Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

van Veen

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


van Veen last won the day on January 13

van Veen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

629 Excellent

About van Veen

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    at sea

Recent Profile Visitors

948 profile views
  1. Who did put this into your head. Read your willis It's so much fun sitting in Holland at a lock entrance in the sun with a coffee on the table watching some holiday skippers trying to stop in front of the lock. When realizing they start drifting, they try everything at once, bow thruster, rudder, reversing and finally full ahead again while the stone wall is getting closer and closer. Most motor boat people just don't know what wind does to your boat. And then there are computer gamers who never even went on a boat at all. Seriously, guys, the sailing in battle instance is close to perfect. There are only some minor things that could be a little better. But these are negligible for the sake of gameplay imho. Close hauled speeds are too high Leeway should be greatly reduced with increasing speed Accelleration/deccelleration is too high Yard turn speeds are too high "Depower" removing all jibs instantly is absolute nonsense Fore and aft sails (spanker and jibs) position for downwind sailing is too close to the center line No square rigged ship could tack through the wind without reversing, but in NA fast square riggers can do this And of course, wind, waves and the weather in general are just too constant to be called realistic. All these flaws were implemented knowingly, for better gameplay (weather and all speed related things) or ease of coding (depower, sail position).
  2. Observed a player sinking russian players in close succession. Player in question is of the same nation. Serious abuse of green on green or farming.
  3. lol ^ One example that I remember wondering about. There were 7 PBs against Russia (not counting allies) within one hour ("at the same time"). There have been more port battles against Russia on that day at other times.
  4. On topic: I think it's problematic to judge actions by players intentions instead of observable actions. Simply because there is no evidence for the intentions in the server log files. In this case, the observable actions were: Port hostility was raised (no violation) Attacker did not show (no violation) Both actions individually and also in combination are no violation of any rule. This does not mean, I support this behaviour as I think it is an exploit to prevent others from playing. However, any no-show could then be tribunaled. And we all know that sometimes it is just not possible to fill a port battle for whatever reason. So, imho, the case needs to be closed for now. The only thing that could solve this is a proper alliance system. In this case, alliance (which is allegedly in place between the nations involved) should have prevented raising hostility in the first place.
  5. Yes, but doing that in Tribunal might not be the best idea. Others got forum banned for less. Can we have a mod clean this thread up? Otherwise, we won't get a proper case and no judgement on the issue.
  6. Hell, I never said I like 20vs20 mono fleets. Don't try to troll me, it won't work. But on topic. There is a reason for the Buc monofleets and you know it very well, because you prefer it in your PBs as well. The Buc has the same BR than a Redout or a Implac, but has more HP and more firepower. Simple reason, simple solution: fine tuning ship BR. But why does this need to be defined by the port owner for more variety? What is the benefit him setting this and forcing others to comply with this? Everybody just loves this idea, because they want more control. But for what? Excactly, to force their will on others. I see no reason to trust players on this one. Yep, it does not make sense. Imho this and the fact that players can't be trusted is reason enough to discard the idea altogether. More variety in BR is fine. You could also discuss maximum ship rate for each port like we used to have (4th and 1st) being expanded to 6th through 1st or something.
  7. I have no clue what this has to do with my answer, but ok. Limit of 25vs25 is due to instance capacity afaik. This has nothing to do with PB, but is a technical issue. I am not against having different BR at different ports for variety, but I am totally against giving players more control. I apologized already for calling everyone "idiots" who voted for the majority option. I did not address anyone in particular. It's just a good example of everyone being short-sighted and selfish ("yeah, more control, yeah!"). Prime example of mass idiocy imho. But here I am. Convince me that in fact it's me who is the idiot and the majority is right on this one. What would be the benefit for the game as a whole (not only for the port owner) to define the fleet setup for the PB? Why would the game be better with this option?
  8. Yeah, and I have not yet seen a MMO in which voting actually works well. Most voters are actually trolls. Same with the voting-based diplomacy, this also didn't work. This will be just another source of grief. We see a majority for "yes" here because it's promising players more control over others. That's what most people like, because they are egoistic and do not think about the consequences this has on gameplay.
  9. I was refering to this here: This means the attacker must match the requirements set out by the owning clan (the defender). This will be abused to avoid port battles. And it makes no logic sense why the defender (!) should be able to define the fleet composition of the attacker. I mean, the attacker is the one with the initiative. It should be the other way round or dropped completely. So yeah, all the idiots (sorry, guys) voting for this option need to think a little before voting. But as usual, promise players to have more control over others and they will want it.
  10. Some point where I see the majority opinion problematic: I voted "No", because a) I do believe that giving clans more power over others is not good for the game in general. b) Clans defining fleet setup is the one solution that this clan sets, not the variety that others prefer. So, it means in fact less variety. c) This will be used to avoid port battles when you find a setup that others cannot match. I voted "No", because who is "you" if there is more than one player on each side? How should this be implemented and how to settle this if one player votes "close" and another "open"? What is wrong with the solution we have now? I understand that sometimes there are alt exploits opening a battle for the other side and then idling in battle. But is this really a problem? How many cases have there been? I personally have not encountered one such situation so far. Loot "stealing" is also a non-case imho, because loot is the result of plunder, robbery or theft, so it is not "yours" in the first place anyway. I think this is a blocking solution to exclude others from playing the game just to solve a non-existing problem. I voted "Yes 100k", because this would be a means to counter over-expansion of powerful clans. Right now, there is no such counter measure other than the fixed number of outposts that force you to focus on certain areas of the map and neglecting others. First 2 ports should be for free though.
  11. Economic warfare and looting towns. Add possibility to raid a town. A raid does not require a hostility mission, it can be done instantly. Sail towards the town (bring your friends), and attack the town. Then, a port battle instance is created (as described above). Attackers can attack the town, towers and fortresses. Capturing the town gives 10% (to be tweaked) of all goods, reales and doubloons that are currently in town. The money is removed from the clan warehouses. Defenders join at the docks.
  12. Remove the circles from the port battles. Instead, the control points are the towers, the fortresses and the town itself. Add possibility to capture the town, towers and fortresses. Ships would need to go close to the destination and launch a landing party. This requires the ship to reduce its crew size. Additionally, a new craftable item "Marine" (requires muskets, gunpowder, provisions) could be used from ship hold (1 marine per unit weight). The capturing itself works like the boarding mini-game we have now. Add possibility to control town, towers and fortresses by players. If the attackers capture the town, it should be an instant win.
  13. Opening post doesn't mention De Ruyter. Is this ship also part of the event? Same areas?
  14. I don't get your point. You know how to beat the AI but don't do it because it's boring and stupid? And that is why you ask for changing the game mechanics? Maybe you should try to fight other players then. No artificial buffs, more intelligence, varying playstyle.
  • Create New...