Vizzini
-
Posts
569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Vizzini
-
-
Given that there is a DLC that includes extra dockspace, I am not certain it's the best idea for everybody with a clan to be able to have one.
-
13 hours ago, Shocktrooper Basteyy said:
Santo Tomé de Guyana PB
The Dutch had quite some numbers today at Santo, gladly their screning fleet couldn't tag us because of the lack of BR.
We joined the PB and had the wind advantage but 2 1st rates less. But still won. GG!
Let's see what we will be written in the gazette about this!
VP screeners didn't have enough BR to keep the Prussians ( who sailed well to get there all together) out and once inside they kicked arse, pretty much
Can't see any reason to try and spin it any other way.
-
1
-
-
Good edition, perfectly summing up the VP position about sunday trading hours 😡
-
7 minutes ago, Intrepido said:
Nations are made by its playerbase.
When you dont have the playerbase, talking here about numbers and experienced players, the nations die.
I remember, back when we had the alliance system, allied nations support each other either with players filling PBs or with the much needed PB commander.
Now, you cant. So nations die and players, as a result, stop playing.
What would happen right now with an alliance system ? Tactical voting by everybody with an alt or 2 ?
Right now player numbers seem steady , of course we cannot tell what they will be in the next few months but the doom mongers seem to have jumped the gun by the saying the games going wrong as it stands
-
13 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
You do know this game, the war server is a PvE with PvP server right? So folks can play both, some folks don't want to be safe 100% of the time. Some folks enjoy to do things at risk on there own terms. Some of us don't have the time to be on 24/7 like a few folks that seem to have no jobs or real life. Most of us get a few hours a day if even that to play. It's a pain to expect others to protect your interest all the time while your at work or doing things with family or having a holiday. Every other game with something like this has either safe zones that no PvP/RvR can be done in or they have server resets once a certain time or goal is reached. That attrition effects player numbers over time and gets us right back to dead servers. Only 10% of the game is hard core PvP/RvR guys, what you think it would be like if the rest of that 90% just left and went to Peace server as you suggest since the server isn't the right one for them according to /YOU/?
May I ask what nation your currently playing in?
I'm in the same nation as some of your alts, turning up to screen as often as possible. Playing the game during EU hours Vp since release
Complaining that others have more free time than you ? really ?
You do realise it is a multi player game and plenty happens when you or myself aren't online ? or do you have ideas to stop that happening ?
-
1
-
-
Players unwilling to risk all are on the wrong server. There will be no reason to play if you have nothing to lose for a great many on the PVP server
A war of attrition grinds players down until they get low on morale or resources. Imagine a scenario where a player can hit the reset button , get his ships and ports back that he lost last night. He will never be bothered about the risk of losing it and in the same way there will be no incentive for the player attacking
games playing ok right now , don't let the whiners spoil it
-
41 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:
I recall LoneHunter playing for GB (most recent) and Prussia after release
Proves:
GB
Prussia:
good research Holmes !!
-
34 minutes ago, Eyesore said:
so ... 11 nations is too many ... but 111 clans will be fine?
i'd argue that its the implementation of 'impossible nations' that causes players to only join one with a healthy playerbase and to swap out when they get 0 ported
If we had gone full on clan wars, when many hoped we would , there would have been as many nations as clans
Being forced to team up with players you despise will never end well
far better for each clan to have total control over what they do and not be dictated to by alts in a nation voting or acting against their interest.
Being able to attack anybody not in your own clan, on the open water would increase pvp imho
-
waiting for valve to approve the dlc's as you well know :)
/reported
-
7 minutes ago, GrubbyZebra said:
Hardcore nations never lose their last port, as they still operate out of the free ports.
They would however lose their major crafting base as they would get no bonus from a freeport. This has been a major factor in players leaving their 'impossible nation' ..once they get slapped like Prussia did at New Orleans
I'd rather have many more nations than fewer, there are far too many drama queen trolls in every nation as it stands. You cannot move nation any more and find any peace. All you can do is press the x and disable nation chat..... You are then left with your clan
we get more fighting and bitching and whining inside nations than we do against the other actual enemies. Often we have better friends in other nations than we do within our own
A pirate outlaw mechanic, that couldn't be abused in any way was the dream. Sadly it didn't work without gamers finding out how to ruin it
-
1
-
-
given players already have the option to ditch as much cargo as time allows... anything else would just be seen as sour grapes on the part of the player who is getting sunk. Perhaps rank reduction for repeated occurrences from their admiralty
would be in order ?
-
Craftable tow
using reals, dubs , vic marks and combats
make them expensive 1 per day craftable and slow some of the inflation
is 9,999,999 still the most reals you can trade with a player ? If so, we're going to need wheelbarrows soon to buy a loaf of bread
-
2
-
-
Safe port for the so called "impossible nations " that they can fortify and defend themselves, rather than pouring out the same 1 port in the middle of the map. This might encourage players to adopt Poland, Prussia etc and spread the playerbase away from the zergs a bit
The threat of getting 1 ported is too great a risk and it's difficult , expensive and extremely time consuming to switch nations.
all in all, games playing better but the toxics could be dealt with properly, not left to run wild and it's up the the devs to sort this, put measures in place to chat ban for months at a time, players whose main purpose is to troll and spoil others experience
-
3
-
-
great stuff , best thing since @Jeheil left us
-
2
-
-
dlc ships already take care of this option and I could see limited appeal from the devs with the possibility of hindering any sales by allowing a form of durability such as you are describing
surrendering should mean you lose it , otherwise every battle could be over really quick
-
I'd bet this would be open to abuse, the way it is right now may create drama but I am not sure allowing a team of alts to pass /sell a port to somebody without a fight is a good idea as I see it
-
1 hour ago, John Cavanaugh said:
That would quickly get out of hand.
To progress you must duel Pellew in a 270 BR port!
yes would need obvious set parameters with a minimum but these ideas have been brought up before
-
Ports owning clan should determine the BR of their port battle.
That way if any clan want to ensure they have a 25 x however many or a 5 v5 if they suck at having friends , they can.
However, it should not end up with fewer nations it should be entirely clan based and provide everybody with more targets on the open seas and other players who cannot field more than 5 decent players, the opportunity to own a port, participate in RVR without being FORCED to endure the drama of nation chat.
Make a safe port for each of the impossible nation and perhaps people would spread out more
-
The impossible nations have only truly worked with Russia due to the numbers who joined at the start and since they became top dog. The rest were unable to get a foothold.
A nation with no base and not enough players will always struggle and many non native speakers will not risk joining due to expected language difficulties ( French and Spanish nations have experience with this also)
Even if they had 1 unconquerable port, they would still be sitting inside it getting slapped every time they try and go fishing.
-
shit man, we get better fights inside the nation than this !!!
-
1
-
-
right now, you suffer a small delay if you wish to surrender all your other ships
what you suggest is to automatically lose them all ? for everybody ?
-
-
I like the idea of a port being raided , it's infrastructure wrecked but not totally destroyed and still having the ability to rebuild ( at least one time ) and goods seized from the port
This would allow a nation an amount of time to either rebuild it's defences or remove it's ships before destruction. Right now , with some of our player base, we have people who will throw their toys out of the pram and threaten to stop playing if they lose their crafting base
I'd also like a detterent on clans owning too many ports , an increased cost scaleable and thus making it more likely to be left in the hands of another clan ( alts even, don't care ) and timers being the same for all of a clans ports
Stale RVR has come about as there is now more to lose. However, many of these ideas have been put forward before and I am not sure if there is the appetite for more tinkering, after years of it already
*durability on the largest, bestest ports is what i was trying to say , that can be rebuilt , using surplus materials
-
while the rest of the server whines and complains about the red peril , Reverse and friends are having fun !!
-
4
-
would be in order ? 
Clan Library + Clan Armory
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Yes I understand the reasons. My point was whether it would stop a player buying the admiralty connection DLC / a steam sale alt or whether it would make anybody who had already bought it feel cheated. There are loads of things that might improve QOL for us, it's possible that it might hinder sales