Medniy Sandal Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 31 минуту назад Хулиоткд сказал: нет, слишком преувеличено и раздражает. OW (и скорость istance lol) I agree. It was earlier in the game, eerily annoying attacks of the NTC fleet at sea. And hypervelocity, too strong fleets of capers can forever repel the desire to play. You don't have to put that in the game.
erelkivtuadrater Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 @admin Whats the future plans for Epic Events? There is no real point doing them because all the sweet loot drops from the missions chest even if its pve or pvp. These are really rare and unique event, imo i think it would be cool to have a guaranteed loot drop for the best books, upgrades and let only 1st rates permits drop from those. Considering you can so easily purchase l'ocean permit from the admirality today. I still remember the sweet times where it was spammed in the clan/nation chat if someone wanted to do the event before any other nation got hold of them. But after the reworked missions thats long gone 1
OneOfFive Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 On 2/13/2020 at 9:21 AM, admin said: Additional changes to Raiders Port Battles will be applied this week 1) Raider Port battles on Peace server will now happen daily and NPC raiders will only attack ports owned by NPCs to allow more port control for players Why then after maintenance today, on the peace server, do I see La Navasse has been attacked and turned neutral by the raiders with hostilities set to begin at 02:00 server time, a port that is owned by England? This needs to be reset! 1
SparkyTheParasite Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 there are also hostility missions for it.
Jan van Santen Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 (edited) and its bugged: I just towed a Wasa over to LaNavasse: it does not show "auction" relog, equip guns/disarm, etc wont help update: I can auction the ship in an other port np, LaNav PvE is definitely bugged Edited February 15, 2020 by Jan van Santen 3
CHARLIE V Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 3 hours ago, OneOfFive said: ¿Por qué después del mantenimiento de hoy, en el servidor de paz, veo que La Navasse ha sido atacada y neutralizada por los asaltantes con hostilidades programadas para comenzar a las 02:00 hora del servidor, un puerto propiedad de Inglaterra? ¡Esto necesita ser reiniciado! LA NAVASSE has not been taken by raiders because if it should not appear as shown below
OneOfFive Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 1 hour ago, CHARLIE V said: LA NAVASSE has not been taken by raiders because if it should not appear as shown below probably a poor choice of words on my part, correctly stated the port was flipped neutral without any notification or warning of any impending attack. Prior to maintenance the port belonged to GB, after maintenance it was neutral. Sound like a bug to you?
admin Posted February 15, 2020 Author Posted February 15, 2020 5 hours ago, OneOfFive said: Why then after maintenance today, on the peace server, do I see La Navasse has been attacked and turned neutral by the raiders with hostilities set to begin at 02:00 server time, a port that is owned by England? This needs to be reset! La Navasse was controlled by your clan or was a NPC port? If it was an NPC port it is all in patch notes. Raiders now attack all NPC ports until they make them all available for control for players. They attack 9 ports per day. There were multiple requests by many clans to speed up the NPC attacks so people can capture ports and tax them. Attack the port and claim it for the crown and your company, Tax it, invest in it, make it part of your personal empire! 3
admin Posted February 15, 2020 Author Posted February 15, 2020 22 minutes ago, OneOfFive said: probably a poor choice of words on my part, correctly stated the port was flipped neutral without any notification or warning of any impending attack. Prior to maintenance the port belonged to GB, after maintenance it was neutral. Sound like a bug to you? was it controlled by your clan? or was it NPC british port? ?
OneOfFive Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, admin said: La Navasse was controlled by your clan or was a NPC port? If it was an NPC port it is all in patch notes. Raiders now attack all NPC ports until they make them all available for control for players. They attack 9 ports per day. There were multiple requests by many clans to speed up the NPC attacks so people can capture ports and tax them. Attack the port and claim it for the crown and your company, Tax it, invest in it, make it part of your personal empire! La Navasse WAS controlled by our clan, FPM. Edited February 15, 2020 by OneOfFive
Goal Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 (edited) Navasse was in control of FPM-Clan, im diplomat there! im shure no one abandoned it and i allready made a comment in support-thread to rollback Edited February 15, 2020 by Goal addition to my post
admin Posted February 15, 2020 Author Posted February 15, 2020 7 minutes ago, Goal said: Navasse was in control of FPM-Clan, im diplomat there! im shure no one abandoned it and i allready made a comment in support-thread to rollback Then Raiders were not involved in this. Raiders only attack NPC controlled ports since patch notes. If your port was clan controlled then raiders did not attack it. The only reason for port turning neutral is someone have not put enough money to pay for port maintenance. Or clicked a button to abandon it.
admin Posted February 15, 2020 Author Posted February 15, 2020 On 2/14/2020 at 2:42 PM, qw569 said: This feature can be useful if you are doing it as an event, and not as usual weekend activities. Yes. we are considering options.
OneOfFive Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 please consider others who are having issues with this port as well as stated above, this clearly shows a bug of some sort as the cause of the problems here.
admin Posted February 15, 2020 Author Posted February 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, OneOfFive said: please consider others who are having issues with this port as well as stated above, this clearly shows a bug of some sort as the cause of the problems here. replied in support.. If it is a bug port will be reverted. dont worry. 1
OneOfFive Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 10 minutes ago, admin said: If it is a bug port will be reverted. dont worry. I'm certain that you can investigate this and find out exactly what the problem is. I have no doubt you could tell is who actually hit the button to abandon the port if push came to shove right? or if this was indeed caused by some re-write of your code to have the AI attack only NPC ports... So, since we have alot of players up in arms about this and others making threats of impending attacks... lets just find out what happened ok? 1
Jan van Santen Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 A little more transparency and added options of port handling should be added to the game imho. On top of the am case: Right now eg I am witnessing players adding to unwanted port upgrades....(unwanted as in: ruled out by clan council/leadership) In both cases I'd suggest a log for who did what in port upgrades, who put funds into it, and also a possibility to redo port upgrades (limited to clan leader/founder) 2
Jan van Santen Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, TDK said: This can be avoided if you set the investment rights to CLAN ONLY. they were set to CLAN ONLY. Edited February 15, 2020 by Jan van Santen
Liq Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 31 minutes ago, Jan van Santen said: they were set to CLAN ONLY. check this tab
Kubrat Posted February 15, 2020 Posted February 15, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jan van Santen said: A little more transparency and added options of port handling should be added to the game imho. On top of the am case: Right now eg I am witnessing players adding to unwanted port upgrades....(unwanted as in: ruled out by clan council/leadership) In both cases I'd suggest a log for who did what in port upgrades, who put funds into it, and also a possibility to redo port upgrades (limited to clan leader/founder) Having been one of the stupid people that put serious resources into the wrong investment (32k dubloons) I can attest that limiting it to clan only is no protection. In my case it was simply not reading the emails properly, and old investments which had been abandoned, still being in place, misleading me (no excuse). Luckily I was intercepted before I managed to burn 25 port points, which i was on the point of doing. But I am not sure i agree with the notion of a simple re-roll by creator of clan. is it s good idea to allow clans to re-spec ports at will - should there not be some consequences for decisions? What I would support is a two step approval process. I can deposit my 32k doubloons for an (unwanted) live oak forest (or any other investment). but the investment must be accepted or rejected by clan Creator. If it is rejected then it is return to the depositor at their nearest outpost warehouse. edit: to be clear, I don't think the clan creator should keep the investment and render it to their own purposes which the donor might not agree with. So if an investment is rejected it should be returned to the donor. Edited February 15, 2020 by Kubrat
Sir Texas Sir Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 3 hours ago, Kubrat said: Having been one of the stupid people that put serious resources into the wrong investment (32k dubloons) I can attest that limiting it to clan only is no protection. In my case it was simply not reading the emails properly, and old investments which had been abandoned, still being in place, misleading me (no excuse). Luckily I was intercepted before I managed to burn 25 port points, which i was on the point of doing. But I am not sure i agree with the notion of a simple re-roll by creator of clan. is it s good idea to allow clans to re-spec ports at will - should there not be some consequences for decisions? What I would support is a two step approval process. I can deposit my 32k doubloons for an (unwanted) live oak forest (or any other investment). but the investment must be accepted or rejected by clan Creator. If it is rejected then it is return to the depositor at their nearest outpost warehouse. edit: to be clear, I don't think the clan creator should keep the investment and render it to their own purposes which the donor might not agree with. So if an investment is rejected it should be returned to the donor. They need to have another option to lock investments flat out or lock to clan only, but still allow friendly clans to use the port. Cause destroying an accidental investment isn't exactly cheap either. Though I also agree there should be some sort of log of who invest to help clans give credit to those that help or to see who is putting stuff in that doesn't need to be. 6 hours ago, TDK said: This can be avoided if you set the investment rights to CLAN ONLY. The problem with that is that any friendly clans can't use the port if you set that. They should have the two seperate options of friendly clans that can use the port but can't invest cause you have it locked to clan or officers only.
TheDread Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 It would seem to me investments should be enabled individually by the clan creator/diplomats. I.E. They could enable investment in sailing 4, mast 3, iron, or tower 2... and those would be the only 4 things anyone was allowed to invest in? 2
Coaster Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 On 2/15/2020 at 10:35 PM, Kubrat said: But I am not sure i agree with the notion of a simple re-roll by creator of clan. is it s good idea to allow clans to re-spec ports at will - should there not be some consequences for decisions? Have it take 1 week after confirmation for improvements to be demolished and points released.
admin Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 Sorry for delay with the Patchnotes Today small fix was deployed based on the player feedback Fixed a rare bug that blocked the usage of money at clan warehouse if the amount of money exceeded billions of reals Fixed an issue with forts that fired on one side in the battle without consideration of flag. From now on forts will only fire if the battle has a flag of the fort British fort will fire at british enemies if british flag is present in battle British fort will ignore both sides if other flags are present at both sides. For example Sweden vs Denmark 16
Gregory Rainsborough Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 11 minutes ago, admin said: British fort will ignore both sides if other flags are present at both sides. Yey 2
Recommended Posts