Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/04/2019 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    the original idea was to promote aggressive close range combat (if you remember many battles were just long range mast shootings) and give the chance to recover from damage evening out your experience over the course of the battle (if the enemy does not pursuit you aggressively) the 3 repairs system was ok and we just wanted to try to make it better - settling on the ability to take repairs with you (limited by your hold space)
  2. 5 points
    Whenever I play NA i drink my rum out of this mug
  3. 4 points
    @admin I don't think we need drastic changes atm for combat, but bow rakes are very weak. That's my biggest combat concerns. Bow-tanking meta is back. Other than that, new boarding system with a crew and real visual boarding mechanics, not 2D UI screen. As we saw plans sometime in past...
  4. 4 points
    on the other hand when outnumbered time is your enemy. I like to look at HP pools of fleets instead of single ships 10 ships 100.000 HP after 3 reps = 175.000 HP after 6 reps = 250.000 HP 15 ships 150.000 HP after 3 reps = 262.500 HP after 6 reps = 375.000 HP The difference of HP went from 50k HP to almost 90k HP. After 6 repairs difference is 125k HP The longer you dont sink someone if outnumbered the bigger your problem can be
  5. 4 points
    yes. we are working on the patch that will include updated battle UI, first versions of official localizations, new trading, postal missions (passengers and letters) and 1v1 patrol. If this patch will get longer than expected we will hot fix the muskets before it.
  6. 3 points
    Per informazione, specie per eventuali nuovi giocatori italiani (benvenuti!), una parte rilevante (e parlando di attivi, probabilmente maggioritaria) della popolazione italiana in questo gioco è nel clan FENIX che ora combatte sotto i colori dell'Impero Britannico. Grazie e buon vento.
  7. 3 points
    Having “tested” the mechanic several times, players can join and leave the battle for the first 10mins of the fight and the BR can be replaced. All joiners in the fight, even if they leave, will get lord protector status. This has been in effect for the better part of a year and reported many times. Just goes to show how absurdly sad the current PB/RVR system is. On the bright side, It’s good to see Graf back on the forums defending Russia again. Sup buddy!
  8. 3 points
    Since we have a thread on this already. I also smell a possible exploit at a later stage. The lord protector status is given out to everyone who was in the portbattle. Actually this takes also the escaped guys into consideration. (I already tried it by escaping before battle ended and I got the message that im lord protector now) What is the exploit then? If victorymarks are important you can take a neutral port, meet up with 100 people and join/leave instantly after joining so the next guy can join. By theory that is possible up to 25 players but since BR is freed up I would expect it to be possible to gain 100 lord protectors on a port.
  9. 2 points
    Anyone who has 68pd carros on stern shoots for masts just like you did yesterday, thanks to sniper accuracy of stern guns. By bow raking I mean shooting broadsides into a bow, stern to bow hits are a side topic really and specific case... Shooting broadsides into bow is almost never worth it. Pretty much it's always better to shoot side, even at bad angle. Getting shots on stern? Much better and more frequently chosen option. Bow tanking is the meta and you can't deny that. It's been meta for many years.
  10. 2 points
    will 3rd rates be able to fight 1st rates too though or will they just get shot to pieces? This would create a 1st rate meta again I fear
  11. 2 points
    do it! on step closer to realism
  12. 2 points
    After your question some weeks ago about your first hostility mission ingame I can't take stuff serious from you anymore, sorry. And the fact that you hold on old mechanics still and want the gamedevs to go back going in circles in development doesnt make it better. What the game doesn't need atm is changes to the actualy mechanics in battles. What the game lacks is love of other stuff
  13. 2 points
    We have this unavoidable break between OW and instance so it's all but impossible to make it "perfect". It's just my guilty pleasure to pretend shaming gankers will do any good at all. I don't disagree with you, I simply wanted Legends. Thanks! Will fix. Didn't know as I've never tagged a bot inside R zone close to the forts and then been jumped. Dude, you know I'm the greatest PvE player on the War server! @Havelock, Stahp! You're making me blush. @z4ys Don't pressure me!
  14. 2 points
    This is so true! I had a 2. rate kill order where I could bring one 2. rate to kill 3x 2. rates, and I would get a mission chest and a silver chest for it. Now if I bring one more player along on this mission, when we join it will adapt to a 6x AI 2. rates vs 2x player 2. rates. The fact that it does this is awesome, but totally let down by the fact that only the player with the kill mission gets the chest rewards for completing the kill mission. Fighting 6 AI vs 2 players is imo a lot more difficult than just doing it solo 1 vs 3 AI. Challenge is fun, but it needs to be rewarding. So both players should get the reward for completion. No point increasing the risk if the reward is not increased as well. So kill missions has the potential to be awesome. And these kill missions with silver/gold chest rewards I have only gotten around free ports, or on rare occasion distant nation ports. So it is not like we will be back to farming huge AI fleets in front of our capital and getting all the best loot possible again. This is still missions, the loot in the ships are shit 9 out of 10 times and the reward for completion is as far as I know only desirable when the kill mission is far outside the reinforcement zones/near free towns.
  15. 2 points
    It's not uncommon when patrolling an area that you come across open battles that you can jump in - I reckon your friend just got unlucky and the hunters got lucky. If you want to be as safe as possible from PvP the best thing you can do is to get a tag at the edge of the circle that allows you to escape at your best angle and then start running immediately until the battle timer reaches 1:28:45. Only after the battle has closed in OW should you turn around and fight the AI. If you're unwilling to do this, you have to live with the fact that there's a 1/50 chance of other players joining your battle. Most importantly: The best way to avoid PvP is to do your PvE far away from the populated areas - areas with players will ALWAYS attract PvP'ers.
  16. 2 points
    in "Wargame Experimentation and Analysis: Re-Examining Executed Computer Assisted Wargames" we read... Game theory suffices if all the possible results of an engagement are known, and payoff values can be calculated for each one. However, this is highly unlikely in combat operations. In short, it is often impossible or impractical to attempt to solve many large-scale, real-world game situations, as the potential number of outcomes quickly overwhelms the participants. And this is the simple truth that we, as players, in a large majority wish to know and control all possible venues of approach, resolution and outcome. Be it at logistics, defining engagement or combat itself. We risk less when we deal with unknown quantities, no matter how much info we get - and the great unknown quantity is the battle itself as it is the major uncontrollable beast. For NA this means - having resources and consumables always available at all times, even if Conquest would deny it, rules of engagement to deny opponents opportunities to score on our mistakes, and finally the combat meta. At the level of logistics and Conquest "end game" ( let's not fool ourselves, game design is based around combat and everything leading to combat, being the end combat mode the major battles for a port ) any multiplayer group can more or less control what to do and what to achieve. Once combat is joined, no matter the quality of ships - blue standard or exceptional gold - the incentive to take the risks is exponentially worsened in the mind of the wargame players. As stated, multiplayer NA should not try to assess all details as the best laid out ships and laid out conquest operations - or patrol zone operations - will collapse when in contact with the enemy. My own personal quirk with the "road to combat" is exactly this. Too many information makes "combatants" less willing to risk, as they "compute" too much of it and, in the majority of engagements will determine - without any certainty - that they will lose and therefore wish to deny or simply evade the combat resolution. RNG in crafting ships is simply one abstract mechanic to simulate disparities - many for unknown reasons - between sister ships in the age of sail. It wasn't the wind, the captain or the trimming. Fact is, some ships built in the same yards, by the same architects and teams did behave different. Alas, in the real world they had to work with it. Here in game we have the option to simply destroy the ship and try again. In a RL that was no option. The ship would be given command and would sail to fight enemies. And in this last bit a Blue standard quality ship can perform admirably, as Gold exceptional ship is no guarantee of success.
  17. 2 points
    Look at this topic https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/27849-grafic-problems/
  18. 2 points
    Though outnumbered our battle vs the Polish screeners isn't quite worthy of immortalization in this topic. We were hoping the Swedish screeners would join them for support. I do however have a video of Reverse leading the celebrations in Bermuda afterwards:
  19. 1 point
    Переведено почти всё, за исключением некоторых моментов по тех. причинам. Неудобный (мелкий в некоторых моментах) шрифт будет изменён КТТС Если вы нашли ошибки, прошу написать мне и приложить скриншот в дискорд Yachu#9917 или здесь на форуме Community_Russian.csv
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
  25. 1 point
    Buona fortuna con i rosbeef
  26. 1 point
    It's not the turn rate but how much mast HP/thickness has Herc, speed and hull HP compared to its dimensions. Huge density of HP compared to other same size or bigger ships. Numbers do not add up.
  27. 1 point
    Personally i really loved the structural damage we had "long ago" in the test server with crippling damage to the ship systems including rigging - if you remember testbed when wasa was introduced - BUT - Ships move too fast and manoeuvre too fast for rake crippling damage to be increased. Everything, all ship evolutions with or against the wind feel too fast. That's my 2 cents.
  28. 1 point
    Ah, wrong. Your poor reasoning is a fake straw man. The sizes of their stacks of everything is irrelevant because once a builder has enough resources to build a ship then that alone is sufficient. Any extra resources beyond that are irrelevant to building the next ship that has not yet been built. The claim that RNG is the only "fair solution" is a lame false dilemma. The primary reason some players have huge stacks of everything is because they are investing in the CHANCE to get that winning lottery ticket. They are investing in the CHANCE to get accidentally get a 5/5 gold ship by building 20 or 50 or 100 or 1,000 of the same ship UNTIL they win RNG roll of the dice. But eventually they WILL win that lottery as long as they keep trying. Making the certainty of getting that same 5/5 gold ship a function of the direct cost of the ship instead random chance gives EVERYONE exactly the same chance to get that ship as long as they can survive long enough to earn what it costs to build that ship. It is impossible to have a fair solution that is more fair than everyone having exactly the same chance and knowing exactly what that chance is up front. If RNG says my chances are getting that 5/5 gold ship are 1:500, as in 1 in 500 ship building attempts, then the totally fair and equally fair solution is to set the floor for the cost of a 5/5 gold ship of that class at a minimum of 500 times the cost to build 1. That gives EVERYONE exactly the same 1:1 chance of getting that ship IF they can afford it. HOW is it fair for some lucky builder to get that 5/5 gold ship with the very first attempt with a 1:500 chance of winning the lottery, but another builder is building ship number 1,000 because the first 999 attempts didn't win the lottery? HOW is it fair for a lucky ship builder to get a 5/5 gold ship for the cost of building one ship, but that unlucky slob has to spend for resources the cost of 1,000 ships to finally win the lottery when building that 1,000th ship? Such a situation is exactly the opposite of fair. But when EVERYONE had to put in the same cost of a minimum of 500X the cost of building one ship to get that 5/5 gold ship then it is impossible to get more fair for that. Functionally there is no meaningful difference between measuring the cost of building a ship by the cost of the resources for 500 attempt at building, or measuring that cost directly in Reals, or Reals + Daubloons. In other words, if: - Player A grinds through the process of earning what it costs in resources to get all of the resources necessary to build 500 ships to win that 1:500 shot at a 5/5 gold ship on attempt #500. - Player B grinds through the process of earning what it costs in resources plus Reals (or Reals + Daubloons) to purchase the right to build a 5/5 gold ship. Then that NECESSARILY means BOTH players functionally paid exactly the same price for their ship. BOTH players went through exactly the process to get what was necessary to get the same quality ship. And, more importantly both players HAD to pay the same for their ship. It is impossible to get a more fair solution than that.
  29. 1 point
  30. 1 point
    you are right when all 3 ships engage you at the same time. But in that case no repair system can do anything for you. What does it change tho is 1on1 situations that can appear in well played 1on3. With unlimted repairs its possible for the single one to outplay less skilled enemies that just have the advantage of numbers. Limited repairs would in this case make it easier for lessskilled players because now all they need is time. Currently they have to be aggressive expose themselves resulting in screenshots were 5 guys sink 25 other players.
  31. 1 point
    After quoting Sun Tzu, I would expect a mic drop...
  32. 1 point
    whats currently positive about the repair system is that. ganking a la 1 goes in 2 stay back and and switch role while the lone one cant repair anymore (wasted all his 3 repairs one 1 guy) is gone. Sure numbers are still a thing but it still leads to 1on1 situations during the gank one can counter ganked when skilled. See Ram see Reverse.
  33. 1 point
    you also did less chaindamage though
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    Kill a guy quick enough and you take all his repairs. Fight for 90 minutes and there's none left. I've often pulled into a port and sold off the excess to keep my speed. I really do agree with Slim's point on this, however. Repair all you want in OW but severely limited in battle. Edging the talk back to Patrol zone, I generally carry very few repairs in there as I am guaranteed to get ganked and lose my ship. Why deliver them to the big groups who jump into battles after they are started. I would definitely carry more reps if I thought I could tag a player, fight him, and if I win....fight another battle.
  36. 1 point
    I respect your opinion and appreciate the level response. Here's the fact of the matter. The game was fine when there was 3 repairs, no one complained, there was never any reason to change it yet the devs did and they don't even remember why. I find that very odd and I suspect whatever the devs made that decision irrationally without considering the wave of effects it has on combat and OW. Serious question. Do you think you should ever enter battles without repairs? So why is it a choice when one option is clearly not viable for play? I'll keep going. What entitles you to using your whole hold of repairs in one battle? It's certainly not realistic like most other aspects of combat that can be controlled. So why should you be able to repair dump for massive percentages? Do you think the outcome of battles should be determined by the number of healing points one side has? If so, why repairs and why not perfomance of captains? Are you able to fight more than one battle? Most often no, that's the problem with economic repair system. It limits range and your play session. Some people think the solution to repairs is make them heavier, make them heavier and further limit people's pvp time? How about a repair kit, you keep in hold and you get all the repairs you need in battle, as well as OW and all you have to do it refill it every now and then when at port? You should always count how many repairs your enemy pops, because that's how you track progress in the battle. If your enemy pops 3 repairs that's his last repair. You know the battle is pretty much concluded at that point unless he still has emergency repairs to run. So why the obscurity in numbers of repairs? Why not just go back to everyone being on even footing? Are repairs skill? Do you enjoy battles being dragged on past the point of fun and into monotonous chasing/kiting? All I see is a boat load of problems there, all which didn't exist with 3 repair system. So why not weigh the pros and cons out and decide objectively which system is better? Lets start with this, what was the reason was the system changed in the first place if it had no existing problems? Why did we get rid of a good, balanced easy to use and out of the way system for a cumbersome, overly complex system that not only takes a huge bite out of balance, but keeps people form pvping like normal and limits them by how many repairs they can carry and for how long?
  37. 1 point
    US players all the time claim that what PvP'rs do (not just pirates) is gank 1-day newbies (Rear Admirals) at Charleston and "run away like cowards" from revenge fleets. Later they tell you to man up and go gank some noobs at Gustavia 🤣
  38. 1 point
    I suggested he should make a movie of this guide^^
  39. 1 point
    🙄🤐 Just did a tiny correction 😏
  40. 1 point
    Banished is united with you for some time now, his lips on your behind. I wish I had fans like you have. Congrats for the port battle 😄
  41. 1 point
    Hello and Happy Holidays Jodgi, Captains and Devs, I love the free cam and don't want it taken away like it was before. I use it a lot when I sail around just looking at stuff. My suggestion to make it fun and safe (Not a cheat) is.....No com or attack allowed for 15 minutes while and after using the free cam. Anyone getting on a third party app to get around this is a CHEAT, pure, plain and simple!!!! Ban him/her from the game 'cause we don't need people like that making it miserable for all the good, fun loving players. I was just now going to say "Don't let cheaters steal our free cam." But I changed my mind. We should use it before leaving port. Like sending up a balloon to scan around. If we see the scallywags, call in the Navy after them. Then there's righteous PVP and fun for all. Fair sailing all and the BEST OF ALL NEW YEARS TO ALL. From Captain Ed and Seadog 3rd class Wade.
  42. 1 point
    Thank you that worked! Back in the game...
  43. 1 point
    I'm doing it. Problem is; The majority of those who would benefit from reading it won't because they're not here on the forum, or they're guarding arty in their E100, or they're doing whatever these play-for-fun people do when left to their own devices...
  44. 1 point
    It is important and it is working atm. No need to annoy people with this in threads that have nothing to do with repairs. Its the same with the skill/gear thing. Everybody has the right to express his opinion within the rules of this forum but dont you think it is a lack of respect to bring this every time everywhere?
  45. 1 point
    Or maybe you just have your own reality? You should really stop bullshitting, mate. Because that's all that it is, really. Where exactly is your "rational / logical evaluation of relevant facts"? Is is somewhere in between this "Hurr Durr RNG is stupid, remove please!" nonsense with your only suggestion being to replace it with resource cost increase? I'll tell you again, since you seem to be trying so hard to understand. There is an limited amount of the best crafting woods ( mainly teak and white oak ) available. Fact. There is an unlimited amount of basic resources, doubloons and labour hours available. There is no limit to them, you just have to keep playing and have more accounts to get more. Fact. Now a hardcore player has this finite amount of crafting wood and this infinite amount of everything else. With RNG he will never get 100% high quality ships from this limited wood amount, because he "wastes" most of it for standard ships that he will most likely throw cheap on the market or give away to poor players. With your system he gets 100% high quality ships from this wood, since he has theoretically unlimited supply of the other items ( doubloons, LH, basic resources ). He also has no "dud" standard ships to sell cheap or give away. Everyone who has the rare woods will go for maximum quality, no matter the system. People always seek the advantage over others, it is human nature. Thus with your system there are a lot more high quality ships and a lot less standard "throwaway" ships available. How can you not understand that? What is so complicated? As I already explained, it does not matter how much the increased cost will be, since there won't be anything to lose if you commit. Pay maximum price for maximum quality. Currently the RNG crafting is high risk versus high reward. You can put as many resources in as you want, you are not guaranteed a high quality gold ship in return. RNG is the very reason why the system works, sadly. Also about your "facts/truths/realities of economics" talk... you do understand, that this is a video game, yeah? You have to balance the players who have very limited time to put into they game versus those who play multiple hours every day somehow. Why do you think they went with the RNG system in the first place? They could simply have made gold ships cost 100.000 doubloons and 50.000 LH for example. So why do you think they didn't? You don't have to explain to any player why you dislike RNG, everyone does and that is the whole point of it. People not being able to get anything they want on demand is a really triggering experience for many in this modern society. You trying to prove a system based entirely on maths being "stupid" via your lovely facts/truths/realities fetish, is somewhat amusing still. Don't blame me, please. Wait, are you referring to my comment here or yours? It doesn't seem to extend to applicability for MMO game design... Every opinion that is not yours is "empty", isn't it? Also if you see a "childish ad hominem attack" in me stating how I prefer another posters idea over yours, then you probably have some serious inferiority complex going on and you might want to talk to someone about that. Anyways, the only thing we can agree on is that there could be a better system than RNG for crafting and only the future will tell what the devs have in mind, if anything at all. As far as I am concerned I wasted enough time on this topic, when the current RNG system might be final and not even up for debate with the release coming up. Thanks for the chat and good luck with your suggestion.
  46. 1 point
    Allow us to salvage cannons from the captured ships, so we can sink them later. Often cannons are of big value, but we don't really want to keep the ship.
  47. 1 point
    +1 I first saw the idea here, hopefully it gets implemented.
  48. 1 point
    It would be helpful to distinguish my ships based on a name. Clientside only is okay. I'd pay extra money for a name on each ship
  49. 1 point
    Captain, please try this workaround to reset settings:
  50. 1 point
    Il y a un timer de 24 heures qui se déclenche au redeem. Si tu réclames un Requin ou un Hercules aujourd'hui à 15h33 et que tu le perds, un autre sera disponible demain à 15h33.
×
×
  • Create New...