Fargo
-
Posts
553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Fargo
-
-
2 hours ago, Borch said:
It's like i would ask, why are you able to get from Navasse to Kingston in the time a casual is doing his mission to be attacked straight after. This works both ways.
I dont think there is solution that suits all in this case. Only way is to either slow everything down to in battle speed or get rid of instances. Both are inpossible to do.
Its always realism vs. gameplay. You could argue the other way round that after a battle you should gain a significant speed boost, cause a 75 minute battle would have lasted only one minute in OW time, so you need to catch up 74 minutes in this case. This would be a realistic compromise, but in terms of gameplay it makes no sense. Denying compressed players to wait for players leaving real time is realistic and does not affect gameplay in a negative way.
-
1 hour ago, Skully said:
You wish to intercept enemies in friendly waters by giving them a free ticket home?
Do you see the contradiction, or is it just me?
Thats not what i said. I explained myself, if you dont agree with my points pls refer directly to them.
-
10 minutes ago, Skully said:
Free ticket home for any ganker. Perfect.
Exactly. Its enough time needed to sail there, find a fight, and fight a single battle for up to 2 hours.
If youre complaining about ganking, help fixing the real issues that are promoting gank tactics. Fixing ganking with counterganking is a very stupid idea. Making use of strenght advantages is no ganking btw, but a valid tactic.
13 minutes ago, Skully said:It's called enemy waters for a reason, because you are not in command of the sea.
If your whole nation is sitting in the capital, why should there be any magic risk to hunt in this waters.
What we need is possibilities to intercept enemies in friendly waters. Its near impossible with current mechanics, even if you surrounded the enemy.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, admin said:
Captains
Due to addition of safe zones and reinforcement fleets around capitals and due to changed status of many free towns lets discuss invisibility and speed boost.
Invisibility was implemented to reduce revenge fleets. In the new design hunting around enemy capitals will be very hard.
Cities that will be controlled by clans should be protected by their own player driven defence fleets that should have a chance to destroy the potential harassers. As a result we see no benefits in keeping invisibility as they allow a very safe escape option limiting pvp opportunities.Discuss.
Safe zones dont make any sense. What about reducing the mission jump timer and not spawning enemies joining right on top of you? What about tweaking stuff that is currently promoting ganking so heavily? Youre again not fixing the cause of the problem.
Regarding invisibility, i think as long as its exploitable for surprise attacks, i would prefer teleport to closest friendly/neutral port. If thats no option speedboost should be removed atleast.
But something has to deny revenge fleets. Its not realistic and 90% gameplay is stupid and boring for both sides. Thinking that this is a PvP opportunity is shortminded. Less people are going to risk ships in enemy waters when its likely to loose a ship to revenge ganks, and when a PvP session in general requires more time. Less people would play in general when PvP becomes more stupid.
Adding safe zones and allowing revenge ganks again would equal two steps backwards aiming for a plausible game.
-
16 hours ago, z4ys said:
When people complain the game is a full time job, it is maybe not because things take to long to do maybe it's because things are not fun to do.
Exactly. Making things easier and easier wont improve bad mechanics, people would stop playing even faster.
This topic is a great example how the majority of people has no clue what they are talking about. There not even are any long time goals, but people want faster progress. Players own gold and assets worth millions, but complain about expensive ships. Whats that logic?!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, admin said:
we would happily add skill books and other items to pvp loot if we find a way to avoid farming them on alts or friends by sinking cheap ships nonstop.
Dont you think that if its worth to sink your own ships for upgrades/skills, something seems to be seriously broken?!
Why did you include cheap "throwaway" ships?! There is not a single reason for that. If you want to improve the situation for new players, just increase their income! Valuable ships are required to deny trolling, such abuses, for fun and balanced PvP in general.
-
On 15.8.2017 at 1:09 PM, Ubba Ivarsson said:
PVE Missionen instand closed
Das Problem ist dass Leute sich dann in Missionen verstecken können. Aber man könnte den join timer einfach auf eine Minute setzen und wenn keine Feinde sichtbar sind wird auch keiner joinen.
Feindliche Schiffe die nach Minuten joinen sollten vllt. auch nicht direkt auf einem spawnen.
Hätte nach dem ersten Tag gefixed sein können, jetzt gucken wir schon auf Monate. Das ist inakzeptabel.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, admin said:
yes
friendly clans lists for port battle entry
hostility missions
safe zones
reinforcements
taxation (maybe)Why are serious issues not addressed that take away all fun, especially from PvP?
Increase upgrade droprates. Go back to 1 repair per battle for now. Remove speedcap. Tweak obviously imbalanced stuff. Etc. Just simple fixes, that already should have happened weeks ago.
Instead youre thinking about safezones now?! Another example how youre trying to fix something, avoiding to deal with the real causes of the problem. Safezones wont make NA more fun again, and wont stop new players leaving the game. How do you explain that new players in the past didnt quit, without safezones?! Your only "argument" is "we think it will be good"?! You should rethink your way of decisionmaking, and focus on improving the actual causes of several problems.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Knuddel said:
Das Hauoptproblem ist das nach 3 min das Gefecht zugeht. Das Würde ich abschaffen. Wenn irgendwo gekäpft wird reinspüringen bis der Artz kommt, wenn jemand raus springt sollte der nächste nachjoinen können. Was meint ihr wie lange da noch gegankt (oder es versucht) wird? Wäre mal ein lösungsansatz.
48 minutes ago, Quineloe said:Natürlich. Problem ist halt, Fir Fir ist das billigste was du bauen kannst, hat keine ausreichenden Nachteile im Kampf (die Boni auf Wenderate sind meines Erachtens ein Riesenfehler) und wird auch von Fir Fir Schiffen kaum gefangen. Meines Erachtens sollte Fir Fir entweder schwere Nachteile bekommen, oder das schnellste Holz sollte ein teures Holz werden.
Ihr seid auf dem Holzweg. Über timer brauchen wir garnicht zu diskutieren, die sind sehr gut begründet und müssten wahrscheinlich sogar kürzer sein.
Wenn du Fir mit anderen Hölzern vergleichst, erkennst du dass die Gesamtwertigkeit viel zu gering ist, das heißt die Nachteile sind schon viel zu heftig. In einem Fir Schiff hast du also garkeine andere Wahl als zu ganken, d.h. jeglichen ausgeglichenen Kampfsituationen aus dem Weg zu gehen.
Schwächere Schiffe, oder einzelne Schiffe als Gruppe festzunageln ist kein ganken, sondern eine ganz normale und logische Taktik. Das Problem ist bloß dass Leute nichts anderes mehr machen. Das hat verschiedene Gründe, unter anderem das schlechte Balancing für Hölzer und Schiffe. Dazu kommen dann völlig unlogische Reparatur, RoE- und Fluchtmechaniken, OP chasers, etc. Wenn es Jägern erlaubt ist jeglichen unvorteilhaften Kampfsituationen aus dem Weg zu gehen, ist doch klar dass keine ordentlichen Kämpfe mehr Zustande kommen.
Vor diesem Hintergrund werden auch sichere PvE Zonen nichts verbessern. Leute hören auf zu spielen, weil NA keinen Spaß macht und wenig Motivation bietet. Wer NA kauft erwarte außerdem einen gewissen Realismus und keine künstlichen Safezones. Aber war ja klar dass wieder versucht wird Leute einfach so lange zu halten bis kein Refund mehr möglich ist, anstatt zu versuchen das Spiel wirklich zu verbessern und an ordentlichen Mechaniken und Balancings zu arbeiten.
10 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:Die Coast Guard funktioniert nur dann wirksam, wenn sie bereits auf See ist, sobald ein feindliches Schiff in die Gewässer eindringt. Genau das ist das Problem. Es müssen immer Coast Guard Schiffe patroullieren, ohne dass die Spieler überhaupt wissen, ob da demnächst einer angreifen will oder nicht.
Wenn einfach genug Spieler vorhanden und in deinen Gewässern unterwegs sind, hast du automatisch eine Coastguard. Wenn dazu viele Feinde in deinen Gewässern unterwegs sind, hast du automatisch viele Freunde in der Gegend patrollieren. Theoretisch. Da man schnelle Schiffe nicht abfangen kann versuchts halt auch keiner mehr.
-
3 hours ago, Tiedemann said:
I never understood why the tag timer is 15 sec.. IMO it is a way to high and the way this tag timer works is just a clumsy game mechanic that is preventing good PvP.
The battle should happen instantly when the attack button is pressed. The tag circle could be made a bit smaller to aid the defender and als o ensure better tags in general. Then we all get to waist less time on bad tags.
I dont understand it either.
Think about it from a neutral position not beeing used to tag timers that have always been there. When i have OW and battle instances and the question is when the instance should open, why should i do timers at all? A real battle would start at a certain distance when atleast one ship is willing to fight. So why not just do it like this.
39 minutes ago, The Red Duke said:But cool beans. Worth a test.
You should really be able to explain why timers are there. Or do you want to tell this mechanic is in the game for years now without any reasoning? So why is it better than a distance based system, or possible further alternatives? Youre refusing realism/the most plausible solution, so there should be a good gameplay or coding related reason.
Then similar ideas got proposed already. I also proposed to base the whole RoE on distance some time a go already. Got ignored ofcourse.
31 minutes ago, rediii said:What you get with a smaller tag time is that defencetags are stupdly easy and gankers which dont have to fear anything right now will laugh even more in future.
Dont be so short minded. Reduce the spawn distance, and defensive tags are no problem anymore, no matter how the tag mechanic looks like.
-
4 minutes ago, Hodo said:
That is to simulate the "surprise" factor where someone got the element of surprise on his opponent. Like came out of a fog bank, or was able to close the distance before the crew was able to beat to quarters.
There is a lot that has to happen before a ship of this area is at action stations status.
This totally makes sense... not.
When a ship chases me for several minutes in the OW already, there is no surprise factor. Especially when there is no fog.
-
12 hours ago, koltes said:
1. Tagging is changed so you can only initiate tag if target is in front of your ship (not behind), thus solves an issue of faster ships not being able to catch slower ships due to defensive tags leading to repeated tagging battle after battle. Maybe closest distance limit circle added that even if you drop on top of the target you still some distance away;
Why not simply spawn the two ships that are initiating combat always at the same distance? Then we dont need to change the tagging. I thinks its very reasonable to start battles always slightly within cannon range, thats also when real battles would have begun. The exact distance needs to be discussed ofcourse. I dont see the point why ships should spawn close to each other, and even without cannons loaded.
-
17 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:
Fargo, you DO realize the penalty for speed is HP, right? That BALANCE.
I'll never understand why these big-ship captains allow themselves to be tagged when the other ship is right on top of them... If I have to work my way up to a Connie in a speed Surprise, I'm as good as dead...
Have you looked at this balancing? I have. In short, fast builds are way too weak, heavy builds are way too slow. Bermuda planks were bad already, but teak/bermuda was atleast a decent compromise between speed and combat capability. Now even this is no option anymore.
What can the connie do? Trying to cut your top masts before you get close is probably her best option. Good luck with that if youre not experienced. And the surp is loaded with sail repairs.
-
1 minute ago, Hodo said:
So if I dont have the advantage before the fight, I wont try and force the advantage. I will just leave.
Nobody is blaming you for that. The problem is that game mechanics allow you to avoid all combat you want to avoid. You might be happy with it, but for a game that more or less only is about naval combat that is really bad. Nobodys asks for fair fights, but this is heavily promoting unfair fights.
-
2 minutes ago, Hodo said:
Even if I am out in my Snow I wont fight a fair fight, I will seek every advantage I can get before the fight to assure victory. But I guess my BR 50 Snow with chasers is a gank ship... even though all I have sank has been LGVs, Navy Brigs, and other Snows. But I guess because everything that thing has sunk has been bigger BR or equal to mine I am a gank ship.
As i said, thats a valid tactic. But its a difference between just seeking an advantage, and systematically avoiding every combat without advantage. If youre systematically searching for bad players e.g., only picking those fights, i would call it a gank. No matter what your mindset is, just that people are allowed to do this without any risk is bad for gameplay. It sucks to be attacked by bad players that fall on every trick, and they dont get punished. You cant win anything, in the best case you just loose nothing.
-
5 minutes ago, Liquicity said:
So sinking a ship in a 5v1 is not a gank; but capping a ship in that 5v1 is? huh
You cant distinguish it no matter if the ship is sank or capped. The question is what happens when 4 ships join and it becomes an even 5v5.
-
2 minutes ago, Vllad said:
Is it a gank ship when those fast agile ships are incapable of actually combating any sort of tank ship? Sure they can tag you and get you into combat but they can't actually sink you if everything else is equal.
Aren't gank ships based on your definition only really good at sinking other gank ships? If that is true then why call them gank ships? Why not just call them fast ships? You make it sound like there is one specific build out there that is killing everyone. Is that actually true?
Their are ships that are really good at escaping, however escaping is not really the same as ganking is it? You can make Pickles and Cerbs that will out run Surprises and stern camp them to boot.
Ofcourse they are. Rake down a tanky ship, sink or capture it. The tankier/slower your ship, the faster youre dead.
No, and how shall they catch them? Defensive tag, speedboost, gone.
No, but i said its also not capable of fighting anymore. You cant catch a surprise in a cerb or pickle. Ofcourse you can use a fast cerb for ganking, but why when there are way better ships.
21 minutes ago, Vllad said:Fair enough. So what is a gank?
The OP says we should get rid of it but if it can't be defined how does one remove it?
It doesnt matter how you define it for you, but it matters when certain tactics affect gameplay for everyone in a very negative way. When everyone is avoiding even combat, only picking easy targets, and you cant do something about it, thats a problem no matter how you name it.
-
6 minutes ago, Vllad said:
Define a gank ship.
Read further. Fast and agile, with chasers, not capable of competing in combat, built for escaping.
-
Sorry, but these ideas of BR based restrictions are nonesense. Groups of players outnumbering you is not a problem but a viable tactic. It just becomes annoying when people only use specific gank ships, start to run from every even fight, and nobody is able to catch those groups. To prevent this, think about mechanics that arent favouring those ships and tactics.
Wood types are imbalanced. As a result fast ships loose all combat capability and there are no other choices. Laser guided sternchasers let you escape easily with those ships. OP repairs on one hand allow you to escape very easily, on the other hand they compensate your hull weakness while youre aiming for crew and boarding. Too powerful boarding mods also increase efficiency of those ships. Etc.
-
Either description, or boni are the wrong way round. F11ed it already.
-
1
-
-
I would remove all repairs from the battle inctance. Since we have repairs its a very simple system that gets abused. Invulnerability while sailing with 0 hull until you repair. Imbalanced repair mods. Run and repair tactics now.... Like OP says, when you beat a fast ship, he simply turns away and repairs sails. He can even keep you in battle for 10 mins to repair hull again. When you simply increase the timers, such fights would last even longer. I recently watched a PB stream and the amount of armour ships are able to repair with mods is still ridiculous. I guess repair mods still increase total percentages. While many are complaining about the actual speed meta, note that the actual repair system increases the importance of speed by alot.
If repairs, then with a serious drawback. Make repairs only possible in battle sails e.g., many problems would be solved. Also repair mods should not relate to the total HP. When 25% is default, a +10% mod should make it 27,5%, not 35%. Also repairs should not be able to repair anything back to 100%. Repairs in battle were alway improvisations not able to reach the original quality. It could be capped at 90% for example.
It would make sense to regenerate a small amount of crew and cannons over time, but not simply back to 100% via hull repair or "repair crew" button.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Hodo said:
This is what I see happen with the Victory Marks.
Youve seen that i made this topic to think about a fair victory mark system, not rewarding alts?;) Comment on it, or let it be, but posts like this arent helpful.
1 hour ago, Jean Ribault said:I made a suggestion in a different thread for balancing out the Victory points so that it doesn't favor large nations or those that sit on ports. It should favor those nations with activity, and encourage large nations to fight each other. I like your ideas in 5 and 7 above. However, item 1 seems to contradict item 7, because casual players with limited time cannot focus on both things simultaneously with enough effort to gain anything of substance.
This suggestion is about a fair way to distribute Victory Marks within a nation, to promote PvP and RvR for the nation by rewarding players doing PvP and RvR. How conquest points work, or how many marks each nation should get, is a different topic i think.
Its not contradicting, cause its not ment to force you into crafting. Reputation from those ships should be very minor compared with what you get from PvP and RvR. Its only ment to promote the shipbuilders to craft more for the nation.
-
I think the idea of rewarding each player of a nation depending on the nations success is genius, cause it could promote PvP, RvR, and acting for the nation in general. But just handing x Victory Marks to each player is way to simple... Its not fair, cause some players did more, some did less, some did nothing, and some are alts. Its not rewarding individual actions. Players are promoted to join successful nations, not to do more PvP and RvR. Especially for new players free tradable marks equal lots of free money.
How it could work:
1: Measure individual effort. Keep it simple. Take the kill counter, and extend it to "amount of BR sank/captured in PvP". Participation in a port battle provides extra boni. Maybe call it "National reputation points". Optional reputation gain for specific PvP could be increased, for example within your nations area (coast guard gets rewarded), or while a PB is active to reward screeners more.
2: Multiply Victory Mark costs and rewards. You cant hand out 0.25 marks, multiply all numbers by 100.
3: Bind marks, Permits and BPs to the character. The goal is to reward individual effort, not the rich guys and their alts sitting in port. Also people shouldnt be able to sell their marks or items only using marks, cause thats destroying the income-cost-balancing. It would make sense that ships including a permit cant be traded aswell.
4: Remove permits from shipbuilding. The current system only works with tradable marks. In general it would make most sense that each player cares for his own permits, not the shipbuilder selling the ships. Add an additional slot to place the permit in, without permit the ship cant leave port. To trade the ship, players need to delete the permit.
5: Fair distribution of marks. The winning nation gains a pool of 100 marks per active player (14 days). Each individual player gains Victory Marks = [player reputation / average reputation] * 100. I think other nations should be rewarded aswell with less marks per player, but thats another topic.
6: Balancing.
7: Think it further. Maybe reward economic actions aswell, to promote more people to craft for the nation. Each ship you crafted e.g. could grant a tiny amount of reputation when someone else (from your nation) sinks someone with it. I think we had this with XP already, did we? Should be easy to implement then.
Tell me if i missed something, if you see problems, or if you got other/further ideas. Thanks for reading!
-
1
-
-
1. Remove unnecessary/unreasonable mechanics:
- Why speedcap instead of reasonable ship/wood/upgrade/skill balancing?
- What is the current hostility system doin positive?
- Why marks instead of reasonable cost-income-balancing, or a reputation system (similar to marks, but reputation cant be traded)?
2. Improve ROE and escape mechanics:
- Why are ships still spawning and escaping right next to each other?
- Why is defensive tagging possible?
- Why are revenge ganks possible again?
- Why do we need BR limits to keep ships from starting unwinnable battles?
3. We dont need reduced ship cost yet, but a functional economy. Ship value/cost is affected by:
- Not existent material market. Why are people able to self supply everything?
- Rare upgrades. Why arent upgrades player crafted consumption goods using availiable/craftable resources?
- People cant buy their own permits. Why force shipbuilders to buy the permit for ships they are going to sell?
- Ships crafted with goods from the market include ~20% fee. Why are auctionhouselike fees punishing us for using the open market?
- Rare/expensive and imbalanced wood for frames and planks. Why are only 1-3 out of 9 wood types competetive for combat ships, why are those woods limited by NPC production?
- No trade with player related goods. Why is trading seperated from player economy via npc trade goods, instead of e.g. having different production rates and costs for different regions?
Invisibility poll
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Maybe i dont exactly understand what you mean. What exactly is your argument to allow revenge ganks?
In general the goal is not to please everyone or a majority, the goal is simply to develop a good (realistic) game. No matter how many people would like to revenge gank and to capture their ships back, it wont change anything. Its bad for the game, fact.
Sorry for offtopic, but Its just very inefficient to discuss such basic questions that should be beyond dispute. Battle entry has to be restricted, and for the same reason revenge fleets have to be denied. And btw., it would make even less sense to allow revenge fleets while battles are still closing, instead of just keeping battle entries open.