Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Snoopy

  1. What was wrong with having farms for all wood types, free for all?
  2. Less RNG would be better for crafters if they feel threatened by the DLC ships. If you could control (at least to some degree) which special attribute 'procs' and how many slots you will get you can create quite a bit of demand me thinks.
  3. This a million times. NA-L should be part of NA-OW, not a separate thing.
  4. We are almost at the level where crafting of the actual ship makes very little difference. Time consuming is the kit on it, not hull. Whether that is right or not is another flavor decision for the game but my entire point is that you can keep up with building Agas vs Rats (provided the teak/wo supply is addressed) hulls. Hulls is all you get from the DLC. For all I care, regular ships could be redeemables too but a little bit of crafting and hauling is ok, perhaps even more than now, as long as the crazy times we had don't come back. Keeping up under the old system would be tiring, I agree completely (in fact, I stopped playing because there was no fix in sight for it). I don't understand how you can say you are getting worn down now (by the current crafting system) when you have survived the old full blown carriages and fittings frenzy? Yes you don't have to haul at all for DLC ships but convenience is the idea behind premium ships, in other games anyway. I don't think it really makes a difference in here if you craft or pay cash, the DLC ships either stand on their own merit on combat or they don't. At least in case of the Rat you can pretty much say it is a reskin of the Aga, and if you like that you'll sail her. Getting stats wrong is bad for any ship, silver or $$.
  5. One real problem, along with many framed and imagined ones with DLC ships isn't actually their fault, it's the remaining flaws of the crafting system they lay bare: Permits (way too many of them, gating content should be a thing only for the real high end stuff if it must be done at all.. why a permit for 5th rates. Even if the required things are not hard to come by, the impression of being constricted in choice is as bad as reality and this will drive anger at $$$ ships); but more importantly: Access to rare woods like teak/lo/etc needs to be easier. I think it would be better to focus on that part rather than shoot the messenger, i.e. the irrational hate on DLC ships. The current crafting system allows me to click out an Agamemnon the closest equivalent to the Rat for my sinking needs every single day with very little haulage required, if any. So it comes down to cost. It's roughly the same. Ship ensurance helps a lot with crafted boats and the bigger part of the bill (loss of cannons, modules and repair stock) is identical for both. There might be many downsides to the new crafting but the grind requirement has come right down, I for one appreciate this. Comparing costs also means comparing the cost of the DLC Rat vs a new copy of NA for crafting alt(s) if you feel a single toon can't keep up crafting with the "p2w menace". They come out roughly on even keel in my view. The wood type restriction on silver ships is the only thing that makes the DLC ships stand out, alleviate this and there is no more p2w. That, and remove crafting rng (also: Carthage needs to go)
  6. Victory didn't, later first rates did (later Caledonia class ships) have all-32pd layout, but these were custom made lighter guns on the higher gun decks, including carronades on top. On topic: +1 for Edinorogs on Pavel, this could be the thing that makes her viable -1 to giving her 18s. Yes she carried them, but they removed them again straight away, by comparison Victory carried 42pds for more than 10 years in service before they were taken off and it had nothing to do with them not being viable, like ships of her age she was designed for that weapon. Note: French/Spanish 36pd = 39pd British so these things are almost on the 42pd level.
  7. This is a very good point. The problem is that Steam doesn't really make it clear enough that you are a tester and everything in the game can change in EA titles. You have paid like a regular finished product (there are even DLCs available) and there is the lunacy of the review button during EA which the devs can be held hostage with. I think the contract between GL and their customers ("there will be rough edges" both in the game and in communications) was somewhat better understood during the pre-Steam sales because in order to take part in the development of you had to go through a few hoops.. in other words you really really wanted to be here. Having said that, mistakes were made on both sides. Example: going back on the stated goal of "xp = safe", even if that is the right thing to do (imho), will cause ruffled feathers and it was made worse by wielding the ban hammer so indiscriminately. In the same vein, the video trying to list all the things GL has done to "wrong their customers" was over the line as well, the guy didn't even know which end on the rating system was up for crying out loud. If you go on a public crusade and use youtubers to broadcast your grievances you have broken anyone's trust. "Even" game developers need to be able to protect themselves.
  8. It should be a full wipe. The time spent in the game is headstart enough, your own XP bar is plenty of advantage over newcomers.
  9. Assuming the delivery missions are going to get nerfed; For new players as the target audience, I think it's much better to have payouts linked to the tutorial missions. Just have each mission pay 10k (or so), this will set you up nicely. Two birds, one stone. A lot less prone to abuse by Altaholics unless they enjoy doing the tutorials over and over.
  10. Careful, people might take this poll seriously and you get another Brexit thing.
  11. Sealclubbing hapless captains inside of capitals isn't PvP. There are no risks. You might as well cap an AI ship. A duellist wants risks in the fight, slaughtering noobs has none of that. Worse still, it will make a terrible impression on new players and the last thing we need is fewer of those. Capital protections were introduced for a reason, and it seems those reasons are still valid.
  12. The counting of decks is another bottomless pit I used this way to count (and I believe it's the one usually given): HMS Trincomalee (1817) = single gun deck, two rows of guns from the waterline HMS Agamemnon (1781) = two gun decks, three rows of guns from the waterline Océan (1790) = three gun decks, four rows of guns
  13. You guys are getting too hung up on this, especially folks in the DLC thread. The game has a reasonably sane and internally consistent system where its rating gives an indication of broad combat capability, but one shouldn't conflate this with RL ratings (of which there are many) and especially not the Royal Navy system with it's way too broad categories and complete shambles when rating what it called Sloops. You can't really use the easy way out and just categorize "Frigate? yes/no => SoL". A Brig isn't a Frigate (which you would expect to be fully rigged) and clearly isn't a Ship of the Line either. 17th century Frigates were in fact two deckers until some clever bloke decided to take one deck off. A 4th-rate two-decker with 50 guns (as identified as another starting point for SoL in this thread) would be a big no as a line ship in the Royal Navy in the late 18th/early 19th century. They basically didn't build any with a few specific exceptions: example being HMS Leopard (1790). It's role: cruiser [read: Frigate, though nobody would call her that] Even a 64-gun two decker where the gun count puts it into the 3rd rate category under the British system (also note that in NA you are still a 4th rate here) is a ship that would have been in the line in the 17th century but was considered too weak by the late 18th. They still ended up fighting at Trafalgar. In war you will throw the kitchen sink at your enemy if that is what it takes. My point is, arguing about roles of ships in the game and in RL to reach a clear distinction and cut off point is entirely pointless when the RL basis for these things were only guidelines at best and full of contradictions at worst.
  14. In RL you would have quite a bit more leeway and much worse close hauled performance than in the game, in essence making it very hard for the leeward ship to crawl upwind and force an engagement. This gives the upwind/windward/weather gauge ship(s) control over if and when the engagement happens and it also enables the upwind ship to maneuver into a favorable position. In theory stern camping or forcing at least one rake due to potential energy/speed advantage of the upwind ship like in the game can work, though there aren't that many documented cases of this really happening (HMS Java vs. USS Constitution being an example [Java still lost this]) Leeward has the advantage of higher gun elevation due to heel - for all the good that does, however, I think the main point is that (providing your rigging is still in good shape) faster ships can disengage at will. Imagine the typical scenario of British against French line engagements where the French fleets often picked the downwind position (but not always! - sometimes days of maneuvering to grab the weather gauge preceded battles). If the upwind ships want to disengage and run away they would need to go through the leeward line which would potentially be devastating if the engagement was going so badly that you needed running in the first place. You are committed to fight to the end in the upwind position.
  15. I am baffled that this fairly civil discussion in this thread has resulted in at least 1 perma ban. @admin - the people writing here are not your enemies, they care about the game - this siege mentality helps nobody. Even if you drive away the lions (in your analogy) there will always be a new lion.. recruited from the ranks of the sheep. Retention on both ends of the PvP food chain needs to happen.
  16. I like where this is going. You folks want to build all the games I want to play but nobody is doing them anymore. Daring project, game labs folks, I truly wish you success :)
  17. The more I think about the plan, the more i like it. Though it is a radical departure from the nation vs nation thing, it's the right direction, good thinking devs I''d open up individual ports rather than regions for PBs also (even if the PB may need to take place in the regional capital at all times): more slots for action on an evening and it can make it a bit more ad-hoc like RvR used to be in the beginning (which was one of the strengths of the flag system).
  18. I think the accusations are a overblown when the tp button sits right on top of the screen .. and pressing it is considered an exploit? It does showcase that we need RoE reforms though.
  19. Problem is this will help them clicking on "GB", not the others
  20. I am Snoopy the Beagle and I approve of more nations.
  21. BR capped PBs would also help the new guys without CMs
  22. Not discriminating against third and second rates in PBs would be nice.
  23. I totally agree about removing drops/RNG from crafting/outfit/trims. There's no real difference between "marks can be traded" and "items bought with marks can be traded" though. Other than introducing lag, market risk, and inconvenience. Why would you grind on an alt? There's no real advantage because you can't readily multi box PvE mark grinds against bots unless somebody codes something so it it makes no difference really whether alt003 is grinding or main001. The supply is the same.
  24. Try replicating that 12 hour race around Mortimer in anything other than a Surprise (and perhaps Lynx). Using the Surprise which is borderline broken/op (and has been long before patch 10.x) to justify anything about current mechanics is selective perception (at best). Just logically thinking, if one or two ships lie so far outside of the baseline performance regime that they can pull off stuff that no other vessel can.. does that say more about those ships or about the mechanics in general?
  • Create New...