Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

TheDread

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

114 Excellent

About TheDread

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If two clans can pull flags against the same port at the same time and the first to finish gets the pb... it creates opportunity for abuse. So, imagine a member of BF wants to attack SDC. They pull the mission from PE and SLRN immediately gets the notification. Now imagine a member of SLRN has a friend in a bullshit Russsian clan, let's call them... BS... who's willing to spend 20 minutes doing SLRN a favor, and doesn't intend to show up for a port battle if it gets set. Now... a BF tlynx with an escort is headed for SDC to set the pb. and 5 few minutes behind it is a BS tylnx, no escort, no cannons, no nothing. SLRN jumps into the BF hostility battle... with a tlynx and no guns. Now... instead of taking 15 minutes to set the PB... that battle will take 45 minutes, even if the defenders never get close to the flag carrier. during that 45 minutes... the guy from BS clan rolls in and since the defenders don't join the battle... sets a port battle 25 minutes before BF can, just because a defender joined the other battle. In reality... alts will render RVR completely dead if they can exploit this mechanic. I mean, you could always use an alt clan running hostilities to block legit port battles... but when it took 10 people sailing out in first rates to do it in a timely fashion, it didn't happen all that often. Now that it just takes two midshipmen in pickles to foil any attack... I think it will be much more common.
  2. From: Just going to leave this here.
  3. I'm saving my formal response until Redman runs the numbers too. But I think it's worth considering that the existing RELATIONSHIPS between woods ought to be preserved. People built ships with WO for the tankiness - it should stay in the same general place on the spectrum as far as speed and tankiness are concerned. Adding new options that fill in gaps or expand the ends of that spectrum makes sense! Spreading things on the spectrum further apart to force more interesting gameplay decisions makes sense. But moving things from one end of the spectrum to the other just renders player's hard work garbage. If things that USED to be a good and tanky build are no longer as good and tanky.. . there needs to be some sort of buyback mechanic. Give all players a week to break up crafted and note ships for 100% material and mod return so people can rebuild with the new woods? I know that seems silly and exploitable. So... probably best to just keep the existing relationships in place - Fir>Bermuda>Teak>WO on speed and the opposite on HP... whatever the new numbers need to be for your balance goals.
  4. I don't understand what the hull speed argument is going for? Are we suggesting that speed of 6th rates should be nerfed? Because... yes... that's the case. HMS Ontario had a hull speed in the 11.8 range... And HMS Victory had a hull speed of 18+ knots. If you could put properly sized diesel engines on both of them, that's the fastest speed you'd travel with efficiency. Of course... for heavy displacement sailing ships... it was just impossible to carry enough sail to reach hull speed... which is why Victory actually topped out around 11ish too, right? What else are you guys arguing about? Hull speed is a fact of physics, but it's not the whole (hull - ha pun!) story on a ship's top speed as it's actually fairly tricky to get to hull speed on a big ship without tearing the thing apart.
  5. LOL. This. Who's tag was Redman wearing when he said this? Who do you think he was in comms with laughing their asses off as he answered? We were attacking ports in redoubtables last week. Do you think we were doing that while sitting on enough seasoned logs to afford to throw 100k of them at the Russians every time they loaned us 20 people for an hour? I love it.
  6. If there's on thing GB has always had all on it's own... it's been hundreds of noobs willing to get sunk for a good cause. New players spawn here. We have gone through times when we were short on experienced captains, but we've never been short on people qualified to screen. The Russians have been irrelevant the few times they've come down to screen, because we've fielded more than 100 screeners of our own each time Belize was threatened.. Not alts. GB captains. I've seen ONE russian alt in a PB... and that was in Bensalem battle you no showed... so I'm not just CERTAIN he was the deciding factor. But sure. Whatever excuse you need to make for stepping away now that GB is finally getting on it's feet and starting to win battles. We sure as hell appreciate you, by the way. When this war started... we'd recently lost the majority of our RVR players. But throwing PBs every day has been exactly what we needed to develop the next crop. You've done FAR MORE for GB than the russians! Enjoy whatever you go do instead. We'll enjoy this more without you, from here on out.
  7. MULTIPLE CLAN WAREHOUSES. The 2nd and 3rd can be super expensive to setup if you want them to be, but there are a lot of reasons a clan may want to share resources in multiple ports.
  8. Mechanism for port handover/takeover within nation without losing investments There needs to be some mechanism to peacefully move a port between clans in a nation. It's the nature of the game that sometimes key ports will be held by a clan that has left either the game or the nation. There needs to be a way for that clan to voluntarily hand over their port to a friendly clan without destroying the investments. A peaceful change of 'regional governors' shouldn't involve enough cannonfire to damage the shipbuilding infrastructure of a seaport! I also wish this could be coupled with SOME mechanism for taking back a port when the owning clan has gone inactive, such as 'if the clan creator and diplos have not logged in for a week, the port becomes available for any same-nation clan to takeover, if they choose to initiate that.
  9. I'd be okay with a lobby based system, without the TP element. It makes no sense that you can get to a port battle without sailing there, but I'd be okay with you being able to sail in and join the lobby for the 4 hours before the PB. That keeps the advantage with those who do the hard work - if you get organized and get the ships and reps there early, good on you. If a defender can afford to scout and screen for the extended time before the PB... and actually BEAT the PB fleet, not just waste 30 minutes of their time while the circles get points... good on them.
  10. During the Port Battle for Mosquito Cay, Spain implanted operatives in GB for the purpose of throwing the battle. It's suggested by the way they allowed themselves to be killed in the battle, but the proof is in the attached screenshot from the Spanish stream of the port battle where player Mr Halo ( who was tribunaled once already this month for using enemy alts for screening purposes before a PB) instructs another player not to target Deathium from clan IJN on the GB side because his clan is 'friendlyish'. Planting operatives in a foreign nation to sabotage port battles certainly seems to be in the spirit of what's not allowed by the published rules on using Alt accounts for RVR cheating.
  11. You, um, watched to the end of the movie right... and understand that the moral of The Purge is that anarchy and vigilantism DON'T solve our problems, right?
  12. SEND FLEET TO DOCKS WHEN I CLICK THE TELEPORT BUTTON. Sorry, I feel strongly about that one. But nobody thinks they can teleport with a buc in their check luggage. Main ship gets sent to docks. Send fleet too! Also - if I have available crew, go ahead and crew up the fleet ships.
  13. Yes, we were able to leave after it became clear we weren't getting the indiaman. In retrospect, probably should have stayed in just to make sure the rules didn't change if timer ran out?
  14. Heya... We thought we were being clever on the Port Raid mission... and tried it with a handful of small ships - planning to kite the fleet and board the indiaman... and that part worked swimmingly, but we couldn't take control of the indiaman after boarding. The x didn't appear... and everyone in the battle came to a complete stop right next to it and tried... so it wasn't a 'someone did the most damage' situation. I have a SUSPICION that you can't actually capture that ship until the AI defenders are dead? Can someone confirm that's how the mechanic works and how it's supposed to?
  15. PVP Hostility missions work the same way. I get why you're complaining - in a PVE sense... sure... who can complete the missions faster is a way more fun thing to compete on than who can click 'leave battle' faster. Maybe they'll change it. . It does make more sense over there. To put it in context, though, the point of the hostility timer window on the PVP server is to allow the defending human clan to make sure their ports only come under attack during a time when they're not at work or asleep... so it IS the intended behavior that you can take a hostility mission positively anytime, but only raise hostility and set a port battle during the timer window... because the timer is for the port battles, not the hostility missions.
×
×
  • Create New...