Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

About Reginulfr

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

302 profile views
  1. Didn't someone say this last week but then realised it was actually not the case. Its just that not all hunt missions have gold chests as a reward? You have to wait for the right one?
  2. I just want to know how much it would be for a server? If we have a number, there is always a chance of a community whip around to get the money together.
  3. You could limit it so you can only Duel someone in your own nation, like other MMOs. Its a natural limitation because you run out of people to fight, and you get no gain to it. So natually people would move to OW pvp to get real content. But at the same time you can practice and test builds, which ultimately is good because when you do pvp, the fights will be better. People will also get more confident and therefore would be more likely to go forth and pvp. Simply put, of there is no loss and no rewards, and you can only duel same nation, you get the benefits of learning from a duel, but at the same time you dont detract from PVP cause you still have to find the enemy if you want rewards/a real fight
  4. Indiaman, Trader snow and LGV are all traders... not pvp ships. that said, How? and indiaman vs 3 ships with that health you still had... did they just sit and not shoot at you? If you have vids would love to watch them to get some tips
  5. Oh yeah i did that a lot last year. But the players are there. the rest of the time they are doing econ or running defense fleets, with an Op about once or twice a week. But low/null roaming is also a thing, as in this game where you might roam into another territory looking for people trading. If you had more of it, more people would run defense fleets or escorts. Problem is right now trading is broken and zero risk because you just cap a trader brig, and afk sail. If you lose it, you just watch some more netflix and do it again. At least in Eve a Rorq or a Hauler is worth huge amounts, so if its threatened people jump in and it causes a good fight.
  6. I dont mind either way if these were implemented, but I do see how they wouldnt work and I dont see how these would make players leave. For #1, dont mind but I hear it does quicken fights which some people are happy about. For #2, if you make a matchmaking, then less people on OW when there already arent many. Also games like Eve Online dont have matchmaking, you can take hours and hours looking for a fight and not getting because people are good at running from fights, thats why you have tacklers. It makes a kill rewarding if its hard earned. Eve has over 10k consistent people online and has been going for 16 years. For #3, and #4, they seem conflicting. Discourage ganking but also make people fight? I think allowing people to be ganked and also be able to flee gives some balance. Some people do enjoy ganking, "ganking" happens in wars so why not in the OW. It also allows for PVP because people counter gank. But if they were to implement your changes, I'd still play. THAT being said, I would like to see the ability to DUEL within your own nation. Partly for practice within clans, but also to settle disputes. There are one or two guys in my clan i'd like to test myself against
  7. @admin if this is true, patch notes and some warning would have been good. Our clan just invested Dubs into me and a few others to get a workshop for crafting Rum to get out experience up. Those 5k dubs could have been used for port upgrades. Since buildings are so expensive now, its a bit frustrating if things like this change so quickly without warning, and time invested is just for no purpose. Please just give us some confirmation of things
  8. I havent had a chance for a full read (will do tomorrow) but my only comment here is that this seems to be a huge change to the mechanics of the game, and thus might be too complicated to implement. I'm just trying to suggest a simplified game board that is easily implemented, but as with any good game design, restricted enough to force dynmics, rather than just the largest blob fleet wins.
  9. I disagree with this to a point. You always want to know what game type its going to be before it happens (at least a day or so before) so you have have time to properly plan. I remember planning POTBS port battles hours before, because it was always between a couple of maps. But leadership had the chance of developing a viable strategy and communicating it with the clan before the battle. Plans cant be made in minutes, but a good plan is only survives until the first shot is fired. Either way, I dont mind the consistency of the circles in as much as you have a standard chess board to develop your strategy, but like chess there should be many ways to win.
  10. Extending Life to RvR - Regi’s Theory We all want this game to have longevity, so I was thinking today about different tools and mechanisms that could be used by the devs in this game to assure longevity in this game. Let’s face it, RvR and PvP is key to keeping a hardcore player base, so how do we make sure this game doesn’t become stale in 12 months (or less as most players are coming from EA). To start, let’s look at Why are RvR and PvP so important? In short, it takes the burden off Developers to create content for the player base by creating a Positive Feedback Loop. If players fight, they make content, and if there is content, people keep playing, thus creating more content, which draws new players, etc, etc. (Eve Online is a perfect example of player driven content keeping a game consistently fresh). Further to this, I see three fundamental reasons to play an RvR MMO. Firstly, the fight/challenge is enjoyable. Secondly, there is a reason to fight. Lastly, there is Hope that you, or your clan, will become ultimately successful if you continue fighting. If one of these three is lacking in a game, the feedback loop is broken, or has the potential of working backwards. Fights become boring, players become disenfranchised, less content, bad reviews, new players don’t bother buying. We’re already seeing this to an extent, so how do we avoid this happening? There are two game mechanics that have been consistently brought up in the forums that I would like to explore as examples. Port Battle BR Limits and Trading (the latter will be focused on reasons WHY to own ports). Lowering Port Battle BR Limits and BALANCE: With what we saw at the end of EA with the current BR limits was that the best way to fight a capital port battle was to have nothing but 1st rates (L’Ocean Blob). These are not only incredibly expensive to partake in requiring significant resources from a nation or clan, but also offer no opportunity for diverse tactics. There is a high probability that this will become stale, if it has not already. The most common argument for maintaining the current BR limit is that “people will always find the most powerful ships at the available battle rating, so what is the point?” Well, yes, there will always be a “META” as naturally players will find the optimal way to win. However with the current model, there is no availability for the META to change, which is primary point draw back to this current system. Before going further, lets look at other advantages of lowering BR Limits (not bothering with historical, only focusing on gameplay). A lower BR limit in port battles forces the decision of which ships each side will and won’t take. Lets take Mechwarrior as an example here. Each battle or “Drop” has a certain maximum tonnage which means you cannot just take 12 of the heaviest mechs possible. This means that there are viable selections to be made before each battle which makes things interesting. Projecting this effect to NA, a lower BR Limit would: 1. Reward preparation, organisation and discipline of clans involved. 2. Mix ship types to require more advanced strategies, or at least a higher variation of strategy being deployed in Port Battles. 3. Allow smaller, more elite clans to be competitive as an organised unit could beat a better economic backing All three of the above points cover two of the three “Fundamental Reasons to Play and RvR Game.” Fights will be enjoyable long term because: · Dynamic strategy means PB’s are less likely to become routine · Mix of ship types allow players to specialise in roles outside of just first rates. · Leadership challenges prolong the interest of clan leaders or competitive groups. Hope is given and is important because: · A competitive clan with less resources can elect to bring only heavier ships and have a fighting change · Developing new strategies could be what gives the edge over fighting a clan with 100% port boni L’Ocean Fleet, but is unorganised · Hope of winning means people are more likely to make risks, risks mean more content. More content = good. Let’s get back to the META concept. Firstly, I agree that in the current state, the playerbase will 100% find the optimum ship composition to enter the port battle within 2 months. We actually want this because it provides the opportunity for BALANCE. The Dev team has the opportunity every 3 months to make balances based upon the stats in port battles and player feedback. Each balance can mean that the META changes, and if the meta changes, players and leadership have to continually rethink strategies and compositions every few months. This is what keeps a game alive. You look at League of Legends, or Dota, and you see that minor balance tweaks each season is what provides longevity to a game that is essentially unchanged since release. It is a tool for a small Dev Team to consistently provide minor tweaks that have huge impacts, but in order for it to work, there MUST be an overall ruleset/framework that remains unchanged, and I would suggest that this framework be a reasonably lower BR. TRADING and Map Ownership Since this post is getting long, I’ll try to simplify this. There has to be a reason to own ports, beyond just having a place to build shiny ships, or a staging point for battles. Currently there is no reason to own a port on opposite sides of the map, unless you just want PvP action, and with the ability to invest in ports to create resources, there are no points in the map that all factions want. Fixing trading is a must to allow for a better high risk, high reward mechanic to make money. However it is also an opportunity to go further by making this mechanic improve ports owned by clans over time, with bonuses relative to the distance, or the resources involved. It could increase the bonus to ships, or simply just the income a Nation can gain. Or it could be another way of growing a port to become more impenetrable (think Citadels in Eve Online). This solves the second “Fundamental reason to play and RVR game.” Let’s take an example where a clan or nation has an established hold of the Lower Antilles. Why would they ever want to venture as far as the Yucatan or the Gulf of Mexico? If there was a bonus to bring resources from such a distance, it would incentivise organised nations to establish and defend a colony or outpost on the other side of the map, and rather than just turtling for the sake of PVP, actually have to sale trades across the map. This opens up opportunity for mid ocean PVP where raids take place against player made convoys. The opportunities here are numerous but I am hoping people and Devs see the potential here. The idea is to create a sandbox where the players have the opportunity to make content, and that the content does not become stale over time and is easily rejuvenated through small manageable balance changes, rather than wipes and large changes that have the potential to shock the player base (as we just experienced). But it needs to be done sooner rather than later.
  11. RVR Port Battle BR should be reduced to allow for more strategic ship selection (and therefore more complex and interesting fleet fights and leadership/tactics). Think of mechwarrior. You have a limited tonnage, so you really have to select the mechs you use to drop into a battle and the tactics you want to use. This gives more opportunity for the "Meta" to change over time as different balances are made by your team (the Devs) as they should be. Meta changes are hugely important to the longevity of any PVP game. Blob 1st rate fleets do not allow for any creativity in tactics, and therefore within 6-12 months RvR will just become stale and routine (we want this game to be 11 years old like POTBS!!!). I could write a whole post on the potential benefits of this but I think its been done already Rebalance trading of goods for higher risk/reward. (would be great if you got bonuses, or ports got bonuses, for trading friendly port to friendly port, it would incentivise Nations to set up colonies/outposts on other side of map to secure trade goods, thus adding another aspect to the RvR). Moreso, makes clan held areas useful for players who arent in clan. Ultimately we need to get the burden of "content" off devs by providing enough reasons in game for players to be creating and evolving content in game (think eve online). Devs make a slight balance change or release a new port /crafting thing, and suddenly the game is renewed for 6 months. General Quality of Life Nerf AI reload, damage & speed buffs and firing arc. Can keep them tanky to offset inability to repair Revert XP back to old model, or at lease change the scaling so that you get more xp for larger ships, but retain the same xp for lower rates. (best idea I think is to have xp based on the BR you sink, cause if you hit a 12 fleet of 5ths, you should get good XP no matter what. Its also predictable so people can pick an optimum path cause some people love doing math) Smuggler NPC's (I remember we had this in 2016). This is so that noobs can still have NPC's to attack even if all ports in area are same nation. Raids or some decent PVE content with better rewards EDIT: I wanted to add something for RVR. Please improve the grouping mechanism. Once you get a certain amount of people, it would be good for the group lead (admiral) to be able to colour different squadrons. (red, greed, yellow group). This would add a tool to use for port battles where you can split up groups and have command easily able to do see what groups are doing what. We did this in POTBS with sail colours and would have squadrons of 6 ships sailing in a line of 18, or two lines, but they could act as units. Edit 2: I did end up writing a post on point 1 and 2 on this in General Discussions
  12. No POTBS is still alive. Its literally been kept alive by the playerbase. Its been sold multiple times but the players loved it. Interesting story here; https://www.pcgamer.com/pirates-of-the-burning-sea-2019/
  13. I agree, I much the same after the patch came out for the XP balance. The way they had it before where the XP was more strictly linked to the damage you did worked, because that naturally made a had limit on the amount of xp you could get from a 5th rate vs a 3rd date, but that being said if you chose to hit 5x 5th rates, you woudl get a decent return on your grind (and some fun with it). I think thye have gone too far with nerfing the xp from lower BR ships, it really limits the options of grinding. Basically only hitting equivalent rates and above is worht the time, but with the way the AI is now with their buffs and the firing arc, it becomes an unnecessary risk. I dont know how admin calculated 2 hours a day to get to full rank in a month, i was playing about that the last few weeks and barely went up one rank. But most frustrating for me (pure Pve player currently) is that I'm limited in my options and its become less fun. I loves hitting 3-5 fleets of 5th rates with my 4th rates, or a fleet of 4ths with my christian, just cause its fun. I hit a 12 fleet with a christian theother day, and i got 600xp... I can understand their intetion to give you better rewards for higher rates, but they dont need to apply as aggressive a drop off for lower rated ships. Ultimately, on pve you just want to be able to get into bigger ships so you can grind rewards out. I imagine even on the PVP server on a small night, you want to still have a good opportunity to improve your rank.
  14. F11 coordinates I thought was always a bug that was always meant to be removed (going back to when open world was first released). That said, I read at least one positive mention about the removal of it, because no longer can someone give exact coords when being ganked. Even with the sextant perk, the size of the image still gives a little approximation of where you are. Sextant does kill the point, but you have to give up a perk slot. Otherwise you can still triangulate your position using the trader tool (and the makers of https://na-map.netlify.com/ could probably add something where if you put the distance between 3 ports, it will tell you where you are on the map which would be really cool). This is the closest to real navigation you can get I'd think (when I was on watch even with GPS you'd still take 3 radar bearings every 30 minutes when sailing close to the coast) unless they implemented using the stars at night. So if you want to feel legit navigation, you can still do it without the sextant perk and personally I think that's a lot more immersive. Compared to all the other gameplay mechanics i'd have thought F11 was the last thing people would be annoyed at.
  • Create New...