Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

143 Excellent


About Kiithnaras

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

716 profile views
  1. How bout no? This is one of the changes that I am quite fond of, and I'd rather keep it that way. People want to stage out of free towns, that's cool, but no porting between them - makes conquest a lot less meaningful.
  2. I have to say, I cannot find one bad thing about this update. I'm back in the saddle, @admin, thanks a ton for your sensibility on this. I will say that I can understand peoples' concerns with combat marks. Items that previously took PvP marks, like bow figures and Connie permits, should understandably be more expensive, on the order of at least 5 Combat marks to former PvP marks (if they cost 10 PvP, they should now cost 50 Combat). This, I feel, would keep those high-end, valuable items rare, but not impossible for people who don't always have the time and opportunity to be successful at PvP. On the same order, being successful in PvP should earn about 3-5 times the number of combat marks compared to PvE rewards. I don't know the current ratio, but that's a good, balanced point, I feel. Regarding Demasting from before - Please reduce mast thickness. I would, personally, rather have a realistic mast thickness (good approximation is about 4/3rds hull thickness) with doubled or even tripled mast section HP, with each section going up having about 3/4ths the thickness and HP of the next lower section. This would make it feasible to do damage reliably to masts even at 250 meters, or with carronades (god-forbid), but keep the extended time to demast another ship. Of course, I'm assuming that the mast damage model with regards to thickness and penetration works similarly to the hull damage model. As it is, it's just absolutely impossible; I just worked up a mission and dedicated a good 10 minutes to attempting to demast a Cerberus. With 12pd mediums, those masts would just not budge, and I easily landed in the neighborhood of 50-100 good hits at 100-200m...and I was even focusing hard on just one mast.
  3. You mean nerfed, and nerfed hard. The fact that you still refuse to allow mark conversion shows that you only have one sort of player in mind for the PvP server (because I don't enjoy being solely a PvE carebear - I like fighting other players and engaging in conquest, it just isn't something I actively seek all the time.). There's a host of other issues, but I really don't feel like spending the time getting into them right now. I think I'm done with NA for now with this update. Too focused on the hardcore with tons-of-free-time sort, the Professional Killers (taxonomic gamer type) and less on finding a more reasonable balance in playstyle. Too many of the updates and changes seem to revolve around kneejerk reactions to a small proportion of disproportionately-vocal players. This is a shame, because NA is a game I really -want- to love and enjoy, but ever since the wipe I just haven't been having fun. And that's not to say that the changes weren't all bad - I really enjoyed the state of the Testbed prior to the launch of 10.0, with a few caveats (such as nested ship knowledge requirements). This isn't quite a 'so long, and thanks for all the fish (and salt)' sort of situation - I'll still follow updates with the glimmering, guttering hope that somehow you see the light and shift gears, but I just can't justify to myself continuing to be involved in the game or community.
  4. Yep, pretty much spot-on with what I've been able to gather. There are plenty of ways of doing this that are actually enjoyable and feel rewarding rather than the masochistic suffering that the current system (Like This). And, if people don't sail certain ships over others, maybe they're too generic-feeling. Maybe give the Lynx and Pickle a pair of stern guns - they have the ports for them. Maybe tweak the thickness of the Pickle up a little more, make it "that annoyingly-tough little 7th-rate." If there is no significant difference between two ships, people will almost always pick the easier option.
  5. I will express my appreciation here that this is a step in the right direction. However, I still don't feel that this is an ideal solution. Rather than simply rehash what I've written previously, I went and made a quaint little table that illustrates exactly what I've been harping on about. This system will allow players to sail the ships within the classes that they want to without feeling pressured to grind their way up from the bottom, but it will still maintain a steep XP cost to fully-unlocking a ship class and make mastery of said class something of a major accomplishment. Comparing Player Rank XP to my proposal, this would scale with the player progression nicely - players would almost have the third Sloop slot unlocked when they have enough Leadership to command Brigs, have the first 2 or 3 slots on Brigs when they're ready to move on to Light Frigates (depending on whether or not they care about the Cerb), have finished the 3rd and be partway to the 4th slot on Light Frigates when they reach Rank 7 and are ready for Heavy Frigates, and so on. Using this system, you could also tie Trader ships into the same ship class pools, giving them a cap of 5 slots as well (LGV would clearly go into the Light Frigates, Indiaman would either be a Heavy Frigate or Super Frigate type). You like? Not sure this is the best idea (will still check it out and see how it plays). I might suggest instead locking out other repair options (other than Urgent repair) while the crew is in the process of conducting a repair, so while they would be on separate cooldowns, repairs could only be conducted on sails or hull at a given moment, not both. Big props on the rest of the fixes and changes, though!
  6. Well now I just feel like an ass. I formally and publicly apologize for my outburst :c Heeeeh, horse, ass, furry jokes, ha ha
  7. Well, seems that Surgeon use just received a huge nerf Dis a bug, yo - takes about 10x more Rum to use the in-battle Surgeon compared to previous (~107 Rum usage in-battle with a Fattie recovered about 18-20 crew of a missing 80, compared to about 12-14 pre stealth-nerf for the same amount of recovery), yet still has a 1:1 ratio using it in OW. 200-some Rum was previously good for a few battles and light enough that it didn't significantly impact sailing, while Hull and Rig repairs are, understandably, a bit heavier and need a little more jurisprudence in how much one stocks. I guess that's not the case anymore as the NPCs seem to be amazing professionals at long-range stern-sniping, so it's probably a good idea to carry the same weights of all three repair types. @admin Are you deliberately trying to frustrate your players? Did you not read (or care about) my previous post on punishing game design? How does this add to the experience or challenge? Was the 10-minute cooldown and relatively-small Crew recuperation not sufficiently-balanced? Do you really hate Achiever-type players that much and only want the best Killer types to dominate your game? The preceding statement was made largely in frustration, and I apologize to Admin for my unwarranted outburst.
  8. I don't find this silly. What I do find silly is that your friends (you do have friends, right?) coming to respond to this change in tactical situation are unable to support you if they're a few minutes, or even seconds late. IMO, battle instances should be all or nothing - they either should start and stay closed, or be perpetually-open until the battle concludes. Treating all battles like attacking a port battle, where anyone joining after it starts has to join outside of a 3-5km radius, would mitigate the surprise reinforcements and gank/grief fleets, especially near capital waters as, no matter what, battles would be always open and available for anyone to join (as soon as they're able) - Capital battles would function a lot like they do presently, where reinforcements on the capital side would be able to join anywhere.
  9. I personally seldom have issues with these so-called griefing fleets, because I have recognized them not as a mechanical problem, but as a player-based problem. My solution is to simply sail where they are less likely to be. It's no guarantee, but I agree; fort guns should have a bit better range, and battle position should, ideally (I know it is a mechanical problem development-wise) be proportional to OW position so that if I, for instance, sail up to the docks in a battle and exit, i should be exiting battle right on the docks.
  10. Crazy concept - the ability to interact with your hold and guns in-battle - dump cargo and guns overboard (over time) to lighten the load and pick up speed!
  11. @hoarmurath has the right of it. The more recent updates have made NA much more punishing and painful than merely "challenging" or "hardcore". @admin, I have some educational videos for your consideration (embeds removed due to screen space): https://youtu.be/ea6UuRTjkKs https://youtu.be/FE7lDFAcb4Y https://youtu.be/BWFzFsHc75U https://youtu.be/XUcp2bNTwBg Edit: Got another one that I feel is applicable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c These are the same reasons I have been trying to push the idea that Coal, as an essential crafting resource, should not be also a "conquest" resource. Make conquest meaningful, but not a means unto itself - put those special woods in regions that nations have to conquer, and give players incentive to conquer those regions, but at the same time don't require that they engage in conquest in order to get the materials necessary to engage in conquest more effectively. Similarly, requiring players to fight other players in order to get the resources to fight other players more effectively (PvP Marks) is another element of punishing game design - it drives a wedge between the haves and have-nots, elevating the ability of the successful to more easily and repeatedly squash the not-as-successful. While this might be more "realistic" and more "historical", it isn't necessarily more fun and will, in the long run, cost you players, which is bad for both sides of the equation; losing repeatedly is often frustrating and seldom keeps players coming back, and, when their targets disappear, the successful bunch have less things to fight and keep them engaged. This is also why I push so hard for a more accurate Penetration model (see signature) - Making Carronades in particular so arbitrarily useless at anything further than sneezing distance is punishing and frustrating - if I'm able to cobble together the resources and skill and practice to be able to land shots accurately and effectively with carros at 250-500m, then that should be my choice as a player. Other players might find that not the sort of challenge they wish to engage in and simply use long or short cannons. The ship knowledge is another contentious point. It isn't, by and large, the time investment that players have a problem with to achieve mastery of their preferred ships. It's more that the current system forces them to sail ships that they really don't want to sail, that they don't have fun sailing, in order to achieve that goal. To that end, I have proposed making ship knowledge classed based on rates (splitting 5th-rates into Heavy and Light, divided around 300 crew or 200 BR, and combining 1st and 2nd-rates into Heavy Lineships) where, for instance, sailing any 7th-rate improves ship knowledge for all 7th-rates (including trader ships). The flip side is that, because they are grouped, ship knowledge unlocks would be a lot steeper and based on a base-5 exponential curve - slots 1 and 2 would come relatively easy, slot 3 would take a good bit of effort, and slots 4 and 5 would take a significant amount of time. This is still fun, even though it is challenging, because it allows the player to choose, and if, say, my Trincomalee gets sunk, and I have to sail an Essex to replace that for a while, I'm not punished for not having sailed an Essex before because it's in the same knowledge class as the Trinc. In short, @admin, you shouldn't be looking to punish your players and make them jump through hoop after hoop to find the fun they want to have, and to make them suffer dreadfully for every loss, but challenge them to excel and find the success and enjoyment with the tools and environment you have created. And, I'm gonna be honest, what you have, so far, is pretty F***ing amazing. It's these few, frustrating, punishing things that keep getting in the way of the enjoyment and challenge that we, on the whole, are seeking. Edit: Nother good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow
  12. A strong positive, A+. With this in mind, would you be willing to add all knowledge books to the various admiralty stores (though keep them as random drops as well)? It might even be prudent to make certain ones national specialties (that could be bought and sold), such as Sur Le Cannonage a Bord for France.. Nothing but praise and accolades for these points. When I initially read this, I was hopeful. Then I logged in, checked the map, and checked the resource distribution. Nothing was fixed, it's all a joke. Yes, you added some more ports for coal production. No nation that did not have coal before (Danish, Swedish, United States, and Dutch) has coal now, by default (we've already been picking on Spanish ports on Global since the Spanish player base seems to be minor/nonexistent). The two British ports are still a 3-hour round trip (ha ha) from them to KPR, assuming an average of 15 knots for poor wind. The two non-Kidd's pirate ports and the nearest Spanish coal ports to their respective capitals are a 1.5-hour round trip. France's coal port is a measly 20-minute round trip and probably doesn't even need to make that trip to centralize shipbuilding and gunsmithing. In short, nothing of benefit was done on this point. Here's my solution: Forget about this whole Conquest Coal concept. It's a failure, in my opinion. Instead, in order to promote conquest, make woods only player-craftable and regional. Step 1) Revert resource distribution to May 24th, as it appeared both on the Testbed prior to launch, and on day 1 of the 10.0 patch. Alternately, just stick a coal port in nearly every county if you want to make it easy on yourself. Step 2) Increase the availability of Teak as a mid-grade wood between Fir and Oak. Fir, Oak, and Teak will then become the "common" woods, and add a low-level AI production to them. Step 3) Remove AI production of all "uncommon" woods, and instead make them available as player-only production with forests, etc. Step 4) Restore AI production of Gold and Silver to allow for smuggler acquisition prior to regional conquests, but reduce the production and maximum storage to, say, 100 per day and a max store of 500-1000. Step 5) Delete this forum post and laud yourself as a genius for coming up with a system that everyone loves and adores (or at least is comfortable enough with to tolerate). Dis gud. Upper masts were hilariously-easy to demast. On that note, though, could we get some sweeping reduction of course (bottom) mast thickness (and upper sections, proportionately)? Like, a maximum of 4/3rds the ship's hull thickness? Increase some mast HP by another 20-33% or so to compensate, but some big boats really have overly-thick masts (RL Victory is about 96cm in diameter). Just sayin', it shouldn't be an exercise in futility to demast. I am perfectly fine with this. With sail repairs staying at 15 minutes with armor and crew going to 10, that's a nice balancing factor. A+ for as-is now. I say it before, and I say it again: Indefinitely-open battles. Have it so that attacking has a large pull circle (~3km radius) and uses that same pull circle as a join-exclusion area, similar to how an attacking force joins a port battle (joining up to ~5km out from center, but not within ~3km). Perhaps a Signalling perk would reduce this join exclusion zone by 25-33% for the perk-bearer's side. In this way, captains can join any existing battle, but not inside the area that they normally would were they in the pull circle to begin with. Capital-area battles and FFA battles would be excluded from this and anyone could hop in anywhere. Thems my thoughts, at least.
  13. @admin Thank you so much for the Protractor tool. It's (almost) exactly what I was asking for. A+ Edit: Also just noticed the faint gridlines. Surprisingly, I'm okay with unlabeled gridlines. It might make things a little more interesting. With respect to the other current points of contention for myself and others - Coal being a "Conquest" resource in the hands of only a few nations, Ship Knowledge being bjorked and bass-ackwards, and Inability to convert Marks - I'm personally not asking for instant gratification, here. I'm not the shallow sort of person that expects "YOU NEED TO FIX DIS NAOW!" All I'm looking for is acknowledgement of the problem and assurances that it's being worked toward correction. If you don't agree that having resources essential to heavy shipbuilding and, in turn, conquest and county defense - Coal and PvP Marks both - only accessible to a small portion of the player base is a sizable problem that will threaten the longevity of the game, then I'll be happy to explain why I feel that this is such a drastically erroneous position to take. The simplest fix to this situation is to restore the Mark conversion ability, even if it is at a higher rate (20-25:1, maybe even higher) and to restore the resource distribution as it existed on May 24th, on Day 1 of v10.0. If you think that the present state of ship knowledge unlocks is "fine and fair to all" and cannot see why it is so hideously grind-tastic and frustrating more than it is enjoyable, then I'll be happy to explain why it is and offer alternatives. The simplest fix to this issue is to not have a singular knowledge path for each ship (especially with nested dependencies to other ships), but have steeper but independent knowledge paths for larger groups of ships: 7ths, 6ths, Light 5ths, Heavy 5ths, 4ths, 3rds, and Heavy Lineships. I agree that unlocking all 5 knowledge slots on a ship (or ship class) should be a challenge and represent a significant investment of effort (I was personally a fan of the base-5 exponential curve - if a ship class takes 100xp for Slot 1, the successive slots would each take 500, 2,500, 12,500, and 62,500xp, respectively), but we shouldn't be forced to sail ships that we don't enjoy sailing simply because they exist in the game. I have a lot more I could talk about (Hostility, Conquest, Raids, Politics, Ballistics, RoE and Battle Instancing), but those issues don't really relate to this patch. That's what the signature links are for
  14. Like I said, revert resources to the initial patch day (yesterday) - there was enough resource scarcity to fight over without arbitrarily making Coal a rarer "conquest" resource. This does not enhance gameplay for anyone, it only increases frustration. No, it wasn't even required for them on the Testbed later in the game. The whole concept is silly, really, both in "realism" terms (using charcoal to smelt iron ore into ingots, lolwut?) and game balance.
  • Create New...