Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Niels Terkildsen

Members
  • Content Count

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Niels Terkildsen

  1. Hahahaha... *cries internally* Yes, admin, why do we need to "gank" (not really fitting when there's no "gang" involved in the "killing" is it?) a 6th rate trader in a frigate................ in an AoS game? Oh, I know, because that's one of the things frigates were for in the AoS! This, 1000 times this:
  2. Mate, I was talking about the inevitable drop-off.
  3. Just uninstalled since I read admin's (2½ months old) statement that ROE will not change. Also re-read this old, absolutely horrendous thread: Sorry for the QQ. Have fun, guys - see you when Legends is back!
  4. This makes me so amazingly sad. I'm now uninstalling the game (that I've had dormant on my drive for a very long time) even when people are piling in after official launch... All trust in @admin's judgement on this matter is gone if this statement stands. "No plans to change ROE. It is the final Rule of Engagement." - admin It saddens me deeply, but all I can hope for, now that OW is seemingly never going to be what I wished for, is for a future re-launch of Legends - in that way we can have two arena PvP AoS games: one that pretends to be an OW-sandbox game, but is just in essence a lobby blown out of proportions, and one that is completely honest about being an arena where you can wait in a lobby for proper PvP with lovely ships and canon fire.
  5. I still think we just need something like this (again):
  6. So, the game is going to be released while ROE is "under review"? We've been flip-flopping between all sorts of different variants since OW started, and I'd be very unhappy if the final decision was 20 minutes+ timers... 😐 I'm afraid to say anything above 3 minutes is a no-go for me. Wysiwyg is the only acceptable ROE in my opinion.
  7. Another issue that there might be with my suggestions is that there seems to be a limit to the total amount of ships the servers can handle (from what I've read). Well, firstly the fact the player crew and ships have to be used limits the possibility of spam; secondly I think most people would prefer to cut down on random OW NPC spawning if room was made for hauling contract ships (one is random and without an impact on economy, the other is meaningful and player created).
  8. The reason that I put in the pretty strict contract rules is to prevent abuse and scamming. Of course, you can just fill in a trivial compensation amount at your own risk; hopefully the players will figure out where the risk/reward balance is, and how much people are willing to sell their time for, etc. One thing I would like to see though is personal contracts, so you can bypass the public contracting; in that instance it could be a lot more flexible. Likewise within clans. I did consider the postal service and similar things, but I concluded that it would just artificially increase the time everything takes; and everything already takes a lot of time, so it didn't really appeal to me in the end even though the concept is nice from a realism and immersion point of view. What I could envision though is some sort of maintenance cost for outposts reflecting the administration expenses (rather than the use of dubloons for Player teleport). If you can't pay the maintenance, your outpost will become dormant so you can't access it from afar (though perhaps it should still be functional if you go there personally).
  9. One thing that has bothered me for a long time is the lack of immersive life and meaningful activity in the OW. What I'm going to propose is something that will hopefully make even those "dead" NPC traders interesting to OW hunters, and at the same time something that may appeal to the aspiring merchant mogul. Traders all know the bore of sailing for a long time in the admittedly rather dull OW of Naval Action, and OW hunters all know how unsatisfactory it is to capture NPC traders even if they carry valuables, simply because it has no impact on enemy players, therefore I propose hauling contracts in three different variants: Internal hauling contract: The Player will use own ship(s) and crew. The ship(s) will be fully controlled by NPC on the OW from point A to point B as well as in potential instances. External hauling contract: The Player puts up a contract for goods to be transported to a specific port. Time limit as well as class range of ship(s) required specified by the Player. Ship(s) provided and controlled by the taker of the contract. Contracts can only be taken by same nation players having the specified ship class (and fleet) ready; you can't leave port without the right configuration. Payment on delivery. Upon failure, the contract taker will pay a compensation specified in the contract - the contract can't be taken if this amount is not owned. Escort hauling contract: The Player provides the hauling ship(s) from his own dock with his own crew. Time limit as well as escort class range of ship(s) required specified by the Player. Escort ship(s) provided and controlled by the contract taker who is to lead the hauler(s) to the destination. Contracts can only be taken by same nation players having the specified ship class (and fleet) ready; you can't leave port without the right configuration. Payment on delivery. Upon failure, the contract taker will pay a compensation specified in the contract - the contract can't be taken if this amount is not owned. Now, all of this will be very handy for the traders and crafters, but it will be a boon for the OW hunters as well. Instead of players being limited to one trade run at a time they can now delegate to NPC and other players willing to do the hauling/escorting. This will mean more traffic in the OW, and meaningful traffic at that. No longer will the hunters pass by those boring AI traders without a second thought - perhaps they're carrying a precious load sent out by an enemy player! Furthermore, this addition would benefit from some changes to outpost management - these have already been partially requested - but I shall briefly outline how I envision it: All outpost warehouses, docks, and production buildings can be managed from anywhere - even at sea. This may sound unrealistic or immersion-breaking etc. but if you consider it for a while: does production stop when the owner is away? Is there no staff at hand that can see to it that it is kept up? We must imagine that the Player doesn't only control his navy officer (or equivalent) but also his estate and dock managers etc. It should also allow you to make hauling contracts anywhere, so you can get produced goods hauled from far away outposts without personally going there. Another thing that is connected to this is the "tow ship" mechanic. I think this has to be rethought. Either it should be the hardcore way, meaning it has to be sailed, if not by you or another player, then by NPC (similar to the hauling contracts with the possibility of a strong escort, while not having to do it yourself). The moderate version may be to make it take a very long time to reach its destination, though the more mechanics we have that bypass the OW, the more dead it will be. A hurdle to get past is of course the NPC pathfinding on the OW, but I have every confidence that this can be solved by the developers, and even that it is something that they intend to improve in any case. I'd love to hear your opinions on these suggestions.
  10. I'm amazed nobody mentioned the PiratesAhoy! so called "Build Mod" or "New Horizons" for the 2003 game, Pirates of the Caribbean (a.k.a. Sea Dogs II). I'm sure quite a few of you must have heard of it or played at least once upon a time. It's still being developed here, and is, I dare say, the best single player AoS game out there, with tons and tons of content - and you can play it however you like: arcade-ish or realistic. I'm currently trying my luck as a smuggler which is high risk high reward (got my favourite officer killed, and almost died myself, last time I tried selling on Puerto Rico, getting caught in a four-way fight between bandits, smugglers, natives, and soldiers!). I play using the DirectSail mode, which means I sail directly between the islands instead of using the World Map. It's great. The only thing I'm missing is the sailing mechanics and combat of NA.
  11. That deals with the "immersion", Great! But what about the entertainment? I mean, for me immersion is part of the entertainment, but I know that is not true for everyone.
  12. One of the least immersive parts of the game is the OW travelling. Unfortunately it's also one of the things you have to spend most time doing. I've been dreaming of a non-instance game where everything takes place in the current battle sailing mode - but perhaps I'm just a dreamer and it won't work (unless perhaps for a single player game)...
  13. Loving that sharp bow! It's nice to see some of the old style carrying over to later ships (even though that lateen may not be practical). I can't wait to see one of these beauties in game!
  14. Well, those are not my words. I have only praise for what you've done up until now; that is also why I passionately hope that we won't take a step back - and I do hope that the "arcadey" things we're seeing now is the result of the fact that many variables (like basic speed and turn rates) haven't been adjusted. This.
  15. It's odd: sailing the ships in combat has been one of the few things that worked really well, and yet now it's being completely rewritten. I sure do hope that this won't be messed up, because that'd leave NA with very little going for it. As it looks now (admitting that I haven't tested it thoroughly myself) this looks less like a change for realism than a change for a more fast-paced, albeit more advanced, sailing profile, borderlining on the arcadey.
  16. That looks insane. How is this more realistic? Coming out of a tack without going below 5.8 knots... and being able to go almost 6 knots backwards when backing sails and depowering. It looks more like the performance of a rally car than a fully rigged ship.
  17. Yes, but my point is: will it be done by the actual turning of yards (by the auto-skipper), or will it just happen "magically"? I know that auto-skipper optimises for speed, and that turning has always been enhanced by proper use of manual sailing, but I'm more concerned about how sailing physics may function completely different depending on whether you're on auto-skipper or using manual sails. Just like vazco says below: Another concern: During the little testing I did after the first experimental patch, one thing that I reacted to, as has been mentioned before by @maturin for example, is that you were unable to heave to; that is, the pressure on the sails made you spin on the spot when you were standing still, without the use of rudder, and in a much too exaggerated way. I wonder if this is still true...
  18. I don't understand: so the sailing physics using manual sails will be different from the sailing physics when using auto skipper, when the yards are in the same positions?
  19. It has a distinct American look to it somehow... Not really my cup of tea... Anyway, I think we need more 3rd rates rather than 1st. (This should also be posted in the shipyard section of the forum, not here).
  20. I think hunting in NA OW is great (whenever it isn't actively discourages like it is now), but honestly, the ship combat is what this game is good at. Everything else is mediocre at best. Sounds a lot like a situation I was in earlier today, together with Jodgi and JobaSet... You actually do get some very tense and last minute moments in NAL, which is also why it's my current go-to game for arena/battle fun. Instead of having to spend at least two hours sailing around in an empty (or safe zoned) sea with very little chance of finding anything to attack/get attacked by, you can now load up NAL and almost instantly have a fun, engaging battle (at least when there's more than three players in it). Until OW hunting is made viable again, I don't see any good reason to load up NA OW. Now, at least for a while, NAL will fulfil all my Naval Action cravings, and conversely, hopefully the care bears will have all their Naval Grind needs fulfilled within their cosy safe zones. Perhaps they'll even dare venture outside, since all the hunters left. The developers could just as well make it into a PvE game with arranged port battles; that's what it's turning into now anyway.
  21. Just to reinforce this point, my friends and I will probably not bother to go out (read: play the game at all) until the safe zones are somehow changed. It's near impossible for us to hunt effectively currently, both in a group or solo, which is the only thing we find worth while, when e.g. Gustavia's safe zone covers far beyond actual sight of Gustavia, as I've pointed out in another thread. I'm sure the Swedes feel similarly about the Christiansted safe zone. And honestly, it's not like higher level players don't have every opportunity to sail with an NPC or a friend that will deter any attack (especially from people such as us that prefer to go out in smaller ships). If people want to stay safe and simply do boring missions within the safe zone, make it so that you can choose to get missions within the (very much smaller) safe zone at the trade off that it'll give significantly less reward compared to doing it outside of safe zones.
  22. I played PotBS myself, and I don't recall experiencing ammo as a bad thing. I mean, if that's an issue, why not just leave out the commodity part and have a setup that you can alter in port. For example (slightly arbitrary numbers): you can have 1000 ammo at most, and you choose to bring 800 ball, 100 chain, and 100 grape, or you can customise that however you want within the max limit. Obviously this may be detrimental to longer journeys where you can't go into friendly ports and auto-resupply. I don't know, it's a complicated thing to alter since it will affect so many variables. The possibility of running out of ammo reminded me of an anecdote about Tordenskjold (Danish naval hero): In July 1714, Peder Wessel (later sired "Tordenskjold") was sailing the frigate Løvendals Galley (18 guns) in Skagerak (using the Dutch flag to deceive potential prizes), and he met another frigate flying the British flag, but after passing by Wessel's ship, it fired two shots and let fly the Swedish flag; it was in fact the Swedish frigate De Olbing Galley (28 guns) under a Captain Bactman. Then Wessel hoisted the Danish flag and they commenced fighting. They fought for more than three hours before Bactman retired; but Wessel pursued, after repairing some of the damage. They fought again for about two hours, until midnight, both ships now being very much damaged, and Bactman crippled so he couldn't run. After another pause during the night, they commenced fighting again the following morning, for about three hours, and once again they separated to repair in order to stay afloat. Then, for a fourth time, they engaged and after an hour, when Bactman was apparently almost about to surrender, Wessel realised he had run out of powder. He was unable to board due to rather heavy weather, so he had no other option than to let the Swede go. He did not want the Swedes to think he was running, so he lowered a boat with a trumpeter that sailed across to the Swedish frigate to offer Bactman a glass of wine on board Wessel's ship, but he refused. The trumpeter saw the carnage on board the frigate, and reported it to Wessel when coming back. Wessel then took the speaking-trumpet and asked Bactman whether he could borrow some powder so they could continue fighting, but Bactman answered that he only just had enough for himself. Then the ships approached one another and the two captains brought out a toast to each other, asking to give their best to friends in Copenhagen and Gothenburg respectively, whereafter they threw their glasses overboard; the crews then giving three cheers, and the ships separating. Wessel was later court martialed (but acquitted) for endangering the King's ship by fighting against a much stronger enemy, and also revealing that he was out of ammunition, which could be considered important military information, etc. Among other things, he defended himself by saying, "I did ask my opponent whether he would lend me some powder - that he wouldn't - so that was it, until God desires that we find each other again". A romanticised depiction of the event by Otto Mølsted (1862-1930):
×
×
  • Create New...