Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Slamz

  1. Usually when this happens to us, we ALL go back. We don't want the one guy in his Connie having to sail back by himself to get repairs and in a group of, say, 5 people, having a Connie drop out may be worth waiting for. So the theory is that it results in attrition but in practice I find it results in the entire group taking a 30 minute time out (possibly much longer, depending on how close the nearest port is). I mostly feel it just slows down the pace of an already slow game. It's also why there should be a way to trade at sea.
  2. Why? What does that do other than waste your time trying to figure out where they went and their time because they had to sail back to a port to pick up more repairs? It might be different if this was WOW or Life is Feudal where you want to cause attrition so that the people have to run away so that you can get back to what you really wanted to do -- kill that boss mob and take his loot or complete step 6 of your "kill 20 wolves" quest or beat on trees for 20 minutes to get lumber. These are time consuming actions that you need enemies to leave you alone so you can do. There's not really anything like that in Naval Action. If you leave to go get more repairs, it just means I'm going to be bored trying to find someone else to fight. I'd rather you repair up here so we can have another blowout battle ASAP. The real attrition of NA is ship loss. Everyone flips ports in one go. In fact, if you don't flip it in one go it's worthless to try if there are any defenders who care about it at all. You'll log on the next day and contention will be zero.
  3. There would have been a lot more but we literally could not find you and you avoided any area of the map we went to. Anyway, moot point now since most people have quit playing. Whatever chance BLACK had to prove its mettle was last month.
  4. Running from combat is just part of PvP. Don't sit there and pretend you suicide into every uneven fight you see. It's up to the taggers to surround their target. OW coordination is a PvP skill as much as aiming cannons is. But leaving an entire section of the map and grinding missions in the hopes nobody finds you is "running away" to a whole new level. There's no PvP tactics, OW or otherwise, that can really counter that, short of sailing around for 2 weeks trying to figure out where everyone went. I do believe that invis and speed buff killed BLACK's PvP tactics. From what I saw, your tactics revolved entirely around the revenge fleet. No revenge fleet, no PvP. You should have just adapted. Other people have been getting plenty of kills without needing revenge fleets. Like I said, OW coordination is a PvP skill too -- spreading out (but not too far!) and herding targets into other taggers.
  5. tl;dr: Repairs used in the open world heal 4x as much as repairs used in combat. I like the way repairs work in combat and I'm fine with the fact that it's pretty expensive. This at least creates some risk and a balancing act in how many you want to bring: more is better but it's expensive and heavy. But on the open sea I always feel it's a bit ridiculous when I click repair and go through like 30+ repairs. It's just a logistical hassle, especially if you're looking to flip ports by grinding fleets: you'll need to carry several hundred repairs. But if repairs simply healed 4x as much outside of combat, it would make them cheap to repair your ship with when you're out of danger while keeping in-combat repairs costly.
  6. Ignoring the fact that most of the British power players were working out of Belize while KPR was more the newbie area, doing "solo hunting" is hardly a measure of victory no matter how you look at it, unless the server pop is something like "3". Anyone can go solo hunting anywhere. The question is if a clan can go somewhere and take all comers until the enemy stops trying to counter them, which WO did right outside MT. To this day I cannot fathom why BLACK ran from that area. You had to have lost quite a lot of rep with the other pirate clans for refusing to fight. We were nervous every day about what kind of 1st rate fleet BLACK was going to drop on us today and it never happened. Yeah I've always liked the idea of open battles, if only we can create some better rules for how joiners spawn in. We can't just have them go "poof" in front of us 20 minutes into a fight but it would be interesting if there was some way to allow it that somehow gave the people in the battle plenty of room to maneuver and time to take the new arrivals into account.
  7. Did you really conquer an area if nobody on your team ever uses it and never goes there? That's just coloring in the dots. I had an idea like this sometime like year. Basically areas tend to go neutral unless they are being used. "Used" means player structures are making things, people are coming and going, buying and selling, etc. Some areas of the map will end up going permanently neutral -- essentially acting as a magnet area for new guilds that may want to try their hand in an out-of-the-way area. Once they start using it, the port becomes theirs and will stay that way until they stop using it or someone takes it from them. We have to get away from "pac man the dots [and then never go there because they are useless]". That's what killed the game in 2016 too.
  8. This is one of the fundamental problems, again, especially with a low population: OW PvPers spread out to look for action. It rarely stays in the same place for long and it's easy to overwhelm and area if everyone goes to the same place, resulting in no more action there. You can't really have a captain in charge of an area because there's no such stability. This is why you don't see 25 French in one place very often: we run all the targets away and there's nothing to do after 1-2 days of this. So it's better to spread out for PvP and patrol around but this undermines whatever RvR effort there may have been and it takes forever to get back together (where there will, again, be no PvP). Like someone wanted to grind Grand Terre last night and was asking for help. Nope. The other clans are spread all over (looking for PvP) and it's a 3 hour sail to get back there to help you. Not gonna happen. We wanted to remove teleports to help support OW PvP but we still have this antiquated RvR system that requires teleportation to really work smoothly. RvR and PvP are two incompatible systems as implemented today. (And NA Legends will likely take all the RvR players away.)
  9. Not to harp on it (okay that's a lie, I totally want to harp on this) but if RvR was a side effect of OW PvP and we simply got rid of 25v25 port battles, this would be a much better game and we'd all be having fun still, even with low populations. Killing a pirate should get me tokens (based on the total value of his ship) that I can use to turn a Pirate port into a French port. After we've killed enough pirates (regardless of where) then we get to claim a port. We can come up with ways to make this exploit resistant. One way actually comes from Planetside 1: the value of a player is based on the actions of that player. You can't hand the same alt a ship over and over and kill him and farm marks. His value is based on what he accomplished since his last death. Seal clubbing scrubs is not worth much. 25v25 and all the dumb mechanics related to trying to make port battles work is what killed this game. Certainly it's what killed this server.
  10. Looks like Koltes' suggestions have practically been implemented anyway: * 25-man battle group. He wanted it to be untaggable but the current system at least makes them unsplittable. * Group tagging is fixed in general. All based on radius to target rather than from attacker. * PvP does generate quite a lot of marks now. But these are mostly "nice to haves" that doesn't address fundamental problems with the game (RvR in particular). RvR is really just more hassle than it's worth. I think it will always be crashing in popularity so long as it's a game about 25 expensive slowboats playing sumo in an arena.
  11. If we're talking about guilds then my experience is that those run like a democracy do not last long and do not grow well. Ultimately you need someone who says "we're doing this". The only question is whether you run it as a hard dictatorship or a soft one. Hard dictatorship: we're doing this. If you're not doing this then you're out of the guild. Soft dictatorship: we're doing this. You can do your own thing but this is our designated activity for the day. The round-table type setup is just way too cumbersome for a guild that's more than like 6 people. I have never seen it work (or work well, anyway).
  12. I think when it comes down to it, most people playing this game just don't care for 25v25 RvR the way this game presents it. The bar is too high (25 of the most expensive slowboats using rarer woods -- ships that are useless for OW hunting) and, in the opinion of apparently a lot of people, it's not as much fun as OW hunting. Everything the playerbase has done for the last year and a half is to find way to avoid fighting good RvR battles. Multiple battles at the same time. By your own admission using alts in multiple fights just to clean up the map quicker and make people go "oh no there's 50 of them we can't win". Screening fleets to stop people from getting into fights. Night flips. RvR has been "play to crush" and not enough people really enjoy that, so it died. There is nothing fun about it.
  13. How are you defining a "win" in a game with no win condition? The closest thing to winning an OW PvP game that I can think of would be to go to where everyone can easily reach you and slay all comers and keep going back until they admit they can't take you anymore. Surely it was WO who won and BLACK who lost. Defining "win" by taking empty ports and camping the least organized team on the server is pretty funny.
  14. Seen one pirate clan hiding in a corner, seen em all, I reckon.
  15. You outnumbered us almost 2:1 (or more than 2:1 if we count all your fleet ships firing chain shot at us). We still brawled you for it. We could have run away early on as soon as we got that trapped US player out of there but we're generally down to give things a try. So yes, that is standard BLACK: numbers and that's about it. I already linked the last large even numbered fight I recall us having, where we sunk one first rate and stole another one. We'd gladly do another big rumble 10v10 or more, but it's hard to convince the rest of the French to fight you when you are hiding in the furthest reaches of the map, seal clubbing the only team you could find with the most low level players still playing. BLACK reminds me of the old Bugs Bunny cartoon. "I dare you to step over this line! Okay this one! Okay this one! Okay this one! Okay this one!" One month later we are about out of land we can cross to fight you. If all of France moves to Georgia are you going to end up in Texas? What a joke you guys turned out to be. The perfect RvR/PvE guild but not much real fight in ya.
  16. Having been up to the US coast to investigate the problem, what I found is truly baffling. The entire BLACK guild, composing more people than the entire active US population, is camped out up there seal clubbing the US players. If BLACK wanted a fight, all of France was outside of MT for a couple of weeks and could have given them some great battles. As I recall, we got exactly 1 good fight from BLACK, which they lost, and they ran off to seal club the US instead. We killed all the other pirates over and over and over and BLACK stayed hidden the entire time. If this proves nothing else, it should stack on to the idea that it is worthless to deal with these "pirates". Their agreements are worth nothing. They will change or cancel them on a whim. If you need them to help you in PvP, forget it. They wouldn't even help the Danes, who got their butts kicked with nary a Pirate ally in sight. Dealing with them is worthless. As for what the US should do, well that is a conundrum. BLACK wants easy fights and you are literally it. They have boxed you in so well that even if you move west and take other ports, the Pirates can easily follow you. Even if you tried to take a British port I'd bet that BLACK shows up to stop you just for a chance to sink any PB fleet you come up with so they can laugh at you. They are in full "play to crush" mode, as you may have noticed. Your best bet is probably to do what France did: Just give up on RvR for a while. Seriously. Invest in 100% PvP boats and do nothing but that for a bit. Investing in RvR and grinding up PB ships is literally just giving BLACK more easy targets and you are working towards a goal you cannot achieve unless there is a big new influx of players. You aren't gonna beat BLACK in a PB if for no other reason than they outnumber you. They are hunting for your PB ships daily and sinking them daily and you are doing nothing but frustrating yourselves by building anything that's heavy and slow. And bear in mind that BLACK will have tons of spies in your nation, leading you into traps, because that's how they think games are won. Consequently you cannot rely on "the average man" to join you in battle, which doesn't help matters any. You've gotta roll out fast and cheap and look for what ganks you can find, and you CAN find some if you look. I should roll up the US coast and encounter you guys in 2's and 3's rolling light and fast in things like fir or bermuda Surprises and Cerbs. When they outnumber you, run away. When you outnumber them, gank em just like they do to you. Don't be rolling out live oak Aggies unless you're damn sure you can win because you won't escape a gank in those things. Roll fast, cheap PvP ships and use the low cost to take a chance here and there. And pay attention to who really helps you and who sails off at the first sign of trouble.
  17. I always just wanted a way to see tags in progress. Like if someone (anyone) is tagging a target, I see some kind of symbol over the target. I know to get away from it if I don't want to be dragged in. Now that the circle is on the target, this is an easy and useful visualization.
  18. Yeah the massive nerf to speed mods did help with this but there is STILL value in being faster even if it's just 1%. That may be the difference in someone catching up just enough to keep you tagged in (with his 20 friends behind him) vs not. In any PvP game I always try to tell the developers how dangerous it is to play with speed. I would give up a hell of a lot of other bonuses in exchange for +5% speed in any game. Exponentially more true when the game has a real death penalty.
  19. Repairs simply make the tactics a lot more interesting. If we want to be perfectly realistic then: There are no in-combat hull repairs other than "survival" which plugs holes. There are no in-combat sail repairs but there is a new type of damage: "rigging". This represents lost efficiency in changing your sails and, like holes, gets repaired automatically at a set pace. Armor, hull, masts and sails cannot be repaired in combat. Only leaks and the new one, "rigging". Question is, Does this make the game more fun? Personally I think the current model of repairs is by far the most fun we've had. It makes group fights especially last a lot longer with a lot more give and take and potential swings in who's winning. We COULD switch to a "realism" model as above but I stress that this is not "1 repair each" which is no less stupid and unrealistic than anything else. It's NO repairs, other than leaks and rigging. And I suspect we'd have to rebalance a lot of things, namely giving ships a lot more health all around, as otherwise fights will be over in 10 minutes. (We should probably remove all accuracy mods too, as laser accurate cannons will make demasting too easy again.)
  20. That would make sense though: they chase you down on a 90 but they're using main sail force mods (a negative to staysails) so in the battle they can't catch you on a 90 at all. The sudden application of sail force mods slows them down. It is a bit stupid to have speed mods that only work in combat, though. OW speed needs to be representative of combat speed.
  21. This is something we've been seeing a lot lately and still aren't sure about: Someone catches us on the OW at a particular angle but then the battle starts and inside the battle they are absolutely slower than us. What actually is causing this? I'm wondering if there are some bugs where ships are not properly calculating their OW speed (e.g., a Trinc is simply faster than it should be on the OW, because it's a bug in the Trinc data) or what mods might be coming into play. I know I've heard some mods work on the OW and some only work in combat but which are which? (Incidentally, UI improvement: mods that only apply their effect in combat should specify this in the text of the mod.)
  22. Well.... instances are anti-realistic. ROE are a consequence of instances and will always be fairly unrealistic depending on how you look at them.
  23. This is why the important part of this suggestion was the rules for how people join. Things you don't want: "Poof" a new joiner is right beside you because you were fighting in the join circle. "Poof" a new joiner is directly ahead of you as you are trying to run away because his late join location was 1000 meters away.....incidentally in the direction you needed to run. This is what makes late joining such a problem. Incidentally, "instant close" would work better now that we have circle-on-the-target. I think the main reason we have battles stay open for any amount of time is to give split groups a chance to get back together. Circle-on-target makes it impossible to split any but the clumsiest of groups.
  24. It gets rid of all the timers, mainly. It also makes it more reasonable to hunt solo -- you're far more likely to find a PvP fight that you can get in on, even if the battle has sailed away from the start point and it takes you a while to catch up. And my specific suggestions were meant to plug the holes in the general idea of joining an instance late: namely how your arrival works. I think putting joiners at the start location is the least likely to be disruptive (and means land in battle doesn't matter). But I would also support a "WYSIWYG" timer system where anyone not visible on the OW at the time the tag starts cannot get in. Like: 30 seconds of invis + battle open for 60 seconds + 15 seconds of tag timer = anyone leaving a battle cannot join another battle for 106 seconds (anyone leaving a port and thus not having invis has a 76 second timer -- just enough that if they weren't out of the port 1 second sooner than the tag started, it'll be too late to join. WYSIWYG.)
  25. There must be a net loss. e.g., with your Trinc example, a Trinc kill should certainly create less marks than it cost. It needs to be a mark drain to help compensate for the mark fountain that exists in PvE. I think what you're talking about is the ratio of PvE required to fund PvP. I always thought EVE was about 10:1 (at best) PvE to PvP, at least for a small corp that had to do their own stuff and owned no structures. Awful lot of time spent mining and running missions to afford a little bit of PvP. Not sure what NA is, really, but I feel it's not much worse than 1:1. Maybe as bad as 5:1 for someone who dies a lot, is careless, and insists in PvPing in no less than a 4th rate and only grinds in 5th rates. For someone who doesn't die a lot it can be a whole lot more like 1:10 or more. I'm fine with 1:1. I think 1:1 is great. 3:1 is okay and I feel like that's NA for a veteran on a bad week. Took you an hour to lose something that represented 3 hours of effort. That works for me and means the game world still matters for the average player. I feel like some people just won't accept anything less than 1 hour of PvE for 20+ hours of PvP but to me that undervalues that "Econ" player, who will quickly find he has nothing to do. You actually NEED high loss PvP if you want that econ player to have what he wants, which is actually more like 20 hours of PvE per 1 hour of PvP.
  • Create New...