Dibbler (Retired)

I think it was introduced along with crappy rienforcements so capital area hunters stopped grumbling about looking into a fishbowl they couldn't kill new players in. Even now some complain about "revenge" fleets, as the server pop has decreased significantly. One thing i have noticed and in no means wish to be unconstructive is that whenever a change is made the devs ask about impacts of the changes. When people point out bad impacts the answer is "we know what we are doing", or just bluntly dismiss obeservations or concerns. Of course not all feedback will be good feedback but it seems the devs know what they want so why even bother asking for feedback. I for one will just like anything the devs say while mostly playing something else and wait for release, I simply can't be bothered to suggest anything. This game has a lot going for it, hope by release you guys create something that will succeed.

Better to surrender when they get there, then make a cup of tea.

Well i guess you can say fps games are good for hand/eye co-ordination etc but in 98% of instances games are made for fun. Sure kids can learn bits of astro-physics from Kerbal but they would learn 1000% or more through actual study. I guess anything learned as a kid though is good, and can lead to a healthy interest through games i guess. .

Not all suggestons will be good for direction the Devs want to go of course, but maybe a post in sugggestions section from time to time to say thanks for the input so far would be enough i think Just to show that you guys look there (which of course you must do). As for overall game i think for size of the team they do really well tbh, even if sometimes i scratch my head or take a few weeks off :).

Nice vid

Oh really? In my life as an adult not once have i faced a zombie apocalypse, had to catch golden coins while jumping or had to save the galaxy for the upteenth time. Games are for fun dude, thats it no deeper meaning :D. Just in case i'm wrong though...

One thought i had to improve wider use of ports is to respawn rare goods each month, such as cartagena tar and other "upgrade" mats within the area they originate to another random port in area. Basically representing new resource pools being found and the old ones waning. This would mean nobody has total monopoly on a resource type beyond a month, and would promote more RvR as a result.

I think Gregory and Raxius would be good community reps imo. Gregory Rainsborough Raxius The main reasons i suggest these 2 players are that they both PvP as lone hunters, both PVP time to time in groups, both have good experience of RvR and both have interests in trade and ship building. Basically both are all round players imo and are heavily committed to NA. I think people representing different types of gameplay would also be wise, traders, PvP focussed, RvR etc. No single type of player will give the "perfect mix" the trick is i guess to listen to all and try to get to a happy medium.

not my issue

ahh misread nothing to see here

Thinking about it there was a better distribution of players before the safe zones over the map, first thing i was told when i started (pre safe zone) was get out of capital area. Instead of safe zone perhaps make players immune to attack until they hit M+C and kill reinforcement zone altogether.

From reading most posts against seem to be concern for game to grow and new players being allowed to get to a point where they can fight back (which i do not see as a bad thing that they want game pop growth). As for why people are on PvP server yet want to PvE sometimes, I think main reasons of concern are not having "safety" to recover and refit ships etc. Lets face it mission loot now is extremely poor compared to how it was when we would get books and ok upgrades, now is mainly for gold and unlocking ship slots. If you want books now you already have to take risk and hit AI fleets, which i think makes sense (risk vs reward) and is next step towards PvP involvement which i saw as a smart move. For myself game breaker is chain limit, where personally i see crazy amounts of in battle repairs and overpowered repair buffs as being more of an issue. I would think allowing players choice on ammo loadouts to be a better way to limit use; ie make chain weigh more to a limit that people have to decide how that weight is made up (chain,ball,double, pen,grape). This way teams hunting would have to decide load outs and each others roles in battle, maybe also limiting usable (battle ready) repairs/rum could be done same way. Just a thought, have you considered escort missions perhaps where a trade ship is placed in fleet with the player/group and they are tasked to take ship from A to B? This would get people out of safezone and create more interesting mission type.

Can't it be both? Like i said before i don't give a damn either way, if i don't like the new mechanics i simply will play something else. Players camping capitals for easy kills though are not the type of players that should be supported, they do nothing to help the game grow. Also they are not after challenging PvP i think, more they are after easy kills and PvP marks. Proof of this has been what has happened at KPR over the last month or 2, a ship will ask for a fight and then 5 of his mates log in and join the battle.... how is crap like that helping anything? Sure it's a hoot for the gankers, but all it will do is disuade people from fighting them.... then they complain nobody PvP's. I bet it's the same group that complained about chain because when others joined battle they couldn't run like they normally do due to being chained and slowed which is only way to catch them often. I've not played a lot recently but 90% of the time i would go out and solo PvP first as "Dibbler", then as "Herman the German" who i skilled up through 99% PvP. I respect anyone who solo's but gank squads to kill noobs... man thats just kicking puppies.

Simple answer is if you don't like changes or can't adjust then go to PvE server. If things are as unpopular as the forum seems to hint they are I'm sure the online amount of players will be enough to show maybe wasn't such a wise move. Think thats what i will do when can't be bothered pvp-ing, sometimes one simply can't be bothered to run around the map for a few hours for a fight.

Maybe safe zones should go, all missions/AI fights remain open until they over (no timer until closes), also no repairs.

Basically you won't catch them, you will fire your 2 chain shots... they will repair and run. Perfect update for fast build capital camping ships when others join the battle.

Just edited it for truth for ya.

To be honest i don't think the changes will help at all with player retention, the changes seem to be there to favour capital area noob killers (lowering rienforcements and stopping players choosing new missions which will inevitably mean they get hammered first mission that spawns outside safe zone). Perhaps some middle ground would be to allow low ranked players to cancel missions outside the safe area the safe area and the limit comes in when reaching a set rank. For me isn't really any hassle as played without safe area's in past, but can see for newer players may be a bit to much. The only issue i have is with limiting chain shot while not limiting other types of ammo, also repair mechanics are crazy when people have all the buffs. I simply don't understand why the change has been brought in tbh, I would have thought limiting amounts of repairs ships can do in a battle instance would have been a better move. Also limiting Ammo amount and giving weights to each type of ammo so players can choose their "load out". I'll give it a try though when time permits.

Well everyone seems to forget that when a change comes that suits a few loud voices that there are other games out there.

Incredible repairing ships are as retarded as unlimited ammo imo, hardly historical lol. I don't get why all the hating on chain yet insane buff fueled repairing is ok. See how it turns out though is testing after all.

It will just cause Blizzards instead

A magazine weight and also ship supplies weight (repairs) that max out amounts you can carry ready for combat. This way devs can adjust amounts of type ammo/rep supply max amounts by ship type (would also add more diversity to ships, maybe a new trim type with increased capacity). Also can fine tune with ammo/rep weights. Would mean in fleets, load outs of ammo types / ship supplies would add extra layer of diversity and risk.

If the Woolf has northern carpenters you will need 3. If the woolf has expert northern carpenters and steel toolbox you will need 4 etc etc.. If you going to limit ammo then limit them all, let players decide what load out they will have up to a "magazine weight" and balance via shot type weights. Unlimited ammo is no more rediculous than repairing while in battle. The amount that people can repair per use with buffs is to put it mildly silly, If you want to limit ammo amounts then there need to be serious down powering of current repair per use amount.

I think done this way is a bad idea to be honest. Why not just make chain/grape/ball have a weight that adds to overall cargo weight? That way people can decide to carry more ammo but at a price of top speed affected with heavier ship. Seems bad that you limit only 1 ammo type, surely is better to let players decide ammo load out using cargo space as the limiting factor.