Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Vinnie

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

1 Follower

About Vinnie

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Vinnie

    Free Ports & PvP Zones

    Can one set up an outpost in a foreign open national port? I don't think so. If one could, I agree, my point wouldn't matter as much. There is a big different between being ganked in normal open world in and the PvP zone. In the zone I get marks based on the damage I do, even if I get sunk. Not so in the OW. I almost don't mind getting sunk in the zone, which is just as well if you have fought against me. :) Gank me outside the free port closest to the zone I'm trying to get into and I'm done for the night, to hell with it. Which is why it is counterproductive, decreasing the population in the actual zone.
  2. Vinnie

    Free Ports & PvP Zones

    It has become difficult getting into the PvP Zones due to large groups of gankers who sit right off the nearest free port and intercept ships as they leave the port. This is worst around the free ports with narrow access points (Tumbado & La Tortue) but it happens off Aves and La Mona as well. This discourages single players and small groups of players from participating. It might not be unreasonable to make the waters around free ports a reinforcement zone, under the assumption that free ports would jealously guard the freedom of their waters. This would give people a chance to get out of the port safely and allow the PvP zones to serve their original function. For the life of me I can't figure out why some players would rather attack outside a nearby zone than in it. With more marks to be had in the zone it seems like "eating your seed corn" to attack players this way, even more so when it discourages players from participating in this very enjoyable part of the game.
  3. Vinnie

    New Boarding patch

    What about making a successful boarding attempt dependent on the speed and a random roll, instead of the current 100% success? With a cooldown between attempts and a notification that the attempt is being made? And mods which make the odds better or worse? (eg, boarding axes). Hell, some ships barely >do< eight knots.
  4. Bah - That was while he had both arms. Easy. Now, if it were after he had lost the one...
  5. Admin - your examples use 66 and 99 galleys against a handful of square-riggers in a boarding action to illustrate your point. That justifies this addition to the game as realism? I think there is some serious post-mistake rationalism going on here. Also, I note that these actions were in >very< confined waters. In fact, looks like an anchorage.
  6. Not that I expect it to matter much, but the only way I can impact this discussion is to vote with my feet and back away from the game till the Le Requin is balanced against the rest of the game. I've wasted too much time chasing these things around. A silly, gratuitous, a-historical "addition" to the game. There must have been better ways to raise funds than to add a functionally invulnerable ship to the game. To quote the game's own advertising description; "Large crew allows you board enemies with confidence, and lateen sails profiles will help you escape from the most heated situations."
  7. Vinnie

    Do DLC ships improve the game?

    Problem with compensating by buffing everything else but DLC is that it is, well, it is everything else. 5ths become 4ths, 4ths become 3rds, etc... Keeping that balanced will be a nightmare. But I may be wrong.
  8. Vinnie

    Do DLC ships improve the game?

    Problem is, the Devs are constrained in what they do by Steam rules regarding what is basically a contract with the purchaser of the DLC. Can't sell something and nerf it. I fear they may have gut-shot the game. :( I wish DLC had been only for cosmetic stuff, like paint, ship-names and flags.
  9. Vinnie

    Reinforcements update

    I'm not the best PvP player in the game,far more often gankee than ganker, but the game needs a mix of PvP & PvE. For those who say "You enjoy PvE? Go to the PvE server" I say "You want pure PvP? That's what Naval Action Legends was for, and it wasn't a rousing success, was it? Did you play it?" The chance of a trade run being rudely interrupted adds tension to the game even though I don't go off hunting traders myself. The game must cater to a variety of tastes to succeed, and those who wish that it catered only to their taste are inadvertently wishing for the game's failure.
  10. I'm trying not to be too peeved and failing dreadfully. I am sick and tired of trying to make my way around in open world with 10 feet of visibility around my ship. I'm 2 km from Williamsburg and still can't find the entrance, playing bump-and-grind with the shore. Do the developers think it is fun or smart to finally have players log off and play something else while the weather clears? We don't have grid references and in bad weather we don't have land references. I've sometimes had to log out and back in just to get that two seconds of clarity before the rain descends. Realistic to force ships to heave to and wait out a fog? Of course. Wise? Not on your life. Realism is one thing, enjoyability another and to have a successful game there needs to be a balance between the two. To make a game realistic but painful to play isn't a great design decision. It would be realistic to force players to take a hammer to their teeth to emulate scurvy but I doubt it would lead to great reviews. And yes, I know the RN had lemons by this era but they also had sextants and somehow the developers thought it would add to the game to remove anything more accurate than point-to-point navigation. Oh, the joy of trying to find a wreck in the rain. Not doing the usual "This sucks, I quit", but it does indeed suck. Design decisions like this make me fear for the viability of the game. Yes, I know, "It is only Alpha". That covers rubbish like this for only so long, specially with the game so close to release.
  11. Vinnie

    A way to include new players in rvr..

    Perfectly said. For all the talk of realism here the focus of this realism has been on fine-grain stuff ("how many inches of oak would a 12 pound ball penetrate at 200 yards"). There's more to realism than that. I've been amazed at the focus and concern of the Devs toward driving players toward meaningless PvP. Nations didn't fund navies to fight without goals. If a fight doesn't fit within a strategy even a victory is meaningless. One fights a war towards an end. The global strategy of the game should drive the events, not "let's sail around in circles and shoot at each other and prove who has the bigger dongle". Yours is the first voice I've heard saying this. (Man the rails, hand salute). "Strategy without tactics is the long road to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat". - Sun Tzu
  12. Since I bitch when I see things I don't like (ok, most of the time) I need to say, "Well Done"! To me these look like solid changes. Grinding solo hostility gives off-hour players something to do. Is the hostility gained proportionally smaller? Should be.
  13. To me a large part of the problem is that the Devs are trying to shoehorn the game into a game they would like to play instead of a game a broad number of people want to play. The game needs to cater to different types of gamers. Me, at the risk of being trashed as a Care bear, enjoy the camaraderie of the clan, the strategy culminating in a hopefully-contested port-battle and the subtle tension of worrying about being ganked on a trade run. I do not enjoy being the ganker - the times I've caught someone at a disadvantage I have waved them on every time. Hell - if you can't act honorably in a game I fear for how you act in real life. But that is >me<. I accept that others get a chubby from a good gank and that actually adds to the game, it would be boring if everyone were a wuss like me. The more inflexible the game becomes the more negative reviews it will garner. And trust me - that is what is going to sink this game. I suspect that it is already too late, that no one will buy a released-game with the mixed reviews currently posted in Steam. I have my style of play, you have yours. Either the game accommodates us both or one of us leaves. And eventually the other will lose too, when the game fails. As to the latest controversy, after an initial WTF reaction I saw the positives. We still have second-rates and now that there are BR limits, 2nd rates have a real function. A well build Buc is a solid ship. I hope that this is a step towards limiting the number of 1st and 2nd rates. We all know how rare they were in the real age of sail. The silly part of the new rule is that only currently successful nations get the 1st rates, which will help keep them at the top. But a system where the 1st rates were distributed based on the number of ports owned no matter where on the leader-board the nation is could be a good thing. If 1st rates become rare and uber-expensive I can see port battles where the main focus is to protect / sink the clan's 1st rate, to hell with the port. Due to BR limits it might actually be better to come in with 3rd rates. If the 1st rate permits were distributed pro-rated among the clans, and within each clan going to the top pvp player we might have a good system.
×