Fargo
-
Posts
553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Fargo
-
-
@JollyRoger1516 Would it be allowed to set an "important:" note in the steam description saying that you dont want multiple accounts and you would punish violations with perm banns? Behind this a link to a formular for people playing on the same IP. If you bought a second copy accidentally you would still have the 2 weeks refund. This would at least limit the number of alts.
For NA in general there is no real problem with some alts around like we have it now. But imagine, after some steam sales e.g., 50% using alts. Then we would notice this. Assume 2k players playing and sinking ships, but actually 3k players producing stuff. They would need to adjust some balancing, e.g. the labour generation/palyer. This wouldnt be in favour of single account users. Ofcourse purely hypothetical and dependant on eco mechanics, but it is a risk you take keeping mulit accouts legal after release. Reviews saying nice game, but you need to buy two copies would discourage lots of people from buying.
Another option would be an abo model. The problem now is the longer you play the more value/money you get out of an alt. Monthly cost would make alts probably not worth the money for most players.
-
29 minutes ago, JollyRoger1516 said:
1. I am. I have no alt account and in the last 4 weeks I have crafted about 11x 1st rates. That comes down to about one 1st rate every 2.5 days! I think that is pretty good for somebody who has to bring in his own resources and has no alt account. Bear in mind while that does take some time you'd still have to ferry resources around the place no matter on which account you are. So in the end alt accounts only allow you to use an additional 1000 hours a day to make materials. That is literally all that is gained from it crafting wise.
2. I am dead certain about that. I have some experience when it comes to steam dealings/distribution and as I said you'd walk the plank there.
3. You get exactly the same refund on steam for an early access game as for all other games as well. Max of 2 weeks after purchase and a max playtime of 2 hours and youre eligible for a refund. The only difference is that you agree for the timer to start when the game is not yet in a finished state. That is literally the only difference.
Pretty good for you, but pretty bad compared with the guy doing 22 first rates. "Only" 1000 LH just doubles your production power. And again, actual eco has no meaning. There is no competition when everybody owns enough of everything.
Fine, then the only question is about future prohibition.
-
1 hour ago, JollyRoger1516 said:
1. Alts barely simulate an additional palyer bringing in his labour hours to craft materials and farm resources. Its like having a mini clan of your own. Alts themselves win you no battle whatsoever unless you use them as spies!
Thats not my point. Try to compete as a crafter without alt, with sombody owning an alt. There is no way, no matter how much more time you spend.
1 hour ago, JollyRoger1516 said:2. You can NOT do that!!! You have a gigantic misunderstanding of both early access and the received product/contract! When you buy into an early access product you buy a full ownership to the game with 'early access' to it hence the name.
Im not so sure about it, but thats not my subject. If there is no legal opportunity to deal with current alts, we dont need to discuss this. But please make sure youre absolutely right on that. Prohibiting additional alts then seems to be the only option.
Im critical because u usually dont get refund in early access, no matter what devs decide to do with your money. Also when i loose a second copy, i dont loose any access to the game. People bought a second copy for a second character, what is the problem moving this char to their main account? Ofcourse you need to be sure its only one person and there might be technical or effort problems. But in theory it should be fine.
-
2 hours ago, fox2run said:
And what about single players that likes to sail in SOLs?
Clans should be a social thing only and not a demand to play. iMHO.
When you play NA for the only reason to sail first rates, im sorry for this, beacause there is much more to the game. If anything else, all other ships arent worth sailing in your opinion, its only your problem that you cant enjoy the game until you got to first rates. Of course first rates should never be so expensive that solo palyers cant afford them, but i dont think this will ever be a problem.
You are never able to totally please everyone. We cant focus on players only picking the carrots out of the soup.
-
1
-
-
Alts are pay to win for crafting focussed palyers, because you cant compensate the additional LH and contract count by playtime. Thats my view, because there is no clear definition for "pay to win".
Alts, obviously only used to support the main char, just make no sense. Even the devs would make more profit if they would sell fixed amounts of LH for real money directly. Alts generate infinite LH over time = worse for everybody.
They could call players to exchange their alt account with redeemables, an additional char on main account, whatsoever. If players hide their alts, thread with ban for the alt and or some reasonable punishment for the main account. Alts doing nothing else than placing contracts are quite conspicuous.
I dont think there is a problem to say that the use of alt accounts just to support the main account wasnt expected, its bad for the game and something needs to be done. Isnt money you spend in EA basically voluntary support and doenst provide any ownership rights?! Also if you complain about this, you would admit that you didnt spend money to support the game, but to "cheat" in an EA game.
In the worst case just prohibiting additional alts after release would atleast make them rotate out of the game slowly.
-
6 hours ago, LeBoiteux said:
Is there the prevalence of 1st-3rd Rate ships ? I don't know. To me, any player should be able to sail the ship he wants to play with. Having fun is the basis of any game...
However, you want fewer 1st-3rd Rate ships in NA ?
Don't take unfair steps that favour hardcore gamers over casual gamers, such as cost barriers (crafting hours/ressources), one-duras, upkeep costs, restricted access to BP given to clans... A gameplay has to inspire fun and desire to play with to all, not the contrary.
Instead, make 6th-4th Rates more desirable :
- increase the variety of 6th-4th Rates in game by implementing new ones
-
make 1st-3rd Rate ships slower, less manoeuvrable, less lethal, ie. less exciting
But there need to be fair steps to favour people spending more time in the game. Its not only about fun, but also about motivation. It would be super reasonable to have cost and time barriers for first rates. Nobody needs these ships, when 3rd rates are the PB meta. One fraction might play for fun only, but another fraction plays also to achieve something. As long as you can play the whole game/ use all features without the need to own a firstrate, there is nothing restricting you from having fun.
Nobody wants fewer 3rd rates, but the opposite.
Making large ships slower would favour small ships in 1v1 situations even more.
-
2 hours ago, fox2run said:
Longer ROE joining timers also. We need more battles and more action.
Cons to your idea is that frugates gets huge advantage versus line ships and that boarding is going to even worse than now.
Ships in line please.
Timers should be set in a reasonable way and can be adjusted.
Why should boarding be eased? The frigate cant spawn right next to you anymore, and to keep you in battle he needs to stay within your cannon range. In general if boarding becomes the common tactic, then something is wrong with boarding mechanics, ROE has not much to do with this.
If your point is that defensive tagging wont help you anymore.. no chance.
-
8 minutes ago, fox2run said:
You sounds like I am something terrible. I just have a different opinion on the game.
Sandbox is not to make a lot of restrictions on others like you want.
If you don't like a SOL, don't sail one. It's kind of simple, isn't it. But why am I prohibited from doing this.
Maybe we should make a limit on pirates to 4-7 captains like in real life.
It's so annoying with all these pirates.
Nothing personal... but you dont read the topics, you dont even try to understand coherences or atleast try to think out of your personal box. If your opinion is that this should be another game, keep out of this. If you read my posts you would know that im the first guy arguing against unnecessary restrictions.
BOT: another option is to increase total XP again, so the player peak moves from max rank to rank 8/9.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
Can't say WRONG and not say why? Many players as I'll point to folks like fox2run just want the biggest best. I'm sorry they aren't the majority. Most of us do enjoy playing in frigates and having a challenge than just pushing a button and beating on each other broad side until one sinks. To me that is boring as hell and takes very little skill.
When you just claim something isnt possible, someone should deny that. Many folks want the biggest best, thats why it shouldnt be possible to limit this?! There are multiple ways to limit first rates without any restrictions. Sailing first rates is most boring to me either, but i can keep my own opinion out of this. And why do we talk about frigates regarding this at all?!
Guys like fox2run would play world of warships: age of sail if they could. We should be careful listen to them. They need to understand that we are here to make a sandbox game work, not to listen to everybodys wishes. Sadly there is nobody keeping this discussions clean...
-
2
-
-
No thoughts!?
-
28 minutes ago, Stilgar said:
Why not just increase the number of slots a SOL occupies in docs. 1st rate takes 3 slots, 2nd rate 2 slots, 3rd and below 1 slot, irrespective of nr of dura's
This combined with significant increase of materials required to build SOL's (as mentioned in last test bed patch) might just do the trick.
Because either 3 3rds are stronger than one first and there wont be use for firstrates anymore, or the other way round the best pb fleet would consist of only 8 first rates. Probably first.
1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:Biggest problem is folks want to be in the biggest best ships no matter what. Other than Port Battle limits there is nothing to encourage being in anything else.
Wrong.
-
15 minutes ago, fox2run said:
This discussion is nuts. SOLs where as plenty as frigates in napoleonic age. Furthermore they usually outnumbered frigates in large battles.
Sometimes I wish they didn't chose the Carribean as OW but Europe instead. Too much "I want to be a pirate-movie-star" over these forums.
There were plenty of 3rd rates, but we have plenty of first rates. Instead of 3rd rates beeing valuable and firstrates beeing special, 3rd rates are useless and firstrates the common PB ships.
36 minutes ago, Rickard said:the problem that you stated in your post can be easily fixed ; change the ships available for Portbattles, no more only 1st Rates or 4th Rates but a mix of ships like in real life.
Then you have all first rates sitting in front of the ports. How do you explain them why they are not allowed to join? Then i would prefer to restrict the crafting.
-
That would be another artificial/unnecessary restriction in a sandbox style game.
A good way to achieve less first+second rates is to set appropriate costs for first, second and 3rd rates. E.g. assumed a first rate is 40% stronger than a 3rd rate, then the cost could be 80% higher. Of course 3rd rate cost needs to be set to make these ships quite valuable already. No restrictions, no new mechanics are needed.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, jodgi said:
I crafted from day one. I correctly predicted that the best ships and equipment would never be easily obtainable on the market. I'm pointing out that the inherent problem with eco as a prerequisite for PvP has been pronounced since the days when we had thousands of concurrent players.
Well, the problem with good ships for a long time was the 50% speed chance. On average this doubled the cost+time for a good ship. Given the amount of golden trash ships around i doubt there would have been a problem with the amount of ships.
2 hours ago, jodgi said:Name one factor that restricts PvP more than fear of loss ( ≈ fear of
I mean direct restrictions saying you are not allowed to do x, if... like br limit, defensive tagging used to refuse pvp, having to spend perk points for better game mechanics, ROE ofcourse (but thats more complicated). Lets say you would have to collect pve points to be able to attack a player, similar to hostility. There can be a lot of stuff restricting pvp directly.
Fear of loss is restricting you indirectly. This means there arent enough (competetive) ships around, so ship value becomes so high some people dont risk sailing. Of course thats really bad. There should be very valuable ships, but these should not be needed to be competetive. This would be a win win situation. There would be a motivation to play for the perfect ship, and it would be the perfect inflation control. With more money around people would buy more golden ships, not really worth the money.
All you need is balancing, and that is the problem. We cant say ok lets make fine ships competetive with golden ships and increase the cost to make it perfect. This would need some time.
-
10 hours ago, jodgi said:
fox2run has done quite a bit of shitposting to get his point across, but he is right on the money. Enable the thousands of potential PvP-heads out there and you have a server full of life.
If we had as many eco fans as PvP fans we wouldn't be having this discussion. 1/10 of the players truly enjoy eco stuff as much as fighting yet eco stuff is currently a prerequisite for PvP. The math does not add up even if the numbers are pulled out of my ass.
I think the majority in a game like this is neither pvp, nor eco fan, but a healthy mix. And for a good amount of these palyers pvp only isnt enough to keep playing. Looking at two years of economic development after starting with a very simple system, its consequential that many palyers left, at the latest after hyperinflation messed it up completely and devs didnt care about it.
Some people want to activate pvp with additional pvp content, but pvp doesnt need anything in that direction. If there are players, ships, and nothing is restricting combat, there will be pvp, its as simple as that. Of course players leave faster and faster as the palyerbase shrinks and less pvp is happening, but thats not the cause of the problem. The economic part is important, like it or not. When youre forced to craft as a pvp guy, then because the eco guys left. If i was eco only, i probably wouldnt be here anymore. Of course its not only about eco. More and more restrictions for lots of aspects probably made most palyers leave.
Of course eco is required for pvp, in the same way pvp is required for eco. As a pvp player within a functional economy your "job", and the best you can do for it, is sinking as many ships as possible and maybe producing some resources. Nothing forces you deep into it. And regarding one dura, especially for pvp players it would increase the income, captured ships would be valuable.
*otherwise i very much agree on all of your points in this post
9 hours ago, Hethwill said:Small Battles ? Large Battles ? Tournaments ? Open World raids ? PvP Events ? Most prolific ship builder ? Most cargo hauled ? Most flags planted ? Most forts destroyed ?
Define Competitive please.
I guess you cant really define it, you need to figure it out.
In general i would say your ship is not competetive when it restricts your gameplay. When by default fast ships are too slow to catch anything. When combat ships cant negate the material disadvantage through skill against average skilled opponents. When you cant win against another boarding ship because he got better marines.
-
2
-
-
Just now, sruPL said:
We have lots of resources that has to be produced and most shops are empty in capitals...
Markets are dead right now nevertheless, just ignore that.
We have lots of resources, but most of them are used for the same purpose. Imagine we had professions, there wouldnt be much choice. But forget about it, its really not important or worth to discuss.
-
I dont think the general idea is so bad.
With different types of food you could compile different proviants that could have different (slight) effects on your crew. Would also be good for economy that needs different people producing different goods and enough money sinks.
Just dont make it another resource that simply needs to be refilled, or that just more expensive food provides better boni. Crew should consume proviants very slowly, so people are not afraight of loosing money by sailing around for fun.
However right now there are more important problems.
-
1
-
-
Hi,
did you try low graphic settings? Anti aliasing has much impact on fps in NA.
-
Please tell me. I think distance based ROE would be very plausible... if it works and it can be realized. This is the question.
-
I thought about this mainly with defensive tagging and screening issues (small ships wasting larger ships time) in mind. This idea is to open battle instances when ships get into cannon range, because thats when a real battle would have started. This might save a lot of sailing time in the battle instance and bring screening fleets into more danger. BR limit is a resonable restriction to solve screening issues, but it is an restriction and will be annoying in some situations. This could be a natural solution that would remove devensive tagging tactics in addition.
The basic problem:
- People starting battles for the only purpose to escape it again, as fast as possible, or after a certain time.
- Battle instances are opening, without any combat taking place.
What is causing this within the actual ROE system:
- Ships can start battles at far distances.
- Ships can prevent escaping over far distances.
- No additional restrictions to leave the battle instance for the attacker.
- No mechanics to force the attacker into combat.
Proposal: ROE dependant on distance:
Open world:
- After starting the tag timer, the attacker needs to close distance, represented by a smaller circle.
- Circle size represents effective cannon range.
- As soon as an enemy contacts the circle, the battle starts.
- No specific enemy needs to be selected.
- When the timer runs out, nothing happens.
- When attack started and enemy is within the circle, battle starts immediately.
- Larger circle to pull allies, as usual.
Battle instance:
- Opponents always spawn at the same distance within cannon range (~500m), and loaded.
- Allies spawn depending on ow position.
- Area control as general mechanic, area size larger than spawning distance.
- Removed tag mechanic, or damage to sails doesnt prevent enemies from escaping (reasoning: our cannons are much more accurate than rl cannons).
- Maybe additional escape mechanics, e.g. your bow needs to point away from the enemy, or a short timer after area control is left.
Pros:
- Less pure sailing time in the battle instances, especially for pursuits.
- Better immersion/realism when colliding with an enemy, instead of crossing each other while waiting for the timer.
- Defensive tagging not possible.
- Open world sailing and positioning more important, enemies cant sail through eachother.
- No enemies spawning / escaping right next to each other.
- Bow chasers less essential, more use for stern chasers.
- Screening atleast more risky and difficult.
- No restrictions/prohibitions.
Requirements:
- Speed boni and sailing profiles need to work in the OW (atleast studding sails/extra staysails wasnt last time i checked).
Regarding screening the thought is that ships need to stay so close to the enemies, that these can actually damage their hulls. The attacker is forced into combat, if he doesnt want the enemy to escape. In addition the closest ship would find itself spawning in front of a few loaded SOLs.
Optional: The battle instance appearing in the open world could work similar:
- Instance appears as swords with circle. (~half the size of the actual large circle)
- For ~1min each ship colliding with the circle joins the battle.
- Ships spawn depending on open world position with a distance penalty (ca. 200m). Perfect would be a penalty increasing with time, but thats optional.
The thought is that the OW position remains important, while players gain more freedom to choose if and what battle they want to join.
-
3
-
6 hours ago, Stilgar said:
Increased cost is indeed a factor, Wraith and might work against casual player.
The question really is: what's the difference between one dura ship vs 3 dura 3-times more expensive (materials/labour hrs) ship (let's ignore mods for now) ? Additionally, what if you are given freedom to choose nr of dura's when crafting?
Assumed that everything is balanced in the same way for both cases, the only real difference is that palyers are interacting with other players more often when they need to buy three 1 dura ships instead of one 3 dura ship. Thats a really good thing (E.g. more ships on the market results in more competition). Besides that, one dura is realistic. Two good pros.
The question is what are the pros to have multiple duras? And if there arent any, why dont go for 1 dura?!
You wont find a positive aspect. We got used to have duras, thats the only reason there is a discussion about it. From a rational view its simply stupid. When i want to make ships better accessable, why ever would i invent multiple duras instead of just decreasing the material cost?! Thats like increasing gravity to decrease cannon range.
Statements like "1 dura isnt working" are simply wrong, because that is only for actual balancing, including lots of parameters. When you want to change the actual balancing, there are multiple ways to do it. When you only want to change single parameters you have to adjust the others. I also wonder how this was tested with 20 players on the test server
-
2
-
-
I just dont like the way fleets are used.
When attacking a trader with fleet i want to take down the fleet and finally beeing able to cap the trader if successfull. But what i have to do is ignore the fleet and just try to cap the trader asap (fleet surrenders). So in the end the fleet ships are only used to shoot sails, the trader will escape asap. Then have fun hunting the AI ships set to escape.
When fighting battleships with fleet you will focus on the player, for gankers its just a tool to slow down enemies as well.
Fleets dont improve gameplay in any way, and i dont think we can change this, other than prohibit traders with fleet to escape e.g.
-
5 hours ago, Captiva said:
The idea behind their reasoning being, who would purposely build a bad or inferior quality ship?
Typical dev statement. Work on balancing: make bad ships better, increase mats for good ships. The improvement for spending more gold needs to decrease exponentially. Like buying a good camera. At some point twice the price equals only a few percent improvement.
A good reason for different quality ships is that at the same time everybody can have easy access to competetive ships, and there is a motivation to work for the perfect ship. Can also work for mods, if they become consumption goods.
-
I want to point out how overall balancing is missing for wood, crafting boni, modules, regional boni and perks. This table shows some actual balancing issues. With resonable balancing the value of stats, e.g. for each wood type, would be very similar.
https://1drv.ms/x/s!ApKoyZ6EWUMSgQ7EO_c5dfJ_dkO5
The references are imbalanced as well. Three, probably four wood types out of six are unnecessary. They could add 10 more wood types, without proper balancing, this wouldnt add much to the game. Decisions make these features fun, but these require options. I dont understand why nobody realises. I mean, they invest time and money to implement stuff, that is actually doin nothing in terms of improved gameplay. When everybody is using the same wood, mods, boni and perks, all these features have no meaning. The only result, they become necessary to be competetive, they are annoying.
How balancing could look like based on a concept:
The difficulty: finding the right references (1% speed = x% hull = y% armour = ...). The woods, trims and perks themselfes can be shaped how you want them to be with a simple table like this.
For this i propose:
- More depth for wood types including less heel and less leaking for heavier woods, more acceleration and turning speed for light woods. Also speed could be devided in up- and downwind (heavy woods with higher penalty upwind).
- Boni in percentage for everything effecting different rated ships.
- Wood boni having 3-4 times more impact compared with other boni. The payoffs for tanky and fast ships could not be negated by upgrades that easy anymore. That means high quality mods and ships become less important, the wood would define the main characteristics of the ship.
Here a simple balancing tool. Use the right table (main sheet) to define the boni, then adjust the references. Note: armour is in percent here.
https://1drv.ms/x/s!ApKoyZ6EWUMSgRROpo5UOlW8nF_J
I hope this can be helpful somehow. Have fun testing around, post your opinion how this balancing should look like, and feel free to post your setup if you found a good one.
-
6
lack of content
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Isnt that how it should be for a sandbox?! New players get thrown into a busy open world providing the freedom to do whatever they want, with lots of helpful people around. Figuring stuff out yourself makes it interesting, and its not like you can loose anything when joining the game.
We dont need guiding content or a world full of events. We need players organising stuff in the chat. Just for fun, for serious pvp reasons, role play reasons, groups for pve/grinding, rescue missions, escorts, conquest stuff, whatsoever. There was no problem with boredom when NA had stable 1k+ players.
No, youre missunderstanding sandbox. It depends on the content. This type of content is trying to force people to sail different ships and do certain stuff. The devs already tried similar with crafting restrictions and PB restrictions, forcing players to do certain stuff in the ow, without any good reasoning. In your case instead of restricting PBs for certain ships, you should work on an environment that makes people use different ships by themselfes. Of course thats not as easy as simply putting restrictions, but thats how a sandbox works.
Its different for optional pve content, you can do whatever you want. More diversity for missions would be great, exploration could be a good way to tell some storys. The question is if it would be worth the effort. You probably dont want to do the same 3 stories again and again, complex missions would probably need better AI, etc. The point is you can add better pve content any time later. The priority for a sandbox game should be a proper sandbox environment.
More conquest type content, what should this be?! Ships were used for trading, protection, war, piracy and exploration.
A functional sandbox provides several reasons to log in for several types of players.