Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Ruby Rose

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

1 Follower

About Ruby Rose

  • Rank
    Able seaman
  • Birthday 10/02/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Watching the world Burn in Hellfire

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. if u set it to sink a specific nations players u may end up getting those players to leave the game u'd end up having all nations picking on a single nation just as it was before the eco patch and will cause the same problems except ur going to reward those for picking on a single nation. which in return will get people to leave the game because most of the server is sitting outside their ports waiting to kill them.
  2. i'm a pve and pvp player and i hate the new dubloons system, u the devs and admins turned a pvp server into more pve then pvp. u give no worthwhile incentive now to engage in pvp. and reward pvp with nothing unless u loot every player ship u sink. and now trader ships from the ai give u 10 times or more for a fraction of the time to deal with them. there is no balance no reward. pvp is shot and broken now and pve is what both servers are focused on. in my honest opinion u have ruined a good game.
  3. most of the lowbie trader snow ur talking about more then 70% of the time is a max lvl player making easy trips
  4. WG 's WoT, WoWS, and WoWP are all based on a pay to win system, to advance quickly or to have premium ammo and tank its a real world money exchange. with how WG has made its games based on WW2 has been more towards lining their own pockets by using vehicles that never really saw much of combat in WW2 like the Maus as an example. not to mention the fact there was no defender version of the IS-6 or specifically the JS-6 heavy tank, or many other premium variants of tanks on their roster. as it stands WG is a failure of a company in its regards to the era they built their game on. we the players don't want NA to end up pay to win or to have the devs ignore our input into designing a game that the majority of players want to play. this includes features like economy, UI and types of ships. we the players shape aa game that is in development into something people specifically consumers would be interested in playing
  5. u misunderstood my question to the devs i used EA wargaming and Dice as they destroyed games and never really listened to their players and ran their games into the ground
  6. question for the devs and the company behind them. do you game labs still stay by your focus "Meaningful games allowing players to be the hero, escape from reality, and experience something they cannot achieve in real life. Meaningful games are also easier to market and sell. We don't develop time wasters and clickers. We work only on what people want to experience." if this is so then why is naval action such a failure, if u were working on what people want to experience you would have a much higher player base am i wrong. have you the devs fallen into the stigmata of thoses u used to work with in the gaming industry like EA, wargaming and Dice, will you the devs destroy NA the same way EA destroyed Command and conquer. or will you listen to your players and build a game we the players the consumers would love to play.
  7. huge flaw right now is ports are only spawning their own nations fleets closes nation capitals to those ports would be farming ai in that area and inadvertently raising hostility in the process. its alot less to do about missions and more to do with just the pve grind now.
  8. question for the devs will u be putting the patch up for a vote to either keep changes or roll them back based on majority vote of your games players. i find this to be the best way to satisfy the most players
  9. the snow cant fill out its own cannon decks without being overweight
  10. its not just a name change its a value change its unbalanced and makes all those pvp rewards the equivalent of pve, eg before finding a navy hull or navy structure off of a kill was worth alot more then it will be now since u can get the "marks" for them from pve combat and tasks
  11. we just need the old currency back it was a working system why get rid of something that was working.
  12. probably a ship that was still on the market before price change its apparently a bug since players cant cancel those auctions due to a bug
  13. i agree with intrepido the admiralty shop needs to be properly balanced to the eco patch if they want players to stick around, these costs for modules and books are more expensive then they were with combat and pvp marks
  14. already back on page 7 on suggestions so not likely a topic that was well talked about and SOL from pve server isnt the same clan from PVP. sad to say it but making 3-1st rates extremely expensive to replace makes them less likely to be used outside of reinforcement zones
  15. so basicly fleet is a liability and now another mechanic turned against the pve type players on the pvp server
  • Create New...