Farrago
-
Posts
1,569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Farrago
-
-
Is there any relation between what AI traders are carrying and the ports they are near?
If not, @admin, there should be. AI traders seem to mainly be making short hauls. It would make sense if they were carrying goods consumed or produced at the nearby ports.
I apologize if this is already in game and I just haven't noticed it.
-
1
-
-
I've only played on PVP2 and when I first started PVE so I don't know how it is on PVP1.
But I wonder...
Are there so many "gankers" or are some folks just so starved for PVP from the low pop, they pounce when they see a live body no matter how skinny the prey.
Get this thing released!
-
I'd like to stay Dutch but will reconsider if necessary.
-
1 minute ago, Hethwill said:
Access to Ship schematics will be by Crafting level instead of RNG drop, so, pretty much.
I've seen the abbreviation RNG several times on the forum. What does it mean?
-
In answer to the "why" you got them:
the Endy and Indefat were given to make up for the fine woods (ahem) negative results experiment. The Wappen was a New Years gift from the Devs.
-
1
-
-
I'm new to all this... do games typically need 30-60 minutes down time every day? Seems like a technical problem by the industry that would have been solved long ago.
-
1
-
-
Really the only way it will make sense for the Global is basically a "new" server located in the US. Players from PVP1 and PVP2 who don't want to be restricted to Euro times will merge together onto this new server with a map reset and opportunity for a nation switch.
-
Love seeing PBs with players on both sides. I've finally returned from my exploration of the Gulf of California in my Toyota built 6th rate and I'm looking forward to getting involved again. Take it from me, having only the forums for your Naval Action fix is not satisfying.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Davos Seasworth said:
Like you pushed them off to their own little island in the middle of no where. How could you?
I want Australia to have good pop and good ping in case I end up having to immigrate there. Lol
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Jeheil said:
Bit ouchie for us Aussies, shutdown is already 6pm to 7pm, This pushes back any PB's (in our dreams) also means first PvP event is 10.30 !!
I have heard there are some dodgy old Youtube channels with all this and more (looks down at sig)
Okay. Scratch my request for shifting maintenance one hour. I can see it now... "A Letter to the King" will not be seen this week because that bastard Farrago pushed Aussies off the game. Lol
-
1
-
-
My thread title was a joke about the irony of how we are trying to civilly (peacefully) set up war. I apologize for my failure to communicate clearly.
I would never want to force PVEers to PVP or force PVPers to PVE. In fact, I think it's a shame there is not a richer experience for each group and hope with increased numbers, both "needs" can be met. I'm not sure how this thread got interpreted that I was trying to box players in. Just the opposite. I'm trying to figure out how to keep the PVE mechanics and economy from adversely affecting the PVP world and how to keep the PVP players from aggressively destroying the fun the PVEers have in a more solitary game.
Anyway, fair winds to us all.
-
Since many seem to be asking for things, here's my request:
i don't want to screw other time zones on the new Global Server but if a daily maintenance shut down is going to be required, I would love it to be an hour later. Midnight to 1am is a feasible play time in California.
-
(Sigh) okay. No one else sees any complications??? How do I delete a thread?
i wasn't trying to box anyone in to anything except following some sensible rules. The game isn't being designed for you to have access to 5000 labor hours per day because you have multiple ALTS. It has a negative impact on game economics. That negative impact will be compounded if all risk is removed. But hey. Let's all have fun. The announced changes sound really good.
-
14 minutes ago, Otto Kohl said:
Just buy yourself an alt and stop whining.
Not whining. I know there are many players who either enjoy or feel they need for a special advantage over someone who plays within the game design and/or rules. But I don't have to like it and it's okay for me to wish that the practice was curbed. You know, you might try crafting and trading within the confines of the game and see if you are still successful. Challenge can be fun!
-
1 hour ago, Liquicity said:
How exactly do you plan to forbid players to buy the game on another steam account again
I don't. If the ability to use an ALT is worth that much to you, hey, thanks for investing more in the development of our game. What I would like is if Devs could prevent transactions between the same IP so that it would at least be a challenge for one to cheat using an ALT. (Multiple family members playing the game surely could be dealt with by tech support.)
i apologize if there is another reason one might want an ALT. You may want it so that you can actively play two characters however in my opinion if those characters ever need to interact, even through a 3rd party, then it's a damage to the game mechanics.
But that's not what this thread is about.
-
I'm hoping this thread can stay constructive. Please don't bother to use this as a place to whine about how much you hate the idea of a PVE zone in the Gulf coexisting on the same server as PVP. Unless the Devs change their minds, it's going to happen and unless there are things we don't know about its implementation, it is going to cause some pain points. Hopefully we as a community of PVP and PVEers can make some constructive suggestions about how to minimize these pain points. @admin if there is something we just don't understand about implementation, please clarify.
BTW, I'm not saying I like all these "solutions" but I'm putting them out there for discussion. Community, please add pain points you see and possible solutions as well,
Pain Point:
Admin has indicated that players will be able to freely move between PVP and PVE. Also free ports will not exist in PVE zone. Still, assuming all resources can be obtained in the PVE zone, ship construction and resource accumulation can be accomplished in relative safety either by PVP players in the PVE zone or by ALTS specifically created for the purpose.
Possible full or partial solutions:
1. Disable the ability to have ALTS or at least make it a huge pain to switch back and forth between characters. While I like this idea, I doubt it would get any traction.
2. Disble the ability to teleport characters and/or tow ships between the two zones.
3. Make some classes of ships or necessary mats not craftable in PVE zone.
4. Sink 'em as they come out. While it may sound like ithe border will be a target rich environment, the (roughly) north-south boundary between zones covers a lot of ocean. Solution: Choke points. For example in order to change your status from PVE to PVP you have to visit a friendly port in the PVP zone in order to "obtain your orders" or whatever we want to call it. Making folks exit the PVE zone through the straight of Florida might be another idea.
What other problems do you see and how might they be solved?
-
2 minutes ago, Kpt Lautenschlaeger said:
That is true. So if you intend to pull this off, I imagine you would want to counter-tag the player chasing you from as far away as feasible, so you have time for the boat switch.
As soon as it is evident that he will catch you in the Open World, no matter what you do.
Yes. That is the only situation I've ever made such a switch. I was sailing a trader with goods and had a combat fleet ship. The first thing I did was order my AI combat ship to stop and sailed over and made the crew switch. If the patches ever make it off the test server, that tactic may become unnecessary as you will be able to sail a combat ship with a fleeted trader which has cargo in its hold.
-
13 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
You pulled a flag that cost you any where from 150K to 600K and you had two hours to plant that flag. If you plant it there was a port battle. It didn't matter who or what nation it was. Though there was a cool down before you can buy another, but you can have 5 other folks pull 5 other flags. So basically every one was just enemies of each other.
Thanks. Well that sounds like a frantic hot mess tho one that must have put a lot of action in Naval Action. Let's hope that AFTER we get these other things implemented we can come up with a fun, more intricate way of getting to the port battle stage. I like the concept of building hostility in a region to a climax but running a few missions against AI fleets isn't it.
-
I wasn't here pre-alliances. Did that mean you were "At War" with all or was there something like "At War" and "Enemies"?
It would be interesting if a clan of one nation had a verbal alliance with one nation and was assisting them by screening while at the same time, another clan from said nation was assisting the OpFor by screening.
-
9 hours ago, Kpt Lautenschlaeger said:
I haven't tried it meself, but I have seen an opponent do it in a fight: He had a frigate rate (Surprise, IIRC) and two fleet ships of the same rate. When I had battered his own ship enough, he ordered one of the fleet ships to stop, went alongside with his own ship and switched over, essentially by boarding it. His own ship then became an AI.
I think this is using the mechanism you use for taking over ships that surrendered, where the game offers you an [X] when alongside and stopped an undefended ship.
So, in your case, if you have enough distance at the start of the battle instance, you could execute that maneuver, and then tell your trading-vessel-turned-AI to escape. I think.
You are correct though doing it after shots are fired can get really tricky. Basically you, and the AI you have ordered to stop so that you can transfer command, are sitting ducks until the transfer is complete.
-
I propose that the health of the game is far more in danger if we keep the unusable, almost worthless inflated wealth, ship inventory, and cheap mats than it is endangered by a wipe. If we can get a good system, we can build navies and wealth that means something.
I hate to lose players but you probably wouldn't be happy anyway once this is a real game.
-
4
-
-
1. Fix the screener ROE problem.
2. Require the 30 min prior login.
3. Attackers need to sometimes fight their way through (or run through) to the inner defensive line -- the actual port battle.
4. Increase PB timers from 1 1/2 hours to 2+ hours to allow for the outside combat.
It's more realistic and would most times be a better real life strategy for the defender to engage as far out as possible.
If you don't have the numbers to get through the screeners, you may not have the numbers to be the attacker in a Port Battle. That's realistic. Deploy a vanguard or forward escorts.
-
6
-
-
Yes, I meant double charge. I knew what I meant, just not what I was saying. Thanks to all who answered.
-
2 hours ago, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:
those holds are not optimized to 20%... more like 4x the capacity of holds.
Well my other theory is they are carrying some dehydrated goods which reconstitute from leaks during the battle. Or, again, it may be a bug. Lol
PVE Server and PVE zones - Preliminary announcement.
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think it depends on what folks mean when they use the term ganking. I'm totally against the mechanic where folks are logged out waiting for word that prey has been sighted or tagged and then they magically appear. The Devs should try to prevent or minimize this as much as possible. (No combat within 5 minutes of logging in?) However, hiding in a cove or sitting in port seems totally reasonable to me. I also think battle timers should not exist. It's over when it's over. Why would an attacker or defender not use EVERY legitimate strength to achieve victory and that certainly includes superior numbers or skill.