Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Capitalism

Members
  • Content Count

    158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capitalism

  1. If this was in a PvE battle then it definitely won’t. We think it will only need to be rebuilt after being destroyed in a port battle? Clarification would be nice.
  2. 100% agree With “elite” AI coming to the game the normal AI should be dialed back to something that is doable in an average vet’s sleep, which is still incredibly challenging to your average new player. Right now the AI are so unfailingly stupid in their sailing, and ridiculous in their firing and boarding mods that new players must be be just rolling in the aisles.
  3. Careful, that tinfoil hat is showing. Everyone knew the wipe was occurring and the day it was likely to drop. Letting the port go Neutral and pulling the missions didn’t take a whole lot of foresight. I mean, I guess a bit more foresight than the average US player or your famed War Council is capable of but, meh. Accusing the developers of favoritism and dealing in insider knowledge is definitely not a road you likely want to pursue. Asking for some in-game welfare to get your coastline back instead of pulling missions and flipping the port yourself to fight for it really is telling. Sad.
  4. Outlaw battles should be there for every nation.
  5. Looking good, hopefully we get to see more from the game assets themselves soon!
  6. Agreed, there definitely needs to be balance there.. and both should encourage active participation. I think combat should be the "gathering" activity equivalent of other MMOs, while trading should result from that combat. I'd argue that captured ships should be broken down for legitimate amounts of crafting goods, making collection of rare and useful crafting resources and tools a byproduct of that activity and making trading/hauling these goods to satisfy contracts in the primary, buffed-up ship-building ports more lucrative that the largely passive, AFK sailing of delivery missions.
  7. I agree with this to a large degree, but am also swayed by arguments for a dynamic alliance system where thoughtful developers might have the tools to change balance based on changing population trends over time. Because of the influence of forged papers the current distribution of players, and most importantly RvR-active players, will not be the same forever. So something dynamic is key, and that's why I'd favor something like Wraith's proposal above which doesn't lose the historical context but leaves dynamic the large majority of the map (much of which is unused) to the clans, their alliances, and their warfare both between and within the backdrop of the nation states.
  8. Hostility missions have never been easier. Time to flip a port no?
  9. Does it really matter? You know the US would have faced the music at some point, most likely through a negotiated port swap with GB, Russia, or Spain to allow the attack. To deny the two largest nighttime factions content against each other is silly, and it will happen whether the US wants it to or not. That's why all of this teeth gnashing over the current state of things is so chuckle-worthy.
  10. So many tears shed, so much salt thrown. The U.S. nation should be ashamed.
  11. Does creating the Live Oak investment just enable the ability for individuals to create Live Oak production forests or does it just spawn a clan delivery mission in that port?
  12. As far as I understand it, a clan can control whether investments can be made by "clan only," or by "clan and friends." Once invested, then individuals can buy the production facilities associated with those investments that are production-oriented, or benefit from the other investments like ship building, etc. as long as they have the appropriate buildings in place.
  13. NOPE. That means that when attacked by a foe you're going to lose to you can destroy all port improvements before they capture it. As it stands, as I understand it, they just lose a level and the new owner benefits from prior improvements.
  14. LOL Best post in weeks. Rum for you my friend. [ ]D
  15. You do see that he's asking about Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts right? In general everything is light on details here but I would suspect it's not going to be a carbon copy of RtW but it would be nice if there was some inspiration from it.
  16. No offense, but I don't think there's a player in the game, U.S. included, that is worried about the U.S. being too stronk. Your council has forever hobbled you into mediocrity despite having decent players come and go over the years.
  17. Two out of six county ports doesn't fit anyone's definition of "most" of the region. Regardless, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here and you're throwing around a lot of accusations without any proof, correct? If I were actually party to any of those accusations I'd be within my rights ask for that proof lest you be banned (which is an actual rule which has been made explicit by admin in the past). But look, I don't think anyone in this game is served by trying to get fewer players to play it, through banning or running them off through lack of morale. I doubt anyone who is using the mechanics in question actually want that either. But right now, flipping ports is purely something to do while we wait around for The Wipe, and must be done in order to get back to the business of PvP and RvR. That's it. And most people play on the War server for PvP and RvR in at least some proportion, otherwise they'd be playing on the PvE server. So if you acknowledge this is true, then why would anyone begrudge players using the tools that have been allowed them by the dev's to search out PvP and RvR opportunities? (I'll say it again, the ability to gain hostility by jumping in on the player side of a hostility mission, regardless of nation, has been there since hostility was initially instituted.) It just makes no sense that there's all this crying when the U.S. and others could simply just go flip the ports and take them back. If the claim is that they will not be able to then surely it's only a matter of time until all of those ports are lost anyway, right?
  18. In point of fact, it's a port that's neutral right now, not a "US port" as stated in the OP: But, that's splitting hairs around the bigger issue, which is that there's a simple fix to this mechanic (which has been in place for over a year, since hostility was implemented, but just not used because it wasn't useful). The simple fix could be implemented over night, but clearly the developers have better things to do. So the U.S. and others making 23 posts per day whinging over outcomes which basically provide new PvP and RvR content, other than sinking more AI and carebearing about in empty port battles? I just think we have bigger things to worry about.
×
×
  • Create New...