Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Slamz

Members
  • Content count

    1,449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Slamz last won the day on February 24 2016

Slamz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,717 Excellent

About Slamz

  • Rank
    Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

1,145 profile views
  1. PvP - what does it mean, captain ?

    "War." PvP to me means war. I don't do duels in a war. I don't do arranged fights in a war. I don't hold back because "it's not fair" in a war. I give no quarter and want none. In a war, I sneak up on your cargo ship, blast your crew to death and steal your cargo with you not having a chance, because it's war. When I run cargo I get escorts, because there's a war out there. I spend half my time thinking how I can kill you in the most unfair way possible and the other half of my time thinking how I can avoid having you kill me in the most unfair way possible. This thought process drives about 90% of my interest in any game. And if I'm very lucky, I get to do this in a game where kills have strategic meaning in themselves. I'll fight for funsies but I'd prefer it if it mattered more.
  2. Why did players leave?

    A lot of people seem to wonder how we can prevent ganking and seal clubbing, as in physically stopping it via BR limits or other draconian measures. The better question is why people behave that way to begin with and I think the answer is that for the most part it's just that those are the fights that are the easiest to find and most consistently rewarding. I'm a veteran in a veteran group and we spot your group of veterans. In a perfect game, we should want to fight because [INSERT DISTINCT STRATEGIC REASON TO FIGHT HERE]. Our fight somehow influences who controls the local resources. We fight to secure the shipping lanes. We fight for all those tonnes of white oak logs. There is a distinct strategic reason for us to engage in this very costly and time consuming high stakes battle between veterans. For the most part that does not exist and never has. In reality we all lose a lot of ships and gain absolutely nothing. In fact, since PvP ships are not the same ships as port battle ships, we didn't even impair each other's ability to fight over that port battle tomorrow. We pretty much just duked it out for funsies, which only gets you so much gameplay. So since 95% of battles are strategically worthless, this naturally pushes players into whatever is easiest and most immediately rewarding: seal clubbing! It's not worth a lot but it's always worth a little! I think the solution is that somehow each battle must be strategically meaningful. It should end up being almost impossible to NOT impact the game on a strategic level. If my Surprise sinks your Surprise in the middle of nowhere, that should still, somehow, have some sort of meaningful strategic impact beyond the loss of a relatively trivial amount of materials. We simply have not tied the OW PvP game into the strategic map elements strongly enough.
  3. Why did players leave?

    I know a long time ago I proposed switching to a model where we earned XP per ship rather than ranking up. This would allow a new player to jump right into a Surprise (assuming he could afford one or, more likely, a clanmate gave him one) and be competitive immediately. Well..... you did add ship XP but you added it overtop of existing rank XP which meant veterans had to spend time grinding XP again and new players basically have two grinds: one to rank up and potentially a second one to get the ships they want unlocked to the point they desire. Really I'm not convinced we need XP at all. This is not a PvE game. There is not enough PvE content to call it a "PvE game" regardless of the fact that some people try to play it that way. This is a survival game, more like RUST than it is like WOW. Go out and kill or be killed. In a game like that (this), you need disparity between players to be somewhat restricted and easy to bridge. In WOW it's okay for a level 80 to crush a level 40 because for the most part the game prevents that from ever coming up as an option. It's not okay in a game like this. It's a big reason I think it's hard to convert newbies to veterans: apart from the learning curve that means a newbie Surprise will lose to a veteran Surprise anyway, we additionally cripple the newbie by forcing him into a ship that has no chance in even if he was an amazing sailor.
  4. I've always liked this idea but previously it was a non-starter due to the way port battles were "first come, first served" by the entire team. With no way to control who can enter, BR limits wouldn't work. With the clan-based takeover idea, it can work and I think it's worth a try. Someone should work up some 3rd party tools that help commanders plan their fleet within a BR limit, if such a tool has not already been made.
  5. Best RVR clan in games history

    The BEST clan is the one whose leaders came here on a regular basis to post solid updates to the developer explaining all of the latest bugs, exploits, loopholes and toxic mechanics they had discovered which they realized would ultimately be bad for the game overall. It would not be, for example, any clan who had their members banned and warned for douchebag gameplay, or who tried to take it out on the developer via negative Steam reviews. Maybe an even better gauge would be which clan would the community most like to encounter again in another game, somewhere else. New EA game is out, you join that game and there you see _______, who you remember from Naval Action. You're happy to see them because they are good gamers who really add to the community. They might crush you but you know it's good gameplay and if anything, their suggestions will make it even better. If you fail the community test, you fail as "best".
  6. Best RVR clan in games history

    You have to really define "best". Like no way is BLACK the best. They literally hid from the French open world PvPers and refused to engage them after what I believe was literally 1 fight (which was, itself, less than half actual BLACK members). I don't see how you can claim "best" if you dominate in RvR but were not a serious PvP presence and vanish when the open sea fighters appear. I would even go further and suggest that BLACK's rather stupid "play to crush" attitude that they used on the USA team makes them the worst guild on the server, as the server would literally have been better without them. Similarly, of course, I can't point to any of the French clans as "best" because we were the other end of the spectrum. We dominated the open world PvP scene in the areas we went to (including Mortimer Town) but we almost didn't do port battles at all, as we didn't care for that style of fighting or econ ("slowboating"). Our crushing of the British 4th rate port battle fleet using 3rd rates probably didn't help server health either. To be perfectly honest, I don't think PvP-Global post-wipe has any clan that can come close to claiming they are the "best". We didn't really have any singular stand-out clans that excelled across the board and were notable. It's like you walked into a crowded theater for a viewing of Wonder Woman and asked which member of the audience was the best among them. Yes, which of you overweight neckbeards and raging feminists among you is the best. The contest of "best" is only a close race in the sense that most of them are tying for last place.
  7. Why did players leave?

    The game gives us too few objectives to really fight over on a consistent basis. The one objective we do have -- port battles -- are actually TOO organized. The nature of them encourages 25 of the most expensive ships, ideally manned by only the largest and most experienced clans, to duke it out but only every few days, tops. This is content that most players found themselves cut off from. So most people never do get to have a real fight in NA where it matters who wins, apart from their own personal risk. This is why you see a lot of PvP games have distinct, minute-by-minute goals. Capture this tower. Capture this other tower. Okay now capture this fort. Now go mine this rock and fix the fort. These are like "mini-goals" that players can fight over and it matters if you win the fights or not. PvP roaming -- just kind of vaguely patrolling the world looking for someone to gank where it really doesn't play any role at all in any sort of larger scope and is not working towards any objective -- gets old pretty quick for most people.
  8. A complete fix to RVR

    Tons = tokens. Tokens = port ownership. Doesn't matter where you got the token. You can use it on any enemy port. Go hunt the enemy where they are then apply the tokens where you want. Tokens can account for up to 25% contention per day. This is the only way to generate contention. Can be countered by an equal number of tokens, up to 25% per day. "Port battles" replaced by "token wars". Might seem less exciting but going out hunting beats sitting in empty port battles. Token payout is on an exponential scale: sinking a single Victory is worth way more than its equivalent weight in 7th rates. This is to discourage "farming" of cheap ships. The real wins will come from sinking high rated ships. (Players could try to counter this by only going out in weak ships but "good luck with that". Sinking weak ships for low tokens is still worth more than not sinking anyone because your ship sucks and theirs doesn't.) It's actually kind of odd that "PvP tokens" have never been a part of RvR. You let us craft war supplies in the east end of nowhere and then capture a port with them but we can't do the same with PvP?
  9. In my opinion this is greatly exaggerated. Skill slots are very minor bonuses and feel more like flavor to me. About 95% of my PvP has been done in ships with 0-3 slots. The problem I see are gamers who think they need top tier everything before they are ready to PvP. Even if it's just another 1% bonus to some niche ability, they feel like they can't fight at all if they don't have that. Maybe we have to bow to the flawed psychology of the average gamer but it really is fine the way it is. Being an expert at a ship gives you a few bonuses that are very unlikely to swing any given battle. It's like people in other games spending 20 hours getting 1 last point of Vitality even though it's diminishing returns and that last point is hardly a perceptible improvement. But nope, they gotta have it. Not ready to PvP without that last point!
  10. Random thought of the day: All current "free ports" become permanent pirate ports. They cannot be captured. Pirates get free outposts in all of them and can teleport between them (captain only -- no ships, as usual). Pirates cannot capture ports. This turns Pirates into, well, pirates. Points of threat all over the map, free outposts, but OW PvP-only. Any current pirates who want RvR would simply join a nation. (Conversely, anyone who does not care about RvR would probably join pirates.) Yeah, that's exactly how I think it should work, though. Most port captures in this game are literally meant to be "dick moves". They don't really want or care about the port. They aren't going to base out of it or do anything there. It hurts newbies and people who don't want to buy a second account but that's all it does. The way it SHOULD work is we see, for example, Brits operating out of Belize and KPR and we say "Georgetown would be a great base to take over to raid those two places from. This is worth our time and money to take that port and live there." We take the port because we care about it and want it for a specific purpose. We do not go take every port in the entire Gulf coast. Those are useless to us. They stay neutral. If we get tired of raiding, then we'll let Georgetown expire too but the Brits might decide to hasten us out of there with a port battle. I think we still need counties though. If the Brits want to secure Belize, they will still want to own every port within at least a 15 minute sail of there and that's a lot of damn ports. They care about them because they want them to be British-owned and not enemy-occupied but they can't afford to maintain dozens of ports. Keeping counties will make it feasible to claim reasonable swathes of land. Most territory will still be neutral but there will be concentrated pockets of "we care about this stuff".
  11. Make Repairs x4 more effective on the OW

    The difference I see is that "1 repair only" is fine for 1v1 but is a pain for group fights and will damage group tactics. 1v1 mostly it would be used at a point where you are deciding if you are going to stick it out or run away. The point you pop your repair is where you would have to make that call. In groups it's more complicated. "As many repairs as you have time for but each one takes 10 minutes" will allow current group tactics to continue to exist. Pulling out to repair, if you can, will always be a valuable thing. Ideally you'd want to pull back while your teammates cover for you, throw your crew into repair and just live with what plinking you can do for those 10 minutes with what you have left in gunnery. Since group fights easily run for 30-60 minutes, it means there's a huge difference between "3 slow repairs" and "only 1 repair". So I think "slow repairs, as many as you have time for" is an idea that would work well for both 1v1 and group fights. It will also end up helping gank victims, assuming they aren't slow. Long slow repairs are the bane of gankers that rely on front chasers to slow a victim down.
  12. That's been the problem all along, though: probably 80% or more of Conquests are useless. Ports nobody cares about being captured by teams that will never use them. Really it's just the old "this map is too big" problem. Now it will mean that really you only take a port if you want to be pissy about the ownership of it. Those Brits have been going in and out of there and they're snobby and you don't like them so you claim the port. If only your clan is using a port or you don't care about the Brits who are also using it then you just leave it as neutral. There will be a lot less RvR but really I think it means that the only port battles we'll see are those someone somewhere cares about. Empty port battles should largely go away, which to date is what most RvR has been [a boring waste of time].
  13. Make Repairs x4 more effective on the OW

    I would probably just get rid of repair time bonuses. The actual repair bonus itself is why anyone would pick up those skills anyway. If we need to buff them to compensate (which I doubt) then we can always make them add some bonus to leak repair something ancillary like that.
  14. Make Repairs x4 more effective on the OW

    I think the solution there may be to keep it as-is but slow down repairs significantly. Like the goal should be that if you meet the crew requirements for repairing with 100% of what it's asking for ("200/200") then it takes 10 minutes to do that repair. This makes repairs be a slow burn, meaning it takes away a huge portion of your crew for a long time and can be outdamaged. In 1v1 combat, not wanting to shut down gunnery in order to fill out repairs, that 1 repair might drag on for 20 minutes. It will still be important in group fights but in 1v1s, repairing in active combat will be tricky.
  15. Admin was also saying that sinking a single NPC Victory would yield 400k. If that's the case then a lot of small clans will find 500k per day to be very affordable. All you need is one dude with a 1st rate who does 2 missions per day and the cost is more than covered. But you're right that most of the map will go neutral. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, though. It's realistic given our population. If nobody is using a port, it SHOULD be neutral.
×