Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/11/2018 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    @The Last Templar @Carlos_Condell @Gregory Rainsborough https://clips.twitch.tv/CautiousFamousDiamondCorgiDerp your response?
  2. 6 points
    The initial numbers (for testing) to make a first rate were set as follows: 3 players should be able to build a 1st rate in 3 days (collecting resources from buildings and building a ship including all labor hours) This was enough for the testing to allow everyone experience all the content. Some time ago we also reduced the weight for resources to reduce number of trips for hauling. These numbers (3 players/3 days) indeed seem kinda low now, especially taking into account the lineships buffs in the final HP rebalance.
  3. 5 points
    So Safe zones. We're in a bit of a pickle between the wolves of the game wanting the ability to hunt outside capitals and then on the flip side the game does need to offer some basic protections so newer players can start to turn into veteran players. Without safe zones, the population drops. In a perfect world this game would have 2000 players and capitals would be protected mainly by other captains of that nation. Also in that perfect world with 2000 players capitals would be far too busy to hunt and most ports on the map would be populated enough to be able to hunt them with frequency. But we're not in that 2000 player paradise and we're barely cracking 400-450 during a busy EU prime time and for some reason we still have 11 nations to dilute our base... anyway.. Introducing: The Pax Christendom Solution to all our Reinforcement Zone Issues Step 1 Introduce 2 zones around a nation's capital and it's protected ports. Note - obviously not to scale, just emphasized for this post. Rings would need to be smaller Red Zone - Capital Area. Zero PVP. Players cannot tag other players at all. Players can still tag AI and more importantly, lower level missions spawn in this zone. Let's say up until master & commander. Loot potential in this zone is greatly diminished. Similar to how crappy the loot is in hostility missions. Only the "basic" stuff drops for newer players. Blue Zone - Reinforcement Area. Players can tag and be tagged. Mid level missions spawn here. Something like Master & Commander - Captain. AI can also be tagged for a slightly higher increase in loot potential. Missions and AI battles close after a certain time period. Players that are tagged automatically call for PLAYER reinforcements. Player vs Player battles stay open for 30mins. If there is a way to increase the starting distance automatically I think that would also be a good idea. This way, despite a good tag there is still some hope for the player and give others an option to join. Another thought would be to immediately call for reinforcements, but delay the battle start 60 seconds. Step 2 Introduce a new feature called hot zones. When a player is tagged and hits the reinforcement button in the reinforcement zone (blue) a message from clerk goes out into nation chat "A Semaphore Tower has Signaled that a British Ship is in Distress and Needs Assistance". Then a red circle/zone/spot will appear on the map in the general location as to where it is. Something like this. Step 3 Protections against jumping missions. Let's be honest here, popping into missions and/or AI battles is highly weighted towards the attacker. It also ruins the gameplay for new players. While making battles inside the blue zone close after the standard amount of time will help, people will still get jumped. Any hostile players that join a mission or AI battle should automatically spawn AI reinforcements for the defender AND create a hot zone on the map. aka - preventing ganks and creating more "honest" pvp. People hate ganks, mission jumping is ganking. Most folks don't mind losing in honest fights. Step 4 Create 2 types of missions. Low risk - spawns in the blue zones. Decreased loot chances, mission XP and gold payout. Battles close after 3mins High Risk - spawns outside of any protection zones. Increased loot chances, mission XP and gold payout. Battles close after 30mins Players can pick their poison. Step 5 Getting players outside of the safe zones. - as above, increased payout and loot potential for missions and AI fleets - crafting inside player owned ports has an increased chance of creating gold/purple ships (safe zones/capitals should have a 0% chance) - increased PVP payout. Introduce a pvp mark "bonus" called "Open World PVP Bonus". Maybe an additional mark per person based on the ship class. ---- Thoughts and feedback would be appreciated. This actually took a little time to put together so @admin better read it or I'm gonna go weep in the shower and re-evaluate my life.
  4. 4 points
    "My weakness is fighting alone!"
  5. 4 points
    Ah my post got deleted i expected it would've happened.🙈 I'll assume it's due to the photo, if not feel free to remove this one also.
  6. 3 points
    Jubsies opinions on Patrol zones are as such. They suck. Suggestion: Same ROE as OW fights. Same close timer as OW fights. No circle. Basically exactly the same thing as a OW fight which you can escape. The only difference being that damage done in the fights within the zone accumulate towards mission reward. Hell why isn't there more PVP missions that are global without zones? The incentive to fight should be the reward and the reward alone.
  7. 3 points
    Using fleet escape command is not considered an exploit at this stage. But we aware of the feature consequences and are looking into it.
  8. 3 points
    Simplest fix would be if you lose your main ship in a battle your spawned in your fleet ship as if it had escaped the battle. Same speed boost and invisibility. Its a start.
  9. 2 points
    I love the word "meaningful". I bet meaningful for me can be the complete opposite for someone else.
  10. 2 points
    I had a patrol zone fight today (Antilles) where I joined a frigate against an indy. A bit later an endy joined the indy. That happened just because us two late joiners decided to help the low BR side instead of piling on the winning side. This is rather exceptional as the gankbox coerces most people to seek safety in numbers at the complete disregard of fun, anyone's fun, really. It was a fairly fun fight. If BR limits somehow forced that almost every patrol mission fight would be fairly fun instead of the insano lineship gank groups stomping the patrols. Now, I don't think this would suit Hachi (?) But it could be good for most of us. The gank groups have the entire caribbean to stomp, why not enable fair'ish fights in the patrol zones? As far as fun fights is concerned; Having sailed this shameless gankbox since it opened, my expectations for fun (=equal sides) is set rather low.
  11. 2 points
    При всем уважении, не все хотят играть в симулятор парусного спорта, иногда нужна игра а не реализм. Пишу уже который раз об этом, надеюсь еще не всем надоел
  12. 2 points
    I think you are still missing the point. Why make any effort now for conquering? Most ports of the server almost doesnt give you enough things to care about them.
  13. 2 points
    A simple fix - make player loose all fleet ships if he sank due to friendly fire. It will already greatly limit this issue. Another option which would solve all issues - if your fleet escapes but you're sunk, make player spawn in his next fleet ship on the OW after battle ends.
  14. 2 points
    Agreed, this would be the simplest solution with the fewest game-y side effects, assuming that you meant that you would spawn in the OW in any fleet ship that you had escaped. If your last fleet ship is still in battle, and tagged or you haven't ordered it to escape, then you just get to watch until it does escape or dies.
  15. 2 points
    Can't tell if gay joke or just incomprehensible analogy.
  16. 2 points
  17. 2 points
    Switching off friendly fire may solve that specific problem, but it would create too many follow up issues. Imagine if you could just shoot chain through your friendly's sails at an enemy. Correct positioning in battle would lose a lot of it's worth. The same would happen with using an enemies hull to block off at least half a broadside. Most people wouldn't shoot in such a situation. Take away friendly fire and it becomes a freebie. Really like the idea of a reputation system, though. (Edited for spelling)
  18. 2 points
  19. 2 points
    I would remove ALL speed upgrades from this game if i could.
  20. 2 points
    Only thing that will bring back players is new content. And yea cancelling only 3 missions a day was an absurdly stupid change. Still no idea why it was introduced.
  21. 2 points
    We lived fine for 2 years without knowing if you penetrated masts or not. When penetration was shown enemy was knowing more about the masts than you. And once we started to think about showing the mast HP to the player we decided that some blackboxes are better kept closed for the player. And state of the rig is one of them.
  22. 2 points
  23. 2 points
    This will be fixed next patch Reinforcement zones will only be open forever for the owner of the zone We will also allow attack of enemies by enemies in the capital waters (so enemy hunters cannot hide from other hunters behind the protection of capital)
  24. 2 points
    Im against any change that requires more hauling. I think the main reason people disliked regional bonuses wasnt their balance, but the time investment to bring crafted ships to the front line (hell, we had to sail our 1st rates from Orinoco to Port-au-Prince ffs!). If tow stays, regional bonuses might actually be good for the RvR game. I liked this idea when i saw it the first time. Its basically the solution to alt accounts buying your critical ressources. The problem i see is that you cant attack your own nations ports, without the implementation of civil wars this might lead to awkward situations where an alt clan controls a port and his own nation is not able to take it back.
  25. 2 points