Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Archaos

Members
  • Content Count

    1,970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Archaos last won the day on February 21

Archaos had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,705 Excellent

1 Follower

About Archaos

  • Rank
    Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

1,758 profile views
  1. You are correct, no simulation game will ever match the real world, but I do think NA does try to achieve at least part of that. Having worked at sea for coming up to 40 years I can tell you that spending days on an ocean passage without sight of land and no appreciable change in the weather gives you quite a similar feeling as sailing in NA. Also spending 10 days in fog while crossing the Pacific feels familiar to the poor visibility we get in NA (the eye strain from peering into the poor visibility trying to see things). Okay you do not get the same sounds and smells and variation that you get in real world but what do you expect in a computer game. You hit the nail on the head when you said "set your trader to afk sail" and I think that is what the issue is in this forum post. On the PvP server if you send your trader away to afk sail then you are likely to come back and find yourself sitting in some random port without your ship and cargo. Now if you paid a lot of reals for that cargo then you will be out of pocket, hence why the OP wants better rewards for the delivery missions so he loses nothing except a cheap trader that can probably be captured for free. He does not even lose the doubloons that may drop when he sinks as they are produced from nowhere rather than from his stock of doubloons. On the PvE server you regularly see traders beached waiting for their owners to return as there is no risk so afk trade runs can be done with delivery missions and expensive cargo.
  2. Not really, if I am doing a delivery mission and get intercepted I just surrender, so that is hardly PvP, the raider gets minimal rewards as it is seldom worthwhile delivering the mission cargo. I bet majority of people doing delivery missions set sail and go afk and come back sometime later to see if they are still alive and close to their destination to deliver mission, otherwise rinse and repeat. That is hardly PvP content. Personally I have always maintained that raiders should not get PvP rewards for attacking traders as majority of the time it could hardly be called PvP. (and yes I do know that a well armed Indiaman or fleet of them can hold their own against an inexperienced lone raider, but on average it is a one sided fight).
  3. If delivery missions were the only way to do econ then I would agree with you, but there are other options that can make you a lot more money for less time invested but they come at some risk. After all we are on a war server where it should be risky. Delivery missions are minimum risk and as such should give low return. To sail from A to B with a delivery mission takes the same time as sailing there with other trade goods, why would you carry trade goods if you could get the same or better from delivery missions?
  4. The thing is that delivery missions come at no cost to the person doing them, they are almost risk free to the person doing them. All you need is to capture an AI trader brig and then get the mission for free. If you get intercepted you have lost nothing. For normal trading you have to outlay money to buy the trade goods so if you get intercepted you risk losing that. If you feel the time invested in delivery missions does not give you a good enough return, then you are always free to trade in normal trade goods, I believe some of the new woods can give you very good profits.
  5. As I said I agree with the principle of what you are trying to achieve, but I am concerned that as nations try to develop their ports in order to avoid being attacked by the AI, we will reach a situation where it is only the same few ports that get attacked constantly. Say for example all the ports on the map have at least 3 investments, the raiders will then attack a couple of the ports with 3 investments. If they are successful then those ports attacked drop to 2 investments and if players retake them they will now be down to 1 investment which leaves them as the obvious targets for AI attacks. Maybe I have misunderstood how the AI actually choose their targets, but from the information given my example is a real possibility.
  6. Although I agree in principle, the issue will eventually be what happens when all ports are fully developed? Who do the raiders attack then? Do they attack a port with a lower maximum development e.g. attack a 25 point port rather than a 55 point port? Or if maximum developed ports are not attacked by raiders and all ports are developed to max, what happens if you capture a port and the infrastructure is reduced, are you suddenly opened up for attack by the AI as your first defence of the port?
  7. Belize was lost to the raiders because the Southern group although they joined at the furthest edge of the circle had the AI directly upwind of them and so by the time they could engage, the AI were close to the circle and were able to build enough points even though none of the transports got to the circle. Okay, there was outside interference from the Swedes that prevented the Northern group from engaging in numbers, but the battle would still probably have been lost in the South as the AI racks up points very quickly in the circle.
  8. We all know how that went last time there were AI attacks, it was basically RNG as to whether you could win or not.
  9. This suggestion would be counter productive as some of the ports that have not changed hands in a long while are the good safe ports that are worth investing in. It would not be worth investing a lot in a port that is likely to be captured by players or AI.
  10. As much as I love safe trade runs, I know such a mechanic in this form would ruin the PvP server, as you may as well give everyone unlimited reals and doubloons as they could trade safely all round the map without fear. I play now and again on the PvE server and I never bother accumulating too many reals because I know I can always safely make more if I need them, so it gets boring doing trade runs with no risk. To tell the truth I think you would have it better by creating more PvE and solo content on PvE server and allowing consensual PvP for people that want it.
  11. I do not see what is so epic about the trade run apart from if the whole fleet were alts. It says from one edge of the map to the other and indicates that one of the ports was Saint Georges town in Bermuda, but does not say where the final destination was. If the final destination was somewhere like Vera Cruz, then it would be epic as you would have sailed through some regularly sailed waters and run a high chance of interception. But if it was to somewhere like El Toco then the chances of being spotted are quite remote if you hug the Eastern map border all the way down. Anyway nice video and music, but it would have been epic to see you sailing through the Mona straits or past Cap Francis on your way to the destination not just out of sight of land.
  12. It has been that way for a while as far as I know. If a ship loses all its crew due to an explosion and is on fire and not sinking, the fire will increase and it will eventually explode too. Even if it is slowly sinking there is still a chance it can explode.
  13. Although I can see the merit in such a system, in practice in the current game this will just mean GB getting hit by everyone as usual. maybe if it was only the top nation it would be better to put more pressure on them.
  14. I do not know about the technical aspects of it, but from a practical point a global timer for the flag would lead to a set routine. Conquest round completes - 1 to 2 days farming flags - see how many flags you have gathered and plan your attacks - place flags - fight port battles - by this time may not be enough time to farm new flags before end of round. Also by your logic it would be better to have no timers on flags as that is the simplest machine solution.
  15. I agree to a flag having a limited time, but wiping flags after a conquest round would not be a good solution. It would lead to a quiet period after they are wiped while people farm new flags and there would be no point in farming flags close to end of conquest round. Every flag having a set timer that starts after dropping would be better. (7 days may be a bit on short side)
×
×
  • Create New...