Farrago
-
Posts
1,569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Farrago
-
-
2 hours ago, CaptVonGunn said:
Even the current 3 minute timer is almost to long.... Ship that were docked 20 miles away can already enter battles they shouldn't .... Now you want to make it never ending
No. I don't want to make it never ending. I want it to end when one side is either defeated or escapes by putting so much distance from their opponent they give up the chase. I don't want it controlled by an escape being defined as possible because 1 minute 30 seconds has passed or legitimate potential combatants can't enter because the battle started more than 3 minutes before.
i realize OW speeds complicate this. But timers mean the lousy camping of revenge fleets at the crossed swords waiting for a predictable exit is a "tactic".
Devs should strive to develop code that spawns players exiting a battle to the location where they were in battle, not where they started.
Battles should not close. But obviously ships entering later will probably be entering far from the action. We all know that even entering inside the 3 minute limit means you may not make it to the action. Perhaps the Devs could do it in a way where it works similar to the outer circle that attackers in a port battle must be outside prior to entering a port battle. They must start outside that outter ring and then sail "real time" from there. That would slow down those revenge fleets to a more realistic distance.
-
I thought AI killing AI affecting hostility was removed from the game several months ago after it was discovered as an exploit. Player was starting these battles and then left.)
Regardless, some of these suggestions should be implemented. Basic Cutter's purpose should be getting us home after sinking and a tool for newbies to learn basic sailing and combat.
-
4 hours ago, The Red Duke said:
Actually wasn't. Both the Agamemnon and Indefatigable, if the Farrago story is the same situation, were simply anchored somewhere west towards Cumana. Was way after the Victory situation Teutonic presents.
We were moving west out of the straits with no idea they were there and we caught them pants down, anchored... after their main fleet was going North.
The superior seamanship was simply separation and running fight ( that aggy was fast man, well done ). We called it off because bigger fish to fry.
They were not revenged after they exited. They couldn't be helped by their own main fleet which was actually also in battle more to the north.
The entire debacle brought up by Farrago actually shows what various squadrons can do. A group either sticks together or will get destroyed in detail.
Longer join timers ? No please.
Yes, you and I, Red Duke, are talking about the same instance. I was just joking, btw, about escaping because of my superior seamanship. I was just plain lucky, perhaps by doing something unexpected in my slow Indefat. Anyway, we all spawned right in the middle of the returning Dutch main body. I think that is what Tenet is talking about.
i know increased, or rather NO timers is not a perfect solution but it seems like we've all come to a point where we're playing the timers, not the players. You guys and we have been dancing around for days with nice sized fleets and very little decisive is happening because timers restrict the combat.
Fair winds.
-
20 minutes ago, Liquicity said:
I mean I can see what Tenet is saying. If you have two battle-tagging circles literally next to each other, of which only one has the actual battle happening, the other operating as some sort of screening battle. Sucks, I agree, but not sure there is a good workaround in terms of 'merging' battles which are set up in the same timeframe (half a minute to a minute or something), except increasing battle join timer, which I think will certainly not be healthy for the game.
Thanks for taking a step back and trying to see it from all sides. I think many -- but obviously not all of us -- want the same thing: good PVP that is as realistic as possible. What Tenet seems to be trying to do here and what I suggested in another thread are ways to use battle timers to try to accomplish this goal because right now, the way timers and closing battle instances work always create some sort of bizarre, unrealistic situation for one side or another.
The "perfect" solution is not acceptable to probably anyone: No timers and OW and Battle speeds are the same. We obviously don't want that. If the developers could do it, would it work if time/speeds/distances go "real" if one is within a certain distance of a battle zone?
-
3 minutes ago, Prater said:
This is a revenge fleet.
The battle took place at speed x1. You sailed several dozen nautical miles at speed x75 to get there. If you wanted it to be like real life, you should have to travel that distance in battle at speed x1. There you go. Travel at speed x1 and you can rightly get your fleet into battle.
No. It was two fleets (or rather 3) stumbling in to each other because one of them was invisible.
However, none of them could fight each other because of timers.
So many of you want the timers because it gives you some sort of advantage depending on whether you like to attack or feel the need to defend. Defenders want long timers so that they can get "help". Attackers want short timers so that they can avoid revenge fleets or reinforcements. I hate all timers because no matter what, they always give someone an unrealistic, unfair advantage. Do not take my use of the word "unfair" here to mean that I think war should be "fair". It shouldn't. Use as many ships as you can to bring overwhelming force to bear. But don't let a stopwatch determine combat in this game.
Get rid or timers it's an even (although imperfect) playing field. Try it. You might enjoy PVP more if you don't have a screwy advantage and instead use your own considerable skill, your own fleet's tactics, and your own nation's strategy.
-
Well what Tenet is saying is perfectly clear, but I was there, so let me try one time for those who don't seem to understand the scenario...
Two Dutch ships were sailing east. They encountered a French fleet or 8 or so ships sailing west. (With me so far?)
French fleet tags the Dutch. Dutch, through their superior seamanship are able to avoid being sunk over the course of a 30 minute or so battle. 6 or so French leave at some point in this battle. 3 stay in. This battle lasts 30+ minutes. All French finally decide to leave battle.
A Dutch fleet is sailing west. The cross swords are long gone for the original battle. But suddenly 3 French and 2 Dutch appear almost in the middle of this second Dutch fleet. But because of timers, PVP is lost because even tho in reality they would have been within cannon shot of each other, the original battle is invisible.
You guys basically just don't want to fight want your quartz stop watch as part of your arsenal of weapons.
-
1
-
-
I see the gankers and PVE-ers don't like this idea. Timers are what destroys PVP.
PVP is destroyed when game mechanics (time compression/logging out/cross-sword camping, etc) are used to artificially create a situation in which your opponent is unable to counter due to some other game mechanics.
Fight you battles, don't try to use timers and warp speed to create an alternate reality.
-
1
-
-
Perhaps this is already how the game works... if so... sorry for the taking up everyone's bandwidth, but...
If ships are in battle, the 3(?) minute join timer has not yet expired, and reinforcements join on either side I suggest reset the 3 minute clock as well as the Escape clock. It would be nice to see battles able to grow and grow and less cross swords camping. Yes, a "gank" fleet could try and use the mechanic to keep a victim in battle but if they do that, they would be slowly weakening their strength outside the battle against what may be just over the horizon.
-
2
-
-
I don't want to minimize the frustration that you (and In fact, most players) are facing. The economy is tough right now. But my opinion is it is better for it to be too tough than too easy as things can always be loosened but are harder to tighten up. What has helped me is making smaller goals and working on them in a more focused way. Whether it's have a 400k cushion, be able to afford more dock space, not buy guns until I can get crafted, less expensive guns, slowly assemble the mats to have a 4th rate built, etc.
The days of us all having every ship with every skill, every mod, and being filthy rich are behind us.
Hang in there. I hope you find your fun.
-
3
-
-
Having never played any other nation, I can't say whether we Dutch are the tightest knit community but I would describe us as big enough to support you and have fun in the game but small enough that YOUR efforts will matter.
-
1
-
-
My opinion:
The only thing that will be fair to both sides and give any sort of nod to realism is if post battle you spawn at your final battle location, not the crossed sword location. Less good, would be you spawn at a random location some km away from the crossed swords.
I know both of these solutions provide coding challenges -- such as avoiding spawning on land -- to the Devs but surely not insurmountable ones.
Regarding the OP idea of giving option to TP to nearest deep water port... no. If you're raiding in someone's home waters or even somewhere else, there shouldn't ever be a magic auto escape button.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Sansón Carrasco said:
Sailing back captured, undercrewed ships is often tremendously stressful (if you're hunting in enemy waters) and, to be honest, one of my FAVORITE things about the game.
I'd love having the option to do the same thing with AI ships, with the proviso that they would (if they were AI and not player owned) HAVE to be sold to NPC shop/admiralty upon return to port. But I want to have to return it to port to get this reward, and the reward should be compelling (like, comparable to selling a player-owned ship in the store).
Exactly what I'm suggesting.
-
2
-
-
This suggestion is a combination of others I have read with a few of my own ideas thrown in...
After defeating (successfully boarding or they surrender) an AI ship you have a couple of options:
1. You can loot the hold, take ONLY what will fit on your ship, and then click on sink ship and scuttle it. This is basically what we have currently tho the game sometimes allows us to overload our ship. Overloading greater than a small percentage should not be possible. This option would give you your PVE/PVP marks and some gold as a reward.
2. Or the second option is you can transfer crew over and add it to your fleet. You do not need the fleet perk. In fact, you can do this as many times as you want before returning to your nation's port tho realize each time your "fleet" grows it is getting slower and more undercrewed. No magical crew appearance, you use what you originally had amd can heal. If you want to spend repairs getting the capture seaworthy, you can if you have the repairs available. You receive the PVE/PVP marks but NO gold. Then you must get the captured ship(s) back to your nation's port at which time you must turn the captured prize(s) over to the admiralty which will reward you significantly more gold for the prize than you would have earned if you just sank the ship.
What this second option does is it gives an opportunity for us to earn more gold by combat but with significantly greater risk. It also turn every capped AI ship into a potential PVP target.
-
5
-
-
On 4/19/2017 at 7:25 AM, Jon Snow lets go said:
A tavern would be cool where you can put up your notes against a fee, like those:
"Need a trader to ship 20.000 tons goods to La Mona"
"searching for people to do some chilled AI missions"
"LF players to gank the swedish traders around Hat Island"
I built a bulletin board site that would serve as a tavern bulletin board and rumor mill. Players could post for free. It doesn't have critical mass but maybe someday...
-
2 hours ago, PG Monkey said:
I think you should be able to get pve marks from pvp marks
Or just make one type of "mark" and reward and price things accordingly. We'd have to test the numbers but for example a PVE kill vs inferior BR equals 1 mark, vs equal BR gets 2 marks, vs superior BR equals 3 marks. Triple those rewards for PVP kills. PB victory grants participants additional 3 marks for winning plus each player gets their kills. Port pensions are 1 mark a day.
Then, something that should be expensive and rare can be priced accordingly but we're all using the same "currency" so there are multiple routes to a goal, some are quicker and more risk, some are very slow.
-
I miss out on a lot of loot because I can't get slow enough and in position in time before the enemy sinks BUT I still don't want the sinking to be slower. I just need to get better.
Hell, most times I'm just wishing that stripped down ship would die and sink quicker and stop shooting at me!
-
5 hours ago, Kaos said:
Quality pvp and challenging opponents are 1000x more fun than farming countless of sheep who don't even know or play this game for pvp. 100 sheep kills will not make up for one good fight against another wolf imo but maybe it will take another 12 months to reach this discovery.
So true. Unfortunately there is a small minority who never will subscribe to this belief. Otherwise exploits, ALTS, gankfests, baby seal clubbing, etc would never be an issue. Some get their enjoyment from just possessing specially outfitted ships or knowledge perks. They want the kill and the riches no matter how they get them. (I guess we're lucky they are occupied with video games rather than out harming society.) Anyway, it's just such individuals why society has laws and the game will need restrictions.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, elite92 said:
now its grind and pve only untill small frigates, if u want to proceed more u need to PvP and move ur carebear ass. but now we have the problem of conquest marks pension, as soon this problem is solved all the economy will be good
Okay, I can see that this is sort of over your head, but I'll try one more time...
A system where there are multiple economies: one for our PVP asses, one for the Carebear -- I assume you mean players who prefer PVE -- asses, and even a 3rd for the newbies who have yet to establish what kind of asses they are, well, that just won't work.. for anyone. At least it won't if you desire any group to ever transition to another one.
-
1 minute ago, elite92 said:
not a good idea, this will turn into a grind/pve game untill u have the best ship and or upgrades
Why would it be any different than where we are at now except Devs would have less variables they would have to adjust trying to get the economy right? Too much $$ being made from useless trade, reduce the number of violins and historical artifacts in game. Too many SOL, raise the cost of Permits; not enough PVP, increase PVP cash award while decreasing PVE rewards.
Manipulating a game economy so that it works is perhaps an impossible task no matter what the Devs do but it is definitely impossible with so many currency variables.
-
Conquest Marks, PVP marks, PVE Marks, Gold... There are so many currencies in this game that it is impossible to balance them all. Get rid of them all except Gold.
Combat earns XP and Gold. Crafting earns XP (and profits in gold if you sell your wares). All items in admiralty are priced in gold. Adjust the amount of rewards and prices as you will based on difficulty and desired scarcity. It seems to me that a) this system would be easier to get the economy right and b)would allow players to pursue their own paths to "success".
-
4
-
-
No to teleports but yes to being able to conduct our affairs of buying/selling/crafting in our ports without having to move your captain there. It just makes sense. If we owned such enterprises, we would have managers and employees to follow our instructions in our absence.
-
Do you have to use the free 4lb mediums?
-
1
-
-
Does it work to counter hostility in a 3rd Party's region? That is, Nation A is attacking Nation B and raising hostility in B's region. Can Nation C attack Nation A's ships in those waters and lower the hostility A is grinding?
-
2 hours ago, DrZoidberg said:
Spanish seems has the best (pro) player base. Now they get like 90-300 conquest mark a day while other nations 30-100. How do devs think this imbalance can be playable. nobody can beat spanish, and with every defensive and offensive battle they have they will have far more marks then otherz. How u cannot see this
Maybe you're taking about Euro server when you say the Spanish have the best pro player base. There are very few Spanish on Global Server.
But irregardless, the map was "set" when the current conquest mark system was implemented. Players only get conquest marks for successful attacks or defenses after that date SO although Spain starts with a lot of regions, they will only earn CM pensions for those regions after they have successfully defended them.
-
2
-
Hotfix 1 for patch 10.3
in Patch notes
Posted
No suggestion seems to please everyone, so here's a new one...
It would be often be a pain -- basically any time there's not combat -- but it would help with some ganking and revenge fleet issues: What about a "no wake" zone set around ports for some distance? All travel within that zone happens at real world speeds? I have a feeling we'd hate that even more but it would make the combat more realistic.