Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Bach

Ensign
  • Posts

    1,108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Bach

  1. It seems to have created several spin off pvp events in a few locations. It's not that the goal was sinking ships in front of MT. Had the Pirates not shown in a 25 ship near max fleet we would have just as happily went into the port battle. The tactic just gives us the option to react to the opposing teams choice,. BLACK seemed to have opted for Death Star fleet. So we reacted and went to the secondary target. i think there are many of us having fun and it was good to see the Brits getting into it. We learned some new things as well. One is that our tactic had one huge flaw in it that we were very greatful the Pirates fleet didn't figure out. If so they could have potentially had more fun than us. 😊
  2. @admin I do see the potential but also see a few problems. #1 If the map resets and nation ports are frozen all conquest players would logically join Spain to be able to teleport around the map. Resulting in almost all war companies joining the Spanish nation. USA, Dutch, Sweden, Pirates and Denmark would be very unattractive nations for war companies. So war companies would be centered in Spain, GB and France. #2 Players using regular clan warehouses may be reluctant to switch into war companies if they can not maintain their original non-war clan at the same time. #3 Econ is effected as a strong war clan can capture all the ports producing certain raw materials. For example the East India war company could own all White Oak producing ports and max the taxes on this commodity to all others. The Hanseatic league could control a region of the map by gaining all OAK producing ports and raising taxes 25% thereby driving out all non-Hanseatic Econ players. #4 Taxes on trade goods can result in wealth hoarding by war companies. example Textile mills or Parisian furniture with a 25% tax become problematic commodities to anyone other than that war clan. Not all bad but something to consider.
  3. Im sure some tactician on your nation can explain this better than a few lines of type. It was about forcing the enemy to move out of position to expose weaker units. If you don't move your main fleet we take the port. If you do move the fleet to defend we can attack the flank as long as we're more mobile. The result was multiple pirate kills by French players while the pirate fleet was otherwise occupied elsewhere. I even got a nice screenie of our squadron parked in front of the fort at Mortimer Town. Closest real life thing I could relate it too is possible the pre D-Day assaults on the beaches of Upper Normandy that convinced the Germans that the allies wanted those beaches for a short run to Berlin. When in reality they wanted the lighter defended beaches of lower Normandy. The Germans moved the panzers to the upper area for defense and the allied attack was in the lower with success.
  4. Couple of points: I like Hodo's take on WWII and Pearl Harbor. I'm of the opinion the USA knew the attack was coming and purposely stalled the Japanese declaration. It was awfully convenient that both the modern fleet and the bomber squadrons had all been ordered out of port. The Arizona was a WW1 era dreadnaught. It was never doing anything in the modern fleet. In the case the similarity would be that NA France always expected Denmark to break the treaty. As such, everything valuable had already been moved out of the region. Port Battles shouldn't be called PVE. To some they are the height of game play. But the port doesn't choose when it is flipped. During the first Franco-Dane trade war it was almost all pure off hour opponent flips. They came in, they sunk NPCs and the next day that sat in a half empty port battle for an hour. Then we came and sunk NPCs and the next day sat in a half empty port battle for an hour. This went on for a month. We learned a few things. Like, to master off hour port battle ping pong you need to master PVE. We also learned that when neither side is actually losing ships they port you ping pong are actually irrelevant, other than basing for the next pong, because you don't need the port to build ships.
  5. Most ridiculous post patch statement yet. What it will do is the exact same thing we're doing for the pirates right now. Its just going to remove the PVE players. Most of which already just joined the Danes. There are no hard core pvp players living out of the French ports. If they were they would have been sailing 2hours a day to pvp off Mortimer Town. I abandoned almost all my French ports over a month ago to free up slots for free ports. I'm probably not alone. No one is actually going to get hurt by sustained night flips anymore. The Devs did a pretty good job in the way they adjusted the econ system. The game is now more about pvp and less about owning dots like last year.
  6. Well, WO asking "HEY DONT SHOOT THESE GUYS" is a bit different from ICS saying "HEY WE'RE GIVING THOSE GUYS TWO COUNTIES THAT SOME OF YOU HAPPEN TO BE LIVING IN". But I get your point.
  7. Clearly Bork and ICS have some issues to work out. This will be a good chance for that. Purge never had any interest in controlling France or making ICS look bad. We didn't know you well enough one way or the other at the time. But Purge has never wanted to be in charge of France then or now. So there were no secret plans to take over. That must be someone else's paranoia or disinformation campaign. RvR is something I think ICS valued for the most part. Possibly more than most of the rest of France. I think it may, in a way, have been driving the wedge between. From the beginning it seemed the desire to ally with the Danes, for what some considered a high cost, was RvR driven. That's not a bad thing. But I think it created some of the conflict. In any event now is your chance for a RvR on your terms and I'm sure the rest of the French don't really mind the game play. I really hope you guys have fun and have found a better place you like. It never really sat well with me that you were never really getting to do much. But you have to at least share some of the blame in that.
  8. Im curious to figure out how the game social dynamic works better. In different instances Nations have tried to generate situations where we PvP our neighbors but don't RvR them. Mixed levels of success and I'm not really sure which actually worked better. Pirates moved into the USA and took Georgia. This then determined terms for PvP with a weaker nation where the Pirates simply chose not the take more ports. Is this more preferable to a treaty that stipulated PvP on the OW but restricted RvR? Pirates essentially used this same method on GB. Denmark chose to protect Sweden in RvR by treaty that allowed for PvP. But did this actually work well or not? It may have but there are so few Swedes it's hard to tell. France chose to not take Dutch ports but to just PvP with them on the sea. No treaty and no show of RvR force to determine terms. From forum posts it appears this method did not work. In fact it probably turned out to be the worst of the three as there was never any clear expectations set. to be honest I am leaning that the Pirates simple and direct method works best. Though it's arguable the Dane treaty helped the Swedes it's difficult for new players or even transferring clans to play with existing treaties pinning them down. The pirate method doesn't pin anyone down. You simply break out of it when strong enough. The treaty version has no flexible way to get out of it. If I had to do it again I honestly think the Dutch would have appreciated it more had the French just moved in and took a county like the Pirates had done. How would you go about setting up a PvP with RvR restriction situation and what are your thoughts on them?
  9. That's just Red Duke. He gets so few chances to wave the white flag. I'm pretty sure there is no "rainbow coalition". Have you ever tried to coordinate anything with the Brits or USA? This is just about Pirates needing a worthy opponent. You backed the USA into a corner. Got the Brits so flustered a bunch of them left the nation. Made a post declaring your victory and the terms the Brits could live under. All that added together just speaks out that Pirates need more competition. Well here we are. The new Dane, former AUSEZ, former Dutch, former French, Swedish coalition are just going to liven things up. It will be good for the game to get some conflict going and there are enough French in the backfield to play with them. The night flips will be annoying but it is what it is. If we did this thing right we would all get together and divide up clans by PvP/RvR/PVE and time zone tendencies and balance it all out. Eventually the sand box will get there on its own.
  10. It's an honorable thing to maintain a reasonable respect for your nation mates agreements with others. For example, when BLACK made agreement with WO. Technically it didn't include any other French clans. But it was still respected by the others. Now it may be a loophole that SCAR, HOST and DICS are not in the agreement but you certainly can not say they were not aware of it. Also, I find it unlikely that SCAR, HOST and DICS were ever signatory to the original CCCP-BLACK agreement they claim to be honoring. So it's a bit of the new clans coming in and then choosing which of the existing agreements they wish to honor and which not. Nothing wrong with that. But the possibility to honor both agreements did exist in the 72hr break clause. Not implementing it before CCCP ships participate in attacks on France falls squarely on CCCP captains shoulders. Does any of the that matter in the grand scheme? Perhaps not. But much of the drama around the first Dane v France conflict centered around honor of agreements made. So in this particular instance it was a battle of whom could hold out NOT breaking the agreement longer. Turns out CCCP lost that contest. Though I personally think it was due to much external influences.
  11. My play? It's for all out conflict sweetheart and I'm the nice one of the bunch picking that. Are we a PvP nation living out of Free Ports or an RvR nation? We're a PvP nation that prepared to live out if free ports from the first day the Danes attacked us the first time. Thinking we're going to bother with RvR ping pong or that it it will effect us will be your mistake.
  12. Hehe. No need for to much drama we all knew this was coming eventually. Well it may not be fair to blame Chialang. Seems Fasti was behind the Pearl Harbour move. Sure we may have attacked pirates who were allied to the Danes. But that doesn't remove the 72hr notice clause in our NAP. Honor would have dictated simply dropping the 72hr notice and then proceeding. The Pearl Harbour style attack just makes CCCP look bad.
  13. @Chialang Swedes Basse Terre 31% hostility yesterday Denmark player sinks French Cargo ship yesterday Denmark Grand Terre 16.9% hostility today Please get your nations honor in order. Thank you
  14. I think you are spot on of the nature of the problem. We really are not at "global" population server. its more a USA zone server. Best thing we could do to try to remedy that is probably adjust for the Aussie/Asia players by concentrating them into the more dense packed area of the map. Essentially the center. Somehow we need to get the players in these time zones closer together and on opposing teams so they can have some fun. Currently that would be to get them near the center of the map. Probably divided up on the pirate/Brit teams. Or maybe even a USA contingent vs a pirate contingent.
  15. So far I have to say I like most all the new changes. Pvp is working well. RvR needs a few tweaks here and there but all in all I am finding this fun and challenging. One thing I wish wasn't happening is all the complaining by players who expected this to just be the continuation on last years PVP2. It's just slowing us all down with useless emotional drama. I could get into a long list of differences between pre and post wipe but I won't. I'm just going to say that every nation is viable and has a role to play. The easiest way to get some fun going is not to worry so much about winning port battles. Just go out there and make something happen win or lose. Try NOT to do exactly what you would have done on old pvp2. Get creative and use the new rule set. Short of Spain I can't think of one nation out there that doesn't have huge potential and that's just because Spain has no players. What would your strategy be if you were The King of your nation?
  16. Typically I travel solo and arm my cargo ships. I've gotten jumped a few times and fought off/sunk the attackers. I don't believe in speed build merchants post patch. Your just not fast enough anyway so I just build them to fight. But more to the point. Yes, a player should plan on how to go the route solo but that doesn't mean he can't call for an escort at critical locations as needed. If national players are ready and willing to provide the escort/lookout things should generally work out in favor of the cargo hauler.
  17. This is a good point. The actual escort rarely needs to be anywhere but at the end points of they travel route.
  18. Now that you know what they are doing have you figured out how to counter it next time?
  19. I'm sorry but it's not an exploit it is a tactic. When you let go of that and figure out tactics to beat it you will be able to move forward again. When Napoleon invaded Russia the Russian didn't fight but did a fighting withdrawal never intending to fight the French. They "kited" the French army all the way back to Moscow wasting time until the Russian winter arrived. Napoleon started with 500,000 men and lost almost all of them to that Prussian time waste. He got back to France with 9000 men. Now the Prussians following him fought and they won the war. Sam Houston used the Alamo sacrifice and a fighting withdrawal to waste the time and resources of Santa Anna's Mexican army. It got them off balance, over stretched and weak. When Sam Houston finally attacked he won the end battle in 5min and Texas beat Mexico for its independence. Delays and fighting withdrawals are all tactics smaller forces have used in the past to deal with bigger stronger forces. It's not for the game masters to prevent all these tactics. It is for the players to counter them first and if it isn't possible to counter then it is time for the devs to step in. The tactics you described are not impossible for players to counter.
  20. I'm sorry but I like the fact that the devs have taken a mostly "hands off" approach to the sand box. In the long run it will make for a better game. Almost every in game problem can be solved by the players themselves if they try. Some alt spamming chat? Block him. Some alt in a cutter calling off ships leaving the capital? Work out a deal with a foreign friend to help deal with it. Get you own pirate spy alr, log it in and deal with it. Simply use a different port. Ignore him. Many ways to deal with it but even the devs aren't going to stop players from being able to make alt spies. Savanna seems to be a huge point of the arguement. Just flip it back. Black really can't stop you from flipping it. They can only try to stop you from winning the subsequent battle. If you think your going to sail over there in any old time frame, grind it to a flip and then win the port battle with x25 first rates then the first thing you have to understand is that you have chosen to play that style of combat they are most prepared for.
  21. Vizzini isn't all wrong. How players approach a problem has more to do with things than RvR mechanics. Getting Organized is a large part of that. Where he is wrong, or at least too specific, is in the approach to creating organization. Organization does not need to be done at the mandatory whole Nation level. The idea of the whole nation needing to pulling together as one is what is holding you back. France didn't get paralyzed when one large clan disagreed with several smaller ones and we split goals. They moved on in their own directions. France didn't fold when Danes "night flipped" French ports or when the AUZES "half night flipped" Haiti. Neither events were all that earth shattering and the individual clans of France each found different ways of dealing with it at the clan levels because they were not expecting a "French Council" to guide them through it. 65% of the clans came back and started punching the Danes in the face. 35% cut deals with the Danes and did other things. The nation still didn't collapse because it was clan based and clan goal accepting. To this day France has only lost one small Clan that I can think of and that was following the initial Dane take over of Basse Terre. The majority have argued and fought with each other in Nat chat often. Sometimes really nasty. But they haven't broken because the organization level that evolved was clan based and in the end accepting of different clan goals and attitudes. Nothing required a 100% vote for the others to go along with it. WO made a deal with BLACK. The rest of us didn't have that deal but we honored it because a brother clan was working on a goal it had. ICS made deals with the Danes. The rest of us didn't honor it but we also didn't try to stop ICS from playing they way they wanted too by hopping nations and shooting them. Just reluctantly accepted that they had a different view. Part of that strength is that there is no "French Council" trying to control it all. Nation "councils" are incredibly slow reacting machines. Trying to get 100% votes and unity on global fast developing events is nearly impossible in democratic systems. So if you want a democratic system you should devise methods of looser requirements and above all figure out how to be more accepting of other clans goals, deals and such that you might not 100% agree. But 60-80% of your nation working on the same non-specific goal may not be as powerful and 100% on a specific goal. But its more flexible, faster to react and less prone to becoming politically brittle enough to break easily. So what if those guys over there think we MUST have 25 1st rates or we can't RvR! Just continue your privateer life. Support them if and when they do get 25 1st rates in play but otherwise do your own thing while they do theirs. If you are part of that single minded clan that is positive the nation has to have a 25 1st rate death star fleet then be a bit more open minded that others might not see it that way. Start building 1st rates and hand them out. Maybe they will come over to your way of thinking. Maybe they will prove you wrong and start having successes in Connies in ways you hadn't thought of. When you stop trying to force the rest of the nation to play one specific way more options start to appear anyway.
  22. "Death of a Server" in any game almost always comes born out of boredom and stagnation. Very few pvp players ever actually get pushed out of a game. They just switch teams. In EVE they just switch regions and rebuild. True pvp players don't run off because they lost a series of fights or wars. But they often do hop ship. Like the gentlemen posted above, the global server just had a lot of players "hopping teams". Currently no fighting is going on hardly at all. Just look at global contention when you log in. Hardly any teams doing much of anything. Some of that is the movement and relocation logistics of the players that switched teams. Boredom and stagnation are the real problems. It almost always comes down to players making bad choices and ruining the game for themselves. Total "no shooting anything" Peace treaties in a war game are some of the dumber ideas ever held by players. But look at them all. We find countless ways to stop hard core pvp and get warships off the seas. Then we complain when the die hard pvp players end up finding only noobs on the seas. If a nation attacks your noobs or econ haulers sail over to their ports and punch them in the face. Suddenly no one will be chasing noobs and cargo ships and a bunch of real pvp will erupt.
  23. My answer to complaint thread #578,123,655 I'm not aware of very many actual noobs in the game at all. The few I do know of are NOT interested in any special protections. They just want to play the game. Putting them in protected areas, shoving them into corners or otherwise making it so they don't need any help at all ISN'T ACTUALLY HELPING THEM. It's a counter productive concept that new players need lasting protections till they level. It just leads to exploitable mechanics, new players that lack the actual skills to survive in the real game and the rest of their nation ignoring them but not feeling bad about it because there is a mechanic that is supposed to protect them. If a new player speaks up in Nat chat about being clubbed or otherwise having trouble just talk to them, help them yourself and show them how to not get ganked. If that doesn't work send them to the French team because we'll take them, we'll pay attention to them and put in the short time it takes to teach them to play. Solving the problems of new players is seldom any great puzzle. Most of the time its just 10min of explaining to them what to look for or what they might be doing wrong.
  24. I'm just not understanding much of this conversation at all. Only half of France is still made up of French players from the end of last years PvP2. We didn't do anything to the Dutch last year. Im not aware of any Dutch-France peace treaty or why we would even need one. Who is the French who are oppressing you?
  25. I understand where you are coming from and can see your concerns. But there are a few facts you have out of order. Not greatly but still not accurate. The reason we ever had an agreement with BLACK regarding Les Cayes and PaP is because WO actually WAS sinking BLACK ships on a regular basis right off Mort. BLACK is generally a pretty well run operation. Instead of fighting us on their seas they made a deal that put us into GB seas by keeping us in Les Cayes as much as possible. That deal has since ended. Its no great difference whether France fights Brits or Pirates. Its just preference. This week PURGE has sunk several Brit Indefats and other Frigs while sailing 6th rates. Last night they finally lost x2 Niagaras while sinking yet another Indefat with them. So its not like Purge are losing ships in mass. To be honest, trading frigs for 6ths is not even losing. No one is talking tough because we have a NAP with Danes. We have no deals with the Swedes or the Dutch. It makes no sense to take Dutch ports. They offer PVP and are very good opponents. Talking their land would be detrimental and we don't need a treaty to see it. Lastly, no clan in France is actually trying to hurt the GB nation. You just happen to be there. Its a by product of having grabbed to much land before VSC joined the Brits.
×
×
  • Create New...