Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capitalism

  1. So many tears shed, so much salt thrown. The U.S. nation should be ashamed.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. LOL Best post in weeks. Rum for you my friend. [ ]D
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. Well, the problem we have now is really the hard speed cap itself. We already have differences between ships both within and between classes in sailing profiles. The issue (exacerbated by port bonuses now) is that we can hit that cap at increasing points of sail for all ships. If you better balanced those bumps by hard capping on a percentage +/- as William Death already stated, rather than a fixed number, then balance is more easily attained through ship design. The biggest issue is that we likely won't know the true effect of all of these stacked bonuses until long after release because these haven't yet, and won't truly until many clans have fully updated ports months after release, be tested at large scale.
  11. This is a legitimate question as it pertains to current play and the current gnashing and wailing over colored dots in a digital pastime (which is so silly): What if the collaborator is not an "alt?" For that matter, what is an "alt?" If the player characters involved are max rank, max crafting and have been played for more hours than 90% of players with only one player character, which is more legitimate? What's the difference between a U.S. player being paid in-game currency to start a hostility mission for a foreign nation to flip a port (or doing it out of pure spite/treason) vs. someone using forged papers to swap a 3000 hour player character to a nation to start a hostility mission for their former nation? Where do you draw the line? If a mechanic has been F11'd and it hasn't been changed in over a year, and no "alts" are involved, then you're pointing to rules that have no bearing on the issue, no? My point is that it's the mechanic that might not be working within the context of the intended game play, but it's not the players you should be tribunalling, it's the game mechanic.
  12. Since you only need one timer set on the capital to protect an entire region you must make your serfs (vassal clans who own the rest of the protected ports) pay, otherwise you turn it over to the enemy and threaten their econ. This is the new way.
  13. When did you build it? It doesn't appear until after maintenance I believe?
  14. Sure, give us raids, that's not a new request. But attack lines should be determined by voronoi distances between ports. Any port should be able to attack any neighboring port as determined by a simple half distance algorithm. Not something as ridiculously arbitrary as a hard coded number.
  15. Nope. Only Baracoa and Cap Francais of all places. Try to figure out the logic of that. Two port battle locations for EU timezone pirates... none for US time zone players, is essentially what that amounts to. I'd try to convince folks that the current mechanics are ill conceived, and that rather than being able to capture only the two nearest port capitals that all neighboring regions as defined by voronoi polygons should be attackable. This makes far more sense geographically and doesn't constrain certain nations over others. Furthermore, I'd argue that we shouldn't be able to take hostility missions from free ports at all, except for timed, perhaps once-a-month weekend events. Make nations spread from their historical capital regions more organically. Hamstring hardcore nations as they should be and only let them engage in RvR once the colonial nations have their footholds. Furthermore, the concept of RvR raids as content for smaller groups must be considered as these changes massively shift the end game content towards larger and larger clans, which under current game populations is unsustainable.
  16. I think, even more simply, that you shouldn’t be able to pull hostility missions from free ports. Allow the natural expansion of nations into more contiguous zones. Note that doesn’t solve the non-EU time zone player bias problem upon wipe, as EU clans will have the first crack at expanding out from nation capital areas.. but hopefully that can be dealt with as more ports captured offer up more opportunities for non-EU clans. Make free port hostility once a month, weekend-only events. This would make hardcore nations truly hardcore. No more Russian bias, make them have to establish themselves after the real nations have a foothold.
  17. Don't be obtuse. This has to do with finding and participating in PvP for the majority of average players out there. Anything you do to frustrate players who are looking for PvP is bad for the game. I can't believe that you would argue against anything that encourages people to fight more, even if it doesn't fit your "honorable" preference of arranged duels outside of La Tortue?
  18. Agreed. The new damage model has harmed balance in all things more than it has fixed in my opinion. But its impact on RvR and interactions with the forts/timing and balance of point accrual is in severe need of adjustment.
  19. Nah, though I've been quite supportive of many of your essays on mechanics so far, this I'll have to disagree with you on. Three minute join timers were the goldilocks timers. Just enough to hunt in groups but not so much that it was magical-teleport-in-from-anywhere. And I'd add that I'd leave the undocking and leaving battle timer as they are so that you could still be somewhere waiting but not completely called in from out of the blue in order to defend a mate that was tagged right outside of your Outpost/Battle, etc. In any case... We need one, consistent RoE, nothing that varies between zones, etc. This just breeds endless frustration, complacency, and bugginess.
  • Create New...