Archaos
-
Posts
2,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Archaos
-
-
There is a lot of mention on how the VM patch is killing the game for solo players, but how many solo players actually use a 1st rate for anything other than PvE grinding? If you go out solo in a first rate you are just asking to get ganked by a bunch of smaller ships that will stern camp you to death. Personally I have found that solo I only use a first rate for making money off AI fleets in the safe zone and would be very wary of sailing one solo anywhere else.
-
10 hours ago, John Sheppard said:
that reminds me of what the situation just after the full wipe half a year ago when the first nations to help eachother with Conquest marks (setting up port battles for eachother and not showing up) were far ahead of the rest.. i remember the spanish had 30 L'oceans at the time that brits had 2-3 Agamemnons .. there was nothing the brits could do to stop the spanish when they decided to attack except use the basic cutter fireships
this will repat again after the wipe i suspect
This may be true, but what happened to change it? Why are Spain not still the dominant force on the server? How did others catch up and pass them in dominance? As long as others have a chance of getting VM's then I think things will even out in the long run.
-
17 hours ago, Captain corn blower said:
Sorry lots of changes back and forth same old shi T sorry really old now .where's new content added to the game more ships new ones even the old one that were removed .you asked for new ideas what we won't to see .I see nothing .WAIT. I did see a AT Essex keep up with me going in reverse ..now that's a major up date
I never understand why people keep asking for new ships in the game. There may be ships we would like to see in the game but they would be better adding more content and fixing issues in the game rather than adding new ships. Having 100 different ships to choose from is still pointless if people do not go out and fight in them. Get the game right and bring more people into it before looking to add new ships.
-
22 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:
Re: How Econ is entirely safe in protected zones: If a merchant is attacked, they can call reinforcements. The list of profit-making goods is irrelevant, as you don't make gold in trade, you make it farming missions. You can 100% build ships safely, and SPECIALTY ships safely, within protected zones.
That is a problem.
You seem to be just making things up as you go along. On one hand you say merchants when attacked can call reinforcements, but then you say the list of profit making goods is irrelevant (forgetting that it was you who posted the long list of trade goods in another thread) and that it is doing missions in the safe zone that makes gold. Well I do not see many people out in merchantmen doing missions. Traders have to move trade goods across the map and they have to leave the green zone to make profit. The fact that they get a break for the last 10% of some runs when they can call reinforcements is not game breaking and it actually encourages them to make trade runs as the size of the zone makes it more difficult for the hunter to cover every exit from the port.
If you get rid of green zones then make it so that traders spawn at a point of their choosing a certain distance from the port to avoid the port campers that just want easy kills on undefended targets.
I can agree that mission running to make money in the safe zone is an issue, but traders are not the problem. Traders now sail the slowest ships and cargo slows them further and they do not have as many upgrade slots.
Also the reason they made it so that you can craft ships completely in the safe zone was to stop a nation being reduced to a point where it was impossible to craft a way out of.
-
3 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:
Conquest didn't matter because econ didn't matter. Econ doesn't matter because it is protected by those green zones.
Merchants should never be protected by reinforcements.
Make econ matter, and you make everything else matter.
How is Economy protected by the green zones? I asked you this in the other thread that you posted this in but you chose to ignore it. I asked you to show me from the list of trade goods you posted which ones could make you profit by just trading within the green zone, because as far as I can see there are none that can make profit without the trader leaving the green zone at some stage.
If I do a trade run from Cartegena to KPR, a run that takes best part of an hour, I am only in the green zone of KPR for the last 5 minutes. I do not see how less than 10% of my trip being inside the safe zone is causing a problem unless you want to sit right outside the port waiting for me to arrive.
Unless by Econ you mean just money generation that can be done by just doing missions in the green zone.
-
Just now, Eleven said:
We had that multiple times already. Sweden got one ported, pirates got one ported, dutch got one ported...
Always the nation lost players.
And when will people learn that by doing that they will kill the game. As I said if people choose to do that then there is little that can be done to stop it happening.
I do think the change with VM's is not a good one, but encouraging people to take down the strongest nation is a good target.
-
5 minutes ago, Eleven said:
The problem you will expierience is that all nations have an interest in capping ports of the first ranked one. They gonna put portbattles at the same time, no nation has capacities right now to defend all of them at once. First ranked nation will get slowly one ported, players of that nation leave the game. Nation dead. Next target is the new first ranked nation, same procedure. You wont receive an homeostatic status because its easier to cap ports of a dead nation than to fight other nations 1 vs 1. Its always easier to gank, you should know that, you play naval action.
I understand what you are saying, but I do not think it will work out that way unless you can one port a nation in a single day. The leaderboard is dynamic and people will be able to see the shift of power and at a certain stage it may become strategic to take a port of another nation to stop them getting the top spot. Also if a nation is powerful enough to take top spot then you are hardly likely to be able to one port them as once their number of ports have been reduced they will find it easier to defend. Once a nation has lost enough ports that it cannot win the week, then there is diminishing returns to keep attacking them, you may as well look towards the next leader and start taking points from them. Remember there are no official alliances.
If people decide to stay clubbed together in order to one port a nation and move onto the next then they only have themselves to blame when there is no one left to fight.
-
1 minute ago, Valentine Karrde said:
Limiting ships that are actually required to knock the folks off the top to only the folks at the top encourages them to remain at the top and prevents those at the bottom from having a chance to get there.
But at present many of the capturable ports do not require first rates, so even without VM's you can still challenge the top nation, and they are also talking about the top 3 nations receiving VM's.
-
1 minute ago, Eleven said:
A 'diplomatic gank' thing is a good thing? I doubt you understand the consequences.
I understand that it is good for the game to not allow one nation stay too long at the top. It gets boring when the same nation is always top and even they get bored as no one challenges them. From what I heard about the EU server Sweden was in that sort of position, well now it is in everyones interest that this is not allowed to go on for too long and once one nation is knocked off top position people can turn to the next one.
-
I wish they had let things settle for a while after the server merge to see how things went before introducing the change in VM's, because if the VM issue causes people to leave then some people will blame the server merge rather than the VM's.
-
4 hours ago, Eleven said:
How to force every nation to ally to smash the best one. Thats a very healthy attitude we are seeing here. /s
It is actually a good thing to encourage the rest to take down the strongest, the interesting part is how they play it as to who takes over that spot. Everyone can gang up to knock the top nation down, but they have to also watch each other to see who is getting ahead in the race, so cracks start forming in the alliance.
-
4 hours ago, Alvar Fanez de Minaya said:
Please, forget who is attacking and who is defending. The problem is much simpler ... I can not play in your schedule, and you can not play in mine, so it's stupid to try to play together on the same map if we can not face each other.
I understand perfectly that 100 players are too few to play in the global, but the solution is not to force us to play together, because the end of the server will be the same... A dead server.So go ahead and just play against people who set their ports to EU times, it will still be the same number of people you faced before. For people who are able now and again to play outside their prime time they will have more targets.
If as you say there were only 100 people on the Global time then they should not make much impact on the greater number of EU players. But if as I suspect there are a lot of players from non-EU timezones that were forced to play EU PB timers due to the higher numbers on the EU server and the way the original server split happened, then you may see higher numbers of ports going to non-EU times.
-
5 hours ago, Jon Snow lets go said:
Nice logic mate, so the gameplay for EU is only play defense and protect the ports. And if you lose once you are hello kittyed and the port is gone for as long as the enemy pays for the timer.
Fun game.
And how did someone who sets the timer to outside the EU timezone get the port in the first place? They must have attacked outside their prime time and if they can do it so can you. Its the same difficulty for everyone, its not just a thing against EU players. In fact if as people say there are more EU players than any other then majority of the ports will be on EU timers so its the non-EU players that will have few targets on their prime time.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Ink said:
Captains, we apologize but only assets linked to steam id were possible to transfer, server redeems such as ships from the May wipe were not transferred. As the server has been closed. Same with sealed bottles. sealed bottles were server based (map spot and such) and could not be transferred
Sorry for inconveniences, we hope players from Global PVP will quickly recover those wipe ships and sealed bottles
It would have helped if we had been told this in advance. The question was asked enough times. It is not a huge loss but it was unnecessary and could easily have been avoided if people had been told in advance.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, maturin said:
The wind is coming from the right-hand side of the picture, and the half-fletched arrows represent tidal current. The ship is painstakingly working through an estuary, with wind not much stronger than the tide.
Thanks for the explanation, I am well aware of the intricacies of maneuvering a ship through a restricted waterway being a trained Master Mariner, what I was trying to point out was that the picture is quite regularly thrown up on these forums ever since the Devs first posted it but in reality it bears no relevance to what we can do in NA. It does not show where the wind is coming from and it does not say that the arrows are the tidal current. In game there is nowhere we have to maneuver like this and we do not have use of an anchor to assist turning.
Although I have no experience on square rigged sail ships, I can assure you such maneuvers in such a restricted waters would only ever be done as a last resort and at great risk to the vessel. I see it as more of a theoretical exercise rather than something that was practiced regularly. So I do not understand why people post it as if it is some magic sailing ability that was regularly done.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:
Can someone please explain what is happening in this picture, I keep seeing it being posted up but quite frankly it is ridiculous without the full context. The arrows in the river are they supposed to be wind or current, because if its wind then why is it changing as you go through the channel. To me it looks more like how current would behave in a restricted channel.
What the picture does not show is where the wind is coming from. You also note at one stage they are using an anchor to swing with no sails up. These may all be feasible maneuvers in a real ship but this is not possible in NA, so I do not know why it keeps getting posted.
-
2 hours ago, Landsman said:
Haha, sorry mate but I stopped reading here already... the OW version has been up for what now.... 3 years? Don't even try to compare it to Legends in this regard... unless you wait 3 years and compare it to the current OW NA.
When OW started there were queues and they had to open new servers, I do not see the same with NAL.
-
1 minute ago, Slim Jimmerson said:
There's a middle ground between a few minutes and literal hours of searching for basic PVP.
You wont get an argument from me on that point. You should not have to spend hours searching for PvP, but at the same time camping outside a capital when there are no safe zones is hardly exciting play. Most of the complaints about lack of PvP would disappear if there were more people on the servers, I think that if the hard core PvP'ers had plenty of PvP they would not even feel that the safe zones were an issue. The big question is how to get more people into the game.
Sometimes I think hard core PvP'ers are like hunters who have decimated the local prey and then start complaining that their job is hard because they have to go further afield to find prey and sometimes they cannot find any.
-
5 minutes ago, Niagara said:
I agree, The game is better with more players. And the more a player feel invested into a game the more the player will play it.
If you feel as a trader that you are contributing to your nation/clan/friends with your "boring" trade runs thats great.
If you feel as a raider that you have made a contribution to your nation/clan/friends by raiding then thats great.
Same with shipbuilding and all others ways to play the game.
If there was a Button that says Press here to WIN and you just won the game after pressing it, How many would return to play if was that easy to win...
Most MMO know that the most time players will spend are in 2 phases. The grind to max level pahse and the fun you can do at max level phase with or without friends and then you lose interest unless new content is introduced to prolong either of those 2 phases.
Why do some many MMO have cosmetic features that takes forever to grind.. Its a timesink to keep the player playing more, especially if you have a pay to play setup on a montly charge
We need more timesinks
Atm there is serious issues when players are leveling. Huge gaps in levels where you skip many ships because you can crew larger ships and thus do not sail in as many different types of ships as you could.
How to fix this? Have more levels with more max crew differentials so you spend time testing more ships
You jump from 350 Max crew to 650 max crew. Why bother with big 4th rates when you can go to a 3rd rate...
I think you are misquoting what I said, I said I wished that the trade run I did contributed more to my nation or clan, that somehow it affected the RvR.
I also disagree with needing more timesinks. One of the greatest complaints from people is the time taken to get to the action in OW and the grind to reach the end game. If you increase the grind you have to make it interesting or it will turn people away from the game. Look at NAL where you have to grind through each vessel before you can move onto the next and see the complaints about that.
A lot of people start playing the game and feel they have to get to a SOL as soon as possible and when they get there they suddenly realize that there is not much they can do alone in a first rate apart from missions in the safe zone. Most of the OW PvP happens in 4th and 5th rates.
-
It is interesting to see that so far most of the discussion appears to center round Britain, France and Spain, with little mention of the Dutch, Danes, Russians etc who also had powerful navies but maybe because they were not almost constantly at war at sea during this period like they are not so much talked about.
This again comes back to what I said earlier as to what you use as a measuring stick to call a navy most powerful, ships alone do not make a navy so lists alone cannot give the answer as many ships even on active register were little more than hulks and ships bottled up in port for months on end would slowly rot away.
I think the only thing that is certain is that by the end of the period in question there was only one true naval power and that was Britain, which led into the period called "Pax Britannica", almost 100 years where Britain acted almost like a global police force on the seas and used its naval superiority for that purpose. During this period there were no real major naval engagements for that might to be challenged. They also had a policy that was eventually made into law that their navy had to be twice as powerful as their two closest rivals.
A good book to read regarding the Royal Navy is called "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World" by Arthur Herman. It follows the history of the navy from its first formation through to modern times, explaining how at one stage the Admiralty was so powerful it basically was the government.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Landsman said:
NAL is in open beta and people don't feel like grinding / unlocking the ships twice.... there have been more than enough testers already and most of the time it is still way easier to get a balanced fight quickly, which is almost impossible on the OW version, if you don't set it up.
Where is the PvE version of NA? Ah, yes the PvE server... and who plays there? Barely anyone. My point still stands, NA works without PvE but not without PvP ( in the long term ).
By the way, admin himself said the game is about PvP with ships, so you're basically arguing against what the devs see as a fact and it is their game... who would know better?
Who would log into the game without the possibility of PvP after only 100 hours playtime???
And to use your logic NA is still in open Beta so many people are not logging in to grind knowing that they will have to grind it all again after reset.
The game is about PvP with ships, but the open world is about more than that. Yes I would find just PvE boring but at the same time if it is just PvP that you are looking for then NAL is where you want to be. People complain that in the OW game they have to sail for hours for the chance to find PvP and they just want to be able to log in and within a few minutes they want to be able to sail out and find PvP and if they get sunk they want to be able to return to the action asap, well they can have all that in NAL. I am not saying that all PvP'ers should go play NAL, but the people who want instant action and do not want to sail for hours for the chance to find PvP, it would seem NAL is a better choice.
As you say yourself its the possibility of PvP that makes the PvP servers more exciting than the PvE server. When I do a trade run I have to keep scanning the horizon looking for raiders, keeping an eye on combat chat and nation chat to work out if there are raiders close by. During that time I hope not to encounter any raiders and if I get to my destination safely I count that as a success in PvP, because I put my ship at risk and survived. I just wish the trade run was more meaningful in terms of the RvR, that by doing it I was helping my nation or clan in some way rather than just making money.
When a raider goes out looking for a fight in OW there is a possibility he may not find any targets, but experienced raiders know where to go to find targets or at least increase the possibility of coming across a target. They do not expect targets to be handed to them on a plate by camping outside the nation capital. For those sorts of people they are better off going to NAL, but I guess most dont like that because in NAL the matchmaking tries to even things up (though it is very bad at it) so you should not get ganks.
The biggest problem in the OW game is the lack of people and that is why people cannot find PvP and traders are safer.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Valentine Karrde said:
They can make redeemables to match whatever you have. Not all redeemables give free choice of woods.
I was asking for them to indicate where the Devs said this, as someone mentioned that you would get to choose. There is a lot of information being given out by people based on their interpretation of the Devs statements which is wrong and this really needs to be clarified, and I wish people would not fill in the blanks themselves.
-
3 hours ago, Quineloe said:
You get an Indef on redeem, wood of your choice, upgrade slots all empty.
Where did they say this? If this is the case I will build a load of cheap wood ships on Global before the transfer and then on redeeming make them what I want.
-
An interesting topic, but I think you would need to define better as to what makes a navy strongest. Do you count numbers of ships, bearing in mind that they were not all equivalent classes? Do you count total numbers of guns of different poundage? And most importantly and hardest to gauge for navies that were not regularly in battle is the experience of the officers and crew. Some navies were very strong on paper but were not very effective in battle.
The British navy had very experienced officers and crew and I think were generally thought of as well trained and battle hardened, whereas the French had some very powerful ships but their crews lacked sea going experience due to the effectiveness of the British blockade and also the purges of their officers during the revolution. The Spanish were also a very experienced seagoing nation, but I personally think they were starting to wane by this period in time.
I am not a history buff, but I look forward to hearing what people who have studied this time period more have to say on the topic. Sorry I have not posted a list as anything I posted would be pure guesswork.
-
1
-
Leeway warning! Important!
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
Well in reality you wouldnt sail like that and have to do all the tacking at the end to get to your destination. You would just set your initial course more into the wind so your course made good was your desired course and you would sail direct to your destination.