Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Saint George

Members2
  • Posts

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saint George

  1. On behalf of all of players who chose the PVE server because we just cannot invest more than a few hours a week in the game, please revert back to having all RAIDER attacks on clan owned ports populate on Friday for the following 7 days as it used to be. Furthermore make it so that there will be a minimum of 48 hours between the time the RAIDER attacks are populated and the first attack happens. Perhaps even make it so all RAIDER attacks occur on weekends. Due to real life demands and obligations there are a great many PVE players that just cannot log onto the game each and every day to see if one of our clan owned ports is threatened and try to defend it. Lately so many time we log on the one day a week or so that we have the opportunity to play only to find that a port we worked very hard to capture and developed is now owned by a clan from another nation. No doubt the couple hundred full time players with nothing else to do probably love the current way and will resist this suggestion. But there are literally hundreds of other "part time" players that are playing less and less because of changes that are making it very difficult to enjoy the game. PVE server has begun to feel a lot like PVP without the PVP.
  2. Would like to have the ability to fight from 3rd person perspective. Wondering if we could get the ability to target an enemy ship and fire on it from the 3rd person, zoomed out view. Perhaps a simple method of clicking the enemy ship you are targeting, along with a set of brackets projecting from the ship in 3rd person view, similar to the aiming brackets when in deck view. Bracket firing arc could remain grayed out until guns are aligned with the target at which point the bracket would turn green. Player still fire manually using either spacebar, left mouse or bracket keys. And thus it would require careful timing on the part of the player still to shoot accurately. Nothing with how we control sailing should have to change with this.
  3. At the New Smyrna defense week before last we defended against the Raider AI attacking fleet. Per the original post explaining the mechanics if the Raider attack and how to defeat them, part of which I have quoted above, we did exactly what that post said to win. And we still lost. 1) We sunk every one of the enemy trader ships before they ever got near a capture circle. According to the what the developers wrote, this should have been enough to win, since the enemy requires 1000 points for victory and the remaining warships, all Essex, could only generate 270 points total even if the ya all got to the capture circles. 2) We also sunk 25 -30 percent of the Raider warships before they got to the capture circles. Once again, per the developers instructions, the Raiders should not have been able to generate enough points to win. However, we did notice that once the first enemy warship entered a cap circle that circle instantly went Red indicating the enemy captured it. Then we noticed a slow but steady gain in points by the enemy, perhaps 2-3 points per second, and the rate at which the enemy earned points seemed to increase as more enemy warships entered the circles. We continued to fight the warships at the circles but soon and very rapidly, the enemy points reached 1000 and the battle ended giving the Raiders the victory. The player fleet however was not accumulating points over time for owning all three circles in previous defenses against Raider attacks. We were not even allowed to capture them once the capture timer had expired. In the developers instructions there is no mention of the enemy being able to earn points over time just for owning a circle. It does not say that the enemy instantly captures a circle when one ship enters it. It does not state that players cannot capture circles and earn points over time for holding them. The enemy does not "pick the best wind". The wind does not match open world wind in Raider attacks as it does all other battle instances. The wind is instead is positioned to favor the Raiders wherever they spawn and the Raiders will spawn based off of where players enter so as to force player to sail against the wind. Essentially Raiders get to "scout" but players don't. So is the enemy supposed to be able to accumulate points over time for having one or more ships in a circle IN ADDITION TO the 35 points they get for each warship that gets in and 325 for each trader? And is the player fleet not supposed to be able to capture circles, accumulate points over time for holding the circles, and stop the enemy from doing so by having more ships or BR in the circle than the enemy? It seems the battles are either not working as they are supposed to or the developers post describing how the battles work is very inaccurate. Because if the Raider PBs work exactly as the developers posted then we should have won the battle at New Smyrna week before last.
  4. Precisely Texas. Someone gets it. Keep the zones as are and make the gulf a PVE zone as once planned. Finding the balance for those that want to be hard core full time PVP'ers and those that prefer a more casual play experience is going to be key to keeping game alive and players coming back. And we all know those "Safe Zones" around capitals are not at all that, as Chris knows all too well. They are the favorite hunting grounds for PVP'ers to prey on noobs and casuals for easy rewards. Balance is the key.
  5. Yeah the guy just being a prick, using any game mechanic he can to just waste peoples time. He has no honor. Guess he gets a laugh out of it. Never seen him do anything in any battle but run around in fast 6th rate ships staying just out of range. Rarely fires a shot if at all.
  6. I don't understand why we need the new currency"s, other than the historical accuracy perhaps. And I belive most currency of the time, regardless of the nation that minted it, used Gold, Silver and Copper to do it. Adding actual national denominations Seems like it will complicate the economy unnecessarily. Using Gold and Silver and Copper is simple and easy to utilize.
  7. Heel and sideslip thru water are too much at the moment. Estimated that the Constitution in game when at full sail on a beam wind is traveling a meter sideways for every 2 - 3 meters forward. And most ships heel so badly even at battle and dead slow sail that cannon cant be brought to bear on target without depowering. This should not happen except at full sail or maybe half. But certainly not at battle sail and below.
  8. Bucentaure stern has always seemed overly fragile to me. Takes crew losses thru stern like no other ship.
  9. Currently most ships in the game cannot be turned through the wind without ending up in reverse no matter what you do. The exception being the really light wood builds. At the same time most of them transition from forward to reverse instantly and accelerate in reverse at a rate equal to or faster than they do forward. This shouldn't happen due to hull design and the hydraulic forces applied to the hull by the water. It seems the force being applied to yard sails and stays is way out of realistic proportions. Consider that sails on yards would not generate the same force when catching the wind from the front as the do when catching it from the rear, since they become folded around the mast and lose effectiveness when the wind is from front. Otherwise the game seems to be on the right track with respect to sailing profiles. With regard to turning, the size of the rudder in relation to the ship length and mass below water generally is the primary factor affecting turn rate. However angling of the yards can have a significant affect depending on mast position. Some ships had there main mast positioned further astern to aid in turning. However the changes seem to not model this on ships that have a more aft placement of the main mast. Demasting has become far too easy. Consider that in reality most mast hits with round shot would result in a ricochet off the mast if the shot did not hit the mast square on.
  10. Need a "Carribean" server map reset with this merge so the clans being moved from Global have the same opportunity to capture some neutral OPs without having to be at the mercy of owning nations 2 hour PB window, which will very obviously be set to benefit their prime time. This is only fair, since it is how all clans began under this new conquest model.
  11. Allowing the owner of a port to dictate when they can be attacked and limiting it to a 2-3 hour window, which they of course can set for the middle of the damn night when the attacking nation players might attack is nonsense. In the real world the attacker chooses when and where to attack and the defender just has to try to predict and prepare. If latency on the "carribean" server is as bad as it has always been when playing from CONUS it most certainly will, not be enjoyable for half of the globe. Wont continue to play a game where half my broadsides miss because the ship I am shooting at isn't really where it is on my monitor.
  12. Like to see the ability to generate hostility from attacking Open World NPC fleets and traders brought back. The Hostility Missions are okay. But is very monotonous. And during those time of day when most are busy doing other things, or are not online, it would be great to still have the ability to generate hostility when you can only gather a couple of players or are solo. Additionally, would like to see a mix of enemy NPC ships in Hostility missions, not just all one type of one rate. Perhaps base it off of total BR. Bottom line is, give us options that work for everything from solo play up the massive battle group play. Thanks
  13. Because without some PVE on a map this big with even an average 500 player peak pop you would have a hard time finding anything to fight. This is not World of Warships 1800.
  14. 1) Just keep Open World AI fleets roaming around so players who's game time and schedule don't permit them to participate in conquest have something to fight other than traders. 2) Increase the XP and gold rewards for hunting OW fleets. No point spending hours sailing around hunting fleets when you can get as much or more gold and XP doing mission right outside your capital. 2) Don't make participation in Port Battles a factor for obtaining anything a player needs to have the biggest and best ships they can get. 3) Don't limit hostility generating missions to local neighboring regions only as implied. The ability to strike deep into an enemy's "back yard" is realistic. But doing so should also be much more difficult. Simply eliminating the free ports right next door will do this. If a nation wants to strike deep into the heart of enemy territory they should be able to. But they should expect to have to sail their assault force a long way to do it (realistic) and expect a long arduous sail home if they fail (also realistic). Bottom line is even the proposed changes still make the game to Conquest focused and not enough open world fighting focused. All you really had to do to fix what we have right now is give each nation a set of 3-5 unconquerable regions that contained everything they needed to build any ship they want of average quality, so that even if they were beaten back to their starting ports, they could rebuild and start conquering again. And then dump the marks system and just make it such that the resources and mats to make the most coveted upgrades or toughest and fastest hulls, etc, could only be had in the regions that would be fought over, which could all be neutral regions as currently planned.
  15. Slow down OW AI fleets just a bit please. Seems they all are fir, fir until ya get them in battle. Would prefer not to have to pursue them for 10 minutes to close in enough to tag.
  16. 1) Eliminate Marks system. Ability to produce ships should be limited only by resources, money, blueprints, permits and a place to build them and crafting skill. Permits and Blue Prints could be purchased with gold at a high price. 2) Eliminate invisibility and all post battle anti-attacking measures as well as eliminating control perk. Keep all battle instance open for passersby indefinitely. When you choose to engage in battle you accept the risk that someone's buddy's might show up to help. You may start with an advantage but you may also lose it. 3) Eliminate all ability to teleport ships whatsoever. If you want to go somewhere to PVP you have to sail there first, and thus risk PVP enroute. All the old ship teleporting option did was put all the focus on Port Battles and made open world encounters scarce. Stopping the use of alts for safe trading in hostile waters would improve PVP also.
  17. Every time the USA has a defeat or some clan doesn't get everything their way, USA Nation chat always results in this kind of childish non-sense for the next two hours while its enemy's continue to advance. May be to time to try something other than name calling and finger pointing.
  18. "Hostilities will cease when the Gulf has been returned to it's rightful owners" So Spain then.
  19. Make it such that friendly player ships are visible to friendly players while they are still invisible to the enemy during the post battle invisibility timer. At a minimum make it such that group members can see each other. This will make it much easier to get regrouped for the post battle sailing, and keep players from being ganked because they cannot see group to rendezvous, get separated and isolated.
  20. PRESICELY!!! HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!
  21. It is very logical that a ship that escapes a battle due to damage, should result in some type of reward for the enemy team. Especially if the team that the ship that escaped was on had the BR advantage. The other side of that coin is, a ship that is able to escape a battle with little to no damage, especially if it was on the disadvantaged (lower BR) team, should result in a reward for saving their ship in situation where victory was unlikely anyway. So perhaps what we need here is a reward system applied to escaping that: 1) Rewards the disadvantaged team ( lower BR) for extracting their ships intact from an unwinnable situation. These rewards would require the escapee to be on the disadvantaged team and to escape with their ship armor, structure, sails or crew or a combination thereof still at or above a certain percentage. 2) Rewards a team, regardless of BR, for inflicting so much damage to a ship that the ship has to escape. These rewards would require the escapee to have lost a certain % of their armor, structure, sails, crew or a combination thereof. These rewards probably should not be as much as we would receive for sinking a ship, but should still be equivalent to the effort needed to accomplish the feat.
  22. Seems like players will be able to move freely in and out of the PVE/PVP zones. But whichever zone your in those are the engagement rules that apply. So a true PVE only player will just have to exercise caution when sailing near the borders of the PVE area.
  23. Precisely Old Cranky. The game has become such that it only works for those nations that have the players that play the most. Most of us just don't have the time required to commit to a game such as this one is now, to ensure that your nation doesn't get steam rolled. Already hearing lots of folks saying they are quitting if the game becomes even more demanding, in terms of time spent playing to get and keep OP's so ya can get what ya need to build or buy ships so ya can play.
  24. Firstly, the idea that seems to be prevalent that SOL's were not very common is inaccurate. By 1812 the Royal Navy had more than 600 vessels in active service with an additional 250 in port. Of these roughly 175 were SOL's of at least 64 guns. Meaning roughly 25-30% were SOL's. Limiting total BR in PB would force each nation to strategize what ships to bring and there for would force more realistic numbers of ship classes in PBS. With BR limit, as opposed to just a limit on number of ships, there could potentially be a battle of 25 Cutters vs 2-3 first rates or something like that or anything in between. Would make it much more interesting. And to address Sir Texas Sir point, make it such that a player can only bring to the PB the ship the player used to generate or counter hostility the most with in that region. So this way, if ya want to use your Santi in the PB ya gotta use it to raise the hostility. Could potentially even place limits on how much hostility can be generated by each ship class in one region, thus forcing nations to use a variety. Another option might be to simulate those factors, such as refit time after a battle, or provision limits or such, that limited how often real vessels could be deployed. Maybe impose limits on each ship class, that places a cool down a players ship or ships, after it has been used in battle. Just as an example, if I use my Santisima today in a PB, perhaps it cannot be used again for 5 days. However if I use my Constitution, perhaps it can be used again after just 2-3 days, or something like this. There are many ways to make it work.
×
×
  • Create New...