[EXP Didnt Transfer]

My stuff didn't transfer either but I guess I am to hold accountable for that since I didn't check these forums which are filled with spam most of the time during a period where no one actively played the game anymore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Cap Francois battle today]

1 minute ago, monk33y said:

@admin i hope you are looking into ALL port battles

(it seems fishy that your not looking into battles where the required ship is lineship and no1 has a lineship yet)

but hey thats only the DANES and they have never EVER done anything wrong before !

Lineships aren't required, it's just the upper limit..

[Cap Francois battle today]

1 minute ago, Bountyhunter said:

Me not being German is proof of nothing buddy

lol NitroBiLLe just explained what was on the screen cap, you seem awfully uneasy here buddy^^

[An Idea for RvR]

I fully agree that splitting can't be the solution. The population is too low for the game to work as intended anyways so why make it worse by splitting the playerbase further as the EU/global crap just did. Your idea is certainly interesting, I think a crucial point would be making that time frame expand rather slowly. I like the pace you are suggsting since it would force you to either wait for a long time before you can safely flip the port again in your favored time or you take the gamble and attack very soon and risk losing to superior force. 5 days invulnerability seems very excessive but your numbers are just examples anyways.

On a side note, and this is why I am so strongly rooting for a single server solution, if we had enough players there would be absoloutely no need to even consider things like this as you would easily find enough players to defend at any time of the day even if it isn't the defending region's favored time.

[A Behind the Scenes look at the Eastern Alliance Planning Sessions]

Hey, at least they can keep a line for a while!

[Nightflops and the continuing development of a "global server"]

4 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

...Cause it is clear that the problem is all in the EU community side, ...

 

How exactly do you plan on backing that statement? I see both sides arguing here, the only difference is that your side, unlike mine, is crying a begging instead of standing up for itself and working on a soution. Maybe this in your eyes looks like you alone are the victim.

[Nightflops and the continuing development of a "global server"]

2 hours ago, North said:

Love this change:D tryed to warn the us to change on the alliance or do less night flips to grief the eastern alliance flipping port at night and only showing with a few ships to drag out the battle with no intent of fighting... you where cocky at that time and now see all the whineing of your own work..

No you will whine in the hope the devs do something else instead, but it is to late.. you set this onto yourself by greifing and now you can reap the rewards.

whole plan of removing flags was to stop the empty port battles and all griefing that lead to... GOOD JOB US NATION YOU FOUND A NEW WAY TO EXPLOIT IT!!!!!

now you can whine all you want it's your own damn fold.. so go to the us server they will start and you can flip all port you want in prime time and get a battle that you most likely don't really want

 

I'm tired of you calling the US nation exploiters, "muh nightflips", griefers and all kinds of nasty things you can come up with. You are doing the exact same thing over and over with your work hour flips and on weekends you just flip at 5-7am for americans so they have to get up early on a sunday, real jokers. But hey, you can keep calling us the devil in this matter and keep being the hypocrites you have always been. You can see that we set 4 port battles during your peak hours and merely a single one during american peak hours so those who can't play at 20-23 server time get something to do aswell.

I want to ask you one rhetorical question: Have you attacked or aided in attacking a port of the US, British or Dutch? The answer is yes. Now how does that not give us every right in the world to strike back and punish you for it? In real life in war you don't casually wait until your enemies are able to set up a proper defense, you fight to win whatever the cost.

To get back on topic: For all intents and role playing purposes we are at war. If you are not able to set up a 24h defense that's tough luck. We aren't either. If you want an even fight every time you see an enemy ship and NOT a dynamic world that evolves and lives based on its players' decisions actions and mistakes you might aswell go play world of tanks and that type of game or find some friends and queue up for large/small battle within NA. We do NOT want a split playerbase and forced fairness.

Also, does anyone think about the consequences for the US server? The situation will be, as it is already on PVP 2 that you'll have, hyperbolically speaking, 200 players in the US nation and the 3 dudes left will have to split amongst all other nations. How fair is that? I thought you were all about fairness? Can you expalin how this is supposed to work then?

The devs are forced to make difficult decisions and changes because of YOU bitching and moaning every time something "unfair" happens and they don't want to lose you as a player.

[Mix up Port Battles a bit more]

23 hours ago, Angus McGregor said:

The TLDR version is...

Everyone wants to fill every slot with the the most effective ship for a given class of PB. In each PB class, there's a fairly clear 'best in class' ship right down to the build options and mods it should have... so people who bring those get first dibs on getting in.

It also *used* to be a big advantage to have all the same ships since they all turned the same and moved at the same speed. A good thing when maneuvering nose to tail at arms length in a line. Not so sure the commanders have gotten over that yet with the new much more fluid nature of the PBs.

I personally feel like I wouldn't necessearily want to sail a first rate in every lineship pb. I know that many agree on that they are not the most pleasant vessels to sail. The people I've had chats about this with agree that they would much rather see a mix of ships in PB's and nobody here seems to be against it and the only excuses not to work on it seem to be that it would require time and effort to figure out how to implement it properly...as do so many things in this game.

Quote

It is very unlikely that the 'bring only the biggest and best' approach will change unless we're forced into it by mandatory multi-class quotas in the PB entry rules.

A mechanic like that is exactly what I am talking about and wishing for.

Of course it would be optimal if the game and the world itself made us decide against running only the biggest, baddest ships through something like what Wraith is suggesting:

8 hours ago, Wraith said:

It won't solve everything, but what the dev's need to commit to is getting draft/depth variation into combat instances.  Every ship has a draft, and depth is modeled with a simple binary check just like it is in open world. Either your ship can sail at a particular depth or it can't (beached with rigging shock, then you wiggle). It's just stupid that the dev's claim that it's too complicated to implement, since the collision modelling that is there already is likely far more computationally intensive.

This isn't rocket science, it's just about adding a draft depth to each ship and estimating a depth mapping from already existing, scientific data sources. The primary problem I could imagine is connecting open world to battle instance bathymetry, but I still think this is solvable.

Doing this would allow for the following kind of situation: First rates/deep water ships would be limited to the harbors. The side circles could likely be limited to shallow water ships and the interstitial areas should likely be a mix of frigates to protect the line or 4th rate ships in the harbor. In reality this may devolve into first rates of choice (L'Oceans or Victories) and Heavy Ratt's, but there likely would be a combination of frigates and shallow water ships that would be mixed in based on the maneuverability restrictions placed by bathymetry variation from port to port, since some ports would have all capture zones accessible to all deep water ships, etc..

 

 

[Mix up Port Battles a bit more]

I don't know why this topic went forgotten, but here's my take of this in hopes of reviving it: (unless another one exists that I am not aware of)

During the battle of Trafalgar, the British had 3 1st rates, the franco-spanish had 4. The British had 4 2nd rates, the franco spanish had none. Both parties had 20+ 3rd rates and 6-7 other ships such as frigates. It is anything but accurate to have 25 first rates fight 25 other first rates and it bothers me greatly that there is no mechanic capping out the number of first rates.

One Drawback I can see is sailing up to a PB in a 1st rate and having all first rate slots filled and you're stranded outside while you could have joined, had you brought a 3rd rate. This would have to be avoided by maybe being able to select a ship from some sort of a "ship bag" as you join the battle. This "bag" would not be the same as a fleet, it would not affect open world or anything like that and would exclusively be used for port battles.

I think having a mixture of line ships would make PB's a lot more interesting and much more accessible to anyone who isn't exactly rear admiral.

Additionally, this would legitimize making 1st/2nd rates harder to craft and it would give 2nd and 3rd rates importance.

[Letters to Habana]

Should we start keeping count of sunk spanish vessels aswell? Take the attached image as an appetizer.

 

Edit: I had to leave that early, I think we sank everyone who was left on that screen aswell if I'm not mistaken.