Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Nalyd

Ensign
  • Posts

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

355 profile views

Nalyd's Achievements

Ordinary seaman

Ordinary seaman (2/13)

79

Reputation

  1. Same goes for the Food supplies too. 250 to produce and 250 to buy from the NPC
  2. And what prevents me from making 2 accounts to farm hostility point near a port I want to attack with this new system ? Now about the new design and the things that need improvement : This need to be changed, imagine that everybody is fighting around 18-20h, at the end of the day where most activities stopped the hostility level reaches 98%, then at 5AM, there is a dude that log into the game and finish the remaining 2% with PvE missions. At this point everybody will be forced to fight at the port battle at 5AM because the hostility level happened to reach 100% while most of them were playing between 18-20h. Keep the "2 days later" concept without the "in 48 hours exactly", so that if the hostility level reaches 100% the 24th, the port battle will happen the 26th. But for the port attack timer, just select the timer in which most of the points have been accumulated. If the majority of the hostility points happened to be earned between 18-20h, then the port battle should be set between 18-20h. Those port should be limited by nation. let say only 3 ports can reach the port battle state for each nation, so it prevents all the port battle to happen at the other end of the map where 2 big nations are fighting leaving the others smaller nations with nothing to do. I sincerely hope that the port battle didn't already begun for the first 10-20mins in which only people with war effort commendations can enter. If it's the case it's a very bad system because you won't be able to fight fully for the first 20 minutes and elaborate a strategy if all 25 people with a war commendation don't show up. The solution for that is to make a lobby system within the port battle. When the port battle is launched and people can enter, you would have 2 sections : -The usual one with the front/middle/rear where you can decide where you'll be at the launch of the fight. -At the bottom, a lobby section where everybody who enter the port battle will be placed. -During the first 10 minutes, only people with a war commendation will be able to move from the lobby to the front/middle/rear sections and participate to the fight. -After those 10 minutes, everybody can switch from the lobby to the front/middle/rear sections, as long as there are still open slots obviously. -5 minutes later, the battle start. So basically you'd have 15 minutes of preparation time before the fight begun. People who stayed in the lobby at the start of the battle will be placed as "spectator" and will be able to witness the battle the same way you do when you're dead. This will prevent the recurrent issue when you attack a port and managed to gather like 27 people and 2 players will be left outside of the instance like a sacrifice to the screening fleet because the port is limited to 25 people only.
  3. What I would like to see is that you spawn in the open world at the exact same spot you were in the instance when the battle is over
  4. What I consider to be good ideas from the OP : To set up a port battle Nation must build an Assault Fleet Building an assault fleet requires weapons, troops, transports and supplies (any player can add them to the project) Once the project is fully supplied the construction starts It takes X days to complete the project Once the construction starts it will generate pvp quests for the Nation and Target Nation in the port zone Once the project is completed the port battle will start exactly 48 hours (2 days) after completion Here are my suggestions/alternatives : Before the port battle The port battle will happen no matter what if the project is fully supplied and the construction starts. Accomplishing PVP quests as the attacker will earn you "Conquest points" that will fill an "Invasion bar". Accomplishing PVP quests as the defender will earn you "Defense points" that will drain the "Invasion bar". This "Invasion bar" will have an impact on the Port battle itself depending on how much the attackers/defenders managed to fill/drain it when the project is completed. During the port battle I'm going to consider that the port battles will work as followed in this thread : http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13784-minor-port-battle-changes-next-patch/ The "invasion bar" will have an impact on the defenses of the port and will determine the conditions of the towers/forts in presence. If the "invasion bar" is full, then the forts/towers will be extremely damaged ( or even destroyed) right at the start of the port battle lessening the advantage of the defenders. However, if the "invasion bar" is at 0, the defenses will be in top condition giving the defenders extra protections. The "invasion bar" will also have an impact on the victory conditions. If we consider that reaching 1000 victory points first is required to win the port battle for both side under normal conditions, this requirement might change and tilt in favor of the defenders or the attackers depending on how much the "invasion bar" got filled. If the bar is full, then the attackers might only need 500 victory points in order to capture the port while the defenders still need to reach 1000 to snatch a win. If the bar is at 0, then it's the opposite.
  5. The problem here is that this roadmap doesn't mention "port battle rework" but just straight out the 7 days features. This is the kind of modifications that are supposed to be delivered in a bundle of multiples other features for it to makes sense. What I'm afraid of is to see the devs throwing those modification one by one instead of waiting to have the whole thing done.
  6. This, It gives a ludicrous advantage to the attackers and makes zerging to snatch as many ports as possible much more potent. It also means that if you're on the losing side, you need to hold the front for 7 freaking days before being able to retake the initiative and push back, which means potentially having to defend each port near the frontline 7 damn times each in a row without failing, otherwise you're in for another 7 days of pain. In fact, it doesn't even creates any sort of frontline either, since you won't be able to take the enemy ports next to yours because of this 7 days stuff, you'll have to either wait for these 7 days or strike further back into the enemy lines which will end up in a bloody mess where both side will hold ports inside the other nation territories instead of having a clean front. In my opinion, this change is just bad unless : 1-You have to warn the defenders where/when you'll attack 1-2 days prior to the assault so they can prepare 2-This 7 days timer is activated if the port is attacked whether or not they manage to take it, so that the attackers still need to plan carefully their assault instead of just brute forcing everyday until they take it. 3-The cost for attacking a port should be much more than what we have now. The cheapest should already cost more than a Million gold. taking a port is supposed to be a national effort, not something the average joe can buy after 2 AI fleet mission. 4-Finally I find the 7 days timer to be quite long and I'm afraid it will slow the pace of the RvR too much. Something like 3-4 days would be already more reasonable in my eyes.
  7. I love this feature, I'm no longer forced to tag sinking ships to be sure they actually go to the bottom of the ocean instead of just magically disappear by the power of the christ despite being condemned. If you're constantly taking water despite having fixed all the leaks, that means your vessel took too much punishment and is well beyond salvation. What was stupid and arcadey is that you could leave and live another day while having your ship completely obliterated just because you could bail out after 2 minutes while it would have required 3 minutes for you to sink. Unless you believe in divine intervention to repair your ship. A sinking ship, even if it manages to disengage from a fight will still sink if you don't have the stuff required to fix it anyway. And I don't see what the heck do pirates have to do with this game mechanic.
  8. This never works, it only delays the issue but in the end, you'll still have your death ball of 25 first rate.
  9. And what about the DRUNK's players that went and helped the british screening fleet when they had Aves and when we were trying to give basse-terre to the Danes to help us out ? (click to maximize, direct link below) http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/339415Client2016042921531468.jpg This Screen was taken the 04/29 so basically during the conflict with the British still at Aves trying to get a foothold on the french territories from there. And we were informed just a few hours prior to this screen to not attack DRUNK anymore because they "changed". So much for that.
  10. On PVP1, Sweden did. Spain almost with only 4 ports left IIRC. Then come France which lost all the west indies in a matter of a week and was stuck with a couple of city in the gulf of Paria. Player imbalance is not an issue in itself, unless one faction happen to have a critically low playerbase, . It's how player imbalance is translated in the game and how it interacts with the mechanics that bring issues. If you want to avoid that, the very basic 101 is that each player must take something from a general "pool of power" which is identical for every faction. What you don't want is each player adding power to that pool. A good start is "the cost of crew" that the devs want to add to the game. basically, each nation have X crew in total divided by the number of players in the said faction. the more you are in your faction, the less crew you'll have per player, and vice versa. So virtually both nation are identical in term of crew power, because the less populated faction counterbalance this by having players "worth" more. Another good concept would be to slow down the number of Port battles happening in a short span of time. If we have a faction with 200 players against a faction with only 50 players, you realize that the latter can only manage 2 fight happening at the same time while the first can fight for 8 ports at the same time. Therefore you end up with the lesser faction getting wipe into oblivion due to sheer number in a matter of days until they are left with only 2 ports they can actually try to defend. If you limit the creation of an assault fleet against the same nation to 2 at the same time, they could then be able to fight on equal terms against each others for every port battle. Now here is an example of a bad mechanic : The labor hours. Each player produce in average, roughly 42 labor per hours. For every additional player in your faction, you virtually increase the quantity of ship a faction can make per day. Therefore, where a big nation could produce around 20 santisima a day, a lesser one might only be able to make 3 santisima per day. And in a war of attrition, the first would obviously win. TL;DR : In conclusion, if you want a balanced game. Being in the biggest faction shouldn't by default grant you any extra advantages over a smaller faction except for having more people to talk to. Choosing the "easy side" should be restrictive but still allowed if you really want to for diverse reasons, while the smaller factions should allow more flexibility and possibility for their players. If you want a good example of how it should be done, look at the Strategic part of the game "Heroes&Generals". Now if you are cool with having some factions being objectively stronger than others by design, then it's a totally different discussion.
  11. capture zones are a good way to force a fight during the Whole PB instead of the running around and avoiding combat that usually happen on the defense side to keep the BR difference until the end of the timer, so i'm all for it. Now, in the future if those zones could be transformed into forts you have to capture, I would be quite pleased.
  12. Another advantage of the BR limit is if there is a need to nerf or buff a particular ship. You can just slide its Battle Ranking higher if it's too good, or lower if it's too weak. Therefore you won't need to touch to the specifications of a ship like it's speed, turn rate, resistance etc. for balancing reasons. And I would argue that having to tweak 1 value is way easier than tweaking 5+ values and trying to make them work together. Again, a BR limit allows the losing/weaker faction to still put up a fight and maybe snatch a win even if they can't come up with the best ship allowed. A continuous war from the start to the end is for me much more enjoyable than something that'd settle in a matter of 2-3 days because the weaker side ran out of the best ship and can't compete with a deathball of 25* Santi/ingermanland, therefore just quitting the fight. It's not fun for the losing side that can't defend itself because the power gap is too great And it's not fun for the winning side to just sit their rear on 3 undefended circles until the end of the war because the losing side won't come defend
  13. No, what I described is how a fleet that should be formed of mostly 3rd rate with a certain amount of 1st/2nd rate in a real age of sail fleet composition is, in this game, limited to 25 first rate almost all the time and how toying with the price won't change that fact or make a more mixed fleet. I don't believe there is a single record of a fleet in which more than 50% of it was made out of 1st rate.
  14. How did you manage to reach to that conclusion about the BR limit ? With a BR limit in a regional battle you'd have the choice of picking a fleet composition ranging from an handful of powerful 1st rate to a swarm of 3rd rate. which offers you a large panel of strategy depending on what you've chosen and what you'll face. How come a team would feel more entitled to pick "the best ship" rather than "the ship I like" if in the end, the chances remain 50/50 to win in both case ? On a second note, this has nothing to do with balancing ships, a shitty ship will still remain a shitty ship. The difference is that you will be able to field more of them against a lower number of good ships. having equal forces fighting each others is different from having the same forces fighting each others. The later being the boring one, like what we currently have in the game with 25 santi fighting 25 santi. Also, the strategic part still remain, since you will be able to raid ports if you're on the attacking side to worn out the port defenses or built up forts if you're on defensive side to tilt the balance of the fight in your favor. And add to that the land in ports which could drastically change the way you play from one port to another. Attrition will also remain relevant if for example you face a nation fond of 1st rate fleets. If you take out all of them, you'll force them to use a different fleet composition which they might not be accustomed to use. You talk about tactics, but then you should know that it's in those situation in which the chances are 50/50 where the determinant factor for a victory is the tactic you'll employ and if it's better than the one used by your opponent. You want to know what I find boring ? it's when the result of a war between nations is decided in an handful of battles. Where both nation bring their best fleets during the first days of a war until one of them can't anymore due to attrition and then just get stomped by the remaining ball of death from the "victor" against whom the "losing" side can't do anything. The first day is fun, fighting with equal (well in fact, same) forces against your opponent. The second day start to get stinky when all you find in front of you are suicide squads trying to ram you with their petty frigates with the hope of sinking one of them. The third day is just boring as hell when the defenders finally decide that this is enough and just let you cap empty ports until you win the war. Fighting against the odds is fun from time to time, especially when you manage to pull it off. But this has to stay reasonable, something like 40-30% chances of winning. And I can tell you that in a fight of 25 santi against 25 frigates, the chances of objectively winning the fight on the frigate side is probably around 5% What is fun for me is when my nation and I have to fight like lions to grab every inch of territory against an opponent responding back with everything they have. Something they won't do if they don't have a reasonable chance of winning the war themselves. I have no interest into grabbing 10 empty undefended ports because our opponent don't have the means to fight back or annihilate a dozen of suicide frigate's squads launched at us in despair while me and the 24 others captains are laughing like some nouveau-riche twat on our Santissima. It's like using a cheat code in a solo game. You might laugh your ass off for half an hour and then you get bored again.
×
×
  • Create New...