Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Snoopy

Tester
  • Content Count

    1,013
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Snoopy

  1. As long as the unrealistic camera shake from KCD is out, i'm in
  2. Are there any plans to allow cross pollination between NA and SL? Like NA Loki-esque players can fight in SL duels and the other way around? Could the full blown ship command features in SL work as a DLC that slides on top of NA? The career stuff looks like a much more refined version of the NA PvE server. Finding a way to combine the two player bases would make a lot of sense imho, multiplier effect rather than fragmenting players pools.
  3. The war is over by christmas! Huzzah! Merry christmas (if applicable)
  4. Imagine San Juan's actual fortifications in the game.. ouch.
  5. I'll rephrase: Layers on top in terms of new mechanics = ok in my book, perhaps you can concoct something fun. But the overall grind needs to come down for old stuff to keep the time requirement stable.. otherwise you have a tiny minority of people on the server sailing Glatton/X.. which makes the time you have to invest to code a feature/ship model that only ever a handful of people will see less efficient. There is a danger you trap yourself in that power creep. The first hardcore crafting revamp (fine woods) did cost a lot of players, myself included. Hardcore MMO progress just isn't fun long term.. which is why it has gone out of fashion in games. I beg of you don't crank the grind up too much.
  6. Changes to the price/power curve I don't mind, I encourage you.. but I fear you are going to add layers on top rather than rebalance and escalate player time sinks to attain the top. This will not help solo players and only make the game more miserable for well organized crowds. The current level really is the max that is sustainable. (imho ofc). BTW, a brainwave for something that adds grind and money sink but will perhaps make the seasoned woods bearable: bring back the old ship crafting notes (i forgot the name). The ones that were crafted using gold trade goods and added ship quality level per note to crafting results. Invest Gold => less RNG.
  7. Please don't do a MMO like classic WoW. The grind to stay at the sharp end was unbearable.
  8. Elite Dangerous style insurance where you can get all mods, engineering rolls etc back would be very nice. Getting your ship back in some sort of broken state which needs a generous amount of cash to get the ship repaired would be nice. My guess is the devs are unlikely going to do this, however, because ship loss is one of the few money sinks in the game economy and there might be the perception that less grind = less players in the OW = less content.
  9. We kinda can only comment on the game in it's current state. I think rage about teleport prices was well justified.. as @Never has said there was no way of telling when or how the dub supply would be made easier. It was fixed and is not an issue now and (S) Woods might turn out the same. The scope of players and developers are different, the devs know what they are going to do next and players are limited to the problems 'in the now' and today witth that limited view on the (potentially) missing pieces the seasoned woods mechanics is bad. The stick is missing the carrot.
  10. I really do not understand the thinking behind the seasoned woods. For smaller groups/solo players you have another gate because its harder now to fit those buildings in, plus the blueprint grind requirements. Did we really need another layer separating have from have-nots and screw over solo players? Port bonuses and friends lists are bad enough in this respect. For big fleets no relative advantage will be gained since everybody will have them at some point. There is no gameplay or interesting decision making involved because the woods are straight up better - just grind the things. If removing money from the economy was the goal.. why not simply make the ships more expensive in LH and dubs.. they will be now anyway. The new buildings essentially remove slots from all players for no relative gain, even worse you have to have them if you want to just be on par with others and they are another brick in the wall, another building that needs regrinding if you contemplate nation switching. Moving the goalpost in crafting like this feels like a tax on my game time and assets. It's like saying "You will grind this, like it or not" Oh, and all the ships you already have? Yeah, they just gotten worse overnight.. and not having the old ships getting (S) versions of their woods grandfathered gets my ol' eye all twitchy The game was in a very good state and cutting down on the complexity of the old crafting system was the right thing to do but this decision is clearly a step back. I am insulated from all this ofcourse because I have an army of alts. I can overcome these issues.. and that is a problem.. I hate the P2W word but at some point you run out of arguments against that label.
  11. Yes this works for square riggers as well.. you can squeeze a bit more out of them if you fiddle with your yards but there is more leeway. It's useful for running away sometimes >)
  12. Can we just not have the seasoned woods mechanic please? All the other changes are going in the right direction (thanks for listening!) .. but that one is Fine Woods 3.0 ;(
  13. I complained from day 1 and when I played for a small nation, everyone will be affected at some point.
  14. That's the thing: if the three top dogs stop defending their ports after a couple of weeks because they are fed up with it and their lands return neutral, the npc armada will come for the smaller nations that are now top dogs. This downward spiral is damaging. The actual battle is fun and a good addition but the repetitiveness of it might just kill the game.
  15. The feature itself is great - for the PvE server. Just like the Loki Rune and it's nonconsensual PvP has no place on the PvE server, nonconsensual PvE to keep a port has no place on the PvP server.
  16. My intent was to provide an unconquerable base for a nation to fall back on, which is why I believe the need to have the full amount of bonuses is there (mind you the actual layout might still end up not being efficient or meta or FoM, you might for example end up with full bonuses for masts on sols). Even small things like missing out on 1 or 2 port upgrade unlocks that have practically no impact can weigh on morale. The nation needs to be able to stay in 'we can manage' mode rather than 'we need to rebuild from scratch' because that is when you lose players. Every time a nation has been 'destroyed' we have lost players. I would like to minimize the times this happens.
  17. A fee is fine with me, although this is perhaps a doublication of effort with the port tax mechanic, the clan still gets to collect this and could adjust it. The important bit to me would be that clans should not be able to prevent payment nor deny crafting as is the case with the friends list.
  18. Greetingses The introduction of Port Investments meant that one of the intended components and motivators of RvR is loss. We can see how this riles up the masses with the mini-EVE 'writes-itself' movie script playing out at San Juan at the moment, so in that sense it has worked - but should it? In my view, I feel that the negative impact of (potential) loss of access to crafting bonuses/assets outweighs the positives. It's great entertainment for the RvR crowd like myself but in essence there are too many people negatively affected by it who did not opt in. Even just threatening the French crafting base had a lasting impact on that nation's playerbase. Denmark has no crafting port now and even with new investments in another port will no longer be able to build ships of the same quality. This is allright for people like myself who have decided to be part of RvR and accept the risk, I/we can deal with this. But running roughshod over the game assets of other players and their time invested in the game is damaging, losing access to a level 3 shipyard incurs a pretty hefty regrind and I just don't see the upside of this. Imposing negative outcomes for players who had no part in what happened should simply not be in the hand of other players. I do not have a silver bullet here. Some changes to reduce drama could be: friends list mechanic no longer controls access to port features, all nationals have access allow investments to be made in all captured ports by everyone in the nation. only the conquering clan can 'open up' the investment slots with an initial deposit (and thus gets to decide how the port is to be developed, preventing troll investments) All conquerable ports are 55pt regardless of BR Unconquerable ports get no access to investments but will start with a fixed port bonus layout pattern Example: Fort Royal: 4/4/4/3/2 Saint-Pierre: 4/2/3/4/4 Marin: 2/3/4/4/4 etc At the moment some nations have fewer starting ports (including zero), perhaps justifying their difficulty rating. Under my proposals you still need to get out in the OW for wood types other than fir/oak but the loss of wood investments is far easier to stomach, and even fully developed crafting ports can now be replaced. Picking the right bonus for the job should be part of player skill not content gating like now where at least half of the server does not have direct access to full bonus ships. Ports are now interchangeable which means RvR can now switch to a higher gear without always having to tread carefully in order to avoid screwing other players over.
  19. I fully agree (see above) that Pavel needs help, my point is this: It can still be worse than the others in her class and not be useless: you can fit 5 Bucs into a fight vs 6 Pavels for the same BR. It is a bit moot because the leak thing is such a hard counter but suppose this was fixed - this kind of balancing would allow more variety. Bellona vs Pavel, well Pavel still carries 36/42s and they are a pretty big advantage and are paid for in BR. Of course Christian is the real outlier and in need of the nerf bat, it's straight up the best second rate without paying anything for it.
  20. This is actually good balancing: It's highly likely that Bucentaure was a much better ship than Pavel in RL With it's 570 BR Pavel is pretty efficient at combat capability per BR, its just not a great ship to sail.. the leak issue, the awkward gun deck layout, ..
  21. I agree about the first rate spam, BR cap on ports is too high. But it's wrong to say they only participated in 3-4 real battles. Ideally the fleet compositions we have should reflect RL fleets, two deckers mostly, with three decker SoL sprinkled in.
  22. On topic: The clone 74 is very uncompetitive at its price tag. I'd even try the experiment and make her free of CM cost. Pavel can be made interesting by giving her access to Edinorogs (as the only ship in the game). She'd still not be meta but at least she'd have teeth and she carried a handfull of them in RL.
  23. Time to bring out my favorite statistic about this: if you join the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic wars, you have a 2/3 chance to end up on a 1-3rate. Not rare. Frigates were the sought-after commands.
  24. lol not the capsized museum piece, our Wasa was seaworthy but would still heel a lot.
×
×
  • Create New...