Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Genma Saotome

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About Genma Saotome

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Open Rails simulator.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,025 profile views
  1. Day and night are about right for Bodo Norway, right on the edge of the arctic circle.
  2. Consider that carrying an Army from Europe to some far away island is going to be an expensive proposition so you're not going to do it very often and when you do it's going to be for something rather special. All of the other times it's a basic raid: get in, burn some ships, cut out some others, ransack the warehouses and burn the rest before heading out to sea. IMO a complete ransack would be dispiriting event to whomever was in port, ship or building, so if applied to NA it would be smart to limit the damage in some way to a reasonable but not painful amount. The port remains part of its nation, some material damage occurs, and that is all. No country sweeps all before it kind of thing that was so common on PvP. And the best part of it is the whole thing could be done in PvE as well, albeit with AI on one side or the other..
  3. I've argued elsewhere the DEV's should change PvP Port Battles from allowing the invader to permanently occupy a port to one where all they get is maybe a day or two and the right to loot a portion of the all the goods there. Now in the context of PvE, that would work very, very well (and is another reason why National Ports could still make good sense).
  4. PvE player here. I havn't sailed very much since the DEV's kicked national regions to the curb. As a history buff I see the changes over the last couple of months as moving in a completely wrong direction WRT my own interests. Give the kiddies Legends and put some reality back into NA.
  5. I didn't propose looting warehouses when people were off line, I said some percentage of home port warehouses. If the warehouses of people who were not playing are protected then by definition the remainder are "some percentage". That percentage could be anything... arbitrary... some ratio of losses/damage in the port battle, whatever -- I'm not welded to any any specific answer there. And if setting aside the warehouses of people who are offline is what makes for both fair play and common sense, fine by me. The key point I was trying to make was to greatly reduce permanent conquest of ports. Give the winners a reward of some kind (e.g., looting) but kick them out PDQ. Give the losers reasonable protection so not everything is lost. What's wrong with that? What the Dev's have done is take away most national ports. I liked national ports. As for what to do with neutral ports, around 9-12 months ago there were national wars and national alliances. Seems to me any-ship access to ports could be given within alliances and trade ship access to anyone you are not at war with. That would be pretty broad access while retaining the national character. WRT all those new countries... there are reasons why they were not there in the first place (along with why there wasn't Ukranian Grain and Russian Vodka): Too far away, too poor, no navy to begin with, and late to the great game. Let's not forget the overlooking of Portugal who happened to have a huge colony in the new World -- Brazil. Perhaps it's too far from Kyiv to warrant mention in public schools. IOW it's beyond nuts. The way things are now the DEV's have an equal justification for adding Japan, China and the Maori. They'd be fun too. Can you imagine boarding parties of Maori? 37 killed by gunfire, 225 captured, 225 livers eaten.
  6. I know this reply is awfully late but the comments above represent, IMO, the root cause of what ails NA: The cost of losing a ship or a port is too high. Consider that taking a port away from another country -- and keeping it -- would require a fairly large number of troops. That's expensive and so what was much more common was plundering the port and leaving. If something like plunder and leave was in this game there would still be port battles but few to no takeovers (e.g., maybe it should cost something like 10-20 million gold to buy an occupation army; very expensive but still could occur). The effect would be countries will remain closer in balance over a longer period of time. Similarly consider that Captains were "issued" ships, they did not buy them. So instead of crafting (or buying one) for yourself all combat ships com e via the Admiralty and are issued to Captains based on their experience. Lose your ship? Admiralty replaces it within, say, 24 hours for NA and less than 1 hour for Legends. Crafting would be done for the Admiralty so those who enjoy that aspect of the game can continue to do it. Want to make money instead? Sail in trade ships. My point is the DEV's will never be able to find a balance that allows all factions, whether they are countries or clans, to remain on equal footing (allowing perpetual even conflict) simply because similarly skilled persons play at different times and in different numbers. The balance they want is a hopeless quest and players who come up with the short end of the stick (re-read quoted comments above) will more often than not throw in the towel and leave. OTOH if the consequences of losing a battle are addressed over a very short time any player suffering a loss knows he will be made whole again by tomorrow -- he will be back tomorrow to play again.
  7. IMO this change is incredibly stupid. If the problem was about individual Nations getting beat up and run out of town the solution could have been to make the consequences of a lost port battle plunder instead of occupation: Some percentage of home-port player inventory could be offered up to be stolen. Some percentage of buildings could be destroyed by fire and many (limited to available crews) of the ships at dock could be cut out and taken away. But after a couple of days (at most) the invaders have to leave and cannot come back for some period of time. Anybody who lingers could either be teleported home or "destroyed" by rioting locals. True invasions require a lot of troops... that's VERY expensive, which is why it didn't happen all that often. So maybe a permanent occupation can be obtained for, oh, I dunno, 10 million gold. Changes of this sort would greatly slow down the rate at which one country is diminished or enlarged and this nonsense about everything is a neutral port could have been avoided.
  8. I know this idea isn't popular but when I read comments like this I keep coming back to the notion that the real problem is people don't want to lose their ship or their ports. Perhaps Legends is the answer to that. In NA itself, if you changed ports to being temporarily occupied and pillaged (to some degree but not 100%) you'd have something much more like what was really going on 200+ years ago. The Dev's could bring back the Nations. Perhaps a wrinkle could be an extremely expensive Army unit used to permanently occupy a port... something so expensive it would be seen only once or month. Territories could still change but at a very, very slow rate. As for ships, make the permits expensive and the building of them dirt cheap. The objective here is once a player has the rights to build a really good ship he can replace a lost ship the same evening -- or a day or two later. You want to minimize as much as possible the reservation people have about joining a battle and allowing them to replace their losses at a really trivial expense is one way to do that.
  9. Europe maps have been debated before. IMO one map for Europe is waaaay too large and when you consider that where its land and water are located is the inverse of the Caribbean you'll understand the problem: You cannot sail thru the center of the map... there is no as the crow flies journey. Everything in a Europe map is done around the outer edges. Talk about a grind!! IMO one map for the Med would be perfect: not as tall but about twice the width so the sailing area is about the same as NA.
  10. Repeating myself from other posts, IMO the dev's will never find the answer they are looking for -- a game system that doesn't allow one team to completely dominate the others, a game system where who is strong and who is weak shifts around over time, a game system that they don't have to intervene in every couple of months with big changes -- unless they change their thinking about losses. Consider: NA PvP today is no different than walking into a casino for an evenings entertainment. You can win big... you can lose your shirt, a most importantly in many, many instances the guy who loses his shirt didn't want that confrontation in the first place. His ship, many hours of game time to acquire, is permanently lost. His nation's port is lost to what is effectively permanent occupation. No wonder the player count over the last 20 months is down to about 10% of what it once was. IMO guys leave because too much time is expected of them to acquire the assets they want to use... and it that asset is lost, too much time is required to replace it. IMO the idea to consider is to turn player assets into permanent asset the player can carry from map to map, from week to week, w/o regard to having it sunk last night. Let players have a limited number of ships they have crafted, captured, or purchased. When one sinks, use a cool-down period, maybe 12 hours, maybe 24, maybe several days, but whatever the period is at the end of it the "lost" ship returns to the inventory. Perhaps there is a small cost in gold, but the player does not have to spend a week of evenings grinding out enough gold and resources to rebuild that ship and the DEV's don't have to spend weeks on analysis and coding trying to make everyone happy again. Similar w/ ports: Whoever wins the port battle doesn't permanently occupy that location but they do get a certain number of hours ... 12, 24, maybe more, to pillage it. Some (not all) of the port goods are stolen... some, but not all of the warehouse goods are stolen... maybe even a tiny percentage of buildings are burned down... but then the port battle victors have to leave and that port remains a no-fighting port for some period of time, maybe a week, maybe a month. The key point is it is returned to the country it originally belonged to. IOW there is no need to make almost every port a neutral port and there are no circumstances where one team can wipe out another's resource base. What this means is the human cost to engage in PvP combat is pretty much eliminated. The whole game becomes more like a sports event: You may lose this weekend but you keep your equipment and play another game next weekend. The way NA is today is when you lose this weekend you team loses its shirt, shoes, and equipment and you are just SOL. And when you are SOL, why come back to play again?
  11. Obviously people don't like this idea. All I can say is think about it more. Extending it one step further: When somebody wins a port battle they take over. That usually isn't the way it worked in the old days -- you needed Army troops to do that and they were often very busy back in Europe. As an alternative to simply reclassifying most ports as non-national, consider this: Let the winner of any port battle pillage the city, taking however much goods as their ships holds will carry (and the players want to take). Then they leave. MAYBE allow a certain (low) percentage of player buildings and warehouses (randomly selected) to be pillaged or burned. That's a setback, not a fatal loss. Avoiding fatal loss is what the dev's seem to have as an objective: a game that swings back and forth between competing players -- but they'll never be able to accomplish that because player skill, numbers of players per side, and pure chance always weigh in and absent eliminating permanent loss those factors will always lead to one side or the other dominating, exactly what the DEV;s are always trying to eliminate. That is to say that IMO the goal the DEV's have is un-achievable; their constant search produces constant major revisions that look like they've got no idea which way to turn, most of which piss off large numbers of players and basically upsets the apple cart as far as playability goes. They need to think about creating that balance by eliminating permanent loss of assets, whether that's country ports or some-to-all of each players ships*. *Rather than give back sunk ships two minutes after they go down put in a cool down period in... 24 hours? 7 days? Maybe longer with more and better ships so noobs can get back into the action sooner. I don't know the right number but it can be figured out by trial and error. The game becomes more like football: One side wins today but they keep their gear and can play again next week.
  12. DEV's can put multiple game worlds on one server by changing the existing .json files so they include a high level reference to which world they are to be used and to the code to make use of that specification. No changes to the map is required. Put several PvP worlds in there as well. It's simply one computer as a server running one application. Whatever any player sees is limited to the game world -- and .json files -- he requested when he logged in. It would be no different than running excel and opening two or three different spreadsheet files (they don't get mixed together, do they? Same concept.). Dev's get better use out of the servers they lease and PvE players don't get treated like second hand trash.
  13. I think you'll find that most players don't want a game that is a lot like a Casino -- where you can lose your shirt one night and the next morning it is still gone -- for good. IMO you need to move the game towards one where a player's assets are both limited and, essentially, permanent, where he brings those assets to a very short-lived sever environment and he plays... it doesn't matter much whether he wins big or loses his shirt because he can start over next month in a new server environment, a new map, and what assets he had before (adjusted by captures, purchases, whatever, but a fixed, rather small amount. Maybe less gold, many fewer resources in his inventory, but always his ships. Nobody walks away in a huff having lost their hard gained ships or their preferred region conquered... You start over FRESH and WHOLE on the first of the next month. Think of it this way: Some guy saves up and eventually splurges on a new sports car: Two weeks later he crashes it and it is totaled. No insurance. THAT is Naval Action today. Player loses his shirt and leaves for good after posting terrible review. Remaining players moan about too few players, post negative reviews. Nobody is happy ,especially not Dev's who are not selling more licenses. OTOH, if it is set up that he has crash insurance -- maybe not 100% but darn close, it doesn't matter if he crashes his spiffy car after two weeks because two weeks later he gets the identical car delivered. He is HAPPY. He tells his pals what a great game this is. He continues to play week after week. Dev's sell more licenses... they are happy too... maybe even rich. What's not to like?
  14. No... not the usual poke in the eye rant about ganking and baby seal clubbing... some serious thoughts here. Core Assumptions: Dev's want a viable game that will attract and keep customers. They don't seem to have obtained that in spite of a quality visual product. Having read many, many complaints from the PvP world it occurs to me the core complaints are Players really don't like losing the ship that took so long to acquire. Players don't like being put behind the 8 ball by extensive loss of territory. Am I right on that? If so, might the solution be something along these lines: Each player has his own inventory of assets that are, essentially permanent. Changes, either by buying, selling, or accepting a sinking, are made only by each player. Player can take his acquired inventory from server to server but can only be active on one server per day (or week, subject to observation by DEV's to determine best answer). Servers come and go frequently with several available at any one time. This means a server is no longer one machine but is one world, many of which could be on one machine. Maps come and go with each new server instance. IMO the net effect of something like this would be players no longer face the long term consequences of loss... either ship or territory. Players move from one server to another with their inventory, changing maps as they go. NO LOSSES other than what they accept. Maps are refreshed with each server rollout. The effect would be much less reason for anyone to say "Oh Screw this!" and leave. More players are happy enough to stick around; Better reviews get posted; Dev's sell more licenses; More players should mean more big fights; Noobs still get kicked around but never lose their assets, instead they get more skilled, opening the door to getting better ships. The alternative is to continue down the same path people know: Catastrophic loss drives away players; Reviews are not good; Dev's do not sell many more license; Like a doomed aircraft, game augers in after a long stall, wreckage burns and nothing is salvaged.
  15. IMO the PvE environment needs a lot more than modest extensions and tweeks. The entire supply demand model is not very useful due to the inadequate relationship between buy, sell, and quantity. For example, when I drop 800 fish meat in some port1 you'd expect a couple of things to happen: The price I get should go down if the quantity is far in excess of normal demand and that I might be confronted by a "that's all we want to buy limit, What we have now is a broken market: buyers must purchase everything on offer even it that means inventory levels that will take years to work down (when buy prices are set to 1). Building a simple price model is pretty trivial mathematically; Finding the right price curve will take some iteration thru various slopes but that too isn't hard to adjust. In the OW one thing that could be a big improvement to players is adding features and functions that increase the realism of gameplay: Winds that do not slowly rotate counterclockwise thru the compass at a set rate but instead blow variably, both inm direction and intensity as determined by a slightly weighted curve tending towards another change in the same direction as last time. Adding features to increase management of sails (in response to the ever changing winds and waves gives players something to do when sailing from Nassau to Belize. Yes... that would require changing the animation of every ship but IMO such effort would be warmly received by PvE Players. Another possibility is to turn the Admiralty into a special sort of clan: Players no longer buy and sell warships from other players but from their Motherland Admiralty (i.e., from Great Britain, not Surrey). Taxes fund each Admiralty; Players acquire new warships (or refit old ones) via interaction with the Admiralty... perhaps prices being adjusted inversely to combat experience, not gold. BY this means the PvE environment can be a testbed for such feature changes, essentially identifying candidates to propose to the PvP community.
  • Create New...