Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Elouda

Members
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

71 Excellent

About Elouda

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman
  • Birthday November 7

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Finland
  1. Definitely interested, would love to help with testing.
  2. My understanding is as follows; it is only an issue in ports where NPC goods are produced (woods, rare materials, etc). Normally, the goods generated in these ports are simply placed into the shop. If there is a player buy contract in the port at a price higher than the NPC shop sell price, the goods are put into the buy contract. If there are multiple buy contracts, the highest paying contract is filled first. The issue comes here; if there is also a sell contract (typically at very high price, to make them hard to 'buy out') for the good being generated, then instead of being sold to the buy contracts as above, the contracts are ignored and the good is placed in the shop at the regular NPC price as if there were no contracts. It does not affect the ability of other players to fill the buy orders that exist, it only breaks the mechanism for distribution of generated NPC goods. This is obviously an economic issue when there are contracts offering say 100k for a good, but by placing a single unit in a sell order, you force the port to ignore this and can buy the generated goods for their base price from the shop (typically much less).
  3. So, as predicted, these are basically biggest group = win. Great work.
  4. Agreed with Vaan de Vries above - current boarding, while not 'pretty', is functional enough and interesting if you end up fighting another player without a massive advantage on either side. Substituting it with a new system prototype when there's a whole lot of other things that should probably be prioritized first, probably isn't the best idea. While the concept itself looks interesting, it looks very 'disconnected' in a way, with the oversized crew models and whatnot. I'd honestly prefer a refinement of the current system, with more details relating to positioning and deck heights, etc. being visible to the participants. Yes, because that's totally immersive and not prone to abuse...
  5. I guess you didn't read the second part? The whole point is that as long as you are grouped with someone that is permitted entry, you can get in. Therefore there's nothing saying you have to be part of a 'Clan' or 'Most Elite'. For the record, I'm part of a tiny 3 man clan, so its not like I'm saying this from some ivory tower. Regardless, its better than ruining the endgame content due to clueless 'rookies' taking up PB slots. Of course, another alternative is to go to a BR based PB system which wouldn't be so open to abuse...
  6. Some thoughts on the Wood Distribution part; Live Oak Based on this map, add Live Oak production to Texas and San Marcos regions in the Gulf of Mexico. Bermuda Cedar This one is harder, because there is no other proper source for it. Instead, I suggest adding White Cedar as a near equivalent. This would be located in Florida Occidental, and maybe Louisiane and North Carolina. WC could either be a straight up copy, or perhaps given the current BC stats, and BC would change to be 2% speed (instead of 2.5%) and 2.5% health (described as almost as strong as oak). Alternatively, nuke Bermuda.
  7. Apart from this, I can get behind the idea. As much as I disliked the Regional trims when they were introduced, I do like the logistics and considerations they add, and the effect they've had on dispersing population.
  8. Based on the issues in that tribunal, and subsequent similar issues, would like to suggest the following; -Entry into port battle instances should be restricted to those of highest rank in a nation (Rear Admiral, etc.), and anyone in a group with someone of this rank. This would prevent stray, clanless 'rookies' wandering into PBs accidentally.
  9. Elouda

    Patch day?

    Presume you arent on PVP 1?
  10. Elouda

    Patch day?

    Guys, I think saying 'promises are broken' if it missed 'end of november' is a little misguided. That 'end of november' was provided as an ETA. Cookie for anyone who knows what the 'E' in ETA stands for?
  11. Sorry, really don't agree with needing some kind of pvp reward as a crafting material requisite (as a substitute, yes, maybe). As someone whose main reason to play this game IS crafting (making ships for friends mainly), having to PvP just to 'resource gather' would drive me from the game. I have no issue with taking part in PvP if its for a strategic/meaningful reason (regions, escorting traders, etc.), forcing it for its own sake is not going to work (outside of small battles, etc.) Do agree that fine wood needs to be more deterministic in its collection.
  12. Hopefully it will mean fine wood for lineships and maybe a little for 4ths/5ths.
  13. I think the repairs have a place despite them not being completely realistic), but I do think they should take longer. Perhaps double the current time? This would require tying up crew on them for longer, meaning you'd need to find or create some space for yourself.
  14. I can see room for a third type, sort of represented by what we have now - there are temporary 'modifications or additions' to a ship, which would be adjustable after building unlike your category 1 for example. These include things like extra staysails, lightweight carriages, stronger sails, possibly the rudder reinforcement, etc. A lot of what we do have now though would definately fit better under your category 1 though.
  15. When this was brought up before, I suggested the following; Grey Upgrades - 5 'duras' Green - 4 Blue - 3 Purple - 2 Yellow - 1 This would make low and mid grade upgrades more attractive. In exchange, the crafting requirements could be changed as follows to make them a little easier to make; Grey - same as before Green - 1 low grade note Blue - 2 low grade notes Purple - 2 low grade notes + 1 mid grade note Gold - 2 low grade notes + 2 mid grade notes
×
×
  • Create New...