Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fargo

  1. Anti-gank rewards nerf!

    Why not just fix the cause of the problem instead?! Unfair battles are no problem at all. Its a viable tactic to outnumber an enemy and wouldnt effect youre rewards, its not plausible that youre nation pomotes maximum risk. When PvP marks are a problem this should be addressed. When people surrender/give you their ship to deny PvP marks, something seems to be seriously broken. For a proper reputation system it might actually make sense to reward heroism, but not for current marks that directly can be converted into gold.
  2. Anti-gank rewards nerf!

    Ganking has nothing to do with unfair fights. The OW is not supposed and not able to work as a matchmaking system, no matter if we like fairness or not. The problem is not that players pick weaker targets, the problem is that these dont stand together and fight back. That people are allowed to avoid battles and only pick weak targets is the major cause of the problem. Thats not an opinion, but simple logic.
  3. Promoting more PVP

    Economy actually plays an important role, because it gives trading and conquest a meaning, therefore motivates related PvP. But every single change since wipe from capturable ships to safezones contradicts a meaningful economy. Nothing against PvE content, but its seperate. We dont need an OW for this. Imagine they would add PvE content and PBs to NA legends, whats the point to play NA then?! Sailing out with meaningless cheap ships just to fight for no reason?! Thats just a very bad matchmaking system. Progress in NA is so fast that its not motivating either, a joke compared with similar but very successful games. Meaningful gameplay, thats what NA is totally missing. All NA really needs is a dynamic OW from economy to conquest, not specific content. PvP is whatever players do with this. The whole talk PvP content vs PvE content makes no sense. PvP means playing the game, and "PvP server" is just the not PvP restricted server. Escorting an important trader and nothing happens, thats sandbox gameplay. People just searching for PvP 24/7 in most cases are going to play legends, unless they are RPing.
  4. Thickness Upgrades

    Historical gunnery - Realistic ballistics and cannon performance of the period. Especially for demasting it would allow proper balancing. Its also realistic that a ball doesnt have to penetrate the whole mast to inflict damage. Accuracy/hit box definition is also a parameter. For hull damage it was more about penetrating and damaging the inside. It might work better not to be able to dodge 100% damage unless the ball really ricochets, but i dont think it would matter too much. With more realistic penetration it would become much more difficult to dodge full penetration close range especially against larger ships. Balancing issues are plenty already.
  5. PVP Mark abuse solution

    What about players that wish to have a motivating reward system?! Cant u just figure out how other games successfully handle such mechanics when you dont believe people explaining why this is not going to work?!
  6. Storm Warnings , FRF Clan [PvE Server]

    Well, you always have to care what you pay for. Read through the steam description and you wont find a single word about PvE. It is very clear that this game focusses on player interaction. PvE is a feature, not ment to give you a PvE only experience. Sure it would be nice to have better and more challenging PvE content, but its not necessary for a functional OW, and it might be lots of work to develop required AI for example. PvE players often dont understand that OW is supposed to be a dynamic system, from economy to RvR. Why not give PvP focussed players the opportunity to do PvP somewhere somehow?! Because its not working like this. Im not saying i support latest changes mostly contradicting an dynamic OW aswell, but in general you cant argue that way. PvE is a feature, PvP means playing the game as intended. PvE only isnt working for an economy relying on ships sinking. Its not working for the PvE player that is saturated of everything at some point. That youre expectations are low and you simple enjoy sailing large ships is fine, but the average player is going to expect more.
  7. PVP Mark abuse solution

    This is the only way its able to work, to reward personal effort, to deny abuse, and to not mess up balancing of income/progress especially for new guys. Look at other games with polished reward systems, its always working the same way. If you want specific items you have to fullfill the requirements, no matter how rich you are. This must not be PvP focussed players major source of income feeding the lazy guys with marks. Either marks are rare/demanded destroying the balance of income/progress, especially for low rank players. Or marks are common/easy to buy not promoting more PvP but PvE grinds. Its impossible to balance this in a good way. Rewards need to be set wisely to be valuable but not essential, and logically have to be "bound to character" aswell. Cosmetic items e.g. seem perfect.
  8. Why did players leave?

    If anything you guys are selfish trying to restrict everyone just in favour of your personal niche playstyle. Nobody wants to restrict your PvE gameplay, you can do whatever you want. That you feel restricted without noob protection isnt other peoples problem. So please stop talking about toleranz. Its ridiculous how you guys avoid all argumentation. How dare you to claim that rising numbers would prove anything regarding safezones. How can you u ignore that there were thousands of players enjoying NA without anything like that? I guess that these left is evidence that safezones are necessary too?! When you cant explain why that is, its highly unlikely to be true. "The game will die without safezones", thats basically youre whole "argumentation". NA is supposed to provide a dynamic world and maximum freedom. If anyone would care about logic, safe zones would never have come up as an idea. If protection of new players is necessary, what should require evidence, keeping battles open for the defender would only be one much more reasonable option, atleast leading to player interaction. @Landsman You both should get a way from this PvE vs PvP point of view. The average player is a healthy mix of everything. PvP server is a misleading name, its just the normal, not PvP restricted, server. People expect more than specific PvP or PvE content. Its a big difference to sink someone for fun, or to protect an important trader, to weaken an enemy nation, to distract the enemy for tactical purposes, to keep your waters safe, to collect a bounty, etc.
  9. Ships Stats and BR rebalance

    Maybe this can be helpful: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qk4-BXSwpUv7xZkVYdY1DoZqxhAabwto0HyfCSKFCo8/edit?usp=sharing. The "Balance" column compares all stats for ships of the same class. "BR" only includes broadside stats. References should be reasonable as they are. A few ships might not be up to date though.
  10. Why did players leave?

    Because its a sandbox that is by definition supposed to focus on player freedom and immersion. Your artificial safety is a restriction for other players, reducing their possibilities and everyones immersion. We dont have to tell you why you shouldnt be safe, you have to tell us why it makes sense at cost of player freedom, realism and immersion. I can understand that some people are happy just enjoying to sail their big ships, but this game is supposed to offer more and the average player expects more. You should respect that. Note that when there were not even forts, max rank took month, and a trinc was a huge ship, we had 1-2k average online and 2 EU servers were necessary. You can do so much PvE how you want. You can do whatever you want, but so can other players! Nobody forces you to actively participate in PvP or RvR. Im fully on your side when you criticise enemy ships spawning right next to you that you couldnt even see behind the horizon when you started your mission, or similar nonesense, but artificial safety is nonesense aswell. Otherwise nobody forces you to play a game you hate. You dont get into a sandbox game and then complain about player freedom, thats either stupid or very cheeky.
  11. Remove the damn contract limit!

    Contracts are used to trade for profit, not just to buy what you need. Buying from EU traders would be the very last option when gold would mean something. Devs gave up on that, the eco part even got deleted from the steam description already. Just look how every change is working against economy: Capturable ships, ships for marks, reduced ship cost and suddenly 100% increased income resulting in massive inflation. Safe zones and easy escapes result in less ships sinking/less demand. Labour contracts for marks. Buffed npc trading resource margins. And recently BR restrictions limiting the use of firstrates. People are not only earning way too much, they are restricted to use/sink all those meaningless resources. Originally we only had 5 contracts btw.
  12. Poll on limited use of repairs in battles

    Sure?! How weird would it be to be outrun by a reno in battle sails. My speed fitted teak Essex does 13,4 kn or so. Funny how things are able to reach a next lvl of stupidity again and again. Exposing crew would be reasonable to make it a more tactical decision to repair within a fight, but that alone is not preventing easy escapes and boring chases.
  13. [Poll] Rum

    Nobody talks about no crewdamage. In the past e.g. there was no crew repair and you had to do more damage to an enemy. I could still fight back against multiple smaller ships, while those were able to efficiently rake me down if i mess up. On the other side penetration was way more realistic (powerful) back then, and shiphandling different. Just a question of balancing. Arent you always arguing for skill? This is what makes skill matter. Penetration is provably way too low if supposed to be realistic (Historical gunnery - Realistic ballistics and cannon performance of the period.), while accuracy is way too high. I do think this should change, and frigates shouldnt be able to tank such heavy guns so easily. I would prefer cannons to feel powerful as they were, because thats immersive. In reality a frigate so close to a lineship would also face lots of musket fire, this could be implemented atleast by numbers without visual effects and anything. Difference in height would result in very difficult boarding. Atleast a lone frigate should have a much harder time against a lineship.
  14. Poll on limited use of repairs in battles

    If they dont think about something while doing changes, its economy... They said they changed repairs to give lone players better chances against groups, dont remember the exact words. For the same reason they changed chaser accuracy, and probably dont care about defensive tagging too much. Surprisingly all this effects the aggressor aswell. That a group profits more from repairs is simple math. Slightly increasing chances to escape for the lone guy, at cost of heavily decreasing his chances to win an actual fight?! Also heavily reducing chances for hunters hunting the hunters to catch those. Less friendly ships around results in increased risk for the lone guy. I dont get that if a change is a maximum failure, why it not simply gets reverted back. As pointed out already, number of repairs isnt that important, it just needs conditions besides the crew it uses. If you had to use battle sails until you repaired, lets say for 20 seconds, they might have catched you. If there also was a cap at lets say 80% sail, they would have gotten your for sure. Something like this should be the way to go.
  15. [Poll] Rum

    Why would i ever balance this with a magic surgeon, instead of balancing crew damage that cant be realistic nevertheless?!
  16. [Poll] Rum

    I think its fun to have rum as a surgeon recource, but the surgeon should work differently. Crew should be restored constantly, slowly, and never up to 100%. Affected by skills etc (slightly!) increasing efficiency, or the skill of the surgeon to fix heavier injured crew. If someone gets a massive hit on your crew, this should have concequences. If raking is OP, its not task of the surgeon to balance this! Lets say each 3rd injured crew remains desabled, and 50% of those die. You still would be able to stabilize over time, and back in the OW your surgeon would continue to fix half of the heavy injured people. The magic option to restore crew on OW could be removed, you would always restore 75% of crew losses back in the OW within a certain time. But thats just an optional idea for more plausibility and depth.
  17. Online 652....es tut sich etwas....

    Du hast grundlegend recht mit allem, aber selbst wenn es reine PvP-Fraktionen geben würde, denen brauchst du nicht die Schuld geben. Richte dich an die Devs die keine Ahnung haben wie dieses Spiel funktionieren muss, dass Wirtschaft wichtig ist, etc. Devs haben immer alles gleich um 100%, von einem ins andere Extrem geändert und daraufhin nie wieder in Frage gestellt. Wenn NA ein richtig gutes Spiel werden will, muss es ein funktionierendes Ökosystem simulieren. Das erfordert ausgefeilte Mechaniken und enorm viel Balancing, woran über Jahre einfach 0 gearbeitet wurde. Jeder andere Entwickler würde sich Experten suchen wenn er selbst keiner ist, hier wird sich stattdessen blind auf die Community verlassen, der noch nichtmal eine konkrete Zielvorgabe oder ein Konzept vorgelegt wird. Diskussionen sind nie zielgerichtet und enden meist mit Seiten über Seiten voll mit unterschiedlichsten meist unbegründeten Meinungen. Dass Menschen alles einfach und sofort wollen (egal ob PvP oder PvE fokussiert) ist halt so, man denkt nicht soweit dass letztendlich der eigene Spielspaß auf der Strecke bleibt. Balancing für Einkommen und Kosten, Erfahrung und so weiter muss auf Daten und Statistiken beruhen, egal was die Community will. Details und Zielvorstellungen können diskutiert werden, aber nicht die Zahlen selbst. Es fragt dich auch keiner wieviel Steuern du zahlen willst, oder was du gerne verdienen würdest, weil es nicht funktioniert. Wirtschaft hat nichts mit PvE zu tun. Wirtschaft basiert darauf dass PvP/RvR genug Nachfrage generiert. RvR und PvP ist zumindest in der Theorie von Wirtschaft motiviert. Auch als PvP fokussierter Spieler würdest du den Markt und deine LHs nutzen, was nichtmal den Besitz eines Handelsschiffes erfordert (Ein funktionierender Mark bedeutet, dass du nichts selbst produzieren musst). Als Händler und Crafter bist du auf Nachfrage angewiesen, als Jäger in der OW willst du bedeutungsvolle Ziele. PvPler sollten sich nicht weniger um eine funktionierende Wirtschaft kümmern als Händler, aber versuch das mal jemandem klar zu machen. "PvP-Server" ist einfach eine schlechte Bezeichnung für den normalen Server. Der durchschnittliche NA Spieler will nicht irgendwo PvE oder PvP machen oder handeln weil er grade Lust darauf hat, er will eine dynamische Welt erleben in der er selbst und sein Handeln eine Bedeutung hat. Selbstversorgung, PvP Zone hier, PvE zone da, hier noch ein paar bedeutungslose NPC recourcen zum Handeln, das ist nicht das Gleiche.
  18. Poll on limited use of repairs in battles

    But realism is a major point against it. Youre saying it, repairs favour (gank) groups. They take away all your chances against a team of 3 smaller ships barely knowing what they are doing. Sure you can try to focus on a mast after a repair, etc. But youre in the defensive spot, you have to avoid rakes, you are constantly slowed down. With previous repairs they atleast had to disengage when they took too much hull damage, you had a chance to win that fight. What has teamplay to do with repairs, you would always try to spread damage and cover wounded ships?! Im also not arguing to remove repairs completely. Why should people use more fast ships when speed becomes less important?! Full tank ships still get raked down and are easy prey in the OW?! Yes restricted repairs would actually allow a tankier ship to sink a faster ship that cant escape that easy anymore after it messed up raking. But thats a good thing. When youre chasing a guy repairing back from 70 to 100% sail, you have to do so yourself while your sails still were at 90%, then he has the advantage of speed and chasers. With restricted repairs he would not have escaped from you. Alone you dont have a chance to catch a faster ship with chasers repairing back to 100%. Even with multiple ships it depends on the situation, distance etc. Easily repairing back to full speed is what makes speed so powerful. And its not the task of repairs to balance broken upgrades, demasting, how fast ships are sinking, or other stuff.
  19. Sure, just that some people might have to use less powerful/worse ships than others. I guess people still want to use the largest ship possible. Why should i decide to sail a frigate in a PB when there is no specific use for it, its just a weaker ship. For the battle it wouldnt matter, but for me it means im less important, i sink faster and im likely to earn less rewards.
  20. Poll on limited use of repairs in battles

    @rediii You cant call it skill to turn away, hit repair and wait. Repairs have 0 conditions that would require skill to use it. Repairs can be unlimited, but you must not be allowed to repair back to 100% of anthing. And there have to be serious conditions restricting the use of repairs. I often proposed to make repairs only possible in battle sails, there are probably further options. Such examples arent important, there are enough examples showing how broken repairs can be. Tournament has the goal to sink each other, is not representing OW PvP. Try to explain why current repairs are not totally unrealistic, and how it is reasonable to repair from 10% back to 100%. How they dont allow fast ships to fool around with you. How they dont allow easy escaping even from close range situations, highly promoting gank tactics.
  21. People always using the best possible 25 ships is not diversity, thats the point. You dont seem to understand what diversity means. Its about meaningful gameplay and decisionmaking. Making all ships the same, and magically restricting people to use the most powerful ships isnt improving anything, because people still dont have to make decisions. Youre sailing a weaker ship than others, because BR told you to do so, not because this ship has any meaning or specific use. Different fleet compositions beeing viable would lead to diversity, what requires different tactics or countermeasures to be balanced. Imagine a few mortar brigs could counter a full first rate fleet, fast interceptors would become meaningful. Mortars counter line ship fleets, mixed fleets counter mortars, first rates counter everything without mortars. There wouldnt be "the best fleet", the most effective fleet composition would depend on the meta. You have to decide how much you want to tech against something, overall weakening your fleet. So fleets are simply going to consist of ships with best value/BR not leading to diversity either. Then it could actually work because mortar brigs might be OP for 75(?!) BR. Im not into those circle mechanics, but if winning by circles is not balanced its going to be one extreme or the other. I dont have to point out again that this all, working or not, heavily contradicts player freedom and everything a sandbox stands for.
  22. If anyone would care, you could argue those changes down with simple arguments referring to what this game was supposed to be about. Player freedom, realism/plausibility and Immersion. PBs kinda turned into fair matchmaking, totally contradicting with that. Thats not a opinion, thats how NA was defined once and still is. If you allow everyone to be rich of everything within 2 weeks, you have to face the concequences of 1st rate only battles. If you refuse to balance anything from woods to upgrades, if broken mechanics make speed as a stat insanely powerful, you must not wonder why there is no diversity. If you allow everyone to avoid battles to 100%, you must not wonder why OW PvP isnt working. Such a game is simply not working this way. Gameplay has to be meaningful. Something has to provide long time motivation. OW must not become a fair matchmaking system. Giving everything to anyone and then restricting the use of stuff is contraproductive in multiple ways. Restrictions like this are not only not going to work as easily as promoted, it contradicts every single aspect of what makes people enjoy a sandbox game. Good luck with balancing of BR. In theory 3-4 frigates equal one lineship. In reality they do 0 damage cause they cant penetrate, one frigate is able to rake down a single lineship. 0 penetration vs. raking has to be balanced for different battle sizes. Circle capturing has to be balanced for 10 ships vs 25 ships. Mortar brigs and fireships. Etc. And realise how such changes are made. People voted for this, but look how this poll was done. Zero information in the OP what this change means, what possible cons or problems are, what this requires. No previous discussion. No details, people realise now that circle capturing isnt ment to be BR base, whats obviously not working unless circles as a victory condition get nerved. Not like this.
  23. Stop being negative!!

    If you would make clear what expectations this game is supposed to focus on, people could actually start to do meaningful discussions. Its simply impossible to prove an opinion wrong when there is no definition of "right". Discussions go on and on until it comes down to a principle discussion, how PvP is supposed to work, or how a sandbox should look like. Things that should be clear by now. What about the steam description saying "realistic sandbox". Thats probably what players expect buying the game, no matter where they come from. Why dont we just focus on that?! Changes you make are completely contradicting with that, all reasoning based on this simply gets ignored. Sure you can stretch the definition of a sandbox, but not the major principles. Such a game trying to simulate a complex ecosystem requires certain conditions to work, no matter what people like. OW PvP requires that ships are able to drag each other into battle no matter how unfair it is. We can discuss how long time goals should be designed, but they are necessary. We can discuss what ships should be cheaper than others, but the overall eco balancing has to be right. Etc. Just giving people the opportunity to PvP here, do PvE there, and some artificial resources for trading is by far not the same. People want their decisions and actions to matter. Its not the same to sink a meaningless ship for no reason inside a PvP zone, and e.g. to hunt an enemy threatening friendly traders carrying important goods.
  24. Stop being negative!!

    Spreading unreasoned positivity is not really better than spreading unreasoned negativity. Whitewashing things e.g. to attract more players would even be worse. Every sensible person is going to ignore unreasoned negativity aswell as unreasoned positivity nevertheless. Why dont you tell people that are providing reasoned criticism why they are wrong. Or write a review explaining how deep and balanced mechanics are, why economy is so immersive, what makes PvP so motivating, how challenging PvE is, how great long time goals are designed, why planless development is so efficient, etc.
  25. Broken wasa

    Why are you still cherishing on speedcap. It does nothing but heavily promoting a gank meta. Diversity can only be achieved with balancing. If you dont want ships to go faster than 15kn, why not cut every ships speed until the fastest ship + maximum speed setup goes 15kn. If combat is too slow then, rethink the 15 kn, or balance ships/woods/upgrades. Fast woods need serious rebalancing nevertheless. For a decent amount of speed you give up all broadside combat capabilities. Such setups must not exist. With that logic you could make every ship exactly the same. Thats neither balance, nor diversity. Assuming eco wouldnt be meaningless, youre forgetting about gameplay. You cant make people never loose anything and at the same time make gameplay fun in a game that is about sinking each other. You also cant setup an economy for that, cause ships would need to be insanely expensive when only very few ships are lost. In numbers its exactly the same to loose and get a new ship each month, or each day. Gameplay wise its a big difference. Game mechanics define losses, not ship cost. We had the situation of meaningless economy/ships two times now, it alone is not promoting more PvP. Its not promoting PvP atall, it just has the potential to restrict PvP when stuff is too expensive, or to make rewards neglectable when stuff is too cheap. Fun and immersion is promoting people to play in the first place, this should be obvious. If people provably loose too much, it has to be easier to recover. If people just arent promoted to PvP because 80% gameplay is shit and unrealistic, rewards are poor, and there is absolutely nothing to achieve, you should fix those problems first. Most people dont play a game just to not loose anything. Simplifying escaping/avoiding fights is directly promoting gank tactics, and currently escaping is easier than ever. But instead of working on improvements were seriously discussing if defensive tagging or speedcap is good or bad. It sounds harsh to force the poor guy into an uneven fight, but so is the attacker forced into a fight against the arriving coastguard. Thats how the OW is supposed to work/be fun. And if youre getting into an unfavoured situation, either mistakes were made, or you took that risk. The problem with ganking is that you cant do anything about it. Ofcourse there would be fastest ships and ow hunters always would use fast ships, but thats not promoting ganking. Naturally fast ships dont have to be made of paper to be fast, and fast ships have weaknesses, e.g. bad sailing profiles, increasing the risk you take. Using a fir surprise now is just 0 risk until you decide to take it. When by default fast ships can catch you nevertheless it becomes less effective to use fir ships, and more effective to be able to stand a fight. When your ship by default is faster than others you can use a combat build instead of a gank/fir build. Fast ships outnumbering you is not the problem we have, the problem is that weak builds make them run from every even fight while game mechanics allow them to successfully do so.