Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Banished Privateer

Caribbean Invasion News

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

The "loser in command" who has so far only lost to 7UP in a port battle a grand total of... erm, once. Actually come to think of it, the last time I lost a PB to Spain, before that Little Cayman battle (5th try lucky) was back when VLTRA was still the top dog before the Russians joined the game. Corrientes I suppose counts but we were screened out for the most part. The recent ones, Little Harbour, twice, La Des, you've lost and lost quite badly might I add.

I mean, if I'm a loser, God alone knows what you are.

I remember well all those hunts when you sailed into Batabano bay with your superfast Snow just to run away faster. Even PBs you enter in light ships only to avoid any proper fight. Easy answer why we never see you in Nassau patrol, what should be a paradise for any light ship captain. In patrol there is no running forever. Nothing for you, mate 😄

Spain is the only nation right now which attacks rediii. Because we don't fear him. And we get sunk a lot. But never from you mate. You hide behind his name and keep running all day long.😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Christendom said:

Lots of yapping and salt on this thread and not a lot of battle screenshots. Including a lot of yapping from folks who were snoozing away in their beds last night instead of being out sinking ships at the PVP event.  

GB won.  WO played horribly in the PB.  Pirates sunk a shit load of first rates.  

/endthread

A fair assessment of the PB and Screening action, the short time I spent in combat was fun, and good natured, while not hearing the original order for a starboard turn, pre-battle which placed me almost adjacent to three SOL's, in a bad position to receive support, it is, delightfully ironic, that, I may well of started the combat 'in irons', with the outcome being exactly the same had I of heard the order first time around!   GG to the Pirates and VCO in particular. o7

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all of this, but God help me if I see anyone from a zerg nation dare to cry, "there is no pvp", or "I hate empty PBs", or "this game is dead because of low pop", or "why does everyone hide in their capital zone",or get mad when we call them ganker zergs. And no, this is not aimed at any particular nation, but rather those who stay on a zerg bandwagon.

A PB requires at most 12 ppl. Plus a screening fleet, if needed. If a nation of 50+ claims there is no good PvP then they and eveyone knows why.

...and to get back on topic :D
VvtuK7r.jpg

Edited by van der Decken
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, van der Decken said:

I agree with all of this, but God help me if I see anyone from a zerg nation dare to cry, "there is no pvp", or "I hate empty PBs", or "this game is dead because of low pop", or "why does everyone hide in their capital zone",or get mad when we call them ganker zergs. And no, this is not aimed at any particular nation, but rather those who stay on a zerg bandwagon.

A PB requires at most 12 ppl. Plus a screening fleet, if needed. If a nation of 50+ claims there is no good PvP then they and eveyone knows why.

To breathe some light into this.

We left the dutch nation because we got no support anymore and the actions we did were not liked by the clans anymore so we decided to go to the most threatened nation of the server with the most to do which at that time was GB. The vote was close between pirates and GB though TBH but everyone hates GB anyway so we thought its a nice place for us :D 

You'r welcome :)

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

First, I'd point out that, RvR especially (and partially in general), missing the numbers you can do almost nothing: you can have the most elite PB fleet... but if you miss a serious screening you'll simply not enter the PB. Therefore: without numbers (as in reality of war) you cant attack.

Prussia did pretty well so far with very low player numbers ( used to be much lower even ). They used the quality over quantity approach. So it is harder to RvR with low numbers of players, not impossible.

12 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

A - War is not fair. Being "fair" in war is stupidity. And this is a WAR game.

Yeah, very true. A war GAME. So what's the point of owning some pixel map at the cost of a interesting and challenging RvR game? Same would be true for ganks, again. Sure ganking seems logical if you have a really empty life an get off on sinking pixel ships but where is the fun and the challenge? 

29 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Therefore: please stop with this.
NA is not an Arena game. It's a wargame. And follows the same rules of war.

So you suggest we all join GB and do PvE instead of RvR? Again this mindset of "it's war, it's not fair" is the same of a ganker. If someone enjoys his 10 vs 1 fights that is understandable, because there is no risk involved and it is a win, even if not deserved and not a interesting battle. Some people need this and it is perfectly fine as long as there are players willing to be the target for it.

If RvR is not balanced and interesting, people will simply not participate a lot or join the zerg. It is a war game but you can't expect people to spend their free time providing content for others, when there is no balance between nations in some form. Then comes the moaning about empty PBs... 

You know what else is a war game? Chess. Why do you think nobody would match or want to watch a pro chess player against some mentally disabled person? War is not fair after all.

 

That being said, I wouldn't even mind if people simply just chose their nation / team and stuck with it but all this nation switching and blobbing up in zergs on the dominant nations to stomp the unorganised rest of the server, all while celebrating it, is just pathetic AF in my opinion. I just like to imagine how grand RvR could be with some more balance between nations.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

I remember well all those hunts when you sailed into Batabano bay with your superfast Snow just to run away faster. Even PBs you enter in light ships only to avoid any proper fight. Easy answer why we never see you in Nassau patrol, what should be a paradise for any light ship captain. In patrol there is no running forever. Nothing for you, mate 😄

Spain is the only nation right now which attacks rediii. Because we don't fear him. And we get sunk a lot. But never from you mate. You hide behind his name and keep running all day long.😋

Yes I run when faced with 12 ships, that's the smart thing to do lol. 1v1 me and stop being a pussy.

You're a buffoon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

Prussia did pretty well so far with very low player numbers ( used to be much lower even ). They used the quality over quantity approach. So it is harder to RvR with low numbers of players, not impossible.

Yeah, very true. A war GAME. So what's the point of owning some pixel map at the cost of a interesting and challenging RvR game? Same would be true for ganks, again. Sure ganking seems logical if you have a really empty life an get off on sinking pixel ships but where is the fun and the challenge? 

So you suggest we all join GB and do PvE instead of RvR? Again this mindset of "it's war, it's not fair" is the same of a ganker. If someone enjoys his 10 vs 1 fights that is understandable, because there is no risk involved and it is a win, even if not deserved and not a interesting battle. Some people need this and it is perfectly fine as long as there are players willing to be the target for it.

If RvR is not balanced and interesting, people will simply not participate a lot or join the zerg. It is a war game but you can't expect people to spend their free time providing content for others, when there is no balance between nations in some form. Then comes the moaning about empty PBs... 

You know what else is a war game? Chess. Why do you think nobody would match or want to watch a pro chess player against some mentally disabled person? War is not fair after all.

 

That being said, I wouldn't even mind if people simply just chose their nation / team and stuck with it but all this nation switching and blobbing up in zergs on the dominant nations to stomp the unorganised rest of the server, all while celebrating it, is just pathetic AF in my opinion. I just like to imagine how grand RvR could be with some more balance between nations.

 

All these complaints about zerging but in reality you just have more targets, look at navasse last night I think noone complained about british screening after the battles ;) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rediii said:

To breathe some light into this.

We left the dutch nation because we got no support anymore and the actions we did were not liked by the clans anymore so we decided to go to the most threatened nation of the server with the most to do which at that time was GB. The vote was close between pirates and GB though TBH but everyone hates GB anyway so we thought its a nice place for us :D 

You'r welcome :)

Russia the most Threatened nation. Thought they was top 2 nation, when you joined after the Dutch adventure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, staun said:

Russia the most Threatened nation. Thought they was top 2 nation, when you joined after the Dutch adventure.

Nobody has the balls to go Polish or US either. I think the main reason Prussia is so hated is, because they build that nation from scratch and can hold their own in RvR without numbers. People seem to be jealous of that achievement. I would actually enjoy GB concentrating their tryhard RvR orgy on Prussia, attempting to remove them from the map, now that they have all important ports anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, staun said:

Russia the most Threatened nation. Thought they was top 2 nation, when you joined after the Dutch adventure.

oh yea that one month, we thought it would be fun to attack sweden together with reverse but oh well :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sovereign said:

Nobody has the balls to go Polish or US either. I think the main reason Prussia is so hated is, because they build that nation from scratch and can hold their own in RvR without numbers. People seem to be jealous of that achievement. I would actually enjoy GB concentrating their tryhard RvR orgy on Prussia, attempting to remove them from the map, now that they have all important ports anyways...

They defend themselve with timer dodging, they could have 2 people and defend with this

 

and now I stop spamming great battle results, hf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Licinio Chiavari you and your clan did a "wise" movement and changed your faction joining GB with @rediii, the most populated faction. Maybe all rvr clans must Chang to GB too... The entire world will be British... 

War game you said and it's true, is not fair. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rediii said:

They defend themselve with timer dodging, they could have 2 people and defend with this

Well, you have to capture ports before you can put timers on them. Also lately 2 people online per prussian clan, outside prime time, sounds about right, so who can blame them... If I was part of their RvR team, I wouldn't want to feed zerglings either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

Prussia did pretty well so far with very low player numbers ( used to be much lower even ). They used the quality over quantity approach. So it is harder to RvR with low numbers of players, not impossible.

We are speaking while facing enemies with a clue.
Again.
We all know what top notch PvPers with high end ships do vs random casuals.

But the same top captains, able to win 1v5+, usually die pretty easy vs 2-3 veterans with similarly sized and geared ships with some skill.

19 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

So what's the point of owning some pixel map at the cost of a interesting and challenging RvR game?

As far as I remember BR in PBs (and in PZs) is limited. So no risk of a challenging technically fair battle. Right?

20 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

Same would be true for ganks, again.

It's not so difficult to think ahead and AVOID being ganked.
Still shit happens. And I'm fair being on both sides of eventual gank.

21 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

Sure ganking seems logical if you have a really empty life an get off on sinking pixel ships but where is the fun and the challenge?

And indirect personal attack cant be missing.

Note: in some WWII wargames I work at best as TankHunter. No. I do not shiny charge in the middle of the field... waiting to receive 100s shots on me.
I stalk, hide, and wait the right opportunity, with all pros and cons of a tank destroyer.

Is this meaning I'm a ganker and I have an empty life?

23 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

So you suggest we all join GB and do PvE instead of RvR? gain this mindset of "it's war, it's not fair" is the same of a ganker. If someone enjoys his 10 vs 1 fights

Did I suggest? I dont remember.
Remaining about La Navasse PB and screening... would you like to count the total numbers involved on both sides?

Because I dont remember nothing close a 10v1 both in OW nor in PB.

And, sidenote, you're speaking with me, that majority of time sailed alone for months. See above about not being ganked.

I do not enjoy 10v1. As I do not enjoy 1v10.
It's part of war. And I accept it. I could get any kind of fight, and I'll fight what fate offers me as possible. Usually learning something.

27 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

If RvR is not balanced and interesting, people will simply not participate a lot or join the zerg. It is a war game but you can't expect people to spend their free time providing content for others, when there is no balance between nations in some form. Then comes the moaning about empty PBs... 

Again. If a side goes zerging (so ATTACKING) what's the problem? plenty defensive PBs... where the BR is limited so "fair". Right?

And again. I do not remember British fleet outnumbering 10v1 French (and allies) yesterday both in OW and in PB. May be I am wrong. Am I?

29 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

You know what else is a war game? Chess. Why do you think nobody would match or want to watch a pro chess player against some mentally disabled person? War is not fair after all.

Chess is the least war-like wargame in the world. Let me know when in history two exactly same sized armies of clones with exactly the same gear ever fought.

Do you want a pure mental balanced game. Chess.
Warfare is different; the more "realistic", the more.
Requires a lot of improvisation. It's subject to fate ("no human activity is so subject to fate than war" - Clausewitz).

32 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

That being said, I wouldn't even mind if people simply just chose their nation / team and stuck with it but all this nation switching and blobbing up in zergs on the dominant nations to stomp the unorganised rest of the server, all while celebrating it, is just pathetic AF in my opinion. I just like to imagine how grand RvR could be with some more balance between nations.

A - didnt say that Prussians have high quality? So why you're saying the rest of the server is unorganized? French fleet was unorganized. I hope not. The Russians attacking Sweden are un-organized?

B - how grand RvR when there are like 5 nations of similar skill and numbers... and then, because it's human, because it's natural, because there're personal hates, because diplomacy exists, 3 gang together to smash the others? or directly 4 v 1?

 

NA passed different "historical periods" both politically (RvR) and game-wise (metas).
There is always the "alpha"... but, not strangely I'd add, it's not the same by the start of the OW/RvR game. Now it's GB. We'll see for how long. Right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jorge said:

@Licinio Chiavari you and your clan did a "wise" movement and changed your faction joining GB with @rediii, the most populated faction. Maybe all rvr clans must Chang to GB too... The entire world will be British... 

War game you said and it's true, is not fair. 

May be you missed that we left Spain for Pirates first... and for personal reasons: to form an Italian clan.
Then (similar to HAVOC in VP) we got zero support from other pirates... AND EVEN Pirates screening out HAVOC defending our port (on Christmas).

Dont try to tell me wishing me not to be the underdog: I played for more than 1 year (if not 2) USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

Nobody has the balls to go Polish or US either. I think the main reason Prussia is so hated is, because they build that nation from scratch and can hold their own in RvR without numbers. People seem to be jealous of that achievement. I would actually enjoy GB concentrating their tryhard RvR orgy on Prussia, attempting to remove them from the map, now that they have all important ports anyways...

I think you think to high about Prussia. Think most actually don’t care abouth Prussia. Ppl care abouth those that attack them, and for me it right now only seams to be two nations attacking, and Prussia is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Then (similar to HAVOC in VP) we got zero support from other pirates... AND EVEN Pirates screening out HAVOC defending our port (on Christmas).

Zero support from other pirates =/ FENIX upset because VCO wouldn't night flip ports you guys refused to attack.  From day 1 in pirates you guys were allied with HAVOC / GB, which I found a little puzzling coming from Spain.  

You wanted someone to do the heavy lifting for you and take ports you wanted.  We said no.  You found a nation that would and joined the zerg.

Edited by Christendom
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

Wow, dicks.

 

 I'll rephrase that to diplomatic speak for you.

 

 Oh dear, how very unsportsmanlike!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Zero support from other pirates =/ FENIX upset because VCO wouldn't night flip ports you guys refused to attack.  From day 1 in pirates you guys were allied with HAVOC / GB, which I found a little puzzling coming from Spain.  

You wanted someone to do the heavy lifting for you and take ports you wanted.  We said no.  You found a nation that would and joined the zerg.

The plot thickens!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

We are speaking while facing enemies with a clue.
Again.
We all know what top notch PvPers with high end ships do vs random casuals.

But the same top captains, able to win 1v5+, usually die pretty easy vs 2-3 veterans with similarly sized and geared ships with some skill.

 

52 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

quality over quantity

Yeah, thats basically what I said. They don't have a zerg but high skilled players to make up for it partly ( this still limits them in RvR but at least they get a challenge. They could also have joined a zerg nation and have 5x more RvR power but they chose not to, for the sake of good fights.

19 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

As far as I remember BR in PBs (and in PZs) is limited. So no risk of a challenging technically fair battle. Right?

That is only true, if you are able to get enough players to fill the BR and also get them into the PB ( no screening ). Also you have to generate hostility, so numbers again, right?

22 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

It's not so difficult to think ahead and AVOID being ganked.

What does that have to do with the topic? It is not about how the gank happens but the fight itself.

23 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

And indirect personal attack cant be missing.

If you consider yourself a ganker, maybe.

25 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Note: in some WWII wargames I work at best as TankHunter. No. I do not shiny charge in the middle of the field... waiting to receive 100s shots on me.
I stalk, hide, and wait the right opportunity, with all pros and cons of a tank destroyer.

 I don't know how this relates to ganking... at all.

27 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

It's part of war. And I accept it. I could get any kind of fight, and I'll fight what fate offers me as possible. Usually learning something.

That must be why you left pirates and join the zerg then?

28 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Again. If a side goes zerging (so ATTACKING) what's the problem? plenty defensive PBs... where the BR is limited so "fair". Right?

So you see no problem in one nation being able to attack and defend while the other is limited to defending only? One side can gain and lose, the other only lose? Ok.

29 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

And again. I do not remember British fleet outnumbering 10v1 French (and allies) yesterday both in OW and in PB. May be I am wrong. Am I?

Nobody cares about the british or french in particular, it is the system itself and how the players choose to play it.

32 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Chess is the least war-like wargame in the world. Let me know when in history two exactly same sized armies of clones with exactly the same gear ever fought.

Do you want a pure mental balanced game. Chess.
Warfare is different; the more "realistic", the more.

Again you are completely missing the point. Chess is a wargame and yes, it is balanced - that is why it has been popular for centuries. What's the point of your "realistic" war when everyone can simply switch nations, use alts or quit the game? Nothing is interesting about RvR, unless there are balanced factions. What's the point of winning the pixel map and war, if nobody cares and there is no real opposition to make it competitive? It is not a realistic war - it is a game.

37 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

A - didnt say that Prussians have high quality? So why you're saying the rest of the server is unorganized? French fleet was unorganized. I hope not. The Russians attacking Sweden are un-organized?

True, unorganized, less organized and / or massively outnumbered... does it matter? The point is, there is no real balance and thus no actual competition making it interesting.

41 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

B - how grand RvR when there are like 5 nations of similar skill and numbers... and then, because it's human, because it's natural, because there're personal hates, because diplomacy exists, 3 gang together to smash the others? or directly 4 v 1?

So one nation smashing all others is better than 5 balanced nations at war that could lead to 4 vs 1 due to really bad diplomacy and behaviour from the 1 that is attacked by the others? Interesting. It wouldn't be much different from what we have with the zerg but ok. Also what I was imagining was no teaming up on others like that but balanced nations FFA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sovereign said:

 

Yeah, thats basically what I said. They don't have a zerg but high skilled players to make up for it partly ( this still limits them in RvR but at least they get a challenge. They could also have joined a zerg nation and have 5x more RvR power but they chose not to, for the sake of good fights.

That is only true, if you are able to get enough players to fill the BR and also get them into the PB ( no screening ). Also you have to generate hostility, so numbers again, right?

What does that have to do with the topic? It is not about how the gank happens but the fight itself.

If you consider yourself a ganker, maybe.

 I don't know how this relates to ganking... at all.

That must be why you left pirates and join the zerg then?

So you see no problem in one nation being able to attack and defend while the other is limited to defending only? One side can gain and lose, the other only lose? Ok.

Nobody cares about the british or french in particular, it is the system itself and how the players choose to play it.

Again you are completely missing the point. Chess is a wargame and yes, it is balanced - that is why it has been popular for centuries. What's the point of your "realistic" war when everyone can simply switch nations, use alts or quit the game? Nothing is interesting about RvR, unless there are balanced factions. What's the point of winning the pixel map and war, if nobody cares and there is no real opposition to make it competitive? It is not a realistic war - it is a game.

True, unorganized, less organized and / or massively outnumbered... does it matter? The point is, there is no real balance and thus no actual competition making it interesting.

So one nation smashing all others is better than 5 balanced nations at war that could lead to 4 vs 1 due to really bad diplomacy and behaviour from the 1 that is attacked by the others? Interesting. It wouldn't be much different from what we have with the zerg but ok. Also what I was imagining was no teaming up on others like that but balanced nations FFA.

 

If one nation get to strong and smash all other, they just have to join and beat the bully. The problem is not that there is a strong one, the problem is, they are the only one doing RvR. The the rest just dont really care for RvR anymore.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×