Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Archaos

Ensign
  • Content Count

    2,031
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Archaos

  1. This sounds at first as though it solves the problem, but it creates another with people joining to fill up your BR so your friends cannot join on your side. In the example you give if you are GB and a US player joins on your side to fight a Spanish player then they might even up the BR and close the battle leaving you at a disadvantage if both go for you. I can imagine the complaints raised about this, there are already enough about alts doing this to block BR.
  2. As an introduction to the game it is probably a good intro, but for someone starting who does not even know how to aim and fire their guns it can be quite frustrating, Someone raised a topic a while back about being unable to fire their guns and I think this was the issue, they did not know that they needed to be locked in on the broadside they wanted to fire before firing. The sailing they probably get away with as most games use the WASD keys, but the firing is different. Maybe some sort of intro about firing would be worth adding to the first mission.
  3. At the end of the day is this exploit really any different than people having a complete alt clan in another nation and doing the HDF's themselves for the same outcomes? I hear more and more stories of people acting in two nations with clans of alts. But I agree with the suggestion that the flag should be locked to the nation that is attacking the HDF's before it is picked up.
  4. Can you tell me which ports GB can defend then? The answer is basically none. If GB could actually field a good PB team then the coast from Tumbado down to Great Corn that they once held with crafting ports in Belize and Trux was one of the most defensible areas on the map next to what the Russians have in the Gulf of Mexico. Without the buffer of the Russians SDC and PaP would not remain in GB's hands for long. Personally I dont think there should of been a ceasefire and GB should lose all the ports it cannot defend even if that means being reduced down to uncapturable ports in Jamaica a
  5. The problem is that it is so open to abuse and not just by alts. All people would need to do is load up their trader and sail to be attacked by their friend from another nation, surrender instantly and then their friend can teleport the ship and cargo all the way across the map to their outpost with no risk. It had been suggested that maybe to combat this that the captured ship could be set to sail to its destination under the control of AI so it appeared in OW and could be attacked by other players, but I think they said this was not possible due to load on the server or something like t
  6. From the looks of it if what I suggested was the problem then they really need to put the basic controls tutorial before this mission as the controls are not intuitive.
  7. The F11 notation you see is for reporting bugs, its always there. The square below it with your ship in the center is like a radar showing other ships close by. Not sure why you cannot fire though. This mission is new start to the game so existing players dont get it. If you press the "[" or "]" buttons do your guns fire? If they do fire then you probably are not entering the firing position. To get the cannons you should right click when looking it the direction you want to fire, this should bring up the aiming arc of your cannons and a small line showing the level your guns are aimed at
  8. You can redeem one every 24 hours just like other DLC ships.
  9. There is a lot to be misunderstood in the way you used the term. You just threw out a general statement that the mast goes down to the keel to aid "ships stability" with no further explanation other than a few pictures showing the mast going down to the keel. I challenge you to search the term "ship stability" and let me know if you find anything about constructive stability. Even the word "stiffness" in relation to "ships stability" has a different meaning than what you are talking about.
  10. Apologies, its just that in my limited study of Naval Architecture I always thought that stability was to do with things like Center of Gravity, Center of Buoyancy, displacement, Metacenter etc and the ability of a vessel once inclined by and external force to return to an upright state on removal of the force. Maybe all that learning was a waste of time!!!!! I think what you refer to as stability is actually more about structural strength and the ability of the vessel to withstand structural stresses it encounters in normal operation. You can have the most structurally sound vessel that
  11. And how does the mast going all the way down to the keel aid the ships stability?
  12. But you missed the point where he says the ship had no crew. You can even see it in the top right of the picture where the crew is zero yet in the boarding screen it has 861 crew.
  13. You are trying to make the game the way you would like to play it, the problem is that the lobby style game was tried with Legends and the retention numbers showed there. Okay there are probably several reasons why that failed same as there are several reasons why population in OW game is low, but I do not think that your solution will gain the game more players, in fact I think it will alienate a lot of players. There are many games out there that require a lot of time investment and many of them manage to keep a lot higher populations than NA, so it is not just the time investment that
  14. But the reason I would attack AI is to PvE, why should I be forced to PvP. When I attack AI I dont want a real player in my fight. Imagine if they brought in a item in game where a player once engaged in battle by another player could use it and be replaced in battle by an AI, thus avoiding PvP and any loss connected with it. Would PvP players be happy with that? being forced to fight an AI when they thought they were getting PvP. So what you are saying is that the people with time should sail around the OW and attack AI just so that the people who do not have the time can have quick PvP
  15. This is not true as in majority of cases the players that like using Loki runes are experienced PvP'ers and the players doing PvE tend in general not to be great PvP'ers, so usually if the Loki player joins a fight close to the start when they have a full health ship they stand a good chance to defeat the PvE player. Also a lot of players that regularly enjoy PvE like to give themselves some challenge by attacking AI that are stronger than them or multiple AI at the same time. If you then put in a Loki the PvE player is then at a greater disadvantage. Yes, I know there is always the PvE s
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Sorry you are wrong. If everything about two ships is the same except for the wood used in building then the ships will have different drafts with the one made of lighter wood having a lesser draft. The only way that they can have the same draft is if the lighter wood ship adds more ballast, but even in such a case the characteristics would be different with different centers of gravity between the vessels and thus different stability. When you start talking about trim you open up a whole new discussion as two identical ships with identical loadout can sail differently due to the differen
  20. For a start a ship would not be launched with no stability as it would almost instantly capsize. If as you say the weight in the ships is constant then the difference in weight of the ships is the material they are constructed from. If you use a heavier wood you will have a greater displacement for the same design of ship than one made from lighter woods if they are outfitted with exactly the same guns, stores, ballast etc. It is not necessarily true that the further the ship comes out of the water the higher the center of gravity will be. If you remove weight from above the CoG then
  21. Not correct, waterline is not at the same for all ships of the same class. All ships have an operating range of drafts they can operate under. When launched they are very light yet they are still stable. Once outfitted with cannons, stores, spares etc. they are deeper in the water. They may also have some ballast added to optimize stability. Reducing weight reduces displacement and thus allows the ship go faster for the same motive force (this is already modeled in game by the reduction in speed as you load the vessel), but it is incorrect to say that this lessens stability. It depends wh
  22. Well I suppose the classification of enemy and sworn enemy does work in this case. If you are fighting under your nations flag you fight enemies but if you hate someone so much that you would change flags to fight them then you are a "sworn enemy". Seems quite logical to me.
  23. Your issue is more to do with the low population during your play time which makes you join any battle just to get some action. For a persistent world MMO that sort of play does not make sense, first you join a battle to help someone and then straight after you tag him and sink him too. With this change you will have to find your own battles or be wary of which battles you join to protect that reputation. Remembering of course that you can always join to aid your chosen nation. In some ways it is like the alliance system where you could not attack nations that were allied to you, but now
×
×
  • Create New...