[Caribbean] Great battle results.

[zaba]

1 hour ago, JG14_Cuzn said:

Once you are in Cartagena you can ‘teleport’ your 1st rates out to a friendly port.   
happened  to me at Puerto Escondido last time it fell

Another clever game mechanic here 😡 We can´t close an outpost with ships in the docks even if we dont´mind lose those boats... good one.... it is not enough to have lost a port .... they also request that we lose hours to recover that outpost (possibly one of the scarce and valuable resources for any player)

What I do not understand is... If we cannot close an outpost while there is a boat on the docks, why the hello kittying hell do they ask me three times if I want to do it before telling me that I will not be able to do so until I get those boats out of there? 

Just "the game" trolling us... again... Rigth?  

Edited October 21, 2019 by zaba

[Oli Garchy]

Just now, zaba said:

Another clever game mechanic here 😡 We can´t close an outpost with ship in the docks even if we dont´mind lose those boats... good one.... it is not enough to have lost a port .... they also request that we lose hours to recover that outpost (possibly one of the scarce and valuable resources for any player)

What I do not understand is... If we cannot close an outpost while there is a boat on the docks, why the hello kittying hell do they ask me three times if I want to do it before telling me that I will not be able to do so until I get those boats out of there? 

Just "the game" trolling us... again... Rigth?  

To many button Mashers destroyed the wrong Outpost with ships. 

[zaba]

12 minutes ago, Oli Garchy said:

To many button Mashers destroyed the wrong Outpost with ships. 

Ok but, why asking THREE F**CKING TIMES if we can´t..... sure is not difficult to code one line to check this and no trolling us

And still it's a shit mechanic. Do I have to waste my time because a few do not know or do not want to read and click like robots? What about all those bullshit of risk on the war server? If you are a useless amoeba are you exempt? 

I´m a bit salty with thing, i know, i know.... 

Edited October 21, 2019 by zaba

[Guest]

[Captain2Strong]

8 hours ago, Mascarino said:

If the russians want, they can kill the game, and no one can stop them. It's a matter of numbers and ship quality. 

russia is just as much capable of killing the game as a random group of a few organised, dedicated, not-retarded players, which could be found in many other places

therefore anyone is capable of killing the game by playing
but if you are not playing you're killing the game even more, because nothing is happening, unlike in the previous case

so this makes that argument deny itself

Edited October 21, 2019 by Captain2Strong

[Captain2Strong]

1 hour ago, Lars Kjær said:

Take one of their 55p ports first mate..

GB was already fighting with them in other regions lately
but perhaps it's indeed a good idea to try doing that

Edited October 21, 2019 by Captain2Strong

[Captain2Strong]

7 hours ago, Immersive Ganking said:

The only ones who can kill the game are the devs when they decide to shut down the servers for NA. If you decide to give up, it's your fault and not Anolytic's or Reverse' fault.

or the shitposters who cry on forum by saying that the people who make the game more alive kill the game

[Captain2Strong]

On 10/21/2019 at 12:18 PM, Mascarino said:

You are funny, so if the game dies the fault is on the defeated nations? Great logic

from the post he wrote I can read that what he mentioned were devs, not defeated nations

PS. why would they do it? they could decide to do it when too many noobs cry on forum instead of playing

Edited October 22, 2019 by Captain2Strong

[Captain2Strong]

8 minutes ago, Mascarino said:

It's your perspective, not shared by everyone. They make the game more alive for them and more dead to others. 

 

that's my perspective, but also do note that I brought up the argument below, which originates from pure logic
 

35 minutes ago, Captain2Strong said:

russia is just as much capable of killing the game as a random group of a few organised, dedicated, not-retarded players, which could be found in many other places

therefore anyone is capable of killing the game by playing
but if you are not playing you're killing the game even more, because nothing is happening, unlike in the previous case

so this makes that argument deny itself

now are you able to point out something that makes it wrong? just like I did to the previous one with this one(and at the same time denied the sense of that perspective)?

perhaps we should make a separate topic for that discussion?

Edited October 21, 2019 by Captain2Strong

[Captain2Strong]

48 minutes ago, Mascarino said:

Yes, I can. Common sense, if they had some common sense they would act differently as they do now and not blaming game mechanics that permit them act like they do. And my common sense dictates if the game is becoming boring and no fun, it's time to play something else. 

you're free to play something else instead of naval action, but I think that those people are playing for themselves, and not for youself, and if they are playing it then it's probably fun and interesting for them

and if the goal is for the game to have more players, then the fact they are playing indeed makes it have more players (more alive, not dead, you got it?)

of course it might cause you to quit if you are a noob who just got defeated by them
(it's not fun to lose, but it's just the nature of every PVP game, silly man, otherwise it's not PVP, and if you do not like that aspect, you do not have to force yourself into being under it's influence[you do not have to play a game with certain unchangable aspects if you do not like those])
but if they did not attack you, they would be gone, so it's always -1 group of players regardless of the case, which defeats the argument, because in both cases someone is going to be gone, and you can't tell which case is going to make more people quit, because you did not count anything or provide any evidence which allows to count the population loss - so which option really makes the game more dead? - can you reply to this with an evidence???

also define common sense - for them common sense could be something else than what it is for you, such as playing for themselves (when you decide to play a game, is your main goal to entertain yourself or some other player???🤔🤨)

so... I'm still waiting for that argument which denies mine(because you did not do it and yet you said that you did it...)! (I tried really hard to draw a conclussion from your post, but it's just too shallow for me, perhaps you can help me do it? but this time I would like something clear, not vague)

as for game mechanics, some mechanics are good, and some other ones are bad, I don't know what exact examples you had in mind, but what I was talking about was purely interactions between players and their impact on population, rather than game mechanics and things which are more related to those mechanics

Edited October 21, 2019 by Captain2Strong

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Captain2Strong said:

you're free to play something else instead of naval action, but I think that those people are playing for themselves, and not for youself, and if they are playing it then it's probably fun and interesting for them

and if the goal is for the game to have more players, then the fact they are playing indeed makes it have more players (more alive, not dead, you got it?)

of course it might cause you to quit if you are a noob who just got defeated by them
(it's not fun to lose, but it's just the nature of every PVP game, silly man, otherwise it's not PVP, and if you do not like that aspect, you do not have to force yourself into being under it's influence[you do not have to play a game with certain unchangable aspects if you do not like those])
but if they did not attack you, they would be gone, so it's always -1 group of players regardless of the case, which defeats the argument, because in both cases someone is going to be gone, and you can't tell which case is going to make more people quit, because you did not count anything or provide any evidence which allows to count the population loss - so which option really makes the game more dead? - can you reply to this with an evidence???

also define common sense - for them common sense could be something else than what it is for you, such as playing for themselves (when you decide to play a game, is your main goal to entertain yourself or some other player???🤔🤨)

so... I'm still waiting for that argument which denies mine(because you did not do it and yet you said that you did it...)! (I tried really hard to draw a conclussion from your post, but it's just too shallow for me, perhaps you can help me do it? but this time I would like something clear, not vague)

as for game mechanics, some mechanics are good, and some other ones are bad, I don't know what exact examples you had in mind, but what I was talking about was purely interactions between players and their impact on population, rather than game mechanics and things which are more related to those mechanics

sorry but, if i  read this correctly then you mean if a group of players play the game as they want its good for them because they stay, but others quit because they are noobs? the game population is clearly in decline and you dont have to be a rocket scientist to see that, just check steamdb.

People quit the game because its become stale  and not much is happening, it takes to much effort to do stuff as have been pointed out several times (insert hostility mission), with then the risk of most likely not getting to do it unless as we saw today the whole server decides to multiflip the biggest nation.

 

You can easily describe common sense, there is a reason its called common sense because the average person would do the same thing 10/10 times because it would be the right thing to do.

Example 1: 2 people go to the store and get their goods. Person 1 pays for the goods because its common sense, Person 2 just walks out and get arrested.

Example 2: You sit in front of a fireplace, is it common sense to put your hands into the fire? ofc not because it would obviously hurt.

You can carry on all day about common sense, jump infront of a train, dip the bread toaster in the bathtub etc.

[Captain2Strong]

 

Quote

sorry but, if i  read this correctly then you mean if a group of players play the game as they want its good for them because they stay, but others quit because they are noobs? the game population is clearly in decline and you dont have to be a rocket scientist to see that, just check steamdb.

well apparently some individuals seems to cry about russia being too strong and killing the game by playing or something like that, but picking a nation and playing is just how the game is supposed to be played
and if some people organised themselves and became strong so be it, it's not like the losing ones couldn't do that if they wanted to - it's a valid playstyle, why should the ones who are losing against that be favorised? Russia spent a lot of time to build it's power, and it's not like this one is the most powerful since the beggining of the game. Some people cry about russia killing the game by playing but both groups are players and if the stronger one doesn't play the game is going to have a decline as well, which is exactly what I've been talking about in the previous post, this is not rocket science as we can see

 

 

1 hour ago, Wyy said:

People quit the game because its become stale  and not much is happening

and this is one more reason to let players play and do RVR/PVP if they want to

 

 

1 hour ago, Wyy said:

it takes to much effort to do stuff as have been pointed out several times (insert hostility mission), with then the risk of most likely not getting to do it unless as we saw today the whole server decides to multiflip the biggest nation.

that's true. I've made a few posts with suggestions to reduce grind a few weeks ago(this would encourage people to risk things and provide content by doing PVP in cheaper ships, making the game more alive), but as we all can see, the devs didn't do anything about it so far

 

 

1 hour ago, Wyy said:

You can easily describe common sense, there is a reason its called common sense because the average person would do the same thing 10/10 times because it would be the right thing to do.

 

Example 1: 2 people go to the store and get their goods. Person 1 pays for the goods because its common sense, Person 2 just walks out and get arrested.

Example 2: You sit in front of a fireplace, is it common sense to put your hands into the fire? ofc not because it would obviously hurt.

You can carry on all day about common sense, jump infront of a train, dip the bread toaster in the bathtub etc.

I actually wanted to know what he meant by that, not you

... and he just replied with:

 

2 hours ago, Mascarino said:

talking to you is like talking to a wall, don't deserve the effort.

without taking any more effort to make reasonable arguments..... perhaps his words apply more to himself? I will consider that as a give-up

Edited October 21, 2019 by Captain2Strong

[Gargamel]

There were a lot of fights on Monday. There must be something to report.

 

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Captain2Strong said:

I actually wanted to know what he meant by that, not you

... and he just replied with:

 

without taking any more effort to make reasonable arguments..... perhaps his words apply more to himself? I will consider that as a give-up

That you actually needed a description about common sense tells alot about you though

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

There were a lot of fights on Monday. There must be something to report.

 

 

didnt take SS, but me and a clanmate farmed some repairs off some brits outside cap francais while they were in the port battle  

[Genevieve Malfleurs]

27 minutes ago, rediii said:

Didn't GB just fight some chinese scrubs yet?

Im just seeing the usual overconfidence which lasts exactly until they lost 2 big battles. While denying the first battle was lost due to skill or something ("the wind hello kittyed us") they will understand slowly at the 2nd battle.

I bet it´s much more joyful being overconfident while not playing the game... like you do. Forum warrior.

[Shocktrooper Basteyy]

2 hours ago, rediii said:

11 hours ago, Captain2Strong said:

 

Didn't GB just fight some chinese scrubs yet?

That's rude rediii

We fought REDS and BF already. In openworld fights. Screen must be here somewhere, if I could just find them in this much talkings in a result channel 🤔

[MassimoSud]

2 hours ago, rediii said:

I was involved in yesterdays action and will be involved in future aswell  

is it good? I hope so ...

[Shocktrooper Basteyy]

56 minutes ago, rediii said:

Looking foward to the videos of PBs vs REDS/BF etc.  

Like, subscribe and leave a comment below! 

 

[Gargamel]

……..and don't forget the payment for the background actor.....   

[Angus MacDuff]

*delete..wrong thread...

Edited October 22, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[Gargamel]

31 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

*delete..wrong thread...

Right...

What about the battle results? Did nobody take screenshots ?

[Teutonic]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Right...

What about the battle results? Did nobody take screenshots ?

US and Pirates had a fight at george's town, but it is up to them whether they post the screenshot or not.

[Gringo69rus]

4 minutes ago, rediii said:

 

- Защита Порт-о-Пренса против флота 

-

no 15-16 ships BF vs 7-10 i dont remember Dutch we fight on chat and leave

 

[Captain2Strong]

7 hours ago, rediii said:

Didn't GB just fight some chinese scrubs yet?

Im just seeing the usual overconfidence which lasts exactly until they lost 2 big battles. While denying the first battle was lost due to skill or something ("the wind hello kittyed us") they will understand slowly at the 2nd battle.

sometimes my posts are a bit ironic and Im joking about something being so great, but of course it's good that GB was trying to do something instead of staying passive, isn't it?
it's indeed one of the top nations for now