Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Wraith

  1. lol, we've been asking for this forever. A more even day-night cycle, plus a moon with phases to create variability in night lighting... It's so easy to add in the current game engine, and would add a huge amount of depth and nuance to the environment. Sigh, maybe it'll come out as a moon DLC. 🙄
  2. No, though I think an ELO system would be great in NA to reward PvP outcomes (reward better players less and worse players more, up to and including rewarding losers who are putting themselves on the line against elite PvP'ers, etc.). I was referring to the fact that people used to claim that computers would never be able to beat the best humans at chess, and then after that was proven to be false it was Go. And that too has now been shown to be false. I was using that as an argument to say that surely a better set of algorithms could be programmed for NPCs than we have, that don't have to rely on cheap buffs to provide content for us.
  3. I don't think you even need anything like self learning AI to create something that plays unpredictably and able enough to feel like it's not having to cheat to compete. It just requires more than the most basic approach to accomplish, and it would have been nice to have a bit of time and effort be placed by the development team into that aspect of the game instead of taking the cheapest and easy way out by both buffing (gunnery, boarding, etc.) and nerfing (turn rate, sailing, tactics) the AI in outrageously unrealistic ways.
  4. Wraith

    The Spanish Pioneers

    lol, "most historians," like the non-indigenous, Euro-centric ones that would like to believe that their ancestors weren't responsible for wiping out millions of people? 🙄 I haven't read Lummis or the book in question, and it may be fair and well researched for its time, but for anyone writing about colonialism through the lens of the late 19th, early 20th century, with a typically parochial and revisionist perspective on "pioneering" and "taming" of the land should engender a bit of skepticism. Spain is not alone here, but its colonial history of genocide and subjugation is well deserved, especially in the Caribbean and along its coasts. I would be reluctant to use such propaganda to whitewash it and recruit for a video game...
  5. I don't think it really matters as the info will always be available through Steam charts, etc. I think even more granular information, online numbers by nation, should be displayed. That way people have the opportunity to gauge better how balanced the server is during their preferred play time, and choose a nation better suited to their affinity for the zerg.
  6. lol, that's what they said about chess and then Go too.. Look, is it easy to create AI that plays under exactly the same conditions that players do and make them better than the best players? No. But is it easier to make them better than 90% of your players? Absolutely, especially in a game that is as predictable and algorithmic as Naval Action. It's a different kind of predictive analytics that is more akin to pattern matching simply because of the number of turns ahead and the angling needed to create flush broadside hits, but it's still something computers do far, far better than average humans with. But without me actually developing the algorithms for you I doubt I'll actually be able to convince you since you just like to argue for the sake of being contrary, so I fear we're getting lost in the weeds. SO back on topic: I'm not advocating for AI that can beat your average player. Instead, what I'd like to see is variable AI, that's less predictable and doesn't resort to ridiculous cheating to be mildly competitive. In fact, I'd rather have on average much easier AI, that surrenders as soon as they've been badly damaged or decrewed, in order to accomplish what all other MMOs have for a PvE activity: gathering. If you assume that the majority of players in Naval Action are non-trader types, then "gathering" AI ships and their cargo, either to sell or break up for crafting resources should be the primary XP and Real generating activity in the game. That gathering activity forms the scaffold on which PvP is built and the backbone on which players rise through the ranks and gain experience, ships, modules, knowledge, etc. to prepare for end-game PvP and RvR. And right now the AI is hopelessly predictable, cheats and cheezes it's way through battles, and the rewards for players committing themselves to fighting them don't support this progression.
  7. They don't do anything random at the moment, at least as far as I can tell. What I was saying is that you could easily make them sail perfectly in terms of manual sailing and choosing points off the wind, etc., but you could implement variability in AI "skill" by adding "error" both in sail setting and angle choice, but also in aiming, etc. And as far as predicting.. heh, I'd say that fully 90% of the game for most players the sailing and positioning is purely deterministic. And computers are nothing if not better than humans at pattern recognition. I have no doubt that you could create a 1v1 AI in Naval Action that would rival any player, if only because it can recognize a player's action and respond much faster than we as players can because the AI could snoop on player inputs. I think programming smarter fleet action would be more complex, but certainly could be done in a smart and variable way that makes battle against AI much more interesting than just fighting the dumbest of superbuffed NPCs.
  8. Come on.. just because you don't know how to do it doesn't make it difficult. It's not that hard to make AI in a game as slow as Naval Action that's as good or better than an average player without having to resort to ridiculous buffs to make it "hard." As decent players you and I could sketch out here a much better set of algorithms than what the current AI seemingly use (shoot/chase mindlessly the nearest player with least armor and put whatever loaded guns it has on target) in probably 10-20 instructions, salted with a bit of random variation in manual sailing and shooting efficiency, and it would "feel" much more like real players. Players hate to feel like they're being cheesed, and by constraining AI from doing things, or letting it do things that players can't do (double on carros, for example), is just cheesy. As is being able to absolutely flummox even "Elite" AI by simply sailing up wind or inducing them to beach themselves.
  9. Sounds great, looking forward to all the content you can deliver. Are these gun ship knowledges, modules, or literal cannons that can be equipped?
  10. lol, impressive AI ship command. And all you fanboys claim the AI don't cheat.
  11. All content is good content, but it would be so much easier to program better sailing and fighting AI, than the silly "elite" AI that simply cheat even more than regular AI. I find the OP's enthusiasm really sad actually because it belies such a hunger for better content but one that basically teaches people terrible habits. I just wish we had better PvE content for everyone.
  12. Awww, so sad that you can't even be bothered to defend your ports but you decide to keep up the moaning on the forum. You're a failure and disappointment to your nation. Well done.
  13. I would argue that we just need better recovery of mods and materials upon breaking ships up. Right now breaking ships is a joke.
  14. I would like to see Smuggler Missions added in foreign nation ports, mirroring cargo and passenger delivery missions but which grant different kinds of rewards for those that smuggle in, take, and fulfill those missions.
  15. I do appreciate the thought here, and the idea of hopping between ships, leaving them "deployed," while having been proposed before, would potentially be a solution to a certain kind of problem.. but it literally just isn't a problem in our game in need of a solution. We have a game world that's too large for the number of players. Period. Tows are necessary to keep action happening for a game world our size. If you increase open world speeds or increase the number of players, both of these increase the number of player to player interactions. And that's the crux of almost all of the content in the game, for better or worse. Your solution does nothing to improve the amount of player interactions and will only serve to slow it down. The other aspect of this is that removing tows actually hurts new and casual players the most, which is particularly problematic. I'd say most of the active vets have multiple alts with 20-30 dock slots each and all of our outposts unlocked. That means that most of us have over 100 active ships at our disposal and they're already spread all over the map. And even with all of that we still only have 120-140 active players (not including alts) during most prime times, and that still offers up hours of AFK sailing for maybe a handful of PvP opportunities per every few hours. So me personally, I might use a tow only once every couple days and it's purely a matter of convenience not necessity... There's so little content in sailing ships around just to position them when player populations are so low.. And the amount of interactions is something that needs to be improved not slowed down by having to sail ships around.
  16. The RoE is just too complicated period. We should have one RoE that is applied to all "nations' and to all players regardless of where they're at. And it should be a free-for-all, everyone is red battle instance. Everyone should be able to attack everyone else, and personal reputation (a combination of who you sink and who you're sunk by should be visible through the spyglass). Easy, simple, bad actors within nations can be punished, and there's no need for silly BR balanced/locked battles. Just bring back 3 minute "goldilocks" join timers on free-for-all, Outlaw-style battles for all nations and be done with it.
  17. Sure, let's put more things in place to reduce the Action in Naval Action. We already have too large a game world for server populations which are unsustainable. Why would you want to limit where people can make that content happen?
  18. No one has fun grinding ranks just so they can sail larger ships and larger fleets in order to be effective at other aspects of the game. Only a certain kind of masochist has fun grinding xp against bots as dumb as we have in NA, and the fact that you're willing to do it again says a lot about how little meaning you find in the other game systems that this grind takes away from. It's sad how little you care for the server population.
  19. The simplest and easiest solution, especially for the zergiest of nations, is to not put timers on as many ports and open up RvR for more people to participate.
  20. Longer grind means longer time horizon to keep players in the game? This has been in the works for a long time, as even the last time they promised to keep xp safe from wipe on release they said that we'd keep xp not ranks. So they've been planning on changing the xp thresholds and number of ranks for quite some time.
  21. Tax should simply be paid on all port production and on delivery missions taken and delivered in a port. The tax rates should be set by the owning clan. Also, we should have the ability to levvy a tax against clan members and all money they earn automatically. That might encourage more clans to recruit beyond their stable numbers and bring more players along into the group-oriented activities in the long run by providing economic incentives to clan leadership.
  22. And when you know this will happen because of wind, etc., you bring a counter mortar brig. Why do you not see it as a bigger problem that forts will be unassailable? Perhaps you haven't even played enough recently to know that the effect that buffed forts have at the moment is extreme. Perhaps you should consider that when whinging about a few slow ass first rates actually having to sail evasively for a while vs. making some ports literally uncapturable because it takes 180+ hits to take down a fort currently... That's a long time for two experienced mortar brigs working in tandem, but do-able. With a significant increase in dispersion it will be even worse, especially for ports with two forts that cover capture circles.
  23. So bring lighter ships that can threaten them and keep them on the move like we always have? This is not a hard problem to solve.
  24. Great, I'm really happy that you made this quality of life improvement. I'm wondering a bit about this one... why would you make it even more difficult to kill forts and towers? As they are, they hugely influence a port battle and this will slow down RvR progression even more, while making some fortified ports nearly un-attackable. And if the motivation was purely to nerf their ability to attack slow moving ships, you need to consider that a mortar brig threat and countering it may be the only reason that we have any diversity in fleet ships at all in RvR currently. It would be sad to see the utility of mortar brigs nerfed to oblivion. That said, I'd welcome new fort capture mechanics as well, perhaps landing a troop transport that after time would infiltrate a damaged fort and spike the guns, reducing and finally eliminating fort/tower fire.
  25. Sorry to be blunt, but it almost definitely is a skill gap that's to blame. After whinging about people being able to too easily kill larger rated ships with smaller we got a completely unnecessary reworking of the damage model that blew up what balance we had, just so people could feel invulnerable sailing their line ships around. And now you want even more handicaps thrown their way? I feel like you need to really think about what you could do differently in that situation to not let someone just sit on your stern and kill off your crew... (HINT: Use difficult angles to the wind to make it so he can only lose wind to you in order to turn and fire on your stern, or risk exposing himself to your broadside fire.) But this is the key: you're in the bigger gunned ship, so you shouldn't be running from him period. Just turn, demast him and kill him dead. Why run away?
  • Create New...