Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Capitalism

Members
  • Content Count

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2

  2. 15 minutes ago, Harry1224 said:

    Right now I feel like the game needs a solution to Dominating nations. Maybe Give rewards to players of a conquering nation players such as, a 5/5 ship such as a de Ruyter or something. Make people want to compete in rvr on the war sever.

    Right now the Russian Nation is 65 ports ahead of the next leading nation and 75 ports ahead of the ranking 3rd nation.

    I feel like something needs to be done to address these dominating  nations/ Clans.     

    Nope.

    Game mechanics should be in place to discourage domination, but persistence is important.


  3. 1 hour ago, King of Crowns said:

    YEAAHH... u right. you sure do sound like Christendom again btw. :D at least I chose to fight the sith zerg and not join them like you did when you got ran out of pirate nation. This was the port de piax battle. lost on points but wont the actual fight. 

    FEBA72FAB0D6914783FFD924231D1D4E7EC981BD

    That's still a loss you numpty.

    • Like 6
    • Sad 1

  4. 2 minutes ago, admin said:

    This idea relies too much in faith in human ethical behaviour (which we no longer have). You can abuse control by keeping the player (for example a player without guns) in battle. 

    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...

    • Like 2

  5. 4 hours ago, admin said:

    Gone. Thanks for screening and holding in battles too. Battle timer will increase but if you cant get to the good damage zone in 10 mins Bye bye.
    Tag properly Or sail essex with control perk ;)

    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.

    • Like 2

  6. 6 minutes ago, Tomms123 said:

    No, because the argument steam had when they introduced the regional pricing were because of the different economical strengths of countries.
    So instead of having a flat $40 for a game around the world which is fine for USA, Canada or Europe it can be horrible for example South Africa or Russia because their average earning each year in their local currency is not the same as to those in USA, Canada or Europe. So to give them the possibility to still enjoy the game a regional pricing is put, but to a level that is currency to currency is cheaper. But looking at it from a person to person view its the same cost as the average earning is not the same.

    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...

    4ae7ea627f72695000d829757724a17f.png%C2%

    b9973e84d2baa9b79482c86d34e6a8b2.png

    • Like 2

  7. 2 minutes ago, Tomms123 said:

    The reason why Steam have a regional pricing is because of the different economic strength in each country, example Colombia doesnt have the same economic strength as USA got.

    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?

    • Like 1

  8. 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.

    • Like 7

  9. 4 hours ago, admin said:

    Stay safe and healthy everyone. Drink water, vitamin C and give lots of love to your families and parents.

    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.  🙄

    • Like 6

  10. 4 hours ago, admin said:

    They cant since Saturday. We allowed no timers to let nations get their business done with against those who used fake timers just for 1-2 days. You have 24 hours after port loses contested state to set the timer safely.

    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?

    5 hours ago, admin said:

    PVP communities should embrace the developer as a partner and should stop distancing to another side of the battlefield.

    • You cannot have a pleasant combat experience without us.
    • And you should start asking instead of voting.
      • Ask what you want - instead of telling us what to do. We wont do what you tell us to do. but might give you what you want instead by other means.

    🙄


  11. 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...

    • Like 3
    • Sad 2

  12. 1 hour ago, Cougar One said:

    What a load of crock,     Other Nations.  are out grinding 1st and Second Rates.       go over to the US side  all they have to grind is 5th rates.  and only from maybe one port.   This is just crap.  Its blatant cheating and putting us at a huge disadvantage.     

     

    You want us to vote for you game.     I don't  think so.      Instead  I am going to make it my mission to let the rest of the world know  how you just screw us over and say its mechanics.   

     

     

    Perhaps you should push out and do some RvR to capture a port from time to time?


  13. 35 minutes ago, Archaos said:

    Is that not the whole point of having a front line system? By your logic they may as well remove front lines and let any port be attacked from anywhere.

    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?


  14. 3 minutes ago, Archaos said:

    If that is the case then they are limiting RvR as they become barriers to expansion.

    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?


  15. 3 minutes ago, Archaos said:

    The problem with free towns is that it defeats the whole mechanic of having front lines. Take for example the current situation with GB, they own nearly all the ports along the coast from Tumbado down to Great Corn and with the new front line system the front lines are the three ports to the North (Tantun Cuzamil, Tulum and Xpu Ha) and to the South (Grindstone, Blufields and Haulover), but if GB wants to expand further along these coasts they are limited by the fact that these ports or others close by still remain vulnerable to attack from Tumbado of Great Corn, so they are always on the front line and there is nothing that can be done to stop that.

    Russia now has a problem in the gulf of mexico because they have El Rancho smack in the middle of their coast line, so they always have a front line there which ties up peoples outposts. 

    Without hostility from free towns we could have a true front line system for RvR. Free towns could still be used for raiding.

    Free towns are simply a check on a nation's size... what's wrong with that?


  16. 3 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

    They already have it.  We're not going to be wiping the map.....Are we??

    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...