Archaos
-
Posts
2,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Archaos
-
-
I think he is referring to the redeemable wipe that happened recently. I am not sure what incentives he means unless it is the New Year gifts for active players of Poods, paint and books. I guess there was also the aggies they gave out too, but these were for testing purposes, other than those I do not know of any recent incentives.
-
22 minutes ago, Vile Executioner said:
I’m saying it’s less relevant if you have no proof of you actually attacking someone in reinforcement zone to prove that you are capable of feedback. If you can’t prove to be the aggressor then you should only give feedback as the victim.
Other people have opinions too whether they are aggressors or victims. Many people have changed their habits and way on playing since these changes were introduced. Personally I used to attack a lot of AI fleets in the Belize green zone, now I have moved elsewhere. I have also heard of many solo hunters that avoid the green zones because of the forever open battles. Just because a person is not attacking someone or being attacked does not mean it has not affected their play. I knew from the start that nerfing the AI reinforcements would make it easier for the attackers as I have played a lot against AI and know how they sail, I would rather face a AI fleet at 3 times my BR than a 1v1 against another player of equal BR, because I know what the AI will do and can plan accordingly.
-
47 minutes ago, Otto Kohl said:
AI should not do all the work of protecting home waters - players should do that. Battle beeing open for the whole duration is enough help.
I would agree if the battle was only open for the whole duration to the side whose reinforcement zone was, but too many times recently the always open battle has been used to set a trap for a larger force, so people are wary about joining unless they have overwhelming force and even then they probably take a beating against a prepared force of attackers. If the attackers lose then they cry that it was only because the defenders had larger numbers and if they win they gloat that they defeated a much larger force, there is no win scenario for the defenders.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, Wind said:
Making suggestions that could pose risk to their main mark income would be silly. That is why we get such responses. New player responses needed here.
That is true, but I thought the aim of the forum was to get true feedback so as to develop the game that would be better for all.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, victor said:
On a general basis it sounds very strange to me that all the hunters in this topic say that the reinfocements are ok, when such features should be there to defend the preys.
I couldnt agree more, the hunters think they are okay because they can be overcome with a bit of skill, the problem is that all the prey that have any sense are doing their best to ensure they are not in a position to need reinforcements and so are unable to give feedback on the issue. As usual it is the inexperienced players that are taking the hit as they try to run and actually get further away from the help. Are these zones supposed to help new and inexperienced players or not?
-
2
-
-
I think the more serious question should be what is the actual purpose of the reinforcement zones, what are they supposed to achieve. Till you actually define what they are supposed to achieve then it is difficult to tell if they are effective or not.
If I remember correct when they were first introduced one of the responses to the OP first rates that appeared as reinforcements was that they were supposed to be like the security forces in Eve (cant remember their name offhead) that turned up and destroyed violators. Since then things have changed with the new RoE and lesser reinforcements in the zones without a real explanation of what you are trying to achieve in these zones. Are they supposed to be safe zones for players or are they supposed to be hot beds of PvP action, because at the moment they seem to be seeing more PvP action than the PvP zones.
-
7 minutes ago, Christendom said:
I've attacked several players in the reinforcement zones over the past week or so. It's now incredibly easy to sink traders again.
Outside of Belize this weekend I tagged a player in an LGV just south of the port. Get a great tag, load chain with prepared and immediately rigging shock the guy. Sail over, push him into the wind, board and over. Since I was in a trinco the AI reinforcement was a AI belle poole and it spawned behind and downwind. It simply couldn't get to us. Capped and sunk the guy and made a course upwind further out of the battle. Easy. AI was a joke. I felt bad for this guy.
Another situation outside KPR myself and 3-4 other VCO/CSA guys snagged an traders brig with 2 in fleet. He called in reinforcements, but since we were in frigates they were only AI frigates. Rage boarded the guy and the other captains boarded his AI ships. All sunk. some light chain on the AI and we sailed away. Easy.
The threat of matching AI 5th rates is not enough to deter myself from hunting. the AI 1st rates were.
I know I saw the ex RUBLI guys outside Habana this weekend ganking in the safe zone with Hercules. I assume they were getting in quick to sink and then just hitting the jets and running away.
Safe zones are a joke now. And it's a shame
I know this is off topic, but what you describe here is more reason why DD should remain as is.
-
4
-
-
How would it work if you had a mixture? say for example you head out hunting with rum as your crew revival, but as you hit enemy shipping and you stocks are running low you replenish from ships you have sunk, but now you find yourself with multiple different revive drinks, could you use a mixture of these to make up the quantity required to revive crew or could you be left with odd amounts of each?
-
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.
-
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.
Patch 24: Properly depowering your staysails
in Patch notes
Posted
I think the worst thing about the mast hits only counting if they penetrated was the fact that the person sniping the mast knew they were getting hits while the person the the receiving end gets no notification till the mast goes down. I lost a mast on a Victory to very few hits from a Bellona and I had not even realised he was trying to snipe my masts. If penetration hits were going to stay in then the person on the receiving end should get some notification and be able to have some counter before the mast goes down. If your hull is getting destroyed you see it and can try and protect that side or use repair, but for masts they just go down which can very quickly change the battle even if you could repair.