Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

War of the lovers revisited


King of Crowns

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Aster said:

If the night time players are just putting timers late to dodge you and don't actually play during that time. Then surely they shouldn't be able to defend during that timer and should be easy prey.

I just can't believe the EU players set all their timers at 10 am to avoid fighting us. Are they scared or what?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:

I just can't believe the EU players set all their timers at 10 am to avoid fighting us. Are they scared or what?

Yep all Eu players are affraid of the ppl outside the EU timezone. We all know that nobody from EU time have won a fight agsinst ppl from another timezone. But understand your problem. Why should the EU players have the chance to Dodge pb on a global server. Think you might have a point there. 

That EU players don’t want to grind money all the time, so they can pay for timers, so they can have PB when they are home from work and before they go to bed, is just a poor excuse. You hit right on. They are just cowards. I was actually thinking about surgest that we test a periode where timers where cheaper, but your well argumentet post changed my mind. Think we should go all in. No timers at all. Make this a true global server. In a war you can’t tell the enemy you can’t attack right now. They ofc attack, when they see the chance is best for succes. I know they will whine a bit, but they shouldn’t be allowed to use timers to dodge fights. It the want timers it should cost much more. Maybe like 3-4 kk a day

 Set the Caribbean free from cowards

 @admin Remove all timers

One truely free server is one happy server

edit:

Oh wait I might have made a mistake. EU players will proberbly then only flip ports when those from other timezones can’t be online. That needed to be fixed, so they can’t dodge pb’s.

Edited by staun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a suggestion a while back that control for a port was determined by a series of battles over a period, a day for example, not just 1 decisive battle.  I like this idea, because then timers would be irrelevant, and global activity would matter, not continental activity.  You could organize with your clans globally.

Only drawback is for smaller nations, but we already have that and always will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

There was a suggestion a while back that control for a port was determined by a series of battles over a period, a day for example, not just 1 decisive battle.  I like this idea, because then timers would be irrelevant, and global activity would matter, not continental activity.  You could organize with your clans globally.

Only drawback is for smaller nations, but we already have that and always will.

A solution to small nations could be just to remove them totally. Lets focus players in few big nations. Lets have Pirates, they ofc need to be there. Gb, because of there real naval history. Spain because of there real present at that time. Maybe put in US because it is a big nation, with lots of consumers. Just that 4. It also would fix the problem with low population.

If we are going to make a gameplay thats make it even harder ore impossible to be a small nation, then I think it is better they don’t exist. I joined Denmark and am in Denmark, because I am from Denmark. Think lots of players when they start will join in the nation they live in, if its a posibility. Those players might we loose, if they can’t have a good time. Then it is better if they from the start get in a big and alive nation. But do think that only will happens if they can’t join in  there real life nation.

Edited by staun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Christendom said:

A big issue is the fact that we have 11 nations and 400 players on a good day.  Nations simply cannot have round the clock support because the base is so diluted.  

Neither can they keep finding money for timers for ports. 

It is a big issue for alot of players. For many there is no reason to do RvR because of this. They will just loose them anyway when they can’t be online. We hold Misteriosa for a long time. We knew we had to have timers on, otherwise the GB at that time just would have flipped the port when we cant be on. We had the port to get some fights.

Denmark is maybe a bit special, with basicly only one clan paying for the ports. But before every pb players basicly said, lets win the fight, but loose the port. We got feed up trading gold to pay. So we just Downsized at stopped do RvR. We only do it when we are attacked, now we have a deal with the polish about friendly pb each week. But I think it is sad that is where we are now and I think the expensive timers are a big part of it.

Edited by staun
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*cough cough*

half the game is based on denying fights by most means available... ;) Why should Conquest be different ?

Nature of a sandbox - we make it as we want it to be.WE, players in general, want no fights except when we want them.

*sips coffee*

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, staun said:

Neither can they keep finding money for timers for ports. 

It is a big issue for alot of players. For many there is no reason to do RvR because of this. They will just loose them anyway when they can’t be online. We hold Misteriosa for a long time. We knew we had to have timers on, otherwise the GB at that time just would have flipped the port when we cant be on. We had the port to get some fights.

Denmark is maybe a bit special, with basicly only one clan paying for the ports. But before every pb players basicly said, lets win the fight, but loose the port. We got feed up trading gold to pay. So we just Downsized at stopped do RvR. We only do it when we are attacked, now we have a deal with the polish about friendly pb each week. But I think it is sad that is where we are now and I think the expensive timers are a big part of it.

totally agree with you at least they should not be that expensive with anything

and in return for the money, like when having a port owned by the clan, have a reserved dock space for instance, or a free building slot.

there is no reason for a clan to have to own a port for that kind of money 

its contra productive

(you own a port to have some privileges for your governmental possession like a free parking space at your own carport  ...)

Edited by Thonys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RedNeckMilkMan said:

I just can't believe the EU players set all their timers at 10 am to avoid fighting us. Are they scared or what?

I just can't believe US players set all their timers at 4 am to avoid fighting EU. Are they scared or what?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Batman said:

I just can't believe US players set all their timers at 4 am to avoid fighting EU. Are they scared or what?

Silly guestion batsi. Ofc it is us the EU players that are affraid.  Don't try to turn it around. 

Edit: 

Was wrong of me to disregard your question. But it gives it self it is the many EU timers that fear the few Night timers. And words like sleep and work just id excuses.

So my sercier aopolygy.

Edited by staun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Aster said:

If the night time players are just putting timers late to dodge you and don't actually play during that time. Then surely they shouldn't be able to defend during that timer and should be easy prey.

Well, think it would demand someone to want to be online at that time to do it. Guess nobody wants to waist there beauty sleep. 

If I got Crissy right. He and kinky have made peace and don’t fight each other anymore. So who is actually left to do it?

Danes are a bit better off right now. We got some amarican timers. Not sure there numbers are enough to be a fighting force at Night. And the EU timers danes rarely have the chance to support them, because of work and real life.

Edited by staun
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it many times. An American player is only going to play with players of his same schedule. It does not matter if we are in several servers, or all in it, it does not matter if is boring to fight against the same players.There can not be interaction between players with different schedules ... I'm not going to fight with an American player. For that to happen, one of us has to stop sleeping, and that is very difficult to happen. I understand that when the game comes out and there are many more players, there will be two servers as there was at the beginning. This is a test used to detect mechanics that do not work, such as this one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2018 at 3:42 AM, Anolytic said:

Really? One single Russian clan "steamrolled" GB, the largest playerbase in the game? Every port we attacked, Brits defended with twice our numbers - until they gave up after a couple of bad losses and only defended the odd port, while shifting their vast numbers to bullying the Prussians who were then down in Panama. We only took ports from Brits because GB owned 2/3 of the map at the time and needed shrinking. We would have stopped attacking brits many weeks earlier, but devs introduced the stupid winner-takes-all Conquest marks system, which meant it only made sense to attack whatever nation was at the top of the leaderboard, and that was still brits. When we did stop, brits were still top 3.

Spain and USA was never "half the server" - no matter how you count. We only allied with them because they were both struggling and loosing their respective wars at the time. They needed help, and it gave us something to do. Almost all territory that we took from GB back then was territory that Spain had in turn lost to Britain "steamrolling" them in the Gulf and the Yukatan. Most of it we gave back to Spain.

You're so concerned with history, but you have very spotty memory. "The Russians" were the same players as those who as Danes a few months earlier were the only ones to help brits when they were absolutely desperate, having no ports yielding conquest marks after the disaster at Sant Iago, following the wipe and devs' first iteration of a conquest marks system. Until we gave Brits a hand, you struggled to even field a full Agamemnon-fleet, let alone any first or second rates, and all other nations were harassing Britain.

Since the arrival of the new nations, Russia has attacked ports of every single other nation, including Spain and USA. So what? We are not constrained to always have the same allies or enemies. We always, when we were able, helped weaker nations that struggled, and we never accepted that some nations should be able to hold onto most of the ports on the map and bully other nations without being challenged at all. We attacked Sweden the first time around because they were bullying every other nation, including Britain. Yet all the other nations were too cowardly to help us fight back. The whole server had fallen into the aptly named Stockholm Syndrome, even helping Sweden defend ports they themselves had lost to Sweden.

Long before Banished or most of the current Prussians joined that nation, Russia offered to help Prussia defend their last ports in Panama, when several nations were attacking them. We were also the only nation to help Poland get their capital Barahona back, after they lost it to pirates, even though they were still allied with Sweden, our enemy. For months we also diverged from our own interests, solely to help the Dutch in their every effort to recapturing their territory, and we spent weeks to help the pirates.

This time around Sweden, who alone has at least three times our numbers, still allies with two of the other biggest nations on the map, GB and Dutch, in addition to their vassals the Danes and the Polish, so that they can screen us out of every battle. 

EDIT:

Russia didn't begin that war. It began only when Sweden betrayed their word and backstabbed us, without provocation.

There are only two reasons to multiflip, and they are that it is the only way to have any chance to get by the screening when you fight a nation that vastly outnumber you, and also when the only way to help another nation take back their lost territory is to occupy their main forces on another front. It gave a bad taste back when we multiflipped a relatively small clan like RUBLI, but it was the only way that Poland was ever going to be able to take back Barahona where PFK's clan warehouse lay, if RUBLI was busy elsewhere and the port was empty.

Also, there was no deception. We cancelled all treaties. We have no commitments binding us to any other nations. But we do still try to help nations that are struggling. What would you have us do? Pile on to the rush to take Spanish empty ports? No thanks. And the US has no ports to take. It is neither history nor relationships or preference that prevent us from more drastically altering our stance towards Spain or US. It is that you guys are doing such a good job taking empty, worthless ports from them.

three times the number lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jean Ribault said:

There was a suggestion a while back that control for a port was determined by a series of battles over a period, a day for example, not just 1 decisive battle.  I like this idea, because then timers would be irrelevant, and global activity would matter, not continental activity.  You could organize with your clans globally.

Only drawback is for smaller nations, but we already have that and always will.

A series of battles doesn't solve the problem. The solution was discussed and rejected for a reason - the battles would continue to favour british and american playerbase since they in reality is the only pops with round the clock coverage. The real solution would be to remove the nations and remake the map so we get a better map in total but ofcourse remove any pretense of history.

4 hours ago, Alvar Fañez de Minaya said:

I've said it many times. An American player is only going to play with players of his same schedule. It does not matter if we are in several servers, or all in it, it does not matter if is boring to fight against the same players.There can not be interaction between players with different schedules ... I'm not going to fight with an American player. For that to happen, one of us has to stop sleeping, and that is very difficult to happen. I understand that when the game comes out and there are many more players, there will be two servers as there was at the beginning. This is a test used to detect mechanics that do not work, such as this one.

This ^^ basically sums it up. The regional servers will work because it will channel players of the same timezones into playing together at the same time. US players would be playing on a US schedule and EU players would be playing on a EU schedule.. And ofc the damnable aussies wouldn't be playing.... a lot like it is now, just with less friction between the two playerbases.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

Not in this battle. I tagged him before he could join your battle. 

I don't curse people and I don't rage; feel free to prove otherwise. If you had any idea at all what you were talking about you would realize that I am the one that calms everyone else down and keeps us on mission.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...