Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Capitalism

  1. 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.     


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

  2. 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. 


    That's still a loss you numpty.

    • Like 6
    • Sad 1
  3. 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...



    • Like 2
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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?

  7. 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?

  8. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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?

  11. 1 hour ago, HoneyBaddger said:

    Bro...chill out, you act like you dont like it very much over in Russia and and missing the Pirate Islands and the recent success in Cuba. VCO will always be nation hoppers, get used to it. BL4CK will always be pirates. 

    Until they lose once or twice like they did on Global, the rest of the pirates stop playing along with their little games, and then they quit the game with shattered egos just like last time.

    It’s just a matter of time.

    And how is it possible that the VCO pirate baddies still haven’t been run out of the nation with all that BL4CK influence? Curious. 

    • Like 4
  12. 23 hours ago, BigAaron said:

    to me I think the devs need to make tuffer rules like 1 account per user in the past 3 days I seen 6 bots at 1 time slow sailing around navasse just going in circles which there is no need for it a lot of games cracked down on this I don't see why naval action cant either take playing and items off good legit players like me 

    I’m ambivalent about the use of alts and botting them. But how is this hurting you exactly? Why not just sink them or out them if you wanna be that guy and you’re that upset about it?

  13. 8 minutes ago, Aquillas said:

    This was never refrained earlier in game. There is no game mechanic to stop or limit that. 

    Such exploits are clearly encouraged in game by (no) rules of the game and by the "jurisprudence" of this Tribunal. Precedent cases where unpunished. This strategy (losing fights against NPC) is encouraged and is a valid one in Naval Action. 

    Players who don't like it, as I don't, must live with it anyway or quit game. As I did.

    You clearly haven’t played very long, or are simply ignorant of the past rulings on the subject. Please educate yourself before cloaking your misinformation in silly verbiage meant to convince your reader that you know more than you do.

    This behavior is clearly against the rules on several points (joining fights without the intention to fight, manipulating RvR-related battles without even bothering to equip cannons, etc.), as determined by past tribunals. 

    This is as clear cut as it gets.

    • Like 2
  14. I see no reason to exclude AI damage from PvP zone damage... it’s still a risky endeavor and makes it so players can participate at low population times.

    Basic cutters should absolutely be excluded from tagging or joining in the zone.

    And finally, PvP zone battles should be given positional join circles instead of two circles, and/or be moved farther away from land so that join circles can not be placed on land intentionally, etc.

    • Like 1
  15. 2 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

    What you could do is make it so players under the same IP are reported as alts under info. That way the anonymity is lost and people will know who is an alt and who is not.

    What is an alt and what is a main? Who determines that in the case of those of us with equal rank, nearly equal play time characters? And what about family playing behind the same routable IP? 

    This seems to me to be a problem that doesn’t need solving, and I don’t even know how we got on this subject...

    Back on topic, port bonuses represent an extreme investment and as such should be free at the port they are invested in. You can argue that reducing the mod stacking or increasing choices available to crafters could be better (4 total points of port bonus can be crafted into a ship, crafter chooses their distribution from available port bonus levels, etc.), but that changes what these leveled ports were supposed to be: foci for RvR. 

    I think the problem is that like so many things the developers have tried, they got this wrong because nations and zergs can place their main ship building ports behind basically uncaptureable capitals and timers.  And now, instead of nations going after the port bonus port in order to cripple a nation’s crafting and deter that extreme investment, you have people whining about the impact that investment has and asking to nerf it...

    Why not just nerf the zergs or make port bonus ports always captureable regardless of their county’s status, etc.? 

  16. 2 hours ago, Puchu said:

    Thank you for the compliment rediii :) At least I will take it as such. ;)

    30s would be a proper RoE for the OW. Nothing more would be needed. This would force big gank fleets to stick together and be visible as such on the ow. Noone would be able to teleport to that place and noone would be able to abuse the OW time compression to get to a place where he shouldnt be able to get to within a reasonable time in the first place.


    Definition of tilting at windmills...


  • Create New...