Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Arvenski

  1. I thought it might be a good idea for players of different nations be be able to temporarily put aside their differences and play alongside each other. Obviously, they wouldn't be able to attack each other's nations without becoming pirates, but players from two (or more, perhaps) different nations could work together to take on enemies from a third nation. Let me explain further with some examples: A British Barfleur and Trinco are sailing together, and they spot a French Tonnant. Before the British ships can come to grips with the Tonnant, a group of three Danish Christian VII ships show up and start chasing both the British and the French. By themselves, neither the Barfleur and Trinco or the Tonnant can fight off three Christian VIIs. So, the British chase down the Tonnant, and instead of attacking him, ask him if he'd be willing to work with them to take on the Danish. If he agrees, they can send him some kind of UI message with a choice of yes or no, and if he clicks yes, they will have signed a "temporary alliance pact." The pact might last for an hour or so of real time (as opposed to in-game time), during which time those British players and that French player can't attack each other without being branded an honorless pirate, and they can come to each other's aid in battle. If the Christian VIIs then attack the Tonnant, the Barfleur and Trinco can come to his aid, and if the British ships get attacked by the Danish, the Tonnant can come to their aid. However, if other British ships (ones not involved in the pact) show up and get in a fight with the Tonnant, the Barfleur and Trinco can't get involved (they can't join the other British and attack the Tonnant, as they'd be breaking their word, and they can't attack ships from their own nation without becoming pirates), and vice versa for the Tonnant if other French ships show up and fight the Barfleur and Trinco. Those who have signed a temporary alliance pact can only fight together against nations (or pirates) that are hostile to both their nations. Another example: In the open world, I'm probably going to play as the French. However, I have a friend who's Dutch, and might want to play for the United Provinces. The downside to that is that we can't play together. However, if we agreed to a temporary alliance pact, we could. We couldn't attack French ships together because I'd be French, and we couldn't attack Dutch ships together because he'd be Dutch, (although I could attack Dutch ships by myself as usual without him incurring any penalties; he just couldn't get involved without becoming a pirate. Same for him attacking French ships), but we could work together to give the Spanish hell. Perhaps a third friend, playing as a Spaniard, might join us: Then we wouldn't be able to attack Spanish ships together, same as with French and Dutch ships, but we could all fight together against another nation that was hostile to all of us, like the US. What do you think?
  2. Do like I did. Wait until it happens again (with a thread that doesn't have a poll), and then posts screenshots along with some explanation.
  3. Well, it'll be an MMO, so there'll still be jackasses, but one can hope that there'll be fewer of them here than in free-to-play games.
  4. It feels like I might've had this happen with threads that haven't had polls, too, but I can't be sure. Also: That's a pretty crappy software design, then, if you ask me.
  5. You've got the general idea of it as far as I know, yeah. It all depends on how much integration there is between the open world and the instances (so if you do chase someone up a bay in the open world, will the instance be in a bay as well? Of that, I'm not sure).
  6. No, that's not what's happening. A thread might not get posted in for days, and I will have made sure that I read the last post in it, but the forum will (sometimes repeatedly) keep telling me that there are new posts. Sometimes I'm the last person to post in a thread, and then it might tell me later that there are unread posts, but my post will still be the last one in the thread (so there really weren't any new posts).
  7. https://youtu.be/Gg9RC9sBaS0 - Le combat de la DanaƩ / The Battle of Quebec (chansons anciennes de Nouvelle France) Also, I wish I could find the soundtrack to the Hornblower TV series... Also, how the devil do you embed videos?
  8. I've noticed that this forum sometimes seems to have trouble remembering that I've read the last post in a thread. I'll be browsing the forum, come to a thread that I've been paying attention to, notice that the thread title is dark blue (meaning there are unread posts), click on that little dot on the left that takes you to the first unread post, read through all the unread posts, and go on my way. Later, I'll come back, see that the thread I was reading earlier is dark blue again, click on the dot, and I'll get taken to the last post in the thread, which I read earlier. To put it another way, it will say that there is an unread post, but there really won't be (because I read earlier the post that it will take me to). Sometimes this happens many times for the same post. I don't know how many times since this post was made that I've seen that thread's title be dark blue, but there won't be any new posts (I just keep getting taken to the post that I linked). Sometimes it even does this with posts I've made myself. I'll make a post, leave, come back, notice that the thread title is dark blue, but when I click on the dot, I'll find out that the only "new post" is the one I made earlier. Note, this doesn't happen all the time, just occasionally, but it happens enough to be annoying. I wasn't going to say anything, but I finally snapped and decided to make thread about it.
  9. Well, IMO there's no point in getting overly up in arms at this point. Except for the moderators (who have access to the open world already), we're basing all our arguments on how we think things are going to work. If you ask me, we need to actually play the open world a bit, and then we can see about what we think needs changing.
  10. In my opinion: No. Just no. If the open world is as big as you guys say, wouldn't sinking ships (say, in an indecisive action where a couple of ships were lost but the remainder of both fleets were still intact) give the other fleet an advantage in that local area for a little while, since their enemies who were sunk or captured would have to take time to sail all the way from their nearest friendly port (where they spawned) back to where the battle took place in order to regroup with the survivors? What's the point, then, of sinking ships, if they could just respawn again right where the battle took place and be ready for Round #2? Another example: Suppose a French clan/guild is holed up in a port somewhere, and suppose a Spanish clan wants to beat them and take the port. The Spanish show up outside the port, and the French come out to meet them. The French beat off the Spaniards, the Spaniards loose a few SoLs and retreat, and the French go back into their port, having not lost any major ships in the encounter. The Spanish shouldn't be able to just wait a few minutes while their clan-mates repair their ships and then respawn next to their fleet outside the port. If it takes the sunken Spanish ships an hour to respawn at their nearest port and sail all the way back to rejoin their fleet, so much the better. The Spanish should have to consider themselves to have lost those ships, and if they feel that they can't push into the port and defeat the French with the ships they have left, they should be forced to retreat. This is both historical and increases the tactical aspect of such battles.
  11. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/3118-hms-sovereign-of-the-seas-1637/
  12. I think that's La Renommee, yeah. Nice looking ship.
  13. "attacking a British ship in a French ship will bring all nearby ships of those nations into the instance" Note the plural. I'm pretty sure that means nearby ships from both nations will be involved.
  14. That got me thinking. We post all kinds of drawings and pictures of ships; shouldn't we do the same thing for fortresses and batteries from the same era? Perhaps the devs could get inspiration from those kind of things for making the fortresses that'll be ingame?
  15. I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure how the devs should go about making things differently. Suppose ships only had one durability, and if you lost your ship, you'd have to buy and outfit a new one: I'm not sure how that would make the strategic consequences of losing a major battle greater. I mean, if it takes 15 minutes to outfit a new ship (putting your crew and officers in it, buying your preferred class of brass cannons for it along with supplies and ammo and assigning all of to the new ship, etc.) instead of the 5 minutes tops it might take to click the "repair and resupply" button and maybe wait for a short cooldown before your ship is fully repaired, the two sides can still be at it again in a hurry. Not to mention that losing a ship won't be fun, especially if you get attached to it. I like the idea of the 5 durability points just because it means I'll have a specific ship for longer. I'm also not sure how I feel about not being able to repair durability and knowing that I'll inevitably lose my beloved Bucentaure at some point. Sure, I can just buy a new one, but it won't be the same ship, especially if every ship has unique characteristics... If there wasn't a durability-like system and you had to buy a new ship after every time you sunk or surrendered, what would be the point of putting a lot of effort into outfitting and customizing a ship if you could just lose it in the first major battle you used it in?
  16. Pardon me, but do we know for certain that people are going to be buying their ships and items from other players who craft them, or is that just a suggestion/theory that has gained enough popularity that people consider it to basically be fact? I don't recall ever reading something where the devs clearly mentioned implementing such a system.
  17. I know that the devs were asking for info and opinions on 2nd Rates in this thread, so does anyone know if they picked one to add to the game, and which one it might be?
  18. You see, now this is the exact fricking thing I was talking about when I said the OP needed to be less ambiguous. You read that one way, I read it a completely different way, and for all we know, either one of us could be right. No offence meant to Admin, of course; I completely understand that English isn't his native language, and I'm cool with that. It's just that the OP needs to be a lot clearer in places.
  19. As I understand it, if you "lose a dura" you can repair to get it back. Which means that your argument is based on an incorrect assumption. "After you lost the durability (but have not lost the ship yet) you have to repair it. It is usually expensive and could amount up to the full cost of the ship." -Admin.
  • Create New...