RubyRose
-
Posts
95 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by RubyRose
-
-
On 9/6/2019 at 10:29 AM, admin said:
Somehow it is correct
3 raids per weekend in total: 1 per top nation.
why top why not make it random between all nations otherwise ur just pushing away the largest portion of the server player base
-
On 9/6/2019 at 9:40 AM, Sea Archer said:
Do I understand this correctly? You cannot screen, AI will suddenly appear in port and start the battle?
I understood that everything is done on war server to increase pvp (even this 20min timer), now we are forced to fight ai. I understand that you want to keep the big nation busy, to take some pressure from the smaller, but I don't think it is the right way to turn ports neutral when loosing the battle. If its a raid, AI should take half of all players items in the warehouses and from clan warehouse, but never capture the port.
We will see how it works....
It will be an event only for the vet players, that have big ships and can crew them.
that would just have people moving their items to useless ports that have nothing in them tax or investment wise to prevent what u suggested
-
On 9/6/2019 at 8:30 AM, admin said:
Raiders will attack most developed ports of top 3 nations.
This means they wont use any frontline mechanicsso the idea is to trash the large nations and kill off the remaining server population to a port battle by AI that dont show up on the map as an incoming fleet rather just materialize when the battle starts
-
1
-
-
lol the port bonuses are fine as they are there is no grounds to have them removed
-
they'd never take Vera Cruz
-
my mistake boss comment and post withdrawn
-
deleted
-
3 hours ago, admin said:
You do not need a key if you open the the chest in the raid mission origin.
Having said that - we want to make raiding chest carriers interesting without lots of hoops jumping.Asked him - he said its fine with him.. Loot is loot. It does not matter if it is on the docks or already loaded into the ship.
if the port of origin in a nation control port then opening the chest if captured from the raiders becomes impossible because u cant enter another nation port unless sailing a trading ship
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Spikes said:
Yeah, nothing really game-breakingly wrong with the current setup. Instaflips have been around for ages. Not to mention large 1st rate hostilities take some time and it only takes 1 person to spot it and sound off.
My humble suggestion if required in this suggestion thread would be capping the percentage at say 25% per mission? So no matter what it would require 4 missions? Would not effect a shallow as all you need is 4 separate missions with a couple 1sts in them but.../shrug
wouldnt really change it just be 4 battles stacked with the same ships that it would take to insta in 1 battle
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, van der Clam said:
True, to which I would suggest my footnote option of applying the penalty to the BR of the ship used, rather than by rate.
The benefit is the longer a hostility order takes, the longer time we have to find the mission and interrupt it. As it is now, insta-flip is awful. There literally is zero defense against hostility missions for shallow ports....which in turn means zero pvp as well. Of course, ppl will say you can insta-flip if you have enough ppl in multiple orders at the same time. But kudos to them for having the population to do so. Zergs will zerg anyway...unless there is some penalty they get for "over-population" or something. Also, how long would an order take if the max number of hostility points you got using a 1st rate were no more (but actually less) as you would get for using a Surprise?
TLDR; making hostility orders take longer will provide more time to defend ports and create more pvp in that area. (Otherwise, just remove the Combat News warning, as it is completely useless.)
if i'm not mistaken but doesnt BL4CK have like 80 members they could easily insta flip ports if their active enough to do so. soo not really a zerg nation. and why only bring this up now about shallows when its clear its only to benefit BL4CK who wanted to get the port from spain when we took 3 ships to set la guanja.
if nations had issues with shallow port hostilities with deep water ships actually existed it would be been brought up long before now -
u lost alot of ships, speaks volumes of BL4CK ability to protect ports
-
4 hours ago, van der Clam said:
So the best way, imo, is to make the hostility per minute change on all hostility orders somehow. Maybe there should be a penalty for using a larger ship than the port can handle....like the XP penalty for using a larger ship than your enemy.
For Shallow Ports using the following rates would lower your hostility point gain as such:
- 7th rates - 6th rates = no penalty
- 5th rates = minus 20% hostility points
- 4th rates = -30% hp
- 3rd rates = -45 % hp
- 2nd rates = -60 % hp
- 1st rates = -75% hp
Somehow on shallow ports the hostility points gained using larger ships should EQUAL the same as using shallow water ships....(or just barely be more).
Or, better yet, tie this penalty to the BR of the ship....the higher the BR, the lower the HP gain.
there is no benefit to changing shallow water ports when its been known for over 2 years that u can use deep water ships to flip shallow water ports. nassau is a great example its been flipped multiple times with deep water ships
-
4 hours ago, Archaos said:
We flipped Morgan's Bluff with 12 people (if I can remember correctly) and it took just 2 battles, one with 7 people the other with 5, both battles simultaneously, so for all intents it was still an insta flip.
remember prior to release the hostility meter from battles was increased for testing purposes.
-
we have seen BL4CK clan members behavior in hostility missions repeatedly dying intentionally not only in the Spanish hostility for neuvitas but also in our hostility at la guanja earlier today, this is a clan who is intentional or more specifically contractually dying to trade a port with another nation. which by the admin's previous ruling on a similar type. is against the rules and 2 clans payed the price for it. i believe since its already known that this is unacceptable behavior that BL4CK knowingly broke this game's ruling should face similar punishment, for repeatedly and intentionally dying in hostility missions to ai/players. to either help an enemy nation to set a port battle or to hinder another pirate clan from setting a port battle. this shouldnt be tolerated
-
from same tribunal this is refering to the contractual exchange of neuvitas from spain to pirates
does that not make it against game rules to trade ports, or more specifically to die intentionally to either hinder or excel another nations hostility percentage for a port.
this was the admin's verdict on the tribunal post-
3
-
-
seagul's name is longer then the current letter cap for new players for character names as a result it comes up blank when in battles
which i believe should be fixed
-
2
-
-
its more funny that they complain when someone pointed out another nation was raising hostilites on their chat and then complain even more and tribunal post that its an "alt bait and trap (not the clans) by russia just because french players ended up getting sunk or engaged.
-
1
-
-
considering most alt account u cant tell apart from main accounts
-
oh no the small nation of france is being attacked by 2 nations and are crying on the forums about how unfair it is
-
28 minutes ago, captain smile said:
Today the French alt Ramses 2 ( Russian guy from NN Clan ) Invite us to go against the flip of Pointe a Pitre( flipped by Swedish) , but infact there is a Russian 1st rate Fleet (7 ships )hiding near, waiting that he gives the good momento to charge, it is clearly an Alt-Trap .
Fair Wind
Captain Smile
so do u have proof that this alt ramses 2 is actually an alt of a player in NN like where is the evidence to backup ur claim
-
i give no flipps for france
-
28 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:
ewww thats a wired keyboard go get better tastes darlin
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Salty Sails said:
You should sail a lot of ships, to learn how they handle in battles. To check their weak points and the strongest advantage.
XP means nothing in late game, if you have no clue to turn trough the wind with bigger ships or to angle against broadsides.
So the rank gives you the ability, but not the knowledge.
its more for the smaller players that havent been playing thru early access the ones not looking for a grind from hell, thats worse then world of warcraft interms of lvl grind. the time it takes to get to max rank in NA u could lvl 3 charaters to 120 on wow. and this is driving players away its too grindy its not fun to constantly having to grind xp for days or even weeks to get to that next lvl to be able to field their next larger ships. from what i have seen watching the steam charts and reading in nation and global chats new players dont like the grind required for the game and arent likely to stick around because of it when there are quicker grind games out there.
-
21 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:
Them too.... Best to go down fighting rather than cowering like a dog, no?
Besides, its only pixels... Real life might actually be scarier at this point!
there i fixed it
NPC Port Battles Explained. War server and Peace server information
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
u dont seem to realize whats at stake here.
1. your risking what remains of the player population on a major update.
2. if this backfires the game wont have many players left to salvage it.
3. loss of larger ports especially to large nations like RUS, GB, Dutch it will likely force players to quit. could easily loose hundreds of players to this.
4. why arent the smaller nations being targeted this type of feature should put every nation at risk not just the large nations,
5. these raid should abide by the game mechanics which include the frontline system.
6. why not just turn war server into a pve server with a pvp flag system. thats basicly what ur turning it into.