Enraged Ewok
-
Posts
453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Enraged Ewok
-
-
So what you are really saying is that you "want to punish those who have played the longest and rose up to the higher ranks, and achieved the higher ships", correct?
I would rather see something implemented regarding training/skill levels for crews that survive from battle to battle.
The numbers of able-bodied sailors, per nation - I believe is not a good one, for an INTERNET game -- that might see a BOOM in players! Maybe if you have less than 10K players world wide .. but what IF --- it spikes over 50K? what are you going to do when no one has enough crew to man a CUTTER, much less a 1st rate?
The total pool available can always be tweaked, or even be designed to be dependent on the faction with the most players. I don't think the Devs are going to force all the Brits/Americans/Pirates to sail cutters while letting the Swedes, French, and Danes sail unlimited first rates. The raw numbers are not what deserve our thought and attention here, the assumption is that those will be tuned according to our testing.
-
1
-
-
not sure thats true. With a proper tag on the OS virtually any boat can catch any boat.
Take into account optimal wind angles in relation to the other ship and land in battle. Force your prey to sail past or through you to reach their best angle. Or drive them into the coast. I have caught quiet a few far faster ships like this.
I disagree. The only time I've managed to catch a faster ship with a chaserless one (only recent was a Trincomalee in my Essex) was due to him making several huge mistakes. Primarily no attempt to countertag, and then sailing on his best point of sail into land when he would have outrun me on beam reach heading into open sea. He didn't make the break for ocean until I had removed his mainmast, and his sail repair was long gone at that point. Point being, it is possible but highly unlikely unless the captain of the faster ship is far less experienced and you get the perfect tag with respect to land and wind.
The vast majority of boats pvping on the OS are already the Renn, the conni, and the trinc.
Add chasers to all boats and say goodbye to the trinc. Say goodbye for the need of a tagger at all. Say hello to nothing but connis and fail fit renns.
Because with the BR limit gone, the Renomee is back in business tagging ships and staying barely in range to tag sails without getting utterly destroyed by return fire, which I personally find quite silly. Trincomalee and Constitution have always been popular PVP choices, Trinc due to speed and 4 possible chances to keep an enemy at long distance tagged (to say nothing of her firepower for an 18pd frigate), and Constitution for her mix of durability, crew size, and chasers. I've noticed Ingermanlands beginning to replace the Constitution due to similar speed but higher crew and firepower.
Giving all ships the ability to use chasers is not going to make the Trincomalee disappear. She is still faster than any 5th rate other than the Renomee, more heavily armed and more durable than any other 5th rate, and more heavily crewed than any other 5th rate. Giving chasers to the remaining ships that lack them simply means they are actually a choice for solo OW PVP instead of requiring someone else with chasers to keep their prey in battle. Constitution will not magically replace the Trinc as she is unable to catch a lot of those other 5th rates. She comes into her own when hunting larger prey.
-
3
-
-
I would very much like to see wind force present in the game. I'm honestly surprised a sailing game has been in development for as long as this one has without it.
Regarding chasers, Is it not possible to model the actual fields of fire of the guns in bridle ports? For example, Trincomalee has two gundeck bridle ports and two weatherdeck bridle ports, but for some odd reason both can fire directly forward. Essex for example also has bridle ports but cannot mount chasers. Would it be possible to meet in the middle and classify all ships with bridle ports as having chasers, with their realistic arcs of fire?
For the other options, I'm fine with criticals as they are currently. I rarely see magazine damage, but rudder hits and pump hits can be quite crippling, which I am fine with. I think compacting ship HP would be worth testing, along with increasing the ability of a ships' sides to take damage.
-
2
-
-
The main issue I see with positional reinforcements (that has been brought up multiple times by others in this thread, but I'll offer my 2 cent and explanation) is that players not immediately in the circle can sail to the far side and get in to cut off the escape. I think it would be a good idea to experiment with larger tag and battle circles, say about 1/3 larger to start with, though in my mind 50% larger could also work.
What I think this would accomplish would be preventing late-comers who either weren't anywhere near the circle from sailing to an advantageous position to cut off escape before joining, as well as ensuring those players that do sail across to join from the other side are farther away. This gives a wider avenue of escape for the gankee, and more time to fight and disable the "tackler" (I hate this term) before the reinforcements can make it into range, but doesn't prevent the dogpile into the battle instance and the splitting up of groups that was occurring when sloppy station keeping reared its ugly head with the 1.5 BR rule.
-
I would advise players not to focus on the possibility of not being able to sail certain ships based on hypothetical numbers. Numbers can always be tweaked depending on player feedback and statistics from a week or two of playing with the changes. The question is, does this sound like a workable system that fits with the rest of the OW and economy design, what mechanics might need to be changed, and are there better mechanics that could be used?
Personally, I'm looking forward to the changes. I've seen far too many SoLs and frigates ram each other in the past few weeks to cause fatal leaking and prevent capture. Less so on the fireships, but it is a problem and this seems like a very good way to resolve it, or at the very least give a dire consequence to recklessly endangering your ship and crew. It may also get some of the lone PVE players to stop sailing alone in their 1st-2nd rates out to missions, as the possibility of getting ganked would mean far more than just the loss of the ship. What I'm not sure of is whether or not it will put a damper on mostly 1st rate PBs. Risk is higher, but with the estate ownership changes from the other thread so is reward, but I don't think the risk of losing a predominately 1st rate fleet outweighs the risk of losing the port because you brought smaller ships and your opponent didn't.
-
4
-
-
SORRY is correct, the US fleet very slightly outgunned them at Ays. Pirates fought well and chose correct strategy (shooting masts seems to always be the best option, in every situation).
The Americans put themselves in a bad situation by joining the battle very late, then attempting a frontal assault upwind into the Pirate line.
Sadly it takes me two weeks of PVE to pay for participating in a single port battle loss. The disparity between winning and losing is huge, on the order of a million gold for the winners and 50-100k for the losers. I'm surprised any nation can sustain deep water campaigns for more than a couple weeks.
Much of the great naval action in this game is walled off behind thousands of hours of grind, and it wears people down. Almost makes me miss Sea Trials. Hope to have at least a couple more good fights while I can still afford it.
Cheers rats, we'll meet again soon.
Agreed on the timing. The dillydally cost you both time and wind, and when your ships finally made the turn towards our line we had plenty of time to give you multiple broadsides to the mast. Had the wind been in your favor and lessened the time it took to get into our line, we would have had a much hard fought battle. GF though, looking forward to the next. And hopefully a bugged battle circle won't sink the survivors at the end. Shame about the ships it sank, for both sides.
-
1
-
-
The counter argument was "any concession I have to make (such as turning Pirate if you are playing as one) is unacceptable, because I am right and oppression and .... well... because oppression"
So do not feed me the "burden of proof" cake
Once again, your argument has no ground because you are telling them to play by your invented rules or leave. They are playing as Swedish privateers, and there is not a single thing wrong with that with the current ROE. That they're playing in a way you don't want them to is immaterial. Find a way to compromise, or agree to disagree. But this shenanigans with demanding they go pirate, to the point of making tribunal threads asking the Devs to forcibly turn them pirate, calling them trolls just because they disagree with you, is incredibly immature and does nothing but discredit any valid argument you do make.
-
1
-
-
When war and peace is decided by the amount of actions against a certain nation, it is still a majority rule... even when a pretty useless one in terms of the ressource mechanic in this game.
You'll never get that peace as long as DRUNK attacks Danish players and ports.
Ohh... and in todays societies naval captains are legal to vote, as long as they live in a democracy... and let us not forget we do not resemble the historic society rules in this game, otherwise most people wouldn't even be allowed to play this game.
This is a game set at a time where there was one naval power in the Caribbean governed by a representative government, the rest by monarchy. Why are you getting modern day confused with the 18th century?
Riddle me this. Why should a minority be forced to play in a way they don't want to play? Are you seriously suggesting that just because more people agree with you, that gives you the right to force those who don't to leave or follow your orders?
-
I think a majority will be able to determine the actions of a nation and people who want to act against a majority (and thus the nation), will either be unable to do so or turn pirate.
That's great. That only goes against the entire point of having a sanbox MMO, as well as against what the developers envision for the game. The player role in NA is a ship captain, not a policymaker. The closest thing you may get to a player-influenced system is war/peace based on how many ships of another nation you attack. A mechanic where every player in a nation will be voting on national policy and the majority rules is wrong both for the player's ingame role and for the ease with which it could be abused (as in the case of this shitstorm) to force a minority to follow someone else's marching orders.
-
Of course from a technical standpoint current diplomacy doesn't need testing as it isn't implemented on a technical basis.
But you yourself state it is part of the "metagame", which is the important part.
Game-Mechanics in terms of player-interactions and Balancing is well affected by Diplomacy and is thus part of the upcoming game, even when not yet technical implemented.
DRUNK has the leverage?
I don't think so actually because time plays for the Council-Side, they can sit the problem simply out without any kind of compromise.
As soon diplomacy is technically implemented into the game, DRUNK will stand within the nation with pants down as outsiders.
€: AFAIK it was said to happen within the next 2 month... so, not really a long time.
I really doubt diplomacy is going to give you the ability to alienate smaller clans/solo players just because a large clan or coalition of clans has a different idea of how to achieve national goals.
-
The solution is a system where the national goal is unified. Where dissent can be dealt with.
I do not think diplomacy will bring what you think it will bring. This is an sandbox combat game set in the age of sail, not a grand strategy game. It is up to each player how they decide to play and help their nation, and different players will go about that goal in different ways. The idea that a clan leader (or even a coalition of clans) can speak for any player outside that clan or coalition is utterly absurd and has no place in this game.
-
2
-
-
This thread just showing there is no hope. Some players will always claim YOU have no authority, YOU are not my master, I'M playing as i want because i have buy the game like you... Sorry guys. Even if devs give the power to be governor to some players/ clans these kind of ppl will break all the work you'll try to make. Some guys don't want make a lone concession and make what they want at no cost...
To be honest, the guy is right. There is absolutely nothing binding him to follow what the mob rule, excuse me, "majority" rule decides. It's his game to play as he wants, and unless all Danes show as friendly or allied to him in game and he will go pirate by attacking him, there is no reason he can't sink, burn or take prize Danish ships.
-
Exceptional Marines are now garbage.
Don't knock it until you try it. I have a clanmate running with exceptional marines on a SoL. He still has enough crew to man his sails and one full broadside. I pity the fool that tries to board him or catches himself in irons. Though I think the point of Admin's post is slightly different from making a SoL a floating infantry barracks.
-
Apparently the Essex got 18pd cannons now, im trying to get one so i can 100% confirm it, but no luck so far.
18pd cannons on the gun deck, 12pd on the weather deck. Down to 315 crew.
-
Like I said in my previous post, we have no PVP around Jamaica -- the capturing of ports more distant to Jamaica is just an attempt to move a front line closer to the PVP.
So what are the solutions proposed here? Gank our players then run and play dock games, or complain we brought too much force to bear on those harassing our forces? Stop fighting AI fleets (the only thing that gives our casual players reliable content when they long in)? Cool... Sounds like a lot of fun...
The game needs mechanisms to provide good PVP content to players, I agree. Perhaps this could be achieved with instances popping up on the map. Something like 'Beached Treasure Ship [small]' to give the lower tier players something to fight over. Something like King of the Hill with a passive gold income for being inside the circle.
If this is truly the case, then I suggest setting up a base at Bensalem or Bonacca and sailing north. I would love the PVP action, because I'm frankly tired of having to sail from Bonacca to Jamaica just to find a player with a British flag. The quoted complaints sound a lot like what I hear from Charleston players that wonder why there's nothing to do. The answer is right in front of you. Move your main outposts to the front lines and you will get both the PVP to keep you having fun and the PVE AI fleets you so desire for leveling your newbs.
-
-snip-
My suspicions were correct then. The British really weren't comfortable sending anything bigger than a cutter into United States' waters. Hard to blame them though, after watching their allied Dutch fleet get sunk to the last man in British waters. No wonder I have to sail all the way from Bonacca to Jamaica to see even one union jack.
-
1
-
-
While I do agree with that, overboosting the stats and hope for the best is both a bad design and frustrating to play against.
You have many possible ways of making it challenging without artificially buffing them through the roof, like adding more AI or make you fight against a bigger ship than yours.
I'd rather have that than dealing 1on1 against a ship with an hidden propeller.
We already have this. Many missions will give you 2 opponents to fight instead of one (and even with a higher class ship this has the potential to be quite nasty, e.g. an AI renomee and surprise vs a player frigate). If that doesn't provide enough challenge, you also have the option of finding and attacking a national fleet. These can be found all over the map and with ships as small as cutters/lynxes all the way up to 3rd rates plus escorts. The only time AI maneuverability and crew/marines buff is really noticeable to me is in 1v1 fights now, and back when I was playing the boarding game in 7th-6th rate ships.
19 mln vs 60 thousand - the cost of crew - moderated
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
Currently planned implementation is that you only lose crew if you lose a 1 dura ship. Whether or not you take that risk is on you.
Answered in the OP post. Crew banks to the max you can command, crew not needed for your ship wait in barracks ashore. If you lose a 1 dura ship and lose the crew on it, sail something smaller with your remaining crew until they replenish. With the wind force changes coming, it may be a better idea to sail that Mercury instead of a Trincomalee anyways dependent on the weather.
There's really no excuse to not have a 5 dura 5th rate. Exceptional frigates are selling for less than 150k in MT, so no reason not to buy a couple. Basic ships up to Constitution are also available from NPCs, and I've never seen an NPC ship costing over 150k.
Then sail smaller ships, or sail ships with multiple durabilities. Why sail a 1st or 2nd rate with all the risk that entails (even in our current game version)? Regarding being forced into a cutter, once again, I think its highly unlikely it will ever come to that. Should it come to that, the solution is tweaking the numbers and not throwing out the entire system. I honestly think that if your nation manages to lose that many Santisimas with the slower port battle tempo, you have much larger problems at hand than your next PB.
Regarding dead PVP. Please stop this doomsaying. People said PVP would die when AI ships could no longer be captured. I've gotten more PVP post patch than I ever had before it. People said 1.5x BR rule would kill PVP. I was getting more fights, and often got more fun fights, with it than before. The crew mechanic is not going to kill PVP. It's going to be a wakeup call to the idiots that sail alone in their Santisimas and Victorys for PVE to not do that, in addition to giving an actual consequence to green on green ramming to prevent ship capture and fireshipping.