Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Iroquois Confederacy

Members
  • Content Count

    537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Iroquois Confederacy last won the day on December 29 2018

Iroquois Confederacy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

975 Excellent

About Iroquois Confederacy

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

2,941 profile views
  1. I apologize for bombarding you with questions and commentary: Will fort placement fall into the same mold forts are currently in? IE - Will clans simply choose to build forts in the exact same physical locations they are in currently, or will they be able to place them where they choose around a fort? (The latter would be better, but would take much more programmer time, I expect.)
  2. Also - in a shameless plug - might I suggest adding a fourth type of port: A ship breaker? (The breaking up of ships feature that we have is never utilized because it gives next to nothing for materials when they're broken up. There's a write-up I did yesterday or the day before if you'd like a link.)
  3. So - to build awesome ships, you would have to hyper-specialize one port, which would make it impossible to hyper-specialize the same port into a defense area, which would make it impossible to hyper-specialize the same port into a mining hub - do I understand that correctly? If so, might I suggest that only region capitals could be so specialized, so that some sailing between the mining and crafting is required?
  4. Iron has always been a fantastic catch, because it's so expensive to get. It is not super common, because those are generally short hauls, protected by forts, however, they have historically happened. The vast majority of traders captured of late have been hauling trade goods - as it is profitable to haul them long distances. (Long distance means blue-water sailing, which provides an opportunity to hit someone before they get under the guns of a fort) The removal of forts will make those short hauls vulnerable, however, if there are no short hauls... Like I said, I'm nervous about it, but will be willing to test and see
  5. Very excited about the fortification changes. Clan-based forts is huge! A little nervous about this: I like as many merchants on the water as possible (for obvious reasons :P), but I'm definitely interested to see how it works out.
  6. I've been thinking of the fairly unused "scrap ship" feature. Essentially, scrap a ship, get a few logs, maybe an iron ore or two, and that's it. It is, by my understanding, never worthwhile to scrap a ship - it is in all cases better to sell it to the admiralty for some reals instead. What I propose is a multi-faceted approach to scrapping ships. 1. Increase the amount of resources gained by scrapping to some percentage of what it would take to make that vessel. To use a number, 25% of the materials it would take to make that ship would be recovered in scrapping. (This is subject to whatever makes for best gameplay, without overcoming more typical econ players.) 2. Include a percent chance to recover a permit to make that vessel. 3. Include a percent chance to recover one random, permanent module. What this accomplishes is that it adds a method for more combat oriented players to gather resources, if a bit more slowly - and in particular another path, though again, a bit more slowly, to gathering "rare" woods. For example, if someone were to scrap a Mahogany/Crew Space Frigate and scrap it, they would get 25% of the materials (or whatever number might be settled upon) to make that same vessel - including the Mahogany Logs. This is not outside of the realm of history, either. Plenty of ships have been scrapped, and their materials have gone into new vessels. I would take this a step further and add two more bullet pointed ideas: 4. Add in a perk to increase the amount of materials gathered from scrapping a vessel. This allows for a slightly more specialized player. 5. Add in a port improvement for scrapping vessels, which would also increase those same materials. Those ports that are so improved would of course have higher maintenance costs to them, however, they would also serve as hubs, gathering players, and of course, PvPers, adding another dynamic layer to the game.
  7. I was talking with another player about which guns to use, and it came up that most engagements in this game happen under 100m. It only makes sense to use carronades in this sense - sometimes mediums if you're hurting for crew, but longs - never. A couple years back, longs were one of the most common used, followed by carronades, followed by mediums. Engagements would routinely happen at 500m, and ships would be sunk on account of it. So, I ask three questions: 1. Should engagements predominantly happen at less than 100m? 2. Should ships be vulnerable still at longer ranges? 3. What would need to change to make longs more viable?
  8. Do you mean killing an individual ship by raking both its bow and its stern, or killing one ship through just its stern, and another ship through just its bow? I believe it still is, but in this case I was going for just structure damage. (I swapped to grape to go for the board when it seemed like he would not sink through stern rakes.)
  9. I think sterns are still artificially protected - by that I mean, there seems to be a threshold where you cannot sink someone through stern rakes. Just took on a United States in an Endymion, and was able to hug his stern fairly effectively, raking him... a dozen or two times, actually. First with double ball, then with ball, then with grape since it was apparent there was no way to sink him through rakes. Essentially, if this damage model is to allow smaller ships to engage larger ones, the larger ones have to be vulnerable to stern rakes. If you rake them down to 25% structure, but then still have to engage their broadside, it's a no-win scenario - especially with multiple repairs per fight.
  10. After sailing almost entirely around the Caribbean looking for a better 5th Rate PvP mission, I realized I wasn't seeing any because I already had one. I would recommend showing all missions that a port has, but graying out the ones you are ineligible to take.
  11. The changes to ROE have damaged the "safe" zones of capitals. On my way with my Endymion from Belize, I passed through the K/PR region, and came across a Post Captain and a Captain of the BCC clan fighting a French Navy Brig. (They were in an LGV and a Rattlesnake Heavy.) Due to the BR difference, even though it was in the reinforcement zone, I was able to join at around the 10 minute mark. This essentially ended up being a "gank" served up in the reinforcement zone, made possible by the BR-based ROEs.
  12. In my opinion, it's an accessibility thing. Solo PvP is more accessible to individual players, so it should be what they pass through first. Further, there is a better chance of ad-hoc grouping if people "stage" in the solo area.
  13. Other question: Should solo PvP zone be inside the group PvP zone? Seems that you'd need to brave the gank gauntlet before hitting a 1v1, when maybe it should be the other way around.
  14. Should there be a point where a "close" BR should not be overtipped by something significantly larger? For example, a 250BR v. 280BR being overtipped by a ship of the line.
×
×
  • Create New...