Stilgar
-
Posts
449 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Stilgar
-
-
In my experience one need a group of at least 4-5 players to adventure in PvP zone (near La Navasse). Otherwise, risk of being ganged is just too high. Therefore, individual players/small groups just do not bother. The alliance system aggravates the problem imo. If Swedes and Danes, for example assemble in numbers and no Brits/Dutch show up, they will just look at each other or hope for the Pirates to provide some action.
If technically possible, alliances OW rules of engagement should not apply in PvP event circle, so every nation can attack each other.
-
Sounds good. Thanks for sharing and good luck! A few comments, if I may.
Conquest mechanics
If the 2.0 "flag" mechanics would indeed be exploit-free and reasonable cool-down time will be applied, then it might be the way to go, at least for the sake of keeping the conquest simple. Port attack timer remains a difficult question though. As for hostility system, I thought it was a good idea, but in current implementation it looks like a PvE tax on PvP action. Reworking the hostility system into a PvP version would take quite some time and testing. Therefore, sorry, hostility system, you have to go.
Missions
I do not care if all/most missions are gone, but beginners/casual players then need an alternative to level up and learn game with minimal hustle and frustration (at least for first 3-4 ranks). For instance, small and varied NPC fleets should be (frequently) spawn in the rookie zone (and perhaps in some zones close to capitals) to provide easily accessible fighting opportunities.
Officers
Will not miss that feature. Some perks should be implemented in battle mechanics, but most were unnecessary. One feature that the officer/perks system allowed is specialization (crafter/trader/fighter). If officers are to return, this could the reason to bring them back at some point.
NPC fleets
Increased variety of NPC fleets and NPC fleets (rarely!) attacking players in OW are welcome, but a less predictable in-battle AI even more so :). Hope to also see large NPC traders with proper escort.
Smuggler mechanics
I would like to see smuggler flag allowed for small traders (tr. lynx and cutter, tr. brig/snow perhaps), you know, to smuggle. However, with smuggler flag on no fleet should be allowed.
-
Agree: overall, objective-driven PvP (PvE), preferably in context of conquest for as much as possible/feasible, should be at heart of the game. Moreover, all the tweaking and balancing should have improved PvP (PvE) opportunities as main optimization criteria.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
I went over to PvP1 with a basic cutter and did a midship level mission and I got Rattlersnakes agaisnt my guys. Did some more with a friend and we keep getting way out classed ships for a Rank 1 missions. I think there is something wrong with the balance system cause we should not be fighting ships with 120+ crew in a basic cutter. If poor new players got these missions they would be killed every time.
I found it makes more sense to start with missions w/o support. Most fights are 2v2 or even 2v1 (2 7th rates on your side vs 1 brig) and are more manageable, with better chance to score high XP. If you take mission with support, you'll fight 3v4 or 4v4 and in basic cutter you'll be singled out by AI. Needless to say that AI supporting you is dumb.
-
1
-
-
I have carried out a similar experiment. Being poor and low rank again was rather refreshing. I could level up to 3rd rank (120 men crew) in no time, but I must admit that prior knowledge of the game was essential. The grind isn't that bad, but beginners do need to check out guides and need support from the community. Manual sailing skills give an edge when sailing 7th rate as well. Importantly, both ship and crew is free up to 40 men. This allows to learn and make mistakes. Finally, I made 1.5 mln in half an hour after selling 2 lab contracts found in a wreck. This eliminated the survival element in the game. Therefore, global assets reset would be best way to judge over the current state of the game. Intuitively, wipe should occur sooner rather than later.
-
1
-
-
Although I do agree with some points and share concerns regarding development of this game, I also feel that players posting on this forum tend to be too dramatic at times. I think there is a general sense of fatigue for testing new features/changes. Furthermore, many probably have that been-there-done-that feeling with hundreds or even thousands hours played.
Let's be honest, it will be very difficult to replicate those crazy first months after release, when there was so much to explore: learn meta, level up (rank and crafting), and then throw all that in the fire of RvR was great fun and few cared (at least at the beginning) about some issues with battle mechanics, simplistic economy, and very basic conquest mechanics. That was time of mega clans, improvised and messy, but engaging, diplomacy game, and above all a lot of PvP. I still hope devs could pull this off and bring all those great features together and release a game that would last at least a couple of years.
-
Thanks, rediii. Some good insight into new PB mechanics. Btw, no video of Cumana battle?
-
I dream of a finished game in a (reasonably) short time.
-
3
-
-
IMHO, crew cost is just fine: loss of a ship or surrendering a ship should hurt to some extent. And indeed there are plenty (if not too many) ways to reduce costs of the crew (doctor perk and widely-available medkits are most obvious ones).
-
1
-
-
Flag system was a mess and I hope it will not return but in a very different form and not for PB attack. I suppose flag system could be of some use to generate the hostility PvP events in a given region. But that would require quite some thought and balancing.
-
1
-
-
Currently mini-map is limited to the "field of view" of your ship, which is a rather limited area. Would it be possible to see all three zones at he same time on mini-map? If not, then perhaps for the best: commanders will have to communicate about situation in each zone.
-
1
-
-
I would suggest us all not to over-analyze the proposal, but just give it a good test. In one-two PB's we'll learn more than in weeks of discussions.
I see plenty of positives and just few concerns in this new mechanics, wind management being the most important one, for it will decide much if not all. Intuitively, the wind in battle should not be entirely predictable. For example, the original direction should be identical to that in OW at the moment of joining, but it should not necessarily follow the same change pattern as in OW.
Anyway, as long as there are many ways to victory in such PBs, it should be fun.
-
2
-
-
Please no silly scoreboards. This is about conquest and players should be encouraged to focus on team work. Just provide interesting/unique rewards for those involved with bonus for winning side and for players with most kills/damage in a given battle. I have also heard people complaining about randomness of rewards in PvP events. Perhaps introducing of new PvP currency and a dedicated shop/items to be purchased on that currency would be even better long-term solution. This would allow people to safe PvP points for something they really want/need. Alternatively allow marketplace for all those items so players can sell.
-
5
-
-
Those large join circles is a smart move: the attacker can join in groups from various directions, thus making screening a more difficult, but also interesting task. If a similar style raiding can be added and frequency of PBs tweaked to manageable levels, there will be perhaps no need for all the hostility hustle at all.
-
1
-
-
Looking forward to testing it.
I have not noticed any ship rate limitations mentioned. So, I assume any ship can enter PB.
Different size for enter circles for attacker and defender is a very thoughtful solution indeed.
-
The low numbers is a combination of factors, I suppose, but overall the game does not really engage at the moment. Main point of the game for me is PvP, preferably in connection to conquest, but it requires too much time and effort to get decent PvP action (PvP events kind of ok, but this is a side content to me).
The hostility generation mechanics isn't that bad (certainly better than the old flag system), but it requires numbers to be effective. I can imagine that with 3-4 times more players interested in any form of PvP, players would group up and would try to intercept the PvE hostility points grinding squadrons and that could turn to be fun. Looks like chicken and egg problem to me ...
-
Perhaps the following step-wise approach to implementation / testing of one-dura ships would help.
Step 1. Allow ships with multiple dura's to be split in one-dura ships. That would be great way to share ships with various characteristics with clan mates or anyone interested. (one of coming patches?) Allow selling of one dura ships in shops.
Step 2. With ship/asset wipe (perhaps), drastically decrease nr of dura's, x3 for 7th/6th/5th rate, x2 for 4th rates, x1 for the rest, but allow to select nr of dura's during building and increase nr of required materials linearly. This would allow for more choice. Dedicated crafters will likely craft multiple dura ships, whereas casual or beginning crafters would have opportunity to experiment with various builts. Modules will have to be made cheaper and expendable.
Step 3. (hopefully) Implement one dura ships together with other logical changes (low-cost or no modules, multiple officers, more characteristics to be built during crafting, (somewhat) improved survival features, sensible RoE etc.).
-
1
-
-
I wonder why the Swedes dropped the war supplies on a pirate's town? Perhaps someone can help with understanding this.
Here are the possibilities I am currently considering:
(1) The Swedes mistook Cap-Francais for Cartagena de Indias
(2) Sveno's indiaman with fine wood was captured by pirates and he wants revenge
(3) The Swedes decided to stay out of the port bombing BS ?
-
Good approach to live streaming, rediii. Regular map views and some bird views helped to follow the tactical situation.
-
A reasonable amount of gold and few redeemable ships are in order I suppose: just to kick action and beta testing off sooner rather than later.
-
I agree, there is definitely less PvP, let alone good PvP, and it does seem to be a result of stacking of various factors. Aside from some contribution of new ROE, forts, and economy, the conquest/alliance system seems the main offender. Alliances should be short-lived (3-4 weeks is ok), with one primary ally (that can join PB on ech other side) and no benefit of producing in allied port (making outpost and trading freely is all right). As for conquest, hostility generation should be done via PvP for as much as possible.
It is tempting to ask for some sort of revival of flag mechanics, e.g., for port raiding, and in this way creating PvP events for hostility generation, but let me remind everyone about the senseless flag pulling exploits. So, hope a robust solution can be found.
-
Good thinking and some sensible changes indeed. Sea battles (PvP in particular) is main point of this game. Trading, crafting, sailing around and even conquest should be just entertaining foreplay/preparation to naval action and not turn into most time/effort-consuming elements.
-
3
-
-
I think at least one wipe before release is unavoidable. Otherwise no chance to test new features properly.
However, dear devs, please choose wisely what assets to be left. Leave too little - need for grinding will cause delays in testing and dissatisfaction. Leaving too many assets might make the history effect too prominent and stay in the way of new game play (e.g., the latest patch).
I think at least the following assets must stay:
- combat XP level
- craft XP level (leave BPs or not, that is the question though)
- a selection of ships (5-7 ships, to be discussed
); ships awarded might be combat XP dependent- reasonable/handsome starting sum of money to get economy and crafting going
I suppose the above starting point would allow a reasonably quick restart of the action.
-
1
-
-
The very first reaction: the dream might finally come true !!!
Removing the ship quality and putting emphasis on tuning/balancing ship characteristics is a good move indeed. I am looking forward to testing that, even at cost of my beloved yellow ships, BPs, and money stash.
Limited ammo came as a bit of a surprise proposal, but very pleasant one. This would open new opportunities for balancing game and adding a layer of complexity to battles. Historically, ammo load was a huge factor. Limited ammo is a MUST HAVE feature imho!!!
); ships awarded might be combat XP dependent
Content plans for the first half of 2017
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
Good point: AI entering PvP battles would be rather annoying. As for AI initiating the attack, that could be fun, but intuitively those should be rare instances (catching-sealed-bottle rare?!) and provide a handsome/unique reward for defeating the attack, just to make the event more memorable.