Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Lars Kjaer

Members
  • Content Count

    2,290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,797 Excellent

2 Followers

About Lars Kjaer

  • Rank
    Master and Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

2,011 profile views
  1. Lars Kjaer

    Cannon Shot types

    Could we please stick to the proper timeframe? Round shot, double shot - we already have them Canister shot, grape shot etc - we already have them. Chain shots - we already have them, bar and extended bar shots are but variations over the same theme. I'd rather they dropped the artificial limitation on certain ammo types and either went all out realism with proper powder and ammo stores on ships or removed restrictions all together. The fire arrows are effectively rockets and to my knowledge were not used on ships during the timeframe - I may be wrong on this tho but since we don't see rockets used in a european/american military contexts before the sacking of bordeaux in the french revolutionary wars (if my recollection is correct it's the first town to be subject to a dedicated barrage with rockets with the intent to cause as many civilian casualties as possible). Heated shot - agreed we're missing this one, but it should come with the same risks as it had in the age. Molten shot - 1860 outside of the timeframe Exploding shells - outside of the timeframe. To summarize: We're only missing the heated shots in order to be within the timeframe of the game. Otherwise I'd like the danish panser-frigate "Peder Skram" to be included in the game, first danish frigate to be fully ironclad and with a propella and steam engine. Hell why not go all out and introduce the Bismarck...
  2. Lars Kjaer

    Never give up French!

    No matter how many diplomatic mechanics the game puts in, you can't force players to accept them - they will either find a workaround or in case of fx. alliances simply not show up.
  3. Lars Kjaer

    Never give up French!

    Why on earth surrender in a wargame?
  4. Lars Kjaer

    Pit Pinsel will join the Dutch

    GL & HF
  5. Lars Kjaer

    Battle instances combining.

    lol this could be interesting.. 1v1v1 or even better 1v1v3v5..
  6. Lars Kjaer

    holding in battles and offensive "revenge" fleets

    Agreed. It will still allow players to revenge gank, but the odds of escaping makes PvP solohunting viable again.
  7. Lars Kjaer

    Solutions to ports lost to time

    To the first point 1) The European continent stretches over more TZs than the americas.. Europe stretches from Lisbon/Ireland to the Ural mountains. This cannot be the explanation why the global server didn't succeed. 3) We've seen alliances ingame - the spanish cannot retaliate becuase they have no US playerbase and the ports that has daytimers are not capturable because of the zerg that is britain. GB doesn't have to be skilled, they just have to have numbers. Which they do. I'm not saying that Spain should resignate to defeat, I'm just saying that alliances, wether we wants to or not, are culturally defined. What we saw in the days of the first timers were GB/US against EU players. This situation meant that the brits attacked in their primetime, but never defended in it. That was where the americans came into the picture. The current situation is thankfully a bit more diverse, we now have a small contingent of US players in DK/NG, a slightly larger one in Sweden, a medium one in France and a large one of carebears primarily in the GB factions. The pirates ofc has a small contingent as well. This is good for the game as a whole but the key point is that the french clans have been allied for ages (Blanc and WO) and the americans in general have switched to nations that either speak english as their first language or are proficient in english in general. This is not necessarily the case for all carribean nations and this is just the language barrier, then comes the cultural barriers. The answer is not as simple as - make alliances or recruit players from other timezones. The current timers work with the population that we have, but I believe that for a release they have to implement regional servers. Otherwise the numbers will merely drop to the state where we are now again in a timespan of approx six months. - This is my belief mind you, merely based on the tests of mechanics we've had so far. 4) The problem is the ease some nations would have at taking ports and the difficulty others would have to take them back - again we've tested the mechanics before. And taking another port would be ideal - except not all ports are similar. The answer to a global server might very well be to make ports matter less.
  8. Lars Kjaer

    holding in battles and offensive "revenge" fleets

    On the testbed server the spawn point after the battle isn't fixed.. Wouldn't that solve the issue? - along with hiding F11 coordinates, but they should be gone anyway - there were no GPS in those times..
  9. Lars Kjaer

    Solutions to ports lost to time

    Don't rule it out - I do not believe that the game is only interesting to europeans and a small number of americans. The game has potential for so much more..
  10. Lars Kjaer

    holding in battles and offensive "revenge" fleets

    Please no cloaking devices again! EDIT: ez fix - remove the F11 coords so that they are imbedded in the report but invisible to the players.
  11. Lars Kjaer

    Solutions to ports lost to time

    I've taken the liberty to set a few numbers in your post to make it clear where and what I'm replying to: 1) I agree that the global server was never implemented in a meaningfull manner. This would've rectified itself over time as we all started all over except from crafting xp/crew lvl. (We all remember the great hurricane). Books, ships, gold, materials all had to be grinded all over again on both servers. As to the later part - the numbers affecting gameplay I completely agree. However the globalserver and the EU server started off with serverpops that were much larger than what we have now, so why did players quit? - The EU server dropped from 2500 to about 800 if I recall correctly (peak), with large numbers throughout the day as well, even larger numbers at night. So why did they leave? - The global server started out with 2000 or so (if I recall correctly) and quickly dropped to about 300. Now in the nighttime we see 100-150. Why did they quit? - It cannot only be that they had to start over because the shipknowledge grinding alone would bring a player to max level anyway.. 2) agreed 3) Filling PBs is an issue for all smaller nations, as far as I know only Russia, GB and Sweden can regularly field the numbers required for large PBs. The question about timers or no timers however is - how much fun is an empty PB? - the problem is atm that the only interaction the two communities have is through PBs and the effect it has on playerbases. The effect as far as I'm concerned is singularly negative. We've tried eliminating timers all together - the result was the game died for a few months and we still haven't really recovered. 4) And you are not entitled to content. How much content is there in the dark hours of the european night? - none as far as I can tell. This is a sandbox and if ppl don't like the rules of the game they quit and play something else. We've already seen this. Forcing players to lose ports uncontested is the surest way to drop the game dead on arrival.
  12. Lars Kjaer

    Solutions to ports lost to time

    I'm actually trying to increase playerbase in the US TZ.. I just don't believe a global server will work. The only case where a global server would function is when the impact of RvR was lessened on the playerbase. This would mean that all conceived necessities would have to be available in all ports - which would reduce RvR to merely a question of deniability of access. I'd go along with that, but this would basically make RvR solely a question of the battles and not much else. I'd suspect we'd have a lot of neutral ports in the game then.. Which doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. Just a different kind of game.
  13. Lars Kjaer

    Solutions to ports lost to time

    Because timers are already tested. So was the workaround - a global server with no timers. The problem is that if players lose ports that they've spent days to take, months to maintain and then to lose in a battle where they cannot attend - they quit. If on the other hand we accept timers then clans misuse timers to avoid battles for all the reasons @Gregory Rainsborough listed. There is as far as I can see no workaround that will function without players misusing the mechanics. If that realization, or lack of imagination, makes me narrowminded - well then I'm afraid that I'm narrowminded. I do however have a good memory of the mechanics tested in the game and it makes no real sense to me that we returned to an already tested and rejected mechanic in order to accomodate a global server when regional servers was tested as functioning and stable.
  14. Lars Kjaer

    Solutions to ports lost to time

    Is it the terminology or the numbers you're getting offended by?
  15. Lars Kjaer

    Solutions to ports lost to time

    100-150 ppl in the US TZ, 400-500 in the EU TZ.. Numbers doesn't lie. The real question is - why did the EU server function and the global server fail? - There's been a number of good reasons but as I see it the main reason is that the US playerbase for a very long time were treated like crap, servermaintenance comes to mind, and this has dropped US TZ playerbase below the breaking point. The stats however doesn't lie - EU server worked, global server failed. We have already tested timers, they didn't work. This has nothing to do with narrowmindedness but solely on numbers and functioning mechanics.
×