Niels Terkildsen
-
Posts
432 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Niels Terkildsen
-
-
social will be reworked
it will allow unlimited entry for the weaker side up to 1v1 (+/- 20%) BR
but not more.
I really don't want to see anything like that perk again. Changing the most fundamental rules of PvP with perks is just wrong. The social, coward, and area control perks all show that the developers are not confident that these basic rules are good enough, so we should much rather look at finding a solution that doesn't require such perks (trying the two-circle suggestion for example, or similar ones - though I must say the current system is quite fine, excepting that I agree that area control should be a rule for all and the coward trait should be removed).
At the very least (or until they're hopefully removed) let us know if players have these perks on them, so we can act accordingly.
-
4
-
-
This would be great. I've been thinking these past days, after a long break from active PvP on the OW, that ships seem to pop in suddenly, much more obvious than I remember it. I don't remember it being like this in the early OW, where you would just be able to sense a white shape on the horizon before the ship slowly appeared.
Has the ship rendering been changed or is it due to the mist/fog being lessened (perhaps alongside a downgrading of the terrain graphics that I remember looking a lot better)?
A simulated curvature would of course be even better than blur/mist to cover up the jarring rendering of ships, and it would be fantastic for immersion.
-
Sounds good. More time will enable more tactics. Brawls are well and all, but I think long gun usage should be viable, and it really wasn't with the 45 minute limit.
-
A very enjoyable match between MRF and TDA. Beautiful manoeuvres by TDA - and quite effective it seems. Well fought both teams!
-
6
-
-
Anyway though, 2 minute timers or your idea you gave here are preferable in my opinion.
It would be great to test that idea, which incidentally closely resembles my humble suggestion a few months ago.
-
1
-
-
Perks that change the way the basic game works have the potential to upset all balance (and are also terribly unrealistic for what that's worth). Please keep perk changes as minimal as possible and let player skill and intelligence govern.
Skill based game > Gear based game.
-
3
-
-
Shouldn't the window frames attached to the ports of the two cabin guns be removed before battle?
-
It's a text in German. Only the first part is relevant, since the second is just a bunch of praise for the Danish National Archives etc.
First part goes:
The Prindsesse Sophia Magdalena was a Danish SOL with 60 cannons, built in Nyholm with the 'building number' 31, after drawings by Krabbe. Laid down 4th of March 1762, launched 16th of April 1763, handed over middle of March 1765, decommisioned 4th of October 1781.
The ship is given the follwing measurements in Danish feet: length 157', width 42' 6", depth 19'-17', crew 512 men.
Sister ship: Prindsesse Wilhelmine Caroline
This might be useful too (might have been posted elsewhere):
http://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=761
-
Aren't we forgetting about larboard?
-
1
-
-
-
You could just take the land out and go to the build before its addition that didn't have positional entry or BR limits. You can bring the land back when you have the whole package right. It's not like it's so valuable to have land that we need both positional entry issues and 1.5BR rules issues for the sake of it.
I think this would be the best temporary solution.
-
2
-
-
It brings me hope, and I can't wait to see what you come up with!
In the meantime, yes, I guess we'd better go with the lesser of two evils.EDIT: I will probably stay in port until there's a new system in place. Not keen on playing any of the two options.
EDIT2: Alternatively go back to the version before "Land sighted" and implement it again when the fix has been completed.
-
1. Wrong. The nation with the most players doesn't have most players on a single point.
2. Wrong. "Realism" means there can be reinforcements... especially directly in front of a friendly harbor. No more ganking deep in enemy water without a fear in being engaged by a bigger enemy fleet in their own homewaters because defenders can't join anymore.
3. Wrong: Tactical tagging becomes even more important as you want a quick victory over your targets so you are able to disengage in time when needed. (Thats why spawns for reiforcements should be even further away in battle)
4. Goodbye engaging people in front of their harbors without fearing any kind of retaliation.
What you guys propose means no more reinforcements for outmatched people who got ganked. It means a strengthening to ganking in positions where it should be dangerous for the attackers.
What you guys propose is the death to any coordinated defense in homewaters as the attacker gets all the advantages:
Time, initiative, tagging-location.
In my poposal at least time favors the defender partially (since attackers can get reinforcements too), while tagging and initiative are still in favor for the attacker.
1. Lets' rephrase: the nation with the most players in any given area/region will always have the upper hand.
2. Realism for you means that people can warp into a battle-instance from another dimension at any given time? Please consider the discrepancies between the OW and the battle-instances.
3. What I meant with "tactical tagging" (might be a bad choice of words) was that you never know what you'll get since people can join all through the battle time.
4. Or never even go close to enemy harbours since there will always be a swarm of random people coming out to join the battle even if it's only within sight of the harbour in the OW (and they wouldn't realistically have chance to reach the battle before after the engagement, time discrepancies considered).
What our suggestion means is that you get what you see, and that goes for both the attacker and the victim (or preferably the 'defender'). Abuse is almost impossible.
The only way your suggestion can work is if reinforcement spawns are stupendously far away after the first few minutes - and then we could just as well do away with the OW entirely and just sail in the battle-instance system; yay!
-
Some issues that spring to mind initially.
- The nation with most players will always have the upper hand.
- Goodbye realism.
- Goodbye tactical tagging.
- Goodbye sailing through enemy waters in anything less than a 25-player group.
And there are probably plenty more.
I'm of the entirely opposite conviction: we need to close the engagements (almost) instantly - but increase the tagging range (and/or add a second "reinforcement"-circle) as has been proposed by Slamz, myself, and others.
-
Clearly the developers have made us choose between two inherently bad scenarios: either we have positional reinforcement, land in battles, and 1.5 BR restriction - or we have positional reinforcement, land in battles, and no BR restriction.
In my opinion, neither of those work. Firstly, positional reinforcement is completely wrong when the positions are not dependent on the relative positions upon the battle start. Land in battles is a great feature, but it also made the positional reinforcement a necessity (which would have been good if it was done realistically and logically). The 1.5 BR restriction is, in my opinion, an already tested (and failed) feature; it simply has no place in a game like Naval Action if you ask me. Now we had the BR restriction removed, but unfortunately the positional reinforcement mechanic was not changed, and this has lead to an absurd state of things.
My conclusion is that the real issue now is the way reinforcements work; and perhaps we should have an entirely new way of tagging and reinforcing. I've sketched out a suggestion in this thread, and so has others. We should discuss these rather than squabble over broken mechanics that won't work in the current state - neither with nor without the restrictions.
PS. Perhaps you should stop double-triple-quadruple-posting, Bach? Common forum sense.
-
1
-
-
Well, I'd agree that it's a rotten apple - I don't understand what you're trying to convey though: you think the current system is good as is? I can only assume, since you're not contributing with any new suggestions or points, only defending the way it is now.
-
If some proper restrictions can be found that limits abuse enough, I think it could be a good way to challenge the blobs we see currently. Then again, perhaps it will soon be time to remove the teleports entirely.
-
I agree with Slamz here: I think the best approach, and the most fool-proof one (or abuse-proof if you like) would be to have the second "reinforcement"-circle as I proposed earlier and then keep that circle up for ten seconds - meaning that if you were just outside of the initial radius (like green 3 is in the example) you have a few seconds to turn around and join the battle as reinforcement (at the very edge/horizon).
-
6
-
-
I'm starting to think the best solution would simply be to make the tagging-circle slightly bigger, and then close battle-instances entirely: no reinforcements whatsoever.
Any ships that would realistically have a chance to reach the fight before it's over should be covered by a wider tagging-circle. Perhaps make two circles instead of one: the first circle forcibly dragging ships into the battle-instance - the second, much larger circle, giving the ships the option to join from their position (preferably very far away, closing on the horizon when at the fringes of the second circle).
Here's an example of how this would work:
- The aggressive group (black 1, 2, 3, and 4) have succeeded in closing in on two of the enemy ships to their leeward (green 1 and 2).
- The dark red circle is the regular tagging-circle, and all ships within this will be pulled into the battle at their relative positions.
- Black 3 and 4, who are in the light red circle, will get the option to join the battle as reinforcement (starting far away from those in the tagging-circle, coming from their relative positions).
- Black 4 in this example may want to decline this offer to pursue green 3, but upon doing so will not be able to reinforce the first battle anymore.
NOTE: Everything isn't scaled properly; this is simply for presenting the general idea. The light red circle could, for example, be even larger than this in relation to the tagging-circle.
-
17
-
-
I'm starting to think the best solution would simply be to make the tagging-circle slightly bigger, and then close battle-instances entirely: no reinforcements whatsoever.
Any ships that would realistically have a chance to reach the fight before it's over should be covered by a wider tagging-circle. Perhaps make two circles instead of one: the first circle forcibly dragging ships into the battle-instance - the second, much larger circle, giving the ships the option to join from their position (preferably very far away, closing on the horizon when at the fringes of the second circle).
-
6
-
-
One quick suggestion would be - once reinforcement touches the edge of the circle message appears (Join Battle or Decline). Player picks Decline. Boom - After that there will be no more chances to reinforce for that player. Some other player can try the same at better angle and Accept to reinforce. So, entering circle will be critical. No need to sail through it and position at right angle, the moment you touch it that is it. How you touch the circle is up to you.
Battle position is based how you touch the edge of the circle.
Almost exactly what I suggested:Another option would be to put a very large circle around the battle instance, and when reaching this you get a one-time option to join from this direction (representing the horizon of the battle instance) or decline; this would possibly deal with the potential abuse of positional reinforcement.
I think it's crucial, though, that the circle is very large and not just the normal tagging-circle.
This combined with what akd suggested above might work.
-
2
-
-
It seems quite a few of us would like a more realistic relationship between the OW and the battle instances (which would also very much limit the possibility for abusive behaviour) - what we (read "I") don't want is restrictions upon an unrealistic mechanic.
Maturin is quite right when he's pointing out the huge discrepancies and the ridiculousness of the comparative sailing in the instance and in the OW.
-
1
-
-
Fantastic idea, especially if circle was invisible so players couldn't just sail round it. They'd still need to sail to the x hairs to 'join' but would enter depending on the direction they entered the invisible circle. The larger the circle the less ability player would have to sail round it and chose an unrealistic position ahead of the fight.
You're right, and that's why I didn't suggest using a normal size, like the usual tagging-circle. Perhaps your suggestion of a reinforcement-position depending on the relative position at the start of the engagement would work best.
EDIT: Damned, you edited your inital comment and now I can't retrieve the quote... ^^
-
It sounds to me as if this feature is put in to solve the issues of positional reinforcements, in which case I'd say it's a makeshift solution, at best.
Perhaps the battle instances should be completely locked from reinforcement instead? Another option would be to put a very large circle around the battle instance, and when reaching this you get a one-time option to join from this direction (representing the horizon of the battle instance) or decline; this would possibly deal with the potential abuse of positional reinforcement.
-
6
-
video about naval tactics in the age of sail
in History
Posted
His part about tactics... I have no idea where he got it from, but most of it is utter nonsense.