Farrago
-
Posts
1,568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Farrago
-
-
I don't like the BR calculation being part of ROE. Seems gamey. As does 20 minutes timers. However, due to the extremely low population, especially during North American primetime sometimes the longer timer is the only thing that allows anyone to get any action. But put 1000 captains on the water and 20 minutes will be horrific. Lower timer to 10 minutes now and lower it again if we get an influx of active players.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Sovereign said:
You could allow clans to let players take control of the guns on their fortifications. The less AI in PvP, the better.
I've also suggested this several times in the past. It would be wonderful. I wonder if the game engine could handle 25 defender ship captains + players manning the fort guns. So cool!
-
2
-
-
You should send @Ink a forum private message with your in-game name and as much detail as you can provide such as dates, server, last activity. Maybe they can figure what happened and help you.
-
4 hours ago, jodgi said:
A bit of eye and hand coordination, sure, but it's not a ping and refresh rate exercise.
I didn’t really know how to properly describe it, but the hand eye coordination has to be in synch with internet speeds as well wouldn’t you say?
57 minutes ago, Barbancourt said:If you get lucky or commit to it long enough perhaps enough pixel balls will hit to Win The Jackpot. Or maybe you just end up looking foolish.
It doesn’t seem to me that many of our most deadly — as in get the most PvP kills — captains are depending on luck to demast. They’ve spent the time to learn how to pick the masts apart. It’s a skill, just not one I like being possible in the game.
-
On 3/13/2019 at 1:14 AM, admin said:
i cant do that. i dont know about removing skill oriented mechanics, as such aiming as yours is definitely skill
and if it is soo easy why not everyone is doing it.In almost every PvP battle I’m in, the opponent tries to snipe my masts. Presumably because he/she has had some success with it in the past and they know that if they can do it, it’s the most obvious and easiest way to victory
But I’m like you, I don’t know how to do it. I’ve never bothered to learn since it seems like such fake way to win a battle. It takes your beautiful combat sailing and gunnery models and reduces them to victory to the guy who has learned to synch their single shots and ping rate knowing where exactly to aim those perfectly steady laser lines.
Mast sniping is sort of like the boarding mini game. I have not concentrated on mastering it because I always thought these really fake mechanics would be changed. I was never good a strictly hand/eye/ping/refresh rate exercises.
-
1
-
-
You might make a lucky score but in general, it is currently not possible for smaller clans or individual players to obtain quantities of rare woods consistently. But then, we can no longer consistently supply ourselves with larger ships either so it may not matter.
-
1
-
-
So I have a theory of where we are headed based on all this. It's just a theory, but it's sort of what I would do if it were my game in the current state and population; I needed to secure future maintenance and development funds; and I wanted to try and get and keep players (and for old players to return). I would want to make a killer game that a large population was interested in. I'd think that only a complex game where there are multiple routes to success -- and success can be defined in various ways -- would be really groundbreaking.
I'd also like my family and my developers to be able to afford some relaxing spring days having a picnic on the banks of the Dnepr.
Many of the best ships are now accessible behind permits which are available via RNG chest drops. I can increase (or decrease) the ship supply as needed by adjusting the chances of the permit drop or even by seeding ports or admiralty stores. @admin has announced that he plans to buff these permit only ships so strong ships would be available for the grind and for those players that don't want to buy DLCs or prefer a different playstyle. I could fiddle with the supply of desirable woods to spur ship crafting and make those guys happy. I could fiddle with trade to make it more attractive. I could take steps to encourage less stockpiling and more selling of excess woods and permits. I could use the funds generated by DLC sales to fund development making a richer game.
I would also continue releasing a variety of DLC ships. They need to be strong enough to attract some buyers, but not so strong that the players described in the preceding paragraph feel like the game has become pay to win. However, new ships as DLC will provide for those players who prefer not to trade/craft but want to just fight. It would also give an option to those who don't have time to play the more complex game. I would adjust redeem cool-down appropriately for various ship rates. I would make DLC ships capturable or tradable but once ownership is transferred, they would expire/sink at maintenance.
So, the least complicated and quickest way to play the game would be just by owning the DLC ships, taking them out and either sinking AI, other players, or yourself. But a totally legitimate, complex, extremely enjoyable route to success is available to those who don't want to buy DLCs and have more time for the game.
I don't know if the above would work, but based on the announcements we've seen lately, it might be the plan.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
When you attack a place what happens? Econ stops, places get destroyed by cannon fire. People get killed. It should not stay the same. They need to rebuild the captured ports if they want them to do better
Damage, perhaps extensive, should happen sure but wouldn’t it motivate RVR if some improvements survive or the capturer at least isn’t starting from square one. A port that is successfully defended should also suffer some damage.
Otherwise, I worry that we’ll all just nestle in to our ports, build them up continuously, and never try to conquer.
-
2
-
-
I don’t know if it has been decided but I hope that when capturing a port, you capture any/some improvements. That would drive RVR.
-
4 hours ago, Intrepido said:
We can not be all day attacking npc traders just to see if they have rare woods. Most people dont have the time for that
True. They’ll probably need to buy from those that do have the time. Or sail the lesser woods.
I’m not saying that this “new” system is going to work, but there’s no reason to think that in this game one should be able to do everything himself and still be able to participate in all activities effectively.
Ideally a good balance would be achieved and it would be too expensive for a clan/nation to risk 25 LO/WO ships. A fleet might have a few with the rest being Cag/Sab or some other less expensive option.
-
1
-
-
I am not going to miss my Rank XP as much as my Crafting XP. And I don’t think I’ll be alone in this sentiment. Crafted ships of any size are going to become extremely rare for a long time.
-
Do you guys think we will ever reach a point where there are more players who bought after release than before? I’m doubtful. Almost everyone on the servers is going to have a Pandora.
-
2
-
-
Well. First rate spam won’t be a thing for a while. (Shrug)
-
On 2/21/2019 at 4:28 PM, Carlos_Condell said:
BTW guys... STOP thinking in ALT abuse and start thinking in CONTENT for players!!
it doesn't matter if some players abuse with ALTS... is WAY more IMPORTANT have content in game no matter if is corruptible by alts.
all those things will happen anyway... so please encourage new interesting content instead in comment warnings of "posible" alt abuseWhile I agree that we have too many mechanics in place just to prevent the few players who will choose to abuse or exploit a whole in the system, any system which allows a player to exist on the PVP server and yet be immune from PVP would remove a whole element of game play. Almost all merchant traffic would end up being immune from intercept.
-
On 2/21/2019 at 5:10 PM, Coraline Vodka said:
Asking new players to delete and start from 0 is pretty poor imo, maybe give new accounts free nation changes for a month. Also new players should all start with their nation capital and shroud cay.
Perhaps giving one set of non tradable forged papers on completion of tutorial...
-
2
-
-
I don’t understand the purpose of this.
-
1 hour ago, Lieste said:
Really the distinction shouldn't be between medium and long ordnance, but between medium and heavy ordnance.
"Long guns" are heavily built, accept full charges and (with reduced charge) double shot as options. Lengths can vary significantly, for example the 6lb gun comes in lengths from 6ft to 8.5ft, the 9lb from 7ft to 9ft, but the weights are closer, with the heavy breech being common and only the chase being significantly different in length and having a much thinner wall.
The medium gun is a much lighter construction, unsuited to double shot, and typically having a lower maximum charge. Lengths can be longer than the average 'long gun' - though it most commonly also at the shorter end of the 'heavy gun' construction range of lengths. (An example of a 'long' "medium" gun is the 10ft+ 24lb ordnance of the Vasa, which are around half the weight of a 9ft 24lb of the Armstrong/Blomefeld patterns, and also the shorter pattern later 'rebores' of 18lb guns to 32lb or 9lb to 18lb, and the various failed experiments with reduced weight guns, such as Congreve pattern guns).
These all show less performance with worse recoil, and less flexibility in operation {the long guns can be used with reduced charges, and with double shot to span a far wider range of velocities than carronades (with which they share a common 'minimum' velocity), medium guns (which are middling in performance down to carronade level), and also have a higher velocity for flatter fire and performance out to extended ranges}.
A lot of information but I am pretty sure the question pertained to which is a better choice in the game.
-
1
-
-
I like that little bit of speed gain, less crew required, and higher rate of fire of mediums. But I am in the minority.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Hethwill said:
Right' oh Farrago, as i posted somewhere...
basically rate gap +1%
7th rate should need 8% to tag a 1st rate. 6th would need 7%, 2nd would need 2%, A higher rate would simply need the 1%.
( not just a ball theough sail, but 1% dmg combined )
Or some percentage of damage on a target within 90 seconds. I’d hate to remove the ability of multiple small ships to try and tackle a bigger guy.
-
3
-
-
Raise the threshold for damage that qualifies as a tag. A cannonball through your sails at 500m should not be enough.
-
2
-
-
I don’t sail for any of the nations affected and don’t remember the last time I sailed into the gulf but...
I see no reason for this until such a time as there is a complete map wipe. Unless significant changes to Conquest, Port Battles, Port Management, and Port Resources happen, why just cause this inconvenience to those players?
-
2
-
-
Ideal:
Some rudimentary navigational tools such as line of bearing read outs with the telescope view and ability to set waypoints.
A daily noontime and perhaps midnight positional x 3 digit and y 3 digit positioning if the weather is clear.
Make sextant an Expert Navigator 3 point perk which gives a more exact and more frequent reading.
Remove coordinates from F11.
If Dev goes through with changing ROE to allow longer times for reinforcements, knowing more accurate positional measurement will be very important tactically.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Wyy said:
hms dickbut, and l'idiot wont be nice see sailing around
so easy to go around the language checker when you have so many different alphabets and languages
But it should be realitively easy for the Devs to pull a list of hundreds if not thousands of historical ship names. We could choose from an approved list.
-
2
-
-
I can understand why ONION finds BORK apeeling. Avoid leeks.
-
1
-
so easy to go around the language checker when you have so many different alphabets and languages
WYSIWYG RoE - Bring back 2-min join-timer
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Just spitballing here...
What about battle never closes for either side but the swords disappear 2-3 minutes after appearing in render range?
So if winds allow reinforcing, it can happen, but sword camping ganks would be harder and it would be impossible for one side to ride the timer for 29 minutes.