Gameplay Intervention (Little River)

[Raxius]

Hello,

I have heard a rumor thats quite disturbing and pray it is not true. the rumour was that @lord Drax has requested to the devs that little river should be uncapturable and have its own green zone and that admin will go ahead and make this change. please confirm this is just a rumor and completely false?

my personal opinion on this is that intervening with gameplay because some players are upset that they cannot take a port and use developers to intervene is an absolute game breaker, which would likely cause many players to stop playing. Lots of players put in a lot of effort to obtain Little River and hope to reap the rewards of having an outpost in this territory.

so please lay down your opinions on this and please dev's i would like an official response to this rumor.

 

Raxius

Edited June 25, 2018 by Raxius

[MarkusBarak]

If they make it unconquerable it should be neutral! If they do this all the way though the US will be hurting themselves more than helping was the only northern port besides ST Mary's that they could tweak the trade good get better labor hours and now increase chance of getting a good ship.... but hey at least they will have a safe zone from Maine to GA......

[Psycho3630]

This is deeply concerning. The intent of this game is to be a Realm v. Realm- based experience where players decide the course of the gameplay. The idea of interference in this ruins the appeal and core values of the game. Furthermore, the entire situation around the recent change of ownership of the port falls to players like @lord drax and players in another nation attempting to make a "back-room" deal which backfired on them. This type of behavior would only be encouraged if the devs were to intervene in this situation. Rather than an open competition for space, it becomes a fight for favor with the devs in the hopes that should something not go the way a player wants, they would turn to the devs to amend the situation.  I also am troubled by the idea of Little River being converted into a non-captureable port. This would give one nation an unprecedented amount of space where they will be uncontested. No other nations' areas come close to that amount.  In the end, I feel this is a troubling rumor that is directly opposed to the ideas and intents of the game. 

[Guest]

I see 0 evidence supporting these wild claims. Whos falling for this troll?

[Dragonfire]

No way it can be true this is not Naval screw players trying to test and play the game as designed.

I can not see the Devs interfering on the crying of a couple of players that screwed up and lost a port some that don't even test and play the game regularly. 

I have not tested any other game from a reputable developer that would ever interfere and show favoritism to a few players like that it would be a game breaker and a breach of trust to the game being impartial and fair to the whole player base.

So now any forward progress in game by a nation can be undone if you cry enough if you make a mistake and lose an important port.

I just can't see the Devs who have been very impartial doing it would be a sad day for the game if they interfered like that must be just a rumour

 :{

Just a thought if this is going to happen then its a rigged game not unbiased and now we have bought dlc and ppl are paying extra for content this throws a complex problem into the game so cant see them opening that can of worms.

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Dragonfire

[Guest]

If the devs DO show favoritism, the rest of us will collectively blockade the US until the nation is truly dead. 

[Dibbler (Retired)]

 It's all magic beans, does it really matter either way?

[Dibbler (Retired)]

5 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

It was quite strange to see one port capturable in the middle of a safe zone. No other nation have that.

 Thats kind of what i thought also, but tbh don't really mind whatever happens. Don't think any rare mats/woods are there.

[Raxius]

no other nation has such a large focused safe zone either - if the devs intend to make LR uncapturable and join the line between the two zones then they need to reduce its length (larger then any on equivalent safe zone but not as large as it would become) eg Brunswick & Sunbury should then be capturable and made neutral. either way it hurts the US they wont have any benefits of capturable ports

and all the trade goods should be removed from little river (the consumed goods, no other safezone has such a port that consumes so many trade goods) which will mess up the entire trading on that coast

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Raxius

[Raxius]

Just now, Wraith said:

Not to mention that you only were able to capture it due to a bug...  But all's fair in Love and Early Access.  You really have no complaints either way.

which bug??? france grinded the port during the port battle window - thats called fair play but i guess the US shout bug everytime they lose or something does not go there way. its irritating to say the least furthermore its embarrasing for your nation

[Christendom]

https://gyazo.com/da3e730fefd17bf2d7565d8a409c74ea

Man of the people here.

[Raxius]

Just now, Christendom said:

https://gyazo.com/da3e730fefd17bf2d7565d8a409c74ea

Man of the people here.

what does this have to do with this thread?

[Christendom]

1 minute ago, Raxius said:

what does this have to do with this thread?

Nothing.  But everyone should know of your quality.  

[Aventador]

28 minutes ago, Flinch said:

If the devs DO show favoritism, the rest of us will collectively blockade the US until the nation is truly dead. 

Lol mate you obviously haven't played this game long. 

@Raxius As far as i'm aware they have been planning to make little river apart of the safe zone for a while now.

[MarkusBarak]

Well I guess the US at this point does need all the help it can get.

[Raxius]

4 minutes ago, Christendom said:

Nothing.  But everyone should know of your quality.  

thank you - so please keep comments relevant or if not then to yourself. @moderator please can you clean irrelevant comments ?

Edited June 25, 2018 by Raxius

[sam121252]

@Christendom just be quiet if you don`t have anything useful to say,and leave this topic because your forum posts are irrelevant.
Same with all your clanmembers.

Edited June 25, 2018 by sam121252

[Raxius]

so childish comments are your points against this rumor? dont troll a thread for the sake of it please. grow up and have some respect for others who are placing a legitimate discussion

[Teutonic]

interesting.

But to be fair, I always thought the fact that Little River was not part of the reinforcement zone and was able to be captured was extremely unfair to the US nation.

Great Britain doesn't have a port like that on Jamaica, France doesn't have a port like that between Fort Royal and Castries, Spain doesn't have a port smack dab in the middle of their reinforcement zone either.

Why should the US not have the same safety? They are all considered "Easy" nations for new players to start with.

[Raxius]

nations rating be it easy or hard depends on the safezones. sweden have one safezone and is rated hard. US has 2 large safezones (1 either side of little river) and is rated easy. little river was not intended to be a uncapturable port it only belonged to US recently.. because it used to be a freetown hence the trading capability and all capitals have a relative close freetown nearby gustavia and christiansted and fort royal have ays/ la mona habana has tumbado kpr had navasse (which is now french used to be free town).

so all capitals needed a freetown before that had changed an now your requested a previous freetown to become uncapturable meaning there is no means of latching to US coast in conflict if say for example US held all ports on US coast there is nowhere to stage from or come from which is why little river was sought after since the day it lost freetown status

[MarkusBarak]

Just now, Banished Privateer said:

just look how La Navasse is close to Jamaica (ex free town) + Belize is all surrounded by "unsafe" ports. Little River is ex-free port as well. US have 11 safe ports, GB has 11 as well, France has 13 and Spain has 13 too. Pirates 4, Swedes and Danes only 2. Swedes are surrounded by capturable ports from all sides, Frenchies got Roseau close to their capital, about 5 mins of sail. Pirates are surrounded more or less too. Yet, I don't see them crying like the US players.

The US need a thousand miles of unconquerable ports that they can grind in that they can be sure to have enough warning if someone starts coming up the coast. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

It was quite strange to see one port capturable in the middle of a safe zone. No other nation have that.

I really don't mind it being there, the problem I have is way to many of the Florida/US coast line ports are low BR so that you can only get 6-7 players into the port battle. Important key ports like Little river should not be 2500 BR that a small group can control it should be the ports we have 15-25 players fighting over and defending or attacking.   I get they wanted some ports small clans can capture and control but majority of the US coast line is very small BR port battles and it hurts the bigger but less experienced teams cause all it takes is one mistake and the game is over.  If you look around the map there is a lot of ports like this not just around the US coast that are key ports with major econ and very low BR for port battles and very rare are the bigger PB's  If we can muster 20-30 guys for screening than why can't we get more than 6-10 guys in to defend our ports.  Give some ports booster BR or allow the owners to have the option of what BR they want (within a range) for that port.

[MarkusBarak]

Just now, Sir Texas Sir said:

I really don't mind it being there, the problem I have is way to many of the Florida/US coast line ports are low BR so that you can only get 6-7 players into the port battle. Important key ports like Little river should not be 2500 BR that a small group can control it should be the ports we have 15-25 players fighting over and defending or attacking.   I get they wanted some ports small clans can capture and control but majority of the US coast line is very small BR port battles and it hurts the bigger but less experienced teams cause all it takes is one mistake and the game is over.  If you look around the map there is a lot of ports like this not just around the US coast that are key ports with major econ and very low BR for port battles and very rare are the bigger PB's  If we can muster 20-30 guys for screening than why can't we get more than 6-10 guys in to defend our ports.  Give some ports booster BR or allow the owners to have the option of what BR they want (within a range) for that port.

Wow... Good point from Sir Texas.... Whats next....

[Sir Texas Sir]

1 minute ago, MarkusBarak said:

Wow... Good point from Sir Texas.... Whats next....

One of the biggest complaints i Hear from folks is, "Why can't we get into the PB."  Even though we have tons of guys on.  Saddly the few big BR ports we have on the coast line is locked in extremely late PB timers so it's a pain to get numbers to stay up that late, but other ports are just to small BR.  I bring this up cause it's not just US ports it's most of the map if you look around.  A lot of folks I know that stopped playing was cause we don't have 25 vs 25 big battles any more unless it's in the shallows.  Not saying we should have 25 vs 25 1st rates battle any more, but it would be nice to get some 10-15 guys into a fight other than OW screening now a days for some of these port battles.

Hay one day we will get the guys to stay up late and maybe flip San Aug to have a big nice fight between the nations, but prob not any time soon with 1-4am timers.

[Raxius]

6 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I really don't mind it being there, the problem I have is way to many of the Florida/US coast line ports are low BR so that you can only get 6-7 players into the port battle. Important key ports like Little river should not be 2500 BR that a small group can control it should be the ports we have 15-25 players fighting over and defending or attacking.   I get they wanted some ports small clans can capture and control but majority of the US coast line is very small BR port battles and it hurts the bigger but less experienced teams cause all it takes is one mistake and the game is over.  If you look around the map there is a lot of ports like this not just around the US coast that are key ports with major econ and very low BR for port battles and very rare are the bigger PB's  If we can muster 20-30 guys for screening than why can't we get more than 6-10 guys in to defend our ports.  Give some ports booster BR or allow the owners to have the option of what BR they want (within a range) for that port.

so why have u not ginded san agustin yet?