Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Capitalism

  1. 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.


  2. 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 4
    • Sad 2

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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?

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 2 minutes ago, Custard said:

    Everything but being able to pull hostility from a Free port 👍

    Prefer these changes to be made to front lines though or we are all going to be using different fonts :)

    If you can't pull hostility from a free port how do impossible nations establish a foothold?

  9. 1 minute ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

    Why not create a new type of battlegroup? One that cannot be tagged or tag and is you're only able to start it in the port where the mission was pulled, has a timer on it. Seems easy enough to do.

    If you’re going to arbitrarily protect them then why bother making them sail at all? Seriously, if there’s so little attention paid to the content and value that is provided to players outside the PB fleets during RVR, just give us a lobby and be done with the trappings of a sandbox.

  10. 2 minutes ago, van der Clam said:

    But, this is the point of the OP. It does not make sense that Hostility is based on Battle End Time, rather than Battle Start Time. It makes it impossible for anyone to defend hostility battles without Combat News informing us of raising hostility (on PvP).

    It makes as much sense as anything else does. The timer window is intended to constrain port battle times. That’s it. If you’re worried about hostility then keep an eye out for open hostility missions.

    The point of hostility missions as I see them is to provide opportunities for PvP, and set a barrier of commitment and resources for actually setting a port battle (combat false flags etc.).

    If the port battle can’t occur outside the timer window then the mechanic is working as intended.

    Now, we can debate the merit and mechanic of hostility all you want, but it isn’t an exploit.

    • Like 1

  11. 6 minutes ago, Raekur said:

    Well they did increase the damage from 698 to 896 (by 30%) but they also changed the reload rate from 35 seconds to 65 as well as reduced the accuracy and removed the extra shots provided by the knowledge slot. So now you fire 2 shots every 65 seconds instead of 4 every 35. Add to that the fact that grinding knowledge slots on the ship is near impossible solo unless you go after lynx's (the only ship in the game that has a lower broadside damage value) and that every ship in the game smaller than a victory can catch you. Makes things a challenge huh?

    Not really, just have a friend hold a line ship in boarding while you sink it... opens up multiple slots at a time.

    • Like 1

  12. 6 hours ago, Raekur said:

    On thing that would be nice is to gain XP from getting away from a fight. I had 4 battles against the same group chasing me back to port while sailing a mortar brig vs 5 russians. They eventually caught me and sank me but not until after 2 hours of pursuit...and i got 17 experience for it.

    I’m sympathetic to this, and intuitively it would make sense to potentially be rewarded for eluding a superior opponent... but it would be outrageously easy to exploit. What would keep a player with an alt in a first rate from tagging himself repeatedly and running away repeatedly at literally no cost, racking up rewards without it even hitting combat news?

  13. 1 hour ago, Saryk said:

    Mate, we have 19 ports and all but one are within 10 minutes TOPS of sailing of one another. There is no "safer place".

    You mean rally the entirety of our 20 online people right now ?

    Remind me which nation you play ?

    I play for the US, and you’re right, it’s easier to find safer spots than for France, but if you know people are camping Fort Royale, then teleport over to some other port and away you go... right?

    Or just abandon whatever you’re doing at that moment and go hunt out of a free town for a while or hit the shallows and cap some ships for the PvP zone, etc.? There are so many things to occupy yourself with other than holing up in port and moaning about some baddies outside your capital... 

  14. 3 hours ago, Saryk said:

    Our coast guard is players reactively coming out of a port to tag enemy players coming out of their gank battle, because we do not have enough players to have a proactive coast guard hunting in our waters. They can therefore never catch up to someone who is wind boosted and rigged for speed..

    The victim mentality gets pretty old here. Once you have a coast guard fleet mustered, then you do the hunting. Bring out fast tagging ships and chase them away, or god forbid anticipate where the hunters are sailing out of and cut them off on their way home after you scare them away...

    And... if all else fails, move your activity to somewhere else that’s more safe. Deny them their fun... perhaps, go hunt their coastline for a while instead of doing whatever it is that’s getting you ganked?

    There’s always an alternative to tilting at windmills on the forum. ;) 

  15. 3 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

    It's not just the ease of tagging some poor helpless slowpoke.  A defenceless trader with the speed boost can blow right past you if you don't happen to have it.  That's just wrong....

    But it works both ways. And it greatly rewards players that are not AFK or multi boxing to the extent that they miss getting the speed boosts. That’s something we should encourage.

    • Like 2

  16. 2 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:

    Well, sometimes I can watch for hours my ship going up and down the waves, no need for netflix. That is what I am doing on a real sailing yacht, too. Maybe I am a bit crazy.

    One wonders, then, why you’d be upset by having something to do while you sail, namely keeping an eye out for strong winds on the map?

    For me, it’s in the name:

    Naval Action != Naval Screen Saver


    • Like 1

  17. 24 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:

    Well, compared to 2016 the map is already smaller, since too many players were unhappy about sailing some distance. Even the speed of the ships was increased. Now we increase speed to ridiculous levels? 

    Aww, are your AFK sailing hours watching Netflix or cruising Reddit going to be threatened? That’s a crying shame. 🙄

    • Like 1

  18. Nation choice should be meaningless anyway. Switching nations should be as easy as buying a new letter of marque. If we had proper clan mechanics allowing clans to dictate who is friendly and who is not then the “nation” could just be a backdrop for low rank and PvE-oriented players that’s mostly meaningless outside of capital zones. 

    • Like 1

  19. 37 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:

    In my opinion the defender should define the maximum size of ships. So there won't be the 1st rate battles, only.

    Still, it would be better to add real water depth to the battles, so that more ship types might be required. 

    lol because defenders need even more advantages? Why do you think there has been so few successful, defended attacks? 

    No, the BR should be dynamic and changing day to day. 

    • Like 1

  20. 4 hours ago, MarquĂŞs do Bonfim said:

    Seems like few players actually want a proper game, not just a battleground. The old days of instance battles are over, this is an MMO now with Sandbox elements to it.

    No one is hating, they just don’t like your idea, and are critiquing it.

    What about the term “sandbox” don’t you understand? Players are currently constrained by nations and the limits they place, which is very “un-sandboxy,” and just because it doesn’t fit your notion of what should be the focus of the “game,” doesn’t mean that the game wouldn’t be better for backing away from rigid nation concepts and giving players more control over the ways in which they ally.

  • Create New...