Jump to content

Bad News Bear

Pathfinder
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    218

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bad News Bear

  1. Posted

    I fail to understand how this is even allowed, takes away the need for any player toninvestigate teams and whatnot. Want to know where certain people are? Use a third party software!

    I’m sure that is how pirates and the military found targets in the 17th century!

  5. Posted

    32 minutes ago, Skyroguen said:

    true. that is why i was thinking they should be very rare.....but on second thought i can see where this can become a bad idea...i take back the idea....is that allowed?

     

    Just dont want to see mega clans being more op than they currently are. The biggest issue ig atm is company size.

  7. Posted

    27 minutes ago, Skyroguen said:

    I could see an Ironclad. Very Heavy, Very slow, and takes extra damage in storms, but it's a turtle that takes a lot of damage from siege weapons. cost lots of metal among other resources and the blue print would be very rare.

    I would prefer to see ships from the 1600-1700s. Not metal-armored floating tanks.

    • Like 1

  10. Posted · Edited by Bad News Bear

    1 hour ago, Implicitlee said:

    Don't feed the idiot Troll who ironically called me the Troll

    I do like this idea of having to trade resources, except the Land Claim grab week one has made it very unfair, what does the guy sitting on a 3 x 3 foundation spot of land have to trade with a Company that cheesed 28 islands in week one?

    Land grab... when we were a 6 man we easily got on island with large groups and pvped our way through it. You would be surprised to see how many large companies have terrible land pvpers.

  11. Posted · Edited by Bad News Bear

    There is als

    1 hour ago, Bastian Auryn said:

    I think the point he was making is that there is a lot more Player-Versus-Offline-Player than there is actual active fighting involved... Offline raiding feels more like griefing to me than anything else... there is literally no risk to the attacker when raiding an offline players base.  There is no challenge, there is no strategy... just destruction of stuff... because you can...

    There is plenty of avtive PvP/naval warfare if you go look for it.

    Funny story we rolled up on a guy gathering resources on our island from a company that offlines everyone on that server every night, he said he was just getting thatch cause he didnt have any on his island. We sunk his ass hard and he was like... yeah we kind of deserved it. We said: “no hard feelings”

  16. Posted

    23 hours ago, RogueLdr said:

    Fire arrow nerfs cuz of pvp

    gun nerfs cuz of pvp

    Tame nerfs cz of pvp

     

    and those are just the ones off the top of my head, thouuugh i feel like i'm forgetting something...

     

    oh yeah, the giant FU they did to stone walls.

    Some asshat in pvp exploits or cries about something till it gets nerfed and PVE players who never did that suffer.

     

    Devs need to start patching the rulesets separately. All this does is piss off everyone.

    Fire arrows didnt get nerfed, they got gutted. If it wasnt for oil jars they could have just removed them and it wouldnt have made a difference.

  17. Posted

    Most of the balance issues regarding stucture costs, structure spam lag, maxing out servers as a means to raid, mass ship raming, etc. can be solved if you limit companies to an acceptable level. Half a server’s playerbase should be the maximum allowed I feel as it would promote PvP, politics, and trade. If there was more micro conflict and more bases to protect there would be a greater sink for items and currency.

     

    Currently you have mega clans that just accumulate resources without even being challenged by anyone.

  21. Posted · Edited by Bad News Bear

    Agreed, even if you setup defences specifically for dragons, you probably couldnt take one down effectively. In game projectiles and reload speeds would make it disheartning to actually fight it in open combat.

    If I had to defend against one I would probably just disconnect from Atlas and go play another game for 8 hours.

     

    another huge factor affecting this is the cap limit on team sizes... 500 players, are you kidding me, servers can only handle 150(with insane lag). The company cap size should be 75 or less, that would ensure that players sink sufficient gold and resources toward war endeavours over just getting dragons (yes plural) to go annihilate fleets of boats and hard work.

    • Like 1

  22. Posted · Edited by Bad News Bear

    4 hours ago, TheSzerdi said:

    That doesn't solve bad mechanics. We have a walled off harbor with an AI on cannon every three wall spaces and our actual base is on a cliff you can't shoot at above the harbor. It would probably take days to raid us even if we were offline the entire time. That is not the point. The point is it's shit game design. Especially with this stone nerf, the people that hadn't already built ridiculous defenses now have to work twice as hard. The game mechanics should promote taking only what you can hold and actively engaging in holding it.

    Edit to clarify: The harbor is walled off. Not stupid huge gates. Over one hundred wall segments long actual wall.

    Implementing carebear changes to a PvP game is probably the worse mechanics you can implement. The current state of the game would be better than invuln. More people would leave the game if invuln was implemented over what is currently happening.

     

    Again, there are servers with offline protection available for people that can’t handle PvP servers. We chose to setup in a region that does not interest people and has extremely harsh environment for protection, and it’s paying off. If you dont have the people to look after your base on down tomes, then maybe you should rethink your strategy or even living in high profile areas until you can actually defend.

  23. Posted

    9 hours ago, TheSzerdi said:

    There is no fun in being offline raided. No risk / reward. We've wiped out several groups this way, but I'd much prefer actual pvp. The current system promotes offline raiding and massive pointless area denial. Players will always use the easiest and most effective tactics. The game mechanics need to change if offline raiding is the most effective strategy. 

    Invest in defences / strategic locations. I have a cliff base I dont really go to that has never been raided in a month

  25. Posted

    4 hours ago, Tallios said:

    There needs to be a balance in the form of maintenance and upkeep.  Let a resource box feed all the structures within a claim flag radius.  If people have to pay materials and possibly gold to maintain large places, the structures will shrink.  It MUST however be materials not just gold.  This will tame down the mega's and provide some aspect for trade. 

    Also metal for stone walls is just stupid.

    Upkeep on bases would become a nightmare. sometimes you cant clip structures to your base so it is improvised (gaps under gates blocked w foundations and whatnot) and small mining outposts, cannonades, towers...

×
×
  • Create New...