Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Captain Lust

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    622

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Captain Lust

    Quality Levels

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    37 minutes ago, Peter Goldman said:

    1. Charismatic Boatswain for bigger ships should give better bonuses than smaller ships. On small ships crew moves fast enough not to even use this mod at all, but it would be very helpful on 1-3 rates and even 4-5 rates but as the bonus decreases with higher rates, this book is totally useless. We could have merged all 6-7/4-5/1-3 onto one book for all rates (just like Rum Rations) and let's say it makes Crew Transfer: +10 or +15. Then it will be way better and players will actually start to use it rather than selling all of it to ports...

    2. Extra Hammocks - Very often we end up with a situation that smaller ships get way more crew bonus (not % but a fixed number) than bigger ships. For example, Niagara, Mercury or Heavy Rattlesnake get more bonus crew than Cerberus, Renomee, Surprise which I find ridiculous. Also, I find it stupid that extra hammocks reduce morale by a lot! That's silly. More crew = more morale. (Same issue goes to marines btw)

    3. Boarding Ladders effect is worse on bigger ships (???)

    4, Grenades on small ships give 50% bonus and on bigger just 10% and 5% (LMAO)

    5. Muskets and Pistols on small ships are 50%, on 4-5 is 25% and on big ships it is 10% (thus, it becomes 100% useless for big ships).

     

    Many, many other skill books. The 6-7 / 4-5 / 1-3 is totally imbalanced and needs a total overhaul. I would even risk saying that we shouldn't have it divided by rates.

    Agreed mostly. Now of course realism always should come second behind balance but still many seem unreasonable... maybe some upgrades like muskets and pistols become too strong with 50% on big ships? I don't know, haven't used them too much. With borading ladders and boatswain i never bothered at all to be honest... as far as i understood the boarding ladders give you less penalty for attacking a ship with different deck height, which is nice and all but is it worth a slot? It only comes into play when boarding and only when you board a much bigger or smaller ship. Boatswain i wouldn't ever pick up either but i agree with you it should be way better on big ships since thats the only place where they matter. Overall i think not only the rated upgrades are poorly balanced but all upgrades in general. 

    With all this being said i like how the 6-7 get quite significant % bonuses, making it easier for them to compete with 4-5 rates even tho it may or may not be completely balanced for some upgrades. It should be noted that im biased here, because i enjoy the smaller ships a great deal but only against other 6-7 who have access to the same books ( against skilled frigate captains i found 6-7 rates to be rather ineffective, mainly due to demasting ).

    TL;DR: I agree with upgrades being poorly balanced but don't mind 6-7 rates getting an advantage that makes them more competitive with 4-5 rathes even tho it is not logical or realistic but only balance.

    • Like 1

    Patch monday - urgent.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted

    56 minutes ago, Liq said:
    1 hour ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

    How are we supposed to make money to pay 100k per port?  More grind?

    On 23.8.2017 at 11:42 AM, admin said:

    update

    monetary rewards for sinking pve ships will be increased (they were toned down too much) to allow a couple of missions to recover the ship costs + cannons
    ship and cannon prices updated (cannons on average will be 50% of cost of the ship as it was historically)

    example
    before - sink pve victory - money reward 50k (ship cost 400k/cannon cost 300k)
    after - sink pve victory - money reward 400k (ship cost 400k/cannon cost 200k)

    pvp bonuses will increase as well from 50% more to 100% more

    800x-1.jpg

    Lmao, i don't think people here even understand the concept of inflation... at least nobody seems to care. 

    • Like 1

    Patch monday - urgent.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted · Edited by Captain Lust

    38 minutes ago, vata said:

    no more patience !

    i paid for a pvp game, i paid for actions not for endless sailing, endless trading to earn money

    Well, while i don't mind the sailing ( it is a game about sailing ships after all and the OW looks pretty nice ) im growing very tired of the game turning more and more to pve players even on the pvp server... i'm not saying i want free ships and upgrades but i want to earn them in PvP. You know something is hello kittyed up when there is a discussion on the forums about how to get people to do pvp on the pvp server. So yeah i understand you very well... but there is no need to call the devs names...i think they're doing their best to fix the game, that's the most logical assumption at least since it is their game.

    • Like 1

    Patch monday - urgent.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

    About the 100k "issue".

    It could be so that the 1st one is almost free and the following would have increasing payments.  More ports you own, more you pay per port.

    That means that monster warcorps are not the best option, at least not always.  Gives room for smaller groups and clans.  If you have multiple small ones allied you can control large territory.  Multiple leaders bring more our beloved drama and that extra delicious salt.

    Sounds very reasonable. The cost should probably also depend on the number of clan members - this seems very obvious to me, many clan members = higher cost since you have more people being able to contribute. This could also help balance zerg clans. But either way i'd rather have owning ports be more on the expensive side so the inflation is slowed down, smaller nations aren't bullied by the big players too hard, taking all their ports around them and we can actually have some neutral towns to be used to tp to the action for pvp. I think people underestimate the power of controlling ports and their taxes and what it means for other players but we shall see. Making the ownership of ports profitable will of course promote RvR a big deal but it will only make the rich even richer / give the powerful clans even more power -> snowballing -> losers on the other side quitting the game because they can't do anything. Isn't that just like PvP Global pirates? They don't even need their ports to yield profits - they just hello kitty everyone regardless. Also i value PvP over RvR since while RvR is important content and a core mechanic to keep the game interesting for many in the "late game", it is too time consuming for the average player that will maybe be in the screening fleet but probably never in the actual port battle itself. Having more neutral ports promotes constant pvp, because people can tp to where the action is happening instead of just logging off because they cant be arsed to sail there 2 hours so it will be over by the time they get there... If owning them gives gold -> no more neutral towns -> no more tp -> "hello kitty that, im not sailing 2 hours down there to get some action - see you all in Legends next year, if i haven't moved on by then". Just my opinion / prediction...

    Patch monday - urgent.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted · Edited by Captain Lust

    11 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:

    Can't believe how many people complained in this thread of short notice, when all I read over these forums was telling admin to stop announcing so early.  Makes me laugh, you just can't please the crowd no matter what you do.

    So much this. Also i don't think it was short of notice... as admin stated , the map was up on the test server for days... i'd rather see the patch asap looking at the pitiful server pop atm...

    • Like 6

    Bomb Vessel Video

    in History

    Posted · Edited by Captain Lust

    8 hours ago, Captain Jean-Luc Picard said:

    Always check "more" under the video to see what sources he uses.

    He has an incredible collection of books.

    Incredible collection of books or not credible collection of books? I'm not a native english speaker but i think it could mean both.

    Patch monday - urgent.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

    The problem is the wrong players have all that gold.  It's not the casual 90% of the game, it's the 10% hard core traders and such that has all that gold.  Hell I rarely break over 5 mill cause I'm spending it on econ all the time.  Prob sitting at between all my chars right now less than a mill.  Now ask me how much resources I have, now that is a diffrent story.

    Yeah, i agree but if you make it cheaper you only end up with players from those 10% hard core traders who are in zerg clans owning the map... because when gold doesn't matter anymore only the player numbers matter... Making it harder to hold ports with the cost, makes it harder to expand to enemy territory, which also simulates the enormous  cost such a war would have. I think this feature has the potential to balance nations more than anything the game ever had ( except for alliances done right, maybe ) but we shall see...

    Patch monday - urgent.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, admin said:

    current minimal fee is 100k per day. So if your clan controls 10 ports it will amount to 1 mln per day.

    And this is good. It improves economy and prevents zerg clans from crushing the weaker nations. It was a good idea, don't let people tell you otherwise or make it cheaper, please. There are horrendous amounts of gold in the game again already... people complain how it is expensive when in reality they have all the gold to pay it, if they really need their name on every port, they just don't want to... Thanks for your effort.

    • Like 3

    Invisibility poll

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Macjimm said:
    •  Remove completely and add option to log out of game after a successful escape.
    •  Remove completely and add teleport to safety (port) after successful escape.

    I liked those option when they were in game and i think they should be back...

    1 minute ago, Cortez said:

     

    I have nothing to say to you.

    Of course you don't, only like the previous 4 posts and now you're busy being all whiney about a random comment... or is it just that you really are one and thats why it hurt so much? If so, im sorry man - there are many fish in the sea ;)

    Invisibility poll

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted · Edited by Captain Lust

    6 minutes ago, Cortez said:

    You have no right to call the players "cucks" here, they play PvE or PvP., if they suggest or not.

    "Speaking the truth"..You?

    Lol.

    What is this offtopic spam about? Do you have an alternative to invisibility timer? If not, why spam here? I get you're butthurt over what i said, mate...

    further balance for me would be that the invisible Captain should not be able to see OW vessels while invisible. This will avoid an invisibility attack positioning on other OW players.

     

    I would like to see this, good idea.

    Invisibility poll

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    Just now, Cortez said:

    You called players of this game "cucks".

    You are not a bad boy for sure.

    You are an internet warrior.

    I called those that didn't come up with an alternative to invisiblity timer while at the same time wanting it removed that, and rightfully so. If they want it removed we need another way of preventing revenge fleet camping. If speaking the truth makes me an internet warrior, then fair enough.

    • Like 1

    Invisibility poll

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    I agree with Liquicity... revenge fleets are much more ganking than the victim of them is a ganker more often than not. The players that voted to remove invisibility without coming up with a better solution are probably the same cucks that sit in the greenzone for pve and only join pvp fights that are massively in their favour / on their terms...

    • Like 1

    Invisibility poll

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    16 minutes ago, admin said:

    Captains

    Due to addition of safe zones and reinforcement fleets around capitals and due to changed status of many free towns lets discuss invisibility and speed boost.

    Invisibility was implemented to reduce revenge fleets. In the new design hunting around enemy capitals will be very hard.
    Cities that will be controlled by clans should be protected by their own player driven defence fleets that should have a chance to destroy the potential harassers. As a result we see no benefits in keeping invisibility as they allow a very safe escape option limiting pvp opportunities. 

    Discuss.

    With the new safe zones there is no reason to remove / nerf the invisibility or promote revenge fleets in any other way in my opinion and im glad the poll reflects that.

    • Like 1

    Forthcoming patch final discussion.

    in News Announcements & Important discussions

    Posted · Edited by Captain Lust

    8 hours ago, Peter Goldman said:

    How one clan can control half of the map and defend all ports at the same time? If your territory will be overextended, your defending abilities will lower to 0. Let's say you get 3 ports attacked at the same time, you need 75 players to defend and no screening fleet at all.

    I don't know im not a RvR player... ask the pirate zerg clan that dominated global server to the point of people quitting...

    8 hours ago, Peter Goldman said:

    If maintenance cost will be too high or not profitable, majority of the map will remain grey. There will be no RvR.

    Hence i said it shouldn't be too high but not too low either - barely profitable at best. Maybe the first port is very profitable and it costs more the more your clan has. So this way there will be some neutral ports to be used by everyone (maybe) and a chance for smaller clans to fight other smaller clans in RvR when the big clans / zerg clans are saturated. There has never been much RvR if you look at the playerbase as a whole. There are few players that care about RvR and of those even less who actually can do it because they're the chosen elite that organises PBs with their clan excluding the rest. Not only do too many ports in the hand of one clan give them too much power, it also excludes the rest of the players yet again. I'd really like to see some noob clans skrimish over unimportant backwater ports, rather than a big zerg clan coming in stomping them both to get their #34 port... A big clan can still own half the map but they also have to actually pay for their ports and that is how it should be imo. Not only does it make sense and helps economy alot, it also makes the choice of which ports you own actually matter instead just grabbing as many as possible. So in thise case if nation A caps all ports of nation B ( "one porting" them ) they suppress them hard and we all have seen how this affected players, but this time nation A pays ALOT of gold every day in doing so and thus weakens them, restoring balance somewhat. It's like the roman empire, nazi germany or this really fat guy at an all-you-can-eat buffet - you get too greedy, you lose ( collapse of empire / heart attack ) aka "bite off more than you can chew"...

×
×
  • Create New...