Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Tryaz

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Tryaz

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. I agree with you mostly: except I don't think that sinking an AI enemy in a mission takes skill. I'd also like to see OW sailing made less afk and have made several suggestions along those lines - Make OW wind more interesting! Ship’s Log & other OW Navigational Tools What do you think to this suggestion of mine as a way to reward players who branch out from their regional capital? (see below)
  2. Sounds easier. Less immersive and also makes less sense to me. Surely it's the voyage that you'd learn from, not rocking up to a new port. I see where you're coming from and that's quite a hurdle to overcome. I've played 150+ hours so far on NA and the problem I have with the current xp system is that it encourages players to stay in one place. If my goal is to advance in rank then my best bet is to pick two or three close ports and pull missions from only those. As all ports give the same missions and rewards I'm discouraged from going further afield. It also seems unfair that if I want to explore, trade or do OW pvp I have to surrender progression almost entirely. What if successive missions from the same ports had declining rewards? That would at least encourage players to move around. Perhaps the first mission each month from a new port could have a MUCH higher reward.
  3. At the moment , travel time is dead time. I propose that you should gain experience for travelling across the map. However, you should not get experience for sailing through the same areas over and over. If the map were discreetly divided into grid squares, then you could gain experience for travelling through a new grid square but not for one you've already visited (this could be reset perhaps once a week). This means that if you're just running missions in an area (e.g. Jamaica) you're not gaining much travel xp. I think we need to reward players for striking out and exploring new seas. It also seems unfair that traders, who sail vast distances to source goods, are not rewarded with xp for their time.
  4. Well I don't know about everyone else in this thread but I'm really satisfied with the changes from the most recent patch 9.63 I like that missions are locked to those outside your group. Great change, it preserves the feel of being on Navy business when other randoms can't interfere. I like that this wasn't applied to traders and other engagements preserving the privateer feel of those fights. I'd be interested to know the dev's views on stealing the capture of a trader from an ally. Are they any different to their feelings on stealing a capture from an ally in a mission? I continue to have great collaborative experiences with other players (all strangers) in this wonderful sandbox game. I've just closed the client after a great [trader, trader, brig] engagement where friendlies came in to help. I chained the brig as i passed to let the cutters catch up to it and went in pursuit of the two traders. Called a friendly Navy Brig downwind to help with the captures. I dismasted one trader and resumed pursuit of the second - asking the friendly Navy Brig to capture the first. After both traders were captured I'd made some profit and two new friends who I'm sure I'll sail with again. Disclaimer: no griefing took place in this engagement which I began alone. All parties left satisfied and richer, without animosity. No tears were shed because we're all adults here. Traders WERE hurt in the making of this anecdote.
  5. Tryaz

    Ship speeds

    Thank you! This is awesome
  6. Dude stop talking about roleplaying and pirates in the same breath as banning players. This is a mechanical issue. Do a thought experiment for me and imagine that some mechanic which you wanted to use because it was authentic and used by Navy ships of the day annoys another player and so: YOU GET BANNED!? Banning players is not funny. Ban people for harassment, sure; for foul and offensive language; for making use of exploits and for hacking! But for using a mechanic in a way that other players don't like? You're just being unreasonable. ALSO: you're straight up inventing all this "back in the day" rubbish. I know you're not an historian or even a dedicated enthusiast. You're just using yours and others un-researched assumptions about the period to advance your cause.
  7. I'm glad we agree that banning is too much. Turning people Pirate if they steal others captures sounds like a great idea, I'd like that as a fix. How do you police it though? Let's not start talking about the "rules" of the British Navy in the early 19th c. Because this game doesn't accurately model them and this discussion has little to do with them. I am ALL in favour of mechanics that heighten immersion and encourage roleplay. Being part of the British Navy and wanting to roleplay has nothing to do with being annoyed that someone took your trader brig. Did you have orders to interdict enemy trade or run enforcement for customs? No.
  8. That would definitely be immersive. Captains of the highest rank invited to attend or something??? Like the real court's martial system. I'm in favour in principle but I'd have to know more
  9. The latest patch 9.63 has a HUGE effect on this topic. Only group members can enter your mission!!!!! Problem nearly solved! I still would like to know where the rules are...
  10. Okay, cool. I could get on board with the idea of players being made pirate. I doubt that the devs have the resources to be holding "court sessions" but I don't know, we'd have to hear from them. Now we need a mechanic that can reliably assess when someone is "stealing" and not simply being bad at helping.
  11. Lol! Check out this guy! He calls bs and then goes right on to spout a mountain of his own. Your comparison makes NO sense. If life is a sandbox in the same way that NA is a sandbox then: the devs intervene to ban rammers and what: God intervenes to punish people who hit and kill others? Fine, I suppose?????? But I've got no interest in playing a game called Naval Divine Retribution
  12. Ok so once again I'm troubled by an official response on this thread. Nevermind though, the game's creators have the right to draw the line wherever they see fit. Henry can you PLEASE point me to these rules that people keep referring to, I don't know where to find them. Just so you know, my response to your current handling of this is simply going to be to NEVER enter a stranger's battle. And so the sandbox shrinks
  13. This is the same response that I and other measured players are advocating. I sincerely hope that the devs choose this path.
  14. WOAH, you just stepped off the reservation. So you're advocating banning ONLY in the case of Basic Cutter swarm griefing? That's a different argument to the one proposed by the OP. Not that I've EVER seen one yet myself but I agree that a swarm of Basic Cutters has the taste of an exploit. Although it's besides the point of this thread - since you raised it - my suggestion would be to disallow captains from buying a Basic Cutter if they have another vessel in port. That makes it less easy to simply rage-pull infinite Basic Cutters. Back to the problem at hand. The voices speaking out loudly against this are mostly trying to emphasise the danger of the dev team pursuing this course of action with regards to griefers. I imagine many of them are experienced gamers who have first-hand or anecdotal experience of other MMOs that have been destroyed by this kind of ill-considered disciplinary action. So no I don't think it's reasonable to tell them to get a grip. As I see it, if these bans are enacted it will be a serious threat to the health of the sandbox and the community in NA. Although I am not one, griefers have their place in a sand-box.
  15. In reality, ships not only grappled one another but lashed their spars together to ensure that they didn't drift apart. It would be possible to ram one ship away from another but you'd almost certainly damage the rigging of one or both ships. I wouldn't object to rigging shock occurring when you're disengaged by a ram but I don't think that's the issue being debated here.
×
×
  • Create New...