Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Raekur

Members
  • Content Count

    703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

391 Excellent

About Raekur

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It wont be an issue if the 3rd nation cant join the battle in the first place. Take a look at the tribunal today where a pair of dutch joined a battle that did not involve a dutch player and permitted a pair of Russians to join. From what the OP mentioned these dutch joined for no other reason then to permit the russians to join the battle. If the OW battles were limited to just the nations involved or those who shared an alliance then things like opening one side so the other side could stack up the BR would not happen.
  2. While yes this would eliminate the issue, first who would respond to the request and would be able to possibly respond to multiple requests while in the middle of a battle.
  3. Due to the latest tribunal can something be done to address a foreign nation from entering a battle between 2 other nations and causing problems? Lets say 3 Russian players attack a Prussian and a pirate joins in on the Russian side with the only intent on attacking the Prussian and stealing the ship. Based on the current rules the Russian players are prevented from taking any action to prevent this. Any attempts by a Russian player to prevent the pirate from boarding the prussian is a violation of the rules as currently set. There is only 2 ways I can see a solution to this issue. So long as a pirate can join either side they should be treated as hostile by both sides and can be engaged by either/both or simply prevent any nation from joining a battle on a side where their nation is not involved. So in the presented example, the only nations that can enter the battle are Russian and Prussian while all other nations (including pirate) must wait until the battle is concluded. So long as the 3rd party is protected by the Green on Green rules they are free to enter a battle and disrupt the engagement with no consequences.
  4. And in the case where your L'Ocean was destroyed due to gank, glitch, disconnect and the Santi you have not had a chance to train beyond 2 boxes should disqualify you from participating in the port battle? While yes, every dedicated captain will train in a ship exclusively for participating in a port battle, there is always the backup ship that is on standby after the primary is done. The problem that maybe a small percentage of captains encounter is that any good plan only survives right up until introduction to reality. The main thing that will help determine the outcome in a battle is the about of familiarity a battle commander has to the captains who are under his command. How many are better suited for the side to side brawl and how many work better as skirmishers who rely on maneuvering and deflecting shots so they can harass and weaken the enemy ships. Not all captains are usually skilled in both areas or have a ship that is capable of doing both. Does the captains best skill set match the ship he is in command of, was it his ship or one that was handed to him in order to fill a slot? The biggest mistake any commander can make is to just rush into a battle without discussing who is skilled in which area and how to then deploy those skill sets. A mix of both is usually the best as it allows the commander to react and adapt to changes in the flow of battle. Having all of one or the other introduces certain vulnerabilities that can be exploited if the other side realizes what you have done.
  5. Not sure if alliances are really going to solve what may be the bigger issues with RvR. First is the massive cost of the ships which leads to the highly skilled clans being able to steamroll over anyone else with ease due to attrition. Second is the spawn issue of the first which is the elitism it creates due to fear of losing ships that are difficult to replace. Both of these things are the result of it costing such a large amount to produce ships that can meet the aggressor on equal footing. When ships cost near nothing there were battles all over the place on a daily basis (with some groups complaining that there were not enough daily PB slots available) and the combat logs were constantly moving and very few complaints in regards to how long it would take to replace a ship.
  6. This is part of the issue with people wanting to get involved. How is someone supposed to gain skill in a ship if they are constantly denied the chance. If a group is capable of working together and the battle commander is able to run the battle than the number of slots open on a ship is not the critical component of the battle. A high skilled player I feel can do just as good of winning a battle using a ship with only 2 slots open than a novice skilled player could do with all 5 open.
  7. Dont forget to factor in for the small / solo player the magnitude of time and cost involved to build a shipyard capable of building a Wasa. While some think that it is easy doing trade missions within protected waters, not all share this luxury. Nor do they have ready access to some of the "Well they can just do this" solutions of escorts or large clans. The developers wanting to ensure that large ships were more rare by increasing the cost involved was achieved but at a cost I do not think they fully realized.
  8. And this action constitutes an alliance between GB and Russia as Gregory claims? It seems the dutch would prefer to throw unsubstantiated accusations instead of cannon balls at their enemies. I am still waiting to hear who the person was that provided dear gregory with this little gem of information he holds so dearly.
  9. Screening? Where has GB been involved in screening for the Russians or vise versa? I think you are making assumptions on what you perceive is occurring instead of knowing the facts. Maybe you should go back to your informant and ask what the reason was for the port exchange instead of seeing what you want to see. Add to this that the clan that was involved in the exchange I doubt would have any kind of conversation with you to begin with. So who exactly provided you this information?
  10. I dont know who informed you of that, but they are lying through their teeth. At best there MIGHT be a cease fire (and that is a maybe and a distant one at that) but nothing more. Consider this, if there was an alliance, then attacking GB would be the worst possible thing you could do as it would give ample reason for the 2 nations to focus on you specifically until you have nothing left. I am beginning to think you are just coming up with shady plausible reasons to further your agenda against GB.
  11. And how exactly does that help against Russia and them working towards taking over the map? This seems to be a general problem, people complain about the largest nation while attacking everything except them. It does not take a genius to figure out that while attacking the 2nd or 3rd largest it does nothing but help the largest nation secure their holdings. Sounds like tactics learned from the inside of a cracker jack box.
  12. You think 11 is bad, from another post I hear they are considering adding a couple more to represent the real life nations that are the highest contributors to the game. Alliances are only going to be a band-aid for the real issue and at best a short term one. If alliances are introduced again, and GB and Pirates unite against Russia, will we see the same situation as from before with some clans within Russia complaining that GB and the Pirates are not fighting each other and that it is unfair? Wasn't this the very reason why the alliance system was removed in the first place since both servers were making the same complaint? Will the alliance system permit the dragging of a smaller nation into a war they would otherwise not be involved in much less be able to afford the losses it would incur? There are pros and cons to the system that need to be considered beyond those I have listed here.
  13. The issue you will encounter with this is that while you limit the size and composition of the port battle fleet it does not limit the size of the screening fleet. Take a look at shallow port battles, there you have 5th rank ships approaching the port to attack and getting screened out by Wasa's. Unless you are a large nation able to send a fleet of 2-5th rate ships to counter the screening fleet and at the same time send in 10-12 other ships to attack the port then it will not happen. Your argument for a smaller nation that can only send 10 players becomes background noise to the barrage of cannon fire. Alliances are one way in which smaller nations can compete but keep in mind that unless it is restricted to only the bottom half of the nations you will once again run into the issue of the larger nations joining forces. Any suggestion made needs to be examined for ways in which it can be used in a manner you did not intend. The ideas here are good in the initial examination but can lead to unintended outcomes that make the whole worse than before.
  14. The BR of ports is not the issue here, if a nation can not field 10 people to go after a port that is an issue on the player side of the equation not on the mechanics side. What is needed to resolve this is either one of two options. Either reduce the number of nations or have there be incentives to join the smaller nations. The first option can directly impact the marketing of the game while the other can be exploited by the use of alts or mains just nation hopping. The issue with lowering the BR of ports is that it does nothing to help the smaller nations as the larger ones could flip the port in a single run while your smaller nation is still trying to get the people together to do the mission. The alliance system may help smaller nations but also brings with it the same complaints as it did before where the 2nd and 3rd largest nations joined together to go after the largest. The largest nations whined that the 2nd and 3rd were not making their lives easier by fighting each other. Maybe a tax based on nation size would work since it would represent the cost to maintain holdings over long distances.
  15. The one other aspect of the move from 4th to 3rd rate was that it then placed the Constitution as a ship that was unable to defeat any other ship of its rate. With a damage output of only 2823 it is nearly half of any other 3rd rate ship. The next lowest is the 3rd rate with a damage output of 4169. In any battle (not counting skill of their perspective captains) it would be nearly impossible for the Constitution to defeat the 3rd rate. While some may argue that with certain upgrades and captain skill the Constitution would win, those factors can be applied equally to either ship and for this reason they are not considered in the comparison. The Constitution was originally in the game as a 4th rate and fit into that category quite nicely. The Constitution required more skill than other 4th rates to be truly effective. This is what balanced it verses other 4th rates. Once it was moved to being a 3rd rate it seemed that very few people would waste time on it due to one it requiring a hard to find permit and second that since it is the weakest 3rd rate it makes it difficult to train up unless you go after 4th rate targets and deal with them being more maneuverable.
×
×
  • Create New...