Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Archaos

Members
  • Content count

    748
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Archaos last won the day on July 8

Archaos had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

518 Excellent

About Archaos

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

511 profile views
  1. Limit chain like double shot

    Limiting chain shot will not make any difference as the new meta is to snipe masts with single ball shots.
  2. Reinforcement Zones PVP1/2

    The problem is not the size of the reinforcement zones, the problem is there is no need to risk going out of the zones if all you want to do is kill some AI to grind up slots, farm drops or make money. I do not agree that the solution is to not allow reinforcements after a certain rank, as that would mean a rear admiral in a trader could be ganked close to their capital, also what if the rear admiral was grouped with a lower player, would the lower player be able to summon reinforcements? It would all start becoming very complicated, you see a senior rank player in the reinforcement zone and attack him, but in the pull circle there are rookie players, what happens then? The solution is that missions or AI ships in the reinforcement zones should not drop loot or give XP after a certain rank. That way people are welcome to do as many missions as they like and kill AI's to their hearts content but they gain nothing from it. I know sometimes I feel like beating up on some AI just for the fun of it or to test out a new setup on a new ship and I dont want to be jumped while doing that. I know people say there is a PvE server for that but people do not want to level up on 2 servers one for PvP and one for PvE playing. People are not just pure PvP'ers or PvE'ers, most are somewhere in-between and that is where you will find majority of players. If you reduce the reinforcement zones too much they become worthless and all that does is drive players away. Forcing people out into the OW to face the risks is not the solution, same as PvP'ers do not like to be forced to PvE. Forcing people to do something they do not enjoy only drives them from the game. Looking at the map someone kindly produced the reinforcement zones take up very little of the map, all you need to do is encourage people to leave those zones by making it more attractive to face the risk that remain in the zone. The same applies to trading, you should not be able to make profits trading completely in the safe zone, profits should have to be made on decent length voyages outside safe zones.
  3. Making gold, Missions V Trading

    The same could be said regarding forcing people to PvP when they dont want to. PvP generates PvP marks which if sold would generate a lot of money (I hear the going rate is around 100k each). So PvP'ers have a way to earn money. For people who do PvE missions and general attacking of AI fleets, well they get books and mods to drop as well as combat marks, all of which can be sold to make money. What do traders have apart from making money from trading? No one is forced to do anything, all three types of play have their own way of making money, but people want to have it both ways, they want the marks, books, mods and money from only doing one thing. The game should develop to allow different types of playstyles and they should all be viable. Get more people out trading outside of the safe zones and you will generate plenty of targets for PvP.
  4. I did not mean people that just wanted to play against bots, I meant people who for convenience do not mind it bots make up the balance so that they can get into a match quickly. If there is always going to be enough players then this would be fine, but not everyone plays at prime time and there may still be quiet periods when someone wants to play and there is not enough people online for a match, I just think that those players may appreciate bots making up the numbers rather than waiting too long. But hopefully it is popular enough that there are always enough online so bots are not needed.
  5. I agree, but playing the devils advocate, there are some people out there who are too impatient to wait and they would not like being stuck in a queue when you are 7/10 waiting for 3 more people to turn up. To cater for the people who only want to play against other players they would be better having special lobby where someone who wants only other players could set up a match and wait for others to join rather that the automatic queue.
  6. I know most prefer to battle against other human players and for those willing to wait till the queue fills up with other humans such a system would be fine, but how would it work in practice for people that do not have much time and dont want to wait longer than 2 minutes to get some action and do not mind if there are some AI's in the battle? Do we have separate queues for each type of player?
  7. Making gold, Missions V Trading

    I agree with the OP, if you want to make money then trade. This will get more traders out on the oceans thus providing more targets for the raiders and in turn more opportunities for PvP as nationals try and intercept the raiders. Fighting wars costs money, so how come in the game fighting generates more money than you can get trading. Build a proper economy and make trading a viable profession. That way traders can pay for protection.
  8. There is something seriously wrong if a main mast is being taken out with a couple of single shots at the start of a battle. In the video posted by Christendom I did not really see any major issue. Yes the Wasa is OP but I think they knew from the start that they did not stand much chance, I think they even commented at one point that their 9 pounders were unlikely to do much damage even alongside. The masts were being taken out but not with single shots but broadsides and the shots were aimed high to take out the weaker topmasts. Some people may have the skill to hit the mast every time with single shots, but if this is the case then there needs to be some inaccuracy introduced as that should be impossible on a moving platform. There may be a trick to doing it that the general playerbase doesnt know yet, but eventually people catch on and that is all people will do and PvP battles will be decided by who can take out the masts of the other first.
  9. PVP Missions

    Nice suggestion, but you can guarantee players will abuse it if the rewards are good enough. This is always going to be the hardest thing to solve with PvP, how to reward it sufficiently without making it too attractive to abuse. As can be seen from the good rewards available for PvP marks, people started abusing it. I like the idea of battles randomly between different nations that dynamically move to different areas round the map, maybe the number of players in an area could determine where the event was likely to spawn, for example there is a lot of US players in a certain region and close by there are a lot of French players, the game could realize that and generate an event for US vs French somewhere between them. Would need to be worked out how other nations could affect it etc. I am not sure how you think such PvP could be self sustaining as with any battle there are winners and losers, it can only be self sustaining if you are always on the winning side and even this becomes self defeating as if you always win the other side eventually stops showing up.
  10. PVP Missions

    If I remember correctly the shallow water one was mostly deserted and was mainly used for people to farm alts. I went there a few times but seldom saw anyone. I never attended the deep water one, but I did hear that there was a lot of organised groups who would only engage when they had a numerical advantage and it was not really a place to look for action solo. I think it had a lot more action than the shallow water event and maybe someone who experienced it more could let you know how it was. Despite what a lot of people say about wanting PvP, there are many who only want it when they know the odds are in their favour.
  11. Bad reviews due to lack of information.

    How would player population go up if people do not recommend it? No one is asking you to lie, but at least if people said there was still fun to be had despite the games issues then the population might grow.
  12. Conquest Timezone Suggested Maps

    The problem with this is that proponents of the EU timelock brigade will claim it gives an advantage to nations that find it easier to recruit players from multiple timezones. I have to agree with them to a certain extent in that respect, that nations such as GB, USA and Pirates tend to attract players from multiple timzones while smaller nations like Sweden, Denmark etc. tend to attract more localized players. You cannot just tell people to recruit from multiple timezones, because it is not that easy. The only other way round it would be to get rid of nations altogether and just have clans, but that may be too much for many players.
  13. Conquest Timezone Suggested Maps

    I prefer this type of suggestion rather than the different conquest timezones, but the argument given by proponents of the EU locked PB timers is that nations with a greater timezone mix of players will have an advantage as they will be able to field players at all times. This is why such a suggestion would have to be tied into limitation on who could participate in the port battle so not everyone from the nation could partake but only the clans involved and a limited number of direct allies with restrictions on how quickly people can be brought into and switch alliances. Maybe even limit the size of clans so it is not possible to have a super clan covering all timezones. To further your suggestion of clan set times, why make them fixed as per your table, why not let clans decide their own windows of 5 hours, so rather than have 3 times as your example you have multiple times for multiple clans with delay procedure if clans want to switch their conquest timezone.
  14. Bad reviews due to lack of information.

    Sorry I do not think that is being honest. If he was being honest he would tell people that despite its faults he was still having fun in the game in a review rather than not recommend it to anyone. Its the same as people with 2000 hours in the game saying the game is not worth it. How many games give you 2000 hours play for $40? The game may have faults but it is a good game that will hopefully improve. Everyone seems to think that their suggestions to improve the game are ones that will work, but the reality is that not all of them would work. The game will always be niche mainly due to the slower paced nature of play.
  15. Bad reviews due to lack of information.

    That sounds strange, you say you are really enjoying the game and will be playing for quite a while, yet you would not recommend it to anyone, why? don't you want others to enjoy it as you are enjoying it? The game may have its faults but if you are enjoying it then at least tell people it is still enjoyable despite its faults.
×