Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Archaos

Members2
  • Posts

    2,031
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Archaos

  1. I dont think you should get any warning of a magazine explosion as long as it is a rare occurrence and not something that is happening every battle.
  2. War supplies are not that hard to make, yes it does take some time to gather materials and they come at a cost but I personally without any assistance have been ably to craft over 80 in about 10 days and I could make more if I had the labour hours. Any nation or group of people who put their mind to it can easily craft war supplies. It is also currently very easy to make money in game if you spend some time investigating prices.
  3. I'm not so sure about the AFK protection suggestion. Have you ever tried to catch a traders lynx after you have totally decrewed it and it carries on sailing over the horizon........
  4. Because the game is not just about port battles. This again leads to a lobby game of just port battles. I understand that some people love and live for port battles but others like the ability to screen in OW and use other tactics to prevent the battle happening or winning it before the actual port battle takes place.
  5. But dont you see that the way the game is currently being played you may as well have a lobby based port battle entry as it is almost impossible to prevent a port battle occurring with the hostility bomb mechanic and almost impossible to screen people out of the battle with the logging out tactic. I do not favour a lobby system and I can understand your arguments as to why the game is played the way it is at the moment, but overall I do not think it is good for the long term prospects of the game.
  6. The accusation is made using the persons own claims in his post which I have quoted above. He may have been lying but he led people to believe that he had crafted war supplies in an enemy port and hence I raised it here to be investigated as there is no way to do this without using someone from an opposing nation. The port in question was Kemps town sometime yesterday and it was done by the Danish nation against the USA territory.
  7. you stated " We had a danish crafter in town I delivered the supplies to.. stayed there all day.. (and btw a shitload of supplies).. ", that would indicate that you crafted the supplies at the final location. Then when questioned on it you comment " Only if u craft ships... Try some crafting mate.. " again indicating that the crafting was done in the enemy port. Hopefully this can be looked into by the admins to get to the bottom of it.
  8. in this thread the player Bearwall claims to have crafted war supplies in an enemy port. This should not be possible and to confirm I tried it in another port and was unable to craft them. So either this player has discovered a bugged port where it is possible to craft war supplies as an enemy or they have circumvented it in some way by probably using an alt, which I believe is a blatant abuse of the game mechanics in order to affect hostility in a region.
  9. I think they wanted Bermuda for the fast ships as it is the only supply of Bermuda Cedar and has regional speed bonus. Plus they know that once Bermuda is captured it will be very hard to win back.
  10. To me that sounds like you went into the battle using old tactics and not staying updated with the new meta. Even pre patch it was known that Agamemnons would be the new top ship for 4th rate PB's once they were allowed in. I have never led a PB and do not think it is easy, but I do not agree with how quickly people call for a nerf without giving time for strategies to be developed to counter first. Again I would refer to the Danes and their strong hulled L'Oceans at the battle foe Georgia, it was demoralizing to see so many balls bounce off their hulls and it would be easy to say strong hulled bonus is OP and should be nerfed, but there are other ways to counter it.
  11. I do think that the BP's for all ships in the game should be more readily available, we should not have to search out the few people that have them to get a ship made.
  12. I can agree with smaller mission areas and a broadcast flag mechanic, but lets not go down the road of false flags and wasting peoples time like it was previously. I was not suggesting stable PvP hostility as the only way of generating PvP but as a way of making PvP more relevant after it had happened. It is frustrating to raise hostility by PvP only to have it wiped out by easy PvE or decay over time. The alts will always be an issue but that is done at risk of getting a ban.
  13. The problem with timezone based servers is that if separates the community. The problem with the game is that it is set in a historical time frame with actual nations and naturally people tend to be drawn to firstly their native nation and after that towards a nation they have some affiliation to. So in a EU timezone most of the EU nations will be well represented but the USA would have few players and on a US server the USA, British (as English speaking) and Spanish (Spanish speakering nations) would have good representation but other nations would probably struggle and thus lead to an imbalance in the game and ultimate failure. Rather than push for timezone servers you should try harder to recruit persons from different timezones to cover the possibilities. You have to remember that you do not personally have to attend every port battle for your nation. The game has already moved too much towards an elite port battle group turning up to every port battle, which is not good for the game.
  14. Then in that case there will never be any port battles. If people want the port battles then they will have to be operating in the region which leaves them open to PvP. Hot zones for traders will always have some PvP from traders being ganked and that will slowly push a region towards hostility which would eventually need to be countered. It may not be a perfect system that I propose but a tweak to the current system to give PvP more importance rather than the Devs completely reworking the system to another that may still not be perfect once the players have tested it and found ways to exploit it to their advantage.
  15. But this is why I suggest that PvP hostility should not decay and can only be countered by PvP. This way slowly over time even if people tried their best to avoid PvP in an area any PvP that did occur would remain as hostility till a point where the defending nation had to do some PvP to reduce it. Imagine for example that due to PvP a region had over a couple of weeks had PvP hostility creep up to 80%, this make it easier for the region to be flipped to 100% hostility by only a few PvE battles. As defender you have to do something about it and the only way is to engage in PvP in that region.
  16. This shows that it is possible to raise hostility the way the Devs intended it, but people are too lazy to do it and would rather take the shortcut of war supplies. I do realise that this method is currently easier to counter if the defender is determined, and it involves a lot of PvE, but with some tweaking to make PvP hostility more important I think it would make the game better. I suggested before in another thread that if PvP generated hostility did not decay or could only be countered by PvP then PvP would become more relevant in pushing a region to hostility.
  17. Although I like the premise, one issue could be the amount of people required (25 for port battle and 32 for other battles). What would happen with regards to screening? Would these battles be through a lobby system or OW? I personally would dislike any system that took things away from OW to a lobby system
  18. Then why dont you change your tactics? If you think you are going to be kited then have a plan to take out their sails early on in the battle. You claim that you had 1-3 port battles a night before this patch, but how many of them were contested? Yes there were some big well contested battles before but most nations tried to outfox their opponent to get little opposition in the port battle. Now with fewer port battles and 46 hours notice most port battles are properly contested which has led to people finding other ways to get the edge in the battle. Also with new system port battles are more important as you not only lose a single town, you lose a region which can have huge implications on your nations ability to defend itself. The Danes used tanky L'Oceans to take Georgia from the USA and after that tactics were changed to use more maneuverable Victory's to counter that which has generally been relatively successful. Some ships may be OP in some respects but usually they have a downside to counter that. I personally cannot comment regarding the Agamemnons as I have not been lucky enough to get one, but if you feel they are the most powerful 4th rate PB ship then why dont you get them yourself. As far as I know all nations have access to them through some people. Battles are not all about broadside to broadside otherwise people would complain that certain ships are overpowered because they have more or bigger guns. Battles should be about tactics and if kiting is a tactic in order to win then so be it, find a tactic to counter that. The port battles are due to be changed soon so I am sure all will get chance to develop new tactics.
  19. It would be interesting to see if you could attack 4 at the same time? If not we are right back to where we were with the false flags system, again proving how broken the war supplies mechanic is.
  20. I think the current system of port battles could be mixed up a bit more to allow a range of ships to participate. As it currently stands in a lineship battle it is 1st rates only (apart from the mortar brig and possibly 1 faster vessel to chase it). Everyone fields the best ship possible for their planned tactics and it is the same for 4th rate port battles and shallow water. How about if for each port battle a certain number of each class of ship were allowed to enter. For example in a Lineship port battle you could have slots for X first rates, X 2nd rates, X 3rd rates and so on to a reasonable level. I think it would lead to more interesting battles and allow people to make use of their 2nd and 3rd rates more. What do people think?
  21. The way I understand it is that you cannot create an alliance with someone that you are already in alliance with no matter how many votes you put towards it, hence at the end of each alliance period there is a period where you are enemies before you can create alliance again. It is a system that is flawed because there is a possibility I think for it to get messed up. For example the current situation on PvP1 is that the USA, Britain and Dutch are in an alliance, while in that alliance (21 days) it is pointless to vote alliance with each other as it has no effect. But say for example some British people decided to vote for an alliance with Spain and by some chance Spain voted alliance with Britain, then at the next vote count if there were sufficient votes Spain would become allied with Britain possibly at the same time as the alliance with USA expired. This would mean that Britain would not be able to vote USA back into alliance at the next round because as I understand it you can have at max 2 allies. At least that's how I think it works, please someone correct me if I am wrong.
  22. Sounds like it will be a good patch, but I am a bit concerned about how the two circle system will work in practice especially in crowded waters. Imagine some new or inexperienced player tagging an AI trader outside KPR, with an enlarged pull in circle they will be creating a lot more irate players than they do at present. Will the people in the larger circle have the option to opt out of the battle? How will the BR mechanics affect the tag? will it be the tagging circle BR or the pull in circle BR that counts? Will be interesting to try it out and see how it works, I can see advantages and disadvantages to the system.
  23. And for the love of god, can empty wrecks please disappear!!!!
  24. I feel the event is slowly moving in the correct direction, but I still see issues to achieve the Devs desired outcome of pitched battles for the loot. 1. The clues to the spawn point are fairly abstract, so it is still luck who will get there first. So still possible for organised force to arrive and find all loot gone. 2. So you manage to capture a LGV or Indiaman with loot, you change your command to the captured ship but you cannot put your original ship to fleet without losing your cannons and upgrades. This could cost you more than the loot especially if you are rigged out for boarding and have upgrades like gold marines etc. 3. With defensive tagging it should be relatively easy for a LGV to avoid the first battle, he then hides in battle screen for up to 1.5 hours. How many people are going to wait that long for him to come out just to go through it all again?
  25. After having another player use the end of combat screen to avoid fighting me, I came to the forum to complain and suggest that there only be allowed a limited time in the exit combat screen. But having read a lot of the posts in this thread I can see that there may be a good reason for allowing this mechanic to exist. But when this is combined with defensive tagging in order to avoid a fight I think something needs to be done to alter this mechanic. I can agree that if a player outruns another in battle and thus escape then fair enough they should get away and not have to worry about gank squads that have assembled while they were in battle. But if a player uses defensive tagging as a tactic so they gain more distance at the start of a fight which allows then get away, then something needs to be changed. Maybe the person who initiates the battle cannot leave the battle for x amount of time or something like that to stop then using the defensive tagging tactic. In my encounter last night I had a slight speed advantage in OW and if it had not been for his defensive tag I would have had enough time to position myself correctly so he could not escape in battle. But with the defensive tag he was always going to be to far away from me.
×
×
  • Create New...