Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

William Death

Members
  • Content Count

    743
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,484 Excellent

2 Followers

About William Death

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    At Sea

Recent Profile Visitors

2,981 profile views
  1. Instead of tying it to nations, why not tie it to clans? It will move us one step closer to the clan-based system this game needs to thrive, and one step further away from paper nations with troll/rogue clans.
  2. Regardless of whether or not he was sinking due to fire/structural leaks, his tag timer ought to have been reset, given the number of hits (13 sail hits in quick succession from a broadside) he sustained into rig. A player who can land 13 hits from 24 and 36lb cannons into your rig whilst you're on fire and leaking is not trolling you--not the way a ship kiting at max range keeping you in battle is trolling you. Is there a published number available about how much % damage needs to be done in order to keep a ship tagged? Is there a time limit to do this % damage? (EX: 5% damage within 20 seconds.) Can we get a more detailed description about how this mechanic works with the numerical thresholds?
  3. Better not tell the gun captains who were trained to do just that.
  4. Ok, you're trying to paint mechanics that are working as intended as hacks/cheats/exploits. That is just ridiculous. Furthermore, the post from me you quoted has nothing that you can "disagree" with. I stated facts about game mechanics, and quoted numbers from base stats of ships and cannons. There are no opinions in that post for you to disagree with. You can dislike the facts, but as of this time, that is how the game handles demasting. If you want to make the argument that masts should be a little tougher, then sure thats a valid argument. But it is also not what you stated, because demasting is no hack. It is historical, and it is modeled as a mechanic in this game. You actually can see the damage. You can look at your masts and see hit indicators on them where they were hit. Two caveats: chainshot can cause these hit indicators, and hits that don't pen can also cause them. Pay attention to the shots going into your masts. Furthermore, it is simple arithmetic (as I explained in my earlier post) to know how many hits it will take from a certain cannon to down your mast. It is up to you, the captain, to make a judgement call about the range of your enemy, his ship build and cannons, and if he can hurt your masts at that range. All this requires you to pay attention. You can't focus only on putting damage in your enemy, you have to focus on keeping your ship alive too. This, I agree with. At least in certain shallow ships, you can build for strong masts and still get demasted without a problem. On the other hand, I don't really sail shallow water ships besides Surprise/Reno/Pandora enough to truly care . (And those three I listed do quite well when you run premium mast mods) But, I've been saying it for years now, increase mast HP, reduce thickness, limit repairs. It'll make demasting harder to do (and a more risky tactic), but also very rewarding if you succeed.
  5. It is not an exploit. It is a function of the mast's HP and thickness. If your cannons can penetrate the mast thickness, then the mast HP is reduced by the amount of damage that cannonball does. So...for a 32lb carronade cannonball with 108 base damage, into a Surprise mast with 421 base HP....thats about 4 or 5 hits depending on mods and wood type. You don't have to be "certain" people to do this. Anyone can. I suggest you research game mechanics a bit before you start accusing people of exploiting.
  6. If you want the most accuracy, you do have to wait some time for the sector to shrink. This is most noticeable when using carronades shoot masts with single shots. Also keep in mind the time compression we have in battles. If my memory from reading historical accounts is reliable, ~60s to reload a 42lb long is far faster than historically correct. It logically follows that guns could traverse faster as well. The fix for demasting is the same as its been for years: lower mast thickness, increase mast HP. Limit repairs to one hull one sail. Make going for masts a risky choice. It'll take a while to knock a mast down and your enemy has plenty of time to shred your sides. High reward should come with high risk.
  7. DLC pack with the old user interface. Yes, the old blue interface with white/grey text, and no icons or decorative features. The old UI was fast and very easy to manage, especially if you were a crafter.
  8. I disagree. I've played steadily since 2016. For at least half of that time, we had names in OW. I noticed no change in the amount of PvP I got. Or the amount of times people ran from me in OW, or tagged me in OW. No change. Sure, some people tried to avoid me, but I could usually force a fight, due to better positioning, or ship stats, or whatever. Sure, I avoided some players sometimes. But thats part of the fun. You see a really good player bearing down on you with the advantage, time to run for all you're worth. ..and.. The issue I have with tagging someone into battle, judging their rank, and then deciding to let them go is this: I've wasted my time: I chased him down in OW, when I could have moved past him and continued hunting. I tagged him into battle and have to wait out a timer Thats time I'm not in OW, able to see whats going on and maybe a better target will have sailed right past my battle. I'll never know because of the magic of instanced battles. Thats time for him to spam nation chat begging for a revenge gank to assemble. The wind waits for no captain. I'll be on a different point of sail when I leave. It may make my positioning less favorable to continue the hunt (or make my escape if the revenge fleet was already there). So we've established that I have the enemy in battle, he's not skilled, and I can have him sunk in a few minutes. Also, I've put my ship in peril by spending precious time in an instance while enemies could be swarming my position. And who's to say that player won't shadow me in OW if I leave, continually reporting my position to his revenge fleet? Its hard to convince me I should give up free points toward a PvP mission, plus some doubloons, logbooks, and maybe a loki rune; all for the sake of being a good sport. Not when it was so much easier to be a good sport when I could click and see "oh, that guy is a lieutenant commandant, I'll let him go about his business." See the issue? RE: the types of players who look for the low skilled players to sink: Yes, those type exist. We know them well. Having their names displayed only makes it easier for other nations to target. You've touched on a very important issue with Naval Action here. I've made several posts about it, as have many, many, many others throughout the years. Example: Lets say I run into one of my old friends who I know is very good. I think back to the times I dueled him, and how many times I won, vs how many times he won. We're close to evenly matched. I know I'm in a very expensive ship, I know he's in a very expensive ship. I don't want to risk my ship for this any more than he wants to risk his. We're too friendly to resort to calling in revenge ganks for each other, so we sail away with a salute. We're both slightly confident in respective selves that we'd have won (he that he'd have won, I that I'd have won), but we'll never know because neither of us is foolish enough to risk our kitted out ships to find out. Not when the rewards are so pitiful. In 2016/17 NA, on the other hand, with ships that were cheap, and mods that were plentiful and accessible by everyone (essentially meaning gear didn't matter since we all had equal everything), we'd have fought and had a great time. Didn't matter if one of us lost a ship and mods, a replacement was just a click away. (also durabilities were a thing then). Now whats the point? Risk everything for a screenshot and a notch on your PvP mission? Nah, my ship and mods are worth more than the rewards from many of those PvP missions. Essentially the problem is this: If you want to do well in PvP, and do more than just trade a kill for a kill, you need some skills, and some proper gear. The skills are something you pick up as you fight (win or lose), the gear is a combination of luck, time in the game, and your chosen in-game nation. Proper ships with proper competitive gear is expensive, and you're punished for taking any fight you don't win. So those good old edge of your seat fights with players of roughly equal skill, fighting it out like proper gentlemen don't happen nearly as often. And thats a shame. So, you're right, you can avoid any challenging fight and go for easy kills. Thats what the game rewards you for. But that is an issue that is far, far bigger than putting names back into open world.
  9. Because in a game like this, a name matters. If you are a fearsome captain, you have your reputation as a good player. You earned that. If you run from every fight, you have your reputation as a coward. You earned that. If someone is being abusive in chat, there are already methods in place to deal with that. Those people are dealt with. There is no room in Naval Action for the kind of toxicity that gets reported in tribunals. Ultimately, you choose your actions in the game. You can deal with the consequences. Thats the great thing about a sandbox like this. You can build your reputation. You can decide what kind of captain you'll be. (And, if it all becomes too much, you can forge some papers for a new identity). Also, I don't want to seal club some poor newbie who has no idea how to even manual sail, if I could instead sink the guy over there who's been in game for years and had plenty of time to build up his supply of ships. But with the current system, I wouldn't know. All I see is "enemy player." Maybe I'll end up tagging him and getting a decent fight, or maybe I'll be the 5th person to sink a new player in his first week, causing him to quit and never come back.
  10. Allow us to disable random fire in settings. Almost nobody uses it intentionally.
  11. Allow us to mount 2 bow and 2 stern chasers on all ships that don't have any chasers there. (Maybe just one bow chaser on the smallest ships like the 7th rates with their fine bows) Pros: It would increase the use of ships that are currently under-enjoyed, like Essex, Belle Poule, Pavel, and Cerberus. It levels the playing field among most of the ships. Ships that already had a strong chaser advantage like Trincomalee, Ingermanland, Wasa, Rattvisan, Christian, Wapen, etc, will still maintain that advantage. Its historically accurate (captains could move chasers from the broadside if they wanted to, or simply have their carpenter place some gunports in the bow). Larger ships sometimes have the caliber required to demast ships with their chasers. Chasers are useful for graping when you're close. Cons: It would allow people to troll in more ships. Imagine a fleet of Privateers and Navy Brigs trolling a shallow PB fleet. But since its been announced we're moving to a damage-based tagging mechanic, there's no need to really worry about this. People will complain that maybe some ships didn't show chasers on their plans. Go read the point above, and read some historical accounts about when captains would fit chasers to their ships to help chase their prey (or flee). Would require some modeling work on all the ships without chasers. I'm not a programmer so I don't know how much work this is, but I think its a worthwhile improvement to the game. Other comments: Despite moving to a damage-based tag-timer-reset mechanic, chasers are still important. Chipping a few percent off your enemy's sails as you chase can make the difference between catching or not catching him.
  12. All % mods apply to the base stats of the ship. L'Ocean base thickness is 76. 76*0.07=5.32. 101+5.32=106.32
  13. When did I say repair at 95%? I said repair when you get damaged. 95% is not truly damaged. Don't be obtuse. Again, what? How is it "overloading like a noob," if I don't struggle with speed (the only stat affected by carrying more repairs)? I complain about the feature because it promotes unskilled gameplay and allows for unrealistic battles. In fact, given the repair meta, I'd argue the only "noob" here, is the one who artificially limits himself to only repairing a few times in a battle out of some attempt to "play the game properly" by carrying only a few repairs and using them sparingly.
  14. Can't tell if trolling, or real question. 🤔 I'll answer as if it was a real question. (Even though its a bit off topic). "Manage when you press them" -You "press them" as often as you can. If you're damaged and your repair is not active or on cooldown, and you have more fighting left to do in that battle, you are wasting repair opportunities. "do you load your ship to the brim with repairs?" -Yes I do. As does anyone else with a decent understanding how battles go in this game. Minimum 4x uses of each repair. I usually carry far more than that, and delete a stack if I need to have a bit more speed. People who carry less tend to be the same people who complain about multiple battles causing them to run out of repairs. I've never run out of repairs except when I take a ship to the patrol zone. Taking lots of repairs with me hasn't hurt me yet, only helped. Repairs are not skill. The only "skill" argument you can make regarding them is in regards to deciding whether to do a rig or hull repair if you're in a battle where you're taking damage in both areas. That part is skill. But you no longer have to apply skill to prevent taking damage as much because you get infinite repairs. Its forgiving. It doesn't emphasize real battle skill and tactics. Compare that to when you only got one of each, you were very careful that when you traded your HP away, you got something worthwhile in return. If I gave away 1/4 of my side HP to the enemy, knowing I couldn't get it back; then I made sure I took 250 crew or 30% sails that he wasn't getting back in exchange. Back on topic again: Trolling bad, chasing a ship to a meaningful end is good. How do we get rid of the first, without getting rid of the second? Constant damage done doesn't seem like the right way to do that. It just seems like yet another mechanic that will shave away a bit more skill from the game. Just like unlimited repairs did.
  15. I still really dislike the "new" damage model. I dislike the insane bonuses available from wood/mod/book stacking. I loathe multiple repairs. All of this promotes low-skill gameplay. I spoke out about it when it was released. I spoke out about it until maybe a few months ago when I read a post from admin that said he'd be ignoring further complaints about those things and not making major changes there. There's no point in voicing complaints when it is stated that the changes you want to happen aren't going to happen. I still maintain that 2016/2017 NA had the most emphasis on skill, and provided me with the most fun battles. I'd gladly buy a DLC version of that game again . I know a number of other players who feel the same way. Rest assured our complaints haven't gone silent out of enjoyment of the new mechanics. They've gone silent because we got tired of arguing for a lost cause. Removing chases from the game (effectively what will happen when you force damage to be done to keep someone in battle) won't ruin the game. It'll just remove another layer of skill and depth of combat from the game. Why bother understanding the advantages of positioning, tacking early, and pulling away to repair when you have to sail in close and spam broadsides to keep your enemy from disappearing from battle? Less skill. Why bother learning the tactics of spreading damage around when you get to press 5-1 every 12 minutes and regenerate half your ship's health? Less skill. The game isn't going to be ruined by this patch. But it will not be as fun, or as skill-based, if these changes are made.
×
×
  • Create New...