want.  In your proposal, France would never have been able to claim the Texas region as we did a while back (even though we were not able to sustain it).  Part of conquest, or just war strategy, is the element of surprise, so maybe we lose a little there?

    Questions:

    What about regional bonuses?  Do they now get shared, or do they go away?

    What about free ports?  Can you not launch an attack from a free port?  You didn't say either way.  But if yes, then it changes your dynamics, because now you can jump across the map (say, France to Texas again e.g.), and also it makes us less reliant on our allies or not in need of them at all if we adopt our free ports strategically.

    Overall, maybe a nice shift in conquest thinking.

    Hey thanks for giving some thought to my proposal. 

    On your first concern, I like surprises and hidden agendas.  Players should be doing what is in the best interest of their nation first and foremost.  Also, If France wanted to start claiming Texas, then they would need to make a deal with a nation that owns the ports in that area so they can become allies and start launching attacks from allied ports.  Remember, the idea of the proposal is to try and break up alliances and make new alliances form.  I would like to see a game world where the political situation is constantly shifting.

    For example:  If the Danes are allied with the French and the Danes are using French ports to launch attacks on another nation but keep failing to capture a port they need to launch further attacks, and the French are getting antsy to start pushing into Texas and they need to Break the Danish Alliance and form an Alliance with the United States to do so, then the Danes will not be happy with the French, and we will have a constantly shifting political situation.  

    Maybe you missed it but allies can launch attacks from other allies ports. :D

    Question 1:  I hate regional bonuses, and I wish they were never implemented, but if we are stuck with a game world that uses them, then crafted materials in that specific region should be used instead of needing to craft a ship in a specific region.  Example:  Pirate refit bonus would require 100 doubloon's to craft.  or Strong hull would require live oak reinforcement parts, only these reinforcement parts and doubloons could only be crafted in a specific region. 

    Question 2:  Attacks cannot be launched from free ports. 

  18. 1)  Hostility cannot stay working the way it currently does, no one wants to PvE to get PvP.  This hostility system needs a large rework or to be removed from the game. 

    2)  Bad idea because the nation being attack would be inclined to chose the worst possible time for the enemy nation to attack rather than the best time for them to defend, which would discourage PvP.  They would be inclined to choose 5 AM in the morning on a Work day to make it so as little of that nations players are on as possible. 

    4, 5, and 6)  What if no players show up to the screening event?  If I was an attacker, why would I sail my ship into the screening event and risk losing my ship to remove ship slots for when the port battle takes place?  If I was an attacking nation, if we lost a port battle slot, then the port battle would never happen.  We would just raise hostility again until we could guarantee a full 25 man slot.  This proposal also makes defending a port way too easy, because AI ships are easy to sink.  Defenders could just go there and sink lots of AI ships and make it so the enemy cannot get any ships into the port battle.

    9)  Giving different rated ships roles to play in port battles is a better solution than hard limits on x amount of ships of each rate.  Also, if I was a casual player sailing up to the port battle in my 3rd rate, and the 3rd rate slots were already full, then I would be a bummed casual.  :(

  19. Let me start off this proposal by saying that I really hate the new region conquest mechanics and I feel like conquest in this game is happening way too fast.  I would like to propose an Idea to improve the conquest in this game by going back to port capture instead of region capture.  However, in the new port capture proposal, you can only attack ports from ports in your nearby vicinity.

    Example 1:  The dutch (in orange on the map) want to expand their empire in that area on the map.  They will have to launch an attack from Fort Baai or Oranjestad.  If they were to attack from Oranjestad, then the only ports within range of launching an attack would Gustavia or Basseterre.  If they launched an attack from Fort Baai, then they would only be able to attack Spanish Town, The Settlement, or Phillipsburg. 

    Also, to improve the alliance system to hopefully break the deadlock, lets say the French or Swedish wanted to attack the Spanish ports, they could ally with the Danish and launch attacks on the Spanish ports from the Danish ports in the nearby vicinity.  This would help break up alliances and help new alliances form as nations figure out ways to expand where they want to expand by working with allies.  For example, if the Swedes were allied with the Danish, they could pull a flag from Cabo-Rojo and attack Arecibo or Higuey. 

    I know that from a coding perspective, that having different terrain and adding circles for capture regions for each port can be a daunting task for the developers, but if need be, just use a preset map type for most of the ports, that way you only need a handful of different map types for conquest. 

    Also, for alliance voting, each nation can only have 1 ally, but nations that have more ally votes than war votes will become neutral and players of neutral nations can attack each other, but not attack their ports. However, for neutrality be be established, both nations will need to have more ally votes than war votes, or the nations will stay at war. 

    Slowdownyoungbucky.thumb.png.8bf62768e2236a5ddfe3e7689d583ab7.png

    • Like 3
  20. On 2/9/2017 at 10:24 AM, fransgelden said:

    1. Sailing time: it takes a good chunk of your time to sail around, especially for traders and I have to be continuously present at my computer while sailing around with my goods to prevent from going through shallows or get boarded by enemy. I play other games and do stuff while sailing, but it is an off putter, especially the amount of time to sail to a given port for port battles and screening. Sailing time for battle preparations and battle can easily take 2 hours and more, which only permits me to play during weekends for port battles.

    2. Port battle limitation: each nation only get 2 slots to have port battles. This prevents big and small nations from having as many port battles as they wish. Instead, captains fighting with each other for slots, accusing each other of sabotage and being selfish. Then you have always full port battles, because nobody can do any other port battles. Captains complain they can't get into port battles or excluding other captains from port battles, because they have inferior ships.

    3. Development: What also bothers me is the devs are not openly with their development and talking once every week about what they currently doing. I have to sit for a month before I will see the progress being made. The devs can learn a lot from the Poles who makes Factorio. Factorio is an excellent example where the devs telling once every week, usually on a Friday, on what they are working now and bugs they identified and plans for the future.

     

    I wanted to address your post but it got locked before I could:

    1) I disagree on this point.  this is a sailing game with an open world.  Devs have already increased open world speeds, but there is no getting around the fact that to do trading you will need to sail your ship.  We also have free ports where you can ship goods to other free ports to help ease the sailing pain along with tow requests and ship teleportation through capturing a ship.

    2) I agree, port battles have turned into a mini game of the elites, and this needs to change!  It used to not be this way with the old flag system and there were so many port battles going on that if you brought an inferior ship to a port battle, like a 3rd rate, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, and also, port ownership mattered way less than it does today.  Devs need to make it so port battles are often and everywhere so it is not just a game for the elite players.  I speak as someone who has done plenty of port battles both in the old and new system.  Old system was way better because it gave even the casuals access to the best RvR this game has to offer.  

    3) game development, along with development of pretty much anything, is a slow process.  If you feel like lack of updates is starting to get to you, just put the game down for a month or 2.  Take a break, don't fatigue yourself on this game, go play another game for a while and come back to NA to see what is new and exiting when the next patch drops.  

    • Like 1
  21. Ok, lets assume that we could get your idea to work, and that battles stayed open for 10 min, but you spawned farther and farther away from the battle the longer it took you to get to the battle.  It is still a flawed system, because players inside the battle are at an extremely large disadvantage to players outside the battle, in that, they can plop into an open battle and completely change the dynamic and direction of a battle.

    Scenario 1:  You and 2 of your friends are sailing along, you run into a group of 3 enemy player ships, you tag them for battle, you are in an evenly matched 3v3 fight, 8 min into the battle, your side is dominating and killing the enemy, and it is looking like a sure victory for your side, until that random 4th and 5th player joined, well crap!  Now all of a sudden the good battle you were fighting and winning has turned into a chase fest.  The enemies you were fighting have switched to chain and are now chaining your sales preventing you from escaping.  Eventually the other 2 players catch up and sink all 3 of you.  

    Scenario 2:  You are after a player trade ship you decide to tag him and attack.  Battle commences!  Unfortunately, for you, you just got tricked, 3 more players pop out of battle screen and join your battle, you lose your ship to the trader and the 3 other players in surprises that joined the battle.  OK OK, so you discovered how to stop players from magic battle hopping.  They hide in port and just pop out and join, ok, lets say there are no ports in sight.......  The player you attacked in a trade ship, moans in nation chat for help, and 3 guys happen to be in the area and join your battle.  

    This is why battles need to close instantly.  I understand that players in their home waters around nation capitals should expect a certain level of protection and thats why we have fleets, forts, and towers, and that is also why we need the 2nd circle, along with determining BR for large battles and screening.  

×
×
  • Create New...