Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour 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. 

 

1 hour 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

 

the incentive to show up and win could be a reward for more than the cost.

I'm not sure if 50k doubloons WOULD be the cost for hostility missions, but if it was I think RvR would die. I know it was just an example.

 

I really liked the Flag System for one major thing. It cost the clan/player money to buy the Flag, so if they didn't show to fight the PB they "wasted" that money. So I would like to see some sort of "cost" to hostility missions as well.

I still would definitely enjoy more rewards for winning/Losing a PB - like a "thank you for participating" reward?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

33 minutes ago, Espinaca said:

when you go out of battle you have 20 ships waiting,

like you do most times when you are waiting outsides too. Wellcome to the PvP server

34 minutes ago, Espinaca said:

Tell the players who play in small nations, when they don't have time to get it, or decent ships,

last PB battles vs you in was i participate your ships was better that mine...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

I dont trade anything, all my doubs are from pvp.... You don't need ports for pvp... 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin   you really need to sort out this game with regards alts ... seems there is one rule for some and different rules for others ,,, Trux is no different to San Juan ,, unless Havoc can prove ,, that  no one  in Danish Havoc had a swedish alt and no one in swedish havoc  had a danish alt ...

did the guys who attacked San juan really sail all their ships and goods out of san juan to a neutral port and then  change nations ,, and then sail it all the waty back ,,, hilarous if you suggest so ... they just used alts and traded  the ships and goods between them after port was taken ... we all know it

second point Santiago de cuba  is owned by by a prussian clan ,,, using GB alts ,,, as a nation we can do nothing about this we cant attack it or force them to hand it over ,, our ship yards and choice of port bonus and ultimatley its defence are at the mercy of a prussian clan ..

you made a ruling about this before at Bluefields when  a Gb clan left and joined  dutch nation ,,, suprise suprise some of the players who are now in Havoc crying about Trux ,,,, you said at the time it was a s game intended and clans own ports not nations ...

so Bastd owned truxillo  not GB if we decide to hand it to another clan from another nation its our  choice  and certainly not another nations  choice who gets the port ..

so lama go prussian and still own SDC because they have left alts in nation ,, thats fine ...

HAVOC  go swedish still own  SAN JUAN  but leave  alts in danish clan  thats  fine

yet Bastd clan memebers go swedish and leave alts in Bastd  but thats not fine ,,,

so whats an alt  is  CRC captain a swedish captain  with an alt in GB  or a GB captain with an alt in sweden ...   how do you decide  which is main and which is alt

when havoc took san juan  which were alts and which were main ... the only person who can decide that is the player ...

just shows you what a can of worms  this is

so sort out SDC  ,,, any potential ruling against BASTD should apply to havoc

 

Edited by shunt
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin said:

Truxillo ruling will be announced soon.. When we hotfix of hostility entry rules. 

And what about a ruling regarding what happened at ports like San Juan where a clan who owns a port decides to change nation but leaves at least one player in the former nation to remove all other clans from friendlist so no other clans from the nation can defend the port?

What happened at Truxillo was not against the game rules but it was an abuse of mechanics the same as what happened at San Juan was not against the rules but is also an abuse of the game mechanics. Are we going to get a hotfix for this abuse so it cannot happen again?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Liq💋 said:

are you serious or trolling?

why is that trolling  its a question I see no rules that say an alt cant own a port ,,,

define an alt ... i can make any account my main

Edited by shunt
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin said:

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 defense. 

Only group members, alliance clan members will be able to join hostility missions. This leaves the window for non clanned members to participate and help if they are invited to groups/battlegroups.

 

*Great. Just great*. I wanted to hire foreign clans to help with my coming hostility missions. Now that will be impossible when hostility missions will get new rules impeding other nationals WHO ARE INVITED or CONTRACTED to join the mission. I hate that. I really hate that.

Will only mean more dominance for shit clans in nations who exploit their power. Can't you create an invitation system based on personal names not nations? Then I can pick individuals I want to see in my hostility missions. And bad boys stay outside.

Now because of some jerks cheating in totally different context we can't hire or accept help from anyone except those we DO NOT WANT TO BE FRIENDS WITH, because they backstabbed us in the past.

Other idea necessary is to limit port number belonging to one clan. Now we have just a couple of clans in most nations distributing all the ports among themselves, and with that new rule coming, it will just get worse. Allow each clan just to own five ports max.

We will otherside see no way to ownership for the small ones. Except when we lick boots of the crooks. And I won't.

Edited by Cetric de Cornusiac
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 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

 

Hey Admin, thank you for the insight and investigation. Can you please clarify:

1) hostility is only gained by players that sink enemy ships?

2) hostility gained will not be lost by people leaving the battle before the hostility window opens?

3) does the loss of friendly ships result in losing hostility points?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A price for hostility that increased with the number of ports a nation owns may favour small nations and slow down the expansion of larger ones.

Though I still think triggering a port battle should be more than just doing a hostility mission. 

Only a few players like it to have daily port battles, so hostility might take a way longer than now. Maybe daily hostility over 3 days, or some kind of delivering soldiers (which have a price) and siege guns (that have a price, too) to some places in the vicinity of the towns.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sersanara said:

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?

How should that ever happen when only clan member, clan allies or invited players allowed to enter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

Can't you create an invitation system based on personal names not nations? Then I can pick individuals I want to see in my hostility missions. And bad boys stay outside.

... and same for f*******  port battles, while we are at it. Give us choice whom we want to see on our side and do the thing together -  not by chance because they simply carry same flag!!

(1) List of captains accepted into hostility missions (no national borders)

(2) List of captains accepted into port battles (no national borders).

= no more problems. Everyone will be responsible for himself whom he invites. Just the same as inside clans.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is unfortunate.  Our clan on the PVE server was going to help one of the minor clans in another nation generate hostility.  This rule change will make it essentially impossible for the small guys to take any ports.   It seems the the easy way to solve this is to allow anybody to help with hostility missions if they have permission from the clan doing the missions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, oldcrankyman said:

This is unfortunate.  Our clan on the PVE server was going to help one of the minor clans in another nation generate hostility.  This rule change will make it essentially impossible for the small guys to take any ports.   It seems the the easy way to solve this is to allow anybody to help with hostility missions if they have permission from the clan doing the missions.

This would be a better idea. Or allow to make clans from other nations allies.

 

For the rest: you are talking about PvP issues on a PvE issue. Your solution will affect unecessary PvE server and would do more harm than good.

Edited by CptEdwardKenway
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

Maybe because you went too far abusing this that it brought the attention, you just blew up your entire and single strategy to fight a war your nation started. Next time, think it twice before you do anything.

4 hours 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.

You can get lots of doubloons by doing PvP, but for that you need to actually fight in battles. 🤔

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Espinaca said:

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.

Ah shit here we go again. 😭😭😭

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours 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. 

Its a tactic than legal as others...Diversion attacks always existed..Enemy must detect  where will be the right operation... or maybe put again the OLD flag conquest mechanism. There are  a lot of illegal procedures in this game yet. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think we really need to distinguish between PvP and PvE port battles. Most of problems you guys are presenting here are PvP related. We are only having "problem" with how hostilies work. As people can do it BEFORE time window and then it is only matter of who can click exit battle faster and not a matter of skill or tactical prowness 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Trawn said:

Well I think we really need to distinguish between PvP and PvE port battles. Most of problems you guys are presenting here are PvP related. We are only having "problem" with how hostilies work. As people can do it BEFORE time window and then it is only matter of who can click exit battle faster and not a matter of skill or tactical prowness 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 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. 

Can you clarify - can hostility be gained before the window opens if people exit before the window opens? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, shunt said:

@admin   you really need to sort out this game with regards alts ... seems there is one rule for some and different rules for others ,,, Trux is no different to San Juan ,, unless Havoc can prove ,, that  no one  in Danish Havoc had a swedish alt and no one in swedish havoc  had a danish alt ...

did the guys who attacked San juan really sail all their ships and goods out of san juan to a neutral port and then  change nations ,, and then sail it all the waty back ,,, hilarous if you suggest so ... they just used alts and traded  the ships and goods between them after port was taken ... we all know it

second point Santiago de cuba  is owned by by a prussian clan ,,, using GB alts ,,, as a nation we can do nothing about this we cant attack it or force them to hand it over ,, our ship yards and choice of port bonus and ultimatley its defence are at the mercy of a prussian clan ..

you made a ruling about this before at Bluefields when  a Gb clan left and joined  dutch nation ,,, suprise suprise some of the players who are now in Havoc crying about Trux ,,,, you said at the time it was a s game intended and clans own ports not nations ...

so Bastd owned truxillo  not GB if we decide to hand it to another clan from another nation its our  choice  and certainly not another nations  choice who gets the port ..

so lama go prussian and still own SDC because they have left alts in nation ,, thats fine ...

HAVOC  go swedish still own  SAN JUAN  but leave  alts in danish clan  thats  fine

yet Bastd clan memebers go swedish and leave alts in Bastd  but thats not fine ,,,

so whats an alt  is  CRC captain a swedish captain  with an alt in GB  or a GB captain with an alt in sweden ...   how do you decide  which is main and which is alt

when havoc took san juan  which were alts and which were main ... the only person who can decide that is the player ...

just shows you what a can of worms  this is

so sort out SDC  ,,, any potential ruling against BASTD should apply to havoc

 

lol.

Danes can screen swedish fleet attacking san juan, cannot enter PB yes...but can screen.  Truxillo can't be screened because the attack was led by defender's ALT...so it was impossible to stop and this is an abuse of hotility mechanic.

you are accusing HAVOC to have used alt to take back san juan but you don't have proofes. all the Forum has proofes of ALT used at Truxillo instead.

another fact is that Truxillo would have been owned by ALT Clan instead of main player while San Juan was passed from main account to main account so again...San Juan and Truxillo are 2 different things

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, admin said:

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 defense. 

Only group members, alliance clan members will be able to join hostility missions. This leaves the window for non clanned members to participate and help if they are invited to groups/battlegroups.

 

Good stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, huliotkd said:

you are accusing HAVOC to have used alt to take back san juan but you don't have proofes.

The proof is that HAVOC owned San Juan when they were Danish and when the clan moved to Sweden they left some clan members in Danish nation and removed all the other Danish clans from friend list. If the whole clan had moved then the port would have turned neutral. They claim that there were some players who were not playing that were still in Danish nation, but this does not cover the fact that there was a deliberate removal of clans from the friend list to prevent any sort of defense of the port.

It is not exactly the same as the Truxillo incident, but is just as much an abuse of the game mechanics. You claim an alt was used at Truxillo, but what defines them as an alt? Would you say the Truxillo incident would have been okay if a player without an alt from BASTD clan had used forged papers to move to Sweden and raised hostility? You can see the similarity between the cases, in both not all the clan has changed nation and others were prevented from either attacking or defending a port by abuse of the game mechanics.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...