Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Wraith

Members
  • Content Count

    3,426
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Wraith last won the day on November 5

Wraith had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,257 Excellent

5 Followers

About Wraith

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Credit to Little Gamers for my ninja icon (come back soon):
    http://www.little-gamers.com/

Recent Profile Visitors

3,303 profile views
  1. I assume this is a joke? When was the last time we even had more than 1500 concurrent players and their alts let alone 100 active players in one clan? I think it's time to clear your rolls.
  2. I had a thought about rate limiting battle groups (battle groups limited to one 1st rate, two 2nd rates, up to ten 3rd rates, and the rest unrated ships of any type). Then different ports, outside of shallow-battle ports, would have port battles and hostility missions that were specified based on the number of battle groups allowed... so small/non-invested ports would be one battle group PB's, medium tier ports would be 2-6, and the highest tier might be 7-10 (so a maximum of 10 first rates per side, with a mixture of other rated and unrated ships required to escort the battle group to the port battle and make weight in the PB itself). Obviously this would hugely change the nature of OW tagging mechanics since BRs of battle groups would change... screening would be affected as would organizing principles around the battle. But it would create a much more dynamic system that reduces the dull, "Take as many first rates as you can stuff into the BR + a Wasa + a Requin," approach that we have now. The thing I particularly like about such a system is that it would make sailing in a large group of first rates even for OW PvP a much more fraught affair since it would be easier to yoink a first rate that gets separated beyond the tagging circle into battle because it can't be in another battle group.
  3. I'm all for increasing the viability of different ships across OW activities, but I don't think their viability and the choice to choose Trinc/Endy vs. all else is purely down to HP... Rather, what needs to happen is intentional (read that as "ahistoric") balancing that bakes in trade-offs in pen vs. dps vs. speed vs. turn rate vs. sailing profile vs. hold capacity, etc. There also needs to be active, open world PvE and PvP content that rewards these various trade-offs. This is part of the bigger game design issues that have plagued the MMO side of the game. Basically, if battle is the only content, then only the best fighting ship in the most common engagement categories (e.g., gank or be-ganked) will find much use. This is why in RvR we basically have 1st rates or bust at the moment. There simply is no room for sailing inferior ships, or variety in build strategies, when the meta contains few trade-offs and gameplay doesn't reward what trade-offs there are.
  4. IMO they aren't even worth sailing at that cost.
  5. Yup ,totally impossible to guess where the stronger winds are... ๐Ÿ™„ I think your basic physical geography and/or Earth Science education failed you miserably.
  6. Since you're basing the gripe here on "realism" and some arbitrary draw distance (that was chosen for its technical limitations, not its spatial scale relevance to visibility at sea I might add)... You might consider some basic geometry as it relates to seeing coastlines on the horizon vs. weather phenomena at altitude, at a distance that may relate to finding your "wind:"
  7. Take a useful, quality of life feature and make it less useful and lower quality of life... exactly what we need. Why don't you just keep your map closed?
  8. Good thing my alts all have their own clans for their warehouses..
  9. Sure, screening can involve this kind of gameplay.. but it doesn't have to. Some of the best (and best commanded, I might add) fights I've ever been a part of have been screener on screener action. They are often more chaotic, can even be more "fair" than typical OW PvP, and have the added tension of the overarching goals of protecting/attacking a port going on behind the scenes. You have to look at screening from both the attacking and defending screening perspective as well... the scouting involved, the strategy of finding the nearest wind boost locations and assessing the wind position vs. where the attacking/defending force is likely to be coming from. Finding false port battle fleets, etc. vs. getting counter-screened... all of this is valuable content that I honestly find far more motivating than stupid, "even" port battles which are almost always determined by the luck of the wind and location of forts that you can no longer kill. I'll honestly plan and fight a screening effort over getting raged at in a port battle while people get beached under a fort in a "fair" fight any day.
  10. Which is exactly the reason that you need to move to clan-based, foreign nation alliances to support fighting blocs that are more competitive with each other.
  11. Look, I'm sympathetic to the plight of the small nations and small clans... But there are a couple of problems with your assumptions here.. First, lower BR will be exactly what's needed as long as it's in conjunction with more explicit mechanics allowing for multi-national, clan-based alliances. Without these alliances, and only with the ability to magically teleport into a port-flipping port battle, you're going to create situations without any recourse where the large nations will be able to literally blitz a small, opposing nation from all front line positions, and take multiple ports at a time from those nations. With screening action required, large nations still have to protect their port battle fleets against allied resistance trying to stop them getting in a single port battle. Without screening, and with the ability to field multiple port battle fleets at the same time with no need to field screeners for them, the large nations (with all the best ships, and all the best mods, and let's face it.. likely better players) will just steam roll those small nations. My point is, you need to be very careful what you ask for.
  12. Huh? Why would players bother to show up if there's not going to be any opposing players outside the port? It denies all of the strategy regarding the threat that screeners pose, potentially forcing joins in non-ideal positions, etc. It denies the role that wind plays in the strategy of how to approach the port, where to join, how to avoid and counter-screen. It basically just dumbs down the entire strategic part of the game, which leads me back to my earlier point.. why bother with the OW at all if all we want to encourage are "even" fights?
  13. Sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment regarding DLC content... as you well know, I own most of the DLC content multiple times over, and have no problem rationalizing that investment because of the immense amount of time that we get out of the game, subscription-free. It's an easy way to invest and keep the lights on, in my mind. My point was that for that ongoing investment you're asking players to make in the game with additional DLC it seems like there are some low-hanging fruit that could be the focus of that sole developer's time that could easily fix some of the issues with player balancing that don't require basically giving up on open world, asymmetric warfare. My rationale is this: screening is the only way that new, casual, and small-clan players can participate in RvR. It's the primary way that we blood new players in the RvR process, train players for cohesive, clan-based, organized actions.. and also give opportunities to those clans that are peripheral to the actual port defense. What you'd accomplish by getting rid of screening is essentially just removing content for the non-elite players that are needing it the most. These are the players that have progressed up to the point they want something more than PvP-zone gank-or-be-ganked action. And, in my opinion, because of the bad way that front lines were implemented, which have restricted the number and size of port battles to only the elite in the game, you're talking about denying what little RvR content those small clans can access even more. Now, all that said.. the upcoming changes supporting new players, balancing ships and adding trading/econ/(and hopefully, crafting) content are great.. and I fully encourage that!
  14. This is an incredibly narrow view of what makes an OW sandbox game fun... and moves like this, basically reinforcing the Open World game mechanics as an incredibly weak matchmaking engine, are a huge disservice to the players that want to play the game under its original formulation, which has possibilities for more natural, asymmetric warfare. So I guess we shouldn't expect any more DLC content then? ๐Ÿ™„ I mean.. this again is an incredibly thin excuse for not fixing some of the most glaring issues facing the game. The amount of time it would take to simply make it possible to add foreign clans as friendly, allowing them to access ports, battles and port battles as friendly clans should be would be minimal, and basically fix the kind of problems you're facing with imbalanced nations. I mean, at this rate you should just remove the OW, crafting and econ... make all the ships DLC, and give us a single lobby with small, large battles and duel rooms.. and call it good...
×
×
  • Create New...