Galileus
-
Posts
1,488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Galileus
-
-
Bring back the 1.5 br would only help the gankers and not the people who get ganked so it is an bad idea to bring the 1.5xbr back maybe to the old system??
1.5BR rule would mean gankers need to jump in all at once and cannot use positional reinforcements to surround a faster prey, wouldn't that be right?
-
Wind, do you know when it might happen? I dont want a date, but maybe the month?
Of course just if you are able to tell us
Soon™
-
1
-
-
I have a better suggestion - let's not revisit a basic mechanic that works fine, is set in stone and would be insane to come back to at this point, ok?
-
1
-
-
Try and get in touch with a moderator of your faction via mail, while he is online to investigate. It's probably too hard to build a case after the fact. A mod can challenge the alt directly in chat.
I'm sorry, Maturin, but this is a really awful advice.
You can challenge the guy yourself - ask him openly if he's an alt. If he agrees, then use the reporting tool and boom! the guy gets banned.
If he doesn't come clean to you, he won't seeing a moderator. And if he doesn't, there is nothing no-one can do. You cannot confirm if he's an alt or not without a police investigation, so there's that.
-
Hell, with the new reinforcement spawns there is a completely different system ingame that isn't comparable anymore.
The reasoning behind 2 min timers was "if you can see him, he can join you in battle". It is still the case. This is still 100% comparable.
-
5 min timers were tested. They were found too open and lacking. They were shortened.
Next!
-
-
There have been DOZENS of topics about timers!
Please don't spam more!
-
Sigh. You always cherry pick what you want to quote, right?
I told you to re-read what I said, because you went on a tirade on how there needs to be a focus on PvP, to which I already agreed.
At this point I'm not sure if you're simply not interested about a discussion or honestly think yours is the only possible solution and to propose something else is to disagree with the principale. But since you prefer to post catchy jpgs rather than use the reading option... have fun.
-
Nice speech. Bloody useless nevertheless. Now re-read my last post ^^'
-
There is a difference between helping someone and ganking someone. The fact you even put = sign in-between is ridiculous.
With that, I drop my argumentation. Indeed, our views differ too much at basic levels to find agreement there.
-
In my experience "invisi-bros" is at least 50% of all battles. Actually wonder what team you fight that DOESN'T do this. You not being able to help your friend because you were ported up is literally the style of gank that everyone is trying to prevent.
If you really wanted to help your friend, be outside on the sea sailing with him, not hiding in port waiting to gank.
Not sure what you mean about hiding in battles. My original post spelled out why this is literally impossible under this system. The only way to join a fight is to be visible when the tag starts.
Well, I don't do PvP within port range.
The problem is - to sail with someone you need to visit a port. Every time I was out on a prowl I would see solo Vics or Santis next to a port, with his friends pouring out after we get closer to take a looksie. With 10s timers we could simply come around to say HI, kill the Vic, and all his friends would be unable to do anything because they were docked to take a pee.
All of that would happen in your national ports, while only invisi-bro capable ports are the free ones. Not to mention, people proposed a simple system of spotting what ships are in ports that would fix that one too.
There is no need to fix invisi-bros with tag mechanics and 10s timer is not elastic enough, as mentioned. You base your whole argumentation on invisi-bros, which is basically like making a mechanic as a hotfix. That's a bad way to approach things.
-
I would prefer to deal with "inivisi-bros" once every so often than to have a friend loose his ship, because it took me 10s to load out of the port. 10s is just not elastic enough.
How about it being used to hide in battles, too? Wouldn't it be super-easy to just join in the last second when being pursued if someone (or alt) starts a battle within range? Just count to 8, join, before anyone knows what is going on, you're free.
Not elastic enough. And whatever is not elastic enough leads to abuse.
-
As mentioned, you fix invisi-join problem, not re-make the whole mechanic to fit one problem.
Make a tag-lock that lasts 2 minutes. You can be attacked, but cannot join battles for 2 minutes after leaving one battle or after leaving town. Boom! Done.
You fix problems by fixing problems, not by changing the board you play the game on.
10-seconds timer is an awful idea on it's own - because of the snipe-out I mentioned earlier. We went through all of it last few weeks, you should know better. It's just like 1.5BR lock - it leaves you with little options after someone gets tagged and ganked. And you need these options to reinforce national solidity and to make word full of stuff that is going on.
Insta closing battles? No, thanks.
-
10 seconds is straight up too short. It would lead to a lot of cases where people can "snipe out" single ships and lock them in combat.
I like the cut of this idea, but adjustments would be necessary. I would propose:
- Mechanic as presented, with 15-20s positional spawning (need to be tagged or click join)
- A HUD indicator about battles you can positional join (arrow with two flags, like locators in flight/space simulators)
- Relative position of a battle began within your first-wave reinforcements range should be remembered - thus even if you manouver for position during these 15-20 seconds, your position is exactly the same as when the battle started
- 20-60s into the battle, you can join it without the positional spawning - you spawn according to original tag vector, 1 long cannon range behind the farthest ship in that vector
(If tagger is S and attacker is N, second-wave reinforcements will spawn south of the south-most ship in battle
if tagger is NW and attacker is SE, second-wave reinforcements will spawn NW of the most NW ship in battle)
- 60-120s into the battle, you can join according to original spawn-vector, 1.5-2 long cannon range behind
It keeps the best part of your idea - the perfect representation of OW positioning.
It allows for "cries of help" in nation chat and in general sniping-out people will not be possible. If something is on the horizon, it just might make it in time.
It's relatively easy to grasp for the ganked (if you run away from the original attacker, you are 100% sure to run from second and third way reinforcements. If you go against him - you might see reinforcements spawn in front)
It gives you a chance to join big battles and gives space for natural forming of epic battles if two big fleets operate in the region - instead of promoting limitless small-scale skirmishes.
The "join from invisibility" problem needs to be fixed aside from tagging mechanic. Designing whole tagging mechanic around a fringe case is bad game design and should never happen.
-
Go into Admin's profile, click Find Content, add to bookmarks.
You can even make an RSS off of it. Maybe.
-
2
-
-
Baron Gerardus Johannes Rijckevorst de Boubleons (aka Captain Bubbles) of the Dutch Antilles Squadron enters Hugo Republic Shipyards to set some things straight.
In the meantime, in Hugo Republic Shipyards...
-
1
-
-
It's really, again, about the game's focus.
You're more like a guy complaining that Counterstrike doesn't have enough support for crafters. The reason Counterstrike doesn't have an alchemy lab and potions is not "revenge against crafters". It's just not that game's focus and it would detract from it's focus to implement crafting.
BS. It's like complaining CS doesn't have enough support for casual gamer.
And it does.But let's take another example, that is quite closer to my stable. Star Craft - which is obviously aimed at pro comp. Focus and longevity - bah! - existence of Star Craft is caused by it's multiplayer scene. Does it mean SC doesn't get a solo gameplay? Last I checked, SC got massive solo player focused campaigns and content. It got massive playground for casual players. What it does not have is a "play 3 more comp matches to unlock next campaign mission" prompts.
And you know why? Because it wishes for SP player guys to become MP ones in the future. That's why it introduced co-op content, that's why it introduced modded game types. Because some of these players that try SP will try MP as well. Some of these in turn will try out comp.
Now admittedly, Game Labs has nowhere near enough money to give us as much content as Blizzard can. That does not excuse "executing" PvE players because the are "not worthy".
Your proposal has nothing to do with "alchemy labs in CS". It is more like forcing a casual CS player to play comp match, get cursed at by teammates, be rotflstomped, be rated bad due to inexperience and general lack of interest in comp matches.... to unlock 3 more casual games. This is insane.
This is not about the game's focus. The game's focus is obviously PvP. This does not in any way mean you should force people to play PvP and just snark at the ones who give up due to ganks. I agree all the way - PvP is king and there should be push towards it for PvE players.
The problem is you don't want to push PvE players towards PvP, you want to push them off of a cliff to PvP hyaena filled pit.
-
2
-
-
It's really a question of what type of focus this game is supposed to have. Is this supposed to be more of a PvE game or more of a PvP game? It is possible to have both (missions work to help generate PvP around particular areas, and people PvP over the right to good mission spots) but one objective can undermine the other if done wrong. That's the problem we have today: PvE is undermining PvP. The map is full of people but how many of them are really available for battle and how many are hidden inside private instances in distant parts of the map? It's a self-perpetuating problem, too: I even find myself doing a mission because I can't find anyone to fight, because they were all in missions because they couldn't find anyone to fight.But you're doing nothing to fix that problem.
Forcing people to engage in frustration is not going to make them PvP players. Making PvE irritating and unwieldly is not going to make people go PvP.
You are literally just trying to punish PvE players with no-one to gain nothing at all. And comments like "It's a PvP server, go PvE if you are too weak to play!" are not helping at all. Trolling I might be, but only because I like to make fun off of ridiculous statements like the ones mentioned. You are not going to get more PvP players by making PvE painfully masochistic. You are not going to force anyone into PvP. Convince instead of forcing.
I'm all for fixing PvE / PvP problems. But what you propose is really looking like a ill conceived attempt at "revenge" at PvE players not playing PvP.
-
2
-
-
This "your" idea was proposed at least a dozen times already... at least half of that in the topics you mentioned.
-
You have already posted about this in 2 or 3 topics about teleportation, one of them with this exact idea. There is literally no excuse for posting another topic like that!
-
3
-
-
You cannot transfer characters between servers.
Removing a character does not affect another character.
XP and crafting XP is shared between all characters on all servers. If you remove your PvP pirate character and create a new, national one - you are going to keep all your XP and crafting XP.
-
The cutter swarm problem is one of the most imaginary problems possible.
Remove basic cutters, people will just buy the 10$ not-basic cutters. They cost less than one log of compass wood.
-
3
-
-
There is an entire other server for people like that.
It's mostly empty. Which just goes to show.
Plus, he wouldn't be out there by himself. It has concentrated his own team as much as the enemy. Why not group up with some of his teammates that are around him? If we continue to base this game around anti-social PvE behavior, we will end up with an anti-social PvE playerbase.
So why don't you propose to remove missions altogether?
If a PvP server player is forbidden from ever doing PvE missions for chill - in other words you propose anyone daring to do the degrading PvE missions needs to be humiliated by ganks?
If PvE server is empty - and it somehow "goes to show" - why even care about the PvE?
Why not allow for solo play? Why base anything on being forced to group up? If we don't allow single player to play, he will never become social, because he will never have time to meet and join a group.
From a completely different barrel:
There is another game for people like you. It is called CoD/WoT/Whatever. You should go there and not post here because I am smart and I thought of an argumentation like that all by myself! And seriously? Never, ever use that kind of "argumentation". Racial segregation by a Pv type of a player? Are we really at that point yet? I don't think so. At least try to be fashionably racist or sexist, maybe?
Remove the crafting limits
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
When you're crafting 1000 iron fitting it takes more like 5 minutes longer. Of clicking the same button. Over...
and over...
and over...
and over...
and over...
and over...
and over...
and over...
and over...
... pressing? No. Necessary? Absolutely.