Kiithnaras

Members
  • Content count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

86 Excellent

About Kiithnaras

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

163 profile views
  1. The decision to require ship knowledge unlocks on different classes of ship has always puzzled me. Why? Why should a captain be forced to learn and study really small fore-and-aft riggers to effectively sail huge, hulking lineships (due to nested dependencies)? Why not just spend a lot of time on lineships and learn their ins and outs? My proposition is this: Get rid of that nonsense. Have a heavily-scaling curve for later knowledge slots (each successive slot should take about 5x the XP of the previous slot, e.g. 100, 500, 2500, 12500, 62500). In this way, the first two slots come fairly easy, the third slot comes with a solid bit of effort, and the last two represent a significant investment without having to jump around to a ton of ships. With a cap of 21 ship slots (even after dumping piles of gold, much more commonly 3-6 ship slots), a captain will have to craft/find and scrap a lot of them to fully unlock everything with the current system, hidden costs involved and all. As a small consolation to this heavy curve, if I, say, fully unlock all slots on a Trincomalee, then the first slot on -all- 5th-rates should be unlocked for free (Mastery on one specific ship class should unlock first-slot knowledge for all ships of that rate). Edit: If you -really- love those similar-ship skill thingos, don't nest them so strongly. Set a base ship in each Rate that doesn't require unlocks from ships of smaller rates, but is comfortably resting at the bottom of that Rate class (e.g. Cutter, Brig, Cerberus, 3rd-rate, St. Pavel, and Victory), and not require someone to go all the way up the tree from Basic Cutter for a Santisma's knowledge.
  2. Initial thoughts pre-testing: Everything looks fantastic except for the 70% crewing minimum. This is a dumb, imo - A more sensible limit would be to set the minimum required crew equal to the Sailing Crew of that vessel (or some ratio thereof). I shouldn't be forced to sail a Le Gros, for example, unloaded of all guns for extra speed, with 168 crew when it takes a maximum of 60 to handle sailing. The hell are those other 108 going to do, sit around and pick their backsides? This sounds great on paper, but all it does in effect is hurt newer players from trying out larger ships. Maybe, if your goal is to keep those players from being frustrated, pop up a warning if the player's personal ship (not fleet ships) is below 70% crew upon leaving port: "Warning: Sailing ships with too few crew will severely hinder their battle performance. Are you sure?" (Add tick-box or flag to not show again, too - we all hate those nag screens). Another option is to simply adjust that 70% threshold based on a combination of the Max Sailing + Max Gunnery crew values, up to the maximum of the ship. So, that Le Gros could be sailed with as few as 42 crew (no guns), or 168 if fully loaded with longs. Keep newer players in mind, matey!
  3. I think he means the situation regarding ships taking on the condition of the enemy ship post-battle, i.e. sink enemy ship, own ship's condition reflects the ship you've just sank post-battle. It's somewhat safe to still do missions and exit battle to friendly port, repair, and continue on, but exiting to open world, repairing in OW, and joining another mission will make your ship immediately sink regardless of its condition.
  4. I would personally be in favor of battles that are indefinitely-open (maybe caps on BR, maybe not) but have a very wide join circle that must be entered from the outside (approximately the battle pull radius) similar to attackers in port battles. Combine this with Area Control as a standard mechanic, and you've got a winner, in my opinion. Ships close to the tagging will have plenty of time to defeat their opponent and flee before reinforcements arrive. If land defenses get a bit more beefy with a little extra range, as well, this could make for some very interesting and organic engagements.
  5. @Preble, though it's a bit old, details on the new crafting model were announced and discussed Here. I'm not sure if and how anything has changed since then. I should really zip over to Testbed once the changes are in and take a look-see. I would hope that the new crafting system works something like This with the ability to adjust multiple aspects of a ship, each with their own drawbacks (e.g. make a ship tougher but more heavy/slow/sluggish or weaker but lighter/faster/more nimble), but the details are pretty sparse so far. Because of the way modules and ships themselves are changing in a database structure sort of manner, all ships, modules, redeemables, and ship notes are being sent to the void. Your fancy constitution along with all of its upgrades will just up and vanish like a fart in the wind.
  6. I have voted to maintain the current alliance system, but only in the absence of a third option. See This post for more details. Essentially, a more nuanced and less lock-step political system is needed to keep things organic and dynamic, but having no political system with pure anarchy was particularly frustrating (then again, it was fun in it's own way, just stressful). Summarizing the linked post above (and in sig), what is needed is not "Allied or Enemy" but a disposition system; something to indicate the current political climate without having to resort to blocking other nations from being attacked entirely. Alliances should still exist, but be purposeful and time-limited with a cooldown in between allied periods. Wars should also be more purposeful and be time-limited with cooldowns in between. The different states of political disposition should also have differing Rules of Engagement; Peaceful nations might join each others' battles, while Enemy nations could not. Having OW battles open indefinitely (treat every fight as having Signalling, and every ship has having Area Control, perhaps) would further this more dynamic political system.
  7. Here's the issue with comparing NA to other MMO's; Mechanics. In Eve - the only purely-PvP MMO that I can think of - a Spy has to be careful. If they're discovered, outed, or suspected, they can be kicked from the corporation, attacked and killed, podded back to empire, etc. There are consequences for being a bad spy. Good spies never let on that they're spying or doing anything shady. MMOs that aren't primarily PvP have limited need or use for spies and alts. The problem in NA is that it is primarily a PvP game (on the PvP servers), but we are forbidden from taking action against subversive elements. Green on Green is a bannable offense. We can't chat-block, we can't evict from nation, we can't even shoo away suspicious shadows with violence. Spies have all the agency in the world to act, while non-subversive players have none at all. We can't even toss out or shoot at someone who joins a Lineship battle in a Cerberus for the lulz.
  8. Bloody hell, who is this, George Soros?
  9. I am not opposed to 1-dura ships, but, with the announced changes, there needs to be a mass storage system for them. 5 dock spaces per outpost plus 5 fleet slots globally seems like a lot on the surface, but it's really not, especially if losses are heavy for an individual (though it might not be so bad with changes to the crafting system). This is especially true for clan crafters that churn out ships regularly for other members and have to hold on to them until said clanmates appear. In this case, I'd propose Mothballing. For a small fee, a ship (sans any upgrades, guns, or cargo) can be mothballed at Nation Capital or perhaps Clan Warehouse. This mothballing can be indefinite or for a finite time (say, mothball maintenance must be supplied every two weeks or the ship is scuttled). This would be a fine means of storing crafted ships, in my opinion.
  10. @Raekur, if the responses to my other thread on giving players some agency to affect the ability of known spies and subversive elements to act with impunity is any indication, individuals that use alts for these acts are vehemently opposed to any reasonable means of countering them besides cowering in dark holes and giving in to their every demand. They don't want a challenge, they want complete and utter domination by any means necessary.
  11. Well, no, they are modeled as being too thick. a 1st-rate's masts are listed around 119cm. In reality, the HMS Victory's masts are about 94cm in diameter. From a gameplay mechanics perspective, the masts should be reduced to this range (some ratio like 1 and some small fraction of an inch per foot of beam at the mast) and simply receive an HP buff to compensate, simulating off-angle shots. I think right now the masts are simple hitboxes without any physical form, meaning that a shot on a mast is treated as "dead on", as if you were shooting the hull of a ship directly perpendicular. The devs have indicated that they don't want to complicate ship models much more than they already are, though we should see ship Structure appearing in a patch sometime Soon™. While it would be nice to have rigging and shrouds more accurately modeled, doing so would really load down the game engine, and things get pretty chuggy with 50 ships in a battle already. AFAIK, only sails and masts are modeled, and taking out a mast section, even one of the upper mast sections, can really be painful in disabling a ship.
  12. @Sir Texas Sir, I don't feel that it will be abused as much as you think, though. You're looking at hours, and I specified activity: OW kills/assists (highest impact, 20% more for War-declared nations, double for PvP kills/assists), PB participation (less impact than OW kills/assists), sending ships to the admiralty as prizes (small impact, iffy on this one), and completing delivery missions to the capital (small impact). The total number of hours is irrelevant compared to the duty contribution in my mind. No, it's not perfect, but I definitely do not want a voting system where one or two clans control a supermajority and, exactly as you put it, never show up in OW and bully other players around. Simply put, if your Dane alt is presenting more naval superiority by sinking and capturing more enemy ships than most other Danes, he'll probably earn a council seat on that nation as well. Again, these things are tabulated and decided every two weeks, so things rotate out - earning a council seat is not a guarantee that you'll be on the council forever. Once a Council is chosen, all "recently-earned" admiralty points are reset to zero and the process begins again. Someone that sits in port trading every day is not likely to acquire a council seat, and people that only show up to make hostility and participate in port battles are less likely to be on the council than someone who actively patrols in between and goes to Admiralty events and so on. I might also add that for very small nations with fewer than 12 active players, there simply would be no council - if there aren't at least 12 players with more than zero "recently-earned" points, the council simply doesn't form for that cycle.
  13. @admin, Check out This thread and the linked spreadsheet. I go into fairly good detail on the Internal and External ballistics of cannons. The data within the spreadsheet is fairly adjustable, too, and keeps things nice and proportional to each other. Having carronades drop off to zero (or even negative?!) penetration at range is absolutely silly (I shouldn't be able to deflect a carronade round by holding up a piece of paper). Additionally, shot of a specific size should lose energy at the same rate, as a proportion of its velocity, as any other shot of the same size no matter what gun it's fired from and should always decay to a certain minimum penetration at their hypothetical "infinite" range (if the ball was dropped from space, a.k.a. terminal velocity.) As far as thickness goes, I feel like the overall thickness of hulls is acceptable, but masts are way too thick. IRL, the HMS Victory's mast is around 94cm in diameter. While it's true that there have been issues with demasting being too easy, I feel that reducing the mast thickness to approximately 4/3rds the hull thickness is a good start, and give masts an additional 30-50% HP buff to make demasting a challenge, but not practically impossible. (Gankers do not demast, they chain, generally)
  14. Forum Tribunal rules do not cover anything I have mentioned here. Additionally, though Moderators and Admin are responsible for carrying out final judgement for Tribunals, it's all public info and anyone can throw their two cents in (which creates more of a headache for the moderating team), particularly a vocal minority in support of the abuser despite clear evidence provided of wrongdoing and rulebreaking. This system is not for rulebreaking at all, it is for weeding out obvious spies and traitors. As I've said multiple times, I would love a means to give players agency in the game. By leaving the decisions in the hands of uninvolved (but not necessarily impartial) mods and admins, agency is removed from the players, especially when the Tribunal overwhelmingly rules in favor of no significant action (Not that they don't give due diligence, it's simply a matter of distance from the issue and having to reach a certain threshold of certitude before carrying out any punitive action). Without agency, one becomes helpless. No one likes feeling helpless. Helplessness leads to declining player numbers. In this system, everything is secret - Council seats are assigned based on actitivity, but not publicly known, even to each other (unless they choose to broadcast their councilship). Judgements are only sent to the screen that Council members can see, and the only indication they have of other council members' activity are the votes that are recorded. Only once a Judgement reaches a substantive sentencing is the Subject (or Plaintiff) notified of the result. Judgements that result in no action, whether by guilt or sentencing (it's entirely plausible that the Council will vote strongly in favor of guilt, but decide on no action to watch the person in order to be certain - it would be another player that they're removing from their own nation, after all), would not notify the Plaintiff or Subject. When I asked for feedback, I was more interested in how others would do things differently in giving players agency against spies and traitors. It is, however, interesting and curious to see how many flat-out detractors there are here that are clearly in favor of maintaining the status quo of Spying with Impunity.
  15. @Norfolk nChance, The reason I wanted to avoid a council/head/magistrate that was democratically-elected and instead selected by activity and national contribution is the Mob Mentality and Good Old Boys club factors, one of Rebel Witch's few valid arguments. By democratically selecting the justiciars, it turns into precisely that with the largest clans essentially running the show. I definitely don't want that, either. If this idea were to be implemented, it would indeed place the trust of judgement in the hands of the most active players on each nation; whether to believe some random person's random complaints that Unassuming Sailor is a spy without any further information to go on. In fact, tuning Judgements to cost a significant amount of admiralty points (which are non-transferrable) helps avoid knee-jerk reactions, since each Judgement will represent a sizable amount of gameplay investment. I would also be in favor of having Mods having the ability to overturn Judgements if it boils down to harassment, but the Execution option above is pretty final and irrevocable (maybe keep the character in limbo for 24 hours before final erasure for appeals?). It also isn't explicitly about Alts, but it will affect characters that are used as obvious spies. I did merely mention that players that use alts heavily have a lower likelihood of attaining a council seat when compared to another player with only one character purely due to the time investiture and effort required to maintain oneself in the top-12 national contributors. @Wraith, I wouldn't be opposed to this type of game at all. It sounds interesting and dynamic and pretty neat. It does have one issue, though, and it's the same issue that has caused many to complain about Alliances: Democracy. Democracy is great and all and has its place, but it can tend to form that "Haves and Have-Nots" sort of situation. This is why, in my OP, any serious and permanent punishment requires either a 3/4ths majority or outright unanimity. In your type of setting, I would say any clan/individual would be accepted with a contribution-based Magistrate or Council (Individuals that have gained the trust of the Admiralty through time and effort) presiding over the eviction of subversive or disruptive elements. But that's my take. : ) @Sir Texas Sir, I agree. Those are called Good Spies; spies that do their job and aren't caught. Spies that don't enter battles merely to fill slots and be ineffective or leave and give as little indication or evidence as to their subversive activities as possible. One can't do anything about ghosts. It's the ones that dance in front of you while flaunting their treasonous activities that need to be dealt with.