Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Anolytic last won the day on April 21

Anolytic had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,446 Excellent

About Anolytic

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

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,626 profile views
  1. Also. Please increase the number of clans we can have on our friendlist.
  2. Thanks! There's a lot of great new features to test here. Howver: I'm not sure this is the right idea, but given the new frontlines system, it might work, encouraging building connected territories. Marsh Harbour should not be the only town to give missions for Kidds Island. There should be at least 3 more ports from which it can be attacked. I really think that instead of inflation of currencies (combat medals and Victory Marks), prices should be lowered and so should rewards. If permit prices were significantly lowered, we could get 1 VM for 1 port, 2 VMs for 5, 3 VMs for 10-to infinity.
  3. I had to apply, even though my stealth game experience beyond Assassin's Creed is severely limited. Nice to see the progress on this game. All of the footage looks just beautiful.
  4. Let’s accept that devs want some ships to be «rare», i.e. permits obtainable by RNG from chests only. While I object to this concept in principle, given that this seems to be already decided I will rather focus my input on what ships should and should not be, rare. This is the list of ten ships mentioned by devs as being rare ships: Santisima Christian Bellona Constitution Indefatigable Endymion Renommee Rattlesnake Rattlesnake heavy Niagara Questions have been raised by others about the future status of LGV Refit, Diana and Santa Cecilia, three ships that would also be likely candidates for rarity. I would think that these three are better fits than some of the ships on the list, though Santa Cecilia has in the past been mentioned as a possible exclusive reward-ship for tournaments and gifts from the developers. Regarding the aforementioned list, there are a few ships I think should not be there. Mainly because of how they affect the balance in RvR. I am opposed to any lineships being «rare», except through higher pricing. Although these three lineships are all replaceable in RvR-setups given their current BR and balancing, I would much prefer if they were, in addition to RNG-drops from chests, also available to use in RvR in form of permits being purchaseable for a significantly higher price in Victory Marks. My reason for wanting the Indefatigable and the Renommee not to be rare is that they are both ships that I find are often under-appreciated, yet are both great ships for levelling captains to learn the game and get introduced to PvP. If they are made rare I fear that both or one of them will not be sailed nearly enough for captains to appreciate their beauty and performance, and not enough captains will figure out just how great these ships both are. Lastly the Rattlesnakes and the Niagara. I am concerned about limiting the tactical and variety choices in the shallow waters for beginners, and the diversity in shallow water PBs, which is already limited. But most of all the Niagara, as I have said before, should not be rare, given that with its sailing profile and BR it is unique in its ability to contend with and fill the role that can otherwise only be relegated to DLC-ships in RvR. The Niagara permit should also be purchasable for Victory Marks. Make it as expensive as a first rate, but those who do RvR should be able to utilise it in lieu of DLC-ships should they wish to.
  5. I get your point, but I disagree. Making ports attractive to take (i.e. profitable) is the best way to entice and drive RVR without "RvR-Importance"-features (like rare woods/rare resources) that force RvR but also pushes a winner-takes-all mentality that drives players from the game when they can't catch up. Any clan that makes less reals from their ports can simply recruit a few more traders to stay afloat, while a strong clan can capture profitable ports to save time on trading. Rare woods and such features on the other hand puts strong clans/nations on a irrevocable long-term advantage over less successful clans, which is ruinous to motivation of both strong and weaker clans.
  6. Now that clans with the next update will be able to expand their ports with more industry opportunities, in return for an investment, and as both clan-members and friendly clans will be able to benefit from this. It is high time that Resource extraction from industry buildings should require taxes paid to the port owner. The port owner has facilitated that this port is available to you and expanded with the resources that you need, and hence they should be entitled to some taxes from everyone who benefits from these facilities. This would also make tax rate a factor in where some players/clans would set up their industry. If a clan sets a lower tax rate they could entice more players to make their crafting bases in their port. Obviously the base daily cost of upkeep of a port should also increase in relation to how many port expansions and defence options are enabled for the port. Taxes from industry would help pay for this increased cost.
  7. Please add a name change history. If a captain has changed names there should be a drop-down or similar in the player info card (when you search for someone or right click them in your friend list), listing previous names. Forged Papers should allow you to change the name you go by, or how it is spelled, but not for players caught exploiting or spying to become anonymous again. It is annoying when some players change name every 30 days, and there is no way you can keep track of them. And many people have forged papers on their alts to move them around between nations as needed. But this also allows them to change name if they are found out. There should be a way to find out that the new name you see pop up in nation chat is actually the same player you had a confrontation with earlier, or that was called out for cheating somebody in a trade transaction. For anyone changing name because they got tired of their old name, or because they have grown some creativity since they bought the game and named themselves "Captain J4ck Sparrow III», this change should be inconsequential. For anyone using name-change to escape notoriety, this should make it harder. The only way to wipe your name-change history clean should be to delete and recreate your character and regrind. Since we should all start with a clean sheet at release, name change history should be wiped with the rest in the final wipe.
  8. Thanks for the update! This list is fine, except that I absolutely do not think that the Niagara, Renommee or Indefatigable should be on the it. Niagara and Indefatigable because they are excellent entry-level RvR-ships, and Niagara is a must-have counter to DLC-ships. And Renommee is such a great allround frigate for beginning players to learn the mechanics by playing. What about Lineships? Will this remove the Victory Marks as a currency completely? Or will Victory Marks become a part of the recipe for lineships directly (removing doubloons in the recipe hopefully)? Victory Marks requirement for Lineships Permits is a good thing. But there should be an alternative to buy the permits with Combat Medals, and the prices need to be reverted back to around 1-2 Victory Marks per permit. Great news. But I hope that the Combat Medals currency will be completely revamped to make it into a PvP-only currency again, and that both prices and rewards in Combat Medals will be lowered exponentially compared to now.
  9. The issue of timers has been litigated and re-litigated ad nauseam. But I will not let it go yet. I have read both that the basic ROE and join timers are now settled, and also that they are still under review. Which of them that is true I don’t know. I have already offered my opinion on timers, but I want to come with a suggestion as well. We currently have 20 minute join timer - if the BR is uneven, and let’s face it, it usually is. Many players in my clan loves this ROE. Others, like me personally I hate it and I miss the good old 2-minute join timer. What I call the WYSIWYG ROE, because what-you-see-is-what-you-get. With the current ROE, I get attacked in my heavy frigate by a light frigate, far out to sea and with no land in sight. And then, just as I am about to get him low enough on sails that he can no longer outmaneuver me, a Bucentaure might join on his side and completely change the situation in battle, even after 15 minutes. What I don’t like about this ROE is: The uncertainty. Never knowing if someone will jump your battle, completely shifting the balance in an instance, or not. The small battles that grow larger incrementally. You may have a battle where your BR is higher, so your opponent calls for reinforcements. And they bring a big ship, which opens up the battle for your side again, you call reinforcements and it switches sides again. False security. Big battles are still uneven. In the highest BR-battles, even when one side is outmatched and calls for reinforcements, this only helps them to a degree. In the highest BR battles, <13% BR difference is still a lot. Even after getting reinforcements you may still be several lineships down compared to the opposing side. Gamey tactics. Like small ships tagging and getting bigger ships as reinforcements after 10 minutes, turning it into a gank. Like ships dragging a fight towards the join area for their side so that their reinforcements can join on top of you. Like dragging the initial stages of fights out past the 20 minute mark to be sure of no interference. Split the Map What if we could have parts of the map with 20 minutes automatic 2-sided signalling ROE like now, and other parts of the map with the good old WYSIWYG ROE? We already have special zones of the map with a special Patrol Zone ROE, so it should be possible to implement. We could of course do this by simply dividing the map into an East ROE and West ROE (or South and North), with one ROE in one half of the map and the other ROE in the other half, but my idea would be different. I would have the main ROE be WYSIWYG - 2 minute timers. In open sea, far from land the timer would be 2 minutes. And in the shallow regions of Bahamas it would be 2 minutes. However, in the waters of any county/region containing either A, a National Capital, or B, a fully upgraded (in the new port management) Regional Capital, the 20 minute automatic 2-sided signalling ROE would apply. Thus, near all capitals, as well as some portion of other coastal areas, typically where clans have settled their crafting areas, the 20 minute ROE would apply, while more remote coasts, as well as the Bahamas and all stretches of Ocean would have the WYSIWYG ROE. Alternatively the 20-minute reinforcement ROE could be applied not automatically to fully upgraded cities, but be a defensive option that the clan owning a regional Capital could apply (with a weeks cooldown) to the whole County/region. There should be an indication on the screen when sailing in open world if you are in the coastal waters of a region/county where 20-minute ROE is applied. This in my view could work to some degree to appease those that preferred the old ROE, and at the same time keep any benefits that is intended to PvP from the current ROE. It would mean that near capitals there would be 20 minutes reinforcements (for both sides) until even BR, and the same in other highly populated coastal waters. At the same time you could attack someone in the middle of the open sea, or in lower populated regions, without magical reinforcements jumping in 15 minutes into the battle.
  10. With the changes of Battle Ratings for ships, it is time to look again at the Battle Rating limits of Port Battles. For one thing with the increased BR of 1st rates those highest BR ports on the map should have their BR increased as well, to allow for truly massive fights over those ports. 11 000 BR is not enough as the highest BR. The biggest ports, like San Juan and Cartagena de Indias should give room for full 25 man fleets of 1st and 2nd rates to engage. I am not asking for mono fleets of 1st rates again, though I do miss those days and would happily take them back. But we don’t have to go quite so far as 22500 BR Ports, but 15 000-18 000 BR as the upper limit would be suitable if applied to a few ports. Even more importantly however, the lowest BR ports need an increase in BR. There are a lot of deep water ports with less than 3000 BR. With the current damage model it is simply impossible for attackers to bring enough ships AND firepower to capture and defend 2 circles for long enough to accumulate 1000 points when the defender can just kite and use small ships to deny points. When the BR of ports is a little higher there will be enough ships in the battle for each side that they have to engage each other and fight for the circles, because any part of the fleet will be able to cover a single circle sufficiently together to keep Le Requins or Niagaras out of it. But in Ports with 2800 BR and less this is not possible. These fights inevitably devolve into kiting, preventing which was the entire reason for creating the 3-circle PB system to begin with. There is nothing realistic or historical about defending a city by running away from the enemy. Kiting is gamey and boring gameplay and should be eliminated as best as possible from conquest. Port battles should be about engaging the enemy. The reason for these low BR PBs working before the new damage model, is that more ships would participate on each side as smaller ships, like 3rd rate, could deal with a small number of 1st rates. This is not the case anymore. There should be no Ports that are so small that they have Port Battles with a BR limit less than 5 000. Or kiting will continue to destroy RvR and make players leave from sheer boredom.
  11. Thanks! However Niagara being rare is still going to be a huge problem. It is the best overall non--DLC counter to both Hercules AND Le Requin in both Shallow and Deep Water PBs. Prince de Neufchatel would be a better rare ship. Yet I do not like that either (and Prince need to be able to go in Deep Water Port Battles again btw - again as an alternative to Le Requin). While I have some objections to any rare Lineships (1st and 2nd rates) because of limiting tactical choices in PBs, both Santisima and Christian with the current balance of BR and HP can still work while rare, because they would not make up more than a couple of ships in any individual fleet anyway. Endymion would also still be very possible to use in RVR just as before even if it is rare. But, Niagara is such an important RvR-ship. And such an important competitor to the DLC-ships. It absolutely must not be rare. Ask @Imperator1 how many Hercules and Le Requin he sank in the patrol zone (before the expansion of shallows to include Surprise etc.) Just a very few ships should be rare, and Niagara should not be on that list. If it absolutely has to be RNG-drop, then the RNG-chance for Niagara permit has to be very high. Cerberus is a GREAT ship that gets far too little love. I absolutely consider it for all shallow PBs and even deep PBs. The main reason I haven't used them in my setups recently is that not a lot of people currently sail it regularly. The Cerberus is a good alternative to both Pandora and Hercules. Currently most people going to PBs do have the Hercules and prefer using it over Cerberus, and everybody has the Pandora. But after release I would have no problem substituting Cerberus for Pandora/Hercules in my setups to accommodate any player who did not have the Pandora unlocked.
  12. Despite multiple topics about it in this forum, not enough of us realises just how bad the current crafting and currency situation is in the game. Because ships have not been wiped, and because most clans are now indifferent to RvR, the enormous hurdles now placed on crafting almost any ships is hidden. But REDS has been recruiting new players, as well as old and returning players, in recent times. Players who in both cases do not have tons of ships stored. And while we are able to cover their need of ships from our storage, it gives us a glimpse at just how expensive it now is to produce even frigates. Because of permits. And woods. If DLCs are reportedly such a boost to PvP on the server because they are fast and easy to bring and to replace, why is the opposite principle now seemingly applied to all crafting of ships? Why does surprise need an extremely expensive permit, and why does the Niagara need one that only drops randomly from chests? Because Russia still organises infrequent RvR in order to get good screening- and possible PB-fights, and because almost exclusively I am the one who initiates and organises this, I get another insight into the destructive nature of the current permit situation. One of the guiding principles I use when planning Port Battles is avoiding the use of DLC-ships in my setups. @Captain Reverse, does the same, but I do not know his specific reasons for choosing to do so except to demonstrate that it is possible. My reason, however, is that while most players in my clan and that I play with, have some or all of the DLCs, I firmly believe that the game should be playable even without DLCs, and that buying them should be an individual decision and not something that myself or my clan should push on players by making it impossible for them to participate when they do not have DLCs. By using DLC-ships in my setups, I would ensure that anyone who does not own DLCs knows that there is that much fewer places in the Port Battles where there might be room for them. The huge problem that has arisen for every one of the last few port battles, is that with the changes to permits, choices are severely limited. The Surprise is a good alternative to Hercules in both Deep and Shallow port battles. But with the price for the Surprise Permit, if I did not craft them and hand them out myself, most players would not be able to afford the ship for the port battle, let alone have a Surprise that they could grind to open up slots on it. Worse, by far in this regard, is the Le Requin. It is a difficult ship to begin with, to replace, being so specialised to kite and contest circles. In the past there was two non-DLC counters to Le Requin in RvR. But the Prince de Neufchatel and the Niagara now have permits that are ONLY obtainable through random drops from chests. This means that only the most hardcore PvE-players are likely to have disposable permits for the ship to use in RvR, let alone for getting the slots and experience needed to use the Niagara or Prince effectively. This means that we are left with the only option of using DLC-ships. Even the Pandora will be a ship used in port battles that any players who joined the game after release will not be able to bring. And these are the smallest ships. The ships needing the least crew. The only roles which new recruits can be put into to participate with the rest of us, except they cannot, because they may not have bought the DLCs yet and they have no Niagara to use. DLCs in all Port Battles might work for hardcore clans, who recruit only hardcore players, and whose players all have the DLCs. But for those clans who try to expand this game, to bring up, train, and introduce more players to the endgame content, it is not sustainable, when the first thing new players always learn is that if they do not buy DLCs they cannot participate. This is not just «Pay2Win». This is blocking off basic aspects of this game behind a paywall. Without changes being done to permits, so that all non-DLC ships are available to all of us to choose from, and easily replaceable and craftable, for RvR. RvR will be DLC-only and normal players coming after release, who are not like the hardcore powergamers that have stuck with us throughout the ups and downs of development, will not be able to play and enjoy this otherwise great game. This is not just about DLCs, and not just about Niagara and Prince de Neufchatel. For all ships of all classes, that are hidden behind a RNG-drop permit or an exorbitantly expensive permit, the side that is lucky in RNG and can afford to use the most suitable ships in the most suitable roles for a port, will have an advantage to win that port battle.
  13. Sabicu and Mahogany would be cheaper for one thing. Besides, in the last week I've sunk more sabicu/white oak and caguairan/white oak Rättvisans than teak/teak ones, so there's clearly some that prefer those woods even when they can choose exactly what woods they like. Even then it was a lot of useless afk-sailing in trader-lynxes that was easier to do with alts, was a time-sink and yet contributed nothing to the open world. The prices are the problem, not the supply of doubloons. I refer to that in my OP too, but I also offer some other alternatives to consider if we don't want to go back to the good old basics that worked in the past. The other options I suggest have their benefits too, and they would work much better than what we have now.
  14. I know your concern. However ANY game with an interactive economy "promotes" the use of alts by that standard. ANY system that promotes the interaction and collaboration of players will by default be possible to cheat by players willing to invest in alts. We simply cannot let this stop us. The proposal will make hoarding easy for big cooperative clans and/or players with alts, sure. But most importantly it makes things possible for the average and casual player. If some power-gamer with alts is swimming in crafting logs because he spends 4 hours a day hauling woods and trading resources, that doesn't hurt or affect the affect the average player who spends 2 hours in-game per night - as long as he has just enough woods himself to cover his needs. This game has plenty of alts in part because at multiple times in the past we tweaked the game-mechanics so far into the hard-core extreme that the only way the game was playable was with alts. Some players left the game then, others gave in and bought alts in the hope to push through until things evened out for the better. I don't want that to be the state of the game still when the game is released. I want the game to be playable for all the average players in my clan, and others, with only a single account. No. That is why I said there should be 4-5 ports that drop each wood. That way hunters cannot simply camp just one single city to catch all traders going in and out. They have to cover multiple ports and multiple approaches. It also means that there will drop 200k-250k logs of each type each day. Even if somebody could manage to empty out one port every day for a week before running out of money, there would be 3-4 other ports where there would be guaranteed stocks of the woods. I also forgot to mention in the OP that for this proposal also, the prices of Live Oak and White Oak, and Teak, should be comparatively multiple times the price of the "lesser" woods. I'm thinking 20-50 reals per log for the "lesser woods" and 100-250 reals per log for the "finer" wood types. However there should be NO TAXATION on purchasing woods in this model, as the nation that happens to start closest to where a popular wood spawns should not be able to earn money on owning those resources by default.
  • Create New...