RedNeckMilkMan
-
Posts
536 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by RedNeckMilkMan
-
-
-
I personally don't care about the historical accuracy of nations in the Caribbean (the Chinese flags are dope looking) but what would be ideal in my opinion follows.
-
All nations are grouped in to 3 Alliances based on Pop of nations and Nations would just be a flag you fly.
- Perhaps you could have Russia and their allies in one Alliance against the forces of Nato and a third Alliance made up of the smaller nations and privateer style nations like Poland, China, Pirate. Just an idea but in reality a 3 way split of the player pop would likely be best
OR
-
Nations become the Alliances and Clans become the Nations (this would require a reduction of nations)
- decentralize the power of nations allowing individual clans to become sovereign rulers of their ports with a loose allegiance to their countrymen.
These are just the two ideas that have been floating around my head for the past year or so. There is no doubt technical and pragmatic issues with implementing either option but I think on the whole the goal should be to strike a balance between "More targets for PvP" and "Allies for RvR". Good luck and the next patch looks cash money.
-
All nations are grouped in to 3 Alliances based on Pop of nations and Nations would just be a flag you fly.
-
Admin has stated that starting a fight with no intention of fighting is griefing. Quit trying to muddy the waters by saying "b-but if I tag a player and can't win then am I griefing?" This is smooth brain logic. If you tag a ship and can't win against it you do not repeatedly tag said ship in to consecutive battles. The delaying tactics claim is also horse shit, what was he delaying for? There was no port battle and it wouldn't take an hour for back up to arrive.
Anyone with more than 2 brain cells can see this is griefing. Plain and simple. If you tag and keep people in consecutive battles while shooting ball at sail from 1000 meters you are pretty much just a troll.
Again this game's player base never ceases to amaze me. The length players will travel just to avoid playing the game.
-
3
-
-
Chain range is about 250-300 so if you have a feel for how far you can chain then you can estimate the exact number.
-
Seeing as how the Constitution and her sister ship are now 3rd rates they should not longer spawn in 4th rate epic events.
Cheers.
-
1
-
-
So you need 5000 xp to rank up, when you achieve a new rank you need 12,000 xp to reach the subsequent rank. Cumulative XP is not shown for simplicity's sake.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Audacious said:
Watch the numbers, if they get sunk all the time they won't last. There is no reward for those who log in next day.
New players don't sail around afk min crewing trade ships loaded with passenger missions.
-
2
-
-
I love the implication that these low level traders are majority players and not alts doing cargo and passenger missions.
-
4
-
-
On 6/20/2019 at 3:13 AM, Isaac J Smith said:
Simple solution would be to increase the hostility cap from 10v10 to 25v25 (players) with AI not counting (so if 25 joined in on AI side, it would be 25v50), and then limit it to 1 active hostility mission per port.
Then smaller clans could not hold ports or grind ports. It's already hard enough to flip a port.
-
Just now, Flinch said:
Be careful about suggesting any nerf to trade missions. They have a large benefit of populating the open world so that it is far more easy to go pirating.
I dont want to see them nerfed to the point that people stop doing them regularly.
Populating the open world with t-lynxes and trade ships sailing in their own waters. They need to be nerfed and other forms of money making need to become viable competitors.
-
While these missions are a great addition to the game they have killed the old system of buy here and sell there.This in turn has all but made port tax non-existent. Ports like Santo Domingo and Puerto de Espana which in the past were trade hubs and hunting grounds have lost much of their value.
My suggestion is to make delivery missions cost reals as an investment in the product that you will be moving to another port to sell for a profit. Then, once in the destination port, the officials there would undoubtedly want the tariffs set by the most noble Pissants.
For passenger missions I would suggest removing the ability to stack these missions on small ships, much in the way Elite Dangerous handles passengers. Small ships can only accommodate a few people while bigger ships can accommodate more people and higher profile passengers meaning larger payouts.
For instance a Lynx could only carry one passenger missions while a LGV could carry 10 passengers and one high profile passenger. This would of course limit the amount of cargo you could carry since you would need to feed your passengers with more than hard tack and grog.
We need more reasons for people to use trade ships bigger than a T-Lynx.
-
7
-
-
6 hours ago, James Thomson said:
Why not balance the game so its not a problem ?
Do you think game balance is someone with 10 hours being able to compete against someone with thousands? I'll give you a hint: No game ever made has done this because it's not feasible and downright stupid.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Slim McSauce said:
That's precisely the point. Imagine if you wanted to create a proverbial structure of war using just words and concept like you were writing a book, and at the very foundation of that book you wrote that in war, the defender dictates when the attack takes place. That would already be daft and your book from there would have no legitimacy. That's exactly what RvR is right now. War, like actual war how you imagine and see it is not at all representative to what NA portrays as war which is RvR. The war we have is like if you took an Arena MMO battle instance and put an Open world around it, then made players grind AI at a certain time to get a single Arena instanced battle the next day. Just one battle for about an hour and that's your war in NA. No it does not satisfy anyone. It's just a cary over system from the early days of NA, that's why it needs rewriting.
It's a video game. Not war.
-
12 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:
There you have it folks. Timer's even when statistically working will not pass the player-fun phycological test.
I guess I was right then? If you want good RVR you have to have CAMPAIGN, no timers. Port capture consisting of many battles lasting over days of fighting, not just one battle falling into a single hour.
You actually have to align RVR with real war, it's the only way. All the flaws of the current system, low pop involvement, strict timers, heavy planning compared to little content, gotta overhaul the entire thing.
Yes that means zergs, yes that means night attacks, yes that means your clan no longer having exclusive rights to the pb, that's the price you pay for good region v region content.
what you do is let the attacker attack on his terms, have the hostility start, start a tally, add up points for ships sunk, points held, objective achieved, troops landed, whatever. At the end of 3 days the side with the most points wins the port. In concept it's that easy.
Current PB system is beta shit, a single battle, what are we, virgins? get outa here with that shit. Give us real war scenarios not this MOBA crap.
Pretty much every suggestion you made sounds awful. There is a reason for the state of the current RVR mechanics. We tried all of what you suggested and it was a shit show.
-
ITT, 60-70% of the population complain that only 90% of the ports have timers within their prime time.
I'm losing brain cells reading this.
-
1 hour ago, Liberalism said:
Economy based game. We all know that harsh and realistic economy is what everyone desires. Nelson didn't build HMS Victory alone and in one day.
Or at all seeing as how he was an Admiral not a shipwright.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Doh said:
Game broken.
Community broken.
Many go play other games, tired to wait for progress.
Enjoy, thanks for letting us know this pertinent information in a tribunal thread. I feel like people have actually just switched off their brains when they come to the forums. They seem to be actively working to get themselves banned.
-
And the broken record keeps on turning.
-
Privateer: I was told WO would not attack me
Aster: you attacked them
Privateer: I attacked BLANC
LUL
-
4
-
-
52 minutes ago, Sento de Benimaclet said:
Ending the ganking is easy. Gentlemen DEVS. do not allow anyone to profit and enter a single-player combat against AI. That they wait for him outside the combat at the end of it. Most ganking occurs in this way. In the first minutes of a PVP fight, which can only enter the BR similar to that of the player attacked, nothing to enter the whole world in the first 2 minutes.
ROE is pretty forgiving now for getting ganked. I'm a big fan of the changes to ROE.
-
1
-
-
WO Ganking some noobs XD
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
Doesn’t really matter as you hide behind late night timers and exploit ports you shouldn’t have. We will see after release how well y’all do.
And that right there is why we do it, it ain't much but it's honest salt.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
If ya'll scuttle it the first time you got your kill count. What gave us the points is cause some one put crew on it and than you scuttled it.
Yes this is what Kingy said in his post. You are in agreement with what he said. If we had not put crew on that ship we would have won the PB. Our mistake.
-
3 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
Loorkon was battle commander not Jake. Though I think the points you got was at the last second as it was pretty much 600-700 range for both sides most of the battle. Remember the point is to make 1000 points if you don't do that you loose. If we make if before you we win, so we just got to do that or prevent you. A lot of mistake made on both sides. I do think it was a very big learning experience and considering US was going against a very season veteran PvP team we did better than expected. Even though you had the pirates there screening for you. As much as your groups bitch about not getting PvP you think ya'll would actually fight each other. WO fleet limping back would of been a nice prime target for the pirates to have hit, but nah ya'll got to be all buddy buddy's and such.
941+60
-
1
-
Naval Action Meme collection
in Tavern
Posted
Why even play the game if there's no Global PVP from the safety of port?