Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

About Yar987

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. The Date The capital 'D' makes it a pronoun, means it's this one specific event. I like "A date" better though. Sounds less formal, more fun and seducing.
  2. RvR. It's repetitive, and unfun. Regular PvP is great, and I love the rush from it, but the rvr port flipping aspect just seems like a necessary evil at the moment. The BR limits on ports doesn't make sense without a dynamic BR system accounting for upgrades/woods. I'd rather see the current system go away, if more work can't be put into making it more intuitive.
  3. Correct, with the current system no one needs to. But the current system is a fairly recent development.
  4. As a poor person, I agree. It feels very difficult to catch up to those who are well-established. Lack of money means I will avoid fighting more often than not. It's been easier with the new trading changes though, and makes fighting less cost prohibitive.
  5. I like that idea. Gives more defensive options for port points, along with providing everyone with more opportunities to take a risk to get chests. In all it'd liekly make more battles happen.
  6. Very nice, can't wait to fill it full of holes!
  7. Yes, it seems like anything that could mount a 9lb long gun could support a 32lb carro.
  8. There is quite a bit of historical material to back up how carronades are implemented in game. I'm not saying it's the best gameplay choice (or is not), but there is a basis for how they are. "British Frigate vs French Frigate: 1793–1814" "An Elementary Course of Instruction on Ordnance and Gunnery" Primary source! "Constitution vs Guerriere: Frigates during the War of 1812" If these prove anything, it's that the supposed inaccuracy of carronades was from contemporary gunners not knowing how to aim them correctly, and those guns were actually more accurate and had better range than cannons.
  9. 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.
  10. I'm sure there are! Just not to the degree that other flavors of player seem to.
  11. US players don't really get off on sticking to their own nation like other nationalities seem to. Not a criticism, just an observation.
  12. 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.).
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  • Create New...