Eyesore
-
Posts
396 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Eyesore
-
-
How about captured ai-ships with portboni?
Same reasoning applies as to the dlc-ships, the ai is buffed anyway, so why not compensate?
Atleast i'd have played the game to get some better stuff?
-
So, portbattle means high risk and high reward ... screening means low risk and low reward ... What is the problem then?
-
Because screeners get so many victorymarks for their trouble ...
-
2
-
-
-
-
An Altclan, ok ... which clans are sure they have not been 'infiltrated' by an alt?
How will we prove that a clan is an altclan?
A scorned clan ... ok ... so, a clan that has a falling out with some other clans in a nation risks to get 'punished' by the other (righteous?) clans?
Atm clans can decide who can use their ports (for portbonusses and or rare woods), ok ... Why would a clan also have a say about what another clan does with its own port?
I understand that people want to be able to kick out or take measures against a clan that does not collaborate or causes problems or isn't popular or whatever. But only objective reasons can be used, so what are the criteria?
I think we better solve it at the root (or as deep as we can) instead of trying to add more rules to a (an RVR-)system that is flawed at its core?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Flinch said:
Cant deal with bad actors. Cant deal with traitors, cant take ports off of weaker clans period.
Define bad actors ... When are they bad, which conditions must be met? Who decides that somebody is a bad actor?
Traitors ... hmmm, who decides who is the traitor? When does a freedomfighter become a terrorist? A 'democratic' vote? lol
Weaker clans ... ok, so they shouldn't play? Only the 'strong' clans are allowed to dictate to everybody else how to play the game?
You are opening an even bigger can of worms.
The whole RVR-system is obviously flawed (to be polite). I understand the problem. Too many threads with suggestions have been made ... here we go again.
As long as people think like they are entitled or want to controle everything, because they are right and the others are wrong, and people keep thinking that they should be able to dictate to other players how to play the game or be able to deny them to play their own game ... it won't work. Players should never be in a position where they (a few, or the populars ones, or whatever) can decide who gets to play and who just has to sit at the sidelines (because of subjective reasons).
-
1
-
-
I'm sorry, but this thread is just funny 🙂
You all wanted clanwars and nation is useless 🙂 now that clans have more power, the complaining begins, because some other clan doesn't do what the nation wants 😄
Now the clans want to be able to decide which clans are worthy and which ones are not ...? Hahahaha! Now all of a sudden it (RVR) is a national effort again? lol
-
4
-
-
Acces to portbonusses in their own nationports for solo/casual/new players ... because it makes no sense to make them sail inferior ships, while they have to trade in these ports (and thus support the owning clan, but just get nothing back for it).
Or let them fund or invest in their own upgrades, no matter which clan owns the port.
-
1
-
-
Then why do you even want to defend it?
Reasonable suggestions? I only make them once.
How many suggestions do people/devs need? We've been giving suggestions for years now, and this 'problem' was pointed out on the first day the portboni were announced.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:
The benefit is to the clan who did the work and captured the port.
yeah, it's a lot of work capturing ports from ai, very hard work indeed. Casuals and solo's can not participate and thus get nothing, just the generic stuff ... and people expect that newcomers will stay for that? Fight against an even bigger geargap (that obviously doesn't exist) or a bigger handicap.
Again, what is the positive about locking nationplayers out of the use their own ports? They are only good to trade in them so they can fund the clan for free? To pay for some clans timerfees and whatnot? For the rest they can just piss off and leave the game i suppose?
Really strange that so many rvr-clans /players have so many alts? I geuss they don't use the ports and bonusses either and they don't buy up and/or harvest whatever they want? But yes, that solo or new guy can stuff it, no way he gets to get a chance to compete with the same gear, because 'the clan' did all that hard work of capturing a port ...
But yes, solo's and casuals are the parasites, alts are to be supported (you know, because of all the hard work it is to level them, lol).
-
Meanwhile, many (new) players/clans will not or cannot participate in the rvr-stuff (they cannot invest or fully use their nation-ports).
Why is it again that you have to get on a friendly-list? What is the benefit of that exactly?
-
oh yes, lets feel sorry for everybody that have to level (some) alts ...
Maybe provide them with some extra's because of all that extra work they have to do ...
Wonderfull idea?
-
5
-
-
5 minutes ago, Wraith said:
It's not though. It's just one more reason we'll see a jump in negative reviews and yet more near-criminal handling of a player base through walked-back statements and lack of accurate information over the course of 3.5 years.
I understand, but it is a choice between cholera and the plague ... both choices have backlash.
For competitive pvp, yes, I understand the books and bonusses are important. But retain them and you get bad reviews from the other side ...
I'm sorry, I can't see a win-win-scenario in this, either choice has negatives.
If we reason from a standpoint that hardly any new players will buy and and play the game after release, then i can see a reason to retain knowledge (because, indeed, what would be the difference?).
On the other hand, if we reason from the standpoint that many new players will buy/return and play the game ... which would be the devs preffered outcome I geuss, more money to be made ... then those negative reviews from (a few?) testers about not getting to keep their accumulated knowledge during testing probably wouldn't interest a new player, probably even makes him think he's starting on even ground (yes, i agree, in reality the skillgap will be there/big). Thus, from an outsiders point of view (PR-wise), it looks a lot better/fairer to be able to say that everybody starts equally.
-
1
-
-
Happy with full wipe for pvp and partial for pve.
We all knew this was coming. The campaigners for knowledge-retainment have made their case as did the others, devs made a decision.
End of story. Let it go, suck it up, get over it and continue to play or not.
-
6
-
-
The ability to extinguish sternlights 🙂 would work nicely with that.
Although, some will just change their gamma on their monitors ...
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:
Just curious...when I pay to harvest iron from my building, where does that money go?
That's what they don't want you to do, it is a form of leeching ... you know, the clan did all the hard work ... and now people want to use that port? What are we thinking? Clans seem to like to do everything on their own (like solo-players?) and then complain that everything is too expensive ... You are of no consequence, you stupid casual leecher :-p They don't want you to work together with them, imagine that they'd have to share resources and portbonusses? The outrage! (I geuss i'll add 'sarcasm'?)
-
1
-
-
Well, leeching is a harsh word, the point is that making/providing usefull actions which contribute to the port and/or the controlling clan doesn't make it leeching anymore?
How is it leeching if they pay for the porttimer for example? Is it not better than just having an alt in some obscure(?) unknown(?) friendly clan, because they have 'invested' once during the development of the port (and supposedly keeps their right to keep using the port even if they are removed from the friendly-list)?
-
1
-
-
Maybe, to support a port and gain acces to its upgrades,
what if players, not on any list, could get somekind of permit to build x-amount of ships, or harvest x-amount of resource? Maybe by delivering goods (portmissions?) to maintain the upkeep(?) of the upgrades or maybe help to pay for a timer (a mission which directly helps the owning clan)?
So, (small/big) clans/solo's/casuals/whatever can contribute when they want/need to?
Many casuals will probably want to help in defending their port where they have their shipyard. Would they not be more likely to help defend (even if it is only screening, or counter hostility) if they have a serious investment/interest made in this port?
The controlling clan could perhaps select which kind of buildings and/or resources are available to all? (although i think the basic materials should be freely available, so only the rare items could be restricted to outsiders, clans on the friendly-list are always free to use any upgrade offcourse?)
How realistic is it to expect a clan to hold many friendlies (20?, 40?, 60? with a full server?) on the list, to keep up with who is who and what changes or new arrivals/players happen in those clans? How does it keep alts out of the port or atleast hinder their acces to it? (I'm sure it is fairly easy to act as a new player and join a big clan and be able to stay under the radar ... 😉 )
-
2
-
-
Russian pranks? What do you mean?
-
if you still have time left on the delivery, you don't need the mission to collect the rewards. Just deliver the item and right-click it to complete the delivery and receive your rewards.
-
more factions = more opportuntities to get a fight = more chaos = more interesting.
I didn't like the previous alliance-attempt, we ended up with two powerblocks and couldn't attack half of the people you saw at sea and were forced to fight/ally with people you may not really liked ... was fairly boring, a constant stalemate, too rigid.
More factions creates more 'chaos' and makes things less predictable and thus more interesting/replayable. Smaller factions are easier to block or push back (big stalemates can take weeks or months before they are broken ... and players switching nations to accomplish this is hardly a good mechanic?). Playerdriven diplomacy will give drama offcourse ... which is actually the point? I'm less likely to fight you or take your ports if i like you? Forced alliances made me play less and i had to sail a lot further to find a fight (or the area to look for targets got smaller).
-
2 hours ago, EliteDelta said:
I'm honored, I didn't think you'd make a DLC after me.
Rants will be written again because ai is too difficult t beat ... 😛
-
I'm in favour of having to attack the capitals last (so first capture the surrounding ports, as some sort of blockade or siege).
I would also not let bonusses (production/docks) come into play as long as the nation/clan doesn't control the whole region. A bonus comes from stability, if the whole region is in turmoil (hampered trading/supply, upset/divided populace, refugees and malcontents and saboteurs, etc) ... this does not induce good circumstances to make a region thrive? (in history, wealth/prosperity ussually comes with stability and 'peace' (may be forced)) This would make defending backwaterports also important? The order in which ports are captured doesn't really matter in this case (capital first or last ... you'd need the whole region to get the bonus anyway).
-
1
-
Quote of the day
in Tavern
Posted
"history is written by the victors"