Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Anolytic last won the day on May 4

Anolytic had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,660 Excellent

About Anolytic

  • Rank
    Master and Commander
  • Birthday 10/26/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,837 profile views
  1. On the patrol zone, you are totally right. It should be auto claimed at maintenance. On the weekly challenges the rationale for leaving it as it is, is the following: If auto-enabled the weekly challenges would only count towards your position in the weekly challenge your first 10 kills in each rate every week. But maybe on Monday you go out and kill 10 7th rates in your 3rd rate, and you'll place 367th on the weekly Lineship event that week. Instead of being able to choose on saturday, that today I am going to do the weekly Lineship event, and I'll take my 3rd rate out and spend all day killing 1st rates with it, hoping for 1st place on the leaderboard this week. So there is a reason for being able to choose when we want to start the weekly events.
  2. This is nothing new, it is well known, and it has been noted before in the forum. It is a feature or a bug depending on how you see it. However it is worth to mention it again to let Devs consider before release. The issue, if it is one, is this: In Port Battles against neutral ports it is possible for a nation to get an almost endless number of captains into the PB and earn Lord Protectorates. And thus earn Victory Marks. In other words, while normally a port would earn a nation up to 25 Victory Marks, it is possible for a nation to get 30-40 Victory Marks generated out of a single Port. That is per week. The system that makes this possible is a feature that was added some time ago: If a player leaves battle in the first 20 minutes of a PB without having inflicted or received damage in the PB to that point, his Battle Rating and his «slot» in the PB is restored to his team in the PB. In other words his side can join another ship to replace his BR and number without exceeding either the BR limit or the 25-player limit. Case in point, if you have 25 players in a PB and you are exactly at the Battle Rating limit for that PB. One player in Agamemnon can leave the battle, and another player can join the battle. But only if the first Agamemnon did not fire at anyone or get shot at, and it is within the first 20 minutes. So this would never mean that one side could have more than 25 players on their side. Nor would they be able to have more than the BR limit in the battle at any time. So it cannot be used in that way to gain an advantage in a contested battle. The feature in itself is a great and much used one. Introduced to us because it did, and still does, happen that someone joined a PB who was too eager and not supposed to. Or he was in the wrong ship. Then you can kindly convince him to leave the battle, and let the original member of your party join. Also there are, and were, cases where a player who was supposed to be in the PB, would discover in the beginning of the battle that he was experiencing particular lags or connection issues, or a ship could even disconnect and drop out. Then this player could, in the first 20 minutes, be replaced by someone better able to fight in the battle. This is a much appreciated feature. But it can also be used, in battles for Neutral Ports, where there is no dangerous opposition, to generate more Lord Protectorates than originally intended. Because a player that was in a PB, whether he left after 2 minutes or stayed till the end, will get a Lord Protectorate as long as his side won. The situation is demonstrated in this screenshot from Harbour Island: Note that in the screenshot I took, my character’s name is not on the list of the first 25 players to join the battle. He is way down the list from that. Now, we have been discussing between ourselves whether the core mechanic at work here, the replacing of ships in the first 20 minutes of battle, could be abused in some way. In theory an attacker could join an entire PB-fleet at one position in the PB, and after the defender has started sailing to that position, the attacker could literally replace their whole fleet for another PB-fleet that would spawn in a different position, unanticipated by the defender, who now may have sailed too far in the wrong direction. Personally I tend to believe there would be little or no possibility to gain any real advantage from this. Just a great risk of abject failure. To the problem of Lord Protectorates, there is an easy solution if we want this possibility removed. As this can only be done against neutral ports or in traded ports, and nobody is harmed by it, I am not sure a solution is really that urgently needed. But the simple solution would be to only count Lord Protectorates for players that stayed past the 20-minute mark of a Port Battle.
  3. Reverse showed you his, so I guess I'll show you mine: WTT for Jamaica! The fact is REDS had seven port-bonus ships in Les Cayes. I crafted 8 for the battle but one of our players had to switch to mortar brig last minute and another REDS went in an old (but gold) Ocean. 7 out of 8 ships I crafted were plain 3/5 btw. BF had 0 Port-bonus ships and NN had 1. Did Port Bonuses have anything to do with the outcome of the battle? Yes and no. All our fleet was set up for brawling, and as soon as the brawl started, things turned south fast for the brits. We would have won the brawl anyway, but without port bonuses 2-3 REDS, including me, would probably have been sunk, and another couple of Russian ships would have been unable to take cover from each other when damaged without those speedy ships. This might have been enough for brits to win on points before we could turn the game around. It is true that our tactics for the first 20 minutes of battle, which I commanded, was mostly a series of bad judgements - from joining position, to formation, to the timing of manoeuvers. But after the brawl started, I got boarded, and Reverse had to take over command, things turned to the better. Brits already lost a lot of momentum when their lines split just before the initial engagement and a quarter of their fleet headed downwind of us. I agree with you, and argue for the same. But I still adapt to whatever system is in the game at any time. Which is why I spent 4 hours yesterday sailing 28 Indiaman loaded with resources to craft ships. As for further discussion of the port-bonuses, let's move it out of this topic. I suggest here:
  4. It is my view that such arguments are best made with visual aids. So I was going to make a video showing the difference between port bonuses and no bonuses in surprises. However @dron (<3) put a stop to that by sinking both test ships… And I haven’t gotten around to making a new test. But the argument is already raging about the portbattle of Les Cayes, in the wrong topic. So I thought I’d redirect that discussion here and sprinkle it with a few facts. And these recent port battles will have to do as demonstration. Here is my ship from Les Cayes PB: Anybody want to trade? The fact is that for each of the battles of Nassau and Les Cayes I constructed 8 new ships with port-bonuses (only one was better than blue). That is, less than a 3rd of each of our fleets was new ships with bonuses. So, did they decide the outcome of the battles? In Nassau it’s a clear NO. In Les Cayes, the answer is both yes and no. Without them we might have lost some ships, but the brawl was still decidedly in our favour. But let’s discuss the particulars of the battle elsewhere. The fact is the stats on ships with port-bonuses are very high compared to those without them. Just looking at the stats it’s like having a ship with 10 upgrade slots and all elite upgrades. Just to highlight a few stats, the 5% speed boost of Sailing Bonus 4, or 10% armour thickness AND HP of Hull Bonus 4. Port-bonuses seem like a good idea for content in principle. But they need to be nerfed. And they need to be accessible to all, dependent on effort, not nationality. I know that port-bonuses will be changed next week. But I don’t think that it is enough. No ports should have more potential for greater ship-building than others. But the full potential of a regions should only be realised through the development of dependent ports in the county. Making other ports on the map more valuable than now. Notice how some nations have not even bothered to take the ports around their county capitals yet. If we want to have some special ports that are extra attractive for conquest like now, make it through convenience and profit. Give them more profitable trade-goods and make it so that ship-building in those ports require less hauling of resources and less logistics than in other ports. Right now a few nations can take all of the 55-point ports and monopolise the production of OP ships. Skewing the balance of PvP and RvR alike. People ask for something to fight for. But I remember in 2016 when there was no exclusive resources and we all fought more than any other time just for dots on the map and our names on the Lord Protector list. And I also remember other times in the game, and how troves of players, even entire clans, left nations or left the game over the loss of these pixels which suddenly had become more than just pixels, but prerequisites for gameplay on even terms. We should not go back to the times when RvR was about the destruction of communities rather than fun fights. If you loose one crafting-port, you should be able to set up your facilities in another one until you can get the first one back.
  5. Keep in mind not all of this player numbers distribution is necessarily representative for what we will see at launch. The relative sizes of the coalitions are not fixed. Personally I think I would prefer the no-alliances system we have now, where diplomacy is purely player-created content. However our RvR-model should have some way for nations to trade ports. If we were going to have alliances I like admin's proposal. This is basically fulfilling the request by many of reducing the number of nations. In effect with this system we will have 5 nations instead of 11. There are certainly advantages to that. And at the same time we do not need to abandon our flag or our national identity. And it is still possible to form temporary, player-arranged alliances between coalitions. Player-made, mechanics-enforced alliances are too tricky. Even though our last test was not a proper one, it is right that it would be all but impossible to create a system where the strongest did not band together to destroy the competition. I voted for 11 independent nations, but I would support admin's proposal if settled upon.
  6. I wanted to post in this topic, but it was closed before I could finish my reply. A moderator may merge my reply into the topic. REDS will not go to the currently scheduled Port Battle in Kidd’s Harbour and we encourage other clans, including the attacking clan, to refrain from doing so as well. For the record, REDS was fully informed and invested in the attack on Santiago de Cuba and we still stand by that action. Ciudad de Cuba was at the Russian frontline and but for a broken mechanic should have been attackable directly from Cap Francais. If we could have attacked Port-au-Prince first to enable an attack on Cuba next, we would have done it in that order. Kidd’s Island however is not at the Russian Frontline and should not be attackable by Russia at this time. We were approached by some US players offering us missions for Kidd’s Island, understandably indignant that ports were taken by other nations behind their frontline using this mechanic of sharing hostility missions. Though the current status in the tribunal seems to be that as of now any use of hostility missions is allowed, we refused this offer. Unfortunately this refusal was not communicated sufficiently and timely to all Russian clans. Russia has a clear and direct path to Bermuda and the Secret Islands and no urgency or need to utilise this «shortcut». Whether it is legal or not. We knew about this path since the beginning and if we had considered it a legitimate option we could have done so already and would not have needed to wait till after we had conquered Nassau. Although no alts were used and by the current standing of the tribunal it seems no rules were technically broken in this action, we have still requested that the SCUM-clan do not go through with the port battle for Kidd’s Harbour. We can still make our way to Kidd’s and Bermuda in the future the right way, which is step-by-step.
  7. Please read my whole post. Especially this part: My point is that players should be able to survive and thrive on the War-server without ever earning a single Combat Medal.
  8. Combat Medals in my mind, are supposed to be the PvP-currency/-reward. As in, the one reward in this game that can only be attained through PvP participation, and that should encourage players (on the War server) to try out and participate in PvP. Why else would we have so many currencies if not to serve unique purposes. Lately the age old concern about alt-/friend-farming has resurfaced regarding Combat Medals, as we had before with every attempt at a PvP currency. Yet it is ignored that, assuming the premise that Combat Medals are actually supposed to be a PvP-currency and reward players for getting into PvP, alt-farming and friend-farming are minor issues right now. The BIG issue is PvE-farming of Combat Medals. Anyone right now who tried to exploit by farming his alt for Combat Medals would be an idiot. It is a waste of the ship that is sunk, the cannons on it, and not least of time. It is much more efficient and rewarding to farm PvE Search and Destroy Missions for Combat Medals (I guess you could farm your alt to complete non-PvP Hunt-missions). In fact, actively doing legitimate PvP cannot even compare in profitability to doing a couple of hours of PvE per day. I know of players who have amassed more Combat Medals doing only PvE than any normal PvP-players in their nation. I approve of the decision to remove Combat Medal rewards directly for kills, and instead give combat medals only for missions. I have suggested this before - with some added modifications I would hope to see also. And the tracking of Steam IDs in counting kills should, depending on the parameters, efficiently prevent rewards for most exploit farming, as well as occasionally deny rewards for some legitimate PvP (this is probably a fair price). We have after all a limited number of active PvP-players on this server, and they tend to run into each other with some regularity. However, the best way I see to discourage farming, or reduce the consequences of it, is to change the rewards. What is the point of having so many currencies if they are all earned interchangeably? PvP-players are going to be happy with PvP-rewards that let them A. show off that they proficient PvP-players by displaying special flags, paints or other cosmetic items purchased only from PvP-currency, i.e Combat Medals, and B. gives access to some convenience features such as PvP-upgrades that are comparable in strength to PvE-upgrades only acquired through trading and PvE. Also some ship-notes for common ships, but without the need for crafting, including the ship-notes we can now get for DLC-ships. The reason people farm Combat Medals, whether through alts or now through PvE, is because they must. Combat Medals are used for «everything» and everything is very expensive. Several days are needed in the patrol zones, or doing PvE-missions to pay for a first-rate which an active RvR-environment we are hoping to have after release would require you to use it and risk it daily. The same with all the upgrades for it. Lineship permits need to again be purchased for Victory Marks, or we are going to have nothing to spend our Victory Marks on after we have upgraded all of our ports in a few weeks. It also would mean we had to be strategic about what to invest in first, ships or port upgrades. The Combat Medal economy needs to be deflated, so that we earn much less Combat Medals than now, but also all prices in Combat Medals are slashed significantly. Make Combat Medals a bonus, a reward for PvP, and a way for PvP-players to show off their proficiency. But take them out of the PvE and RvR-economy. Doubloons and Victory Marks are more than enough for ensuring that we need to grind to upgrade our port facilities. And please make assists count towards Combat Medal mission rewards. In a fleet-battle you could be the most important player in ensuring a good outcome, by tanking the most damage and finishing off damaged ships, as well as protecting friends. And yet if your own damage output was spread around to where it was most needed, you could be left with no rewards after.
  9. For the owning nation it means they have to maintain their ports, keep their clans active and working together, and they should not hold more ports than they can actually use and visit with some regularity. I would prefer if it required some guesswork and/or intel so that it was actually a risky investment for pirates to probe a port. The profit should be great for capturing and holding a pirate infested port, but failed expeditions should also come at some expense so that they cannot probe all ports all times, or just take a traders lynx to find a sure target. I considered that as well. The only problem I would say then is the timing of the PB. Because unmaintained ports are unlikely to have a timer. It would be meaningless if the pirate clan doing the probing ended up with a PB at a time they could not be there. And I forgot to mention that the expeditions should take 24 hours (or even 48) before returning an answer, and only one expedition can be active per clan at a time. About defence. I obviously don't want this to be a PvE-feature, so yes, the nation can defend. But if the owning clan is inactive, then it could be a problem to get on their friendlist and join the PB. Another reason why hostility missions should be needed to prepare the attack. It allows some warning and some chance to push the pirates back.
  10. ...of unmaintained ports. Let’s face it. We’re not getting raids. Nor is black-on-black likely to come back as a RoE. But pirates should have some unique mechanic that distinguishes them from other nations without giving them an advantage or disrupting gameplay for the general populace. Here’s my on-the-spot idea for a pirate mechanic that I think would not be too much work to implement. I would welcome some input as to its viability or improvement. Pirate Infestation of Ports I’m going to try to explain my idea as simple and brief as I can. Essentially it’s this: Ports that are left unused, unvisited and unprotected by their national owners can become infested by pirates. To begin with this is just a stat, not an infestation of actual pirate players. If the pirate infestation reaches too high, a pirate clan can get the opportunity to attack that port, from Mortimer Town regardless of frontlines and regions and in any part of the map. If they win, they get a position behind enemy lines, to raid commerce and do other pirate activities. It gets an extra long cooldown before it is attackable again by other nations, but potentially it would not be possible to take hostility missions from pirate infested towns. On the other hand, the owning pirate clan gets a significantly boosted income from the pirate infested town, deriving from privateering and pirate activities like gambling, whoring and other debauchery in the port. What is addressed: Potentially, this mechanic would work to counter the cases of inactive clans holding ports behind frontlines because they never get attacked. Especially with regional conquest it is going to become a problem that dependent ports in a county will be held by clans that eventually disappear or go inactive, but nobody can take over the port. In the past this has also happened to important ports that were held for long times by clans that were not at all playing anymore. It would also mean that clans have to take care also of their less valuable ports and ports in the periphery, or risk loosing them to pirate infestations. How it would work: I am open to suggestions for how this mechanic could work, but I will give an outline of how I imagine it. Ports all have a stat of pirate infestation. From 0-100%. This stat can only be seen by the owning clan and clans allied to the owner. Pirate infestation increases with various factors, such as the port being unused. If it is free-for-all pirate infestation grows faster. If investments are active in the port infestation grows slower. When investments are made infestation goes down. Members of the owning clan trading to or from the port reduces infestation significantly. Generally infestations grow very slow, but if a port is not visited by the owning nation for a long time (weeks) it starts growing fast. If barely any members/officers log into the clan for a prolonged time, their ports all start growing infestations faster. If a port gets higher than 85% pirate infestation, then it can be attacked by a pirate clan and taken by them. But since only clans and their allies can see infestations in their own ports, pirate clans cannot know what ports have a high enough infestation level to be attackable unless they have a spy or a traitor in place to let them know. Instead pirate clans can, in Mortimer Town, pay for expeditions to be made to any port on the map. If the expedition they choose is for a port that has a low infestation level, then the money they invest is lost. If the expedition is for a port with a high infestation level - 85% or higher - then their expedition will infiltrate the city and increase the infestation rate to 100% and also send word back to the pirate clan that the port is ripe for attack and they will be able to take hostility missions for the port within the next 5 days.
  11. REDS was well represented in the recent victory at Nassau:
  12. Nassau PB Thanks Brits, for your enthusiasm in grinding Nassau on day one. It saved us from doing this against AI.
  13. I do not speak for the accused as I was not personally present, but in my view this is just how new mechanics are tested. The tribunal might come to the conclusion that this (trading hostility missions with allied players) should not be allowed (or possible by mechanics) in the future. It is not, however, obvious by default that this should be deemed an exploit. First of all, it should be noted the ridiculous situation deriving from the current implementation of the Frontlines mechanic, that from Cap Francais neither Ciudad de Cuba nor Port-au-Prince can be attacked, even though both regions are by every definition directly neighbouring Cap-Francais. I am sure it was not an intended mechanic that Brits should be in the unique position to be protected from attack from neighbouring regions. What's more, Cap Francais can be attacked currently from Port-au-Prince, but Port-au-Prince still cannot be attacked in return the other way around from Cap Francais. As such this case could be considered as a workaround to a bugged frontline mechanic preventing attacks on neighbouring regions which was not how the frontlines mechanic was clearly meant to work. Secondly, there is reason to consider it as a potential feature that allies should be able to share a frontline and for a nation to be able to sponsor an ally to attack a neighbouring enemy's territory through their own. Instead of trading ports, which leads to empty PBs, needless PvE and potential Victory Marks-farming, this could be bypassed completely by allowing nations in this way to use each other's frontlines as staging grounds for attacks on an enemy's frontline. With properly implemented frontlines this would still not take anything away from Frontlines as a defensive device. It would still only be a nation's frontline counties that could be attacked, but other nations than the immediate neighbour could perpetrate the attack if facilitated by the nation holding the opposing frontline. The only alternative way for Russia in the current mechanics to progress east and push the frontline from Cap Francais county would be to temporarily trade regional capitals with Pirates for Puerto Plata, Grand Turk, and/or Baracoa in order to be able to attack Brits. And then trade the other ports back to Pirates afterwards. I am sure Brits would have been no happier with this workaround than the current one. Flags could be traded between nations...
  14. The long and short of this idea is this: That Regional capitals are expanded ONLY through investment in the other ports of their Region. The problem to solve is that currently only County Capitals matter. All other non-capital ports are inconsequential. To change this, non-capital ports should matter in the conquest of a county, and they should matter in the development of a county. Only through expanding the infrastructure in surrounding ports can the capitals reach their full potential. This is not only prudent gameplay-mechanics, it is also historical. If you neglect the surrounding lands, the cities cannot fully develop their potential. There should be no distinction between 20k ports and 25k-ports in terms of development, except for possibly this: Some few ports could allow 100% development of shipbuilding bonuses, PLUS placing of Forts and other defences. While the other county capitals would still allow 100% development of shipbuilding bonuses, but you would have to ration your points if you also wanted to put defences in the port. That way any nation can make any county capital a shipbuilding port, but they would have to secure a frontline port as a buffer to their shipbuilding port, where they could develop defences instead of shipbuilding characteristics. The current model of having only some few 25k BR ports with full development potential creates gear disparity and is a great way to make people in the smaller nations quit the game in frustration and facilitate player-base warfare, where it is not about winning, but about destroying the enemy nation’s community. We tried this before. My preference however would be a system where shipbuilding upgrades in a port was a strategic choice, and you could only develop 2 traits to level 5, or alternatively all 5 trait options to level 1 and 2. And you would have to choose what traits to focus on. This would also encourage RvR expansion without it being crippling, as having more regional capitals would allow a nation to develop different combinations of traits in different shipbuilding ports. Successful RvR would allow more shipbuilding variety, but any nation with at least 1 county would be able to develop shipbuilding bonuses in that capital to the RvR-meta to give themselves a fair chance to expand their territory further. Back to the development of Regions as a whole, my idea is this: The county capital would have say 30 base development points if you owned only the county capital, or if the county capital was the only one being developed. Through the development of dependent ports, a further 30 points could be added to develop this county capital. By investing in a special infrastructure option in each of the dependent ports, the whole region would improve. If the region had only 2 other ports in it, each of those ports would be able to be developed for another 15 points each, available at the capital. All dependent ports in a county would not have to be equally important, so in a county with 4 different dependent ports, port A could be developed for a potential 15 extra points, while port B, C and D would each be developed for an additional 5 points. This system that I propose would have the benefits of encouraging collaboration within nations. If you want your county capital to be fully expandable, then you need to encourage the clans who own the dependent ports in the county to develop them. Most importantly, it would mean that capturing whole counties would be important, and loosing parts of a county would hurt the value of the capital.
  • Create New...