cheatos503
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by cheatos503
-
-
the JUL troll single file, to hide our numbers.
-
2
-
-
found the same to be true, something is not working
Someone said that CREW gets replenished automatically over time to your top permissible--in my case 650--without having to pay for it. Is that true? I have not found any automatic increase in my crew numbers. Am I doing something wrong, or am I missing something?
found the same to be true, something is not working
-
1
-
-
If this wasn't an Early Access Alpha, then I would heartily agree with you. Since it is an Early Access Alpha, I don't put any expectations in. That way I can't be disappointed.
I do think however, that this is also a trial run for developer communications and as we get closer to release these should come up to a better level.
(And no I don't want any private chats with developers, or PM-ing them or anything. Just a notice that downtime would be extended beforehand.
)so then what do you think the conditions shoudl be? when 20 people are left on each server? and when does "early alpha" mean that the devs shouldn't give us more transparency when they make a statement that has a huge effect on game play witrh no supporting information so ppl go nuts trying to interpret what the hell they actually mean.
this game has been in "early alpha" for 2 years. in all likelyhood will live out its game lifespan in "open beta" so what the hell is the difference when terms like alpha and beta are more for marketing now rather than actual statements of development.
-
I think its time to start thinking of the survival of this game, now that the devs have once again screwed up by not allowing any transparency into what is going on with the merger. They convey no information, no timeline, not one bit of insight as to what the yes/no condition is for the "possible" part and have never answered a direct question at all about mergers in regards to whn, why, or how until thousands of players ran for the door. the snapshots arent looking good, they are hopefully going to put the game on sale, but the looming merger scare coupled with alot of players simply giving this game a bad review lately (yes i am one of them but thats because this game used to coddle the well, millennials and their special needs and requirements for a safe place) and screaming the game is dead.
So yeah im all for the merger, have been planning for it for some time. now that pvp1 is approx the same as pvp2 in terms of population it only makes sense
-
You're loosing players in an allarming rate (steam charts?). If you want to survive, you should focus on what's important for the product now. Identify your key problem, instead of answering to small problems of different users. You should really understand what causes players to leave.
My experience is that everyone who gets to top level in combat and crafting quickly looses interest in the game and leaves at some point. They're not interested in missions, as bots are never as good as players. Missions work as long as you're grinding up the ranks. Players get less and less PvP action every day. You should really focus on two points:
- politics to give people a higher goal and additional incentive to get higher in a hierarchy (as many people in Naval Action like grind and progressing in ranks)
- port battle mechanics to make it more frequent, make it a zone where there's always an action and that focuses all active players around a single area
If you don't manage to do this in 1 month, I predict we just won't have enough players to keep game in the current form. It's sad, as I really like the game.
actually one of the biggest things done poorly (and still is) is the devs making vague statements with no information behind it, no follow up after numerous times there has been direct and pointed questions. And letting the player base come up with what amounts to interpreting less information that you'd fins in a fortune cookie into what the devs plan to do.
CASE IN POINT:
in march the devs made a post stating that the servers were going to merge. No information as to which servers, when was a nebulous date and no information was given past that for 2 months. Many of us (myself and clan included) left pvp2 because we had at that time, no confidence that everything we had worked for would come over to pvp1. While i had been established on pvp1 it was in a different faction than where we decided to go. And starting all over cost us a few players, then server problems as the server wasn't able to match the demand of the players trying to access pvp1 outstripped its capabilities, this caused more ppl to leave or "take a break" and have not returned. once that ball started rolling the doom/gloom crowd yelling the game is dead, coupled with the fact that gamers are for the most part, sheep and followed the crowd.
My point is, all of that would have been avoided if the devs had given us, at that time, some more info than a half sentence to go on. It by far caused more problems than it could have solved. And unfortunately it continues still with yet another half sentence on possible merge, and yet again, no information at all on it no matter how many ppl ask. The mishandling of things of this nature has hurt the game more than any mechanics change or short term breaking of the mechanics could ever do. And if they hadn't said anything about merging the servers. I'm pretty sure we'd have a lot more people on today.
-
im concerned by the pirates in this, as they have no PVE fleets, does this means capping traders with contraband currently works as hostility against pirates?
seems until the pirate mechanics are resolved to your future plans this will be an advantage in that it will be harder to get the pirate towns into a PB situation.
Also will there be a guage of some sort that we can see the progress of every area being hit?
if we are talking an area and not a specific port, will there be a maximum radius? if so, how large are we talking? will it be big eonough that we could take multiple ports if close enough to each other?
will the devs actually give us information to test with?
IE do we have to guess at how many x per hour and y per hour need to be done to give us unrest, and the opposite to lower it. or for once will the devs actually supply that info
-
Gentlemen lets take this discussion to another thread. I have opened a thread here: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14858-ai-pvp-and-pve-influencing-economy/
let me know when you are actually a mod instead of playing at one. until then, this is a perfectly fine place to discuss this
-
1
-
-
About AI captures and economy being hurt Admin said the captured ships will be worse than crafted ones, i imagine this time we won't be able to find some Mastercraft quality AI ships with speed gold trim and nice strong wood in the open world like it was possible to find once in a while before.
Maybe do not allow any kind of upgrade to be mouted on AI capped ships, not even a single temporary or permanent one ( full fleet of capped small AI 5th rate vessels mounted with fire-ship fittings making an incursion in front of an enemy capital for some giant fireworks anyone ? ) , just lock the possibility for upgrades on capped AI ships.
Also changing the negative bonuses the players crafted Basic ships with gray built in upgrades get, crew space removing some crew instead of adding some, speed trim giving a speed malus instead of boost etc , changing this to not get negative bonuses on basic crafted ships anymore and make all AI sailing only basic ships keeping those current same malus.
Players crafted basic ships not getting malus anymore in basic quality, players crafted ones only, not the NPC ships sold in shops, those should keep the malus for the economy balance but have the upgrade slots still possible unlike the capped AI ships not allowing any upgrade addition on the top of no upgrades possible on them.
It will still be more interesting to buy a basic player crafted ship on the market allowing to use a couple of upgrades and not getting negative malus than sail a throw out capped ship not allowing any kind of basic quality upgrade and having malus for speed, strength, planking crew space etc.
this could be acceptable provided they are actually worse than an off the shelf AI crafted one, and if this is the case then the impact on the econ might not be as badly felt as i anticipate.
can you post the link for this?
-
in regards to the "possible pvp2 merge" can the devs please, please give us some actual information on this.
the last time there was a vague statement on closing down pvp2, alot of ppl switched servers then consequently left the game.
So just for a refreshing change of pace, can we get some transparency on this one little sentence that caused so much trouble in the past?
Will this happen?
what are the conditions for yes or no, because possible is causing problems.
Will this happen with the june patch? if so when do you plan on making that announcement?
will this happen after the june patch is in?
I'm assuming this will go like the last merger, though if not what will be done differently?
In the future can we see more transparency for the devs on an issue that has a drastic effect on our established economies and game play?
How do the devs feel about offering a volunteer migration? so once people have the option to leave they can just as a full blown migration would work? after enough people move. the rest of the population will follow. I'm not sure about the specifics of how you set your database, so this might not be easily feasible but it is one way to facilitate what you want without causing more "the sky is falling / death and doom" propaganda that has already reached the point of players like myself, saying "this is enough"
I am asking pointed questions in an attempt to get a response in the same manner
how about this information, on this issue
-
I really don't think capturing ships really hurts the Econ.
What would you rather have, a 5 dur gold frigate or a 1 dur maybe fine frigate?
Players that use upgrades will be too afraid to lose those upgrades on 1 dur ships.
capping ships used to mean the role of the crafter was for the most part not important. everybody used to cap 3rd rates, from there you'd take on fleets with said third rates and if you lost one it was no big deal, 15 mins later you had that ship again. No cost aside from time spent. Since this was around for a long time, but with a different econ model nobody paid the practice much mind, and it was the norm, not the exception to see all ports maxed out on resources (aside from gold because back then there was only one type of crafting note). Now with resources have an actual value, this is due to 2 things:
1. the current hybridization of player derived and NPC derived resource base. This gives value, not just worth, to our resources by making them cost us in terms of labor hours which we attribute to another currency that we trade. When that happens coupled with the fact that the overall supply shrinks you now have the conditions for healthier economy
2. The inability to cap combat ships means you have to get them somewhere, now the ship builder who invested the time and effort to lvl up. Now the lower class boats have full durs on them which invites people to want to invest in having them crafted.
removing the second will collapse the first unless the limits on size of ships is kept small so it helps new players (on which i can agree) but when you start getting above 5th rates i can see the game giving out its last gasp and croaking.
Your assumption that people wont fit a 1 dura ship is false, most gold mods cost way less in hours and resources than big ships with 3 or less duras on them. from a cost savings perspective you could lose 5 sets of gold mods (player made) before you run into the cost line of a fully setup bellona and the infrastructure (shipyards, mat stocks) it takes to make them with all gold mods. I have done it in the past and if you pull out as calculator, you'd see that it would make sense as well.
-
Until boarding is fixed all forts in PB should have a manning in excess of 600.
We took a deep water port by boarding in less than 10 minutes, Shouldn't happen.
agreed, and it would seem the devs do as well
-
There should not be mandatory upgrades.
I have a feeling that at this moment the devs know that the boarding is not ok. The admin already said that will be fixed. Not sure if redone, but they should probably redo it as well.
RPS system, that is not skill based like the rest of the game. I would not mind even if that would be completely removed from the game, if no better boarding mechanism is invented.
I really do hope a skill based mechanism for boarding as well.
currently im im agreement. but i do think some of the aspects of tking traders and such which is vital for new players, should continue. The boarding does not in any way mesh up with the rest of the game currently. and I hope a better solution is found, because while historically boarding actions while A): the battle hasn't been decided , and B)ships were still moving were rare. BUT>>> They did happen
-
Update on the current design research for port battles arrangements and pvp motivations
Initial proposals were posted here
During the research and design exercises we believe that we have found an even better way to arrange port battles and wanted to share it with you for discussions.
Assault fleet construction still allows for some trolling potential especially in case of two powerful groups in one nations having competing goals. Also delaying or speeding up the fleet construction could be confusing and lead to lack of understanding of what is going on conquest wise.
The new design is the following.
Hostility levels
Player actions generate hostility levels
- PvP kills, by means of free hunting or pvp missions
- PvE kills by means of hunting or pve missions
- Smuggling and Sabotage - delivering war supplies to support increase or decrease of hostility
- Potentially - Raids
All ports have the hostility level that is increased or decreased by above mentioned actions.
Hostility levels will go up slowly to give the chance to respond in all time zones.
Top 10 ports with the highest hostility level will be indicated on the map (where assault fleets are now currently)
Once hostility level reaches 100% port battle is automatically set up in 48 hours
Hostility level is generated for all ports in the vicinity - which creates interesting options for smaller nations and allows unexpected flexibility
Only top 10 ports can reach port battle state - which is awesome because:
- it is naturally limiting the number of port battles per day (lets say 10)
- it funnels players to top 10 most active locations - if you want action you sail to the zone with high hostility level
Increasing or decreasing hostility levels grants War effort commendations per port
- During the first 10-20 mins of the port battle timer only people with war effort points for this port can enter the port battle
- After this timer everyone else can enter
- This stops port battle trolling when large groups enter and quit battle denying the victory or opportunity to fight.
Commendations are a cargo hold item and can be lost (and intercepted to use for your advantage).
New mechanics are way better than assault fleet construction or assault flag because
- It stops trolling by entering and leaving port battles
- It stops assault flag abuse
- It eliminates timers and sets up battles based on the activity level (while providing options to defend in other timezones)
- It allows smuggler hunting (against nations who want to achieve port battles without PVP)
- It immediately shows to players where the action is creating more PvP
- It removes all confusion and timer problems
Discuss and ask questions
im skeptical at best of this. seems this would work if there was still a large player base like 3 months ago, now? im not so sure.
I had proposed a while ago that we keep the timers for PBs BUT..... you can still attack at any time but it would cost you 5x-10x the original port cost. The devs are always looking to make a system for PBs to work. why not let economics work instead? It solves for any group wanting to take a port at any time instead of what it has devolved down to. And it add some defense in the form of breaking the attacking side's war chest so you wont see widespread port caps because after a while nobody could afford it over the long term. Also if you do lose that port know they paid through the nose to do so
-
Several things together would make it very interesting I think...
1) Increase the total number of buildings you can have to 10....
2) Limit the number of any one kind in any city to 1...
3) Limit the total of any 1 building type n a city to a number determined by the devs based on the city size.
4) Add a second set of Production hours... Same or adjusted numbers as LHs
5) Allow this production Buildings to be built in Free Towns as well as your sides...
6) Change the production site code... ie do not have the same combinations of production in every city.. Randomize what is where more.. so Gold and silver might be in one city but but together in another ect...
This will allow everyone to produce resources and NOT have to decide between Crafting and production....
It will increase the total number of resources being produced and allow the removal or reduction of the NPC production
It will require people spread out and not just sit in a couple cities.
like always just some ideas..
i would like to see it so that ytou can only have 1 resource building in a city
this compass wood nonsense has got to stop.
So many ppl brag about how they make millions doing it. I highly doubt the devs had this in mind. So in that i can agree
But.
since there are going to be new buildings added in soon, I can yet say that only 1 of any type (i would agree on resources) could be a good thing or not
keeping the total number of buildings to 5 currently works, well it works for me. In the future i see the devs wanting you to make a tougher choice as to how you plan on doing econ, not an easier one. everything the devs have done thus far points to you being forced into a specialization, not the other way around. So i highly doubt they would change that.
I do agree with the site code being changed, with reservations. the produce/consumes for any particular port should be at least 3 ports away from each other. And i dont feel that the free towns should produce or consume anything at all. they are free towns anybody can enter them so why not have them be strictly player ran as far as econ.
-
because europe >
also pvp 1 have the most players so why would the staff lose even more players because of bad ping after such a merge
actually from a world perspective , having the game hosted in a more centralized location makes alot of sense. thinking of the Australian players who do play this game, having to play across 2 oceans would make the ping really high. where if everybody had around 110 ping, that would be beneficial. i have played on both US and EU pvp servers and i can say from experience that pings around 150 you do not notice in the game at all. so your statement is from a point of supposition, not knowledge.
-
- Crew hire
- Fleets will be brought back with improvements
These are the TWO WORST ideas ever!
Everyone we delighted when we too the blasted fleets out, and now they are coming back? WHY???
Also, Crewing was tried before in Closed alpha… lasted three days!!! Was removed because no one could untie there ship from the docks.
But mainly i want to hear FROM A DEVELOPER Why are fleets returning??? What motivates this? What is the expected outcome? PM me on this, please.
I won't be reading it here, because everyone who baint a dev is going to try to answer it, and it is irrelevant.
actually these are great ideas, unless your only game play is ganging defenseless traders going after single ships with overwhelming numbers this makes sense.
you will need to put into a port to replenish men lost, and traders will have defenses. makes perfect sense. gankers will have to rely on piloting and something else besides 4 mods and a mini game.
-
1
-
I do not know if I understand very well (my English is very bad), but this is what you looking for?Well, I agree that perhaps lacking a specific date there (the day) ....
that is a not information, there is no date, no actual plan for it going forward, no nothing, that's the point of my post, another 1/2 sentence that causes doom and gloom with no information behind it. some people on pvp2 actually have decided or hoped rather that pve and pvp2 are merging because of this. I want information and clarity. not other people's opinions and fortune telling skills.
-
I think voluntary migration to be honest would be asking for trouble. You will always get some proportion that will try to make a stand holding up the final iteration of the games progress.
What would be nice (not sure if it happened last time as I have pretty much always been on eu1 apart from a quick look) is if at server shutdown an additional message was played from this point advising that this server will be migrating to the main population EU1 server.
while im sure your opinion is important to you, i'd rather hear from the devs
-
in regards to the "possible pvp2 merge" can the devs please, please give us some actual information on this.
the last time there was a vague statement on closing down pvp2, alot of ppl switched servers then consequently left the game.
So just for a refreshing change of pace, can we get some transparency on this one little sentence that caused so much trouble in the past?
Will this happen?
what are the conditions for yes or no, because possible is causing problems.
Will this happen with the june patch? if so when do you plan on making that announcement?
will this happen after the june patch is in?
I'm assuming this will go like the last merger, though if not what will be done differently?
In the future can we see more transparency for the devs on an issue that has a drastic effect on our established economies and game play?
How do the devs feel about offering a volunteer migration? so once people have the option to leave they can just as a full blown migration would work? after enough people move. the rest of the population will follow. I'm not sure about the specifics of how you set your database, so this might not be easily feasible but it is one way to facilitate what you want without causing more "the sky is falling / death and doom" propaganda that has already reached the point of players like myself, saying "this is enough"
I am asking pointed questions in an attempt to get a response in the same manner
-
please tell me there is some ACTUAL new on the merger front, like can we get something that resembles a timeline and a date, the one thing the devs have completely screwed themselves on is their inability to say anything but vague and generalized statements. which has killed alot of the player base off.
So, how about some actual information instead of generalization where the players agonize and interpret a non information statement into whatever their hopes or fears are.
-
1
-
-
i'd really like to see this get some attention either for or against, or possibly some other ideas
-
If 5 ships are firing chain at you, then you have messed up hard somewhere before the situation you describe and you have little or no chance of escaping whether they board you or not. In a 1v1 situation, what stops you from chaining the would-be boarder and graping his stern while if you're in a smaller ship? A Trincomalee or Constitution can't do much when a Frigate or even a rattlesnake is playing the stern rake game correctly.
if it was actual combat, and not consequence free bumper boats i would have finished off the 2 that were really hurt, i hadnt popped my repair yet,m so i still had options
i was only down 1/3 on one side and 1/4 on the opther, yes i was down crew, back to 650. more than enough of a problem, had i the chance to actually finish the battle 2 or 3 of them would have sunk.
hell these guy were so bad that they couldn't even help but crash into each other, and once i just hit the breaks to watch them sail past me and t-bone into themselves. these guys, with no discernible skill at all in the game can take out somebody who knows what they are doing in 20 secs with 4 mods and pressing a button.
did i think i was going to make it out alive? no, but from experience i know that at the very least 3 of them would have gone with me. but between no leak ramming and board mods and how effective the chain shot is now, its a tad over the top. the primary problem being that pvp combat
boarding wasn't the primary means of pvp, but it has however devolved to that
-
I actually enjoy the boarding aspect. It MEANS something to take another's ship as a prize.
don't get me wrong im all for taking a prize, but historically the crew that was losing mutinied and killed their captain then surrendered because they didn't want to die because of some snobby captain's idiotic notion of pride.
actually you gave me an idea, taking a prize without boarding via the moral mechanic IN boarding. too many missed shots or you are crashing into things, the moral on your boat dips, dip it enough and the say "we have decided on new management" and kick you as capt. You'd lose a dur and all of that not, actually lose the entire ship (unless its a first)
and on the opposite side of that coin, if you shock, set fire, demast or anything else that makes you crew cheer, then your moral goes up. maybe even give slight (and i do mean SLIGHT) performance boosts to reload or raising sails, or dmg control etc. nothing too huge as to unbalance the game again but at least then you are rewarded for actually being good at piloting and accuracy.
I dont know, any thoughts? help me flesh this out a bit
-
while i like the idea of it, being that pvp2 will most likely merged into pvp1, its a shame i wont be able to vote as all the ports with my name (8 i think) wont be coming over as well. and the huge drops in population also become a factor. i dont think it should be mandatory to vote but there is the question of inactives. maybe after say 30 days there is an election of sorts, and the winner is drawn from a small pool of people that have played the most in said 30 day span, and awarded at random after that to that small pool. if "elected" then you cant qualify for 30 more days for another port opening up in this manner.
just spit balling here, but it does make sense and keeps the power base out of a select few
)
Update on the port battle set up
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
honestly im no longer interested in port battles until they are redone as promised when they showed us the new port battle model, not the current fleshlights sitting in the water setup. With that said its alot like the red ring system POTBS used to employ. and im interested in generating the unrest part but until there is something worth going into a port battle for ( ie something that doesnt involve capping towers and essentially playing rock paper scissoring for a port on the map) , the idea of more players being funneled into an area to kill or be killed by. It will automatically make the smaller more agile pvp play style shine because there isnt any towers in the pvp, and instead killing the player is the objective, think of old sea trials but for a reason which i've always wanted.
Besides ask around, generating a lot of hate is what i do. Now i can use my lvl 50 trolling skill for something useful