Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

otro nuevo Boicot en el intento de capturar George Town 2 pve


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

yes.. already being coded Not only other nations. Other players from your nations wont be able to join  if they are not in your group. This will remove the potential exploit of alts blocking the def

agree perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each..  And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility missi

you have to make a tribunal against Spanish.havoc makes this every time. after that the devs change the mechanics. or you change your nic to rediii or liq. maybe thats works aswell

1 minute ago, Nixolai said:

If cooldown after the PB is removed, the spanish trollers would be able to make empty port battles every evening against reds. 

👎 Not fun to waste time on empty PB's

agree

perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each.. 
And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility mission cost

It would make faking expensive.
Or add a clear goal to hostility missions - which must be fulfilled and if it is not no new missions will be available in this region or from this port. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Despe said:

RvR mechanics have an objetive: a figthing for a port. If you delete the friendly clan list with your alts in Denmark for prevent danes defending the port, you are broking that mechanichs too. Truxillo issue is as suspicious as San Juan is. And Gasparilla is the same.

but again they didn't used alt...they changed nation, and the last of them remained danish as clan leader and then i suppose he removed friendly clan from the ally list...then the swedish attacked san juan and took it...no alt involved.  and no broken mechanic, cause the owner clan has all the right to manage the port as they wish.  is they take back san juan as swedish clan is because they invested much more than other clans.

nothing wrong in this action.  truxillo was flipped using an alt instead, and filled with russian fleet....a big difference

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nixolai said:

If cooldown after the PB is removed, the spanish trollers would be able to make empty port battles every evening against reds. 

👎 Not fun to waste time on empty PB's

you have to make a tribunal against Spanish.havoc makes this every time. after that the devs change the mechanics. or you change your nic to rediii or liq. maybe thats works aswell

  • Like 6
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, huliotkd said:

but again they didn't used alt...they changed nation, and the last of them remained danish as clan leader and then i suppose he removed friendly clan from the ally list...then the swedish attacked san juan and took it...no alt involved.  and no broken mechanic, cause the owner clan has all the right to manage the port as they wish.  is they take back san juan as swedish clan is because they invested much more than other clans.

nothing wrong in this action.  truxillo was flipped using an alt instead, and filled with russian fleet....a big difference

thats also not ok dude. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin said:

agree

perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each.. 
And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility mission cost

Rewards for RvR would be interesting.

Although costly attacks would severely hurt the RvR capabilities of smaller nations.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin said:

agree

perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each.. 
And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility mission cost

It would make faking expensive.
Or add a clear goal to hostility missions - which must be fulfilled and if it is not no new missions will be available in this region or from this port. 

You should make a thread about this before implementing a change that could potentially piss off so many nations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dark123 said:

thats also not ok dude. 

Still waiting to see BASTD change to sweden and join their new clan CRC :)

oh wait...

6 minutes ago, admin said:

perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each.. 
And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility mission cost

That would mean two unofficial allied nations could keep taking each others ports and gain net. 100'000 doubloons every time.. not sure

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

Still waiting to see BASTD change to sweden and join their new clan CRC :)

oh wait...

That would mean two unofficial allied nations could keep taking each others ports and gain net. 100'000 doubloons every time.. not sure

Yeah, same thing happened with the old conquest marks. SORRY and France, do we remember?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, admin said:

Maybe even better way could be removal of cooldowns. Frontlines are new cooldowns, but borders can have daily fights. 

 

9 minutes ago, admin said:

agree

perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each.. 
And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility mission cost

I like both of these statements, but Nixolai does bring up valid points.  As one of the primary defenders of these no-show battles by our dear friends in Spain, it gets annoying.  I'm not sure a physical cost is the best approach, but more of a strategic one.  We also I think need to bring back a cap on the amount of ports one nation can flip against the other.  Spain for example flipped 4-5 ports on Russia one evening, showed up to zero of them.  Zero cost to that nation to do that and with how easy it is to flip ports in the keys (spainish privateer fleets), there is almost zero risk.  BTW How many no show battles is considered griefing?  

I would suggest bringing the PB total back to 3 against everyone that isn't neutral.  

Also increasing the cooldown to something like 7 days between PBs and then use VMs to purchase flags sooner  (5 day cooldown = 50 VMs / 3 day cooldown = 100 Vms   or something like this)

Edited by Mouth of Sauron
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Liq💋 said:

Still waiting to see BASTD change to sweden and join their new clan CRC :)

oh wait...

That would mean two unofficial allied nations could keep taking each others ports and gain net. 100'000 doubloons every time.. not sure

where is the net.. buy hostilitty missions -150 win battle +150

+ lose investments on every port loss.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin said:

where is the net.. buy hostilitty missions -150 win battle +150

+ lose investments on every port loss.

Some ports are instaflip 1 Hostility mission (lots of the 5700 BR ports plus Shallow Ports).

Also Investments don't mean much on unimportant ports.

Example, Sweden - GB. Sweden could flip Serrana with 2x 1st rates (50k dubs cost for 1 Hostility mission) and cap the port. They get 150k dubs. Then GB does the same. Noone has port investments in that port that can be lost.

Edited by Liq💋
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin said:

agree

perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each.. 
And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility mission cost

It would make faking expensive.
Or add a clear goal to hostility missions - which must be fulfilled and if it is not no new missions will be available in this region or from this port. 

The problem of this is the use of that to farm doubloons between factions in pacted PBs... It is a good idea, but need to be fixed

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

where is the net.. buy hostilitty missions -150 win battle +150

+ lose investments on every port loss.

A defense is always easier than an attack.

 

Costly attacks will radically decrease RvR activities. More costs, more farming, less pvp and rvr, higher boredom.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, admin said:

agree

perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each.. 
And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility mission cost

It would make faking expensive.
Or add a clear goal to hostility missions - which must be fulfilled and if it is not no new missions will be available in this region or from this port. 

So.... empty port battles become a problem now? After all this time? Let my laugh very loud.

If they are so pissed about people not coming to a port battle maybe they could stop the hostility mission, problem solved.

Or don´t waste time waiting and, if someone takes the port this time, retake it a few days later.

But making the game even harder for small nations it´s not a solution, i think.

Edited by zaba
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, zaba said:

So.... empty port battles become a problem now? After all this time? Let my laugh very loud.

If they are so pissed about people not coming to a port battle maybe they could stop the hostility mission, problem solved.

Or don´t waste time waiting and, if someone takes the port this time, retake it a few days later.

But making the game even harder for small nations it´s not a solution, i think.

It is easy... If you flip a port come to the PB and your small nation can take the port and make it great. If you have not any intention to come to the PB dont flip the port. You make vs us like 10-15 empty port batlles the last 2 weeks, 5 in the same day... Stop trolling and rules like this could not be necesary.

Edited by Despe
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin said:

Reported player has participated in 2 missions

For taking a slot: Warning. 

  • Player have violated "interference in RVR" rule.
  • For taking a slot, he will be warned and his steam ID recorded for future violations (that will count to his steam ID even if he changes nation).

For hostility interference. No action due to no interference.
Port will not be set neutral or transferred. 

  • Despite acceptance of interference he could not change hostility itself. Hostility points are awarded individually and on exit the battle. Spanish players exiting were creating hostility points (even if other players are still in battle)
  • Player could not affect interference as it is awarded to those who sink ship in a mission and exit the mission. Staying in the mission or keeping it open does not affect or delay hostility points. 
  • British clans were faster gaining hostility and would have got the battle for themselves because they accumulated 11152 points and Spanish only were able to accumulate 5229 points

 

There is another similar case on Truxillo where action will be taken soon. Because of such cases happening the entry to hostility missions will be only limited to clan alliance and group members (who are already invited to a group)

 

post unlocked for discussions.

Thank you for your quick performance, I feel happy with your statement. We knew that we did not reach the percentage of PB to obtain the port, but we found it unfair and dishonest, the entry of said player in our warming
 

Edited by CHARLIE V
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, admin said:

agree

perhaps its time to sell hostility missions. That would solve most of the problems.. 50,000 doubloons per each.. 
And add reward for taking a port.. 150,000 to recover the hostility mission cost

It would make faking expensive.
Or add a clear goal to hostility missions - which must be fulfilled and if it is not no new missions will be available in this region or from this port. 

 

That is, hostility missions are only available to large factions. Like Russia, for example. It would be interesting, that you will explain how hostility missions will take by the factions that have 5 ports, and that the only way to get doubloons is to make fleets (if they arrive) or delivering cargo's that send you to the other side of the map. 

 

Good way to tip the scale.

Edited by Espinaca
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Espinaca said:

 

That is, hostility missions are only available to large factions. Like Russia, for example. It would be interesting, that you will explain how hostility missions will take by the factions that have 5 ports, and that the only way to get doubloons is to make fleets (if they arrive) or delivering cargo's that send you to the other side of the map. 

 

Good way to tip the scale.

And make PvP is a good way to get some doubs, i only have 15k so... I can explain you that, it is easy. If you want to take a port you flip it and you can come to the PB, like prusians, americans or other small factions do. If you want to troll with empty PB, pay for that.

In my opinion is a good idea make a rule to prevent any kind of trolling.

Edited by Despe
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin said:

which could be fun.. and could drastically change port battles. especially for small nations. 

Makes Multiflips easier. Defenders has always to show up while attacker can just no show without any negatives and even gets elite ships helping. Attackers should get a drawback as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin said:
  • Despite acceptance of interference he could not change hostility itself. Hostility points are awarded individually and on exit the battle. Spanish players exiting were creating hostility points (even if other players are still in battle)
  • Player could not affect interference as it is awarded to those who sink ship in a mission and exit the mission. Staying in the mission or keeping it open does not affect or delay hostility points. 

And what happens when the player from another nation / clan that enters a warm-up is sunk by AI? As I understand that gives negative points, and enough. Then anyone can enter and let themselves sink, and ruin the warming.

And what happens when the AI ship that spam along with that player shoots the other players and prevents them from leaving the battle at the time of departure, delaying their departure enough to lose a warm-up?

Edited by Sersanara
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Despe said:

And make PvP is a good way to get some doubs, i only have 15k so... I can explain you that, it is easy. If you want to take a port you flip it and you can come to the PB, like prusians, americans or other small factions do. If you want to troll with empty PB, pay for that.

In my opinion is a good idea make a rule to prevent any kind of trolling.

 

It is normal to see things easy, when we have facilities to do those things.

You go to the pvp to get doubloons, to which part of the PVP, to the patrol, that when you go out of battle you have 20 ships waiting, or go to an enemy port and wait for 20 ships to leave. This they must have thought before. Instead, now, I'm sure someone has warmed their ears and they want to change everything.

 If instead of 50,000 doubloons there were 50,000 reals, "is not sufficient", "minimum 3 million" "Not less than 10,000 doubloons". Tell the players who play in small nations, when they don't have time to get it, or decent ships, because it turns out that there is a nation that tramples any attempt at the shipyard other than the admiralty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...