Archaos
-
Posts
2,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Archaos
-
-
19 hours ago, admin said:
This is a must pass mission. It is only visible for new players. Players must pass it to proceed.
The goal of the mission is to showcase the game for the new player (old players don't see it) and show him if the game is for him and test him if he is good for the game.
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.
-
1
-
-
and easier for spies to report.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Fletch said:
GB will always be a garbage nation as long as these self appointed yes men make deals with every single nation on the server as long as it means hanging on to some far away ports that could never be defended without tea bagging another nation for ownership.
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 at least then they would probably have to wake up and get serious about creating a fighting force.
I do agree that there are too many people who presume to speak for the nation and make decisions without a mandate, but this is not just clans in the far away ports but all clans in GB. GB gave away one of the most defensible ports on the map prior to the start of the first Swedish war and that was up in the Bahamas. That single action totally destroyed GB's presence in the main shallow water area on the map.
Get rid of all agreements regarding other nations blocking access to ports and defending GB and see how many ports GB are left with at the end of a month, doesn't matter whether they are near of far away ports they will still fall.
-
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 that.
The surrender issue is also difficult especially where PVP is concerned, because some players would rather sink than let their enemies have their cargo and also some people rig their traders to be able to board as a trap for raiders. For PvE I guess they could do something like this for AI traders but it takes away some of the effort. You also have to remember that many warships also surrendered after receiving a broadside against a heavier opponent, so it that was in the game then people would be upset when their ship suddenly surrendered while they were still in a position to fight.
I do like the idea of reducing crew as they are sent off on prizes and maybe a way to counter abuse is allow the captured ship to be teleported back to port but it goes to the admiralty and you get the purchase value of the goods that were onboard and the insurance value of the ship. At least that way the system could not be abused to teleport ships and goods across the map for huge profit.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
1 hour ago, NYTom64 said:
Thanks, Brig and Cetric. I couldn't get my ship to fire anything, although I did succeed in ramming someone. (That was fun.) I'll keep working on the cannons. I must be doing something wrong.
I'm actually more puzzled and worried about the black square in the bottom right corner with the "Bug F11" notation. I'd feel better knowing that's normal and not evidence of a broader problem. Then I could make up my mind to get on with the business of learning all this without the suspicion I have a hardware/software conflict.
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. Then you can use your left mouse button to fire a broadside. Thats the only thing I can think you are doing wrong.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Vangeroth said:
Wanted to say thanks to GameLabs for keeping their word. Logged in this morning to find the DLC was added to my account. Thanks again!
Though brief question: If I redeem it, can I redeem it again later on (after a cool down) or if I start a new save? As in it's a part of my account permanently.
You can redeem one every 24 hours just like other DLC ships.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:
I think there is nothing to be misunderstood in the term 'stability' when someone is exclusively talking about wood construction and showing illustrations which show how masts continue to reach vertically through the decks right down to the bottom.
Was not aware there is a perhaps a nautical special meaning of 'stability' which could overlay the common understanding of constructive stability, or 'stiffness'.
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.
-
13 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:
Never worked with wood?
The more parts you connect with each other, the more stability you achieve. A mast going down to the keel and fastened there distributes physical forces received over sails all the way down the ship. Added stiffening by each deck's beams casing the mast.
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 is useless without adequate stability. Where the mast is connected and whether it goes down to the keel or not has no direct bearing on the ships stability.
-
5 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:
Masts go all the way down to the keel for stability reasons.
And how does the mast going all the way down to the keel aid the ships stability?
-
2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
This is also why you never go loot a ship that is still sinking that has more crew than you. Wait until it's fully sunk.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Puchu said:
That's exactly the thing im trying to solve. If this is a game only someone who can endure 2h of boredom before getting a fight, can play, then how many people on this planet do fall into that cathegory? There is a reason why server pop is so low. That's one of them. Noone wants to spend that much time looking for the content they want.
Noone is wrong... Very few is right.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 makes the pop low. I am not sure where you get the 2 hours before you get a fight, because with the PZ you can almost guarantee to get a fight quickly (probably a gank, but still a fight) all you have to do is setup in a freeport close to the zone and play on the days the zones you are interested in are active.
-
52 minutes ago, Puchu said:
Usually people leave games because they a) dont get to do what they want
I want to attack AI, but you say I should always PvP!!!!!
-
1 hour ago, Puchu said:
You will now be almost 100% sure to have a real player in your fight. That's what makes it predictable. That's the whole point of it.
The problem with the loki runes is that you think you engage npcs but you get players. With the other mechanic you will most of the time get players and sometimes not.
Btw: What's your solution for players who dont have 2h to look for a half decent fight?
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 battles. If I wanted PvP then why would I attack AI I would just sit in port with your system and wait to join a battle.
As I said I dont like Loki runes and I think they should be removed from the game as they are a bad mechanic, because if I want to fight AI I should be able to do so without the AI suddenly magically changing into a player. In OW and when I start an AI battle I run the risk of being intercepted or have someone join my OW battle, but at least I know where I stand with that and can adjust my tactics accordingly. But the Loki system brings that uncertainty to the battle and your proposed system makes every battle a PvP battle.
For players that do not have 2h to look for a fight I would suggest maybe another game and maybe only play NA when they have the appropriate time to play. Certain games require a certain amount of time to play properly and NA is one of them. Currently I do not have much time to play NA due to RL stuff, so I log on and do what I can in the available time or I do not play at all. The same applies to any game I would play, some are simple and can be paused and saved as and when you need to, but NA is not like that.
-
17 minutes ago, Puchu said:
. The player on Defense Duty will most likely loose the fight, since he is not fighting with mods or golden ships.
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 server for people that love PvE, but that does not cater for people who like a bit of both and rank and ships are not transferable between both servers, so most will not level up on both servers.
You say the player who gets a Loki in his battle is usually sad, so how is this different when they get a defense duty player in their battle?
What you are proposing basically removes the need for Loki runes from the game and ensures that players can jump into other player battles at absolutely no cost, in a ship that is not damaged, and you are proposing they also receive some rewards for winning. Nearly every PvP player would go for that as there is no cost to them and they get PvP and rewards.
As much as I dislike the Loki rune mechanic, it is 100 times better than what you are suggesting. At least with the Loki rune the player has to farm or buy the Loki and if they are farming it there is a chance they could get Lokied themselves or if nothing else they have to go look for PvP to get one.
May as well just go for a lobby based game rather than this suggestion. I guess you are probably one of the group of players that would prefer a lobby based game with quick action, and there are probably quite a few players like you, but you would be better pushing for a pure lobby based game than trying to make the OW game more like a lobby game.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:
I do not deny that a ships can sail with slightly differing drafts. Still the stiffness and heel will be influenced by it. Even in the period we are talking about ship building changed from a only experience driven business to a scientific one. If you have a look in Chapmans "Architectura Navalis Mercatoria", you will find in each draft desined water line. Finally every captain (or his sailing master) decided which trim a ship would have. One part of that book descibes the methods to calculate the different ship's properties.
Kayak building is a different matter, no sails and only form stability, no ballast needed.
What I want to say is, that the weight above the water line (guns, etc) in in our game the same for every ship, the sails and rigging are the same, too, as well as the shape of the hull. If the light wood ships shall have the same properties in terms of heeling, they must have the same Metacenter, and therefor the same CoG and CoB. So when all forces above the water are the same, the under water forces must be the same, too, to have the same effects.
If a ship has a slightly deeper or shallower draft, it must affect the heel, since the CoB will change, especially during heeling.
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 different distribution of the same loads within a vessel (trimming). Moving the loads changes the CoG and thus the stability this can lead to a trim by the head or by the stern which can affect how the vessel sails and also the speed.
The metacenter is an imaginary point, where the force of buoyancy intersects the original vertical force line of buoyancy when the vessel is heeled slightly. Similar ships may have the same metacenter but can have completely different GM and BM as G (CoG) depends on the weight distribution and B (CoB) depends on the underwater volume which changes with draft. So I do not see how you think that because M is the same for both ships that G and B must also be the same.
The same basic principles of naval architecture apply to any floating object whether it is a simple kayak, a modern super tanker or a line ship in the age of sail.
You fail to provide a link to the book you mention, but I think you are misunderstanding what you have read. I agree that the same ship will have different stability at different drafts and also with different distribution of the same load, but that does not make them unseaworthy and various captains may have preferred different trims to suit their preferences and how the ship handled at different trims. It still does not get away from the fact that a ship built of lighter material will displace less than a ship built of heavier material if both have the same dimensions and loadout.
If you were stating that the speed difference is minimal then I could possibly agree that the game may exaggerate the speed difference for different woods, but in practice there would still be a speed difference.
-
1
-
-
On 6/15/2020 at 2:04 PM, Sea Archer said:
No, a ship launched, without any ballast has little or no stability in water.
The pivot point of a ship depends on the center of gravity and buoyancy and can move depending on the heel.
Our sailing ships in the game have a nearly constant weight above the water line with guns, crew, masts and some wooden hull structure. The buoyancy depends on the shape of the hull and the draft.
The further the ship moves out of the water (with unchanged weight of guns, etc.), the higher the center of gravity is. In the extrem it rises above the pivot point and the ship capsizes (even without any wind).
The weight in the hold moves the center of gravity downward (ballast and/or provisions). This weight has to counter the wind forces on masts, rigging and sails, too. There will be a balance between both forces, the more heel, the bigger the influence of the weight and the lesser the forces on the sails.
This balance was calculated by the old ship designers and works only with a defined draft. Therefore the weight of the woods has only very little influence on a ship's draft, if it shall be seaworthy.
If upper weight is removed, like the guns, stability increases with less draft, that vessel may sail faster, but as long as you have your guns on the ship the "standard" draft is required, which will result in standard speeds.
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 the CoG will move down even though the removal of weight will decrease the displacement and make the ship lighter.
In the statical stability case when the vessel is not being acted on by external forces the vessel will settle in equilibrium with the weight forces acting down through the CoG balanced with the buoyancy forces acting up through the Center of buoyancy. If the CoG is off center and the underwater hull shape is uniform, then the vessel will have an angle of list.
As an external force such as the wind is applied we then start looking at the dynamic stability where the CoG remains the same as long as nothing moves in the ship but the CoB changes because it is the center of the underwater volume of the ship and as the ship heels due to wind force the underwater shape changes. Again in this case a balance of forces is reached where the righting lever created between the offset CoB and the CoG balances the external lever of the wind and the vessel will remain at that angle of heel while the external force remains.
I still do not understand where you get the term defined draft as all vessels can sail perfectly well over a range of drafts without being unstable. I am not sure you realize that even a difference of 6 inches can make a big difference to the vessels displacement and all this can affect the speed. In the era covered by this game there were no load lines for ships in fact the first international convention on load lines did not take place till 1930, prior to that there were no assigned load lines and vessels could be loaded to a draft that they deemed safe. But even a load line is only a limit above which a ship should not be loaded.
To put it simply there is no fixed draft that a vessel has to be at, but an operational range of drafts that they can operate at and as such for the same loadout a vessel made of lighter material should be able to go faster than the same vessel constructed out of a heavier material. Below is a link which has a table of some wood densities, it is from a kayak building site but it shows how using certain woods could make the kayak 50% lighter.
https://cedarstripkayak.wordpress.com/lumber-selection/162-2/
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Sea Archer said:
All ships, no matter the wood, must have the water line at the same hight. If not the balance between center of weight and center of buoyancy is not given and the ship will tend to capsize. This stability problem was historically experienced when ships returned from long voyages and were very low on stores.
Of course you can reduce the weight of a vessel to increase speed. This comes with less stability and due to lesser draft, with more leeway.
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 where the weight is removed from, removing weight from above the original center of gravity will have the effect of lowering CoG. I agree in general terms that most stores etc are stowed lower in the hull so the use of them will raise the CoG, but voyages can be planned to take this into account so part way through the voyage the optimal stability is achieved.
Another factor where the type of wood can affect the speed of a ship is its resistance to marine growth. In the absence of copper plating or such protective sheathing certain woods are more prone to marine growth and this was one of the biggest factors reducing ships speed especially in the age of sail and in the Caribbean. Okay, marine growth on the hull is not modeled in the game, but in general terms you could say ships of certain woods would remain faster due to less marine growth.
-
1 minute ago, Busterbloodvessel said:
So you are a sworn enemy if you join a fight against someone but you are only an enemy if you instigate a fight against someone?
The logic doesn't sound right, but I understand the maths. Perhaps we need a new terminology.
Buster (No expert)
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.
-
8 hours ago, Koltes said:
My issue is this. Since this game only has 300-600 players online (specifically on the lower end during my prime playing time) it greatly limits me of finding targets to attack. This might come as surprise for someone, but about 1/3 of my engagements are joined someone else's battles. I dont really care which side I join. I only care to get a kill. Exiting battle I might re-engage my "ally" and kill him too. There were nights where I couldnt find anyone and all I saw where already started battles. Since everyone is an enemy this means that as a pirate I will never be able to join any battles if there are no pirates involved.
Any hard coded mechanic that limits or grants players some kind of ability or inability will only cause more issues on the other end let alone finding way to exploit it. One of the things comes in mind for exploit is picking up an alt that is enemy of your enemy and attack him in OW to prevent being attacked.
Easy solutions to complex problems DO NOT exist and will never work.
What works for Fallout 76 with their online average of 30k players will kill rest of the PVP for solo hunters in NA with its 600 online players.
That is my issueYour 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 you have the choice individually to attack allies with only you bearing the consequences. Each individual player can choose which nations they want to be allied with and which are enemies. I am sure some clans will set strict rules to ensure their members fall in line to avoid the situation where some are unable to join certain battles.
The only thing I hope they add to it is a way for bad reputation to decay over time or by positive actions towards a nation rather than a simple large payment to reset.
Once a reputation system is introduced it could lead to a bounty system where a player with a really bad reputation against a nation could be hunted for a large bounty or other such mechanic. People have been asking for some sort of reputation system for a while and I think this is a step in the right direction.
Support and Tribunals section should move to Discord?
in Support
Posted
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.