Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Slamz

Members
  • Content Count

    1,449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Slamz

  1. That's why there are some rather specific rules being suggested.
  2. I think the problem is you cannot reconcile these 3 groups, assuming they are really separate interests. I would call myself all of the above but that means I want them all to tie into each other directly. I want the RvR to be caused by PvP. I want the economy to be driven by PvP. I do not want traders to be safe. I do not want RvR players to be able to ignore open world PvP and I don't want PvP players to be able to ignore what's going on in RvR. But a dedicated econ player would have answers that are very different from mine. Similarly, a dedicated RvR player -- one who does not care at all about open world PvP and probably works to avoid it -- would also have very different answers. For that matter, a PvPer who loves living out of free ports, loves stealing ships and ignores RvR and the economy would also have very different answers. You can't satisfy all of these groups but they are all here campaigning for changes that make the game more like they want and less like the other groups want. This is why I say Naval Action's real problem has always been that the developers had a hard time selecting an audience. They tried to satisfy everyone and that didn't work, so they narrowed it down a bit but it still feels to me like we are trying to satisfy too many people. I think the audience should really be "full bodied open world players" -- people who like the open world concept and all that it entails, including impactful PvP, impactful RvR and an economy that is driven by those things. The open world is what sets this game apart and that is what we should focus on. People favoring missions and "fair fights" and no-loss defeats are muddying the waters.
  3. I think it's a good idea but we need a much more robust PB entry mechanic. Like we can join from any friendly port, but there's a system where we can queue up in a ship and if we see BR is too high, we can switch to a different ship. (Clan battles won't solve this, I think, because realistically most war companies are going to necessarily be PUGs, not strictly coordinated entities.)
  4. Yeah I'd be loath to give up land in battles. It does really change how battles work and I think it makes you think a lot more. I'm not really sure what admin means by his statement that reinforcements were perfect (that is not what I remember) or that land in battles makes it impossible.
  5. The moment you decided to do open world, this should have become a subscription game. Or at least a "cash store" model, which I think you could still try: Doubloons: $1 for 25,000. When buying NPC ships from the store, you can buy with doubloons instead of gold. (Maybe players can sell ships for doubloons too, if they want...) Forged Papers: 250,000 doubloons. Character rename: 250,000 doubloons. Ship paint: 25,000 doubloons per paint (goes down with the ship) Character respec: 50 combat marks or 100,000 doubloons. Blueprints can be bought with doubloons instead of marks. No "pay to win" so no mods or permits for doubloons but the stuff above could be charged for.
  6. Something @admin has talked about before is his wish to keep PvP battles open forever (rather than close after 3 minutes). My complaint with this was that the placement of new arrivals is too problematic. Nobody wants to have a ship go "poof" and appear on top of them (or in front of them). If not for that, though, I think it's a good idea. Hunting around for battles to join would be a real possibility. So I wonder if it could be made to work. Problems: 1) Joiners make the battle uneven. 2) Where do joiners arrive. So here's my thought: You can join any battle where at least one of the following conditions is met: Your addition will make the BR no worse than 1.5 to 1 in your favor - or - Your addition will make the player count no worse than +1 in your favor (So like your friend in a Mercury gets jumped by a Surprise. Your Victory will violate the 1.5 BR rule but it won't violate the "+1" rule so you can join. Or your 5 friends in Lynxes are fighting a Victory. Your Lynx will violate the "+1" rule but passes the 1.5 BR check so you can join.) Join location in the battle is right where the original participants started. These locations are clearly marked in the battle. Joiners arrive as a transparent "ghost ship" with a 90 second timer before they materialize and become participants. 90 second timer ticks at one-fifth speed (so a maximum delay of 450 seconds -- 7.5 minutes) if any friendly ships "in combat" are too close to the join circle. Ghost ships can exit at any time before going live with no penalty. Those last 3 bullet points are what I think would make it be a reasonable idea. Scenarios: A. You attack an enemy and he stays around the join circle. When joiners come in they end up having a 7.5 minute timer before they go live because the friendly being nearby is delaying their entry. That's plenty of time to decide how you want to handle it. B. You get attacked and help is on the way. Your best bet is probably to just run away. Your help will be able to go live after 90 seconds rather than 450. C. You get attacked and help is on the way but a "friendly" alt is blocking the entry. The alt has to actually stay in combat to block the join circle and your reinforcements WILL eventually get in so avenues of abuse are possible but limited (and will also be very obvious). Current timer mechanics are broken and while the above isn't perfect I'm also not sure if we can arrive at a perfect solution via timers and closed battles, which we've been trying for the last 2 years.
  7. I still disagree -- remember when we could join PvP battles from the port, and they were just little arena fights, and in early 2016 you didn't even lose your ship when you died in there? People still ran in those battles. In a way it was worse because who wants to spend 30 minutes chasing some guy down for a ship that won't cost him anything when he finally loses? He was basically trolling you. So I think ship cost is a red herring -- we would have all the same problems even if ships were free. We might actually cause new problems!
  8. Yeah, port battles are the root of lots of evil in this game. Here's a common problem we have right now: France wants a fight but can't really field 25 players (plus screeners!) for a 1st rate port battle. We can fight any nation on the open sea but we're short handed for the big 25v25 showdown. So we go grind a port in the hope it will cause PvP to happen but the defenders just ignore the grind, because they know perfectly well that they can show up to the port battle itself and win that. (I actually think a lot of them don't log in at all unless there's a port battle to attend.) So it creates this situation where they won't fight us on the open sea and we can't fight them in the port battle. We stop grinding their ports up because they don't show up to stop the grind and they stop grinding our ports up because we don't show up to the port battle. (They "win" but they wasted 4+ hours of their lives killing NPCs and sitting in an empty fight to do it. Not much fun.) Port battles are a concept taken from POTBS. It had problems there, too. I'm not sure we need them at all and they cause too many problems -- compounded as server pop drops. Teams like the Dutch on our server have almost never been able to do a PB at all and teams like the Spanish and Swedes have never been able to do a a real port battle. Since the reset the Danes have only had off-hour port battles that only they can show up to. Probably 1 out of 20 port battles is great fun and the other 19 just completely suck. It's not worth it.
  9. This is worth highlighting. Devs should really take a step back and examine the current ruleset. Some critical elements, like how tagging works and the timers around it, clearly make no sense right now. Everything about port battles is basically broken -- how you create them, how you get to them, the various exploits that exist surrounding them... the entire system needs to be re-thought. We've learned a lot over the last 2 years and I think a lot of this can be sorted out but we do need a rule set re-design. Like, I would prefer to just let port battles be an unavoidable element that has no screening fleets, which people simply join from their capital (or any friendly port) rather than let them revolve around a number of broken mechanics that nobody seems to enjoy.
  10. EVE has that same "problem" -- no mechanism supports even battles. Actually no good OW game has any sort of mechanic to make fights even. It's the nature of the beast. Mechanics that try to make fights even are always worse than the problem they were trying to solve. (I think the #1 thing that killed POTBS was their "6v6" mechanic. The end result was you felt like you couldn't play if you didn't have exactly 6 people.) NA, especially since patch 10, does make fights a lot less lethal, though. 10v5 in EVE most likely all 5 will die. 10v5 in NA back in early 2016, same thing. Now? Usually 1-2 die and the rest can escape. Laser-accurate tailguns and multiple repairs mostly favors the guy trying to escape. Add on the new anti-re-tag mechanics (warp invis) and the odds of escaping for good are even better. So no, I don't think that's the problem at all. Mostly I think it's a list of abuses of game mechanics that ultimately makes people quit: Using battles to avoid screening fleets. Smart strategy but it's "gamey" and just made a lot of people waste a lot of time. It's not fun for the people using the exploit either. Using alt-spies. Every nation does it and the inability to green on green makes it into a problem that players can't solve. Hiding in port / hiding in battles. Timers were supposed to address this but have been allowed to get out of whack. You can totally hide in a battle, now. Again. These all lead to frustrating experiences. The old 5v1 "gank" is not, I think, nearly as much of a problem because unless they are using one of the above "gaming the game" features, it's generally something you can see coming and defend against. Although I'll also add in: "Defensive tags". If I have actually run you down on the OW, I think I should get a crack at you. A defensive tag that puts you so far away that we have both just wasted a lot of time is a dumb mechanic.
  11. Do you think lowering ship cost by even 75% would cause more people to PvP? I don't. It was 80% cheaper in 2016 and servers still died off. I think the problem is still mainly: * Tag mechanics encourage "gaming the game". What we need is "WYSIWYG" tagging: if I can't see you when the tag starts because you are invis or in a port then you can't get in. Problem is people get tagged in a WYSIWYG 5v1 and complain that their friends can't come help them. Devs listen to this and change mechanics and all it does is give gankers even easier ways to abuse the system. * RvR mechanics and the routes to XP do not encourage PvP. People grind and mission outside their capitals (in what should be the "newbie zone") even at max rank, rather than going out and fighting. It's just not a problem of ship affordability and you can't fix it that way. It's mechanics, mainly tag abuse that turns people off of the game and XP routes that let people completely avoid RvR/PvP and face almost no risk. (This is why EVE makes you go out into lowsec or nullsec if you want real XP for higher tier ships. Safe zone really only supports basic, newbie tier gameplay.)
  12. Demasting is mainly only an issue in lopsided fights, e.g., Bellona fighting a Surprise. My experience with same-class fights (lots of experience of this against the Danes and the Pirates) is that they go for demasting, we do mainly hull shot with some chain to take the edge off their speed and we win by a landslide. Demasting ain't what she used to be. But I guess a good way to settle that dispute would be to try it in a tournament!
  13. Slamz

    Grind discussion

    Yeah but I think we're talking about different problems now. Imaginary problem: people can't afford to PvP. Real problem: people don't want to PvP with messed up mechanics like "hide in battle" and "using alt-spies on the outside so you can warp speed onto targets". This is why people also quit in droves back when we had 5 durability and we all literally had 30+ dura of PvP ship sitting in our docks. People still quit because it's just not fun to get ganked through bad mechanics even if the ships are basically free. People trying to turn this into a crafting/economic discussion are off the mark. It's literally a great PvP ship. It has a good point-of-sail lineup, good maneuverability and if you're in a group some of you can load out with 32-pound carros. I have a screenshot where 2 of us killed a Heavy Rattler and a Santissima using 2 Cerbs. Santi was run by the #1 lineship clan in the server too so this was no noob gank. The Heavy Rattler actually went down after 1 broadside of point blank carros put leaks in him and he sank. Not bad for a cheap ship! We use it in "low risk" groups a lot and have gotten a lot of kills. I think I have 4 slots on it now and I have done nothing with it except PvP. Point being that cheap, quality PvP has always been available. People saying "such-and-such is a terrible PvP ship" is the literal problem -- nothing wrong with the ships, but people have this idea in their head that if they can't sail the #1 top rated PvP ship then they don't wanna go. That's almost the opposite of how actual PvPers look at it -- we want the best "bang for the buck" and that's Surprise/Cerb. We only sail 4th rates or better when we're feeling fancy and cocky (and generally have a good, stable, experienced group).
  14. Slamz

    Grind discussion

    If all ships were free (or cheap enough to be eternally affordable) then nobody would ever sail a Surprise or a Cerb. If you want the big stuff, you must take a bigger risk. But big ships aren't needed for PvP. I'm sure there are EVE players who really only enjoy Titans but we can't just give everyone Titans for free to make them happy or the rest of the content becomes meaningless.
  15. Slamz

    Grind discussion

    This is basically asking "why play the game". Because it's fun? And I think the risk of loss is a big part of the fun. Naval Action Arena has almost no appeal to me because meaningless pewpew fights with nothing on the line seems like something that will maybe be fun for about a week. I give that game about 1 month before it loses 90% of its players -- it'll be much faster than NA itself tailed off. (Same reason I only ever played Minecraft on survival mode. The chance of dying and losing a lot of stuff was the only thing that kept that game interesting at all.) It's more like you have developed a theory that chess can be won in 2 moves and therefore it is a waste of time to play chess. Really you have identified an extreme edge case that pretty much nobody ever encounters in normal play. Hardly seems worth worrying about. Do most people normally lose in two moves? Do most people normally find they can't afford a Surprise? Then it's not a very useful problem to bring up.
  16. Slamz

    Grind discussion

    Is anyone losing ships faster than they can come up with the labor hours to replace them? Or is this a theory-crafted problem which technically could exist but which does not actually exist. In our experience as a clan, the bottle-neck is the physical act of hauling stuff. Labor hours and money have not been a bottleneck for what we do, which is probably about a 30/60/10 split of 5th rate, 4th rate and 3rd rate effort. I'm actually sitting on a pile of labor contracts "for emergencies", which never happen.
  17. Actually we thought the Pirates would show up to help their allies. And as you said, it was not empty. Had we gone down to fight you, we would have lost Dominica. The port you took is literally useless so congrats on spending 5 hours flipping it for no reason. No wonder everyone in your clan is quitting. Your leadership is so concerned with "play to win" with a flawed definition of "win" that they aren't even concerned with the welfare or fun their own members are having.
  18. There are definitely still mechanic fixes we could think about. The current layout of battle timers makes zero sense, for instance. We really need WYSIWYG battle joining. If you're invisible, in a battle or in a port when the tag timer starts, you're not getting in. And "defensive tags" need to go away. Every fight should start from convenient medium cannon range. Certainly a lot of damage has been done to PvP by people exploiting the current mechanics -- maybe not "exploit" as in a bug, but "exploit" as in taking advantage of clear holes in the game design to purposefully ruin the experience of other players. (And personally I find it to be senseless. I have never purposefully engaged in trickery to get a kill -- or at least, nothing more advanced than "hide behind this island" or "spread out and push him into a better tagger". In those cases, we getcha, but you had a chance to see it coming and potentially avoid it.)
  19. Open world PvP is always gank style gameplay. The argument you're trying to have is a copy of arguments from WOW, WAR, AOC, ESO, GW2, EVE and literally every other game that offers any sort of open world PvP where fights can be and frequently are unfair. You might as well complain that fights are sometimes unfair in RUST. It's practically the point of the genre.
  20. Did they? Or did you? It's not a job to go PvP in 5th rates or even 4th rates. Throw in a Bellona now and then. Still not a job. What are you doing wrong that you feel like it's a job, I wonder? Grinding 5 slots? You don't need them. Farming up the perfect permanent slots? You don't need those either. Farming for that final book you need for the Gunnery Encyclopedia or something like that? Still not needed. Full fleet of 1st rates? Just ignore the line ship ports. The only one turning this into a job is you. Also, why did you flip Trinidad for 30 minutes after we flipped Dominica? You had to know we couldn't do both at the same time. Right after Dominica we had the fleet sailing down and you guys had already left. But you also have to know that France does not have -- or care to have -- a full fleet of 25 first rates. We will never fight you in your slow boat 1st rate battles. We have no reason to and we don't find it fun. That's the "job" you created and we ignored. Developers didn't do that to you. You chose it.
  21. I think the poo flinging serves a good purpose, though: it's attacking the current culture of the community. And that's good because it's the current culture that is about 90% of the problem. EVE always had a culture of "just go fight". Grab your T1 frigate with no rigs and basic gear and just go hunt. Die, get another one, go hunt more. Get friends in T1 frigates and go hunt in packs. If you can afford better, use better but, the culture says, don't sit there and complain about the cost of T2 battleships and the cost of rigs and the cost of improved weapons when you can just go hunting in T1 frigates and actually get kills. NA should have that same culture. It actually works better here, I think. The gap between a Snow and a Santissima is a whole lot narrower than between a T1 Frigate and a Titan or something like that. If EVE was populated by this crop of NA players, it would fail, not because it's a bad game that's "too much grind" but because there's a wrong-headed culture telling people to play in ways that are fairly ridiculous. ("I can't PvP! I can't afford my 3rd Bermuda Victory and I only have 4 slots unlocked on it and I'm missing one book and I can't find a Copper Plating for it! I'm helpless out there!" Meanwhile there are people getting kills in a storebought Renom with 2 slots.) Wow, you still don't get it. I still have 2 forged papers. Think. Think real hard about why I have not used them. I'll save you the trouble: because it does not matter what team you are on or what ports you own. I could switch to Pirate right now. Or Dane. I don't do it because I don't need to. I can live in La Navasse or La Tortue or La Mona just fine. WO, who has sank more pirates than any other clan, has been living in free ports since the fall of Haiti. The amount of trouble of moving my guild warehouse is not worth the minuscule improvement in gameplay I would experience by moving to some other team. You're turning into that guy who screams about chem-trails and the government poisoning our water. Not everything is a conspiracy. Teutonic just wants PvP fights to be something that's easier to find. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Duncan.
  22. Slamz

    Grind discussion

    Those are so very optional though. My PvP ships have had the admiralty speed figure head, the Northern Carpenters (which I make myself and are cheap -- the components are common) and the 3rd mod is usually just whatever I have laying around. Accuracy or reload is nice. Since the Great Speed Nerf, I find it very questionable to burn up another slot on an additional 1-2% speed. You're talking about a difference that you can make up with a couple of rounds of your chasers firing chain shot. So this is another "the grind is what you make of it". Yeah sure you CAN grind out tenfold the ship value in mods but it is far from mandatory and is unlikely to make a difference. It's a damn close fight where you could have swung it the other way if only you'd had [insert one or two mods here]. That pretty much never happens. Well, real time is. Labor hours are not, unless you're pumping out 1st rates. For 5th rates, you cannot possibly lose ships fast enough to account for all the labor hours you generate. The real limiting factor in ship making is just the hauling runs. In a healthier economy, gold still talks though. Even within France on PvP-Global I've had orders filled for coal, gold ore, teak logs, fir logs, oak logs, etc. I just put up buy orders for what I felt was a reasonably attractive price (higher than any NPC will pay anywhere) and generally someone fills it. I could have saved money and gone to pick up the stuff myself but when I'm sitting on a few million gold, I'm happy to pay someone else to do it if there's a taker. Point being, I still don't buy this argument that people don't PvP because they can't afford to -- not after a month of gameplay. Maybe if you're a new player on a team that's hopelessly camped and one-ported -- but, for example, there is no excuse for any British or Pirate player on PvP-Global to say they aren't ready for PvP if they're been here for a month. They're ready. They're just dragging their feet waiting for some pie in the sky ideal that's really just become an excuse to not take a risk. If someone joined France-Global within the last week then okay, I can get that they are not ready and are have a real hard time getting ready. There is definitely a new player problem that can be addressed here. But veterans? No excuse except an excess of risk-aversion.
  23. Slamz

    Grind discussion

    This is the realization everyone needs to make. They spend way too much time grinding when they don't need to. Or they could at least group up and grind contention, which has double benefit. I actually think missions have done a lot to kill this game: they encourage people to solo, if nothing else. It's good to "support" solo play but when solo missions are superior in every way to grouping up and hunting on the open world then we're sending this game down into a death spiral as groups disintegrate and people find it that much easier to quit playing.
  24. Slamz

    Grind discussion

    You can't raise 60k for a Surprise? I made more money than that just dumping looted medium cannons into sell contracts. I think this is all psychological and ignores all the easy money we can get from trade goods now, too. Or from dumping crafted goods into free ports. That's easy money too.
  25. Yes but I see two choices: 1) Interesting OW PvP with no set meta and a variety of ships and which I could log on and potentially find within 10 minutes with little or no organization required. 2) Set-piece PB PvP all following the same meta (slowboat tank) which takes about 2 hours to arrange and 49 other people to participate and we must be online at a particular place at a particular time with particular ships. #2 sure looks like a stupid waste of time to me when #1 is better gameplay in every way. If I was king, I would somehow make this entire game revolve around OW PvP and just get rid of "port battles" which serve no purpose. I really don't understand your fascination with port battles. I would rather have 25v25 open sea (which would also be far deadlier).
×
×
  • Create New...