Navalus Magnus
-
Posts
566 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Navalus Magnus
-
-
12 hours ago, Liq said:
I think the main reason frigates don't dare to enter the zone is because battles stay open for half an hour. if you get yourself a decent frigate fight, there can still be reinforcments on either side for 30 min until the "max BR" is full.
It should be like this imo:
First, battles is open for 3 minutes for anyone to join. No restrictions.
After that, battle stays open for players to join each side until it has reached 1.5x the BR of the other side.
+1
-
25 minutes ago, admin said:
You can run in the OW
If constitution got into firing range it would fight to the death i am sure.+ you are rewarded for damage.
Bravely fighting a battle is a fine thing!
But having no choice to do otherwise feels artificial - even if it‘s just the battle instance that doesn’t allow running!
... why do we even have the options of chainshot or the possibility of demasting inside patrol missions?
Using these options wouldn’t make any sense with the circle of death implemented.
In other words:
I like the patrol missions!
I don‘t like the circle of death / the inability to escape!
Plus: I like the idea of the dynamic BR controlled battle entry rights mentioned by @vazco!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Trash unworthy of the Sea said:
It promotes bringing cheap and actual combat ships ( not fir/fir garbage ) and thereby lowers the fear of losing the ship while also evening out the playing field since more people will be sailing cheap ships with disposable mods. I think it is pretty good... what is wrong with it? If you plan on running don't go there in the first place...
Those PvP zones would do as a motivation to bring the ships you‘d like to see, because everyone sailing in such dangerous waters has to expect defeat!
These rules are neither necessary nor do they feel right for an OW game imo!
They are arena like!
-
5 hours ago, admin said:
Hello captains
Within a week new type of daily mission will appear in game for testing
Rules:
- Arrive to a designated area
-
Deal as much damage as possible to ships located in that area (both players and npc's count), return to the zone if you sink to finish the goal.
- all damage counts, crew, sails, structure, planking.
- Receive PVP marks for completion (by claiming in the mission interface)
- All other considerations are secondary, running is discouraged, ships expendable.
That really sounds nice!
5 hours ago, admin said:Motivation to fight
- To discourage running, escape is impossible from the battles created within the patrol zone.
- Exit is only possible if all enemies are sank
- Running from battles is punishable by death (your ship is destroyed)
- Battle zone within the combat instance gives plenty of room initially, but shrinks to 500m Radius by 1h-25 mins to completely remove the desire to kite or sail around
I think getting PvP marks as rewards is pretty much enough motivation to stay in the fight!
Why do we need these strict rules?
Imo these rules create a feeling that arena games do. If players want that, they could just as well play NAL.
I'd vote for patrol missions without such strict battle rules!
-
1
-
To bring in more variety is a good idea!
But i‘d rather have new ships implemented into the game - even if it takes time - than a new version of every ship, that looks like its twin.
I also think that NA already has lots of ships!
Therefore the priority of the devs should still be to finetune the ballancing between the existing ships / to get the best out of the existing variety!
I think devs are on a good way to achieve this, they just need a bit more time.
-
4. @admin
You said you want the Vic to be the fastest 1st rate.
Speed trails indicate, that the Vic is slower than the Santi though, concerning bearings between 35 and 55 degrees to the wind.
Even if it isn‘t that much, i‘d vote for changing that, and make the Vic the fastest 1st rate on all bearings.
-
3. Make the sailing crew required in battle dependent on the setting you use:
e.g. full sails = full sailing crew required, battle sails = 20%-40% sailing crew required.
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, Jon Snow lets go said:
1.
after successfully disengaging give a global boarding immunity of 2 mins to prevent chainboarding
Currently we have 1 minute and only for the guy who boarded me, not his friend standing on my side and pulling me instantly after I disengaged. 1 minute is not enough, often it is impossible to reach 3,5 knots in that time.
1. Yes!
2. Change or take away „determined defender“ of you haven‘t done that already. Right now you need to have 30% more crew as your enemy to be able to board, right? That‘s too mighty a perk imo.
-
9 minutes ago, jodgi said:
Most of the bigger ships are implicit Navy vessels already.
... and imo it wouldn‘t make any sense to have Navy and Non-Navy versions of all SOLs!
I would be very surprised if any private person back in the age of sail was able to get a SOL to sail around and fight private little wars!
-
1
-
-
We had a similar thing before the last wipe, called „regional bonuses“.
I don‘t know why devs removed them.
Concerning the new boni:
1. I like your idea of linking them to certain ports.
2. But I don‘t know if that lead to more RvR, because as far as i know the actual boni are not that much of a buff. Increasing them in a system like yours wouldn’t be a good idea though, because this would possibly widen the gap between the powerful and rather weak.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, AxIslander said:
Its all about you, Sweden! You had the Russian Empire as the punching bag of the server from day one, trough your machination and so called diplomacy. Now they say "enough!" and its still not fair. Everybpdy wants to play the Swedish version of NA, its only fair.🤣
Quite an interesting perception of reality mate!
-
4
-
-
7 minutes ago, victor said:
TBH I'd suggest to the devs to keep also crafting BP and/or books and/or ship knowledge slots.
TBH I‘d propably ragequit the game if I need to unlock all of those shipslots again!
-
2
-
-
Just now, North said:
don't really care
That speaks for itself mate!
-
1 minute ago, Christendom said:
Server merge was a great idea. You cant deny that this server definitely has some activity.
I'm wondering how long this activity will continue after your move.
-
Could we please have a machanic, that allows clans to attack other clans of the same nation!?
-
2
-
-
What if there was a global market for ship contracts?
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, King of Crowns said:
but the fact that anyone can go make 10 mil in less than 3 hours simply by doing missions in the safe zone makes gold useless.
I don‘t know you mate, but I doubt that you are able to make 10 million in 3 hours, by doing missions!
Apart from that:
Yes, many people have too much gold for it still being a valuable currency.
But it‘s a hard task to get the right ballance, so that every type of player has the chance to achieve something in a reasonable amount of time (the occasional ones as well as those hard core gamers).
So what would you suggest to both keep the ballance and increase the value of gold!?
-
1
-
-
This would really be a nice thing!
Fleet practice could even start with 4 players!
... or at least reduce the requirements to 6 players.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, King of Crowns said:
Create a non PVP zone in the pacific and throw every new player regardless of nation in that area of the map at the same port and give them the tutorial and missions to do
1. That might be a good idea!
If the playerbase grew devs could even create a safe haven / area to train things for each nation, back in Europe / North America.
There every player could do some missions, even trade and afterwards move to the carribean (frontier) with all stuff achieved so far.
2. Of course others mentioned other ideas before. For example to let safe zones stay like they are, but only for players up to a certain rank!
The downside of this particular idea is it’s potential for exploits: Low level alts could be used for purposes of safe trading.
With the above mentioned idea (1.) this kind of exploit could be denied.
-
25 minutes ago, rediii said:
Read the first post again
24 minutes ago, admin said:Hostility missions WILL BE limited by 10 player per side!
- Old hostility limits: 25 Player Attackers versus 10 NPC ships + 15 Defending players (making it impossible for defenders to counter large fleets as they are always disadvantaged by bots)
- New hostility limits: 10 Player Attackers versus 10 NPC ships + 10 Defending players (making it possible for defenders to counter hostility successfully).
That‘s what i‘ve tried to tell you the whole time!
So just to make it clear:
- right now the attacker still has all the advantages inside the hostility missions
- in future the defending fleets will have an advantage if they manage to get into the fight quick enough!
That sounds reasonable!
I just asked because I would like to have a way of making hostility missions, which end up in PvP battles, evenly matched!
-
2 minutes ago, admin said:
no because both sides are limited by 10 players max + up to 10 NPCs depending on how many attackers there are.
Hm, ... i thought I participated in a hostility mission two weeks ago, in which 25 attackers fought 10 npcs!?
-
Just now, admin said:
that can already happen now. defenders can spawn right on top of the attackers.
But in this case there could be 25 attackers instead of 10, isn‘t it!?
-
4 minutes ago, rediii said:
And where is the problem? Defenders need time to organize anyway
Yes, they do!
And maybe it will all work out fine.
Lets just see and try to fix it if it doesn’t work.
-
2 minutes ago, admin said:
hostility missions already allow positional entrance (meaning you can decide where to enter). If your scout gave you enemy position in the instance you can ALREADY spawn on top of the enemy and destroy them, or be destroyed by them.
Well, if it‘s that way round the 10 npcs will make a big difference when defending players join!
Imagine 20 1st against 10 at close quarters, with the new thickness values!
It would almost every time end up in a slaughter!
Make Patrol Missions a shallow water event or Consider limiting the daily rates allowed
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
That‘s probably even better than Liqs suggestions, because you wouldn‘t spoil the OW feeling with artificial „you-can‘t-escape - fight-and-sink-missions“.
But if devs changed the character of the patrol missions, and you would be able to just have decent PvP fights without the arena feeling / circle of death, it would also be fine imo.