Skully
-
Posts
2,763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Skully
-
-
18 minutes ago, Busterbloodvessel said:
The GPS tracker exploit sounds like a serious hacker game spoiler. If it is true, can something be done to defeat this such as not sending ship position and ID data to the client until the contact ship is in render range?
Buster (swinging swords at ghosts)
That is already the case.
We are not talking about GPS tracking other ships, we are continuously on the lookout for such hacks.
You can test this for yourself with a teammate. Let him sail on an angle slight away from you. As he hits the horizon his ship will stop moving. The server is at that moment no longer sending you updates. After a short time your client registers it as a timeout and removes the ship. (The client never does any form of position prediction, server is the authority.)
Target tracking of visible ships can be done on the GPS, but requires a bit more coding which I believe hasn't been done yet. (Although I don't trust foggy weather.)
To fix this the F11 coordinates need to be removed. And any coordinates need to be send through a personalized reference point.
-
14 minutes ago, Rebrall said:
lol so if you (Dains) jump a GB player in Surrey for example:
if a player (GB) in a warship is attacked in there own county (GB county) the battle stays open for ever or as long as there is live ships within the instance,
if the player(GB) is in a trader the same from above applies but gets AI support also.
the attacker (Dains) keeps the same mechanics we have now if he wins
make more sense?
It makes perfect sense.
Nobody will come out to save a casual and we need @Sir Texas Sir to keep the ducklings busy.
Just as it is now or was in the past. With or without invisibility.
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, Rebrall said:
i said in your own county fyi
My own county or your own county? This game is so confusing sometimes.
-
4 hours ago, Jeheil said:
I am guessing bad ping is doubled against a player. If you are fighting AI it is a trip from your computer, to the server and back. If its against a player, its a threesome. So obviously better...I mean worse.
Not entirely. NA is build on a classical notion in which the server is always in control as opposed to for example Planetside 2.
In P2 each client owns its world and the server acts as a referee. This becomes apparent when you die behind a corner. It can even be triggered (if they haven't "fixed" it already) by you jumping off a bridge into a teammate vehicle. Your client may decide you did not make it, while his client may decide you did.
"Shoot, shoot, why are you not shooting!?" "I'm dead." "No, you are not!"
In NA you only have to worry about the RTT to the server, but a players reaction to you is dictated by adding both pings.
So us poking holes happens at a relative straight cadence... (hmm... where did this discussion go wrong?
)
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Rebrall said:
if a player in a warship is attacked in there own county the battle stays open for ever or as long as there is live ships within the instance,
Picture a battle of 3 Pirates vs 1 Brit, with 3 more Pirates sitting outside eyeballing you. Would you jump in to help?
3 hours ago, Bach said:First off, you state you using a third party (essentially GPS) system to track allies/targets and coordinate your ganks like modern fast patrol craft. That not exactly a fair test of the mechanics but we'll go with it.
Fair or not isn't the question. The mechanic is there/possible, so it needs to be tested as such.
And yes, OW is very much a modern fast patrol craft game. Whether we like it or not.
3 hours ago, Bach said:If the guy had his smuggler flag on, was travelling in just two trader brigs and you were next to Mantua then all he had to do was use the invis+speed+invul timer and go into Mantau.
Objection, speculation. Jury needs to disregard this statement.
I can show a deeper analysis of the circumstances and other outside influences, but I'm willing to bet ChuCoMan will agree that he had no chance of making it to Mantau. His only option was Corrientes, which was blocked.
3 hours ago, Bach said:Congratulations you caught someone that clearly wasn't thinking ahead.
Thank you and from what it appears I will catch many more.
3 hours ago, Bach said:There is nothing wrong with the new set up. It deters gank fleets but doesn't 100% prevent them. It also gives the lone runner a chance. At least a better chance then he had before.
As long as you keep thinking in terms of a lone hunter (casual) vs a ganker fleet (casual), then yes the balance is likely equal.
As soon as you introduce imbalance it simply falls apart, for example the lone hunter calls in a revenge fleet to augment his already substantial power of invisibility + speed boost.
9 hours ago, Skully said:When all of a sudden, out of the blue, a British Surprise pulled up beside him.
As for a CONCORD fleet, maybe ask @Sir Texas Sir what he thinks of the difficulty to circumvent 6 1st rates.
A legend can only come down,
- when it meets another legend; http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/21551-the-skully-gazette-july-6/
- through trickery; http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22532-the-smoke-cast-by-man/
- or when other legends organize it; http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/16395-pvp1-september-10th-1716-the-demise-of-fuzzyhead-the-bearded/
-
4 minutes ago, Liquicity said:
the traders brig would have had the possibility to sail off into an odd direction (because of the speed boost and invisbility), and then log off (2 min logoff timer)
Which in turn can also be abused.
Picture the moment of decision:
- Continue playing
- Log-off
What information does a player really need to make that decision?
Nothing from the game, everything from RL.
Giving him the composition of enemy assets on the OW for free directly influences this decision. So the player will not show true intent.
Rather a simple log-off at battle screen. (Maybe not with captured ships, but that is a sliding scale.)
Anybody willing to waste time sitting at a point hoping for action, can do just that. That's their decision to make. "My mom always said NA life was like a sandbox of ships. You never know what you're gonna get."
(OW is nothing more than an elaborate queuing mechanism, ships can come from anywhere including battle instances. ...Okay, a bit more then...)
-
3 minutes ago, Liquicity said:
I'm trying very hard to understand your points, but I simply cant, it doesn't make any sense at all to me. Ganking is what defines an OW MMO; such a game barely ever has any equalish ow pvp. I agree we need some sort of rookie protection, but at some point, if you're sailing a ship alone without any reinforcements in Range, it's basically your fault to get sunk, it might be harsh but such is life.
I fully agree in this part.
3 minutes ago, Liquicity said:well sure it did change revenge fleets? It basically removed them completely?
No it didn't. As I showed I can still easily execute a revenge fleet tactic. And now at the same easily execute a getaway (in enemy waters). Furthermore I can use it to execute the invisibility gank. So we took zero steps forward and two steps back.
-
2 minutes ago, Liquicity said:
Also, weren't you constantly complaining about gankers and forming a ganking heaven? Well then, well done on taking out a captain-rank with probably all his assets
Where did I complain about gankers and forming a ganking heaven?
If you think this is the worst I have done to prove broken mechanics, then you may want to think again.
Hence now a rookie can't set sail in any big ship as protection for himself.
Something definitely needs fixing here, but it must be done right or not at all. Again, invisibility + speed boost change nothing with regards to revenge fleets, it is a boon for gankers. Hence it needs to go where it belongs, in the trashcan.
(The best part is that the more I try to convince folks, the more they vote for having invisibility + speed boost.
)
-
1
-
-
Just now, Rebrall said:
I'm still confused as to why it needs changed?
It gives folks a false sense of security and then they set sail.
-
Let me tell a story and then you guys can think of how many "wrongs" there are in there. There might even be some "rights", who knows.
It is the story of ChuCoMan and how he lost 2 Traders Brigs filled to the brim with goodies. For the sake of argument totaling 1.5M.
ChuCoMan was quietly sailing along south-west past Mantua on his way to Barcos to sell his stock of Iron Fittings.
When all of a sudden, out of the blue, a British Surprise pulled up beside him.
His initial reaction was to drop all sails and try to call it a night. Were it not that the night belongs to the AUSEZ.
T -5:00 "Battle comms, US double Traders Brigs fleet, scramble at Mantua."
Realizing his mistake he put up his sails again, but the Surprise was ready for his every move.
The Surprise tagged him in battle and a chase began.
T -4:45 "We need a couple more minutes before we can bring 3 fast interceptors."
T -4:40 "Roger, I'll keep him in battle until our fleet is ready."
To his surprise the enemy captain made some bad mistakes and slowly he saw his way clear.
T -2:30 "3 fast interceptors undocking at Mantua, position?"
5 hours ago, Prater said:My map wasn't just for the community, we had a private version that showed our locations to each other so we could always find each other's battles.
(And that is how ours comms center looks like, with multiple TS channels to keep ourselves appraised of every movement.)
T -2:20 "Just west of Mantua, position 1 on my spot, 1 south-south-west end, 1 at the tip."
T -1:00 "Fleet in position."
Unbeknownst to him a "revenge" fleet had been put into place.
T -0:30 "Preparing for final volley, he thinks he is clear."
T -0:03 "Firing..."
"I made it out", ChuCoMan must have been thinking as he left battle.
Spotting the first Trincomalee on top of his spot, he probably panicked and immediately put up full sails.
T 0:10 "Leaving battle, entering pursuit."
ChuCoMan must have seen the second ship as he steered left to the tip.
T 0:30 "I have a visual at the tip. I have him."
T 0:35 "Tag, I'm coming up straight behind him."
The rest, as they say, is history.
(The Discord transcripts are my best effort to translate Aussie into English, so there may be errors in them.
)
-
6 minutes ago, Liquicity said:
We didnt have either but we did have battlescreen which also somewhat did the job of preventing silly revenge fleets.
Exactly and my position on these so called revenge fleets hasn't changed a bit.
On 9/8/2016 at 10:09 PM, Skully said:Both a ganking trap and a revenge fleet are a waste of assets. You have committed them to an action and no longer hold initiative.
You are counting on that something might show up, instead of asserting that the enemy has committed his assets and is in fact there.
Why do you think we have low cost scouts running around?
7 minutes ago, Liquicity said:Ganking sucks and happens to everyone, but that doesnt mean there should be a free revenge mechanic simply because we cant run OW and battles in the same speed instances.
I fully agree and you can easily chain @admin in this as well.
QuoteOur position is and was always this: ganking has to be reduced by design.
To which @admin has finally said:
On 8/14/2017 at 11:17 AM, admin said:Data/ratings/reviews show that there is a significant group who DO NOT enjoy ganking, uneven battles, crafting, trading, ow sailing, vast worlds. They currently are forced to play using mechanics they don't want resulting in them leaving unhappy. They do not overlap. Those who enjoy hunting, trading, exploring won't like the changes needed to keep the group mentioned above in the game.
Back to the topic,
if you want an anti-revenge mechanic, it must not be a ganker boon. Invisibility + speed boost do not pass the mark.
-
Let me toss up something else, which I completely forgot to bring forth again:
TL;DR
QuoteShips will no longer magically appear on Open World, but turn up through the fog. Yes, it might be extremely close, but then again you sailed into a fog bank. You have been warned that you are taking a potential risk.
Should I resurrect that one?
-
7 minutes ago, Aegon Targaryen said:
3. you can TP to port as long as
- You are the defender
- You have no fleetships
- It was not a outlaw battle
- It was not a pve mission
Did someone say "alt"? Ah no, the custom mantra on global/nation chat is "spy!".
I would say we need log-off, anything else abusable.
I gave it a similar twirl in the past as well:
Any form of BR rule gives me a headache. (Abuse and counter-abuse until I get blamed, no matter what.
) -
4 minutes ago, Liquicity said:
So tell me mr skully, where do you expect players to meet for pvp if not in national waters.
I believe we met before.
On 6/20/2016 at 2:40 PM, Liquicity said:Hehe yeah.. Guess that was me ^^
Can't recall us having invisibility and/or speed boost back then? Can you?
-
21 minutes ago, Fargo said:
Exactly. Its enough time needed to sail there, find a fight, and fight a single battle for up to 2 hours.
If youre complaining about ganking, help fixing the real issues that are promoting gank tactics. Fixing ganking with counterganking is a very stupid idea. Making use of strenght advantages is no ganking btw, but a valid tactic.
If your whole nation is sitting in the capital, why should there be any magic risk to hunt in this waters.
What we need is possibilities to intercept enemies in friendly waters. Its near impossible with current mechanics, even if you surrounded the enemy.
You wish to intercept enemies in friendly waters by giving them a free ticket home?
Do you see the contradiction, or is it just me?
-
18 minutes ago, Fargo said:
i would prefer teleport to closest friendly/neutral port.
Free ticket home for any ganker. Perfect.
18 minutes ago, Fargo said:risk ships in enemy waters
On 9/11/2016 at 9:36 AM, Skully said:PS. We call sailing alone to Capitals, suicide missions.
It's called enemy waters for a reason, because you are not in command of the sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_of_the_sea
On 9/8/2016 at 10:09 PM, Skully said:At the end of the battle we simply move all remaining ships forward in time to the present OW at the location they started. Simply to prevent abusing sailing through battle instances.
The
currentold mechanic has no true exploits. If you control the waters, you are safe. If not, you lose.How about I repeat another suggestion often offered: "Sail with friends".
On 9/8/2016 at 10:09 PM, Skully said:I think the next new officer perk should be "Organize" or "Strategy", because "Social" wasn't enough.
-
8 minutes ago, Macjimm said:
I thought the invisibility and speed boost was the alternative to allowing players to log off after they had escaped a battle.
That is correct. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22512-why-do-we-have-invisibility-after-battle/
I don't know why the timer was changed though.
You should be able to safely log-off after a battle, but not if you have captured a ship.
Does invisibility and speed boost help the casual? Yes, if he fights another casual. Against a legend, no chance.
In fact, invisibility and speed boost is a boon for any ganker.
I have never needed invisibility and/or speed boost to make a getaway.
But if you guys want to give it to me, please do so. Just don't yammer when out of nowhere a fast ship decloaks and you find yourself the victim of a ganking fleet.
On 8/2/2016 at 2:02 PM, Skully said:Invisibility. Use this to direct the gank fleet invisibly onto the victim. Perfect.
-
If I may ask, who opened fire first was that you on Yordi or was it Yordi on you?
-
20 minutes ago, Jeheil said:
You click while still in the last wee mo...but it just doesn't TAKE
That's likely because of packet loss. There is little the game can do here except allow you to cookie click the button. You'll be your own packet re-transmitter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#Dupack_based_retransmission
-
1
-
-
@Norfolk nChance of course I should have won the boarding, that goes without saying.
I suspect the clock we are seeing counting down is not tied to the real time countdown on the server. As I can time my click to within 6 ms and I have a super stable line, when I actually click the server time is already 6 ms ahead and my click is coming 6 ms after. While visually (on my client) I have clicked in time, in the "real world" (/ on server) I was too late.
12 minutes ago, Norfolk nChance said:Is this the reason why players asked for a Asian based SERVER?
Some folks have pings going over 1000ms, which makes the game unplayable. I think 500ms is the absolute max, but really after 400ms it becomes a problem.
14 minutes ago, Norfolk nChance said:When I played EVE on the big battles it became awful to play as everything slowed down. The lag was dreadful.
While we have a 75x OW and real time battle instances, EVE has semi-real time instances. NA OW can host up to 2500 (and probably more), but only have ~50 in a battle instance. EVE allows for many more players in an (battle) instance, but does the reverse to real time: https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Time_dilation
18 minutes ago, Norfolk nChance said:Hypothetically, at the Port Battle start could the game match all players to the slowest most stable ping? Surely no one would actually notice... At 260 ping when I press fire the cannon fires. Its the image that I'm looking at that's 200 pings behind?
Nah, that would all get very funky. Again, for the current way battle works in NA ping only is a factor once it goes over 400/500ms.
What might be a solution is having the battle shard boot up closest to the majority of folks entering battle. But this would require serious technical work. It would however allow us all to sail one OW instance.
https://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/a-look-into-the-nuts-and-bolts-of-eve-onlines-single-shard-arch/
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Anolytic said:
I'll leave that judgement up to the Admiralty, and so should you Skully.
I never pass judgement, I only state my interpretation of the rules.
If anybodies interpretation of the rules is bad or wrong (including myself), then the rules need amendments.
-
Ping does affect you, but the normal sailing routine is very slow as opposed to CoD shooters. My ping to Global is 10x higher, so I have to adjusted my moment of raking for example. (Also crafting is 10x slower.)
It becomes immediately apparent when we get into the cookie clicker boarding, hence I seldomly get the cookie.
-
Pardon my intrusion, please feel free to strike my question if it bears no relevancy.
@Dragonfire, as I see the chat in the first picture @Raio Boss and yourself agreed upon setting a green-on-green invocation trap towards either of these two players.
I do not understand why you would expose yourselves to entrapment. Maybe you would care to explain?
-
As per http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/21414-green-to-green-damage/?tab=comments#comment-437546, jumping in another players mission is at your own risk. The green-on-green rule would not be in effect.
It would have been courteous of Teach Edward to give you warning before opening fire, but as it currently stands this is not mandated.
Invisibility poll
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Koltes shouldn't need invisibility to get away, but needs something else for a good getaway.