Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Knivet

Please make just one game mode for now!

Recommended Posts

Please devs, release one game type now, dont work on two sepperate servers atm, work on one first then implement the other later on, right now i dont think people want to wait that much longer for the upcoming wipe. As we clearly can see on the forums, the mid / smaller server is whats drawing most attention (unfortionally). From my point of view i would like the servers to atleast hold 100 in each company, but thats just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all paid for this game. No reason to just pick one group who coplains a lot online and only work for them. Let the players choose and focus dev time based on player count or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Knivet said:

Please devs, release one game type now, dont work on two sepperate servers atm, work on one first then implement the other later on, right now i dont think people want to wait that much longer for the upcoming wipe. As we clearly can see on the forums, the mid / smaller server is whats drawing most attention (unfortionally). From my point of view i would like the servers to atleast hold 100 in each company, but thats just me.

They need to wait to wipe at least another month. They need time to see the empire server fall and then ultimately make the official pvp server the colonies server.

there is no room in this game for any company that is more than 50 players. I still see them even making the cap smaller later down the road

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Realist said:

They need to wait to wipe at least another month. They need time to see the empire server fall and then ultimately make the official pvp server the colonies server.

there is no room in this game for any company that is more than 50 players. I still see them even making the cap smaller later down the road

I wish to see 10 maximum and 2 alliances per tribe on Colonies (smalltribe atlas).

But that is just me, feeling that there is considerably more solos and small company players then zerg, but most of them have already left.

Any abuse of those limitations, especially in offensive wars, should be severely punished to make nice competitive SvS atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not 2 sets of code on 2 sets of servers being worked on, there is just one set of code being run on 2 sets of servers. The code is both PVP and PVE, and inside that code is a line that sets it to the version that is active on the server.

 

 

And that code is 

 

If you want mixed PvE or PvP,  you'll have to set it in the GameUserSettings.ini in the Saved/Config folder for the server.

[ServerSettings]
ServerPVE=1

Enables PVE for that grid.  You can set another grid to PVP ServerPVE=0 by editing the GameUserSettings.ini for that instance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends n how successful will they be in keeping the game clean - enforcing cap rules and anti cheater policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gnihar said:

I wish to see 10 maximum and 2 alliances per tribe on Colonies (smalltribe atlas).

But that is just me, feeling that there is considerably more solos and small company players then zerg, but most of them have already left.

Any abuse of those limitations, especially in offensive wars, should be severely punished to make nice competitive SvS atmosphere.

Yeah I have to agree. Well except for the alliances part. I can’t really get on board with that. 

3 minutes ago, gnihar said:

It all depends n how successful will they be in keeping the game clean - enforcing cap rules and anti cheater policies.

Yes, the faster they ban the Megas for abusing the cap the better off the game will be

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defensive alliances are not that much of an issue. They are made of necessity and will not damage playerbase much. Offensive ones, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gnihar said:

Defensive alliances are not that much of an issue. They are made of necessity and will not damage playerbase much. Offensive ones, though...

Defensive alliances could easily be verbal alliances. It is just when the official alliance comes into play is when friendly fire gets turned off. Not that realistic after that. I get what you mean though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I do not know if the server is poor or the program is dirty, but the game is very overloaded.

Are you trying to create many game modes and distribute the number of players?

That is the wrong solution.

 

Share this post


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


I do not know if the server is poor or the program is dirty, but the game is very overloaded.

Are you trying to create many game modes and distribute the number of players?

That is the wrong solution.

 

They are only triyng to separate zerg from small tribes. Because zerg have players across various time zones, it is not a big problem for them not to have raid protection.

Smalltribes though might not have the manpower to keep watch 24 7 therefore raid windows seem logical on smalltribes cluster.

Will that split the playerbase? Yes. Will the player numbers drop due to this? I don’t believe so - conrary might even happen. Will that cause zerg to infiltrate smalltribes. Most certainly so. Will the admins ban cap circumventions? IMO that is the biggest concern here.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would help if some of these smaller companies would make better defenses too.. 1 wall foundations and expecting to keep a cannon bear out is pathetic.  I see where some went to un official but whined about being offlined when they allowed players to walk in. It wasn't until recently things started to work better.  I know offtopic a tad here, but its true why some of the bitching happened... we where offlined, but had no defenses.

 

Share this post


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

It would help if some of these smaller companies would make better defenses too.. 1 wall foundations and expecting to keep a cannon bear out is pathetic.  I see where some went to un official but whined about being offlined when they allowed players to walk in. It wasn't until recently things started to work better.  I know offtopic a tad here, but its true why some of the bitching happened... we where offlined, but had no defenses.

 

Quite so. On the other hand, you can do almost nothing to prevent cannon bear take down puckles one by one with ease while you are offline.

Some decent offline defense would be nice, puckles that can go over 45 degrees and be more similar to autoturrets would go great lengths, combined with deletion of cannon bear meta. Let the cannon be deployed from bear not shot from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not full proof system for sure, and ranges to matter. You can only have so many AIs and they start bugging out disappearing too. I know we had 500+ Ais and i reported it to Jat they just disappear without a trace in the logs. One minute they are on your cannons, next they are gone. Same with ships while in port or out in a different server. Plus the FPS lag wow... you can have loads of structures but you can not have loads of AI's Tested and proven to be the case. We did it last week, and sure enough huge building does not lag you down but boats and ais do.

Other then that, all you can do is cross protect your buildings and in hopes someone logs in. However people need to make it much easier on themselves then 1 wall block in all your gear. Same with ships do the best you can to protect them. One guy should not be able to rush in oil down your planks with ease.

 

Ai-Tame logic would be nice if they revamped that down the road too.

Edited by Sneakydude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sneakydude said:

It would help if some of these smaller companies would make better defenses too.. 1 wall foundations and expecting to keep a cannon bear out is pathetic.  I see where some went to un official but whined about being offlined when they allowed players to walk in. It wasn't until recently things started to work better.  I know offtopic a tad here, but its true why some of the bitching happened... we where offlined, but had no defenses.

 

Man. I cringe when I hear “cannon bear”. Really disappointed they let that happen in the game.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...