LinkesAuge

they should just get rid off 2x times "events" and make it 2x ALL the time. The game is grindy enough even with two times but the current system kinda forces you to do a lot of farming at the weekend when thats the best time for the "fun" stuff.

ya, its a bad joke and noone can tell me this doesn't use a lot of dev resources which are obviously not spent on the MMO part.

ya why not make it an option on the resource box on a ship?

Sure, you can but then he respawns and hardly lost anything. There is also the issue that currently carbines become near useless when in bigger fights due to extreme lag (down to not even being able to reload the weapon) and making the cheap "run with blackjack at enemy" strategy even better. But like I said my main concern isn't even "balance" (you could find the right values/costs for that although it will always be a brittle balance due to all the factors involved, especially regarding tames), it's that it simply doesn't feel good/rewarding and is kind of nonsensical on top. Imo the whole land PvP needs a total redesign. From the way guns are handled/used to the role tames play (and with "play" I mean totally dominate it). As long as that's not the case other issues will continue to crop up because there is just no solid foundation (which is why for example explosive barrels, grenades etc go through so many changes).

Problem is there is a huge discrepancy between the involved "costs". A naked with a blackjack isn't a huge commitment. Besides that that whole system isn't really fun or interesting for anyone. I would like to see tames nerfed and make people on foot (or as real mounted soldiers, not this swivel bs) a lot stronger but "use blackjack as counter to tames" is just as stupid as tames themselves. It's fighting cancer with cholera.

Even if you are stopped just for a short time (30-60 seconds) that gives the enemy enough time to box you in and make it impossible to escape. I do like the general idea of it but it really is easy to see how wrong it can go or how it might be "abused". I also have little trust in Grapeshot getting the balance right or preventing things like inaccessible spots.

I think we aren't that far off in our opinions but I refuse the notion that Grapeshot is in this case the victim of impatient gamers. We are also not talking about the normal delays which happen in Software development (I'm one btw so I can emphasize with it even if I "only" do it in a corporation environment). This whole thing has a history and that can't be ignored and a lot of the issues people have could be managed by proper communication, something Grapeshot constantly fails at. The thing is they have simply no credit left they can use. The game is already a huge mess in several areas, infested by cheaters/hackers and now has to suffer a wipe (that did catch a lot of people offguard because it was again never properly communicated/prepared for) while the "big patch" has been delays several times and even changing directions (the devide between empire/colonies wasn't part of the original "plan"). I think people who even bother to post about this game anymore were patient enough because the numbers clearly show that 90% of the initial user base didn't have that patience. I certainly condemn any post that is all about personal attacks or is only filled with name calling but let's not lump together all the people (and I think that's the majority) who are simply tired/annoyed of Grapeshot's whole approach (and they aren't dangling dates for no reason infront of us, they do it to keep people around, it's not some innocent accident).

You didn't pay your parents to drive you. If I take a taxi and ask "how much longer" you can be sure I expect a reasonable answer. It's always kind of sad when "gamers" infantilize themselves. So no Grapeshot doesn't "owe" anyone anything, just like no customer support on hotlines owes you anything but if you want to keep your customers/make them happy there is a way to do it and another one which certainly won't achieve it. If they didn't want people constantly asking them (and expecting an answer) about it then maybe don't sell a game in EA? They take money for a product and even an EA game doesn't mean you as developer get an out of jail card on everything (although more and more devs as well as players seem to think so).

Do you understand the nature of cooperation? Or easier question, do you understand that 2 > 1. As long as that is true there will always be an incentive to gravitate towards bigger groups, no matter the "rules" as long as you want to simulate a "world" in an MMO and not have some kind of static experience. The game won't suddenly be more enjoyable in the absence of "Megas" because that hole will be filled by other kinds of cooperation where the bigger (stronger) dominate the smaller (weaker). That's why I talked about creating certain incentives through game mechanics but you keep going on about company sizes which are only a result, not the source of the problems. PS: Just as disclaimer, I'm not part of a "mega" (I was in Eve-Online so I understand that side too) but thinking getting rid of them will fix anything is preposterous, especially with much bigger problems around (like the rampant cheating, duping and hacking).

All this talk about "Megas" is anyways stupid. It's not like there is even a clear line or definition where one company becomes "Mega". Like what is a company going to do if it grows and becomes a so called "mega"? Leave everything on the Colony server behind and go to Empires? Same question in regards to the other case. What happens if you lose members/split up and become a smaller company? What are you going to do on the Empire Server? Leave it and start over on Colonies? And what exactly is preventing "SuperMega" companies? A so called "mega" might face the same problems as smaller/mid sized companies have on the current server in regards to bigger companies/alliances. There is just no solution to politics in a MMO that is directed by its players. What would be needed is proper incentives for certain actions through game mechanics we currently lack but trying to seperate "small" and "big" companies is a fools errant and will need to nowhere (it's at best a short term fix).

Most small groups also want the new claim flag system and ORP. I wouldn't care if they just decided to make that "hardcore" PvP server if that's where all the toxic people of this game want to go (might make it even more enjoyable for the rest) but it certainly is not a question of big or small, it's about having proper systems implemented in the game and Empire doesn't have it.

Empires isn't "designed for megas". No big company wants the old claim flag system and big companies ALSO want some offline raiding protection because having none isn't fun for them either. Empires is created for some fictional "hardcore" group that doesn't really exist or just in a very tiny number.

Why do people worrying about big groups always fail to understand that their "solutions" affect the smaller groups just as much? Your idea will make any PvP for smaller groups even harder and you are pretty much trying to "cure" the patient by killing him. The only thing you are doing is to make attacking (and PvP) SO annoying that people simply don't want to play the game anymore. It's also always kind of ironic when reading a sentence like "Multiple skilled companies working together in coms can defeat zergs easily while in coms together. Allied or not". If you have "multiple skilled companies working together" you are a "zerg" yourself and I will never understand why people think that working together in a MMO is bad. Numbers are always important in any conflict and you will never be able to limit that while maintaining a proper MMO _world_. What we need are proper ingame incentives and mechanics for war/conflict between bigger groups and having smaller ones around you can live with but you don't get that with simplistic rules like yours.

Sry but I call bs on that. If you were in any "mega", no matter which side you were in, you had pretty much the other half of the server as possible target and no side had the whole top10 list. If you then only attacked smaller groups you have noone but yourself (or your own company) to blame.

It's the same risk as being part of a company or any player organisation in a MMO. In the end it all comes down to trust at some point. This also would be no different under any other system. It might make it harder for the "owner" but let's be realistic here, small groups will always be at the mercy of bigger ones and if it's too hard for island owners to remove people then the pendulum swings the other way and bigger groups ask themselves why they should even bother keeping smaller groups around (that's what happened in the old claim flag system, the potential trouble wasn't worth it to keep smaller groups around).