Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

William Death

Members
  • Content Count

    537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

941 Excellent

About William Death

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    At Sea

Recent Profile Visitors

2,393 profile views
  1. Nope. I sailed from Tumbado to Coquibacoa about 3-4 weeks ago, following the coastline. This was US primetime around 8PM-Midnight EST. Around Belize, I saw a few players in the reinforcement zone (un-taggable unless you plan on throwing away a ship); sank one US frigate that ventured too far from the forts at Truxillo, sank an Indiaman by Cartagena, and ran from a Connie (the Indiaman's alt, maybe?). Maximum rewards: <3k doubloons. Rewards I could have gotten from risk-free PvE in that amount of time, sinking AI traders: ????>10k doubloons. Great mechanics there. Really feeling the rewarding and immersive PvP experience. Yarr. Hooray. Not two weeks ago I sailed around the Hispaniola area....nothing besides a TLynx and Requin (un-catchable). Oh, and a 3rd rate that ran from my Wapen into port (because he was a few feet from his fort, playing with AI I assume). Found a Prussian next to Tortue. He ran till his buddy came out, once they had 2v1 they tried to tag but I made it in. Really great economy in place when everyone is so terrified of losing their modded ships that they won't fight without strong advantages. (hence the reason US players game their reinforcement zones like in OP's case). In short: If you want PvP in North American primetime, you go camp Charleston or Mortimer. Simple as that. Inexperienced players will sail out and get sunk in both locations. I dislike it and the players being sunk dislike it too. But its kind of hard to hunt the non-existant "bunch of other players anywhere else on the map." You *might* have some degree of success at the British zones...depends on your luck if someone is foolish enough to leave the safety of their zone. So....please, tell us where we can find players to hunt when there are <150 online and majority of them clustered at their capitals. I'd love to see someone find consistent PvP content anywhere else on the map under those conditions. (Ignoring the PvP zones Gank Zones with their broken ROE). It just doesn't happen outside of PB activities and the lucky encounter here or there. Fix the game, and maybe it won't be such an issue. Here are my suggestions (re-posted from another thread): Reinforcement zones: Should be extremely reduced in size. Make them maybe 25-50% bigger than the capital zone. Big enough for new players to figure out how to make their ship move on OW, sail to missions inside the zone, etc. Should be 100% safe for new players. Let players up to (and including) Captain rank (5th rates) spawn missions in their reinforcement zones. Remove all AI fleets bigger than 6th rates. Allow maximum of level 2 shipyard in capital ports. Remove ability to tag players in the reinforcement zones. Remove ability to join player's battles in their reinforcement zones. Reinforcement zone is NOT for Admirals to get rich grinding AI. Reinforcement zones are NOT for players to set up their primary econ/crafting hub. If they want a safe space to do that, PvE Server caters to them. But, reinforcement zones are also NOT for hunters to go hunt players in. Implement proper mechanics that encourage players to move out of their reinforcement zones as they gain rank and skill, and hunters won't be trying to go into those zones to hunt. Add in proper ROE for patrol zone battles and you're well on the way to a properly functioning PvP server.
  2. Yeah I loused one tack because I changed my mind halfway through and decided to go back the other way. I reversed. Once you had me chained to ~60% I was reversing through almost every tack. Heavy build+no sails does that. Yes, you had an easy time taking the wind. Teak/Teak at >12.8 knots vs teak/WO with tank mods at <11kn tends to facilitate that But that’s ok. I don’t care about who has the wind, only that I stay on top of the water and my enemy doesn’t. Most of the time I do keep the wind, because most players don’t know how to steal it, even from a ship slower than them. As @Wraith mentioned, sometimes you just need to shoot them and not worry about the wind. Once again, regarding “how the battle was going” I strongly feel I was winning, having chained you to ~60% after you used hull rep. Me at nearly full hull health and an open repair timer with double shot loaded and right next to you. But that’s ok, I don’t care about that for this discussion because winner or loser of the duel has no bearing on methods of tacking. Point of the topic is to depower or not to depower. You do it one way, I do it my way. I KNOW my way works best for me. I keep positive speed the whole tack, don’t make any more leeway than normally sailing, spin through the wind faster, and spend overall less time making the tack. What you say about losing the sail thrust and bleeding speed leads me to think you misunderstand what I am saying. I’m not depowered for long. Total time depowered when tacking my Trinco is maybe 2.5 seconds. For PB Santi, it’s maybe 5 seconds. It is timed to coincide when the sails wouldn’t be providing forward thrust anyways that is, from about 10* off the wind to just the other side of the eye of the wind. The staysails literally do nothing but hinder lateral motion when in the eye of the wind (think of the wind as a vector and the staysails as a plane containing the vector); and right close to the wind as you are coming up to the eye, there is a point where the forward thrust provided no longer outweighs the sideways force generated (the leeway that is working against your rudder and manual sails to try to push you away from the wind). For every ship, the point where this happens is a little different, some you can wait till the bow touches the wind arrow on the compass, others respond better to an earlier depower. Of course if you depower as you start the tack and stay depowered for any length of time, you’ll bleed speed and fall downwind. But that is not what I do. Its no great difference, but just as the difference between feathering well and feathering poorly can determine who gets to rake who, the properly timed depower can mean the difference between falling away after the tack with 3.6kn vs 3.4kn. Can be an important difference.
  3. Not entirely true. When you tack, as long as you don't reverse....the ship that comes through the wind quicker/with greater speed will be further upwind than the one that slowed down more or took longer to come through irons. I can tack a lo/wo Santisima without reversing by using properly timed depowering. My dueling Trinco can spin through the wind faster and maintain a higher speed by depowering at the proper times. Teak/WO Victory? A dream to tack. Think about it, from about 10* either side of the wind NONE of your sails are doing you any good for actually powering the ship. Coming up into the wind, the staysails become the main driving force from about 45* and closer, but once you get around 10*, they start providing more lateral resistance to turning further into the wind than they make up for with their forward thrust. But, once you're through the wind and the staysails can provide a lateral force to push you out of the eye faster, you should repower them. Then you'll not only get forward force from them, but also a side-force that makes your ship slide downwind. Assuming you have the square sails set properly and rudder turned, you can convert most of that sideways slide from leeway into a turning motion. The "other" way to tack involves dropping to battle sails to take advantage of the increased turn rate provided by them. But this requires timing your tack so that the time when you switch from battle back to full occurs right in the eye of the wind (because for whatever reason, our crews furl the already-set staysails, set the square sails, then re-set the staysails again....). It works quite well when executed properly, but I prefer the tried-and-true depowering method that has won me more duels than single-shot demising . To each his own though, I know what works for me.
  4. Or...just have the combat model balanced so that making artificial limits on ship construction isn't necessary. If we have un-historical massive speed differences due to ship construction, then we can have un-historical woodtypes for ships. However, if mods are reduced to +/- 15% (so that the maximum difference between super speed and super tank is 15% on all stats, rather than the ~25-30% we can currently mod to), things will fall in line much better. Furthermore, no matter what builds you compare, unless the frigate is a bad build (like oak/sab or something silly) then it will still ALWAYS be able to outrun even the fastest fir/fir Bellonas upwind. Source: I have a fir/fir 14kn+ Bellona, but any average teak/wo frigate will leave me in the dust if he turns upwind. I, also, haven't played with the new damage model on testbed. I feel we need to wait for thickness to be properly implemented as Admin mentioned before we call foul on the new mechanics. (although I'm convinced that the changes are unecessary and our current damage model on live server is fine). "If it ain't broke, 'fix' it till it is!"
  5. This^ What is worse even than fighting that good battle, is getting a nice battle, 1v1, 1v2, 2v3, etc and then having those players kite you around till their friends are ready outside, then they leave and you get ganked. They technically "fought" (shooting some ball or chain and generally being an annoyance without actually accomplishing anything) looks like fighting...at least in the server logs and on the tab screenshot (so a tribunal is worthless). But everyone knows they weren't actually going to fight you, just wait for their friends to gank. Then, thanks to short invisibility & speedboost, you (the hunter) are not likely to get away. Which is arguably fine if you were just a mile or two offshore of your enemy's major port...but we all know that revenge ganks can and do form almost anywhere. RvR, is a different animal. I personally think screening, as a tactic, is poor gameplay, at least with the current RvR system. Screeners have 24 hours to form a fleet and position it to catch the attacking fleet (which will be a mix of ships). The easy answer is "well they need to bring screeners too" and that sometimes works. But it just doesn't appeal to me. Spend hours grinding dumb bots to set a PB, then spend time getting a fleet ready, sailed to there, only to be denied content by a fleet of crap ships that don't intend to fight you, just waste your time. Most everyone has been on both sides of that screening fleet before....but maybe I'm alone in not liking being on either side of it (unless the fight happens to be somewhat reasonable and enjoyable, not just a kiting fest). Delaying in hostility is another thing....one part of me says thats OK because you are technically in there and can be sunk by their fleet (which chose to start a battle that would be unlimited join for your side)...another part of me recognizes how trolly that is. At least in the old flag system, screeners had an hour to fleet up and stop it. Fleets were haphazardly thrown together (at least for the non-major port defenses) and hopefully you could stop the flag runner and/or intercept the main battle fleet. Screening felt a lot cleaner then. More pure and fun. Finally, the grief-by-chasing. This has happened to me more than the other types of griefing. I generally sail light, fast builds. I reserve my right to run away from any fight I don't want to engage in by sacrificing my HP, thickness, turn rate, reload, mast thickness, etc. So if I get tagged into a fight I don't want to fight in, I turn and run away. Then (assuming no revenge gank outside), the enemy often chases, maybe is faster than me in OW so he tags again....I escape again. He tags again....that is trolling. He may have intention to fight, but I don't; and he should know by that point that he can't catch me. So, I'm in battle with no intention to fight, but I didn't start the battle. He has intention to fight...but knows he can't make it happen. Who is at fault? I say he is, for tagging over and over, wasting both our time. So ultimately: Yes, any time a player initiates a battle with no intention of actually fighting the enemy, and no reasonable reason to start the battle...that is griefing. Especially if that player does it over and over. RvR is a grey area for me, and I can see both sides of that opinion. I think better PB setting and BR mechanics would go a long way to fixing that. I think a partial solution to the griefing issue is to increase the invisibility timer and cannot attack timer. I chose 2x and 3 minutes for all because, honestly, whether you pressed attack or not, there is always a chance a revenge fleet will be out to get you. Both the hunters and the prey need at least a chance to make good on their escape before being thrown to the jaws of the revenge fleet. Further solutions to this problem: join timer is unlimited for anyone within sight of battle at the tag (if in render distance, then can join), join timer for anyone else is 5 minutes, with an ever-expanding join circle so that if you join close to the 5 minute mark you'll be super far away from the battle (unless you saw the battle start, then you get normal join circles and have unlimited time to press 'enter'). This will encourage sailing as a fleet, but also allows a hunting party to spread out a bit to cover more ground. Finally, Reinforcement zones: Should be extremely reduced in size. Make them maybe 25-50% bigger than the capital zone. Big enough for new players to figure out how to make their ship move on OW, sail to missions inside the zone, etc. Should be 100% safe for new players. Let players up to (and including) Captain rank (5th rates) spawn missions in their reinforcement zones. Remove all AI fleets bigger than 6th rates. Allow maximum of level 2 shipyard in capital ports. Remove ability to tag players in their reinforcement zones. Remove ability to join player's battles in their reinforcement zones. Reinforcement zone is NOT for Admirals to get rich grinding AI. Reinforcement zones are NOT for players to set up their primary econ/crafting hub. If they want a safe space to do that, PvE Server caters to them. But, reinforcement zones are also NOT for hunters to go hunt players in. Implement proper mechanics that encourage players to move out of their reinforcement zones as they gain rank and skill, and hunters won't be trying to go into those zones to hunt. Add in proper ROE for patrol zone battles and you're well on the way to a properly functioning PvP server.
  6. @Coraline Vodka and @Christendom we gotta start charging entrance fees to PBs. These guys are getting rich off PBs!
  7. Engagement outside Bensalem PB. Pirate squadron defeats British Port Battle Fleet Having received word of British intentions to capture the mighty French port of Bensalem, we (being the opportunistic Pirates that we are) decided to investigate. Squadron of light and agile ships assembled, we sailed to the area and found and engaged the British fleet of tough and fast-firing (rumored poods, no confirmation) port battle ships with our fleet. Although our fleet was superior in number of lineships, the enemy ships were considerably tougher, their cannons easily punching through our flimsy hulls. We took some losses, and had a couple close calls, but overall had some good fun. Masts were taken and leaks were given and received. Thanks for the fight Brits. Also props to @Christendom for always saying that I am going to get leaked out when I sail my Victory or Pavel, yet he was the one who sank to leaks . In his defense, it was an AI-captured cag/crewspace Bellona that did well until the leaks came. Oh, and we have come to the conclusion that Wasa is nearly worthless for this sort of fighting. #buffWasa #buffnotmakeOP #creatingcontent
  8. Its been like that for ages. Even back on PvP2 when I had like 32 ping my alts would show in slightly different locations relative to each other, sometimes even up to half a tag circle's difference. I've noticed it every time I have two alts sailing near each other. It sometimes happens that it can be far enough off that tagging doesn't work properly, you either can tag when you don't see your ship in the circle, or you're sometimes halfway in the circle and its still not lighting up. Definitely an annoyance. Oddly enough, I don't ever recall noticing it when two accounts are stopped. Like when "stacking up" or whatever you want to call it in OW. Perhaps the issue is more noticeable when our ships sail faster? I'm not really sure....
  9. Is this any better, Squidward?
  10. Better solution: if you like the challenge of navigating without your location fix, don't equip sextant perk, there are plenty of other options . Let the rest of the players who don't want to deal with the annoyance of using outside applications to find out where they are have their GPS perk. Majority of players I speak with prefer it that way because we feel Naval Action's strongest part is fighting battles, and the weakest part is OW sailing and econ/trading. I've played when we had no navigational tools, then the grid squares and coords, then nothing but trader tool & compass, and now sextant perk. I think sextant perk is by far the best system of those, and it should keep new players happy because they won't get lost and frustrated. If a player decides a more immersion/roleplaying game is for them, they can turn off the perk. Everybody can be happy.
  11. Pavel was balanced nicely when it was faster than the Buc. It already has the turn rate and hull shape it needs. Buff the speed and change the 24pd carronade deck to 32pd carros and its good. 2nd rate balance should be as follows: Bucentaure: most HP, medium thickness, 2nd best broadside, worst speed/agility, worst hull shape. Christian: least HP, medium thickness, best broadside, medium-high speed/agility, best hull shape (tied with Pavel), 4x stern chasers. Pavel: medium HP, highest thickness, worst broadside, best speed/agility, best hull shape (tied with Christian). ALL ships should get bow and stern chasers. Especially the second rates which have enormous forecastle decks with plenty of room to mount some chasers. All that being said, I've been sailing Pavel a fair bit in Port Battles, and I've done well with it. But I would absolutely not recommend others sail it. Its too difficult for most players to use without getting leaked out (most players don't know what to do to prevent leaks anyways). Its slow and difficult to get out of bad situations. Broadside firepower feels barely better than Bellona with poods&carros. And DD means you can't just go rageboard first rates either. In addition it is just plain not worth the saved ~50 BR over a Buc/Christian. Better to drop to 3rd rate with poods and save another 100 BR. So yes, please return Pavel to a good spot. Thats about all its good for at the moment. Boarding players who carelessly tack in front of you with less crew than you on their ship.
  12. Do we honestly believe there will be a ton of "new" players right after release? Is game release some sort of magical time where everyone all of a sudden decides to buy and play a game? Will the game be massively different than it is a month before release? Have not the majority of players who will buy and actually play (I mean take the time to achieve max rank and learn to fight passably well) already bought and played Naval Action? I just don't think there'll be a massive influx of new players that everyone seems to be counting on. Rather, I think it'll be mostly old players returning to the game to see if it has become worth their time again. And at any rate, what is the difference between a new player coming into the game 3 months after release and dealing with vets who have earned good stuff; vs a new player coming into the game at release and dealing with vets who already have good stuff? It is literally the same experience for that player. This exactly^. Go roleplay a new pirate in the Caribbean if you enjoy that. Start from scratch and pillage and plunder your way to the top. I've done it already please don't ask me to do it again. I didn't enjoy parts of the grind. If other players do and want to play that way then so be it. +1 ships slot grind is the worst. Wipe if we must, but let us keep all types of XP. Especially ship XP. That is definitely one of the worst parts of Naval Action for me. Its such a silly and unnecessary feature to have. It hides necessary* parts of the game (upgrades) behind a wall of grind. I've done it for all the ships that matter, I don't want to do it again. *Someone is surely going to come along and say how you don't need ship slots to do anything. Kindly stuff it. Everyone knows if you don't have at least 3-4 regular upgrade (skillbook) slots unlocked your ship is gimped from battle start. Thanks to gear meta (another discussion for another time).
  13. My experience has been the opposite. I won't tag certain ships in OW if I think they're a better player than I am. If I suspect that ship on the horizon is a good player (like Ram Dinark or Liquicity or Reverse) in a sturdy ship; I won't tag them because I'm confident they're sailing a ship that is more-suited to dueling/actually fighting than I am (I usually sail very light speedbuilds). Not to mention, they may still beat me even if we were both in proper fighting ships. Why risk my ship to find out? For 62 doubloons? No thanks. As a result, I miss some fights against players who might be only average in skill. No battle happens. Similarly, when I go hunting I see that other players have the same mentality. They won't tag me, even if they have unlimited join timers in their R zone and/or a superior ship to boot. They're so used to seeing an enemy player and subsequently getting wrecked that they automatically assume its a good player and choose not to engage. A battle doesn't happen. Furthermore, on the other side of the coin, names in open world means you have a bit of protection for low ranks because some players won't bother with low ranked captains who are still learning. I used to have a guideline I tried to follow: no sinking anyone under lieutenant commander rank (200crew/frigate rank). I'll farm established noobs all day, but I don't want to sink the guys who are still trying to figure out how to manual sail their brigs and make their guns reliably hit the target. Other players I have sailed with had a similar rule. But now we have no way to know if the ship we're tagging is sailed by a max-rank player or a new player. The only way is to waste your time tagging the poor skipper and find out. More instances =/= more battles or better content. It is frustrating. Sometimes that leads to "well we've already tagged him anyways lets sink him no mercy." That new player then quits because the game didn't tell him where not to sail and he just lost everything he had (because the game didn't explain that he shouldn't put all his eggs in one basket) and never creates another battle. But go ahead, stick to "red=dead because this is the hardcore full-loot PvP Server" mentality. If, say 15%, of new players quit because they get sunk right out the gate (the game does a horrible job of explaining how to use reinforcement zones and where a new player should be) it won't really be noticeable because NA has such a low population anyways... All these "hardcore" changes do is annoy veteran players, frustrate/turn away new players, and satisfy a small group of role-playing sailors who want something that places playability behind realism. But "Yarr, I'm a Pirate and you're the enemy! I shall endeavor to sink you! No I do not care that you just bought the game 2 hours ago, you chose PvP server you knew the risk."
  14. No. Leave it as is, and re-add names in OW. There is absolutely no good reason to hide this information. All it does is reduce the willingness to tag. People now sometimes don't tag enemy because they're not sure if its an elite player or a noob. Imagine how many people would run away (more often then they already do) when tagged by an enemy. "I won't fight because I don't know if you're a good player or not, and I don't wanna get sunk."
  15. Water graphics.... thats pretty low on my list of issues in Naval Action. I actually think the graphics are one of the best parts of Naval Action (disregarding the land and buildings). If devs want to upgrade it at some point, so be it. Right now I think there are more pressing issues like the way the combat mechanics do (or in our case, don't) mesh with the repair/damage model we currently have. Regarding how the ships interact with waves...feels pretty good/realistic to me. Having been on a smallish (~72 feet) wooden boat with a deep displacement hull (a trawler) in 2-6' seas, I can confirm the vessel rolls and pitches a fair bit as the sea size increases (the vessel barely notices 1-2' seas but begins to jump around more as the waves increase in height and steepness). In Naval Action, Lynx, Snow, and other similarly sized vessels behave similarly. But larger ships will laugh at such small waves. Naval Action feels this way to me. Ships like Victory or Bellona barely pitch or roll in choppy seas, only the groundswell is really noticed. Feels ok. Here are Naval Action's graphics (fairly high/ultra settings, a few things tweaked down when I detected no noticeable difference in quality, I also have a reshade program applied):
×
×
  • Create New...