Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

van Veen

Members
  • Content Count

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

349 Excellent

About van Veen

  • Rank
    Midshipman

Profile Information

  • Location
    close hauled

Recent Profile Visitors

636 profile views
  1. In my opinion the RVR game has to be designed to allow also asymmetric conquest in which two sides contest one target at different times. Requiring both sides to be present simultaneously should be optional, not mandatory. There have been some interesting solutions proposed. Finding a working mechanism that doesn't need scheduling and allows asymmetric battles is not trivial, but is critical. Timers are just a workaround that causes so much grief and frustration that it needs to be fixed.
  2. van Veen

    leaderboard

    There is a reason why capturing ships does not immediately count as a kill: to prevent abuse. Otherwise, you could capture the same ship back and forth with a partner to get kills without a loss.
  3. Trading should give slightly higher profit than now. And trading should be the main source of income. Otherwise, there will be no player traders left in the open world. Hauling of crafting material was already made obsolete. You see only traders brigs doing delivery missions for doubloons, but no Indiamans anymore. Hunting traders is good content, please do not make it obsolete.
  4. Forced alliance are good, because they are simple to implement and they do not require players to vote (which will never work out well). BUT alliances should be dynamic! And I really hope that the system is based on nations-to-nation relations with allied/neutral/hostile status.
  5. Some people are convinced that less targets means less PVP. But thinking about it, you might come to the opposite conclusion. Less targets means less options for PVP, but does it really mean less PVP overall? After all, you can fight only one battle at a time and you cannot take all options. Less options actually means that PVP locations become more predictable, which could in turn lead to actually more PVP as you need less time searching for targets.
  6. Simple solution, proposed many times by various players: do not allow stacking of boni of the same parameter. Instead of sum(bonus1, bonus2,...), use max(bonus1, bonus2,...).
  7. Nothing. But then, these players are rightful members of another nation and the status is clear. Mission accomplished. Yes! Yes, there is still reason for coalitions. Friendly nations can join each other's port battles for instance, can help each other in PVP. This happens already, although everyone is hostile towards each other. Coalitions should fix this dilemma of unclear relations: game says hostile, but they do help each other.
  8. You seem to presume that all those coalitions proposed by admin can select their allies freely. I strongly doubt that this will be possible.
  9. I am pretty sure the old mechanic (hostile/red, neutral/grey, friendly/green) is still in place, but everyone is set hostile to everyone.
  10. Yes, we need alliances! Yes, we need them forced by game! Simple reason is: you cannot trust the players to make "good" decisions, i.e. good for the game as a whole. I would not even trust myself on this one 😉 BUT... the alliances should not be STATIC! Changes to the alliances be done manually by server admin in reasonable intervals. Announcements from the sovereign nations should give a lot of story telling potential. Add "neutral" status as well, please.
  11. We need to get rid of timers. Timers limit the gameplay. Scheduling one decisive battle just does not work. Port conquest should last longer and allow players from all time zones to participate. Why not schedule 12 port battles every 2 hours for 24 hours in total? Someone also suggested a blockade style port battle where supplies need to be brought into harbor to generate points for defenders. This would make a lot more sense in this context.
  12. I agree. If there was some feature or mechanism (quest, mission, RNG...) that gave knowledge of the location of the rare woods to foreign players, there would perhaps be a reason for RVR. No info, no RVR.
  13. Thank you for bringing it to attention that knowledge of the location for foreign pkayers is critical. Without this knowledge, there will be no RVR.
  14. Prices are too high and there should also be smaller chunks available for individualist players. Apart from that, I still think there should be a means to get information about location of the forests more conveniently. In order to drive RVR, the location must be an open secret available to players from any nation.
  15. This mess could be easily avoided by reducing the number of currencies. 4 currencies serve no purpose. 2 is more than enough!
×
×
  • Create New...