Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

vazco

Members
  • Content count

    1,349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by vazco

  1. Both solutions require for defenders to be ready 1 hour longer, which makes organizing a defense more of a work than pleasure. Anything that requires from players more time spent mostly on waiting is bad for the game. It probably won't change the outcome, it will just increase the burnout. With second solution, it also makes multiflips stronger.
  2. vazco

    War and Peace

    Wow, a lot of dangerous and popular (I guess populistic) ideas appear here In order to have any RvR, you need leaders - you need a guy or a group who will organize things and get everyone to act together. After that you need a guy who will lead a battle. Those two roles are usually connected, and they give people with those roles a power to decide which port to attack and how. The same people forge alliances by talking on TS/DC. Those people won't just organize fleets to attack random enemy of the day that AI pointed them to attack. They want to fight for their real goals - important ports. They will find a way to go around the system, or decide they don't want to be involved in a silly AI diplomacy, which destroys their own alliances that they crafted with significant time investment. What you describe could work only with a fully PvE - based RvR, which wouldn't require coordination.
  3. vazco

    War and Peace

    The problem is that alliance system will bring more frustration and chaos than order. Who should be responsible for setting the status? Why and how should he be chosen? What if majority don't like his decision, or if he goes inactive? Creating a system which supports all this on a nation level is an issue. This can work well only on a clan level. In case of an automatic system which would enforce ROE, you can have a situation in which someone just betrayed you by eg. screening out your screeners, and you can't even join your screeners in a fight. You can also have a situation in which alts, or smaller yet dedicated clans with different views, influence the outcome of war an peace mechanics and impose bad diplomacy on others.
  4. vazco

    War and Peace

    I did read your suggestion, it addresses only one problem of megaaliances. It doesn't address a different, bigger one - diplomatics in game are just like eg in Sengoku-Jidai Japan. They're much more interesting and complex than a simple peace and war mechanics. There are fractions, multi level treaties, betrayals and turns of events, leaders and contenders. There's even propaganda, limited casus bellis etc. No point of limiting this real diplomacy with something flat and one-dimensional imposed on players in game. We had this, it didn't work. Clan based system would just recognize that there are fractions. It doesn't mean that there would be only clan wars, as if clans work together they have a profit of working as an united nation and sharing resources, fighting against other nations. It just gives an ability to wage civil wars or separate diplomacy where it's already separated.
  5. vazco

    Real-Life Sailors, Muster!

    I started with Omega's, Dezeta's ( 10person lifeboats modified to be sail yachts). Then all kind of cabin boats on lakes, then the sea. SunOdyssey, Ocean, Bavaria, Lagoon and others. I'm sailing only once - twice a year. Recently inspired by Naval Action I sailed LaGrace - up to date the "most powerful blue-water warship of the Czech navy", as an officer: I really recommend this ship Earlier I sailed Glowacki. I'm a beginner on tall ships. Recently I'm thinking of sailing around Antarktic with guys from Selma.
  6. vazco

    Patrol zone rotation

    It seems random, sometimes same port appears twice in a row
  7. vazco

    War and Peace

    From diplomatic point of view clan-based RvR would work. It just wouldn't work due to snowballing, unless it's adressed. If eg. a clan can block all trade in a given port, we'll have a situation like with introduction of rare woods - some nations were excluded from woods needed for RvR. A workaround was found - using alts. Without this walkaround, people would start quitting, as nation with advantage would have means of blocking others from competing with them. With clans, it can be the same. It would be even worse, as it would life miserable not only for other nations, but also for clanless people and other clans. It's a huge potential for destructive power. It can be solved though. Some percentage of goods produced by port should always go to nation and some to potential smugglers, just to avoid snowballing and to make game without alts possible. It would still get a big advantage to clans, yet wouldn't cripple others.
  8. vazco

    War and Peace

    It was already discussed before. The conclusion as I remember was that you can't attack other clans in your nation unless you're on the enemy list with them. In your case then a single person clan would have to be quite aggressive in some way to be targetted.
  9. vazco

    War and Peace

    That's not only BF. We have the same problem in every nation. Iroquis Confederacy in Commonwealth, Onion Knights in US, Cabal in Sweden, 7UP and DedWhateverTheirName clan in Dutch. I don't even mention GB. It's a repeatable pattern.
  10. vazco

    War and Peace

    It's easy to fix - if you're not in the clan, only other nations can attack you. Thats how it's sometimes done in other games.
  11. vazco

    War and Peace

    As Christendom mentioned, the only way to do this - to force some system on people - is to do this clan based, and probably have clan owner decide. If people don't like decisions, they can always leave clan and form their own - which gives balance to all decisions. Unlike Christendom though, I think current diplomatic system works just fine. Everyone knows whom he can or can't attack. Clan system will solve some problems and introduce others - the main one being snowballing due to very limited access to resources, and huge barrier of entry for new clans. This would have to be addressed - then clans would probably work great.
  12. vazco

    War and Peace

    Imagine a real situation from the game - Danes have BF, who has their enemies and friends, and rest of the nation has their own enemies and friends. How voting would work for them? If vote goes bad for one side, they would simply go around the system. You can't force people eg. to screen for someone just because some system decided they're allied. You also can't force people to not to screen for someone - for the same reasons
  13. vazco

    War and Peace

    We already had alliances modeled in game and it didn't work. It's next to impossible to create a system which would work with all diplomatic interactions between nations, as they're very complex, dynamic and non - trivial. There are situations when a nation is allied with half of another nation and in war with the second half. Nations already inform about their status on the forum. Building tools to simplify this would be ok. Building some artificial diplomacy limitations will never work.
  14. That's actually a really good idea Btw, in terms of RvR, you feel a huge difference when your whole fleet has no skill knowledge and enemy has 5 each - I had a chance to test this with mods in the past. Sure, organization and personal skills always trumps mods/slots, but it has a meaning.
  15. vazco

    Issues connecting

    I'm unable to log in. We were starting a hostility mission. Instead of joining, on my client I stayed in OW. Hostility mission started and interface showed I can join it on both sides. Both sides seem French (white flag): Three other people DC'd. One was able to join in, two - including me - weren't. Right now I'm blocked on player selection screen. I was logged to another account on another computer, it got kind of crashed as well - I couldn't do anything in port interface. @Ink
  16. I understand the goal. I agree with the goal, but I think the solution is a problem. Imagine a group of new people going into RvR. They would have to grind their ships in battle to be competitive. They already suck because of a lack of skills, this approach would also give them a disadvantage due to a lack of a ship knowledge (as it would be hard to grind 1st rate in a PvP when you're a newb). It would make RvR more elitist. On the other hand it would work well just for PvP. I think it would work well if you could unlock eg first 3 slots through any combat, and last 2 through PvP. You should also get some experience when you sink. Then I think it would be a good change. You unbox them sooner in PvP actually, and it feels less of a grind. I levelled 2 last slots only through PvP on my 2 first rates. It's not that bad. With less than 3 slots you feel the disadvantage quite significantly though.
  17. I wish you good luck, I like the change. If you changed your leadership as well, I think you're on a good path towards improvement.
  18. It matters for me and from your words, at least in some cases it matters for you. It's not about liking someone, but about fueling some kind of relations, or some kind of feelings. I'm involved in NA mostly for fun and positive aspects, for building things or improving - either my skills, or my team. That's what hooks me to the game. I don't want to fuel negative aspects. Yes, until now we didn't fight yet due to time issues.
  19. I could test it with you next week once I'm back if you'd like to do this. I thought the same, however I changed my opinion after recent patch, once I had a chance to fight with and against Herc in two battles. Herc was nerfed quite well, it may be balanced already. If this is the case and Herc is ok, it will still take some time for people to change their opinion, like it took me. Requin is a different story. Disclaimer: I was planning to test Herc with Banished, however due to some disputes between us I don't think it's a good idea, as duel between us wouldn't be about fun or testing.
  20. vazco

    [Caribbean] Great battle results.

    @Captain Cid thanks for a nice battle I don't have a result screen, so that's it from me
  21. vazco

    Issues connecting

    Update: now I'm back, same with a second guy.
  22. vazco

    Wipe on release, 3-4 months?

    I'm sure you know better, you're an expert
  23. vazco

    Wipe on release, 3-4 months?

    Considering you're not translating to German (Unabhaengigkeitserklaerungen, Freundschaftsbezeugung), Chinese, Japanese, or eg Polish, for which you may need to change UI and/or language strings If game is not prepared for localization, it can take a considerable time.
  24. vazco

    If we have to live with Reinforcement Zones then...

    I can tell you why we - nations that I was in recently - have issues with organizing PB's. It's hard to get all the players in the same time, and you need to get approx. 7 to finish hostility in a reasonable time, as well as make sure they're there the next day. Hostility is considered work and only PB is more interesting. Low number of players in Prussia (Let's say joining of Rover could change things ), US, Dutch (I guess I can tell this now) and Sweden basically make it hard to organize things. That's however what we were doing in Prussia at Parrot Cay - we had I think 7 hostility runs, knowing that once we leave first or second mission we'll be probably attacked by Pirates who outnumber us. In US we went for Little Harbour and Rio Seco, as we knew it will be a challenging fight. If we wanted simpler fights, we would have chosen eg. GB or Denmark. I can't tell for others, but in nations in which I was in last few months we were going for national interests first (of course you need some ports eg. for eco, profit or security), and interesting fights second. We didn't go for ports we knew we could capture just because we could or because we knew they had inferior enemy. It was different with PvP - it's quite common that players group up to hunt weaker enemies, and enemy strength usually decides where to go - eg. you didn't go where you knew you would get ganked. There were a few people who didn't do this. This can be done quick, however it lacks the "meaningful" aspect. Conclusion: I think that if PvP got some meaning - eg. sinking better enemy would give you better rewards - or better position on leaderboard, and if there were means of finding other people who want to fight instead of logging in to PvE and join fights around capitals randomly, people would do this.
×