Angus McGregor

Members
  • Content count

    427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

366 Excellent

About Angus McGregor

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

581 profile views
  1. Picture this, the wind across the *entire" southern coastline from Trinidad to Tampico is blowing strong and steady from east to west. Near impossible to make headway against. To sail eastward, you have to go north to the south coast of Cuba, Haiti, Puerto Rico and across to Antigua. If you're up there and want to sail westward, you've gotta go down to Costa Rica before it's remotely possible. That is not fun. And no, for the most part the wind is only really frustrating in the OW for about a third of the time. You think think people squawk about long sailing times now? IMO we'd be longing for, bitching for a return to, the current situation if tradewinds were ever implemented.
  2. I am not a fan of adding micro-management "busy work" like having to manually adjust the sails, or dealing with crew discipline, etc... But several people (including me) have suggested random things found on islands and mainland beaches. stranded castaways frantically waving, burning signal fires, that turn out to be rich merchants, or diplomats offering reward for transport to a specific (maybe unfriendly) port. beached shipwrecks with treasure aboard (a'la sealed bottle treasure contents) lone grass hut with evidence of long dead occupant leaving behind a treasure map (equivalent to sealed bottle) the list goes on... you get the idea. possibly just a few of these existing at any one time on the entire server. A replacement doesn't randomly spawn until one is found. There are ways to improve OW without a *huge* amount of effort. Edit: and these are WAYY more interesting and engaging than fishing, and actually encourage OW sailing.
  3. This has been done in other Caribbean Age of Sail games and it is a right royal pain in the hiney. It makes for some very long voyages by anything but direct routes to try to catch prevailing winds in the direction you want to go. Sounds cool, but believe me it isn't. I *would* like a more natural feeling variation of wind direction and strength, but not prevailing trade winds, please no.
  4. On an individual basis, I don't think there's a willingness to bite this bullet and actually be the player who cannot have, or afford to use, 1st rate ships. It'll be okay as long as it's someone else. When you say, "imagine when seeing a SOL in an attack fleet is a wow moment." Everyone pictures themselves as the object of envy. When reality comes around and it isn't them, they'll just be frustrated and cry foul. The trick is to arrange as many battle scenarios as possible that naturally make SOLs the poorer choice of ship to use. For instance there's a suggestion for PBs to make one, or two of the capture circles ignore SOL class ships for cap counts. It's an attempt to mimic the effect of shallow areas in the PB instance without the devs having to actually code detailed bathymetric maps. Something they're said they're not willing to do. It's a simple idea, and better than what I suggested by far. What can be done to make this true in OW too? I dunno - but we have smart people in these forums. Hopefully a few more will have Einstein moments and come up with good ideas.
  5. ^ ^
  6. Well, the idea is based on PBs having requirements for different ratings within the PB like Aventador suggested. What is now a 1st Rate PB would have quotas for other ratings as well to make the both attack/defence fleets more historically accurate and diverse. 5 - 1st rates 7 - 2nd rates 8 - 3rd rates 5 - 4th rates and under The 4th rate PBs would have similar quotas for ships of lesser rating. 7 - 4th rates 8 - 5th rates 10 - 6th rates and under Numbers given subject to debate.
  7. The problem with any restrictions by rating of ship means the PB entry almost certainly has to be lobby-based. Otherwise deciding and tracking which slots of each rating are being taken by who becomes a headache. Not an insurmountable one, but a headache all the same. I'm wondering about a system where the PB is 'owned' by one captain, a 'PB Commander', on each side... highest hostility earned? What other measure could be used? I'm tempted to say 'appointed' by attacking and defending nations, but how? Have to consider the cases where PBs are being fought entirely by allies. That 'PB Commander' has a separate screen that opens for 2 minutes when the PB activates. That screen indicates all the captains/ships that have clicked the swords indicating they'd like to join. He can approve/deny each individual captain/ship for each rating slot. He has that 2 minutes to make his decisions . The captains/ships he picks enter the PB instance immediately when he selects 'Attack' or when the 2 minute timer expires. After that, any captain with hostility points can take an open rating slot and enter the PB instance if his ship qualifies. After 5 minutes, any captain can enter if his ship qualifies for a rating slot still open. It's kind of a lobby system for the first 2 minutes, but not a lobby after that. I think the main stumbling block to the idea is picking the PB Commander for each side in a fair and agreeable way, or at least one not open to dispute. That and the coding involved for the PB Commander approval screen. Comments?
  8. No argument that this is making the new players life difficult. Is there a Youtube channel that noobs could subscribe to that has a good selection of tutorial-type videos that are up to date? If yes, GameLabs could link to the channel from the entry screens.
  9. We see a post thanking the devs for their efforts in creating and continuing to work on this game, even in EA, better than anything else remotely similar. It is a very sad commentary on the characters who can only see it as a troll post. If you have so low an opinion of the devs, their efforts, or NA in general... do us all a favor and go away. Don't go away mad... just go away. I am almost *never* for turning players away, but you all are just a poisonous canker in this community.
  10. I've been meaning to comment on this for ages. 99.9% sure that the figurehead is modeled as a fixed extension of the hull. To have customizable figureheads would mean reworking *every* ship model.
  11. I admit to being very confused by this turn of events for ship duras. I thought the idea was to make upper tier ships, especially 1st rates, less common. I agree with that goal in principle, but haven't been satisfied with the attempted methods to make it happen. If nothing else drastic happens, this change will have the exact opposite effect. Has anyone else seen that design goal in bold print before? All ships should last through 3 losing battles? This is the first I've heard of it, but I certainly haven't been around since the beginning. Just curious. I completely agree that steps are needed to retain new players. BUT I really doubt that the dropout rate from 4th rate to 1st rate capable ranks is anywhere near the percentage that leave from 7th rate to 4th rate. I would welcome some hard statistics from the devs on player dropout rates, tier by tier from 7th to 1st rate. I have a very bad feeling that time and efforts are being wasted on the lesser problems here. If the devs admit that 1 dura is the better solution, but are afraid people will rage quit when they lose an expensive ship... make losing a ship less painful, especially at the lower ranks. It has been suggested more than once to make the ship crafting expense curve mildly exponential instead of linear. Can't we try the better solution first???
  12. @RichbeardRight now.
  13. Thank you! My understanding is that the raid starts... no advance warning a defense force of NPC ships is deployed I'm hoping an announcement is sent to port owning nation that raid is in progress (unconfirmed) defending nation and allies can take command away from the AI, and start controlling one of the defending ships. I assume it is not possible to bring your own ship to the defense of the port. (unconfirmed) The knee-jerk reaction of always seeing only problems and flaming the devs is getting very very old. Calm the hello kitty down, read it again, look for ways you've misread it, read it again, go away and think for 5 minutes, then write a post with questions and/or suggestions. IF I were a dev or mod, a few people would be temp-banned just from crap in this thread.
  14. Understood But not really what I was commenting on - there's threads I can tell just from the title that I don't want to read the avalanche of flaming it is sure to provoke.
  15. No No - a fraking thousand times NO! If they grind at PvE missions... who are we to tell them that's the wrong way to play? Are they damaging your gaming experience... aside from them being around for you to sink them... because sink them you will. And if they get tired of the PvE grind and leave, when the PvP option was there to try... that means they'd rather quit than risk being humiliated repeatedly in OW combat. Nothing can be done about that. Nothing. Taking away the PvE will just make them leave faster.