Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Dark123 said:

no thgey cant

So why would it matter then, in this case, if they were on friendlsit or not? if they couldnt defend it anyway?

The action to take them off friendlist was just a small touch by us as a "thank you" for them "helping" us by sinking swedish traders while we were busy getting screened out of PBs ,) 

Edited by Liq
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

You

5 minutes ago, Liq said:

So why would it matter then, in this case, if they were on friendlsit or not? if they couldnt defend it anyway?

The action to take them off friendlist was just a small touch by us as a "thank you" for them "helping" us by sinking swedish traders while we were busy getting screened out of PBs ,) 

 

5 minutes ago, Liq said:

So why would it matter then, in this case, if they were on friendlsit or not? if they couldnt defend it anyway?

The action to take them off friendlist was just a small touch by us as a "thank you" for them "helping" us by sinking swedish traders while we were busy getting screened out of PBs ,) 

your argumentation is rather....thin. I'suggest you better sail now and let somebody more eloquent do the talking.

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

You

 

your argumentation is rather....thin. I'suggest you better sail now and let somebody more eloquent do the talking.

sorry for making sense and bursting your bubble = ) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Liq said:

Do you really think they could (or can) fill a 25 x 1st rate PB?

Even if we could field the 25 players and ships, it would be rather stupid showing up with 25 40point 1.rates against 25. Swedish 55point 1.rates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Svennik said:

Even if we could field the 25 players and ships, it would be rather stupid showing up with 25 40point 1.rates against 25. Swedish 55point 1.rates. 

Ask your russian overlords to lend you one of their THREE 55 pts ports? ))

But yeah I agree. DK should at least have 1 50 pts port somewhere close. Most nations do.

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

Ask your russian overlords to lend you one of their THREE 55 pts ports? ))

But yeah I agree. DK should at least have 1 50 pts port somewhere close. Most nations do.

We don't have any overlord...Hence why we sail dlc or 40pt. Ships. 

Except the Holve and VGK players who are really pissed on us trying to have som fun with you guys, they in mysterious ways are sailing 55p ships made in SJ. But they only use them for pve so No threat for you. 

Edited by Svennik
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Liq said:

terrible example :)

This is a war game. DK had (or still has)the option to re grab what they lost. Yet they did not.

Do you really think they could (or can) fill a 25 x 1st rate PB?

Then why did HAVOC not just let the port go neutral and take it that way? Because they were afraid that a Danish clan or even some other Swedish clan would get it. The same as Truxillo, BASTD did not want to stop Sweden taking the port they just wanted to stop HAVOC getting it. Can you not see the similarities, in both cases people have played loosely with the game mechanics to get the outcome they desired.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Liq said:

Just defending myself to what BS is being brought up regarding SJ, whereas trux was clearly alt abused :) we shall see what the admins decide.

San Juan also was an abuse of alt clans and empty friendlist to secure a port and exclude the rest of the nation from interfering. This is not BS, but facts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Then why did HAVOC not just let the port go neutral and take it that way? Because they were afraid that a Danish clan or even some other Swedish clan would get it. The same as Truxillo, BASTD did not want to stop Sweden taking the port they just wanted to stop HAVOC getting it. Can you not see the similarities, in both cases people have played loosely with the game mechanics to get the outcome they desired.

Because it was our port initially and there is no ingame mechanic to trade ports to another nation? There were also no alts involved?

It wouldnt have made a difference if we let them on the friendlist.

Same stuff happened at Santo Domingo. LIONS changed to Prussia from Dutch and handed over the port. I dont see anything wrong with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Liq said:

Because it was our port initially and there is no ingame mechanic to trade ports to another nation? There were also no alts involved?

It wouldnt have made a difference if we let them on the friendlist.

Same stuff happened at Santo Domingo. LIONS changed to Prussia from Dutch and handed over the port. I dont see anything wrong with that.

lol  your arguments get weaker and weaker

theres no in game mechaniccs to trade a port to another nation

are you sure

you seem pretty expert at trading ports to spanish

Trux was traded to sweden ,,, just you dint like the clan it was traded to

you can actually fight for it

there is 3 mechanics

as for no alts involved are you seriiously asking us to believe that Havoc  sailed out of SJ  with all there ships went to a neutral port and switched nations ... I dont beleive you mate ..

 no one in havoc swe had a havoc dk alt or vice versa ???

lmao

Im sorry mate ,, you must believe we are stupid and all your doing is making yourself look stupid

 

 

 

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

what amazing  hypocrisy  CRC is a swedish clan ,,, trux would have belonged to sweden ,,, your actually claiming its abuse that a swedish clan  capturing trux stopped a swedish clan capturing  trux

yet in your eyes its ok for Havoc to switch from dane to sweden and prevent danes defending in port battle

the only people that have a right to be upset by trux is GB

same as danes should be upset by sj

they are both exactly the same

 

 

 

 

you want to continue stating CRC is not an alt clan of BASTD Members? we have a lot of evidence to say the contrary :).

in any event, Devs have found a solution that should solve the major issue most of us had with the "way" truxillo was flipped (which also contrary to popular belief was different from San Juan).

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

If it would not have made a difference then why did you do it?

 

3 hours ago, Liq said:

The action to take them off friendlist was just a small touch by us as a "thank you" for them "helping" us by sinking swedish traders while we were busy getting screened out of PBs ,) 

+ they could and still can go for SJ if they wanted to

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

 

+ they could and still can go for SJ if they wanted to

they are arent they? for not caring about pasaje, you sure are eager to take it back and go spank the rest of the danish clans to ensure they dont dare assist bocar...

 

but sure, they totally can just go for sju :))

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

they are arent they? for not caring about pasaje, you sure are eager to take it back and go spank the rest of the danish clans to ensure they dont dare assist bocar...

 

but sure, they totally can just go for sju :))

They've had Pasaje for a couple days now, not seen any hostility on SJ so far :)

And as far as i know. If a nation isn't capable of takinga port, pure numbers wise, why should they own it?

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

 

+ they could and still can go for SJ if they wanted to

Thats like me cheating and sinking you in game and then justifying it by saying, well you can just come sink me to make it all right and if you dont then I couldnt have done anything wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Liq said:

They've had Pasaje for a couple days now, not seen any hostility on SJ so far :)

And as far as i know. If a nation isn't capable of takinga port, pure numbers wise, why should they own it?

Yeah whatever boring.

 

Real question here is when are you switching to poland and making poland great again?

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

Thats like me cheating and sinking you in game and then justifying it by saying, well you can just come sink me to make it all right and if you dont then I couldnt have done anything wrong.

Not sure if you were playing at the time we changed nations. It was still pretty early in the game, 1st rates were rare. We would get the odd screening help from other DK clans, but mostly in frigates or the sorts.

On the day of the swap, DK was maybe capable of showing up in a bunch heavy frigates / connies or the like. No where close to fielding a 1st rate fleet.

So yes, in hindsight I regret taking them off friendlist, simply because you keep thinking it would have made a difference. It would have not made a difference, at all. It was just a douche-move by us as a thank you for their douche moves :)

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

you want to continue stating CRC is not an alt clan of BASTD Members? we have a lot of evidence to say the contrary :).

in any event, Devs have found a solution that should solve the major issue most of us had with the "way" truxillo was flipped (which also contrary to popular belief was different from San Juan).

all im claiming is CRC is a swedish clan... whether there are any members of BASTD in it  is irrelevant ,,  maybe crc members have their alts in Bastd  .. same as you cant prove which were alts and which were mains in Havoc sewe and havoc dk

it was exactly the same ,,

 

Edited by shunt
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i'm not sure to understand correctly a thing: is it allowed for other nations players to enter a hostility order to help another clan taking a port against another clan? For exemple, a Swedish clan asking for help other nations to win a hostility order against a british clan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2020 at 2:59 AM, Anarcke said:

Hi, i'm not sure to understand correctly a thing: is it allowed for other nations players to enter a hostility order to help another clan taking a port against another clan? For exemple, a Swedish clan asking for help other nations to win a hostility order against a british clan?

There are no such rules that disallow it. This whole tribunal was a joke from the very first minute to punish a single player because a clan got mad. A clan which is exploiting the heck out of this game btw. But since a whole clan put more money into this game than one player you know how the outcome would be. Btw the dev/admin who sentenced this player still failed to show us where this certain rule is written. He is more interested in introducing a payment system for hostility missions into this tribunal than explaining rules and where we can find them. You can clearly see where their interests are. 100% not in balanced or fair mechanics. We demanded limitations for nations/clans back in 2016. And again, like 4 years ago, ONE clan is exploiting and taking over the whole map. And there is nothing others can do about it unless they find out what kind of mechanics they are abusing.

Edited by CptEdwardKenway
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

well in the old game days you need to buy a flag >> @admin

to overcome certain problems with hostility ( amongst collaborating nations /clans with a interest of cheating and misuse a mechanic for their own profit)

 

you always can think of paying for the hostility missions (permitted wise from the  ruling government)

 

i think it is not such a bad idea after all

"mission permit for making  hostility"

              you can debate on the prise ,but that is all up to you :) 

 

if we all have to pay for a bellona permit it is also justified to pay for a hostility mission.

ps: besides that;  who is paying for the victory marks>>> i think it is the permit for the hostility mission >>ask  who pays the  interest. (the shares?)

small br ports small hostility permit price , big br ports > bigger hostility price>>

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

well in the old game days you need to buy a flag >> @admin

to overcome certain problems with hostility ( amongst collaborating nations /clans with a interest of cheating and misuse a mechanic for their own profit)

 

you always can think of paying for the hostility missions (permitted wise from the  ruling government)

 

i think it is not such a bad idea after all

"mission permit for making  hostility"

              you can debate on the prise ,but that is all up to you :) 

 

if we all have to pay for a bellona permit it is also justified to pay for a hostility mission.

ps: besides that;  who is paying for the victory marks>>> i think it is the permit for the hostility mission >>ask  who pays the  interest. (the shares?)

small br ports small hostility permit price , big br ports > bigger hostility price>>

Sounds good in the first moment, but thinking about it, it's not so good at all. As you earn VMs by owning ports, clans without a port will never have the chance to conquer one. Essentially, the big clans do RVR, the rest just can't. 

The only way you can make this work is by scaling the price with the number of ports owned by the nation (not the clan, cause that could be abused with alts). This could simulate some sort of over-expansion and balance the map somehow. On the other hand, large nations would just stop doing RVR when the costs are too high, putting a stop to RVR sooner or later. All in all, I'm not sure if the whole approach is really promising. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...