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, admin said:
Port maintenance will be added - if the clan controls the port they will have to pay maintenance (taken from the clan warehouse). If maintenance is not paid the port will turn into a neutral port. Taxation money will be collected to clan warehouse as well.
Can you look at some stage of expanding on this so it is not just a cash payment for maintenance. Bring in something like a port requiring so many supplies of various sorts per week. Utilize some of the trading goods, have a whole list for each port of items that are required each week to maintain the port (items that are not produced by the port). The owners can then set up buy contracts and let others fill the orders or fill them themselves. This will generate worthwhile work for traders and more traffic on the OW.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, admin said:
Un-capturable ports will be set in the areas around the capitals (with the exception of sweden and denmark which will be set as very hard again during selection of the nation).
I agree with the un-capturable ports in areas around the capitals, but why exclude Sweden and Denmark? I understand you wish to have different difficult levels of play but a lot of people choose their nation based on their own nationality or background rather than the difficulty level. (this type of mechanic would work better in a fictional world that was not based on history).
The main issue is that these smaller and difficult to play nations then start requesting game mechanics that allow them to play on a more even footing as the larger easier to play nations and that is what causes issues. For example a small nation cannot put out a large screening fleet so they request mechanics to allow them bypass the larger nation screeners and get into and even matched port battle. If we have difficult to play nations then do not provide mechanics to then start leveling the playing field.
-
I think the idea is too restrictive and it will mean most people will have to spend every weekend being up at unsociable hours as the port battles will happen then. It would be simpler for a War Company to just set a 3 hour window when they can be attacked. Encourage them to open it up more say to 6 hours by giving a bonus for longer attack windows.
For attackers if they want to flip a port that is not in their prime time then they can arrange with their War Company to do it when they know enough members can be online even at a silly hour. Surely everyone can manage the odd out of hours PB, its just a case of arranging enough people around at that time now and again.
This way no one can complain that they were forced to get up at a silly time to defend a port. If you choose not to attack ports out of your prime time then that is your choice. But if you set your windows at your prime time you should always be able to defend. This way if there are more players who regularly play at a certain time of day they should have more ports on that time and hence more ports to attack. Everyone is able to take part in RvR apart from the unfortunate ones who's prime time coincides with maintenance.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, DrZoidberg said:
The problem is that who cant stand this OW sailing time, just quit and make a bad review, but who likes wont quit if it will be changed. Only people with unlimited time can enjoy the game in this form, and everybody who supports this OW sailing time just killing its beloved game... The fact is that in steam reviews the most problematic factor is this. So u can choose, u support this kind of sailing and play on an empty map, or u play on a live map. If u let automatic movement without cargo with 1 day delay between outposts, that dont change any mechanic in the game, just dont force people with real life to be at thier PC when rearranging ships, what are more than 95% no action, boring play. If somebody dont understand that (u, or the developers) just dont understand that for a succesfull game u have to serve the players. This is a problem from the first step, and the movement was much harder at the start. I bet that this issue just made like 5000 player to leave, and nowdays just mostly hc, living in game type players stay, or beginners. Thats not the way a server can be filled...
I would have no issue with the ship delivery system they had previously where you could send a ship without cargo to another outpost overnight, but I dont believe that alone will solve the problem of lack of PvP. Prior to the wipe ships could be teleported easily even before they brought in the tow to port feature and it was still difficult to find PvP. They had PvP areas with rewards and although I believe the large ship battles one was used a bit, it was difficult to find people in the smaller ships battle area. The problems go a lot deeper than the distances between ports in OW.
-
2 minutes ago, Hodo said:
This.
Last night I know myself and 4 other people from TF and VCO went sailing around Mortimer. We saw NO ONE the whole way up there from KPR. When we got there we found a single Santisima and a few other smaller ships. We attacked the Santi, and ended up in a fight with an Indefatigable, Santi, Renomee, Snow, and a Lynx. We sank everything but the Snow who got away. And was honestly the best sailor of the bunch.
After we left the fight there was a "massive" revenge fleet of around 10 ships waiting. We scattered to the four winds and lost most of them. It was a good fight, but it was ONE fight, maybe two. Not much else going on that night. The Combat Clerk posts confirmed this.
This highlights the problem even more. You went looking for battles and found a small one, then all of a sudden after the battle 10 ships appear in revenge. The question must be what were those 10 people doing before you attacked their countrymen? Were they just sitting in port?
The game seems to favor people sitting around waiting for something to happen rather than give them good reason to go out and do something. I sometimes get the impression that a lot of people play NA while watching youtube or doing something else and only react when something happens in game, then moan how there is nothing to do and they are bored.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Wynkyn de Worde said:
Added complexity is not the solution to the failure of this game. The game needs casual players, and they need to be able to have fun and achieve some progress in the game. Making it more clan based and more complex is cutting off the growth from new and casual players. I have a clan of one. When I was in a clan I got ripped off by defectors going pirate. Never again. The devs seem to have no consistent long term idea for this game. Role a die and change direction. This game is a basket case.
So how do you propose they make such a casual friendly game. Solo players at the moment have full freedom to go out and attack each other, trade and do what they want but yet there is not a whole lot of PvP. For the very casual player that is very short of time and does not have the time to seek PvP then the Legends game will probably suit them.
For the OW game you need to have some complexity to make it work. They need to create front lines where the battles are fought, they need to give people a reason to own ports not just for colors on a map, they need to create meaningful trade to get merchants out on the seas etc.
I know it seems frustrating and a case of 1 step forward and 2 back, but I think with discussing the mechanics like this before implementing it is the way to go, so we can have the arguments now and look to remove the exploits before it goes live.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, DrZoidberg said:
Yesterday i tried to get any PVP, as im for that in the game. As i (we) couldnt, we decided to go to the dutch waters from KPR. We sail there to search for enemies and after it we get back to KPR. We start at 17.00 H, we finished at 24.00. we could get 1 battle like 6v9, what was really good, but compared that we spent 7 hour for it, thats shame, crap and shit.
Top of that, when i come back i just colund stand the meaningless sailing, so i was AFK. My brand new endymion was just ganked on the way, while i wasnt there. i dont even know, who ganked me :)...
Ur game is dead, and thats just because u still stick to ur bad developing. Till u dont understand, that this sailing time and the hard life in naval action (low PVE, very low PVP rewards) just will force players to leave, till u dont check rewievs on steam and understand that if 80%of leavers mention the shit OS sailing system and very long real life killer sailing time, u will stuck with a player number what will make the map dead. Now u want to copy paste a system from EVE online. I will tell u whats the problem with it. Appart form that u stick to this long sailing times, for that system the map is too small and the player base is too low. In EVE online the map and the player base is endless compared to naval action. Thatswhy there every size of corporations can be viable, so new players and players with low play time can enjoy the game aswell. In naval action HC players will get the territory from new players, from small guilds, small war companies, from low populated national players. I dunno how u imagine that any of war companies will be viable without certeain resources, but resources are spread on the map, so not only territory will be locked for small teams (companies, guilds), but the capability of ship building aswell. U make new reasons to leave the game and make bad reviews. U want to go completly the opposite way u should, as most of the time in ur developing. Top of that i think there will be some ruler war companies can short the conquest wins (if there will be any win propability) to each others, what is always happened in ur systems earlier, when u forgot to make any balance.
U can expect a short, small player base growth after this patch, but as player dont trust u, u still stick to the hard mode (low rewards, extremly boring long sailing time, no balance), the boom will be short and player base will be about 100-400 player till the game will be closed.
If u check my posts, my foreseings just became true.
I dont want to repeat myself, i suggested systems for conquest, OS sailing, and for ur every problem. if u want u can look after them in my old posts, and use them for ur ideas. As u dont recive suggestions and u dont have the man and mindpower to make real new ideas (the conquest system u made is so simple, its without any balance, any good idea, it just doesnt solve any player leak issue- so its shame and laughable) the game is dead for me still.
I wish still the best to ur game and u.
As the big "Levin" told, the problem is not if u make wrong a bad dish, the problem is when u make wrong a good one. U do it now...
Best regards ..
The problem is not the OW sailing times it is knowing where to find PvP in such a big OW with a relatively small player base. I believe the solution is not to decrease OW sailing times but to find ways to get more people out to OW and create places where you know you will get PvP. At the moment that tends to be Nation Capital regions and thus you end up with the ganking of newbies etc.
I personally like the big OW map where you can find quiet areas and are not guaranteed to bump into people in the middle of nowhere. It gives the feeling of actually being at sea, you can sail for ages seeing no one but you have to keep watch because someone could appear. The issue in such a world is how do you generate these PvP hot zones where people can go knowing that they will get PvP. I think the current proposals for War Companies will help as Companies will have to be more active in defending their ports especially if they bring in things like port supplies.
I think some of the current failings in RvR is that PB's in most cases are really quite irrelevant as there is no real personal gain (apart from the battle enjoyment) from taking part in the battle, and once you have the port there is no real gain from keeping it, which has led to ports being traded back and forth. The control of resources has been nullified by alts so there is no reason to have a port for the supply of special woods etc. To make the RvR interesting there has to be some gain from holding ports, it has to be an income generator that means the owning Company does not have to spend time in PvE to generate money, they could even look at bringing back another currency like conquest marks for owners of ports (maybe now if more ports are available to be owned it wont be as bad as before).
I really think the OW game should revolve around the RvR, for people who just want quick battles then the Legends game will be more appropriate. But by the same token the RvR game should encourage people who like the open world but do not want to engage in RvR and be part of a War Company to get involved some way by creating targets for sole raiders, creating opportunities for traders etc.
-
17 minutes ago, Armored_Sheep said:
For example the clan causes war with other nation? Because they don´t respect the deal that other clans agreed on? I saw many examples of clans past the wipe (VLTRA, PAIN, ROYAL...) that did not like how other clans of their nation do play.
If a War Company do this then they open up the ports they own to attack with the other War Companies in the nation doing nothing. e.g. if a single War Company in the British nation caused trouble with Spain when the rest of the British clans had a non-aggression treaty then the Spanish War Companies would attack that War Companies ports and it would have no affect on the non-aggression treaty with the rest of the nation.
It actually works out quite well in this case.
-
23 hours ago, admin said:
How do you take over the port from a rogue clan without help of another nation?
I dont see rouge clans being that much of an issue, clans of the same nation may have different agendas and different styles of play, but if they each own their own ports and run them the way they want how is this a problem for the nation.
I can see allowing civil war creating more problems as then an outside nation can implant a War Company of alts in another nation with the goal of taking ports in a civil war and destabilizing the nation.
-
On 8/7/2017 at 6:36 AM, Slamz said:
This will not be enough.
Remember in the old flag system there was also a window of opportunity which the defender could select. This was the only reason any flag ever got intercepted: we knew that in certain hours we had to be in the area and be ready in case there was a flag attempt.
Adding 30 minutes to the placement in a game where travel time can be 2+ hours and any battle can run for 90 minutes and the window for the flag attack is 24/7 means flags will rarely, if ever, get intercepted. Only in really hot areas that have players all the time will there be any flag interception action.
On PvP-Global it will just be night flags and night flips anyway.
This is why they should tie in the flag system with the hostility system. Hostility in a region should be a certain level before a flag can be pulled. That way you get warning that something is brewing if hostility starts rising. The only issue would be making it so hostility couldnt be raised too quickly.
-
4 minutes ago, Prater said:
Curious here, which clan has 25 max level alts that each alt is played by a separate person? Point one out. I am generally interested in which clan has that many alts in one enemy nation and can disrupt the system admin has proposed.
Even if they dont have them now, if it is if benefit to them it will happen.
-
11 hours ago, admin said:
Devil's advocate question
Wont separating cities into capturable and non capturable just create another rookie zone - changing game for everyone but changing nothing in reality?
This is why I advocate a system where only the nations capital region is a Non-PvP zone for people to start out. All other ports and regions start out neutral for War Companies to capture in the name of their nation.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
That is why war clans can fight other war clans in same nations. Again what the diffrence if a bunch of players do the same? It shouldn't matter if they are just a bunch of alts a big clan should be easly able to beat them.
It all depends on how they eventually finalize the War companies and hoe the port battles work. If anyone from the nation can screen then it will be difficult for a smaller sized war company to capture a port, if on the other hand all the members of that small war company had max level alts in the nation of the War Company they want to attack it would be easier for them to do it as a civil war as they could not be screened out.
To put in in figures a 25 man War Company from Denmark wants to attack a 25 man British War Company port, if other members of the British nation can screen then they have little chance of making it into the battle, but if the 25 Danes had British alt War Company they could attack the same port without being screened and get a 25v25 battle, where the skill of the original 25 Danes would be what counts.
Just trying to foresee some possible issues that will depend on how they implement War Companies.
-
1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
Most of the folks I know that have the majority are maxed out by now.
Which makes the system of War Company civil wars open to abuse. All you have to do is create a clan of alts in a nation, supply them with ships from your main character and they can go take a port with no chance of being screened out, then set a time suitable for their mains to attack an empty port.
-
2 minutes ago, Anolytic said:
I'm still considering solutions to the problems you point out with my system. I believe only nationals and the controlling war company should have unrestricted access to ports. Maybe create a system or zone around each port to prevent war company members from ganking players entering their own nation ports. War company members should not necessarily get the same protection the other way around. In return war company members should automatically get outposts in every port their company controls.
The problem I have with your proposed system is that it will affect nationals heavily, and the problem of imbalance is only going to get much much worse than it is now. What happens in RvR will affect what ports non-company nationals have access to at any given time. And players joining Brits will have 3-6 war companies that from the start decide not to interfere with each other. Int once all ports are under british control and all other war companies crushed, british companies will start fighting each other for control over the most valuable ports to tax. This is exactly what we are trying to change. If we left it like that we would be much better off just leaving the sRvR and nation system exactly as it is now. No need to introduce war company mechanics.
War companies would then only be a mechanic to prevent non-rvr nationals from at all helping to affect and protect what ports they have access to. They would get all the bad consequences of their national war companies' prowess or lack there off, and none of the benefits of RvR gameplay.
The way I see it developing is that even if the bigger nation has 6 war companies a smaller nation with maybe a single strong war company equal in size to the largest one in the big nation can still take their ports. This of course would be dependent on the attackers and defenders and screeners for a port battle being limited to the war companies involved. So the smaller nation does not have to face the 6 combined War Companies of the larger nation but the War Company they choose to attack, thus leveling the playing field a bit. There would of course have to be some limits as to how many attacks a single War Company could possibly have against it at a time (this could be scaled to the number of ports they own).
If this is coupled with differing PB sizes for different ports, even smaller War Companies would become viable. The secret is making it difficult for a single large War Company to control everything, and I posted my thoughts on how to achieve that earlier.
I personally dont like the idea of civil war and same nation War Companies taking ports from each other, I think that can lead to alt War Companies being formed solely for this purpose as there will be no way to screen out someone from the same nation entering a port battle. Remember not all alts are low level.
-
4 minutes ago, Anolytic said:
I see where we are making different assumptions. I wasn't clear about the fact that I still think devs should retain some of their idea from the original proposal that they have since abandoned. I think that ports should fly the flag of their starting nation. That ports should not switch nationality whatever happens in RvR. Instead, to make more ports accessible to all nations, make a lot of ports neutral, almost like they've done on the PvE-server. Regions that were not historically fully owned by one nation according to devs own map should belong to the neutral "faction" and as such function almost as freetowns.
War corporations should not be mercenary military forces for nations too busy to fight their own wars, but rather businesses with military divisions to protect their profits. Nations have a monopoly on trade between Europe and the Caribbean, but allow War Companies to fight over the profit from trade between ports in the Caribbean. If Corporations get their flag on ports, it is not replacing national flags, but in addition to them, or the company ownership can rather be indicated in the port UI somehow.
Instead of nations "grant charters to private enterprises to expand in the name of the Crown/Emperor/Republic", nations "grant charters to private enterprises to profit in the name of the Crown/Emperor/Republic". This keeps nations out of port ownership as far as ownership changes goes. It is only so far we should go to please the history buffs (who I count myself among). Concessions to history has already caused a lot of trouble for the development of this game and the RvR. 8 nations probably chief among the problems. Let's not make this new system that is being proposed too dependent on past mistakes. Keep nations out of RvR.
I see your assumption now but I am not sure who can use the port outside the War Company. e.g. Danish War Company captures a port in Haiti that was originally French, can French still enter that port? I understand from your point of view that the War Company is not really Danish and could be a mixture of nationalities, but how do they then react towards french traders still using that port?
My assumptions are based more on the hope that they dont just go with the center map up for grabs but go instead for National capital regions being non-PvP zones and everything else up for grabs in the name of your nation. Thus still fulfilling historical conquest by nations, just that it is done by War Companies not national navies.
I guess we will see which way they decide to go with it.
-
2 minutes ago, Skully said:
Should we be able to see the size of each Charter?
I think you should be able to see the size so you know what size force you can expect.
-
1 hour ago, Anolytic said:
At this point we have nations mostly for sentimental reasons anyway. We could just have a red team, a blue team and a black team and lots of things would be a lot simpler, not least balancing. But the devs like flags and history and such things, and I and many players are totally with them on that. The role-play opportunities and history immersion allowed by having real nations in-game are something which importance for many players shouldn't be underestimated. But for RvR we need balancing, and nations simply cannot be balanced. So make War company affiliation totally detached from nations, only with the exception that the War company has the patronage of the King of the nation where the charter was first registered.
If Nations don't interact directly with RvR, and RvR development don't affect Nations, and Nationality instead interact only with what happens in OW and with economy, then nations can be balanced even if Britain has 50 times the players of Danmark or Sweden, because Danish or Swedish national territories would only be a thirtieth or so of the national territories of Britain. And would thus only need a fraction of the population to make the economy work evenly.
I see your point and maybe I am still missing something, but if you have mixed nationality War Corporations then whose flag flies over the port and who can access the port from outside the War Corporation?
I sort of view it the way the Devs originally announced that nations will give charters to clans to go capture and run ports. To put that into role play "The European nations embroiled in war in Europe can no longer support the colonies, and thus grant charters to private enterprises to expand in the name of the Crown,/Emperor/Majesty etc." It gives us an alternative history timeline and still keeps nations involved as theoretically all War Clan ports come under the jurisdiction of the nation the War Company belongs to. This may go some way to appeasing the history buffs.
-
1
-
-
On the subject of tax and upkeep of ports maybe they could introduce a system where the port generates income through taxes for the owner but also requires upkeep, but the upkeep is in the form of certain supplies to the port. So many supplies per week would be required to support the port depending on the size of the port. e.g. Port A requires 100,000 grain, 10,000 stone, 200 gold coins, 300 silver coins 5,000 Rum (just figures from top of my head, would need to be worked out properly) etc per week.
These figures are posted for each town at the start of the week with a running total through the week. The owning clan could purchase these items elsewhere and transport them themselves or they could post supply orders to be filled by other players. If they set the order too low them people will not be bothered to fill them. If at the end of the week the supply is not completed then there is a penalty for the port e.g. part of garrison deserts due to not being fed or paid so one fort becomes unmanned, or production drops.
This would generate trade runs between ports and more targets in OW.
-
2
-
-
On 8/2/2017 at 2:57 PM, admin said:
Regions
- Regions will split into individual ports for conquest (tentative)
- All ports will be split into captureable (all large islands in the center of the map and island chains) and non captureable - coasts
-
All capture able ports will change status to neutral after reset
- History fans can relax because in 2-3 weeks port captures will shape the nationalities of ports themselves. New players will come to a live fluid map, which will have stability along the coast and constant instability in the center.
- Rare resources will move closer to the center of the map.. the closer to center the more potential profit would be on trading
- Some resources required to ship of the line construction might also move to center
- Map will be reset
I'm not sure I like the plan for the new conquest regions I would prefer something more like below that I posted in another thread.
I think the nation capital regions should be non-PvP zones to allow new players the safety to learn the game, missions in these areas only give xp and gold for the first few ranks after which you can still do missions up to any rank but get no XP, gold or loot, it would be purely for training purposes. e.g. someone sailing a first rate for the first time dosent want to risk losing it in PvP so they can train in missions in safe area. The importance of National capitals to trade and resources would need to be reduced.
All other ports and regions should be capturable. Ports should have different levels that have different BR requirements to attack so small War Clans can have chance to get some smaller unimportant ports. There should be a bonus if a single War Clan owns all ports in a region, maybe something like increased production rates or less port upkeep costs. Only players from the War Clans involved in the port battle can screen and participate in the port battle.
-
10 minutes ago, Anolytic said:
people should not be able to join war companies as individuals. Clans should join a war company as an entity by clan-leader action. And the war company accepts or denies entry. And yes, there should be a limitation on jumping in and out of war companies continuously. It should be a committment, not something entered into lightly.
Personally I dislike the idea of multiple clans in one War Company as I think it can lead to too many differences. But if people are willing to risk that then fair enough, I would hopefully join a War Company that was just a single clan.
-
1 minute ago, Cortez said:
I didn`t quite understand 2 things...
1. Will the map reset BEFORE this new patch goes live too?
2. If so, will we lose assets, which are now in friendly ports, but might be in enemy ports/neutral AFTER RESET?
Thank you.
The map will reset when this goes live.
You will not lose assets, they will either be transferred or you will get them as redeemable's, it has not been decided yet how it will happen.
-
On 8/2/2017 at 2:57 PM, admin said:
Captains joining war companies will have to serve a minimum time period and will not be able to exit the company for certain time-
After exit they won't be able to rejoin a company for a certain time (to avoid jumping back and forth between war companies).
I really feel that these rules need to remain in the proposal as otherwise all you will get is a mass influx of people into one War Company just before a port battle, and once done they will promptly leave.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, HarryButpain said:
Well, if it was possible to connect the EU and US server but without replacing one another, then the EU server could get a map of europe and the US would keep the caribbean map. If a player left europe to sail to the caribbean, he would automatically switch to the US server. If he sailed back to old britain, he would switch back to the EU based server.
It's a compromise, cause players could go and stay where they've the best ping but with the option to change if they so desire.
Would work if you had a huge population, but the main reason people want the current servers to merge is to try and get a bigger population on one server. Bringing in another map will spread the population out even more. If each server had 2500 people on regularly then there would be no calls for a server merge.
Preliminary discussion of the changes to conquest - clan wars are coming
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
Will there be a delay on joining and leaving the alliances, i.e. will a clan be able to become friendly a few minutes before a port battle and then be able to join the battle?