Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Bach

Ensign
  • Posts

    1,108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Bach

  1. x10 good First Rates will not beat x25 Store bought Frigates in most port battles. Yet one First rates costs more than all x25 frigates. Your point is still good . But it only holds in an equal 25 v 25 scenario with line fighting tactics favored by the "good" ships. Granted that may be the very battle your are looking for if you have 25 Good ships. But it's not the battle every opponent can or will offer you.
  2. It is certainly easier with line ships but hardly a requirement. Technically every port can be captured with one mortar brig. After that is anything from a Niagara to a Santisima. In considering the instance itself the biggest most numerous ship you can shove into it tends to be standard go. But this formula can be shifted by various sand box possibilities before the instance in many ways. Further, Port battle circle cap points are not weighted by size of ship. Just a simple count of hulls. This leaves various scenarios of sand box strategy where a smaller force can trip up a larger force. Granted, none of this is as easy as just planning a 25v25 instance only strategy but it's not impossible. Trafalgar and the events leading to it are a rough idea. Nelson's arguably superior force was out maneuvered by the French/Spanish force. They lead him on a tour from the Mediterranean to the Carribean and back. Without modern radar and comms the smaller mobile French/Spanish force is dangerous everywhere. Trafalgar eventually occurs when Napoleon orders the French Admiral to engage at all costs. Then came the 25v25 style battle the British favored that ended Bucacenteur and Santisima. Point being, the open world contains many factors beyond armor thickness and gun sizes. A 25 ship fleet of Vic's is actually only dangerous when it is in the correct location at the correct time.
  3. Fair enough but keep an open mind.
  4. Danes attacked a port last week with almost all x25 Aggies. We countered with x15 frigates and some Connies. In a move that surprised them we hit them head on at sea and just sent a minimal force into the PB. We came within 60 points of upsetting that Aggy force with frigates. After that they had to call in another nation to screen for them. But the damage was done. They got predictable and almost lost it all to a smaller force. The gods bled and everyone knew they were mortal after all. Telling me you need to smash x25 maxed out ships into maxed out ships to win, doesn't prove you know more than me. It proves the limits of your creativity. If you are leading the USA battle plans I suggest you step down. Unless you have an SOL producing machine in your pocket you are not up to what they are about to face.
  5. This makes no sense and is old school thinking. The Danes can barely pace 2/3rd of France in port ping pong. Add a single Dutch grinding group to the mix the Danes likely get one ported and a taste of their own medicine from days gone by. Why are old pvp2 guys so scared of the Danes? They don't have OW presence and they have to dual box to fill PBs. About the only thing they have going for them is a 12 hour time shift that protects them from us. If you can flip more ports then they are the ones that lose.
  6. Pretty much the same thoughts of most of the French. We believe, right or wrong, that the whole of France out number the Dutch almost 3-1. The Dutch are good players and good fighters so no one really wants to get into such an offsides contest. So we generally let the ICS v Dutch, with a small Bork contingent, contest go as it is believed to be a fair contest. Even if it came to war with the Brits some French prefer island hopping past the Dutch and letting the good times of the open sea PvP continue as they are. Most French do not value owning land. We had purposely avoided the Swedish lands for the same reasons until they started screening for the Danes this past week. It seems to be a hard concept for some of the old school pvp2 players to grasp but the new French players don't want your lands as much as we just want to PvP with you on the sea. The Dutch are respected in France o7
  7. We are saying the same thing. I was telling them not to feel they had to sail first rates to RvR. Simon was telling them they all need to build maxed out ships. Aggy and 1st rates to RvR.
  8. Condensed version of events for the cheap seats and those munching popcorn so loud they missed it. Initial event that kicked this all off. Some ICS and a Bork captains capture x5 Dane Indiamen carrying cargo. Danes complain and demand a treaty and compensation. Dane treaty offer #1 - We flip each other ports for CMs, agree to non-shooting alliance with Danes and Swedes. France agrees to allow Swedes Bowvenwinds and Leewards. France agrees to honor Dane claims in Virgins, Puerto Rico and Santo Domingo. Danes flip French ports for contention in mock battles holding Basse-Terre and Grand Terre Temporarily. Nation of France ask what temporary means? Danes say "until the Devs put the Alliance system back into the game". Since this is not a real end date and based on Dev forum posts its not happening this meant Danes intended to keep the two counties. All French nations except, ICS clan, counter with give BT and GT back after port flips. One ICS member makes a backroom deal saying ALL of France agrees to the un-ammended deal. Rest of France finds out ICS pledged yes to the original deal for all of France. Negotiations begin to set a real timeline to BT and GT return. Report surface that the same one ICS member cut another side deal with the Danes to flip Bridgetown in early hours to cut other French clans out of the CM marks. Danes flip Bridgetown in Euro time zone and claim it was an accident. After the Bridgetown PB BT and GT still have no return date to French control. French get no end date for return of BT and GT. French feeling back stabbed on both the original deal, the Bridgetown PB and now the fair negotiation in general attack Dane shipping and flip GT back to French. The war is on! Treaty offer #2 - All the same stuff from treaty #1 plus a total alliance to Danes and Swedes to fight the Dutch. Danes keep BT and French get to keep GT because the Danes are feeling nice to them. French Answer with a NO. ICS cuts another side deal, same one ICS negotiator, for special treatment in the war and can still run cargo into and out of Dane ports. They make trade deals and help the Danes with claims the rest of France will quit once one ported. Only one problem. Danes discover they lack the ability to one port the rest of France even without ICS fighting. France starts attacking territories not originally French by the original treaty. 40min Peace Treaty - a third party negotiator negotiates a peace and cease fire. Danes get all their lands honored, swedes get the lands Danes wanted them to have and France get BT and GT that they originally owned and that Danes originally promised to give back anyway. Danes agree and so do all the French except ICS. Same one ICS player rejects any treaty Danes don't get BT. Treaty is agreed. 40 min later the Danes come back and say NO they have to have BT. War is back on! You couldn't make this stuff up folks I'd like to put in a shameless plug for my "rebellion" system in the suggestions area. Sometimes we just need the ability to work things out with other clans inside our own nation. Sometimes that one non-team player clan really needs to go a few pvp rounds with the others to gain some perspective.
  9. Shortest peace treaty ever. LOL
  10. Full frontal assault of Aggies and 1st rates isn't going to work without a serious logistics system for replacements and captains willing to risk them rather than cherish them. Sustainable warfare trains armies. Over extending tactics just ruin them.
  11. I'm not so sure promotion of the biggest clan is a bad thing. Technically they are already the majority of the nation. At the risk of giving Sir Texas a bigger head I would have to say BLACK is a proven example of what can be accomplished when main clans can enforce their will. Now some day BLACK might get toppled by a coalition of angry pirates. But until then the Pirate nation remains a smoother operation than say the USA or France. Mostly due to the fact the other nations have no recourse to end internal strife and toxicity on its own. It just builds up till collapse. Had TF (just an example) been able to exert its will early in the USA, before total blow up, the USA might be running smoother for everyone.
  12. You can certainly call it something other than a rebellion if you want. What it is is a player to player resolution of issues, toxicity and in many cases pecking order. The method you propose is rigid. Not that it is all bad. I don't see how it would solve toxicity or disagreements. It does set the pecking order but I'm not sure it provides a method to change it. If a mass of a nations players did not like the goals and directives how would they change them or are they still stuck into joining another nation? I see multiples more potential for player created sand box content through rebellions than through game master chosen player approved leadership and policing. The issue with toxicity and cooperation is largely a lack of mutual respect. Adding in game cops isn't going to force anyone to respect each other. Letting them fight it out will probably have better odds of gaining mutual respect. Respect has to be earned and the game needs a way for players to earn it with each other. It would take a huge amount of 24/7 Dev sanctioned moderators to accomplish what one week long civil war would do on its own.
  13. Your whole position seems to be based on an assumption that all players involved are trying to "win" the game. Whatever a "win" is considered. For purposes of this discussion I'm assuming "win" = total conquest of the land areas of the game map. i think you are spot on that there is this other class of player Vllad didn't add to his list. How else would you explain the mass tendency for polarization into two balanced powers. It also xplains why the alliance system failed. It ended up forcing the polarized view point on all the players including those that didn't play to "win". This class of players will always strive to set up sides and balance those sides. Ultimately resulting in either total domination or Cold War stalemate and/or peace. As to the Global French stuff you probably need to keep interviewing more French. The issue isn't so much scrubs as simple gaming etiquette. Yes, they did set up a mass French comms before the wipe. Yes they did have a diplomacy section for inter French relationships and a connecting site to the rest of the nations in the game. The long and short of it is that the old PVP2 French from last fall wanted to recreate similar alliances and balanced powers that existed last fall. However, post wipe, there was now several new French clans that did not play France last year and didn't want to recreate the same old alliances. This created an uneasy rift. From there the Danes came in didn't deal with the set up comms. They dealt with French players from last year and set up a deal without consulting the new French clans. The deal was set up to promote polarization and balance of powers. They assumed all would simply go along with this. But the new French don't think in that pattern and don't value polarized balance of powers. You could say they aren't playing to win. But in truth, they aren't playing to stalemate and peace as was proven last year doing this same alliance and balancing crap.
  14. Aye. Every port in the game can be captured by one player in a mortar brig. In this case the problem isn't in finding bigger slices of meat to throw into the x25 1st rate meat grinder. It's in finding a way to pull the power plug on the grinder. You've got to change your approach to RvR. ?
  15. You have isolated down to the non-quitters. For the most part that is the start of a new beginning. But you also need to adjust your way of thinking and from the remainder of your post I don't think you are there yet. Former problems- USA got greedy. You shouldn't have attacked the French holdings in the Gulf. It provided a natural buffer to the British and removed a potential future ally. The same is true for attacking pirate holdings in the Keys. By taking the entire coast from Florida to Texas you decided for them that Pirates and France wouldnt be your allies. Pirates were always going to be your friend or foe but never neutral for long. You needed a solid plan from day one to either fight them or ally with them. USA seem to be trying to do both. You took more land than you needed or were ever going to be able to defend. New suggestions: CMs aren't a problem. When the US congress approached Joshua Humphrey to build a navy for the fledgling USA they were shocked when he refused to build SOLs. Instead he built them the Constitution class frigates. The same reason Humprey did that is pretty much the same problem you have in the game now. So stop thinking about SOLs as primary weapons. John Paul Jones was not well liked. He also wasn't a good politician or merchant. But what he was is a great naval commander. The revolutionary war congress understood backing him was far better than arguing or ignoring him. Hurt feelings took a back seat to war success. Somehow you need to get the USA nation in game to recognize players that succeed in battle and give them backing. Econ is great. Logistics are vital to war. But in the end someone has to sail the ships and lead the battles. The best man for the job just might not be winning any popularity contests.
  16. Solo players are not Nuetral. No one is Nuetral to the rebellion. The rebels can attack the solo player. The solo player can attack the rebels. He can even become a one man rebellion if he buys a clan and then buys a grievance writ for his clan. It becomes so any player can rebel. It is just easier for populated clans to rebel. You don't honestly consider the environment in USA Global welcoming to beginners as it is now do you? This is about cleaning up the toxicity of the game. In the long run this will create a better environment for new players.
  17. A bit complicated and too rigid. A clan willing to rebel needs to accept the judgement of nation mates. That judgement may change on the fly subject to their actual actions in conducting the rebellion. In other words, what if the nation discovers they are just ass holes rebelling for reasons other than they initial gave. You method has them once again hard coded and locked into one rigid course. I do like the 24-48 hour notice to it though. That is good. Players need a warning that a rebellion is brewing. Perhaps they buy the grievance writ and upon use it sends out email to the nation a rebellion is pending in 24 hours. Then during the week it last there is a little notification on the game screen. Otherwise, I wouldn't put any restrictions on a rebellion at all. It should be purely players creating in game sand box effects to other players actions/words.
  18. What it solves is the endless arguments, toxic chats and reduces the need for nation hopping. Internet MMOs are just semi-controlled chaos without boundaries. As a professor once to,d me regarding the Internet "Annonymity without responsibility often results in people becoming disrespectful idiots to each other". Unless the Devs are willing to hire an army of moderators to police every aspect of the game we need another solution. Hard coded rules forcing players into alliances they don't want wasn't the answer. It just polarized the game into two factions. What we need is an equally chaotic solution that puts responsibility to players actions and toxicity that is controlled by other players. In short, it's easy to be toxic when the other guy can't do anything about it. It's easy to be unreasonable or ignore your nation when your nation mates can't do anything about it. But when they can rebel suddenly there is now consequences to players actions. Consequences bring responsibility for those actions. Rebellions make players answerable to their piers in the nation. Players become more cooperative and nicer to each other.
  19. Peoples of nations don't go into or risk rebellions for personal gains. If you are willing to rebel it's because you want a better Nation and nothing more.
  20. War Update: French civil war continues with the French Republicans in the North (Bork, Purge, Rovers, WO and TCD) and the French Royalists (ICS) in the South. Dane war continues to be a ping pong game of ports. Following the breakdown of the second peace talks the French Republicans went on the offense and decided to start flipping port outside traditional French territory. Various Battles for the Virgin Islands ensued. Trade has been shut down in many areas or at least become less safe with both sides losing cargo ships. OW skirmishes tend to favor the French. The first attempt by the French to flip the Virgin Islands was met with heavy Basic Cutter resistance by the Danes. As the Basic cutters can generate an entire groups worth of hostility using only NPCs, which are plentiful in Road Town, the offensive was stopped at 86% after 6 hours. Then there were some shenanigans. The Virgin Island county was flipped in Danish prime time with unknown (unclanned alt) French attackers providing the hostility kills of willing to die Danes. Screen shots were collected and Tribunal is investigating. Port battle occurred early AM EST. Swedish forces screened for the Danish fleet. Port battle was 25 Danish SOLs vs 15 French with some held out by Swedish screeners. French forces with drew and multiple OW battles ensued. Swedish screening fleet was sunk as well as 11 Danish ships. French losses were 3 ships that valiantly fought to the end. Dutch war is mostly being prosecuted by the French Royalists and they have been battle for Cumana for a few days. Word is heavy OW fighting while trying to gain hostility. The counter moves forward and back as both sides are in a heavy give and take confrontation. Rumor is the OW battles favor the Dutch but the Royalists have superior Port Battle prowess as evidenced by Port of Spain battle a week ago. (Someone from ICS would have to add more detail) Other than the basic cutter crap and alt flip shenanigans this has been a lot of fun. Most pvp fun in quite awhile. If I may suggest you all are to worried about owning ports. Get out there and attack someone that can give you a challenge. It is what this game was made for. So yes, Brit and Pirates stop double teaming the USA. Its time one of you two throw down the gauntlet to the other and get it on! Don't be afraid of going head to head with the other power group your size. You will love it!
  21. Anything that allows players to control and resolve their own in game issues is a much better thing than hard coded exploitable stuff that forces players to do certain things.
  22. It would add player controlled sand box content. At the same time I think it would also help to clean up a lot of the chat toxicity. People tend to act a lot nicer to each other when the guy across the table is actually allowed to punch you in the nose when you get insulting. As wild as it may sound, letting them actually have the threat of a rebellion over their assets may help nations work together better.
  23. Reading the recent USA problems thread in global gave me this idea. We need Rebellions and revolutions. The USA had them, the French had them, the British had them. Pretty much every nation has troublesom or often progressive evolutionary rebellions. In NA we have teams that represent clan factions of Nations. These clans don't always get along. It actually hurts game play that they can't just fight it out and resolve their differences. There are entire threads about it going on and on. But if clan factions could actually rebel or otherwise fight for control of their nations things would not only work smoother but could get a lot more interesting and multi dimensional. I propose adding Rebellions to the game. A clan wishing to rebel purchases a grievance writ from the admiralty. On use the writ places a "Rebel" tag on all that clans players in game for 1 week. It also allows green on green contests where that clan can attack nation mates and be attacked by other nation mates. At the end of the week a new grievance writ must be purchased or the rebellion ends. This can allow nations to work out control issues and internal political strife on their own. Rebellion writs should be very expensive.
×
×
  • Create New...