Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

466 Excellent


About Stilgar

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

1,418 profile views
  1. Well, to me the great plan by REDS (and other clans?) was to get a port at the edge of both GB and Prussia to farm AI and traders in safety w/o long sail. But they had it in St Domingo (with both Danes and Dutch around the corner), but apparently decided to let it go for it involves too much pvp and risk of loosing ships.
  2. Sad, but true. Fine tuning of ship characteristics should be a bit of a puzzle or art, not a no-brainer. To me a missed opportunity by devs.
  3. 1. no they don't, otherwise pay-to-win (or pay--much-more-to-have-fun) will apply 2. disagree. they are with strengths and weaknesses, some are in their own class 3. a big advantage, btw This is what they call trade-off. The game needs more of trade-off to remain complex and interesting.
  4. Here are the main issues with port bonuses I see now: (rvr) loss of main crafting ports (weeks/months of investment) means game over for the nation since recovery is virtually impossible. This basically encourages to join stronger nations, thus effectively cancelling any intrigue in rvr gameplay. (OW pvp) basically (high-level) port bonuses are must have to stay competitive vs reasonably experienced players and organized groups. If I craft 5th/4th rates using decent woods and refits, but w/o speed port bonuse (for instance) I still cannot (or have hard time to) compete with similar ships or fir-fir wasa with speed bonus (fir-fir wasas is a separate discussion). More specifically, (if level of skill / team play are comparable) I cannot disengage if I have/want to and I cannot catch up with the enemy if I want to, thus strongly cutting my tactical options and therefore chances in competitive pvp. (diversity / access to content) smaller groups / clans, let alone solo players have limited or no access and hardly any influence on the port bonuses choice. Current choices of port bonuses are mainly rvr driven, which do not necessarily fit crafting choice if one focuses on crafting and sailing mainly 5th / 4th rates for OW pvp. This really hits the diversity in gameplay style and limit access to content. IMHO the above issues can be addressed if port bonuses are (eventually) removed and are implemented as ship yard bonuses with some sort of points mechanics, to not allow stacking all bonuses, but forcing crafters to make choice when shaping their ships. This would allow to have a more distributed crafting base, still stimulate coop gameplay (investments would still be expensive I presume), and make crafting game more complex. Alternatively (or simultaneously) clan ship yards can be introduced with access to unique bonuses, but even at a higher level of investment to further stimulate coop gameplay.
  5. I hope paints DLC will receive an update soon and would suggest to recycle/adopt Bellona paints for use with 3rd rate. Furthermore, there are no 4th rate paints atm (with connie moved to the 3rd rates).
  6. Haven't looked through all proposals, but I agree with your observation on acceleration being main issue. One can gain enough speed when close hauled in no time to tack against the wind when sailing most 5th rates. Acceleration for back sailing also feels funny, with iron's virtually non-existent, aside from for 4th rate up with (very) badly damaged sails perhaps. Overall I fill that sailing component has been dumbed down, so to say, with non-stop tacking against the wind and back sailing as key moves, when in reality those were tricky maneuvers. Back in the early days of the game (and quite realistically) tacking against the wind was a maneuver that required thorough preparation: checking speed, measuring distance, timing. Risk of being stuck in irons was real, particularly for ships with (slightly) damaged sails. Now it's not the case from what I have seen so far. So, some additional work on sailing mechanics is in order imho.
  7. It is too early to draw conclusions indeed, but you do not have to be an oracle to predict lot of whining and frustrations when clans/nations will be loosing their fully-upgraded ports. High stakes is fine, but inability (or lack of drive) to recover after loss of infrastructure built after months of effort might hurt sustainability of rvr.
  8. Looks like players prefer safety not danger in rvr as well. It was not much different in the past, but now with building costs and enormous grind to invest in port, the will to take risks in rvr shrunk even more.
  9. Stilgar

    DLC Issue

    You have to redeem it in game to get the effect.
  10. Any brilliant ideas on how to increase the server population, before we start discussing mega battle instances? (no offence, just trying to stay pragmatic here)
  11. No. The one who does not know history has no future.
  12. This is way to go. I am all for raids, but no PVE missions please and a sensible flag mechanics that would stir small-scale action ideally involving mainly 5ht and 4th rate ships. (sorry for double posting: lazy to edit and combine quotes from different posts)
  13. Very good point. You just need a good stimulus for players to leave port and start interacting / engaging (and not artificial PVE missions or mechanics open for exploit). With much less at stakes compared to proper PB (smaller ships involved and loss of some income as worst that can happen), players will be more willing to engage. Less is more!
  14. Totally support the idea. The OW battle instances will be a much better proposition with a reasonably realistic delayed arrival system. With a delay system, battle can remain open for longer with hardly any negative side effect, I suppose. The proposed distance-based mechanics looks spot on. If however coding that will be complicated / impossible, adding time delay might be a simpler to implement alternative. I mean opposing sides enter the battle in respective joining zone, but when in battle they are "released" (basically can sail and fight) only after a certain time corresponding to how late they join. For example, joining after 2 mins would mean 2 mins of "in-battle delay". Or, a multiplier can be applied: e.g. 1 min in OW to be translated into 2 (or more?) mins in-battle time. Proximity of released and not yet released ships might be an issue, but hopefully not a show stopper. Since battle normally moves away from the starting point quite quickly, delayed released might work as well.
  • Create New...