Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About Yar987

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I'd like to get some open discussion going on this again. I feel like there's a way to make the penetrating leak system more interesting, without sacrificing fun. Here's what got me thinking about it. Leaks at the bow should become worse with more speed, and leaks at the stern should become better. The inverse should happen for each as speed decreases. Shooting the hull at the bow is currently almost never worth it, due to the difficulty of landing a penetrating shot, and the insignificance of a leaks there even when you do manage to get one through. I've thought this for awhile, but anything that manages to penetrate at the bow should be serious as far as a leak goes. Certainly more so than it is currently. The rapid leaking up to a certain point could make for some interesting gameplay. You would be able to reach an equilibrium point where you can't pump all of the water out, but it's stopped rising too. Maneuvering, crew management, could be a way for a player to mitigate this, as well as being more vulnerable - but not out of the action - until the the holes are repaired. If the depth of the leak isn't currently tracked now though, coding something like that might be too resource intensive to be worthwhile. I don't know that we need to go as far as cargo that floats in the hold affecting the buoyancy and sailing characteristics of the ship, but it's worthwhile to at least know there would be some truth behind an idea like that.
  2. I'm sure there are! Just not to the degree that other flavors of player seem to.
  3. US players don't really get off on sticking to their own nation like other nationalities seem to. Not a criticism, just an observation.
  4. Steel is flexible too when being used as armor. Giving a material an armor value of XX, able to withstand an impact with YY energy, takes into the account the characteristics the material has to come up with that value (rigidity, flexibility, ect.).
  5. I remember reading something that part of the supposed inaccuracy of carronades was from gunners aiming them the same as regular guns. If they were aimed correctly they would actually be more accurate than a long gun, due to carronades being manufactured to tighter tolerances. Less gas would escape around the projectile (windage?) and the ball wouldn't be bouncing around down the barrel when fired. Of course we're not pretending to be going back in time with this knowledge. If crews didn't know how to aim them correctly making them more inaccurate in practice, that's how it should be. There were sights invented later to correct for this though, so that might be a possible upgrade EDIT: Here's what I was referring to.
  6. Agreed, feeling much the same. I think increasing lighter cannons penetration at close range would help decrease the battle time just enough, and possibly decreasing gun-loss. We've now got a system where dooting along in a single line is not an effective way to sink ships, and maneuvering, focus fire or boarding is imperative. We just need some minor tweaking to get it more fun.
  7. Bow damage that penetrated the curved area bad enough to cause leaks should be pretty devastating and hard to repair. It's a much more complex area than the side planking and structure, and isn't a simple plug-and-patch repair. Picture of wooden bow. From a few bits of reading I've done, when presented with a shot on the bow of an enemy, it was often directed at the rigging (and to very great effect). The in-game representation of raking rigging damage is (possibly very) low, in my opinion. Not saying it should be changed though, just presenting some insight.
  8. I see it as a better supply chain as I think there will be more people creating supply. All these points we're not agreeing on go hand-in-hand, intuitiveness included, because I think we're envisioning fundamentally different systems. I'm thinking of our current system, where there is only one kind of crafting XP. Everyone starts out at the beginning manufacturing components, and building what ships they can as they level. I think you're envisioning a system where component crafters and shipbuilders are exclusive from each other. In that case, it doesn't make sense at all that crafting enough barrels could enable you to build a Victory. I would be on board for separating the two, but I was suggesting a simpler change first. Maybe you'll agree with this next part: What's the point of crafting level for a manufacturer or resource producer, except to increase your labor cap? Why should building ships be the most efficient way for a coal miner to increase their ability to store labor? If we're using logicality and intuitiveness as a metric, that's no better than my suggestion.
  9. I don't know that basing crafting XP around how BP's are currently gained is a good thing, since BP gain is likely going to be changed. You don't have to exclusively craft one or the other either, especially while leveling up. Maybe it's counter-intuitive since we're familiar with the system we currently have, but I think it'd be a more rewarding system for everyone and much better supply-chain wise. Crafting a ship is the reward for ship builders, where as components don't have that same level of reward.
  10. I understand the CN part, but what if components and ships had their labor:xp ratio switched? You'd have lots of low crafting level people more than happy to crank out components, and higher level ship builders, who don't care about gaining XP as much, getting a better supply base. Having the best option to level crafting as cranking out junk ships seems counterproductive to teamwork.
  11. That says nothing about replenishment though, just the ratio between players and crew. That shows that the number of crew, at the base line, is static.
  12. Would the ballast be as heavy as fully laden with guns and provisions? Looking at the few paintings there are of the Constitution in battle, I think our's might be a bit high, especially the stern. Maybe I'm just being nitpicky though http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--BYSZjM70TY/UCpJos-0s1I/AAAAAAAAACw/Kryb9cUfoIQ/s1600/ropes_01.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AYS5Qos3lzM/UCpLYKlbTYI/AAAAAAAAADA/0OYllb5q-88/s1600/ropes_03.jpg Where as our's sits like this: http://www.freeimageslive.co.uk/files/images008/constitution_ship.jpg I'll try to find the design, I'm sure it's in the Shipyard forum somewhere.
  13. Does our in-game version of the Constitution sit too high in the water? The modern pictures of it are what seems to be modeled in game, but those pictures are with the ship unladen. It has mock guns, and of course no cargo.
  14. I like it, it's a great start. Choosing how policy gets decided and voted on is easily one of the tougher questions to answer. The only way to find out how it works is to try I think not being forced to do what your nation is doing is pretty important, and provides some relief from the voting system. That's the only area I think is going to need a bit more immediate fleshing out. Suggest that people play with their nation, but don't force it. It's already started there a bit with war rewards, and I think piracy and privateering are very key to making the system fun (later discussion though). Defying your nation could have penalties too, depending on the severity and type of defiance. Attacking a neutral/at peace nation for example could make you attack-able to your own nation, for instance. Nothing would be worse than being stuck on a nation that never does what you want. It's touched a bit on that by saying a large clan might be able to rebel, but what about smaller/single groups of people? Rerolling and starting again should not be the option.
  15. Those two relationships could be useful as well! It presents a great way to add viability to a nation that is limited in its ports. I hope it's not in vain either, but I think the devs are bogged down in settling out the last patch at the moment They'll get to working on this mechanic eventually!
  • Create New...