Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

saltiestraccoon

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

About saltiestraccoon

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. I was talking about this with a friend and came to the same conclusion. PBs should have caps on different classes of ship to prevent ridiculously anachronistic battles that aren't fun for lower level captains, history buffs or fans of more varied tactics.
  2. Grainne Mhaol (Grace O'Malley) as well, famous Irish female pirate captain.
  3. Made a post to similar effect some time ago, and I still think we need musketry. This gives the devs an idea on how to implement it as well. Agree 100%, hanging out close to a ship overloaded with marines should be a very unpleasant thing.
  4. I disagree and actually think it increases the depth of PvP gameplay. More strategies are never a problem. If you realize a player is running for you, you need to play more cautiously to avoid boarding, keep distance and wind in mind, or maybe they're bluffing a boarding attempt to get a rake. Carronades are more deadly than cannons up close, but do you want to get that close if you can be boarded easily? Boarding right now has almost no place in PvP. If you're not packing any boarding upgrades and you're getting killed by boarders, then that's a weakness in your build, not a flaw in the game. A good compliment of marines on board will easily keep you alive to disengage, and was historically accurate to have aboard a ship. Remember, when we're talking about super easy, decisive boarding, we're talking about a boarding specc'd player against one that doesn't have the right defense. If boarding were viable (notice I don't say good, just viable, it's not even that right now,) then players would have to consider more diverse builds to combat potential boarders. There are plenty of perks to defend oneself, plenty of upgrades, but if you don't have those, then you should be ignoring them at your own peril.
  5. I don't think anyone is saying that a single rake should actually take a ship out of the game. When I made this post I was talking about a way to disincentivize people showing their stern to save the sides of their ship from taking more damage. If you don't want to get stern camped, yes, creating distance and escaping the situation at a reach to force the opponent to cross back either close hauled or in irons are usually the answers. But, people should have to make those correct decisions and play well to escape a situation like that. I'm also bothered by SoLs being the ultimate end game. Deep PBs need to be more diverse (well PBs in general do.) I've had fights where I've absolutely pounded the stern of a ship and gotten very little in the way of results for the amount of effort it took. In the end I was no closer to sinking it and still couldn't stand its broadsides, which means all that raking was essentially for nothing. Granted, these were frigate vs. SoL situations, but if someone is allowing me to hang out on their stern forever, that's a play error that there needs to be significant punishment for. There are a multitude of ways to go about that, and raw 'extra crew damage' is not the only one. Like I said before, my first suggestion was actually just to apply armor damage to the stern to the sides once the stern is depleted. A less finnicky hitbox might also be a solution so that it doesn't have to be a 'perfect' rake to deliver devastating results. Perhaps the the rake damage on smaller cannons needs to be addressed specifically, but raking a larger ship seems to lack the reward it should offer.
  6. Having them on different days would be nice, or considering the scarcity of drops even a couple a week would be preferable. I have more weekdays off than weekends, and I'd much rather get up early on a weekday over a weekend.
  7. Ended up a grid and a half too far North of this one. Got nothing for my trouble. By the time I sailed South, everything was cleaned out in about 10 minutes. This is probably the last event I try until some changes are made to the event. I've been at it three weeks now and have literally gotten one chest. I have a social life and do things late with friends on Friday. Then I have to work until very late Saturday night. It is too exhausting to go on week after week putting myself through hell to almost certainly get nothing. Can we please start spawning in the wrecks one at a time over the course of several hours so that: A ) People will actually PvP to control the area so that they can loot wrecks that spawn later on in the event. B ) People who were not literally right on top of the wrecks when they spawned have a CHANCE at getting something. C ) People who do choose to PvP in the event area still have a shot at loot when their battle is over. D ) There is a steady stream of chest-carrying merchants leaving the event area to potentially be attacked. The event is by intention a PvP event, but the way it is designed actively punishes people who try to PvP. This is not a good design choice and it needs to be rectified. I don't intend to participate any further until changes are made that make the event actually interesting.
  8. While I agree it's fine if it's a game mechanic choice, I also think that its something, as alpha testers that we should be informed of so that we have opportunity to exploit it and see if it's a balanced mechanic for the game. The way to do that is to show us the hitboxes, not force us to spend millennia practicing for the perfect waterline shots, so that at the time of release there's not sufficient data to tell if those hitboxes are too big or too small. I'm not opposed to practice by any means. I've been playing fighting games since the days of lining up quarters on an Alpha 2 cabinet, but I think the purpose of an alpha or beta is to test features. That cannot be done if players don't know the specifics of features and mechanics in the game. Otherwise, what happens a month after release when people discover some broken mechanic for themselves? Then the whole game suffers until its fixed and game sales suffer as a result.
  9. You could also hand out other players taking missions at the same time missions to do the opposite. One player gets a mission to transport the governor's daughter, another player gets an order to kidnap her and so on. You could flag the opposing ship and even reveal its destination to facilitate PvP battles. The variety in PvP is EXTREMELY limited right now. It's either port battles with Rattlers and Mercuries, or port battles with Victories and Santisimas. There's little in between aside from one-sided ganking and player imposed blockades without any real reward other than to piss off another faction.
  10. Awesome idea. Sounds inspired by the board game Merchants and Marauders.
  11. Considering we're alpha testers it would be nice to get a look at the hitbox information of ships and water penetration stats of different cannons. I had this same thing happen to me today (also in a Merc.) Optimized Ballast, Live Oak, Build Strength, Trimming Expert and took 9 leaks. I feel like aiming at the waterline for me usually results in half my balls at least splashing harmlessly, and I think there's some other factors at play.
  12. I think the trouble is that you're missing how much a player is giving up with higher level marines, slower cannon fire, sluggish maneuvering, etc. Plus the huge cost of replacing a higher percentage of crew after each fight. And what happens after you take another ship? As I said, you're at an even bigger handicap after that. Really, to me, the answer would appear to be that boarding needs its teeth back, but cannons need to be buffed to the point where approaching to board is a dangerous prospect as it was in real life. Same goes for being vulnerable and static while in a boarding. Ships in NA take an ABSURD amount of punishment to what I feel like is probably realistic.I don't think boarding is always something that should be suspenseful, however. Just like fighting with cannons if you greatly outmatch your opponent it can be over very quickly with very little drama. Like a Victory pounding a frigate, if I have half as many marines as you have sailors, it should likewise be a cut and dry 'game over.'
  13. Pretty much my feeling as well. It creates an anachronistic fighting style.
  14. That's an elegant way of doing it. It could also assign you bounties of players close to your rank that way. There needs to be more PvP in the game outside ganking and PB's. As it is I'm fighting AI all the time and that gets a little dull.
  15. I'm not looking for fanciful Hollywood representations. Honestly that suggestion feels a little insulting. See any number of my other posts, I'm interested in a grounded and realistic game. I could go on to mention that many of the ships in the game were sunk and we have no reference but for paintings and such. Besides, the crew has made a few creative choices that definitely err on the side of the fanciful already. Pretty sure the rattlesnake didn't have that figurehead. Several wrecks have been discovered and suspected reconstructions are available particularly for the Queen Anne's revenge. I see no reason why including ships like that would be any more 'fanciful' than including other ships with little credible reference material.
×
×
  • Create New...