Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

PaladinFX

Members
  • Content count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

67 Excellent

About PaladinFX

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wellington, New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

210 profile views
  1. Creating the Cayo Biscanyo PVP Hub

    So as I expected the US don't want Cayo Biscayno to stay neutral so lets face it they will take it if no one else does. Hence there will be PB/PBs for that port so it's irrelevant whether the US take it or ARMED, or VSCO! It's ok to talk about having a port neutral to promote pvp but if you haven't the agreement of the nation whose doorstep its on then its kinda a waste of time to even bring it up in the first place isn't it!
  2. Creating the Cayo Biscanyo PVP Hub

    But have the US agreed to it staying neutral???
  3. Creating the Cayo Biscanyo PVP Hub

    @Christendom I think you're missing the bigger picture; the US for the most part do not want any of us on their doorstep, they are tired of getting attacked all the time (ok yeah i would agree its a shame more of them aren't into pvp) and I personally would be shocked if they do not take the opportunity to take back Cayo Biscayno and try to hold it.
  4. Yeah but the reasoning of why the Wasa needs to have BR at or just above a 3rd rate, ie broadside & side armour, when applied to the Vic/LO/Santi means that those three 1st rates shouldn't have same BR I would say. They need to be different but not by much, they are three different ships with three different strengths as you say, but when it comes down to the basics they are different on broadside and armour HP.
  5. Creating the Cayo Biscanyo PVP Hub

    The US did not want to lose Cayo Biscayno in the first place; if ARMED don't flip it the US will I'm sure. I guess Christendom want ARMED to always have to sail past lots of pirate ports to get to the US east coast lol! Key West is a long bloody sail for us to get anywhere and back so actually if we did manage to take Cayo Biscayno IMO that would promote more pvp. Secondly although ARMED, the Pirates, and Dave like to pvp around Florida etc I would guess that a lot of the US players may not actually want even more pvp on their doorstep, theyre getting hammered as it is so why would you expect them to be happy with the Prussians or whoever being in Cayo Biscayno? There aren't that many US players who are hardcore pvpers! Maybe a few more pirates need to switch to Prussia and take Rio Seco @Atreides @Christendom
  6. Nice job! What you've done with the H Rattler, Wasa/3rd rate/Bellona makes a lot of sense. I think rating Vic/LO/Santi all the same doesn't make sense tho, need to be a small difference between them, maybe leave them at 600/625/650 respectively.
  7. I voted double Yes. PBs are stale and fairly boring now and need variety of ship types to make them more interesting and fun as I have stated elsewhere in this forum. IMO both options put forth by @admin will bring the needed variety to PBs that is sorely needed. I also like the fact that varied ship types in PBs mean that newer players have a chance to be involved in Line Ship PBs because they could be involved in a lower rated ship under this new system. This will make our game more inclusive and fun for newer players and hopefully help with player retention.
  8. Nerf the Wasa (Poll)

    This poll is about nerfing the Wasa, ie reducing its stats. Changing the Wasa BR to 3rd rate is a different poll/question altogether.
  9. Nerf the Wasa (Poll)

    I voted No. The Wasa does not need nerfing; people complaining about its speed need to realise it's no faster than the Connie(actually slower than the Connie once you put standard set of guns on!) and it's not as fast as the Hermione or the Surprise. Any of those 3 ships should be able to chase down a Wasa, and lets not forget that the Renomee and Endymion have significantly higher speed ratings than the Wasa as well. As for it's armament, the devs have already nerfed the Wasa from what it was historically originally built to carry; 36 pounders on the main gun deck! The Wasa was designed to be a fast, manouvreable, heavy hitting ship that could compete with the prevailing 74's and that's what we have in game! Furthermore the Wasa in game does not have a great turn rate, so why the call for nerfing? There are plenty of ways for creative and skilled captains to neutralize a Wasa in pvp! When I go out in a Wasa looking for pvp there are captains that are skilled enough to neutralize me and there are those that aren't; which tells me the real issue is around the skills or approach to the battle of the players, not that the Wasa is in itself OP. The real question is in regards 4th rate port battles and the Wasa's classification. Should it's BR be changed since its broadside weight is higher than the 3rd rate in game and has side armour approx equivalent to the 3rd rate? Therefore should the Wasa be re-rated as a 3rd rate thus excluding it from 4th rate PBs? Personally I'd say Yes. We have plenty of different 4th rates in game already providing options for 4th rate PB ships and personally I don't mind if they change the BR/status of the Wasa to a 3rd rate. To me this makes much more sense for the game than nerfing the Wasa's armament/speed etc. Hopefully 3rd rates will have more of a role in game if we get changes to the PB system along BR or ship classes lines to get more variety of ships in Line ship PBs. I have advocated for the ship class idea in this thread:
  10. @admin Weekend 4 feedback: Personally I preferred being able to see player names above the ship, didn't feel cluttered to me. Not bothered about the Alt key now not working, can see players health etc when close enough, IMO Alt key ship health info bar not needed; it was small anyways and the regular view of the ship's health you see is plenty good enough. As said last week though would love to see the M key active as per NA OW style to see the whole map overview and be able to check on player whereabouts further a way and their health. The "Dark" weather/time of day is pretty dreary, particularly when you get it several battles in a row; its hard on the old eyes and personally I think it dulls down the great look of NAL. Maybe tone the darkness down a bit to see if that feels better. I can see the thinking of having varied time of day for variety of look in game but when its too dark IMO it's counterproductive to the look and feel of the game, like the darkness is interfering with enjoyment of the game having to strain to see ships for this type of game, if that makes any sense. Incidence of "red rudder" definitely much less this week and I think the battles are flowing better with the rudder damage model having been tuned down some; feels right now. Nice job. Not sure if the 6 person group is working; we couldnt get more than 3 to get accepted in a Group and Division still seems turned off. Still would like to be able to see Global Chat etc when in battle instance. The new colour scheme for shallows is nice with the graded colours. Had my first battles today where all players/ai were in frigates; great fun, really enjoyed it; was great to be out of those damn 6th rates lol! You guys are doing great with this so far!
  11. Port Battles with limited BR

    @admin I would be 100% in favour of creating a variety of ship classes in line ship PBs, the variety would open up the tactical options for the battle and make it way more interesting than 25 1st rates v 24 1st rates + mortar brig. This would give opportunities for newer players to be involved in line ship PBs as well as they could participate by sailing in lower rated ships; this could help with player retention as newer players could get involved in PBs fairly quickly after joining NA. If you enforce a cap on the number of each ship class you enforce the variety and that in turn creates the variety of tactics the battle commander has at his disposal. This could create some pretty interesting PB scenarios! A possible solution for line ship PBs of a 25 ship fleet could be: 1st rates: minimum 3, maximum 5 2nd rates: minimum 4, maximum 6 3rd rates: minimum 4, maximum 8 Total of line ships must = 15 ships. (The numbers above are just an example to enforce a line ship fleet combined of a variety of 1st/2nd/3rd rates) 4th rates: minimum 2, maximum 4 5th rates: minimum 3, maximum 5 6th rates: minimum 1, maximum 5 (eg Mortar Brigs, Heavy Rattle, Niagara) Total number of 4th/5th/6th rates combined must = 10 ships. The ship min/max numbers idea could also be set up the same way using min/max BR numbers per ship class. The idea of the numbers above is that the cap/requirement of 15 line ships is still the majority % of the 25 ship fleet thus qualifying it as a line ship PB, and the variety of ships involved in the PB is guaranteed. I like the idea of using minimums and maximums because it enforces the variety of ship classes involved whilst retaining options for the fleet set up. I think this is a better solution than just enforcing x number of each ship class; this would not yield as much potential variety as the idea I have shown above. There are plenty of players who love sailing say the Bellona/Buc/Connie (for example) and i personally think it would be a hell of a lot of fun to see those ships have a role in line ship PBs. The same process could also be used to set min/max numbers for 4th/5th/6th rates for 4th rate PBs to ensure a variety of ship classes in 4th rate PBs. An afterthought: Maybe the leader of the attacking clan could set a choice for the PB: Standard as we have been doing up until now, or Varied as per above suggestions for a variety of ships.
  12. Combat feedback topic

    I had the same issue; i F11 it anyway.
  13. Yep I didn't have any issue with your tactics, just how quickly that circle/base capture ended the battle. I also hope we don't end up with a meta that is shred sails and cap circles; the fun is in the battling as you said
  14. @admin Some constructive feedback from current weekend's play: Battle balancer seems to be working fairly well although there are occasionally instances when the battle seems unbalanced. I have encountered ai on my side going into battle then turning and just sailing away from the battle the whole time; had 3 of my ai in one battle sail off together! It feels like the occurence/regularity of Red rudder is too easy/frequent for this game type with emergency repair at 5min cooldown; gets a bit tiresome and spoils gameplay fun. Maybe the rudder damage model needs tuning down a bit for Legends or maybe shorter emergency repair cooldown. Seems that what most players are interested in doing is getting in there and fighting the other players and/or ai rather than capturing circles which is great fun, however I understand that having the circles in there is needed for a way to end battles; no problem with that. That being said sometimes circle capture can feel like it prematurely or too rapidly ends a battle. Had one instance with a player in it on the other side where it was just our two home circles; he sailed off into our circle and it was over way too quickly before i could get to him and engage him and the circle; maybe the circle counter ran up too quickly - seemed like once he had captured it there was no time after that available to challenge, the battle just ended; ie he didnt need to hold it for x time after capture it seemed. When I enter battle instance and when coming out of battle the game is resizing my window on my monitor (or is windows 10 doing it?). This is hiding the chat boxes down in my windows toolbar so every time i have to resize my window again to have access to chat on Docks window and resize to see compass fully in battle window. Don't know if its how i have my resolution set but its a bit frustrating having to keep resizing my game window. Nice to have Rig repair available, 15min cooldown seems to make sense. Please can we have Hull repair too in your next Update. Would love to have the M key for map active as per regular Naval Action; using TAB is ok but the info you can gleam from that is minimal and using Alt key is only giving damage info on ships approx 500m radius. Having the map available on M with info as per regular Naval Action would be great. Would be nice to be able to see other chat windows during battle, not just battle chat. Overall Legends is great fun and looks really good; you've done a great job so far, really enjoying it!
  15. Sounds good, looking forward to some more testing this weekend
×