Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

244 Excellent

About Dharus

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,100 profile views
  1. I'm glad that NA is finally being officially released. In a lot of ways the population has suffered a bit of EA fatigue which is why threads like this have posts all over the map. That's expected. I will probably be trying it out after release for a little bit as I am a fan of the type of warfare that NA has and its by far the best Age of Sail wargame out there. However, I've got a bit of a tempered expectation and I'm not expecting to get wrapped back into it for longer than a month or two. The reasons is that after 3+yrs not much has really changed and some of that stems from a bit of a chaotic path in EA. Yes, ship stats, some econ stuff, new ship models, and the tutorial is all fine and good, however, why I stopped playing was problems a little bit deeper and ongoing over that 3yr+ timeframe. RvR: Lets face it, its still PotBS and it really limits new players, player styles, and ship diversity just as it did in PotBS. I messed around with Elite Dangerous and its faction vs faction play and thought "wow, this would have been awesome for Naval Action and really not that hard to implement". Each location is flipped by setting up in three periods with each period being a week of preparation, conflict, and control. Its not a 2 hr slot, winner take all battle but a longer struggle allowing for multiple playstyles to get involved. Dynamic open Sea engagements, smuggling/econ warfare, mission running and even keeping port battles could all be taken into consideration. This is the core issue with NA. It lacks tiered gameplay experiences. Don't take this as a complete fail of a game and I still stand by my old favorable review of the game. The combat is great, the addition of forts was great, and there has been meaningful changes for good. However, reason it struggles is that it fails to engage multiple types of gamers into the "something greater" aspect of the open sea. A newbie in a pickle has no measurable use in world much less in RvR. A casual player with a job, wife, kids can't always spend hours at a time doing a port battle. The need to grind away at earning money to achieve the material means to reach a meta ship, skill book, fighting style and find a large enough group to achieve meaningful change is a pretty narrow gameplay experience to have (and its a bit boring) and it doesn't include actual captain skill which is a huge component to the game. Endgame is full fleets of X meta ship in port battles and that in of itself favors the higher population faction and/or most dedicated group of ~24 and leaves out everyone else. Are there exceptions to this experience? Sure, but its not enough to keep people of different playstyles engaged for long. So, I expect that after a little bit of time after release I'll get bored as I've already done the ~24 people dot flip and found it got stale after a while and then find there really isn't a lot else to do. Still, I'm happy to say that I've gotten my money's worth and that I've had some very good experiences. I'm happy to try again.
  2. Personally all trade ships need the 5 slots now. I don't think limiting them serves any purpose anymore. The LGV refit shouldn't be behind a pvp mark wall either. Yes, it's interesting but its rather weak to other ships. A pirate frigate, which can be made with combat marks, is a better combat ship. Right now capping LGVs on the OS to use as "pirate" trade ships is much easier. It's a ship that probably needs to be combat mark limited instead of PvP.
  3. They could but it would be silly. It's apples vs oranges in terms of practical gameplay. A cannon shot into a trireme would cause massive carnage. Triremes typically used light woods for speed and reduce weight which is the opposite direction of Age of Sail ships. Ship speeds are also different as fatigue played a huge role on rowed vessels and the sail plans just don't compare. In other words, a lynx could destroy a trireme in combat and anything to make that fight interesting would be magical. Even adding a more historical rowed gunboat would require a unique model with moving oars which respond to special commands (left, right, back, double speed foward, ect) in addition to the existing game. That's a lot of additional coding and modeling for a very small gameplay dynamic. This is why a different, specific game was requested.
  4. Absolutely. In fact this should be one of the top combat items and not a placeholder. Ideally, I'd wish for a Mount and Blade style avatar combat but i understand the difficulty of that task to a small developer.
  5. Following the complex development of NA's sailing physics including leeway, I'd like to suggest Game Labs look into developing a game revolving around Trireme combat with their similar Open Water design. Most people might not really understand the time period nor all of the naval tactics but very few games have tackled the complexity of this age's naval combat. The aegean sea + can be the playground which is close to home for this studio. My suggestions for battle mechanics: 1) Ramming. Obviously this is the first thing that comes to mind. However, ramming was dangerous work and caused damage to each boat especially in ram v ram collisions. 2) De-oaring. Ramming the opponents oars off if they haven't pulled them in. In some ways this reminds me of the "Brace" command in NA. Add a visual graphics to the command. 3) Sailing. This ships had sails but weren't ideal. 4) Fatigue. Rowing takes effort and speed affected many things including ramming. 5) Ranged combat and melee combat plus boarding. Archers, slingers, javelins, marines, ballistas. Could create an interesting dynamic. Open Water mechanics: 1) Trading. 2) Conquest of city states. 3) Possible map wipe through Persian invasion. 4) Weather. There were many types of ships during this time period all with different positives and negatives (triremes, biremes, hemiolias, trihemiolias, ect). Using similar concepts from NA like woods, weight the ships could each have their own flavors. A city state concept could give clans (instead of nations) various powers and using a possible "foreign invader" mechanic could promote some interesting diplomacy. The game could get more complex if an avatar system was in place but if not a more complex boarding design might be nice. Players could control troops on a board in boarding as has been discussed in NA and this also could translate to a defense of the city state itself. Something to consider.
  6. In my decades of gaming people will PvP disadvantaged players just to be jerks caring nothing of reward. It happens right now with this game. I'd suggest the BR change but not debuff the ship more than the current setup. Make it a bit more dangerous toward griefers.
  7. I'd like to suggest that LVG refit be equal to how a pirate frigate is made. LVG mats plus permit costing combat marks. The ship isn't worth the 25pvp marks but it is an interesting gaming option. 5 slots as well.
  8. What if smugglers could actually put buy orders in enemy ports again? With the changes to clan ownership and taxes this might add an additional economic level of play. Right now, it's alts which is dumb. It's also dumb to have specialty items locked by safe zones. I think strategic resources is a good idea and it probably should be more than just copper. However, there needs to be a backdoor mechanic to allow low tier nations a opportunity. There should be better balance with mods first though otherwise ports, like mods, will be flavor of the month.
  9. I don't understand why they just didn't make the flag system the raid system. No change in port ownership but just straight up battle rewards plus. An event zone battle might be a content between RvR clans in the nation with whichever clan scored the most points gets ownership. That might cause strife though which can be good or bad.
  10. The difference is that maintenance of port based on clans might prevent "zerging". In most games higher population wins so in this system a counter to a zerg would be a better skilled players fighting against the zerg thus scoring more points and other nations. Example: if Russians have an event vs Sweden for X port other nations could swarm into the zone against them while they are trying to score points. Thus you've created a passive hot zone on the map and diplomatic opportunities.
  11. A map wipe wouldn't solve the problem. A change to the RvR system would. Something like dropping port battles in favor of a 3 day event style hotzone for control over the sea. A lot of people are dancing around the problems with threads about the symptoms of a flawed RvR system. As players, we need to suggest a better system. Folks we're still using PotBS RvR mechanics for the most part. The game needs this change... badly. My old suggestion:
  12. How about just add flags on the OW ship models and give no information (ship, player name, ect). Then the spyglass on the OW will be even more useful.
  13. PBs are a hold over from PotBS. It is rare that a port was won by a decisive fleet engagement itself but by a sustained campaign of sea control so that troops could land. If we changed how RvR was done, we could solve any screening issues. Create a OW 3 day event were patrolling a port zone created contention/points. Sinking players also creates points. The group with the most points flips the port. No screening, no port timers, no arena meta ships and players from all time zones can contribute.
  14. I'll be honest here while I like the idea of unique flags, nations, ect I do no think it works for RvR gameplay for this size of a game. Most RvR games go with a holy trinity of 3 nations and I think that's for a reason creating more dynamic RvR warfare. Yes, I know there were many different nations in the Caribbean during the rough timeframe but for more decent RvR (which seems to be pretty elusive) we might need to think about taking down some of these nations and changing pirates to be similar to the new nations (aka start with no ports, no safe ports). Having these nations is great for more PvP options but for general RvR I think it dilutes the player pool. Perhaps going back to a GB, FR, and ESP with pirates and US starting like the invasion nations would be more dynamic? Note: There are other things that could help RvR as well. This is just one suggestion for piecing together a better RvR.
  15. Hey Bart, Teutonic was referring to PURGE. Right now most of PURGE are pvping in another game. Myself and maybe one or two others are part time playing. We'll likely be solo privateers while we monitor the game. Feel free to message me (same name) in game.
  • Create New...