Farrago
-
Posts
1,568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Farrago
-
-
6 hours ago, Assassin said:I believe the large restrictions in the safe zones is a big contribute for pvp players leaving the game.Remove them would bet the best thing to do. I have chat /talked to many players in the game and I would say 99% don't like the way it is to day.One way to "fix" the problem could be to greatly improve the (all) town's port defense in PVP battles to increase the safety for players.Just an idea:-)
May I ask whom you want to hunt if the "safe" zones get even less safe?
The solution lies in making it more attractive, even required, to leave the safe zones if a player wants to continue progression in game, not in making it easier for you to kill new players or even the higher ranking player who only has time to log on for 1/2 hour to do a mission.
-
3 hours ago, Hethwill the Harmless said:
I hereby suggest the following:
- that the 80BR limit that separates the shallow PB from the deep water PB to be raised to 160BR
- that the most powerful ship able to enter shallow PB to be 160BR and all others to be addressed accordingly, mainly Heavy Rattlesnake and Prince, not to share the exact same BR as the Xebec. Traders to be accommodated under their warlike counterparts.
- that the deep water ships increase in BR equivalent to 1/3 of their present value. So a 200 BR ship becomes a 266BR ship. And so on, such as a 600BR ships becomes 798BR.
- that no port PB BR to be touched.
Any suggestions for the BRs up to 160 value more than welcome.
This might work.
Another possible solution would be that in order to capture a circle in a PB, you must have 2x the BR in that circle than your enemy. A lone anything could do it but a medium sized frigate would take the circle from the enemy. It would force more combat in PB perhaps...
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Old Crusty said:
All that most of us want that talk about Diplomacy is to make it so that a couple of players that get off on being contrary and a pain to people., can’t tag certain players from other Nations because the majority of that Nation has some intelligence and can trade for the materials we need without using ALT accounts.
Doesn’t that make some sense to all of you that are against any kind of National unity? Because some contrary, rude, I don’t give a $@($, kind of person will not leave traders alone from a Nation that we get White oak from, that Nation now won’t give us safe passage to trade.
The Rude, contrary, I can do what I want player, doesn’t give a crap about trading for white oak because he uses PvP marks to make his ships out of whatever he wants. He has no use for a trade agreement and honestly doesn’t care about you and what you want or need.
There is nothing that prevents alliances and trade agreements now with the one exception that you can not join another nation’s port battle fleet.
If such an informal (non game rules enforced) alliance works for the parties involved, it’s very difficult for a rogue player or clan to sabotage it. (But if they try, it makes for some intetesting game play.) In the past, we’ve seen numerous instances where the nation of the offending rogue reimburses the loss. But, because of the lack of green-on-green or clan wars mechanic, a nation cannot police its own waters or enforce agreements.
Every nation has/does/will experience rogues within their ranks who attack their ally’s shipping. And yet if they want to maintain an alliance that is beneficial to them, they don’t instantly declare war.
Devs have proven in the past that they neither have the time nor inclination to play ruler god and run a storyline of war and alliances. And player voting? I can currently cast up to 5 votes to sway alliances the way I want. And I haven’t bought another game copy in a while.
I think you mistake those against mechanic enforced alliances with those just wanting chaos. I don’t. Chaos doesnt benefit my play style. But I’ve seen that it doesn’t work to set alliances in stone because no matter whether it’s only one ally or three, random resets or not, players are going to follow or not follow the alliances that work for them.
HOWEVER, Implement a genuine pirate mechanic and/or letters of marque and we can consider game enforced alliances but be forewarned. At least on the global server, back when we had alliances but Pirates could not, Pirates tended to be the most popular and most powerful nation because they were the only ones who could still find a battle every day. Most players ultimately get bored when their only game choice is to make a almost 100% safe trade run.
-
@admin is the idea of removing the magic wallet still being considered? This would put the items with the most value on the water, especially if steps are taken to reduce tows and teleports.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, admin said:
TP was set as free only for testing purposes. Passenger transport (imaginary fast travel using liners or balloons) will cost coins in the future.
If the cost is low, it will have negligible effect as a money sink or deterrent. If it is high, it will exacerbate the problems we have due to low population. Please wait until such a “toll” or transport fare is needed because high pop require some traffic control. Also consider having the incoming port or owning clan to receive 100% of such revenue.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:
Take more rum ?
I can barely keep my guys sober as it is. We run 12 Step meetings 3 nights a week on board.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:
The absolute only change would be, when in OW replenishment of crew only with Rum and never bringing new crew from the Rank allowance.
That would be good if we had more people. Maybe 1000 or more. But as it is, PVP — especially the non seal clubbing type — is to rare. We don’t need the few who want to fight disappearing to go recrew after every engagement.
-
1
-
-
"Alts are not Allies."
-
24 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:
Unlikely, true. Still i become enthralled when those civilians perform like this
http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26578-trader-with-a-rover-heart
Wow! Thanks for linking to this.
-
1 hour ago, Lovec1990 said:
any leaks on that new ship we may get?
No. It will have OP structure. 😂
But seriously @admin thanks for the update. It sounds like we're headed in a good direction. I know that dates are subject to change but you'll have a happier, more participatory populace if you're able to give us an update every week or two on how this is all progressing.
-
5 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:
I hope you mean that's weird to get a boarding start... contrary to reality that, granted no rough sea, a boarding could start as the 2 ships were side to side... even running with the wind.
Make starting a boarding not REQUIRING a ramming... and boarders will not ram anymore.
Boarding has been overtly nerfed in last year. Let's be clear: or it should be (and IT HAS TO) part of a 1800 naval simulation... or simply sincerely say "we do not want it".
Brace and Muskets resisting vs an attack with Marines and bonus, Barricades... plenty way to avoid a board... Determined Defender crappiness (EVEN WHEN BOTH SHIPS ARE READY AND ANGER TO START A BOARDING).
Now also extra collision damage (I agree that shhould be nice... BUT FIRST MAKE POSSIBLE TO BOARD WITHOUT HAVING TO TURN ENEMY INTO THE WIND BY SHEER FORCE).
Gents. Make it simple: "We do not want boarding being a feature OF AN AGE OF SAIL NAVAL COMBAT SIMULATOR" - please: read this again.
Then go around speaking of the beauties of a NAVAL WARFARE IN 1800 SIMULATOR WITH MAST SNIPING, SUPER REPAIRS IN COMBAT etc etc...
I get it. You like to board. And you're good at it. I prefer ship to ship gunnery and sailing but I'm not advocating removing your (or my) boarding option, but just in removing as much illogical magic as possible. All mods and options -- both offensive and defensive -- should be on the table during testing.
So, you want to be able to board at higher speeds? Okay. Perhaps. What percentage of your crew do you think would be fair to lose just as they try to move from your ship to the defender at high speed? How many swing across? 20 or 30 seems high. How many of them would not become casualties within those first seconds surrounded on a hostile ship? How about as attacker, the first several rounds of your boarding action you can not bring all of your crew numbers to bear as they can't all get over the side simultaneously? The first waves of attackers would get slaughtered. I'm okay getting rid of determined defender but only if we find as-good-as-possible ways to simulate the difficulty of one naval ship to capture another naval ship when the attacker does not have a huge numerical advantage. Until the ships are completely stopped and after some time in hand-to-hand combat, all advantages lay with the defender (except of course with the element of surprise). Obviously civilian traders would be unlikely to even defend against a boarding action unless they feared certain death in captivity.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Sverne said:
Crew damage...
Yep. The command must go out “All hands brace for impact!”
-
1
-
-
I know simulating collision damage was tried and failed, but with our current unrealistic boarding capabilities or sometimes lack of (determined defender), perhaps it’s time to relook at some options.
First, I don’t know if it is always possible for the game to determine who rammed who. I also don’t if the game can determine the speed of the collision. But...
Here are some options:
Damage and leaks to both parties, the lighter ship sustains worse damage. Possible immediate rigging shock as well.
But even more important and perhaps easier to implement. A use for the BRACE COMMAND. If there is a strong enough collision and your crew is not braced you receive significant crew damage and go in to crew shock.
-
7
-
-
Having trouble hitting the little guys?
I’m sure the pros already know this, but...
Hints:
You know those Swing Beds & Elevating Screws and William Congreve Sights that you have so many of? Use them.
And as soon as you start to run, you’re playing their game. Fight.
-
1
-
-
Press scuttle button. All sails go down.
All combatants get message Capt Farrago is abandoning ship.
3 minutes later, 75% of the time the ship blows up. If the ship is boarded prior to those 3 minutes elapsing, the timer stops and ship is not scuttled. (It would not be a boarding action but the simple X.)
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Licinio Chiavari said:
there was no irony at all. For decent I mean what I tried to use to hunt alone in the past. Like a fir/maho renomee with Gazelle and Spanish (base).
Now it's a plain suicide. And you should know it is. If not: try to come in enemy capitol area with the hunting ship of your choise spending for her also 2 mil. And look how long you'll live.
But how long should one be able to live sailing solo attacking in a nation's capital waters?
-
Clan owners should have options for their ports:
Only clan access
Only clans on friendly clan list
Only nation access
Open to all
Green on green is allowed
This encourages both clan and national diplomacy. It would give nations the ability to police their own waters.
If clans don't cooperate or allow other clans in their ports would see a drop in tax revenue and could find themselves in a civil war.
Clanless or solo players could form their own clan and establish relations with other clans or they could continue to go it alone using national ports or smuggling.
A clanless player who wants to participate in RVR can temporarily join a port battle clan as a hired gun.
A clan that farms its own new clanless or solo players could and should quickly arouse the ire of other clans.
For all this to work well, at least clan affiliation should be visible in OW.
-
1
-
-
I would be in favor of differing PVP vs PVE experience if it was part of an overall reputation system which is built -- or torn down -- by combat, trade, crafting, national participation, etc. even including a feedback from opponents. An "honor" score if you will.
-
5 hours ago, Crow said:
I would like to suggest 1.5 x PVP reward for returning ships to port and selling them to admiralty.
This would be realistic and would increase PVP OW opertuninty.
I'd take it even further: reduce PVP rewards for sinking the enemy; 3x PVP rewards for returning the prize to your nation's capitol. Prize if claimed for the PVP marks must be turned in to admiralty but you receive one of its permanent mods.
-
3
-
-
"Use superior numbers wisely. Your strength is in mutual support."
-
I think we should have a scuttle button, but I think we should also have a game where the economy, economic warfare, and denying a ship to the enemy means something. Under the current conditions, who cares if another ship goes down.
-
Best of luck to you and your clan.
-
It would be helpful if @admin or someone with knowledge about the game's database design would chime in and briefly let us know what is possible mid to long term (since we know they are busy short-term).
We come up with all these suggestions about clan wars, alliances etc. Perhaps it's impossible to have allied but foreign nation clans without redoing the whole data structure. Perhaps the reason clan wars never became a thing was because it just won't work with the database as we know it. Obviously at one time nation A could be allied with B and operate almost as the same nation. Maybe not now. Maybe it's too difficult or complicated to insert an additional layer of war/alliance on the clan level.
-
2
-
-
I think this discussion may be more fruitful after the economy gets reworked. Basically, if the economy doesn't get fixed, this game is not going to ever experience significant population growth again.
That being said, I played back when we had player voted alliances. At least on the global server, peace broke out and we sailed around just looking at each other because the biggest nations all ended up allied. It was boring.
I know it's not historical, but clan based is the way to improve game play and provides the freedom and flexibility to move forward.
-
3
-
Patrol zone rotation
in Feature proposals and Gameplay Help Q&A
Posted · Edited by Farrago
I tracked it for 2 weeks. It appears to currently be a 7 day cycle. We have 6 PVP zones; Nassau is done twice in those 7 days. The only time I've personally seen it repeat the same zone two days in a row was when we had a big server outtage and the servers had to be reset to previous state.
Current order:
Repeat.
If you like this answer, please uptick it as answered.