Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Elouda

Members2
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Elouda

  1. Few quick observations/bugs, based on having played German 1890, 1900 and 1910 campaigns; 1. Getting the same 'Updating Relationships' bug as of last patch 2. AI seems to build ships very rarely, if at all. Seems to vary a bit, and they do make designs, just not build them. May be related to #4 below. 3. Battle opening ranges in the 1900 and 1910 starts are far too long, and the enemy often just retreats. 1890 start was workable, the other two have been a pain to play. 4. Transport losses on Finances page works oddly. If you dip under 100% at any point you get hit with the full amount again, potentially totally wrecking your budget. I would suggest that any accumulated losses slow 'depreciate' towards 0, with the rate dependant on you transport %. Being over 100% would cause them to decrease to 0 a lot faster than being under, but in both cases if you are no longer taking losses then a gradual decline would make sense instead of the 10+ million budget swings.
  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. 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.
  12. 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
  13. I like the sound of the above, except the building of rewrecks (unless there is some limit to the number of this this can be done). Its essential that there is actually a mechanism (sinking/running out of duras) to remove ships from the system, hence driving the need for new construction.
  14. Totally agreed. As said, I don't think it should work any differently from the current shop in terms of visibility. Maybe some argument could be made that you could see auctions in the same region, but would still have to sail to the port its at to bid.
  15. That's certainly one way that would work (moreso a 'contract build' than an auction though). I was thinking something more along the lines of something like the current store, except you would put it up with a starting price, and a duration (or it could be fixed). Others could then bid on it, with some minimum amount to raise by based on current bid, with the winner getting the ship at the end of the auction. The ship could be claimable from some screen like filled contracts.
  16. Agreed with the above regarding the AFK bit. An actual auction system allowing bidding and buy-out at set prices as an addition to the current market for ships could certainly be interesting however.
  17. Agreed with the above. If blueprints for some reason must be handed out, take a leaf from EVE's BPCs and make them 'limited run', so you can only craft 5 or 10 or something ships with them, and then they go pop.
  18. Agreed, the risk that this is just going to be something that casual or solo/small group players can't do worries me. If thats the case, and in addition, if this turns out to be the only way to get the 'rare' BPs, then its basically game over for me.
  19. Strong hull bonus is 7%, not 7cm absolute.
  20. Sorry, I have to point out two major differences here compared to the EVE example, and they are what makes this an issue for me too. 1) The reward ships are ships, not blueprints. This means they have value, but are also of limited lifespan (especially in EVE since there are no Durabilities) 2) The reward ships are generally only marginally better versions of existing ones, are are not 'meta defining' in any way. Indeed, often they are rather interesting alternatives rather than being 'top tier', and you can almost always match them via other means. Contrast this to the system you seem to be pursuing; 1) The Santa Cecilia is not a problem in my opinion - from what I understand it was given out as a ship (not a blueprint), and its also not a 'top tier' vessel for PBs/RvR 2) The blueprints for Heavy Rattle, Agamemnon and L'Ocean, on the other hand, are problems - there are blueprints, rather than one off ships, so give a persistent advantage out of the reach of anyone who did not receive them, and even worse, they are all very high capability, arguably 'top tier' (ie. bring those over anything else), atleast in the case of the Heavy Rattle (for shallow PBs) and the Agamemnon (for 4th rate PBs). I can't comment on the L'Ocean since I haven't fought them or seen many. If the plan is to give out reward ships and not blueprints? Thats fine. They can be top tier things (though I think it would pay to be a little careful here), or just 'interesting' vessels (like the Santa Cecilia), or even 'unique'/'historical' clones of existing ships (like a Constitution called 'United States' or something, with slightly different stats - think Pirate Frigate here). Because in the end, these are not 'persistent' advantages - at the end of the day, the person using them is putting them on the line to benefit from them. But when it comes to giving out blueprints, which give a persistent advantage, at no risk, that is a problem. Its a big enough problem for me personally, that its very likely to drive me away from the game, and I know I'm probably not the only one. I can accept limited circulation of BPs for the purposes of testing, but if this were a thing at launch? Much bigger deal - as someones who's main enjoyment in the game comes from crafting and trading, and making things for friends to sail in, its a complete slap in the face to be locked out of top end crafting content because there is no other way to get it. If you were to make them obtainable by any other means, be it wrecks, loot drops, whatever, it would be fine. But by basically saying you can only get them as rewards for tournaments, etc? Not my cup of tea, thanks. EDIT: Alternatively, if the reward BPs were limited run (say 10 ships), this would also be an acceptable alternative in my mind.
  21. Overall I like the suggestion. Also completely approve of wiping legacy ships with it - this should honestly have been done every time there were major changes to ships/crafting, otherwise the legacy stuff can skew the data. As for the 'rare' BPs - you really need to reconsider this frankly stupid manner of handing them out via tournaments. On top of that - all of the 3 'rare' BPs (Heavy Snake, Aga and L'Ocean) are arguably 'top tier' vessels in their own port battle brackets, which makes this twice as bad. I honestly would not really care nearly as much if 'special' or 'interesting' ships (like Santa Cecilia) are handed out this way, but making key PB/RvR vessels unavailable to the general crafter? Thats a hell of a motivation to quit, I'll tell you.
  22. Hmmm. I could see this working, but it most certainly should not be linear. Some kind of 'low pop incentive' like the bonuses in Planetside 2, might be an idea. At most they should be something like 50% more hostility gain, if population is something like 10% or something. Anything beyond that would be very hard to prevent becoming an issue as described above. Probably would have to be scaled to 'active RvR player count' (basically all players who participate in either hostility, both offensive and defensive, and port battles and PvP, over a certain time period).
  23. Might be an idea to do away with Kidd's Harbour inslands entirely and replace it with a single small island freetown, ala La Navasse? Alternatively, just remove Bermuda.
×
×
  • Create New...