Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

SS Minnow

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

143 Excellent


About SS Minnow

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

733 profile views
  1. Make it simple...take BR completely out of the equation. Just settle on the join timer limit. Don't make us do math and ask a dozen hypotheticals.
  2. The ROE are not clear. I have not seen anyone that can explain them perfectly. Players ask this every day and there is no link to refer them to. Perhaps they are too complicated ATM.
  3. The US can not defend its coast, no less the capital. A BR difference of 1.5 does not help us any when the guys attacking want us to 3 vs 1 them anyway. We aren't going to get 25 ships in the first 2 minutes either...its broke. Either try different formulas for the ROE or just scrap all ROE. We might be able to defend coast / capital with no timer or BR limit. BTW we don't like to do math either.
  4. Just checked, and this is true - 50k is the max price. We checked all ports the first day of the patch and it was either LO or WO used to be 75k...now its changed to 50k. Not sure that helps much with that price per log.
  5. @admin Could you please clarify if the intention is to have a maximum of 10 missions (battle missions + economy missions = 10 max). We are unsure if economy missions can be deleted and still get the reals and doubloons rewards upon delivery. Yesterday we tested deleted cargo missions and found doubloons not being paid, only reals paid. So it is strange. Should we test again today? Preliminary feedback: I believe the intention is to have doubloons worth approx. 100 reals. The doubloon rewards have gone down and the real rewards way up, so that seems like the correct method. Doubloon costs for buildings, ship crafting, clan econ missions, etc. did not seem to change at all. Maybe the doubloon costs should be lowered a bit. For example, I think it costs 75,000 doubloons for 5000 WO logs (or 15 doubloons per log). That would be 1500 reals per WO log. Does that seem too much? The delivery missions seem to pay a disproportionate reward compared to delivering trade goods. I would bump up the consumption prices and maybe lower the delivery rewards a bit.
  6. Second Update: Clanmate volunteered (thx to Evil) to test again. He deleted his delivery mission and then delivered the cargo to Marsh. Doubloons were not paid, reals were paid. @adminThis confirms the bug occurs when you delete your delivery mission beforehand I believe. We also tested doubloon missions from yesterday that were deleted. This bug does not affect eco missions that were deleted yesterday before the patch. Players that delete their delivery missions will be disappointed that no doubloons will be paid...so don't delete your missions until this is addressed.
  7. Ty for testing. I guess we still need to delete the mission before delivering the cargo to see for sure if that is the bug.
  8. Update....a clanmate just completed the mission and was paid both reals and doubloons. They went directly to his chest. As i said i only had 239 in my chest. The only difference is that I deleted my mission after taking it to make room for more. He did not delete his mission.
  9. no it disappears for the player that took it, but remains for someone else to try it
  10. No, only had 239 in the chest. We will retest the mission to get all screenshots.
  11. Just tried a delivery mission (clanmate screenshot the mission). Sailed from Truxillo to Turneffe. Reals were paid but NO DOUBLOONS. Others have tested and received both rewards but at a friendly port. Maybe the delivery to enemy closed ports is bugged.
  12. What are the problems we are trying to solve and what monsters have we created in the process? It seems like we are losing track of the problems and objectives. If we want to examine this issue, we need to step back and define the objectives of the ROE. Good objectives generally have simple and direct solutions that make sense logically, naturally and historically. Example: Cutter shouldn't be able to attack L'Ocean. --> minimum BR required to attack a larger ship. Griefing and ganking exploits solved in 1 simple ROE. Bad objectives create new complexities that require illogical or artificial mechanics. Bad objectives may even be impossible to achieve. Example: Make all battles as "fair" as possible ---> 1.5 BR reinforcement limit on weaker side if defender, use 20 min. and 2 min. join timers. This artificial ROE is difficult to even describe. Players must do math, keep track of timers and make sure the right ships join to reinforce the defender. Why should all battles have such a rule? Would a couple of ships sailing around an enemy capital or stronghold be entitled to a "fair" as possible battle. Shouldn't the nation with the larger presence in the battle vicinity be entitled to join the battle as well. Why would you sail into an enemy stronghold area if you didn't have backup? Why not let battles escalate to 25 ships for both sides during the first 20 minutes? Given our open world speed is accelerated, wouldn't a 20 minute join timer for all and no BR limits be "fair". Wouldn't this also eliminate the Reinforcement zone problem (not needed)? This objective stems from Lobby arranged battles and seems inappropriate for open world encounters.
  13. Why can't we see ALL SHIPS? Bad advertising I say. No wonder no one is buying my Bellona for 85k :-0
  14. Glad we are discussing this...it is really important to make make the aiming controls 'crystal clear' and less frustrating. Ultimately we have to simplify this. This aiming control is basically setting the focal distance to a fixed number (100m, 250m, Max. cannonball distance, infinity). How did we end up with these 4 choices (arbitrary)? Can we eliminate some confusion and just call it 'focal distance' ? Can we give more choices for 'focal distance' ? So we see what a struggle it is to define...lol. I don't think the focal distance changes when you aim high or low with convergence selected...it stays fixed. The focal distance as you describe here seems true: Perhaps the 'convergence' focal distance can be defined as the the maximum distance the selected cannon will fire. Each deck may have different cannons and therefore different maximum firing distances (perhaps this is happening now). So I still don't really know how to technically define the convergence selection. Would it be simpler to make the focal distance (convergence point) variable from the minimum (controlled by the maximum horizontal cannon angle) to the maximum of infinity. I would bind that control to my mouse wheel. Then I would be able to tighten my aim at any distance making aiming less frustrating. Anyone else like the idea of a 'more' variable focal distance?
  15. Here are the changes to ship data from Patch 30. I don't have the speed yet as I will have to figure out the new multiplyers by comparing to actual ships in game. Naval Action Patch 30 Changes.pdf
  • Create New...