Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Fargo

Ensign
  • Posts

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fargo

  1. 26 minutes ago, jodgi said:

    Pretty much all players like to fight. Economy makes all but everyone super timid. You need rewards and whatnot to go fight. Whomever that loves eco; deal with it.

    Funny that if the PvP guys would be able to think out of their box, these would actually be the first arguing for a working economy. The quote in your sig is about motivation. So what is motivating people to PvP and RvR? Just cheap stuff and fast recovery? Whats the difference between PvP in NA and NAL? If an average guy just likes to fight, wouldnt he play NAL? PvP is supposed to have a purpose in NA, and a working economy would provide that. You dont PvP for fun, you fight to protect resources or to hurt the enemy economy. Meaningful gameplay, thats the major difference. PvP is the result of a functional OW environment, fixing that is the only way to make it work. And it should be obvious that this in general is what NA is supposed to offer.

    Prewipe we had extremely cheap stuff already, but people did not want to fight.This could have teached us something. Instead we reached nearly the same pop again and another wipe is probably necessary if we decide to fix/balance economy. Ridiculous that all you can think about still is ceaper stuff. But i dont wonder that discussions with persons still playing this mess 10 hours a day arent productive.

    If you want to improve, think about how EvE for example is able to motivate players to loose massive value in large battles. How is EvE able to keep its economy meaningful? What NA needs is serious professional game design. Pilings of opinions of players arguing selfish or not fully understanding what theyre talking about are leading nowhere. Month of time wasted with discussions about durability, not important and a simple logical decision, is a prime example. We wont ever make progress if we cant agree on 1+1=2, the most basic and fundamental stuff, and without a common picture of what final NA is supposed to look like.

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, Malachy said:

    Make some sense and maybe we can make some headway. We tried single durability now, it's a bad system compared to what we had. 

    The problem is you dont accept any sense contradicting youre believes. Every single argument you provide is based on wrong assumptions. We did not test one dura, because that would require a proper test environment. You cant blame one single variable for anything while dozens changed at the same time. Thats more than foolish. You dont need more than 2-3 ships in an outpost btw., and a working economy would never allow you to own such insane amounts of hulls. What youre saying about economy tops it all...

    Its such a joke what people are allowed to do in this forum. This topic is purely based on misacceptions. Have fun with this meaningful discussion guys. 

    • Like 1
  3. 6 minutes ago, Malachy said:

    Why have six ships with the exact same build sitting in port when you  can have 1 with multiple durability to accomplish the same task. No, dock space and durability are very linked. The devs didn't even want single durability, but a bunch of loud mouthed idiots pressured them into it. 

    I wonder who is the actual idiot here while youre still refusing to understand what im saying.

  4. 10 minutes ago, Grundgemunkey said:

    for once i agree with malachy but probably for different reasons  ... losing a ship with rare modules is a game breaker for some people .... the grind involved and time to aquire certain upgrades means the loss isnt worth the potential gains when  deciding to  fight  or not ....so they dont fight ... unless they see a certain win ... we all know the price of certain modules in the game ...most are not going to risk a ship with these modules in a 50/50 fight ...

    And what has upgrade availiability to do with durability?! As i said, when you change only durability without changing current balancings a 5 dura ship would require 15 upgrades. Why balance this with durability instead of just increasing upgrade drops or access to required resources?!

    Thinking that just cheap stuff would fix any issues is shortminded aswell, while the whole game from economy to conquest is simply not working. For riskfree but meaningless PvP most people are simply going to play NAL. 

  5. 6 hours ago, Malachy said:

    That's actually less hulls than we had before they changed to this dumbass single durability system I might add. So no, there is no response to that. 

    No doubt, but you still dont get the point. They intentionally changed that at the same time they changed durability. Same for ship cost. But one has nothing to do with the other! Its not task of durability to balance dock space, ship cost or anything else. When dockspace is a problem i change dockspace, when cost is a problem i change cost, and when transport is a problem i change towing.

    • Like 1
  6. Im just telling you that durability has nothing to do with any of your points. Youre talking about bringing durability back, not about bringing previous balancing back. Just changing duras wont do anything and to change something you dont need to change durability. Its just one of many variables and we have all freedom to set it to plausible values for the sake of realism.

    8 minutes ago, Malachy said:

    And I am all for ships costing more for more durability.

    And why not introduce rentable dockspace instead to achieve the same in a much better and so much more plausible way?! 

    • Like 1
  7. 5 hours ago, Malachy said:

    We've tested it as nausea, it's simply a chore to have to rebuild and refit every time you sink. From personal experience, I have a ship in every free port. If I lose one, I have to go back to Mortimer, rebuild a ship, find mods, install them and sail them all the way back. Back when we had multiple durability, I could be back in action pretty quick and having fun again. Now, though it's not hard to rebuild, it's a time sink that I don't have time for, so if I lose a ship I'm done for the day. Single durability has significantly reduced the number of battles a player can participate in. I'm all for realism but not at the expense of fun. 

    Bring back multiple durability. Let the ship builder decide how many a ship gets and for every extra pint it takes double the resources for a single point. These multi durability ships would be more expensive, but would stimulate the economy and be a larger gold sink for players who just want to fight and not spend their days in tedious monotony.

    When you just change durability this not only means ship cost has to increase. A 5 dura ship would occupy 5 dock slots. It would also require 15 upgrades. You wouldnt be able to store ships in every free port anymore. In general who decided that you should be able to settle in every free port!? Keeping one ship in each free port seems to be a bad way to handle it.

    Durability isnt doing anything. What youre referring to is balancing for upgrade availiability or ship cost, ship transport and dockspace. If economy would work the market would be full of good ships, no need to build yourself. Exponentially increasing cost with durability is comparable with rentable dockspace. Durability only effects competition (less ships on the market) and the entry cost while you have to buy/craft and fit multiple ships at once. 

  8. 14 minutes ago, victor said:

    After the mega summer patch, PVE mission paid very low rewards and there were no safe zone ... and, BAM, the server begun bleeding players a a very fast pace.

    Whats youre problem with the summer patch/wipe?! Youre obviously reperesenting extreme PvE views, purely cherrypicking whatever fits your picture to justify youre position. We saw this in multiple threads now. You cannot say that a specific change caused anything while several changes happened, and its very unlikey that youre right when you cant even provide proper logic. 

    Current numbers are nearly as low as prewipe again with insane rewards and safezones, even after a sale. How explain this?! What we can say is that something is not essential when the game is working without it. NA worked without safe zones already, and with way less rewards. Why ignore?! How do you explain that people dont happily sink each other outside the safe zones while assets lost all value again?! For comparison, to drag 1mio gold out of the game someone needs to sink 3-4 bucentaures or 7-9 5th rates. 

    How is economy supposed to work in your oppinion?! What do you think why every other game takes care of inflation, even games without a serious economy like WoW, WoWs or WoT?!

  9. 1 minute ago, Intrepido said:

    I can assure you that a review telling "lack of content" wont attract potential buyers.

    I can assure you that nobody is going to blame a sandbox game for the lack of specific content, unless they directly promote "exiting PvE content" on the box. Currently you wont find a single word about PvE content, therefore people wont expect it. Sure it would be positive to have it, but its not negative to not have it. 

  10. 4 minutes ago, Malachy said:

    You are so wrong, I don't know where to start, so I won't. The only statement I'll address is your last one. almost every professional pvper on the server is speed capped and most of the carebears who play at pvp are too. You need to get out more.

    I dont claim to know this, i just read what people say, i have tools to calculate speeds, i looks whats likely. It became definitely pretty hard to reach speedcap for many vessels without upgrades and specific books. I think liq said hes not using speedcapped ships anymore. You just told me that most wasas arent speedcapped. Slim just said this.

    On 20.11.2017 at 8:30 PM, Slim Jimmerson said:

    No ship will even reach 15.5 knts without stacking sail force bonus mods. That's what we should be looking at

    Im using simple logic, therefore it should be pretty simple to point out flaws. And im not the one going defense claiming to know what youre arguing for.

  11. On 20.11.2017 at 8:08 PM, Malachy said:

    I'd like to go come out and pvp with me so that you can learn the error of your statements. Even if two ships have the same speed, they have different points of sail which adds quite abit of variety. A Connie and trinc could always take on a surprise. Speed will always be king because the main point of combat in this game is to secure the wind advantage. As long as some ships are neutered and unable to keep up, they will never be competitive. Watch the aloha vs  exile battle on liquicitys stream. That demonstrates completely how speed controls a fight. Our two indes were much heavier and slower and their little frigates won pretty easily by controlling the fight. Slow ships will never have an advantage no matter how tough or maneuverable you make them. Fast ships will jockey for position, obtain the position and take down sails. Once they have your sails down, a heavy ship is a setting duck. Why do you think it's so easy to take a first rate out with a 4th or 5th rate? It's speed. 

    Ow pvp is working better now than it has ever worked. Bringing back 17 knot endymions and surprises would set this game back months and ruin all the positive progress we have made. 

    I would be more than willing to demonstrate the flaws in your argument in person, either opposing you or sailing with you. Sounds like you need to spend more time pvping under new mechanics instead of rehashing old flawed arguments about why some ships should be more powerful than others. Speed is king and always will be. Now pvp is more about recognizing and understandings how to defeat your opponents sailing profile. No more ships avoid battle now than they did in the past. The difference is with the caps, more ships are viable now and the previously overpowered ones are in line with everything else. A surprise can still escape upwind, but it's not gonna chase down a Connie downwind too. That's the most important change the speedcaps bring. Anyone who wants speed caps removed wants to bring back the old meta and an artificial advantage they lost. Ships are on a much more even footing now than they have ever been. Pvp abit more. Sail with some good folks. It helps.

    You probably dont get my point and im not willing to continue discussion once again about obvious nonesense. Its disgusting that players even defend stuff like this. Im not saying that it was much better before, and just removing speedcap alone wont fix the gank meta. Defensive tagging is there since i can think for example, the same level of nonesense.

    "The difference is with the caps, more ships are viable now and the previously overpowered ones are in line with everything else." -  I explained why this has nothing to do with variety, this is not a valid answer.

    Ofcourse speed is currently controlling the fight, thats why im trying to tell you how this can be changed. Think out of your box. And im not talking about slow heavy ships. How efficient you can take down sails on distance is also just a variable, you dont win the fight this way, and i can do the same with your sails. I could just sit there, turn my sails 90° and wait for you, because you are the aggressor. Fixing defensive tagging also means that ships spawn closer to each other. Control instead of tagging means you cant sail on max distance and use heel to shoot me while i cant shoot you.

    Sailing profiles just became messed up with all ships speedcapped. The surprise with 12.3 base speed is not a very fast ship, but it has a superior sailing profile. Speedcap takes away the downwind disadvantage, ships with good upwind profiles became OP. The surprise can escape everything upwind, and nothing can catch anything downwind, thats what speedcap brings. 

    As i told you, the reason its much better again is that many ships arent speedcapped anymore since they nerved upgrades and raised the cap. Ships not able to reach speedcap equals removing speedcap. 

  12. 25 minutes ago, TheHaney said:

    Not a fan of the idea. Nerfing essentially the only active PvE content in the game is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

    You do realise that economy is dead already, because people earn 10+ times more money/value than they sink?! Rewards and money sinks have to be balanced no matter if we like it or not. 

    Nobody is going to be attracted by meaningless NPC trading seperated from actual economy, no matter how you push the rewards. Sure you can include "trade marks" lets say to buy mods and books and people would start trading. But forcing players into dumb gameplay would make it even worse. The fun part of trading is not carrying goods from A to B for good rewards, but to interact with the market based on supply and demand.

    Attracting people that enjoy economic gameplay would bring much life to NA. Realise how many people play games like eve for this reason. And we saw purely economic focussed players already in the early NA, while this is effecting any average player expecting slightly more than pretty ships and combat, currently unlikely to start NA.

    • Like 3
  13. 1 hour ago, Malachy said:

     

    No, people used Surprises for month. Whats the point then to use Indef or trinc over Connie, or Frigate over Pirate Frigate?! Maybe they buffed those ships, equaling out turnrate in addition?! Reno is a worse ship even in teak compared with a fir surprise.

    Why dont just give all ships same base speed for maximum "variety"?! Thats nonesense, so is speedcap. Its not variety if all those "different" ships are speedcapped, build in the same way and have similar specs. How much decisionmaking is involved here?!

    Speed grants some control in OW and battle besides beeing a combat stat and is always going to be important, but it must never control the fight. And thats exactly what speedcap does, pushing the value of speed to extremes. We should do the opposite and try to reduce the meaning of speed. If you cant fully repair inside a battle, speed wont lets you escape when you messed up. If slower ships can intercept you, speed looses value. If smaller ships are by default faster than larger ships, speed looses meaning. Speed is not that great anymore once youre in an actual fight. Since your fastest connie is going to be catched by fast smaller vessels and outruns all other 4th rates nevertheless, there is no need anymore to go for max speed. Then balancing is possible. Variety is achieved when people start to make decisions how much speed they need at cost of manouverability or firepower. Brainlessly maxing out speed has nothing to do with this. 63 wood combinations, dozens of upgrades and skills. Assume those would be balanced, do you realise that it makes 99% of this redundant?!

    I can just point out the obvious again. OW PvP is not working when ships are all the same speed and enemies have to agree to fight each other.

  14. 10 minutes ago, Malachy said:

    Right now there is lots of variety in pvp, when there were no speed caps everyone were in renomees, surprises, and endy. The results of speed capping is easily observed. And I for one like and support having dozens of ships pvp viable.

    It was a pure surprise meta after the cap... I dont know the current situation, but thats hard to believe reading about speedcapped Wasas. If something improved then because they nerved speed boni and increased the speedcap -> made the speedcap less important.

  15. 3 hours ago, Malachy said:

    Removing speed cap will have everyone in the fastests ships in minutes. I prefer variety to cookie cutter ships.

    Please dont start this disussion again. Equaling out conditions has absolutely nothing to do with variety. Variety is a result of balanced options. Speedcap simply reduces these options?! Balance ships, frames and planks if you want more variety. And reduce the OPness of speed, in the first place by removing this magical cap granting sanctity, messing up all general ship balancing. Youre not only lacking an explanation how exactly this should lead to more variety, reality proved that its not working.

  16. 8 minutes ago, Capn Rocko said:

    And how do they know our ships are not fir? 

    This screen shot is just one example, not a blanket statement. These situations reoccur every day (often times with me in a fir ship) 

    What do you suggest should be done @Fargo? Or do you think that battles should only be fought 3v1? 

    How do they know they are. If they are its still a risk that they dont have to take.

    Well, balance frames and planks?!^^ Most importantly nerv escaping: Remove speedcap. Remove defensive tagging. Restrict repairs. Allow ships to intercept an close enemy. Nerv 100% accurate chasers. Control as a default mechanic. It should be obvious that open world PvP cannot work when ships are not able to force each other into battle. Besides that this all is simple, logical and fair.

    Its neglectable how battles are fought, its important that they are fought.

  17. 6 minutes ago, Capn Rocko said:

    The biggest problem I am running into is players retreating from 1v1 and 2v2 battles. If players are scared of evenly-matched fights, then there is something fundamentally wrong with this game (or the collective mentality). I think this suggestion would go a long way in encouraging fair fights and should be implemented asap. 

    On paper its a fair fight, but if these ships are fir they are exponentially weaker than any teak ship. Fir is heavily imbalanced, its not a fair payoff of hullstrenght for speed even if you define speed as extremely valuable. Such ships are made for escaping, what game mechanics allow and support. Thats ganking. Reducing rewards isnt fixing any of those issues...

  18. 1 minute ago, The Red Duke said:

    Not entirely fals nor entirely true. The RN captains were expected to engage and prevail against superior ships. But there's too much in between and we cannot really look to history given we do not have a Navy/Naval career system.

    When there is a 3v1 situation, no admiralty would tell you to engage one by one or to ignore the target because the fight is not fair. This doesnt mean that you should run from a 3v4.

    • Like 1
  19. 12 hours ago, Havelock said:

    For the realism crowd: PvP marks are given to you by the admiralty. If you sink a smaller ship theyll be like "yeah cool, keep doing yer job mate" but if you sink a superior ship youll probably get some medal for bravery = more marks.

    Gold is also given to you by the admiralty... Yes it makes sense for a reputation system, but PvP marks dont represent that. Usually you cant sell your reputation for millions and its gone then, its a reward. In terms of rewards the admiralty would never promote high risk, but to keep losses as low as possible.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...