Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Duskguy

Ensign
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Duskguy's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

16

Reputation

  1. some things I'd like to see in the game are: Customizable figure heads - the ability to change what the figure head is/looks like and colors of it (perhaps a premiums shop idea?) I would also like to see the various pennants and signal flags represent their actual meaning, and only appear when the corresponding condition is met. I know this will/would require a lot of excess coding, so while its something I'd like to see, it's not essential or pressing. For example: when a ship is on fire - Juliet or India+Tango the group leader and/or rank flag turning to port/starboard - india/echo when flooding is faster than survival pump, perhaps the Gulf+Mike combo for "cannot save ship" and the one i'd LOVE to see: speed in knots, at least when a ship's speed stabilizes (round numbers) - Sierra + a number flag(s) See links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_flag#Rank_flags https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_maritime_signal_flags https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Signals#Examples_of_multiple-flag_signals I would like to see Open world and combat synced: mainly storms and player positions, and the rough seas from the sea trials brought back for those combat instances that are started in those storms. This would make tackling ships/traders much more strategic as you would have to coordinate with friends and choose when and where you attack. I'd also like to see open world storms (the major ones) do some sort of damage to ships sailing in them - the faster you sail, the more likely and badly your ship's sails will be damaged (stop sailing to avoid damage). there are numerous other little things I'd like to see in game such as colored sails and custom ensigns for clans/nations, but the above are my most desired additions
  2. I believe that sort of infrastructure is in the works, or still not fully developed/tested. Warhammer 40k: eternal crusade had mentioned wanting to do something similar with pikko? server technology. That idea fell through or something (I'm bummed about the new location based servers for EC) so I don't know if the development of the server infrastructure fell through or what happened exactly. As far as other server streaming tech to allow regional servers to connect to an overall server, I THINK, (and have no idea whether its true or not) that google might be looking at that sort of tech. http://developer.muchdifferent.com/unitypark/PikkoServer I am not a big techno geek, and don't work in the industry, so I don't know how far the tech has progressed, or who is working on it; I just know that it had at the very least been looked at. And I would love to see it happen for games like this one, where you can limit the server load with battle instances set to other servers and allow all players to see each other and play together on a single server. ------------- As far as the topic discussion. I would like to see the servers merged into 1 PVP and 1 PVE by launch. This is still alpha stage, so the Dev team are working on the game and I would assume the back-end infrastructure to increase server size limits. We all know there will be various wipes of the game as development progresses (if you didn't, now you do), so I would think slowly merging the servers as development progresses would be reasonable. For example, when the conquest map is reset and the ports go back to original owners would be a good time to try combining the EU pvp servers (assuming the dev team can increase the max pop). As far as ping is concerned, I could play on any server right now seeing as I get <20ms ping on PVP US2 and around 80 on PVP EU1.
  3. I build ships for USA players on PVP 2 for a small fee if they provide mats and notes, comes to about 10-15 gold per labor hour. I'm well known as a ship builder and doing this, so unfortunately the only thing I can say is ask around before trusting a random ship builder. As for this being allowed by the devs...I'm sorry, but I get 7 day chat banned for excessive cursing/dirty jokes because it's disrespectful and doesn't fit with the time period, but this is ok? There is something wrong with that logic. Scamming of this sort both breaks the game and shows far more disrespect than dirty words in chat. And it does not fit with the time period as thieves and scam artists tended to get hunted down or have bounties placed on them (I'd like to eventually see a bounty system for cross faction/same faction). If we have devs and player moderators checking and acting on chat behaviour, there should be no reason this sort of thing cannot be policed.
  4. While I understand the reasoning behind chat bans, to have a chat ban break basic components of the game such as player to player trade, or bug reports makes no sense. I am sure there is a way to fix this, such as adding a "trade" button on the drop down when right clicking a player on friends list. As for the bug reporting, the problem seems to be in the fact that all typed messages regardless of where or what they are for are limited (bug report is being treated as a chat window) The answer of "don't get chat banned" is also extremely unhelpful and helps no one. As someone who has been playing/testing the game for quite a while now, I felt something like this should be noted. Chat ban or not.
  5. So I just recently got chat banned. Don't know which comments caused it or how long (I assume 7 days). HOWEVER, that is not what this is about. This thread is because While talking on TS with another chat banned player and negotiating a ship sale, we realized there is no way to open a trade window. Even with the other player in clan or on friend's list, you cannot open a trade. Not only can you not open a trade, you cannot send mail or submit bug reports. The only way around this is to have a third party which is not chat banned that you trust to make the trade. So, as per the thread title, chat ban limitations I've noticed are: 1- Cannot trade if 2 players are chat banned (there is no way to trade unless using chat) 2- Cannot submit bug reports while chat banned (Forces players to use forums to submit a bug report for the duration) 3- Chat ban doesn't limit just global/nation/ help/etc, it bans ALL forms of communication; clan, PM, Bug Report, etc (Not sure if its intentional or not, but being unable to submit bug reports seems an oversight).
  6. As there seems to be no current warning system, is there a way to see what I was chat banned for and for how long? ] 90% of what I say in chat is to help other players or simply talk about the game, so I am curious as to which phrase it was that sparked this to avoid in the future. Thanks for consideration
  7. I agree. I would eventually like to see things like realistic wind direction (such as land and sea winds during the day and night) and variable wind speeds so some ships can really show off their best sailing qualities. But my biggest gripe right now is that there are no REAL stormy weather when in combat. Hopefully the devs are already working on this, but I hope to one day see wind that doesn't move just counter-clockwise, combat instances that mirror the OW weather and wind that has realistic patterns near land both in combat and in OW (Ie. land causing land and sea breeze depending on day/night).
  8. I had a poll up, but it keeps disappearing. So if you agree or have any comments, you should post your thoughts.
  9. What I'd like to see is the towers guard the entrance to an actual land based port in which the defenders start in and the attackers much approach. The port would have to be plenty wide to allow defenders to maneuver a bit if pushed into the port, but still narrow enough that defenders can defend/attackers can blockade to prevent constant running without losses. I believe Voyage Century Online as well as Pirates of the Burning Sea did something similar, and it seemed to work. The difference was that those games required you to get to the harbor and fight a land based battle after a naval fight/race to the harbor. While in this game there is no land action (which I prefer). If there were land in addition to the towers, that may work to limit the amount of running defenders. However, a radius for conquest would also help. Defenders/attackers would need to be within the engagement zone to have the BR count towards the win/loss with a timer once a BR advantage is achieved. It would force the defenders to be within a reasonable combat zone and actually defend and give them time to respond should attackers get the BR advantage for a minute or two. Doing both might actually solve the problems of people sailing to the edge of the instance as it would force both sides into the combat zone to gain advantage in BR. If defenders wish to run, then they sacrifice the port. If attackers wish to give up an attack, they turn and leave. Just some thoughts from the port battles I've seen in other games as well as this one.
  10. The guide is well done. I link this to every new player that asks what to do now that they bought the game.
  11. Glad to see I was not the only one disappointed at not seeing the big storms in combat like we used to during the damage testing sea trials. Poll keeps getting removed, so people have to post whether they agree or not and their opinions I guess.
  12. Got kicked out while in game in a mission instance. Relogged, ship was OK, enemy was almost sunk< i was still good on health and everyone thought it was just a server hiccup. Mission then starts making me spin in circles and tells me the combat server has crashed; use Shift + Esc to exit. Tried that, but the server went down again. Tried relogging again; got a waiting for queue, refreshed when available and connected. Queue position rose from 45 an up to about 260 by increments before going back down. Once in game I was stuck in the battle still, but underwater. After being told to hit Shit + Esc again, and having to do so a few times, I was told the battle was over, my missions was failed, gold and xp were listed as zero and the ship and loot boxes were all dark grey as if there should be something there, including the currently used ship. Could not actually interact with those slots, and then the server went down again. Not sure if any of that helps, but when I did get in, before being crashed out again, the game said it was sending crash reports. Good luck, and thank you for the prompt response to working on the servers. Will watch some Netflix while I wait.
  13. So in early alpha testing we had rough seas; they were brutal, they were annoying and they were awesome all at once. My question(s): Where did they go, and are they coming back? My request: I'd like to see them back if they are not already intended. And if possible, see them sync with the open world storms. My reasoning is this: In early alpha testing, the maps were random, the storms were unable to be planned for, or avoided. Now, with the open world however, battles are no longer just random matchmaker maps. People attack other players or NPCs and calculate the angle and direction of attack before engaging. So battles can be planned. Thus, during the most severe thunderstorms on the open world, the ones where the waves are tossing your ships around, I'd like to see battle encounters while in these storms to reflect that. It's rather disjointed going from that, entering a mission or open world combat and having glassy smooth water and bright sunshine rather than the thunder, lightning and rough seas. The rainy, slightly choppy waters in battle are fine for when its a normal rain storm going on in the open world, but just doesn't seem to go far enough for those super storms you can seem to run across. This would make players think twice about when and how they are attacking people or NPCs during these storms. It would give traders who are only interested in fleeing any combat a sort of safety buffer by hiding in the storm to escape a blockade. And overall, would make the game, in my opinion, much more immersive and give it more depth.
  14. Running an AMD 8150 eight core @4ghz, 8 gigs of ram, with a Nvidea GTX 780 with 3 gigs of memory. I run the game on Ultra with 50-60 frames per second depending on number of players and distance between myself and them.
  15. Just off top of my head I would have at least three horizontal sections and three vertical sections per side and as said before have front/rear attacks do mostly crew/cannon damage with slight possibility of water damage. What this would do is separate the ship in sections (from the side) of front, middle, rear for how the ship takes on water (vertical dividers) and starts to list as well as top, waterline and below waterline sections (horizontal dividers) to simulate what takes which percentage of damage and causes sinking. A hit at the waterline could cause flooding when the waves hit it and/or when the ship starts to list to that side. This hit would do equal portions damage to crew/cannon and hull. A hit below the waterline would do mostly hull damage and if strong enough to go through, cause leaks. It would do little to no damage to crew/cannons. Above the water line would do mostly crew/cannon damage without effecting the integrity of the ship much. A fourth level could be applied for sails/rigging. The front to back would dictate how the ship starts to sink and what is damaged. Attacks to the rear are more likely to damage the rudder than a hit to the center while a hit to the front could cause leaks due to the forward movement of the ship. With the front/rear damage, a hit to the center at the waterline would more likely hit the rudder tackle than a hit to the top outside rear. And a hit the front center at the waterline is more likely to cause gradual leaking due to the ship's sailing than a hit below the waterline. On my phone so apologies for any bad grammar, but thought this would be a simpler way than calculating every shot's exact hit location and instead use sectors to gauge damage.
×
×
  • Create New...