Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Archaos

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,031

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Archaos

    Cargo Hold Size

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

    Where this really bites you is if you take a trader that was full and had the perk.  Then, when you add it to your fleet, the perk no longer affects it.  We've often seen on global.."why am I going 1 knot?".  Something to be aware of.

    This is a good point. Maybe if you capture a ship that is overloaded because of the perk then the perk should remain in effect till the ship is unloaded. After all the perk is supposed to be that because of your skill in stowing cargo you manage to fit more cargo onto your ship. Well once that cargo is stowed it does not magically rearrange itself just because the ship is captured by someone who does not have the skill to stow it well.

    • Like 1

    Cargo Hold Size

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:

    Indiaman should be 6500-8000

    As the Indiaman is an armed merchant ship some of the cargo space would be given over to gun decks so she would have less cargo space than her size suggests. I guess the same could be said for the LGV. For the others if you remember originally in game they had very few guns and I cannot remember why they started putting a full gun loadout on them.

    Trading update patch - coming soon.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted

    8 hours ago, vazco said:

    1. if you link profit to length of sailing, you will promote boring AFK sailing. It would be better to create a few very lucrative trade routes, which everyone knows about, which can be raided. Then risk = reward, not work = reward. It's better setup for the game

    The problem with this suggestion is that such routes would be easy to monopolize by the big clans who would just sail large Indiamen fleet with lots of protection. The small lone trader would have no chance to compete in such a system. Having a few such routes may be viable as long as there were other options for making best profit that had to be discovered.

    Another problem with such a system is that raiders would tend to concentrate around the start port and end port of the route rather than rest of the OW and these ports would literally be blockaded. 

    • Like 1

    Trading update patch - coming soon.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Released Privateer said:

    What about capitals? It especially hurts 3 "hardcore" nations as they don't have capitals and trading goods consumption is heavily based on capitals. Also, it makes trading in safe zones (due to capitals) very important.  Other ports are really minor, we do have Nassau, Santo Domingo and Puerto de Espana, but county capitals should be more important than they are atm. All ports need food, clothes, tools, supplies etc. Bigger cities/ports should just have higher consumption than the smaller ones.

    Although I can agree that trading goods consumption should be reduced at capitals and other ports outside the safe zones made more important for goods consumption, I do not think it should be done for the sake of the 3 hardcore nations as this is part of the reason they are classed as hardcore. If we give the hardcore nations the same advantages of easier nations then they are no longer hardcore.

    • Like 1

    Emergency Repairs, Fires, and demasting!

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

    What I recommend here is a higher chance for fire's to spread and affect something like sails .

    I thought they did have possibility of sail damage with fire or at least the used to have it. I have definitely previously see my sails take damage sometimes when on fire, though I must admit I have not noticed it recently. You did not actually see the sails burning but you did take quite rapid damage to the sails.

    • Like 1

    Ship Crafting RNG, Good or Bad?

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

    And I suggested sometime earlier what shows up here in comments, thus supported by me, that you could "refit" an existing ship by another upgrade slot when you invest your time and resources in it. Or just do another throw of dice for a price which may result in the upgrade slot being added

    I have seen this type of RNG in other games where you could reroll to get additional slots, but the chance of success got harder for each slot and if it failed you risked losing slots and even total destruction of the item. I do not think the anti-RNG brigade would like such a system. For example you start off with a 3/5 and by using some special gathered materials you could reroll it to see if you get to a 4/5 with maybe a 20 percent chance of success and if you fail it remains 3/5, if you succeed you have a 4/5 and if you get more reroll materials you could take a chance to go for a 5/5 but your percentage chance of success is now 5% and upon failure you have a chance of 3 outcomes, 50% it remains 4/5, 30% it becomes 3/5 and 20% you lose the ship altogether (percentages could be adjusted). Now that would be a serious RNG game which I am sure most would hate. 

    • Like 1

    Ship Crafting RNG, Good or Bad?

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Draymoor said:

    'Nearly everyone' is relative, depends on how many ships it takes to become a master of each class. Also with building higher quality could come a higher cost, so you could build any quality you want as long as you have progressed enough but building a lower quality ship would cost less. The higher costs of higher quality would means everyone attempting to enter the market can still craft for players  that can afford to pay less. You can produce lower quality ships for a larger market. Crafting your own ships currently is not a guarantee of getting anything better than a standard ship anyway, so you could still craft your own. If some had crafted hundreds of each rate of ship, I don't see a problem with them being a master of each type. Producing the top quality ocean or any other ship could cost 3 times more than a standard one, so producing standard ships would still be a viable option. 
    Honestly I'm not sure if it would be better than the current system, perhaps not, but it definitely seems a lot more interesting and immersive than randomly hitting the ship quality jackpot. Could just be my strong hate for RNG is general, too many games use way too much RNG. 

    But you seem to be missing the original problem with this approach. The problem was that RNG ships led to an imbalance as you could face another ship the same as yours but they have the advantage because they are 5/5 gold while you are only 3/5, but with what you suggest only the rich would remain competitive while the rest would have to make do with substandard ships and what really ends up happening is that everyone is forced to get the 5/5 gold ships.

    With RNG even the poorest player has a chance of getting that 5/5 gold ship as long as he can afford to craft it and with RNG the total number of 5/5 gold ships is limited and in order to get more 5/5 gold ships the number of lesser ships increases putting downward pressure on the price and making them more affordable for all. I understand that everyone would love to sail around in a 5/5 ship, but if that happens then 5/5 has no value and we may as well all stick to 3/5 ships. They have to be rare to give them value.

    Regarding the Doubloons cost I do tend to agree that they may be too high to allow crafting many ships to get the 5/5 but people did ask for 1st rates to become rare and you have to agree that the cost does make them rare. But are they now too rare?

    • Like 3

    Ship Crafting RNG, Good or Bad?

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    23 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:

    @Archaos why not increase need to craft many ship for bonus and rank increase.

    50 Oceans, more chance for good ship. 

    100 Ocean better chance for good ship. 

    150 Ocean select refit and more chance to get the refit and slots, with increased wood resource requirement. 

    Only few will be master Ocean crafter etc. 

    Even more ships required to advance for smaller classes. 

    How about this? 

    As I said such a system would be okay if crafters were only allowed to specialize in one type of vessel, but it would mean once you had a few people specialized in a certain ship it would become harder for new crafters wishing to specialize in that ship to sell their ships as everyone would go to the master crafter for the best ships. So you would still have an imbalance.

    I think many people would not like to be limited in what type of ships they could craft. Maybe they could have a system where the more you craft a certain type of ship the greater the percentage probability of getting a high quality becomes. 

    I still think some RNG in crafting adds some spice to it, if not you get to the stage where everyone is sailing a 5/5 gold ship.

    • Like 1

    Rubbing Damage needs to Return

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Sir Lancelot Holland said:

    Generally speaking, where a large ship collides with a smaller ship the Captain of the smaller ship has made a mistake, it is the responsibility of overtaking ships to give way, and, smaller more maneuverable ships are more able to avoid collisions at sea where larger ships are involved, (the exception being that a steam ship gives way to a sailing ship) It may of course be that suction will pull a smaller ship in if they get close enough, see White Star v Admiralty 1912,  it's why Replenishment at sea is a risky business. 

    Mass and Velocity usually dictate the level of damage to both ships, with the smaller ship suffering more at higher speed, damage to sails and rigging is inevitable, as is a degree of flooding, (unless the speed was very low) more so with smaller ships. 

    Any collision would have resulted in either an attempt at boarding, or, an attempt to disengage while damage was assessed and emergency repairs organised, it took time and manpower to patch under waterline damage, they had to use canvass over large holes or at least slow down to reduce water intake to a level where the pumps could cope and more effective repairs could be made. 

    How do we employ this information in game without a lot of drama? There are mathematical formulae that are quite detailed and it is possible to determine if a ship will founder or not, Thomas Andrews, an Harland and Wolfe Engineer, worked out Titanic would float for about 2 and a half hours, his calculations were tragically accurate, Capt E J Smith was aware of that within an hour of the collision.   The Captain of the Andrea Doria would have known much more quickly without such calculations, and, that it would be very fast. 

    On balance, I think given that most Captains in game will lose ships on a regular basis in combat, loss, through collision, or, natural causes could be, simply, too much, even, if realistically, it would be the logical outcome of such a collision. Sometimes, in games, it is better to put aside cold hard reality, in favour of playability. 

     

    There is a big difference between coming alongside and rubbing as opposed to a collision. Many small ships and boats go alongside much larger vessels and remain pressed alongside without any damage, just look at tugs and pilot vessels alongside super tankers. So it all depends upon how they come alongside, at a shallow angle matching speed till they touch and then press alongside will cause minimum damage and the ships can remain like that for long periods. With sailing ships this may be complicated by rigging entanglement but it is still possible.

    The problem in the game is that the smaller vessel for some reason is able to turn the larger vessel or even sit perpendicularly across his bow without receiving damage and no be swamped. 

    Also, although in reality a small vessel could lay alongside a larger one and be under its guns, it would not stop it from receiving musket fire and being boarded even at greater speeds, and this is not represented in the game. They tried high speed boarding and it was so broken they soon changed it back.

    Ship Crafting RNG, Good or Bad?

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Draymoor said:

    +1

    It seems so simple and much more natural and organic way of progressing. The more you do something the better you become at it, instead of sometimes winning the ship lottery. 

    The problem with such a system is that eventually nearly everyone becomes a master builder for all classes and that is the only type produced making it impossible for anyone entering the ship crafting arena to be able to sell lower standard vessels.

    If you were to have such a system you would need to severely restrict specialization so for example you would only be able to specialize in crafting one type of ship e.g. master crafter in L'Oceans, and once you specialized that was it unless you reset your specialization and started again. I am sure most people would hate such a system especially as many players craft their own ships.

    • Like 2

    Ship Crafting RNG, Good or Bad?

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Atreides said:

    Devs tried something a while back to allow crafters the ability to control quality of ships, it was called "Fine Wood"  I thought it could have worked with tweaking...

    But the sodium level went off the scale, and the devs just abandoned the idea.

    Although fine woods allowed control of quality of ships, the fact that they were not readily available for all caused an imbalance. Now some say this is good as it provides a reason to fight for control for fine wood ports, all that actually happened was people created more alts to give them access to the fine woods.

    Personally I do not mind RNG crafting, the odd chance of getting a special ship is good. It also creates a supply of cheap ships as the large clans and rich players craft large numbers of ships while trying to get that perfect 5/5 gold ship, and these surplus ships are sold off relatively cheaply. If all ships were crafted exactly to the specification you wanted then there would not be as many ships crafted and the availability of cheap ships would dry up.

    • Like 3

    Reward for Enemy Retreating.

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    As you say there should be no reason to run from an even fight, but if you start losing then running away should be counted as a victory as you have saved yourself from losing your ship.

    I am just trying to look at it from the other angle. If I am winning an even fight why would I run, but if I am losing and I get the chance to run I will and I would call that a victory. It is incumbent on the person who is winning the fight to not let you escape, if they do they have lost and should not be rewarded for that.

    Operations: Welcome to the Caribbean - suggestions

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Vernon Merrill said:

    Mission Type:  Operation Baby Bear (Reward 1000 Doubloons)

    1) Choose cadet from list of new players

    2) Set rendezvous location with cadet.

    3) Link up with cadet at sea (must be at least 25k from coastline).

    4) Set up ONE new outpost with cadet.

    5) Capture ONE NPC trader with cadet and return it to Admiralty.

    6) Sink ONE NPC warship with cadet.

    7) Capture ONE NPC warship with cadet and return it to outpost.

    😎 Sink ONE PLAYER warship with cadet.

    9) Capture ONE PLAYER warship with cadet and return it to outpost.

    The problem with this type of mission is that it becomes hard to complete unless you have a constant stream of new players joining the game. I get the idea you are suggesting but it will not work in the long run.

×
×
  • Create New...