Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Capitalism

Members
  • Content Count

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capitalism

  1. lol oh noes! People complaining about getting stern camped resulted in the last time we got a complete rework of the damage model. And for those of you who haven’t been playing long enough, or choose to be ignorant, this resulted in the near disappearance of lower rated ships on the OW, even in the shallows, because bigger guns always won. This then resulted in 5th rates in shallows just to get people back into that part of the map... Don’t let your own inability to learn how to deal with a small ship on your stern result in you asking for something that will ultimately hurt the game again.
  2. Leave it alone. It and the privateer are the only reason we see 6th rates on the OW... if you want to gripe about its role, gripe about the repair meta and the need to “rebalance” guns in order to actually sink people in the age of reprinting ships multiple times through battle.
  3. Nope. Game mechanics should be in place to discourage domination, but persistence is important.
  4. Re-enable Small/Large/Duel/Tournament Rooms DLC
  5. But you just recommended yourself that we take control perk to accomplish this exact scenario? I'm confused now about the intent of the mechanic...
  6. Why limit it to only the #1 on the conquest board? Just make everything clan-based instead of nation-based, problem solved.
  7. So the only counter to defensive tagging will be to run control and having control will make the damage counter irrelevant? Another question that crossed my mind, will the damage counter be visible or hidden, and if visible, shown for both sides? Like, if I've met my damage quota on one player will that preclude me from leaving but not the other ship I've been firing on intermittently? I dislike very much the unpredictability of magic battle over just because some hidden counter wasn't filled in time... it's just so game-y. I'd think that distance-based control-for-all would make far, far more sense and be so much easier to implement and understand for all players.
  8. I think you misunderstood my comment... if the rationale is only down to different buying power between currencies, and developers had no choice in the matter, then the relative price between games and DLC between countries would be consistent across games and developers. As we can see, that's not the case... U.S. dollar and Euro payers are paying 75% more for Redoutable, and only 44% more for a AAA game relative to ruble payers. That's a hefty penalty...
  9. If that were completely true, then the percentage difference between prices in different regions/countries would be consistent across all games/apps on the Steam store wouldn't it?
  10. Bring back outlaw battles for all.. There should be no "green" in battles, only the flag you choose to fly.
  11. Removing screening because a few whinging port battle commanders didn't arrange for proper screening or counter screening is silly. Screening is an important aspect of RvR that often serves to integrate new and more casual players into the more nation-focused and broader community. It's often a great way to blood those newer players, get them used to comms, integrate them into fleets and get them to follow orders. Magically teleporting fleets from across the map to ports is just silly business that belongs in a lobby-based game. Further fragmenting the game into elite lobby content and removing players from the OW is just a poor game design decision. And until we actually see solid information on new hostility mechanics, I fail to see how this will result in more PvP than less, especially for new and less hardcore players.
  12. @admin Screening != Griefing Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply stomping on sour grapes.
  13. The only thing worth reading in that post in my opinion. Fine woods on steroids where there likely will only be truly one competitive choice to rule them all... Plus removing any reason for new players to actually get trained up and participate in larger RvR battles (they'll basically be excluded from port battles, planning, and comms entirely by removing the strategy and larger involvement that screening requires)... A complete dedication to screwing over your existing open world player base by committing more to point-and-click action... Not putting some of those sweet, sweet DLC dollars towards paying actual moderators in game and instead just removing chat... I mean, come on. 🙄
  14. So since you've given carte blanche to players to solve our own problems, is it reasonable to assume that hiring foreign adversaries to flip ports and set empty battles to protect them is now endorsed as a valid protective measure? 🙄
  15. Can we finally admit that everything about seasoned woods and their mechanic has made the game worse? Ignoring the interaction with their availability in DLC ships, the proposed changes cements that this is Fine Woods 2.0 (and we all know how the 1.0 version fared). The power creep, especially as it becomes increasingly available is just making all non-seasoned (and de facto, most non-DLC) ships obsolete or at the very least, highly undesirable and ineffective. So why even keep the "old" vs. "new" woods in the game? Unless every six months we get the next iteration of "Highly Seasoned" woods to keep ship turnover and the grind occurring? In my opinion, if we are going to keep Fine Woods 2.0+ then we need dynamic BR of ships that increases significantly for ships that are using it... Also, MB BR should be cut to 30 in order to increase their utility.. Unless the DPM goes way, way up taking into account the nerf in reload speed, it makes them even less desirable in PBs...
  16. Fighting NPCs to set a port battle. Forts and the lack of utility of mortar brigs. The entire seasoned woods concept, especially as its tied into the ridiculous privateer fleet implementation.
  17. Perhaps you should push out and do some RvR to capture a port from time to time?
  18. A nation with two edge-case borders and a free town in the middle would have to maintain timers at the boundaries of three locations instead of two. That's not "anywhere" so stop being obtuse. All it allows is that nations would have an inroad for any location on the map, and more RvR is good, no? Especially now that BR limits have been reduced and smaller clans can potentially hold the low BR ports. I really fail to see where all the whinging and moaning is coming from? Why should a nation like Poland have to take every port from Puerto de Espana to Santa Marta before they can attack Russia?
  19. Huh? If a nation is large enough then it can sustain fighting on more than two fronts. Free towns are checks on that ability to expand beyond the borders imposed on them by hostile nations *and* attacks at any time out of free towns. Seriously, what are you really arguing for? Nations that can essentially maintain complete invulnerability once they take places like the Gulf?
  20. Free towns are simply a check on a nation's size... what's wrong with that?
  21. And if they're eliminated? I guess I don't see a problem with people being able to pull hostility from free ports.. these should be hotbeds of PvP and RvR action... if you want safe, then you need to insulate yourself by taking ports in safe parts of the map.
×
×
  • Create New...