Archaos
-
Posts
2,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Archaos
-
-
1 hour ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:
This will be brief.
Mechanic works like this:
- upon getting sunk the player has the option to stay in the nearest port ( free, or nation ) or go to the nearest outpost.
Observation:
- Given there's the option to go to outpost, there's no more need for a commander to rely on a Basic Cutter.
Suggestion:
- change attributes of Basic Cutter so it is an "academy" ship. Meaning that it can only be used by the very first 3 ranks.
A downside to this suggestion would be the case where a person is involved in a battle a good distance from any of their outposts and after sinking they wished to return to the battle as soon as possible, but on arriving in the nearest free or nation port they find that there are no suitable ships on sale. They are now forced to buy any ship that is their rather than take a free basic cutter to sail to the next port as they cannot teleport from a town they have no outpost in.
-
Its interesting reading back through the early posts when the Le Requin was first introduced for testing and how most people liked it and were even asking for more advantages for it like the ability to load chain in the bow chasers and to have a special ability to overcome determined defender, and the thread was around 7 pages long before people started realizing how broken the ship is and how it can be used to troll.
-
46 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:
what will the guys in small ships, or even 5th rates will do, against 360 crewed Le Requin which bypasses DD.
What will those same guys do if there is no DD? At least with DD they stand a chance if the manage to take out some of his crew before he boards. I believe being open decked leaves the Le Requin susceptible to grape even at full armor.
-
3 hours ago, Christoph said:
Has Spain spread themselves out too much and need to be able to get around quicker to defend their ports?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sverne said:
As more and more people become aware of the "pushing into irons" strategy, I find it's becoming an increasingly difficult task.
As you found out at the Misti PB yesterday against my Herc 😁
-
41 minutes ago, Wraith said:
I read this as... "We hold too many ports, are lazy as fuck, and don't want to play the game." If you don't want to defend the ports you let them go, simple. Then, you create content by taking those ports back when you want to, right?
Everyone in this game wants content on their own terms and screw everyone else's play. Sigh.
We had this before with the flag system where night after night people had to turn out to defend the same ports against the same people, and all that happened in the end was people gave up doing it and left the game because they were burned out. Just doing battle after battle is more suited to an arena game not an OW RvR game where taking and holding a port is supposed to have some significance. Yes Port Battles are end game content, but in most other OW games you dont do the same end game content day after day.
If as you say people hold too many ports then they can be attacked at another port the next day, but to have to repeat the same defense against the same people every second day just gets tiring and leads to toxicity.
-
9 minutes ago, Elric said:
Many of the ports with timers can only be attacked on weekends. A 7 day wait really limits opportunities to attack again. Attacking on a Saturday for a Sunday PB, the completion of a successful defense is likely OUTSIDE the timer window - and consequently a cool-down time of 7 days would mean effectively 2 weeks. If there are going to be changes - I would say a 36 - 54 hour wait to allow attacks 2 or 3 days after.
I can see the point you make here, and would agree that maybe a 7 day cool down would be too long, but it still leaves the issue of people participating in a successful attack or defense of a port and getting nothing for it because there was another battle later in the week and the port was lost or they were not able to attend again. A 3 day non-hostility timer would probably be okay, same as when a port is captured.
As to the ports with timers set at low population times, that is another issue altogether and although I can see why people put some ports on those times (because it is their prime time) there are others who deliberately put them at awkward times for their enemies. The repetitive attacks are one reason why people would do this, to avoid having to constantly defend. It does not help either that certain nations are forming alliances to ensure they cover the various timezones and then handing over ports between themselves.
-
5 minutes ago, Ketunpoika said:
1. Yes it does.
2. Take a look the map and resource's (like Little Cayman)
By that logic Cartagena de Indias should be attacked daily, but its not?????
-
29 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:
Defenders can counter attack the hostility missions with huge advantage
You know this is not true, because the attackers can have the hostility almost completed before the defenders even realize hostility is being gained by having multiple hostility missions and keeping last AI alive and co-ordinating so that hostility almost instantly reaches 100%
-
17 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:
Who here wants less content!? Seriously it is ridiculous
Its not about reducing content, its about giving proper reward for successfully winning, that reward should be the VM and a respite before you have to face the same thing again. There are plenty of ports on the map that there should still be plenty of RvR. Make the RvR more dynamic so people do not get tired of the same old battle again and again.
-
32 minutes ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
I like the idea but I think a week might be too long, the amount of time that you get when you take a port should be sufficient.
The problem with giving them immediately is that people would just get friendly nations to flip their ports constantly.
The thing is the only reward for RvR apart from knowing you won, is the victory marks which are given once a week. You could do 2 port battles in a week and still end up with nothing because the port was lost on a Sunday or you could not get into the port battle group for the last battle.
-
7 minutes ago, Tiedemann said:
If you own an attractive port either because of location, resource or the combination you must realize that this would bring a lot of content your way.
This has not really worked as intended in the game has it? When was the last time Cartagena de Indias or Esteros or any othere of the very profitable ports come under attack? People have just circumvented it with alts.
-
1
-
-
With the current RvR rules after a successful port defense the there is only a 24 hour break before the attackers can build hostility again, this leads to a couple of issues.
Firstly if you are a new defender of a port you do not get any reward for defending the port and have to wait till the end of the week to get your victory mark. But in this time there could potentially be two more port battles and if you are not present at them or are unlucky enough not to get a place in the port battle defense group you lose out on your victory mark because either the port is lost or you were not on the latest defense group if the port was retained.
Secondly with only a 24 hour cooldown before hostility can be gained again it just leads to a repetitive grind to keep a port till either the attacking side or the defending side give up because people are burned out and cannot be bothered showing up anymore. It becomes similar to the days of port battle flags where a single port could be attacked night after night which led to burnout and people getting tired of the game.
In reality after failing to capture a port it would take some time before a new attack could be mounted, so I would suggest that there be a maximum of 1 port battle per week per port (there are enough ports on the map that RvR would still be active), that way after a successful attack or defense the winners get a break to enjoy the port and receive their rewards and have time to rebuild their forces. It also stops people getting burnt out attacking or defending the same port over and over every couple of days.
If it is felt that a week is too long then at least award the winners of the port battle a reward of victory mark immediately, but still increase the cooldown time after a successful defense to the same as after a successful attack.
-
4
-
-
35 minutes ago, rediii said:
can you explain to me how they get farmed? Safezone in my oppinion is pretty safe if you dont tag AI fleets
Safe zone is not safe for new players especially now with the Le Requin.
If you are tagged by a Le Requin in the safe zone and you call reinforcements all you get is a Snow which the Le Requin can ignore while he continues to kill you. Even if other players join a boarding fitted Le Requin can take you down and still escape with little problems.
-
14 minutes ago, Flinch said:
Then the spanish(who only lost one ship) didnt really commit to the pb and go for the zones. I dont know what to say. The team with more dlc ships suffered 4 times the losses. If they won still then they played better.
It was not as straightforward as that. As I saw it in the battle the DLC ships made the mortar Brig ineffective, but took quite a bit of damage doing so and by the time the Spanish really started gaining points we had around 800 points. They eventually held 3 circles and were gaining points now and again depending on ships entering the circles to stop it, but the problem was that we had about 966 points if I remember correctly and the loss of a single ship on their side would have cost them the battle so their DLC ships went into chain and kite mode hoping they could keep the circle points racking up and win the battle without taking risks. In the end we lost another couple of ships trying to sink theirs but they ran out of time to get enough points.
Basically they couldnt afford to lose anymore ships and they knew it so they played for the win by keeping circles and we did our best to get that last kill initially and then after losing more ships we just tried to stop them getting points from the circles and run out the time. All valid tactics in the current port battles.
But to get on topic, the DLC may have changed the make up for port battles but I think it is too early yet to say they should be banned from port battles as the meta is still developing and people are finding new ways to use them and counter them.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Ink said:
Example 3
- A Port Battle was planned at 15:00
- Server crashed at 15:20 during an ongoing battle. Server is restored at 16:00
- Players can join the Port Battle again right away at 16:00 despite the timer is still shown as 15:00 (All ships lost in the previous battle are restored).
If the server crashed 15 minutes into a port battle, where would people rejoin? would it be in the battle instance or outside? Would they still be limited to the join delay after log on? Or if they rejoin in the instance then surely the ones that appear first will have an advantage and you will get people joining to find themselves already sunk.
Unless you can guarantee that all players join at the same instant and are all able to operate at the same time then it is not wise to allow a port battle to continue like this as a minute difference could be huge in terms of damage taken.
-
How is this any worse than the super buffed 1st rates that used to spawn next to you in the safe zone. People cried that they were too hard and they wanted the safe zone nerfed so they could go get PvP in the safe zone, well now you can get PvP in the safe zone, you just do not like it when you get a OP response.
I did not see you complaining the other night when you came outside KPR with a few large ships and a load of inexperienced players in 5th and 6th rates jumped in. It was 10v3 at one stage and the 10 Brits did not even reach the BR of your 3 vessels and you still had at least one more vessel join.
You know the RoE of the so called safe zones before you enter so why do you complain. If everyone stopped camping safe zones and went elsewhere there would be plenty of OW PvP, but people use the lame excuse that the safe zones are the only place to find players.
Personally I think the safe zones should allow no PvP but they should be changed so OW fleets in these zones give no XP, gold or drops, lower level missions should still spawn in the zones and higher level missions still spawn outside the zones.
-
9
-
-
1 hour ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
I won the boarding. Being pushed into the wind constantly is annoying with no attempt on their part to do anything else.
I'm not sure if they were just trying to push you into the wind to board, but I have killed a few Hercs with the Le Requin by just leaning alongside them and shooting, most of their cannons cannot hit the low Le Requin and with carronades I can outdamage their cannons that do hit. 1v1 I have not lost a battle yet against a Herc in a Le Requin.
-
1 hour ago, vazco said:
That's not true, as in order to counter Le Requin you need another Le Requin. It would obliterate a Prince or a Merc.
If Merc or a Prince could be used to counter, it would be ok. Kiting is one problem, DLC ships in PB's is another.
For kiting itself there are great counters - bring 2-3 frigates and chain/demast Prince or a Merc. That's why it wasn't a thing until Le Requins showed up.
The point I am making is that the fact that they are DLC ships makes no difference. If the Le Requin was craftable in game would that make it okay then? To counter a L'Ocean you need another L'Ocean, so does that mean they too should be banned from port battles?
Don't get me wrong I think the Le Requin is OP and there are many issues with it, but just banning it from port battles is not the solution.
-
3
-
-
In the two battles you show here I do not think the fact that they were DLC ships made any difference as the same could have been achieved with fast Princes or Mercs. In the Little Cayman battle you side took initial advantage by taking our mortar brig out very early on (my inexperience there, by not starting to move quick enough once I had been ranged), then you quickly took out the forts and this gave you the advantage. As I see it your problems started when your big ships then tried to defend the mortar brigs after they had done their job instead of going for the circles and then you ended up on the beach. Your first rates made no attempt to go for circles A and C and that is why the battle turned in our favor. The only effect of DLC ship was the Le Requin kiting your Buc in circle A, which you could have dealt with by releasing your Le Requins from A or B once your big ships were there. As I see it you were beaten by your own inaction there.
The Cayman Brac battle was more the other way round, we took initial advantage by taking out your mortar brig early. I went the long way round to get to the mortar brig in a Le Requin and was chased by 2 of your Le Requins who I left for dust (that is down to build and setup rather than ship). Our problem was we took too much damage killing the mortar brig and ended up losing a Hercules. Not really sure where we went wrong after that, the square fort is really in a bad position and really gave no help protecting any circles and once you got your Wasa to help out the Endy in circle C our Wasa did not stand much chance. Our 1st rate that had been defending B went to assist the other big ships capturing A I think and that battle ended up taking the big ships well out of the range of circles and with the wind change it was hard to get back. We were unable to cap any of the circles back which gave you the win. To tell the truth I would not even bother in future going for the mortar brig in that port as the forts do not protect the circles apart from one small one protecting circle A which was easily killed by 1st rates anyway.
Overall although I do agree that the DLC ships may be OP in a lot of respects I do not think they make that much difference in a port battle as both sides can bring them in. I doubt very much that 25 Le Requins could win a PB against 1st rates. If you go down the route of higher BR in a circle gains points then I am sure a new meta will develop where it just becomes about having more BR in the circle to gain points for the win rather than fight the battle.
Maybe they should make it about winning the circles and forget the point loss for losing ships as I think it is the fear of losing points when ships sink that makes people avoid engaging in Port Battles.
-
3 hours ago, z4ys said:
Nobody wants to play with randoms. Let's look at world of warcraft. Doing instances with random grps was a pain. You died many times. Wow has no loss and it's still painful.
NA has loss. Imagine to do epic event with 6 randoms. You cannot retry. A Lose means lose. And now think again why you see no LFG...
Same for goes for portbattles. A random Grp will almost never succeed. So why try in the first place. And randoms don't care about a port. It has no benefit for a random player only drawbacks.
I agree with the current game mechanics that this is true, but this is more reason why there needs to be more protection for players levelling up and learning the game. Pick up groups are no good for end game content like PB's and Epic events but for missioning and attacking OW AI fleets a pick up group should suffice. The problem with current game is that if you shout out in nation that you are forming a group to do missions or attack OW AI fleets you are guaranteed to attract the attention of gankers who will either get you on the way to the mission or wait till you exit the mission to jump you.
I remember when there were regular shouts for attacking OW AI 1st rate fleets for people levelling, but at that time battles closed sooner and there was not as much ganking around capitals. There was not much fear sailing a 1st or 2nd rate solo to a mission South of KPR, but that changed and the game went more to the way the so called PvP'ers wanted it with easy targets and gank opportunities to what we have now where even the reinforcement zones are not safe. Those shouts for people to join 1st rate OW fleet attacking was where many of the current veterans of PvP learnt their SOL fleet skills and made the friendships and groups that still exist today. But this does not exist any longer for new players as they are thrown in at the deep end so even experienced veterans cannot afford to teach them without risking their own ships.
-
Its a war game, two sides fought, one lost, one won. I do not see what the issue is here.
-
57 minutes ago, Christendom said:
Last night the most esteemed VCO fleet was ganked outside tumbabo by a group of American and Spanish sailors from the clans of CSA & SANTI with a numerically superior and higher BR force immediately after the most honorable fleet of VCO let members of the same fleet escape from a battle minutes beforehand where they would of easily been sunk. This aggression and betrayal will not stand.
And the moral of the story here is gank before you are ganked. I do not understand why you are angry at this, are the Americans and Spanish allies of yours or are they enemies? If they are enemies then its fair game.
I just think the game starts getting a bit silly when only certain clans in a nation are targeted and it provides more reason why this game should change to a clan warfare game rather than nations.
As to creating content, I have no issue with that.
-
1
-
-
On 5/31/2018 at 3:16 PM, Oberon74 said:
If you want to go hard core even more, you can use a sextant to determine if another ship is getting closer or farther. Simply by comparing the angle between his mast head and waterline over time.
Why would you even need to do this??????? When you can simply look at the other vessel and if it is getting bigger it is getting closer and if it is getting smaller it is getting farther away. No need for sextant angles and any form of calculation. In actual fact the difference in angle would be so minuscule at long range that the error in the accuracy of the reading from a moving ship would make the readings worthless.
-
1
-
[suggestion] Academy ship
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
You could sail to the next closest port to find a ship to buy. There are issues with the basic cutter but it is still required so a person cannot become stranded in a port unable to buy another ship and unable to teleport. If you can solve these issues then you could remove the basic cutter from the game. Its the same reason that the abuses of the tow to port function have to be overlooked, because there is a chance that a person may get stuck somewhere and need to be able to get out without intervention from the Devs.