Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Farrago

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,568

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Farrago

    Edinorogs

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    Agree although I lean towards removing them. I’m away from game this month so haven’t been able to test the nerf but before, I just saw no reason NOT to use them. There wasn’t a downside. Why have a super cannon in game?

    But... make them craftable AND require a edinaroog permanent mod installed, perhaps then.

    • Like 1

    Most fun without sailing

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    5 hours ago, RKY said:

    i'd say rng is fine, but crafter should pay for a chance to have a rng trim or mod.

    what i mean is:

    - craft a ship with no extra cost = 3/3 no special trim

    - craft ship with extra ingredient such as black ironwood, swedish iron, muskets, war supplies. Those would activate rng and give you a chance to get a 3/3 with special trim ship.

    - craft a ship with ingredient like mentionned above plus some extra labor hours and gold and crafting experience gives a chance to get up to 5/5 with special trim.

    Instead of complete RNG, I’d like to see the extra ingredient(s) produce a known permanent mod or at least a random mod of a certain class. For example: all crafted ships would be 3/5 but if you crafted it with additional muskets, you get an additional permanent boarding mod; with gunpowders, additional permanent penetration mod; certain woods add thickness or hp mods. Install copper plating at crafting time and your ship won’t have to use one of the 3 slots to have the benefits of copper plating. The permanently installed crafted mods in the bonus slots could get quite creative in their benefits and recipes. Hell, add 5 historical artifacts and get a repair or healing bonus mod permanently installed on the crafted ship.

    Navy versions of Existing ships to increase variety

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    I personally don’t like to hang out in the safe zone but let me suggest that it is quite possibly those who do who are crafting a large percentage of your ships, your cannons, getting the materials for your repairs, finding the books and mods, and providing most of the gold to pay for your ports. Obviously there are some players who don’t need anyone to be doing that production and PVE gold grind for them but I’d suggest that without it, much of the large scale game operations such as RVR and fleet battles would grind to a halt.

    Please, more PERKS slots.

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Palatinose said:

    Basically i just like that one has to make choices. Specialization in one part of the spectre or being mediocre fitted overall is a good thing. The realism argument for the prepared perk is invalid, as most of the perks are game features that can't easily be compared to reality.

    I agree. While I would certainly love having the benefits of perks without having to “pay” for them, the current system contributes to variety. Every perk I’ve chosen i consider almost  indispensable to my play style and game mechanics but interestingly a different player will feel the same way about different perks. I’d like to add the determined defender perk but would have to lose another important perk. It’s good that we have to make those sorts of decisions.

    • Like 1

    pls change timers

    in Caribbean News

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

    Defenders need some kind of advantage when they attack enemy hostility fleet or it will never change.

    Defenders can teleport into the port and store repairs there. Attackers can't.

    That's potentially a pretty big advantage. 

    • Like 2

    Fun PVP for everyone!

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted

    Ok, let's try this new idea. I'm afraid it's just going to provide a short term increase in opportunities for the PVP pros to find and kill the PVP amateurs. A few amateurs may become pros but for most, they'll realize they have little chance to win and there's no meaning in their death. So, no change.

    I am personally skeptical that there is a solution for significantly increasing the percentage of players who want to PVP with the current game. It's going to be a bell curve always. We all fall somewhere on the scale of 0 desire (should probably be on the PVE server) to 10 (damn the torpedoes I'm going to fight no matter the odds). No fiddling with rewards, free ships, cheap ships, missions, durabilities, safe zones, mods or no mods, is going to change the curve in a significant way. If one thinks they are going to lose -- sink -- many/most will avoid the fight even if everything they lose will be replaced for free. We humans don't like to lose. We especially won't risk losing when we feel like the deck is stacked against us. We just won't play (PVP) in that instance. 

    There are two situations in a game -- and in life -- where self sacrifice happens. 1) Loyalty to your buddy. I know I've stayed in or joined a battle when I could escape because a teammate was in trouble, even though I knew that it probably meant I would be sunk. 2) Loyalty to nation. We see this in port battles and screening but sinking the enemy at great sacrifice in OW means little to our nation or the war effort. We just don't have an economy that interdiction of trade and those who protect it, and killing those who raid it matters. Changes have been suggested in many threads that will increase content, and therefore increase the number of PVPers because game population increases but dealing with anything other than combat and sailing models doesn't seem to interest the Devs. So, this will always be a small population game. Small population will always equal small number of PVPers.

    • Like 1

    Important information on redeemable clearance! Warning: Action Required.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Sir Madoc said:

    If I delete my player account and make a new one will my redeemables still be there? (I want to change my player name)

     

    4 hours ago, Jœrnson said:

    No.

    Are we sure about that? Redeemables disappear after March 15 but I thought until then they are tied to your Steam account. As long as they haven't been redeemed already they would still be there on a new character. But not after March 15. 

    Changing the permanent mods to level the playing field

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted · Edited by Farrago

    1 hour ago, BPHick said:

    So factor in a bit of intentional hyperbole on my part (the 14kt and half instead of just under half) to try and make a point, and you get a fast, tanky ship that can repair half its sides in one go.

    But wouldn't it be far more fun instead of discussing the problem to just make trolling comments being deliberately obtuse? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think. But you tried.

    But seriously...

    I used to be against mods. Then I was against stacking mods. But then I changed my thinking: I'm now okay with them but would prefer that stacking brings diminishing returns and rather than a randomness in crafting and drops, I would prefer purposeful crafting. But I must admit because of randomness, I've tried and liked setups that I wouldn't have normally tried.

    We all seem to operate on the assumption that there is one meta and everyone is striving for the same exact ship. In port battles that may be true to some extent but I've started to notice that I love ships that teammates dislike and vice versa. I've also noticed that while I've carefully picked out the mods I use and the perks I choose, other players who presumably have also given their choices some thought make very different decisions. Customization which is only possible by wood choice, mod installation, and perk choice is a very good thing. It helps give me more confidence to enter or stay in the battle and while I there, I can fight according to my style.

    • Like 2

    Proposed Rule: Don't join battle on your enemy's side.

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    3 hours ago, CaptainSparckles said:

    Yes , but depends on one think . If you ally with one of them you can join for them . If you ally with bouth of them then better not to join :)) just because you can go in tribunal .

    Actually no.

    Formerly, with the allies mechanic we used to have, you could not join a battle against an official ally. They were green on your screen.

    Now, there are only player agreed alliances. The game will not prevent you from fighting such allies and the devs don't care. Your nation might. Such a tribunal would be dismissed I'm sure.

    Regarding smuggler tag. Some seem to think that it still works the way it used to. You are not able attack a smuggler within your nation. All it does is allow you to enter enemy port in trader. It only serves as a "gotcha" moment that you forgot to turn it on. It also screws up open water battles. #givesmugglertagapurposeorgetridofit

    • Like 2

    Changes to how traders work within PvP

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    I'd rather see one world currency and all marks go away but that seems unlikely to happen. So...

    PVP marks awarded for a kill of a warship.

    Trader Marks awarded for kill of trade ship.

    Trader Marks awarded for the success of trade runs outside the safe zone.

    Bonus PVP Marks or Trader Marks (depending on the prize) for returning the prize ship safely  to one of your nation's ports and turning it over to the Admiralty.

    Trade and Crafting Perks move to the Admiralty as purchasable Mods that benefit a trader/crafter.

    Proposed Rule: Don't join battle on your enemy's side.

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, _Masterviolin said:

    Broadly speaking, I don't like the idea of adding "rules" to Naval Action. Having all players subject to tribunals and such on the Forums only further increases the "dependence" of the game upon the forums

    I get what you're saying. I agree that the number of rules needs to be few and that mechanics should be able to take care of undesirable and/or realistic situations. I proposed the rule because currently the mechanic is flawed in many opinion.

    I'm Dutch, you're British (don't know what nation you play). You tag one of my countrymen or he tags you. You guys start the battle and either I cannot join on the Dutch side or don't want to. For whatever reason I -- and perhaps other Dutch -- join on the British side. Now we know I am not allowed to shoot green, the Brits. I am also not allowed to ram you or block you. How about if I sail parallel 200 meters to your starboard? How about if I follow closely behind you? I suggest that any action other than perhaps sitting with my sails down is at best an unfair and unrealistic distraction. And if you feel my actions hinder you in any way you can start a tribunal but unless you have video of my actions, it's going to come down to the testimonies of each side. Very difficult to investigate without the detailed video. This situation in tribunal could hurt the innocent as well as punish the guilty.

    So Devs fix whatever the problem whether it's smuggler flag or something else that allows your battle opponent to join on your side. But until you do, have a rule. Stay off your opponents side in a battle. Simple rule. A simple to investigate and judge tribunal.

    • Like 2

    Proposed Rule: Don't join battle on your enemy's side.

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    There is a thread in tribunal right now brought by the Dutch about a case where one enemy clan member joined a battle on the Dutch side and the Dutch accuser called Green-on-Green. I don't want this to be a deliberation on the merits/evidence of this particular case. I wasn't there and neither were you. Or if you were, you should join in the tribunal thread. I am not suggesting guilt or innocence. The whole situation was caused by a -- in my opinion -- failed mechanic. Anyway...

    The accused explanation is that he was joining to just watch because the current mechanic sometimes (and unpredictably) doesn't allow you to join your own nation if one of the friendlies was flying the smuggler flag. We know this "flaw" exists and I believe the devs are working on a fix.

    The accused says he never fired a shot.

    @admin Anyway, in the future should we allow enemies to join just to watch or if they joined by mistake, to stay in the battle?

    I suggest no.

    Having a known enemy on your side in the battle is distracting even if the other guy just sits there. Since few of us are recording videos of all our battles, it is difficult to prove or disprove that nothing is done to hinder or influence the battle. If nothing else, you have an unfriendly monitor of your battle chat. Yes, the Devs can go back and check shot logs but I doubt they can recreate the battle without player provided video. Regardless, it takes valuable Dev time. Screenshots are limited in their information.

    I say that while we have the funky mechanic where one can actually join the side of your enemy, we observe a rule against it. It causes too many cases requiring Dev investigation and our ability to prove or disprove green-on-green actions is too limited. If you want to simply observe your nation in battle, sorry. Get someone to stream or record or listen to it on TS. If you join a side by mistake, disengage and leave the battle. It seems like such a rule would be far easier for tribunals to investigate:

    Accuser: Look, an enemy player joined on our side in the battle.
    Dev: That's not allowed.
    Accused: I joined to watch.
    Dev: That's not allowed.

    or

    Accused: I joined by mistake. Check the logs, I left 2 minutes later.
    Dev: Okay. Fair sails.

    Obviously there would be an exception for tournament play when a judge or streamer is needed.

    Players from other nations joining OW battles...

    in Feature proposals and Gameplay Help Q&A

    Posted

    10 hours ago, BPHick said:

    Any nation can join either side of a battle (join in either circle) provided than no player or AI from their nation is already on the opposing side.

    I actually think the mechanics allow you to join either side (except hostility missions) even if there are friendlies in there BUT it's a bad idea. If you shoot at the friendly (on the opposing side) or do anything to impede your own side you're asking for a tribunal.

    • Like 1

    Can't join battle

    in Support

    Posted

    On 2/12/2018 at 9:48 PM, RedNeckMilkMan said:

    8BB3B77D794AC31FF685DCCF88EECCA282F842AA

    I think a similar post was made yesterday.

    Cannot join battle 

    Pirate Smuggler is a french player. No one joined the GB side. I think this stems from the Pirate Smuggler flag.

    Still happening. Yesterday an GB enemy tagged one of our Dutch guys. The friendly had the smuggler flag so it started a GB v Pirate battle. 3 of us Dutch were unable to join our "Pirate" buddy.

    Snowfall

    in Support

    Posted

    They really need to adjust the BR on the Inger to reflect its catapulting abilities. That or fix this bug. I’m sure they’re trying to figure it out. I had a dead Inger that I tapped flip my Indefatigable a couple of weeks ago and there are other reports as well. 

×
×
  • Create New...