Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Jake Newport

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jake Newport

  1. Set up an outpost in the bahamas. Shroud cay or something there. Plenty of small ships, plenty of players. You can trade if you want, do pve and pvp in pretty inexpensive ships
  2. I am putting up a bounty. 100 k reals if you kill him 1v1. If mo kills him 1v1 he gets 200k To promote mortar brigging, 2 million real if you kill him in a mortar 1v1
  3. Is this like if you have to ask the price you cant afford it?
  4. Why always this clan based approach i really dont get it. I see more of an issue with no real diplomatic setup at the moment and also no real insentive to go any nation thats available. Doesnt matter if you play as pirate; GB, Spain or whatever. You have the same ships and fight for the same ports. Make a decent system for diplomacy where you have allied and enemy nations. Have more ships in the game so that you can only craft the ships relevant to you nation. I know what a pitty for the smaller nations that they can not sail around in Oceans or Santissimas but the seas have too many of these ships as is.
  5. You will also need to have a system of marque. I am thinking of where you can buy it for PvP marks in the admiralty and you receive a letter of marque for x amount of time so you can sail around and attack any ship ship except from you allies. This would also give content to people that want to do PvP I think only lord protectors should be able to vote on who is an ally or not. Might get more people into RvR and get protector status. The purely clan based aliance system at the moment would not work as we can not see the name or clan tag in OW
  6. So a nice ship to have in your docks to never sail like the Santa Cecilia
  7. I dont really agree with the suggestions. Dont feel we really need more outposts. Yes it would be nice to have but now you have to make some decisions on what you want to do and where you want to set up an outpost. And it is true i rage sometimes as well that i would like to have 2 more or 3 or 4 but the nuumber is what it is. If they would add more outpost lets say that you will need to pay a daily tax on it. Then it would work for me. Then it is still a choice to be made and it would just drain money if you dont use it. The same goes for more dock space. You can dock lets say 2 ships in a port for free. If you want to use more dock space its ok but you will have to pay for the space you take up in the docks (a bit roleplaying thinking) I do agree with the free fleet perk and yes please eliminate this random fire mode or at least let us assign a button or 2 for switching between 100 and 250 metres. Now it is just annoying when you are in a brawl on 1 side and long distance on the other
  8. I like the idea as well and it would be nice if you could get a letter of marque in the admiralty either for your clan or for yourself to become a temporary privateer. But would really have to be limited to small ships maybe until a 5th rate.
  9. I think it would also be nice that if you board a ship you can transfer the chain from that ship to your own but then it should be a bit more like a consumable. IMO opion this is how it should be that you have to take also you shots in the hold not only your repairs but i guess that is an onther discussion. I do like the new mechanic
  10. in theory it would give you choice. Inpracticality you always see the same ships over and over. A trinc, a belle poule never seen them in a port battle. But yeah i have seen port battles where every side has practically the same set up and very few players
  11. Dont know how difficult it is for the devs to develop bu if a port battle would be like a lot of FPS games there is a limit of slots available. A port battle shouldnt be all 1st rates. So instead of having the system with the BR you can have a system that allows x amount of 1st rate, x amount of 2nd, etc etc. This way then you can add a troop carrier in there as well and have a specific target for them to go to. Lets say they have a circle D and for the bigger ports even an E next to the big square forts. This would mean a lot more coordination and tactics. Capital ships can attack, smaller frigates can defend circles or harras big ships. Smaller support vessels also have their objective like capturing circles, destroying the forts and dropping troops off. Just some random thoughts.
  12. I love sailing that boat. I can not imagine anyone not wanting to sail it. Yes you get sunk a lot, yes you do not get respect from the people in the 1st rates, yes no one will defend you but hey thats all the fun of it.
  13. You can also fill the BR with 20 small ships. Some shallow water ports are also just more important then some deep water ports so does make sense to me
  14. There was our whole port battle fleet in the circle
  15. @adminAt the port battle of Salamanca we sailed in our PB fleet of first and second rates and me as the mortar brig. We were all in the same battle group to up our BR to more then 10000. While sailing through the screeners several 1st rates got tagged but nothing happened, however when i in the mortar brig was tagged i was dragged in to a battle together with another of our screening groups. None of the people in my battle group got dragged in. I also did an F11
  16. I leave my smuggler flag on when sailing because otherwise when i want to go to an enemy port to get some resources and i forget to put it on i have to go back to a friendly port and turn it on. The suggestion of alt accounts is utter nonsense
  17. It was something we discovered allready a long time ago when looking for missions in shallow water and for certain ports there was only one mission possible in deep water. We talked about it that this could be used as an exploit to stack like 5 missions in the same spot and this would counter the enemy to join this mission however we never used this exploit. Dont think that the devs can actually do anything about this though as the crosswords appear in the same exact spot. I think it will be one of those things where we as players have to be fair and not use some metagaming exploit. The only way i see it is that the game will only generate unique hostility missions and that there is a cap of how many hostility missions can be generated per port.
  18. You can still do it but you need to take a single admiral mission and hope that you are against a Santi. Then it just takes time and patience
  19. It is allready a bit like you propose when it is a slow port battle night. You see most nations gathering around the port for the PB some for helping to screen and others just to get some PVP action and sometimes the nation that comes to screen for you turns against you because there wasnt too much PVP around. Getting into a PB can be a challenge sometimes dodging all nations. I would like to see some change as well to the port battles but at the moment cant really see how. And because of the scarcity of OW PvP except for some spots on the map the PB will still act as a PvP magnet at the moment
  20. The game is of course a wargame and the battles and fighting are at the moment the most important part. However i think that that a lot of people would like to see both the economic side and the port handling side be improved so that the game can also cater to people who do not want to fight continuously or like me lack the skills of fighting 1v1. I want to explain the things that I would like to see for ports and this is just my personal opinion. I do believe that the interface of the ports and the management system of the ports should be increased. Also i would like to see that a clan leader who is now responsible for the port, can delegate this responsibilty to a port administrator (call it whatever you want probably per nation there are some fancy titles) This administrator would then be responsible for the running of the port and at the moment that isnt really a lot because there are not so any things that you can actually do with a port therefor i would like to suggest some options that could be implemented and that would stimulate also a bit the trade between ports. The administrator would have access to the port warehouse a bit like a clan leader would have access to the clan warehouse. This would be used for storing the goods that you would need for running the port and its defenses. Like a normal warehouse this can be expanded to store more goods and a different variety of goods. Later will become clear what types of goods i am thinking about and why it would be important to have these goods always in the warehouse. This would not be like your own warehouse where goods are stored but this would be more for storing the goods that are consumed every day. Forts are probably one of the main features of a port. A well defended port is harder to take and every port should start with 2 basic round towers that are next to the town. The administrator would then be able to add additional forts on places he believes are suitable for the defenses of the port. I would like to see it like with a shipyard that you will have to upgrade the forts that you build. Fort level 1: Basic round fort as we know it right now. To build it you will need to have stone, oak, muskets, provisions, iron, canons and a certain amount of gold. This fort could be placed anywhere on the map but depending on the location this can be upgraded to a bigger fort. Fort would also have to be maintained every day and would require a certain amount of the materials that are used for building it as well as gold for daily maintenance. Also after a port battle the damage would have to be repaired a bit in the same way that we have to repair our ships after a battle. This would also be necessary for the larger forts that follow but of course the bigger the fort the higher the maintenance. Fort level 2: This would be the basic suare fort like we know it now. This would only be available if you have allready a round fort in place and could only be placed on certain areas of the map to account for the underground etc etc. I would limit the amount to 2 forts of this type per port to avoid a port being cluttered by forts. Fort level 3: This would be the highest upgrade and i would call it a bastion. These would the upgrade for the level 2 fort and there could only be 1 of these forts per harbour. The places where these forts could be built should be limited due to there extended size. the most important change for these forts would be heavier guns and also mortars to defend the harbour. It would be important for the administrator to always keep the resources available to maintain the forts because if certain resources are not the there the fort will start to decay. This will be shown in the port battle as a damaged fort allready and therefor will take less hits before being destroyed. Same thing would go if the administrator does not repair the forts after a port battle they would still be damaged. Forts should only count as 300 points maximum in a port battle, no matter how many are destroyed, this to avoid too much emphasis being put on destroying only the forts and not fighting a battle with ships. The BR of a port battle should also depend on the size of the forts there are. A shollow water port with only 2 square forts should only get like 750 BR where a deep water port with 4 round forts, a square fort and a bastion would be 9600 BR or more, and maybe with other multipliers like county capital to go to 11000 BR. The prices for the maintenance should be set high enough that only the most valuable ports or the ports that a clan really wants to keep out of a strategic perspective, would have the biggest forts. A useless port would then also show up on the map as useless due to its BR. Trade should also be steered by the administrator and a bit more then it is now. instead of the random dropping of goods per port the administrator should be able to attract traders or trading companies from different nations. He can then choose for instance to have a dutch trading company of level 1, 2 or 3 in his port and the highest level would then drop the rare dutch goods like Grietje van Dijk. I am just giving an example. However if the dutch trading company does not make enough money of course they will not come with the rare resources and they will not drop. This would stimulate the trade between different ports. Of course having a trader in your harbour would also mean that he needs to be supplied with certain goods which would increase the import and export of a harbour. Natural resources that drop in a port can of course not be changed by the administrator, or only in a way that it is now. the benefits of an extended harbour management system would be increased trade, less gold in rotation, other gameplay options, port battles would be more important, important ports would be harder to take not like at the moment where ports are constantly flipped and changing hands. It would also give the nations an option for a long time investment in a port and would make the loss of one of those ports really hurt.
  21. Can someone please take Hachi from us?
  22. Agree on that however to follow up on what Banished Privateer just wrote the player who owns the fort should be able to place the fort where he wants. Sometimes they are in a stupid place for some ports and are really in excellent places for other ports. If i would design the defenses of some ports i would not put the square forts in a place that can not get defended.
  23. Hmm be carefull what you ask for. A port like Carthegena will be flooded with forts and almost incapturable. If you want to implement something like that you should incorperate items like supplies for the forts e.g. food supplies (for the soldiers), rum (they need to drink), cannons (these need to be repaired), muskets (soldiers need to have weapons), stone (for rebuilding the fort),oak (for the beams of the fort), heavy carriages(for placing the guns) etc etc. And every time a fort gets damaged these supplies need to be shipped to the port otherwise it doesnt get repaired. This would give a bit more meaning to some of the supplies that are around
  • Create New...