Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

jodgi

Naval Action Tester
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,454

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    8

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jodgi

    Change the ROE please.

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    20 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

    I dont care what your data tells you because noone in there right mind will ever join a battle to balance it. They only join it with far superior ships to get an easy win.

    Data showed a spike in PvP activity when rats could attack rats, that spike was deemed unhealthy for the game, tho. I believe the 20min RoE spike in the data is bad for the game.

    • Like 2

    Paint bucket

    in Tavern

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Captain Reverse said:

     

    Thanks! I've seen that thread but completely forgotten about it.

    1 hour ago, HachiRoku said:

    You have trinco scared? Bastard!

    Shut up, kid! I may have her scarred but you keep sending perfectly fine ships to the bottom.

    • Like 3

    Paint bucket

    in Tavern

    Posted

    It would be cool to see the ships and paints in one place as it'll take me some time to click them all out. I'll start off:

    United States - Swiss guard

    5fda694f03c0d0f111285363bd3a2f41.jpg

    United States - Sicily

    099acbe6fda70455b553c49e1a98f17c.jpg

    Trincomalee - Scarred

    674dcac68d76859b91d4c5b82cbb327d.jpg

    • Like 2

    Patch 30: General feedback

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    14 minutes ago, Socialism said:

     We need some higher level cosmetic items in game that players can’t purchase and must obtain through effort.  

    ??!?!?

    AoSH,  Gunnery encyclopedia, Rings, Elite this and Elite that, 5/5 ships, sextant, clock and the list goes on and on. Why MUST there be "high level" cosmetic items?

    You guys are whining about being able to support the game by purchasing stuff that's nice but doesn't unbalance ANYTHING. 

    btw, my motivation to get "high level" cosmetic items through effort = 0

    Can I be persuaded to click a few buttons to buy paints?... Oh, it's already done.

    • Like 3

    PvE or PvP server

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

    I hope not because mostly it's PVPers who don't want this for PVE, I wonder why *thinking emoji*

    lol, no! We don't care what they do over there. That is... until they get something that might work for a precious few of us (duels). I even logged into PVE yesterday to redeem xp and stuff just in case.

    I believe admin is quite final in his decision to prevent the competitive strife to seep over into PVE. The combination of competition and loss simply has too much potential to cause grief.

    If you really want duels on PvE server you're asking for the wrong thing; You should be asking for a duel room without loss. I doubt you'll get even that, but such a lobby has the least potential for trouble and doesn't interfere with OW save for the odd idiot sperging on global chat about something that did or did not happen in the lobby.

    The ultimate way to make a PvP opportunity and NPC aggression viable on PvE peace server

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    24 minutes ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

    I understand you are no PvE Peace server player, so why bother about our affairs?

    You know what? I think I understand Peace players a lot better than most War players. You want to do eco, build stuff and grind bots without interference or losing stuff you don't intend to lose. It's very clear cut to me.

    War players are hard for me to understand. They want to do what you do with the added excitement of player interference. Most say they like the concept of loss but there are countless issues tied to people losing things. Ambivalent would be a euphemism, to me or looks more like a bipolar approach (the mind is made up but the emotions are opposed).

    I find it extremely interesting that you want voluntary PvP duels. You want PvP only when you decide to. I don't scoff at this, truly, most War guys are like this. I guess that with eco and loss you are denied PvP unless you subject yourself to risk (ganks, revenge ganks, griefing...)?

    I don't have a horse in this race as I'm not in the least interested in eco and loss. PvP is the only thing I want and I would opt out of eco, loss and the associated timidity at the drop of a hat.

    Battle Rating [BR] for doing battle

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Thonys said:

    well, first of all, i don't like restrictions or limitations. (hate them)

    Heh, I think that's why we're here discussing. We want OW but when we're faced with the concept of having to be there when shit happens or shit happens where we are we want to set aside OW and have a quasi arena fight. 

    16 hours ago, Thonys said:

    the BR is not permitting any help for the fleet captain, in this case, the BR is in favor of the Bellona who can slaughter the 4 ships easily

    It's only teleported help you can't get. Do you want teleported cavalry in this OW game?

    9 hours ago, Thonys said:

    second, mostly these kind of limitations are going to be big traps (what people don't see)

    If a lower BR warship attacks your traders and you are still able to call in more help from far, far away, couldn't that also be considered a trap? Anyone who's ok with 20 min timers is ok with traps.

    9 hours ago, Thonys said:

    third, the battle is open for 20 minutes soo ask yourself, why is that? ..to counter with a big ocean !..and that is the answer...

    It's because people say they want OW but then don't want OW when it's not working in their favour. Read your own sentence!  You wanted big ocean and now you want to counter that!? (There is the possibility I misunderstand your point)

    9 hours ago, Thonys said:

    [BR should in my eyes be calculated on mass /guns/crew/gun loadout power/hold / and upgrades]

    So, run around in gunless ships to cheat the tagging mechanics?

    9 hours ago, Thonys said:

    fifth . i see battles in OW as separate incidents on the ow were everybody in a certain time frame should have the chance to enter the battle. 

    Indeed. Should it be OW WYSIWYG timeframe or longer timers disregarding OW (or to "counter OW" as you put it).

     

    9 hours ago, Thonys said:

    (why should i even bother to sail to a fight not knowing what i can expect. )

    df4457c1a118c12e9a96e3d89cf6d15a.png

    In a true OW you should expect the fight to be over when you got there.

    9 hours ago, Thonys said:

    seven. all those restrictions and timers are based on tunnel vision to accomplish a conditioned  battlefield

    Agreed! Except 90 seconds to 2 min timers; That makes it OW and not a conditioned battlefield.

     

    9 hours ago, Thonys said:

    as i  can speak for my own nation we never had problems with the 3-minute timer   the people who got ganked had to play better that`s our standpoint 

    How do you "play better" to counter an unseen enemy that is around one minute outside viewrange?

     

     
     
     
    5 minutes ago, Thonys said:

    it's still clear many don't understand the fundamental issue of the BR

    " The freedom to attack."

    BR limits only apply to late joiners, anyone in almost anything can still attack pretty much anything. 

    • Like 2

    Battle Rating [BR] for doing battle

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    3 hours ago, van Veen said:

    The system was introduced to reduce ganking

    No, that was not the intention.

    The goal was to enable ganks but also keeping the door open to counter-ganks; To make more and bigger fights happen and to allow friends to help each other. People have disregarded the OW part of OW and have simply reacted emotionally negative to coming up on fights (closed swords) that happened hours and hours ago in the accelerated OW time/space. We've had 20 min timers before and back then it lead to extreme timidity as few people wanted to rush into a gank-trap.

    @Thonys, there's a lot of talk about the exciting concept of risk versus reward with hauling stuff in personal indiaman fleets, I don't know where you stand on that particular issue, but why should indiafleets receive arena matchmaking-like help when caught with their pants down? You want to bring all the guns of your fleet into the instance but be excused from the BR tab?

    I don't understand some of you sandbox guys... Do you want sandbox OW or ineffective matchmaking with OW as the lobby?

    • Like 1

    Music and sound

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    On 11/9/2018 at 10:25 PM, HachiRoku said:

    Maybe you could add conversations between sailors at sea. I bet they would have told themselves stories about the whores the banged in saint nic

    See!? This is what happens when hachi gets bored!

    We had easter egg monsters, I wonder if they can still be found under the surface?...

    Patch 30: Combat and boarding feedback

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    21 hours ago, Wyy said:

    only idiots and douchebags would use this method but i see your point

    Your heart is too pure, Wyy. ;)

    Saw a Russian cerb hanging around the Mona PZ the other day. There was a Russian Bellona popping in and out of port. I'm sure you can connect the dots...

    It's a prime example of how kills and assists are supposed to help with player retention. It's all working as intended for now, but we'll experience the fallout of this old and rejected mechanic... again.

    Endurance and Final exams - How to pass them (in new damage model)

    in Guides - development forum

    Posted

    1 hour ago, z4ys said:

    because NA player Grp that like this slow paced moba is to small.

    Agreed, we wouldn't even want to steal OW guys from OW. My eyes are on those that tried OW out after EA but quickly left. Then there's those that would trickle in when the paywall is taken down. I alone will finance a ton of freeloaders.

    I don't mind the resistance, I understand why people are afraid of Legends.

    Heh, I would finance a bunch of cheap-ass OW guys too, but they don't want me to buy premium ships. 

    Endurance and Final exams - How to pass them (in new damage model)

    in Guides - development forum

    Posted

    6 hours ago, admin said:

    Open world has the keeping power. Legends and moba does not. We tried twice

    I'm inclined to believe that Open World has keeping power over certain players. I've never gone near OW games so I can't bring a bunch of examples and numbers to the table but everyone and their granny knows how long EVE has been running.

    You know intimately well what the keeping power of WoT has been since 2011. I assume you know how much income WoT has managed to extract from whales like myself. We only make up a guesstimated 2% of the pop but we're very much a factor in paying the bills.

    I often bring up Aces High as an example not only because I know it very well, but also because I find it a lot like NA in soul.

    1977186ab7e6b36ef9e1ce3cc20da104.png

    They've done OW without eco and crafting all those years as a subscription service. They were doing supremely well up until, yes, F2P MOBAS stole a large part of their subscribers. They still get by, but that is on American subscribers only and it's nowhere near what it was. Fun fact: They're trying to get a F2P pure MOBA on it's feet.

    You risk jumping to the wrong conclusion when you say NA MOBA does not have keeping power. 

    The Legends keeping power test was done off the then remaining OW fans (plus supporters like me, Doran, MG, balticsailor and the list goes on). You risk concluding on the basis of poisoned data.

    I want to make a bet.

    I bet 100€ that a proper F2P release of Legends would do better in terms of net income and player numbers (retention) than OW. I want to do this publicly with receipts for all to see. My terms are simple: If OW ends up with more net income and more players than Legends after two years of F2P Legends, you keep the money. If Legends end up with better net income and more players than OW I get the game I actually wanted and you get to keep the money. On top of that I would buy premium ships that aren't better than what we can grind at the same rate you would be able to release them, so the bet isn't even the biggest bet, so to speak. Look at me! I'm dead serious.

    I have plenty of time, go ahead and finish OW, take a vacation, read a book and let motivation grow. I'll still be here.

    Endurance and Final exams - How to pass them (in new damage model)

    in Guides - development forum

    Posted

    2 hours ago, HachiRoku said:

    Ganking is not a reason players quit.

    Maybe not? Maybe not because of ganking itself but because of the way it happens?

    I've been in a large map and persistent world flightsim MMO where there are no instances and 750 players sharing the same time and space, so to speak. There was tons of ganking there in the form of base capture raids and any size of player groups flying together. Because of the shared time and space anyone would almost always be able to choose if they want to engage or disengage based on what they see around them. You certainly could find yourself in a gank but then you have made a conscious decision not to avoid it, again based on what your can see around you.

    We can't share time and space in NA. One thing is the potential million billion cannonballs the server has to be able to crunch, another thing is the distances of our map combined with the speed of our ships. Technology may allow us to deal with everyone with their cannonballs sharing the same "room" eventually but then there's the time factor. Even if we shrunk our world dramatically the map would be enormous if we shared one instance.

    df4457c1a118c12e9a96e3d89cf6d15a.png

    It would take some time to plan and execute port captures if this was our shared time and space world, eh? How would we deal with production, hauling and crafting in a 1:1 world with possibly only character teleports?

    So we have the tactically and strategically ideal 1:1 world that would make all unfair war tactics make sense.

    Then we have our current situation with OW vs. instance that is absolutely necessary to make a big map work. Many of us accept ganks as natural in a wargame, but very few enjoy being tagged by a small and fast craft which can have friends hours, if not days, away but they're still able to teleport on top of us due to lenient RoE. Nevermind playing it smart or roleplaying, you may be tackled by a ship that was there and minutes later killed by a big ship that was just outside visual range and thus 4 hours away. That is purely frustrating and I'd bet substantial money we've lost players to such frustration.

    Almost nobody wants to eliminate ganking, it's not about that. Please don't strawman us.

    It's about an OW that still tries to find the optimal and most sensible wargame and asymmetric warfare concessions to the OW vs instance conflict. We did it in 2016 and now we have to do it again. It's weird for me, an outspoken arena/Legends fan, to fight for true OW when OW fans want to make OW into a shitty lobby all the while touting that they wouldn't want to play a sucky arena game. I'm quite sure the contradiction in terms is lost on many posters.

    Oh, dear! All of this clearly wasn't directed at you, Hachi. @rediii , you're no fool, maybe we can move on forward from "ganks are part of a wargame, jodgi, git gud!"? Pretty , please!

    • Like 3

    Endurance and Final exams - How to pass them (in new damage model)

    in Guides - development forum

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, rediii said:

    uneven battles are a feature in NA. I still stand with that

    It's fine. I've actually never campaigned for equalized battles in OW. I have campaigned for fair battles outside OW; rooms, circles, Legends or wherever, but NOT in OW.

    My comment is about speed modding.

    In my dream OW there would be no speed modding at all. Then only smaller ships would work as tacklers and they would thus be easier to deal with. We, however, have to deal with fail-fit endys or what have you, and that isn't as easy as dealing with renoms, hercs or rattles.

    Imagine if we had a timer from instance start that kept track of how long it took for each ship to join and then placed each ship at a distance from the tagged factoring in the OW/instance time break... Then small ships and fail fits wouldn't have been a problem to deal with as the tanky cavalry would be far off instead of being dropped on your head.

    We'll prolly never get something like this and I'm not even pretending to be asking for the impossible (that groups should have to sail together in order to fight together).

    I'm just saying that speed modding aggravates and compounds the problems we have to accept due to OW ≠ instance.

    Yay! unfair fights are cool and part of war and all that jazz... But how can it be beneficial to recruitment and retention that vets can make fail fit bellonas that can chase down a casual player's trinco? ... Because that never happens, right? And the forum is full of praise and appreciation of ganking, right?

    I'm thinking damage control and minimizing frustration.

     

    • Like 1

    Patch 30: General feedback

    in Patch Feedback and General discussions

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, admin said:

    abuse was this: people said to solo patrol area and just damaged each other and repaired. Because they were in solo zone battles were 1v1 and others cannot enter so they were safe.

    Aw, crap! I get it. :(

    I would prefer other fixes like:

    Damage cap set to 5k in solo zone (You can safety-farm eachother but not above 5k each match or each day)

    We had "recently killed" flag and we could have "recently duelled" flag to cap farming. This could be used in addition to the above to avoid back to back 5k farming.

    No damage payout to anyone if players disengage and noone sinks. (is it so bad with damage CM farming if they keep sinking their ships?)

    Like I said; I'm not good at scumbag line-of-thought so there might be issues still. Please let me know if I need to think deeper because the current situation is "throwing the baby out with the washwater".

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...