TXSailor
-
Posts
122 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by TXSailor
-
-
INV will help set up anyone who is making the jump to globa!
-
1
-
-
Just to drive the point home further, the current cost of a long-9 on US Global is 20,000. But hey, player-driven economy is great...
-
13 hours ago, _Masterviolin said:
Sir, with all due respect, the idea that players will supply all of the medium cannon in the game to combat high NPC prices relies upon an economy where a huge portion of the players are devoted to producing cannons. This will simply not happen lest the playerbase is HUGE, and will only happen in capitals most likely.
Foundries should produce special types of cannons, they should not be the backbone of the entire cannon market.
Agreed 1000%. Not to mention, if players provide the backbone of the cannon economy, they WON'T make cannons cheaper. Why lower the price on your own income if you don't have to? Also, @admin can we please talk about how the US has NO coal producing ports? How are we supposed to produce without resources? And before you say "take a coal port from someone else", keep in mind they've gotten a head start on cannon production...
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Christendom said:
The majority of us are vets and know how to make money. Your average new player will be utterly swamped and overwhelmed. The most common question in nation and global is why can't I equip my cannons. Its not self explanatory. Requiring all cannons or none is stupid. It's absurd how complicated it is. It seriously gets asked every 15 mins
Prior to this patch the new player retention was abysmal. Seems like @admin doubled down and made it even worse.
Seconded, as well as killing off old players.
-
3
-
-
I have to agree, the startup is agonizing.
While the large clans are doing okay, getting things spun up, you NEED a massive clan working together to really make any progression. This new grind has sent my entire clan packing, as it's less of a game and more of a job. I'm all for keeping line-ships rare and expensive, but right now, EVERYTHING is prohibitively expensive. Even when we CAN afford the guns on a Surprise, it spends most of its time in port, because losing it DOES start you off in square one.Can we consider bringing back the capture of NPC ships? As it stands, 1 durability ships, the cost of repair production and the cost of cannons already keep the ships incredibly expensive. Returning another decent source of income wouldn't be the same level of inflation it once was.
I agree, make resource extraction cheaper, and make the lower tier ships a bit easier to produce. I know admin is looking at EvE as a goal, but honestly, they lack the side-lures that EvE has, as well as the activity for lower level players. At present, the casual players are locked out.-
5
-
-
Just to throw my $.02 in, is there any chance of having this on Discord instead of teamspeak? I will likely be unable to access my computer at that time, but through discord we can still participate in typing.
-
1
-
-
ADD INV to US. Active Members 6
-
1
-
-
I like this, and even MORE like the idea of having the option to ship via AI trader. Allow players to intercept these, and you have worthwhile risk to the trader sending things to make up for not having to sail, and increase rewards for commerce raiders.
-
1
-
-
I STRONGLY agree with this sentiment. All of the mechanics being introduced after the patch DEMAND a large server population, and allowing a split between the two will only cause problems...
-
5
-
-
I greatly support both the first-person views and the storm battles!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jeheil said:
Having slept on this (figuratively of course..as an Aussie gamer sleep is some 'mythical' construct) this is my considered and honest input :
Chat Removal : Personally I believe this is a terrible idea. For lots and lots of reasons. In an EA game, devoid of tutorials and guides, new peeps need the community love. Now I truly understand the issues with moderating chat. People call it toxic...honestly its nowhere near real toxic. In every 10 people one of them is an idiot, indeed, if you are ever in a group of 10 people or more look around, spot the idiot, if you can't, you should leave !!
For the small %age of horrid people lets not throw away what is generally a good and helpful community. You will 'silo' people, they will be driven much further apart. It was conversations with pesky French players, those damned Spanish and several Pirates that changed my 'national' and myopic view on lots of things.
Community organised fun will be hampered. This is just a bad reflex to a few stoopid peeps. Racist, Sexist, Bigoted behavior should be punished. Rude/Idiot people, leave them to the community. We have ignore lists and mute options. Thats easy.
Implementation of Open World Sharia Law : Now, I have always said, that GamesLabs really missed a trick not taking their initial 'sea trials' and creating a 'World of Warships' type game for drop in fun. So I for one support this type of game. The combat in NA is just superb. We all love it. Its how we get to it that causes muddlement. Now if we had 2,000 players online then having 'lobbied' content to some 'mini-games' would probably be fine. Think WoW, PvP Leagues, Alteric Valleys etc. However with 2-400 people online having these two worlds together, both only ~50% implemented is possibly a bad idea. It does neither thing well and pays the price. I also believe that outcomes, rewards etc from lobbied content 'should not' be useable/useful in O/W.
I, as many of you know, LOVE Naval Action. I also am prepared (at cost to Real Life) to put time into it. Not everyone makes this choice or can afford the time commitment. This makes me fear for O/W. I believe a balance has to be struck between 'realistic', 'simulation' and 'game'. Again I will use the most successful MMO of all time WoW as an example. There are 'lifestyle' assists to having to 'walk/sail' everywhere. Flight Outposts, Summoning, Portals etc. These do 'takeaway' from the chore/commitment of having to spend hours to travel. We need to find a balance. Between Bore/Chore and Work/Reward and Just Fun/Gaming.
I think the patch has gone to far to one side with the utter smashing of almost 'all' comfort mechanics.
I do however support the notion of making the O/W more 'vivid' and 'exciting'. But almost all of the patch is making other things worse to make it look better (or indeed be the only choice). I hope this is just a step in evolution.
On the upside the inability/peskiness of moving vast distances does mean that 'wars' will be fought over more slowly moving and better defined borders. As most nations will need to slowly and incrementally 'push' their borders from their fronline to 'the next territory'. This might be good.
Admin Behavior in the Forum : Firstly, thanks for the loadsa time you are putting in, I think you are a little too combatitive with some of your comments..however at least you are Frank. But I do advise you play the ball and not the man !! Sometimes your own comments would if said by a player get them in trouble.
OUR Behavior in the Forum : We are all passionate about NA because we love it and its potential. However, we are sometimes a little dismissive of other perspectives and are not really behaving like collaborators in a sort of 'co-design' exercise. Which is exactly what we should be as an EA community. So I do implore us all (me included) to think beyond our own bubbled world view. Imagine a new player coming in...what made sense and we got used to over the past 3-4 months may actually not have been a good long term idea.
RoE : If Open World is ALL, then THE single most important thing to get right is the Rules of Engagement. Make Tagging and entering/joining into battles a focus for improvement.
I think the above is very well laid out.
-
22 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
4 years active duty Navy and another 15+ Offshore Oil rig/drilling ships and merchant marine work and yah you hardly ever see anything other than shadows. I mean in the persian gulf we had a few dead calms that even than you didn't see any reflections. I had a few down off the coast of Brazil and India and it's pretty much all the same. Your to worried about the dang freaking 1000000 degree hot sun beating on you with no wind to notice any reflections any way.
I don't think calm and north seas area allowed to be in the same sentence lol
Though I'm not so salty, I grew up on the ocean sailing no less, and I agree completely. If there was enough wind to catch a sail, there was enough wind to ripple the water beyond reflection, to say nothing of waves.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, PaladinFX said:
How do you arrange Small battle in OW if you are turning off Global Chat; we won't be able to communicate with the other Nations???
Bam. QFT. Game over. Doneskies. And if this doesn't illicit some kind of second thought, then there's no hope.
-
1 hour ago, Fenris said:
I have seen too often so much salt, insults, really disgusting things written in GLOBAL chat. Things that went far beyond usual player dissing, things that were full of hate and anger.
As far i am concerned remove the GLOBAL chat.
" If you don`t want to hear, you need to feel". (old saw)
So put a chat ban on the individual. Simple as that. But you want to force people into OW, refuse to let them chat, that's only gonna be more alt-tabbed sailing because what the heck else do we do with our time?
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Shrez said:
No it's not, make a poll majority wants to keep global chat.
Develop the game for the players not against, i can tell you i'am not going to buy any other game you are releasing in future.
Admin, would you listen to a poll specifically on keeping global chat?
-
1
-
-
Admin: Is there any chance we can reconsider the global chat going away? I can understand how every other feature may work, but this one truly and deeply concerns me for the future of this game.
I think there's one thing we can agree on, before things get more heated. The reason we all get so heated is because we all truly and deeply love this game.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, admin said:
You don't understand what the second group of players want. They want to remove ganking, want realistic distribution of fleets in battle and dont want to sail. We are no longer in position to satisfy their needs. Ganking, sailing and OP fleets will remain in the sandbox game. For the e-sport we will make another product. But its impossible to solve ganking sailing and op fleets in NA.
Removal of chatting with enemies is the best idea ever.
Preventing people from being able to take a mission in a port does nothing about ganking. It simply prevents people from being able to find action if there is nothing else nearby. Allow me to illustrate: I'm a relatively low rank. I have a 5th rate Frigate. Without missions, my only hope to find action is to go out deep into enemy territory. Well, the line between friendly and enemy water is currently filled with 5 players in SOLs with fleets. Well, now, if I go forward to try to find a fight, I stand no chance to survive whatsoever. The massive fleet will eviscerate me. There IS no middle ground to find action, because the ONLY place to find a fight is enemy water, and the ZERG clans know this, and prey on it. So, here I am, a new player. I can't go forward. I can't take a mission. I have nothing available to me. And so, I hit the refund button and there goes your sale.
I understand you want PVP. Great. Fleets aren't a problem in and of themselves already. I do most of my fighting hunting in the open world as it is. But when you take away the option for find action ANY other way, you're going to lose casual players who don't have a HUGE clan behind them. And while you don't care about the opinion, you'll feel it in your wallet.
As for the global chat loss, again, you're the ONLY game in the industry attempting that. Does that not give you pause? There is neutrality toward it here at best, and no support whatsoever.
You have a post here about changes. The BEST response I've seen is a neutral "lets try it and see what happens." You have many changes here it seems NO ONE has asked for. And I'll point out, that a great many of your reviews on steam are complaining about this EXACT situation, where you seek to fix problems that don't exist by implementing fixes no one wants, and claiming that it's YOUR world and we just live in it when there are complaints made. You want to change your reputation as a game, but you're only living up to it here.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, admin said:
Another game will not have open world. What do you mean stuff we are taking away. I dont get it.
We are taking away the unnecessary lobby based content which was only kept for EA and its removal is overdue.
Again, this may be tinfoil hat territory, but what came to my mind was that you're taking out missions and quick battles, but moving those into a new game along with the quote "We don't care what you're playing as long as it's one of our games". Matched with the "we never said it would be fun" quote, this sets off many alarms in my head from a game I was previously in LOVE with (Hell, I've put 200 hours into it in two weeks lol).
I understand the drive to the open world. I support it wholeheartedly. But I agree with others here that taking away other features to FORCE the open world is NOT the right way. Rather, there should be more done to improve open world occurrences to draw people there of their own desire, not for want of other options.
And taking away global chat is about the worst idea I've heard yet.
-
4
-
-
Honestly, with the global chat being gone, this game is dead in the water. I'll wait on the patch, but I'm already regretting playing too long to take my money back, not because I NEED the money back, but a few things said by devs here have the aire of "we don't care what you think, we're going how WE want to." I mean, I'm appalled that no one jumped on the "We never said it would be fun" line!
As a new guy here, the reason I DID stay beyond the 2 hour refund window is BECAUSE I was able to get help and instruction, from the Help Channel, from Nation and from Global. Sure there are purse-fights, but that's life. I've done my fair share of internet gaming and I've NEVER encountered a game which doesn't allow interaction between sides. Between this and the constant "Well, we're making ANOTHER game that has the stuff we're taking away", this may be tinfoil hat territory, but it almost sounds as if now that they've got our money for NA, they're trying to kill it off so when they release this new game (With all the options they took away from this one) they'll get all of our money there too...
-
5
-
-
So... I'm gonna throw this out here: you probably just killed all new player influx with 3 and 7. You're handing all of the players over to super clans to rank them up. Port missions still forced players into the open world to go find their mission marker, and I know I personally have been attacked en route to one, so it can be a PVP driver. Meanwhile, trying desperately to level up from their Snow in open world only they're at the mercy of the gank groups who already have heavy frigates and numbers. A Snow wanting to level is forced to find some massive clan willing to escort him just to have a chance of surviving against players who only want to club baby seals.
With number three you say you want people going into the open world, but there's no longer anything to gain in doing so. If capturing enemy ships is worthless, what do you actually propose we do in this open world? There's no fight to be had from port missions, no fight to be had from he lobby missions, and nothing to be gained hunting enemy ships on the open?
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, koltes said:
1. and 2. is a start mate. Just want to make this as simple as possible to implement without any devs resources spent on it. This can be done in 30 mins coding. Later as proper OW sailing game it absolutely must have celestial navigation as well as bearing navigation. Totally agree
Well sir, copy-paste to a suggestion topic and I will happily back it! How do we feel about slightly more stringent ROE as well? I know it DOES exist for 1v1 fights, as I've seen it there, but when there are more than one ship involved, there doesn't seem to be any restriction to a 5,000 vs 200 BR battle.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, koltes said:
There are quite a few things that could be done about it. They all need testing and community work of course.
With Battle Instances open until battles are finished these things will help to reduce the gank fest as you know it today from previous experiences:
1. GPS needs to be removed. Pinpointing your location as well as location of the Battle Instance in the OW made it possible to easily find Instances and gank.
2. Instead Navigation Button introduced. Clicking this button will run 2 min timer after which it will show a large circle on the map of your approximate location, thus makes sailing more interesting and while you can't pinpoint anything with a meter precision you still can't get lost;
3. When player teleports to FREE PORT he has 15 minute no join timer. He may initiate any combat right away, but can't join battles for 15 minutes, thus stops people jumping into battles outside free towns right away, but this does not apply to areas like nation capitals. Teleport and help that newb outside no problems;
4. Sailing in regions needs to slow down to speed of Battle Instance. If you sail 9kn in instance then its the same 9 kn in OW on same POS. Because of distance compression it still will take you much faster to travel. Outside regions speed goes to what it was before (without 20% resent speed increase) and in deep waters to cross vast areas your speed doubles so you sail from KPR to Willemstad in 15-20 mins or from Mort to Kidd's in 20 mins sort of thing, thus lessen time sink for travel, but makes sailing around regions more realistic;
5. If you were within visual range when battle started you can join with no restrictions. You where there and see it happened. If you were outside visual distance than when you click on Join Battle button 2 things happen: 1). 5 minute timer starts before you can join; 2). Everybody inside gets the message that another ship is joining the battle and their name and ship is added to the TAB list as pending with showed timer. Thus gives people inside the instance clear understanding of what is going to happen and will allow them to make decisions. This in battle notification and timer also represents the fact that anyone sailing towards the battle would have been seen by everyone;
6. Main gank fest happens outside Free Ports, because people just sit in there and wait and call out their friends who also "fishing" outside other ports. So to tackle that Neutral Zone needs to be added to all Free Ports. The distance of the Zone is a visual range. If you left Free Port and you see someone start following you will be able to comeback to the port. This represents the historical fact that there were no fights in the Neutral harbours or around in the close proximity. Those who would initiate the fight would have been hunted by the entire Brotherhood and they would never be able to comeback
All this alone will make gank fest 500% less than what you knew when the battles were open before without proper mechanics.I'm not so sure about points 1 and 2, (A friend of mine has pointed out however, maybe some visual references that would be easier to see and take an azimuth off of to allow some still-accurate navigation but with some human skill). Otherwise, I do really like those ideas. Perhaps a suggestion post is in order?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Liquicity said:
Honestly, in open world, you should get what you see. Has always been my opinion, will always be. Now, I think Signaling rules may have to be applied for all battles, just to counter offensive gankers, as in those that feel like they're being awesome by attacking someone outnumbering him 5 to 1. The guy outnumbered should have the possibility to call for help and get it.
We've had open battles before, and it sucked. Could barely enjoy a fight, never knew what ship would appear out of nowhere in a minute or two. May be thrilling for some, but for me it just ruins the complete game. What's the point in a 1v5+? 1v2 or 1v3 may be doable, when equal ships, but anything above is just pure ZERG force.
Might also have to say I'm pro-signaling-for-all-battles because I'm a solo player, solo hunting. The fights I enjoy the most are small frigate battles. Why would you want a nice frigate duel being disturbed by anything like a lineship reinforcement fleet? might aswell stop playing in that case.I tend to agree with the above. I can certainly understand the thrill of a slightly mismatched fight, but as I've said in-game, there's a line between a long shot and sheer and utter destruction. Having just a short while ago started a battle with a few friends where we were ALREADY outnumbered, only to have Pirate players bring in 3 more line ships and a handful of heavy frigates and run their mouths again... I'm not against PvP, but there's an ocean between what we're seeing now and what anyone other than a power player in a massive faction might find fun.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, koltes said:
Come back when its done, but dont stop us looking for other solutions just becuase you have an opinion.
Out of curiousity, what would you recommend as a solution to the gank fest?
Siegfried's Map
in Maps - Development forum
Posted
How is the current release of the map here compared to the game? Are the locations all present and fairly accurate to the latest release?