Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Chug

Members2
  • Posts

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chug

  1. Chug

    Can't delete outpost

    but you get like 3-4 different warnings and a code to type... if you still mess up and delete something you didn't want to then after all that you deserve to loose it all I'm now stuck with 3 useless outposts across the map that for me to just delete will take hours of real time to basically do nothing. How is that good game design? The warnings literally say "this will delete your ships in that outpost" but it wont let you do it anyway? so why have the warning or the option to do so?
  2. So when you go to delete an outpost you receive a warning that you will loose all ships and goods in that port if you choose to delete the outpost. That's fine. However, when you type the code and click confirm it tells you "unable to close outpost - port has docked ships". So now i have several outposts in what are now enemy controlled ports, with ships in that I don't want, that are far away, that I can't TP too and I can't delete. Do I really have to sail for an hour to go to a port to scrap a basic cutter just to delete that outpost and sail for an hour all the way back?
  3. KOTO will donate some goodies. When you closer to the time we will see what we got to donate. a few rare books and a crafted 1st rate of your choice perhaps.
  4. this was limited due to server load. You used to be able to have 5 ships in each of your eight ports ( if i am remembering correctly) so 40 in total and with the bigger player base NA use to have this was a huge amount for servers to keep track of (especially with upgrades/cannons/items in their holds) so that's why we have what we have now. Basically it's done to save NA running costs. this would just make the resource pointless and further reduce the need for people to sail away from capitals or attack ports. A few more ports that produce the in-demand resources (like copper)spread out elsewhere on the map would be better idea. I might be wrong but whaling was not added to the game because it gets into tricky legal waters, so to speak. Same as adding slavery to a game. Yeah it would be nice to have but with political correctness and the legal side I'm pretty sure its not going to happen. This was in the game and they used to damage your sails but was removed/toned down as players didn't like it. This is meant to be possible when the new UI is implemented.... supposedly anyway. I'm just a regular player so while i think i'm right about what i've written above I may be totally wrong.
  5. So you saying, we got an eta on a post about an eta.... lol
  6. Hey Felix Great work on the map continues i see. Really good job, hats off to you. Especially like the addition of wood types and ship comparisons. Nice to have it all in one place. Is it possible to add onto the ship comparisons, the amounts of hull/rig/rum needed to activate one repair. Also base thickness value for the ships would be a handy addition. Once again great work. o7 Dev's should pay you to add this to the game to replace their map!
  7. No, that would only be true if i said you cant trade for books, you have to find them yourself off the Ai. Which is not what i said.
  8. come on Z4ys think about it. You have access to the PvE drop only books.... its called trading. There is already an entire page of books you can buy with combat marks from the shop and combat marks drop from pvp and pve. If a player doesn't want to PvP they still have to trade other players to get the pvp marks to buy anything. there is no imbalance. At least not one that requires everything to be buy-able from an AI shop for any currency. Improved drop rates and balance of which books drop from AI would improve the situation. If more people were putting these rarer books up for sale then this topic wouldn't exist. Your goal is right but i think your method is wrong. What next... ship knowledge takes to long to unlock I want to be able to buy the slot unlocks from the AI shop... come on. that's all i got to say on this topic.
  9. Their usefulness is the same regardless of PvP or PvE its just your perspective that adds value to one over the other. Foucs does not mean sole purpose. If it was then there wouldn't be crafting/trade goods/Ai/epic events etc PvE gives a foundation and meaning/value to PvP content. you can already buy many books for pve marks in the shop but yes, not all of them. I get that you want easier access to items by playing just the way you want to play. No one likes being forced to do something they hate doing just because they want the end reward for doing it. ( hostility missions to get port battles is a good example ) That's why trading exists in the game but there's a real danger that if you make everything available in the shop to buy with whatever currency you have then within a week everyone will have everything and they wont really of played the game. The rarer books take time to collect. This gives them some meaning and value beyond what they actually do which is no bad thing. Collecting and then making the "five rings" for example is an achievement, sure it takes time and effort and some luck but the satisfaction of "earning" it matters. Being able to just buy the 5 books books in a few clicks is not a good game design nor is it good for the game. Making the drop rates some what higher for certain books, as mentioned before, would really solve any issue with access people have. If more people were putting these rarer books up for sale then this topic wouldn't exist. Yes your right. Many of the books/upgrades are just pointless and bad and need reworking. Something I think will happen after the bigger changes are done, like the UI. Removing some of them however I'd disagree with.
  10. So you don't want to do any PvE but you still want the rewards. If that is the case, then those of us who do PvE would like for PvP marks to drop from Ai.. (not a serious suggestion) Seriously come on guys. You want these books? Then you can already get them without doing PvE by just typing in trade/nation/global "WTB...." Making it so you don't have to interact/buy from players and just buy from the "Shop" in a game that is meant to be a player driven economy is just a little silly. Should drop rates of books be higher when killing/looting Ai?, yeah I think so, or perhaps making it so every other book that you do get drop, is not a "mast rake aft" or "winged out ballast" or the other usual suspects like "pellews sights" etc. might be enough to make a difference. As some books seem to drop way to much and others not at all (steel tool box 1-3). This would then, ease access, to many of the books for people and allow more onto the open market, which in turn means the PvP only crowd has easier access to buy them and promote the trade between players that the Dev's want.
  11. 2 thoughts: 1. You would need to make more ports spread across the map produce the in demand goods (teak/White oak for example). In order to allow the different clans/nations a better balance of access. You don't want to much, otherwise it makes holding the ports pointless again but to little and certain clans/nations will have a monopoly/lock down of the necessary goods. Ports could produce different amounts of a resource. Port "A" produces 1000 a day port "B" produces 2000 a day. Rather than just these ports produce good "X" Allowing more flexibility. 2. How about a "tithe" instead of complete lock of trade. Clan owns port "A" , a player buys 1000 oak from the port, Owning clan receives 100 oak. Could be given as an option to set instead of gold tax maybe.
  12. Yeah I thought it might be a long shot but with them spawning it set area's i thought it might of been buried in there somewhere.
  13. just want to say this is a great map. I use it daily as do many of my clan mates. So, thank you. Is it possible to add to the map epic event locations? or a general spawn area? I know most of my "local" ones already but having an exact spawn location taken from the game after maintenance each day would save me many hours of sailing
  14. Reading through all this I cant help but feel that people are missing a step. Vic marks, patrol missions etc are not the cause of the dropping RvR action. Why were navy patrol area's added? small server population. Think about the size of the map, how many ports are there 300+? how many players are on at any one time 400-500 peak times, 300+/- at others? and how many of those are "alts" or AFK in a port or in a mission. Patrol missions are just there to get people to same areas of the map at the same time to promote fights. If they weren't added the OW PvP players would of been noticing the drop in players across the map anyway. ( which some of them caused themselves by "spawn camping" new/returning players outside capitals). As for Vic marks. Yes having them more freely available, for more people to be able to craft port battle ships is the cause of less PB's..... Come on don't be silly. It's been said already. Falling RvR is because of 3 main things: 1. Hostility missions: They take to long. You need to do way to many of them. They to easy to stop (more so for the nations with the numbers to do so). They give those that do them no rewards (especially if you cant make the PB the next day, you do the work and miss the fun). 2. Pointless ports: They give no resources you want. They generate no income. There not in a location that's worth being in. The BR is too high for many ports for allot of clans to hold. Some ports allow for 10+ 1st rates and most clans cant get even get 10 players in any rate of ship to a PB. (This is exacerbated by different nations player numbers). 3. Server population: small server population on an an RvR system made for a much larger one. player retention is also a major part of the problem. Fixing 1. and 2. will in time lead to the fixing of 3 but these are the main problems RvR is facing.
  15. yes. Also if your repairing sails and you get chained you should loose some crew.
  16. So there are only a few deep water ports under 3k BR the majority of ports under the 3k BR are shallow water. You need only 2000 BR in a shallow water PB to have a 25vs25 fight. The Half BR is purely for the hostility. Even a 1050 BR port would mean you have a 6v6 in the hostility mission. You have to cater to content to all sizes of clans. Not just the big guys like HRE for example. The port battles would still be "large scale" as you call it. What you also have to realise is that NA player base is not what it was, 400-600 players (good portion of those being "alts") means trying to get 50 players in a single port battle is just "pie in the sky" stuff for most players. Even enough people to do hostility with the current system is beyond most. 90% of most clans can never field a fleet of 5-6k BR let alone hold a 7-10k BR port. The old days of multiple 25vs25 fleet and port battles is long gone from Naval Action. There's not the player base anymore and trying to make a conquest system that needs those numbers is just counter productive. Providing what you would call "small scale" conquest options. Such as the proposed hostility mission ( see original post) doesn't diminish rvr it actually promotes it. Just look at the number of hostility missions and port battles that have happened since the recent hostility changes and even before them and you see the current mechanics just don't really work.
  17. what your suggesting is pretty much the same mechanics as my suggestion but instead of a zone, mine is a mission with BR limit based on the port size.
  18. So again, the second line of my post: and my suggestion isn't about a notification for when hostility mission is pulled. Otherwise i'd of just said that. It's about a rework of the hostility missions. So my advice to you Slim is, read what is written not what you think is written.
  19. So just try follow me here Trash. The hostility mission you raise gives a notification to the defenders, the moment you take it. It can only be taken in the port battle window set by the defenders (when there most active). Same as hostility works now but you get the notification before not after you do the mission as you do now with current system and the further the port is away the longer the warning the defenders have. You sail to the port you want to attack ( something by the way, you have to do in this game... sail to ports...) the mission is there in front of the port and you join it. No enemy joins.... 10 mins your done. Port battle is ready for tomorrow. Enemy joins... you get a fight and an even one at that, not 25vs5, no long drawn out chases and running away, an actual team fight. You win, then sail back home or wherever or you loose, die, and get tp'd. On top of this you also have to remember your not bringing a huge fleet to raise hostility, it's half the ports BR. ( yeah port BR is to high on many ports right now but that's another topic). So I don't see the problem you seem to have with the suggestion.
  20. Think you missed the point completely there Trashman. Defenders cant defend using this system by being afk it's the exact opposite. Please read again.
  21. that's why i said read the summary if you don't want the details. seems some people cant even read the first two lines of a post...
  22. What I've tried to come up with is a hostility system that uses mechanics that already exist in the game and therefore easier to implement then a brand new system. If you don't want all the details skip to the summary. Summary: ( At the start as some people cant read more than a few lines...) A small team forms of an appropriate BR for the port they wish to attack. Leader takes a hostility mission and group has 1 hour to sail to it and join it, which is in sight of the port they wish to attack. Defenders/owners of the port see an alert in combat news that a hostility mission has been taken for their port and they can see the mission marker appear in open world. They form their own counter group of similar numbers/BR. Both sides join the hostility mission (if the can) They then have an even (on paper anyway) pvp fight to the death with another enemy team of similar size and at stake, is the raising of the port battle. Giving the fight a meaningful reason to take place beyond just pvp mark farming. Its the equivalent of one side planting their flag on the others land and saying "come on who wants some!" and the other side coming out saying.. "sure come on then!". Suggestion: 1. To take a hostility mission requires a group of 6+ players with a maximum BR size of 50% the ports BR they wish to raise hostility on. Example: Port has 10,000 BR - Hostility group has a limit of 5000 BR. 2. Hostility missions on shallow water ports can only be raised in shallow water ships. 3. Only members of the group who took the hostility mission may join the hostility mission. 4. Only one hostility mission can be raised at any one time for a single port from the same (attacking) nation and only one is needed to be "completed" to raise a Port battle. 5. No more than 2 hostility missions can be raised on a single port at any one time. (so a maximum of 2 nations could do hostility on the same port, at the same time). 6. Once a hostility mission has been taken for a port, a crossed swords marker appears in open world 8-10k from the target port at a set location. A notice is posted in combat news "hostility is being raised at port X". 7. The hostility mission marker in open world would be like the epic event marker. It would say its a hostility mission, say you need 6+ people with a BR limit of "X" (see 1.) and have an option to "join" or "join as a group". 8. The Hostility mission would exist for a maximum of 1 hour. If no attackers have joined it within this time then it closes and hostility is failed. Another hostility mission may be taken for same port by the same nation but not by the same clan. 9. Defenders would have to meet same criteria as attackers to be able to join the hostility mission : 6+ group with no more than 50% of the ports BR. 10. If 2 or more defender groups are formed then they may join the hostility mission in any order till the BR limit is reached. 1st come 1st serve, so to speak but both groups must meet the requirements (see 1.) 11. Defenders would not be able to join the hostility mission till the first attacker has done so. (to save sitting in an empty mission for an hour). 12. When attackers join the hostility mission (after the usual battle start timers have finished) if no defenders have joined a 10 min countdown starts. With 10% hostility being raised every minute. After 10 minutes the battle is won and closed. If an enemy joins the countdown/generated hostility is gone. 13. If both attackers and defenders are in the mission, it works like the new naval patrol mission battles. Circle of death, no leaving if enemy is still alive etc. 14. If attackers kill all defenders ,mission is won and PB is raised. 15. If defenders kill all attackers, hostility is failed and port is safe for 24 hours from other hostility missions from that nation. 16.If time runs out, side with most remaining BR wins. 17. Hostility missions successfully completed allow the player who took the hostility mission to pick a PB time (when back in a friendly port) in the PB time window for that port, for the following day. example: PB time window is 17:00-20:00 you can pick any time in that window for your PB to start doesn't matter when you completed the hostility mission. This is just my take on doing hostility missions differently to try make them shorter, more interesting for players and promote pvp/rvr and more port battles.
×
×
  • Create New...