Archaos
-
Posts
2,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Archaos
-
-
15 minutes ago, rediii said:
epic missions drop books realy well
Problem is all the elite players already have all the important books and it is difficult to get a group together to do an epic mission even if you find one. I have ground up to five slots on all ships 4th rate and above purely on AI fleets and I still do not have all the rare book drops. The RNG is ridiculous and I do not care how many people say you do not need the books to be good at PvP as you will find in most cases these people already have the books.
But to stay on topic, I agree DD may be a bit OP but at least it stops the boarding meta especially in large fleet engagements. If they were to tweak it without making any other changes then I would say do lot lower it any more than 20% as it still needs to be a deterrent to ships purely kitted out for boarding.
If they are going to base it on prep then they should keep it at 30% but let it build up slowly so it is maximum when prep is at 40% or 50%. But in this case they would have to change the effectiveness of boarding mods so that they too scaled with prep.
If they base it on morale then it should be 30% at 100% morale and maybe drop to 0% by the time morale is down to 50%. (but you would need some way to see your crew morale even when you are not in boarding).
Personally my preferred option would be the morale one as it means you have to do some work to soften up your target first rather than get someone to ram into a ship and force him to a stop so the boarding modded ship can come in and board.
People say it is not easy to turn a ship into the wind and get him in a boarding position, and that may be true in a 1v1 situation, but in multiship actions where people are fighting to keep the wind many ships end up sailing very close to the wind. Also with the changes to chain it is easier to put a vessel in rigging shock at close range and make them easier to board.
-
43 minutes ago, Hethwill said:
Is DD correctly simulating this by mandatory 30% more crew ?!..
At the start of a battle for larger ships I would say yes, but as the ship takes damage and loses crew they start to become demoralized. But we must also bear in mind that the attacking crews morale may also be lower due to them having taken damage too, so maybe the effectiveness of boarding mods should be dependent on the morale of the crew too. A low morale crew are hardly likely to board when you are faced with equal numbers.
Whether we look at it historically or in game it is just wrong for a much smaller ship to board and take a larger one without surprise or having first inflicted a lot of damage. In game we do not have the element of surprise as all ships are cleared for action at the start of a battle.
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, Christendom said:
The act of chaining/disabling a ship and boarding is perhaps the most historically accurate aspect of the combat in this game. The boarding mini-game needs work but I actually kinda like it. Majority of the ships historically were taken by boarding or disabled enough to the fact that the captains surrendered. Unlike NA the price was always in the other ship and it's contents, not imaginary marks. It was in fact very difficult to actually sink a ship.
This may be true historically but as you say yourself the ships were chained and disabled which would indicate a lot of damage and most probably quite a few casualties so morale would have been low. I would like to know how many ships historically were boarded by another ship early on in a battle with only a few shots fired and the larger crewed ships company fully intact, I dont think it would have been many. Morale has to play a big part in affecting DD otherwise we will be back to the old boarding meta and ships being boarded and captured with hardly a shot being fired.
-
24 minutes ago, Capn Rocko said:
The current 30% is too much, especially when trying to board SOL. It is such a pain and time waster when trying to board SOLs with smaller ships (can easily turn a 10 minute battle into 1 hr.) Many good suggestions have been put forth, I personally like the idea of morale having an effect on DD. For example, each crew/sail/reload shock reduces the required crew amount by 5-10%. But I think any change would be welcomed
But it should not be easy to board a SOL in a smaller ship unless you have seriously damaged it or decrewed it. First rates were flagships and the loss would be looked on very seriously hence why the defenders would be more determined, so 30% is a good number for DD on a SOL. Maybe it could be lower the lower the rate of the ship is with traders having the lowest, after all not many traders tried to fight off ships of war, most surrendered at the first shot if they knew they could not outrun them. It was ridiculous that a much smaller ship could basically take out a SOL just because they had boarding prep up and were running full boarding mods and gold marines. Does boarding even take into account the height difference between ships, it would be more difficult for a frigate to board a SOL rather than the other way round.
Not sure how the game calculates morale of the crew, does ship damage affect morale or is it only crew losses, but morale tied into the effectiveness of DD would be good.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, jodgi said:
I'm with rediii. Don't like DD much (didn't before and still don't) as it pretty much takes away boarding as an option. DD only active when at some level of boarding prep would be much better.
If DD is linked to boarding prep then they need to give greater flexibility to assigning crew so you could have the ability to keep boarding prep up. I still think it would be better to link it to morale, as morale drops so does the effectiveness of DD.
-
The question is do we want someone to be able to drive straight into someone and instantly board without having to do something to soften them up first? Remember the days of gold marines and ships that were purely boarding ships that were able to win the boarding in one round nearly every time, that was not fun gameplay.
I prefer the suggestion where the effectiveness of DD is related to the morale, but you would have to be able to see your current crew morale to know if you were susceptible to boarding. With full crew and high morale it should be difficult to board unless you have a large numerical advantage and I think the 30% given by DD replicates that well and avoids the boarding meta.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:
That's why the proper penalty and rules must be applied like OP's suggestion
The OP's suggestions would not be a deterrent, for option 1, 10% is not much of a penalty and even 250k is nothing when you consider the price of PvP marks, and option 2 would just mean they had to operate out of freeports for a while. There are just too many downsides to outlaw battles.
-
12 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:
you say that, but offer no proof of such. Last time it was only pirates who got outlaw battles and on global they were one of the strongest nations on the map. So what do you mean it drove off players?
Well maybe it was the outlaw mechanics that allowed them be the strongest because they could cheat by hiding in battle and escape being chased by starting an outlaw battle with their own nation player. The outlaw mechanics were abused and that is why they were removed and until there is a way to stop them being abused they should not return. There were some upsides to the mechanic but there were also many downsides which need to be addressed.
-
1 minute ago, Christendom said:
Outlaw battles stay open for 30 mins. Problem solved for #1
Anyone can join an outlaw battle and sink anyone in it. Problem solved for #2
The largest abuser of the outlaw mechanic was from alts or disgruntled members of the pirate faction tagging others inside the safe zones so national players could get in. Remove the option to form outlaw battles in reinforcement zones. Problem solved.
Didnt they used to stay open before? The problem is unless you join almost straight away they are too far for you to catch.
If outlaw battles were open to all nations you would have even more alts ganking traders and creating battles so others can join and generally being a nuisance.
I can see some merit in outlaw mechanic for a very hardcore pirate faction that was not a nation, but otherwise there are just too many flaws with it.
-
None of the suggestions so far has addressed the possible abuse of the outlaw mechanic. What do you do about using the outlaw battle to hide? What about using the outlaw battle to get away when being chased?
As long as it is open to abuse the outlaw mechanic does not work.
-
Personally I think if the Devs will not do something about this then they should give people the tools to do something themselves. The more they condone this type of behavior the more it will happen and a toxic atmosphere will develop. Its alright saying you should vet the players you take into your clan and what authority you give them, but how can you vet them properly, this is the internet, we cannot look into peoples backgrounds, we cannot see if a person is an alt of someone in another nation, we can only see what the person wants us to see so how can you vet someone properly.
They are talking about making joining a clan part of the tutorial, so how does this fit in with people being vetted. It is not hard to get into a clan as an ordinary member and slowly build up trust, you would be surprised how long people can wait to achieve something like this, and even if it was not initially their intention people can have fall out and decide to do something like this just out of spite.
It would be so easy to nip this behavior in the bud now by simply taking action against the perpetrators and removing their ill gotten gains and returning them to the clan involved especially that there are now clan logs. They spend lots of time investigating green on green and other silly tribunals yet cannot be bothered to check the logs on the rare occasions that something like this happens. If they acted decisively on this now and people knew they could not get away with it then the problem would go away. Letting things like this go on will only cause bad blood in the game and we do not have enough players for this sort of toxicity.
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, rediii said:
All I remember from this battle was receiving 33 leaks in one broadside from you and being about 1 second away from sinking before the water stopped coming in and I managed to eventually repair.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, admin said:
Basically their name will change.
- Combat mark will turn into a Silver coin
- PVP mark will turn into a doubloon, pistole or guinea (have not picked the final name yet)
- Their use will remain.
Wait, you have me confused now, in the original post you said there would be 2 currencies, Pieces of eight and Gold Escudos (although the name may not be final), now you mention Silver coins and Doubloons???
Also from the original post if Gold and Combat marks become Pieces of Eight then you are effectively removing combat marks from the game, so for fighting AI you will only get Pieces of Eight and XP.
I know it is still early and things may change but further clarification will be required.
-
Will there be any changes to skill book blueprints and the items required? I ask because I am 3/4 items for gunnery encyclopedia and have spent a hell of a lot of time grinding to get those parts and would be extremely miffed to have to start again if I dont get the last part before a change.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Slim McSauce said:
the classic appeal to pockets. The idea is good but this part not so much
I agree with the different career paths, but I do not think the game currently has enough content to divide it up. It would require a major rework to many areas of the game. For example, you can use up crafting hours in a couple of minutes in the game, what does the shipwright do after that? The economy is basic at best so traders would only be able to make money and be content for the naval officers who hunted them.
The game would need to expand on crafting and economy a lot before such a suggestion could be viable.
-
13 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
He's not talking about multiple copies but multiple characters. In STO for instance you can have 3 different ones, each occupying a different branch, science, engineering or tactical respectively.
He was meaning multiple copies otherwise how would account sales triple?
-
There is not enough content in game to make different career paths viable, and it is a bit much to expect people to buy additional copies of the game for each career path they want to try. If you were going to have different career paths then you would need a lot more content for each path and also allow multiple characters on same account.
-
10 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
A suggestion that suggestions should have feedback.
Often people make suggestions and nothing is said by the team. Why was it (not) a good idea etc? That way we can get on the same wavelength.
I guess if they did give feedback on all suggestions then it would be a full time job replying to all the suggestions that would be raised. But I do get your point that there have been many good suggestions that do warrant some sort of response as to why it would not work or why they cannot implement it.
-
Sounds like a good idea, but certain things would have to be clarified. Can a person withdraw from the deal before it is completed? What happens if the deal is not concluded within the timeframe? Your example uses marks which can be easily transported without risk but what if I was trading in skill books, what if during the time for the other player to arrive and complete the contract I had a better offer, could I withdraw from the contract? and how would the other person feel if they were already on their way there with their trade item only to find they made a wasted journey.
It is a better system than we have currently, but as I say it would need to be clear how it works so people cant be trolled by it.
-
4 hours ago, Sir William Hargood said:
OMG please Devs please improve the loot mechanics: Doesnt't my ship have a fucking longboat in which I can row to the goddamn wreck to loot. Really? I am literally next to the wreck and cannot loot. Either the loot distance or the sinking speed must change...Wooden ships wallowed in the water much longer while foundering...remember the footage of the Bounty that sank in 2012 in Hurricane Sandy off North Carolina? She was awash for quite some time. Please guys the last 6 ships I was right next to and couldn't loot. Its very very very frustrating. Especially since this is the only way to get essential books and stuff for PVP.
Although I agree that the loot mechanics could be better, using the reality argument in this case does not work, because although ships may take quite a long time to completely sink and they may be awash for several hours, in reality the would very quickly be at a stage where the cargo become inaccessible and very few people would be willing to go aboard to remove items.
In general the biggest problems I find with looting AI are the risk of insta-boarding if you get too close, the fact that they seem to be able to keep reloading and firing broadsides up till the last second (I have been in battles with AI where majority of the damage taken has been after I have them sinking), and the fact that while you are looting the other AI are sitting at range sniping your stern and wrecking your crew.
My biggest gripe with looting though is the rarity of important drops, it is just ridiculous that after grinding to five slots on all 1st, 2nd and 3rd rate ships and many other ships against OW AI fleets I still lack some of the rare drops for gunnery encyclopedia. They should bring in an exchange system based on the rarity of the drops so you can exchange drops of equal rarity. Its just frustrating sitting with 5 Tables of parts of ships of war yet unable to get L'horizon Balistique or Means of directing fire. I am always left feeling that that AI ship I was unable to loot was the one that had that wanted drop.
-
11 minutes ago, Intrepido said:
No.
What is needed is that ports produce more goods. We have a really low population and the amount of goods are clearly not enough to feed a population 2-3x times bigger.
Although I agree that the current system could not support the needs of a larger playerbase, I am not so sure the answer is just to increase the production. Even with increased production trade goods could still be monopolized by the few, but it would also lead to inflation as a lot more gold will flood onto the market. An increase in supply of crafting goods would kill the profit margins and lead to their being no point in taking rare resource ports as the supply will be too much.
What the game needs is a proper economy, where it is difficult to get a monopoly on any item and alts do not give an advantage. An economy where all trade goods are required for something, not just as a means of making gold by buying and selling from/to NPC. The main source of money making should be the transportation of such goods.
-
14 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:
Sounds more like - make alts great again. They don't need to sail, just sit in port and bid/buy/sell.
The system is already ruled by alts, the more alts you have the more ports you can cover with your buy contracts. Looking round now most ports have the profitable trade goods with buy contracts on them. If this game was populated to the max the server could take there would not be enough goods for everyone and profit margins would be slashed and trading would be monopolized by whoever had the most alts.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, Otto Kohl said:
Im beeing chased by some spanish retards ( 6 of them ) for 3rd hour in a row. We need some kind of solution for this kind of griefing.
Maybe some system where they cannot engage you again for so many minutes after one battle ends. It would not stop the revenge fleet waiting outside but it would stop recurring battles wearing you down till you run out of time or repairs.
-
1
-
-
I would say allow log off after battle, but when you log back in you have to return to a home nation or neutral port before you can engage anyone again unless you are attacked.
Reinforcement fleets: feedback
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Although I have had no direct experience of them I have heard that most feel they are ineffective. The reason I feel that there is not so much need for them at the moment is the fact that battles in the green zones stay open so people are getting the needed protection from other players and this deters the attackers from the attacks. I think if the battles in the green zone were not always open you would have more attacks on people in the zones and you would find that the reinforcements were not very effective.