Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Licinio Chiavari

Members
  • Content Count

    1,128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Licinio Chiavari last won the day on January 19

Licinio Chiavari had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

740 Excellent

About Licinio Chiavari

  • Rank
    Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I cant agree more. I am happy with general trend of reworking gameplay: the fact small hard hitting ships were the meta able to hunt SoLs was failed. And IMO it was hurting the game playerbase more than helping it: first a good share of players come to NA to enjoy the big stuff and it was not possible due to above "meta"; secondly, more importantly, while any less experienced player could accepting to lose a 3rd rate to another one, better handled and better equipped, far less people can withstand the "utter humiliation" of losing a Santissima to a Snow. But, as perfectly nailed in above quote post, the origin of the Snows hunting Santissimas came out from TWO issues. One, properly replied (to be balanced, but working in right direction) by testbed damage rework, and it was, as pointed by @admin, the 4pd DPS being the highest and 42pd one the worst. But the other one being the unreal sailing qualities of ships. So, if we are moving toward hard realism/simulation we need to take care also of sailing. That means reworking all sailing profiles: all ships top speed should sit between 1 tick downwind of broadreach and 1 tick downwind of beam reach; moreover NO square rigged ship should be able to go more than 1 tick upwind of beam reach (while fore-aft rigged ones yes... still with a closest point around 45-55°); therefore making a tack in combat a really dangerous manouver (as it was) lasting long (and deadly) minuteS. And at the same time reworking turning rates in specular way as done for damage: keeping 6-7th rates balanced and nerfing more and more as we take into consideration bigger stuff.
  2. That's quite real. Good and bad. Shorter battles are better for casuals. And a few minutes in battle are a couple hours or more in OW. Definately. A nice way to nerf them. And they are surely even more nerfed by shorter battle duration. That's definately realistic. And again: realistic. Not so many successful 1v3+ battles in history. Why only with carros? crew damage should be more or less the same with all similarly sized guns. THIS has to be corrected someway. Rake is espected to be deadly. AFAIK historically often ships stroke colours even after one. Remember, as above, Combat to OW time ratios. As stated by others, tweaking a bit possible precision, would solve the problem... making raking deadly and at same time dismasting happening naturally and almost impossible to aim for. That's an interesting point. But I cant stand for it: someone would say I speak for personal interest. On the other hand with ships still firing during boarding... pure "rage-boarding" (or in my case coldblooded one) "could" work... BUT at even higher risks. That I could consider even more real: a real high stakes - very high risks requiring a good share of daring spirit to be done. Potentially solving other above noted issues. PS: Sorry for going for quotes. But I arrived a bit late and considered repeatitive writing more or less the above thoughs in a new post.
  3. How many specific ships do we get in game that NEVER sailed in our waters? I am pretty sure that accounts of small ships are more difficult to find. So poor that crossed the Atlantic. So poor that bermuda rigging was invented based on? Lateen rigging. And about storage I recollect discussions in these forums after proposals about having to put and consume provisions on our ship... Main reply was the lenght of our cruises, rarely exceeding few days. So no sense to worry about provisions. So there are far more serious issues of "realism" in game than xebecs or not. Xebecs that engaged other sailing vessels in other waters in the same time frame. So what's wrong having them (1) here? So let's delete the Snow too. Interesting approuch to game design. There's a contradiction in the two parts. Anyway they used boarding. Missing maybe the point capturing a ship not too bad damaged was... economically better. And not risking being damaged in a prolonged gun duel too. And not to speak about... Nelson's death. Or the famed Speedy-El Gamo. I still miss the point of a simulation of 1700/1800 naval combat, and complain boarding attacks. But at same time far less complaining the far more unreal corvettes (and even smaller ships) sterncamping to death SoLs. Do someone want a pure gunnery naval combat? Look for WWI-WWII simulations. But I suppose the gun lovers in a WWII simulation would complain about carriers and air attacks. Or in WWI about torpedoes. So, likewise, for the Hercules. So people who has, will have. And new players no. Brillant. I have to understand this level of hate to a single ship in game. Never seen. A ship I usually hunt with a damned privateer.
  4. Get rid of Capital Areas. Make Reinforcement areas smaller and working as now. Add a Control Area - bigger than today R-Areas, without reinforcements but with free join for controller. In both areas: no TP last port for enemies. In all cases: TP last port without content of the hold (so no doubs nor mods looted) and no fleet ships (no captured ships).
  5. I think there's nothing wrong with quote attitude. It's natural and absolutely part of warfare. First: "fair" is a point of view. At this state of the game, I consider an Agamennon a fair target for my Requin... but very often the Agamennon thinks it's not fair (for him) fighting me. Second in general: "fair" is a complex mix of relation of stats (both base and mods) of ships involved plus involved captains' skill. Do really someone consider fair a same ship, even same mods, fight between a 2000+hr veteran and a 100hr fresh-of-exam newbie? Do really someone think me wrong avoiding to engage on a speed/no-mast modded Surprise (may be built for tagging or raiding) a famed dismaster on the same ship? Therefore there could be nothing as a "fair" battle. As duels were not duels in warfare. And even a duel... is only formally fair. The very expression "fair game" solves the issue. If it's enemy he's fair target or a danger. So the very natural reply: "fight or run". I was on receiving side of revenge fleets more often of being on the outnumbering side. And I consider them fair: it's my choise (more potential preys per time unit) to engage in enemy waters. It's fine it comes with higher risks, for me. This is the very only real issue ingame and about RoE. Because no one should be obliged to play 4 hours or more in a row being chased all over the map. If I sail having 30 minutes to play... I end up in a battle lasting more and I have to surrender. It's a my fault. But if I log with 2 hrs play time available, I should not obliged to play more if I already fought a 1h30m battle. Therefore a way to avoid the griefing of infinite tag should be implemented. The old teleport post battle (BUT TO THE LAST PORT VISITED) could be fine: as ships cant join after a couple minutes because the instanced battle is already finished in OW time, same way when I finished the battle I can be not anymore in that spot of the OW. Right. Both points. The situations of highly unbalanced forces involved are so many (and THERE IS people attacking 1st rates with Snow) variables that an hard coded RoE could be harmful. I'd suggest more a "written" rule allowing to tribunal anyone who exploit the tagging mechanic. Like "keeping tagged an enemy ship for more than X (5? or more with teleport afterbattle) minutes showing no intention to get in combat range is considered griefing and will be punished" - nothing too complex. Some tactical delay would be allowed but for limited time and less useful if coupled with postbattle teleport.
  6. How many engagements? You know exactly what I'm saying. So no way kidding me 😎
  7. Never going to happen: will you pay back the DLC to all players who bought it? More realistically, make DLC craftable/tradable for all. Or, as I proposed, add to DLCs owners a second option: or you can redeem the ship (still not tradable) as now (without the fleet trick) on 24hr CD, or you can redeem a "ship permit" on a 48/72 hrs CD that will be tradable. Options being mutually exclusive: in 48/72hr you'll be able to redeem 2/3 ships OR 1 permit. Add that redeemed ship having lower chance (or zero) to be superior contrary to crafted one. I'd consider this a good balance of DLC ship and accessibility to them for the Playerbase. About the out-of-place. All Ship of the Line are even more unreal in the area. Lateen rigged ships were used in the area; 1st/2nd rates NEVER... and the Bermuda rigging was invented modifing the lateen one. Last note: the use of a Requin is very realistic: fast upwind boarder... exactly what 90% or more of privateers and pirates ships were. No pirate (nor privateer) ever used nothing bigger than a Brigantine aside a very few exceptions. About unrealism. Do you want to really speak about of the unrealism of a lateen rigged ship able to out-run easily square rigged ships? Or do we want to speak about the realism of tacking with a squarerigged ship? or about mast sniping? or square rigged ships close hauling at 45° to the wind? So, please. Stop this eternal whining. If a ship with less HP, less turning, almost same armament, slower downind and faster upwind than a Niagara with the same crew of a Surprise is a so incredible enemy... there're other problems. Same as above.
  8. Well noted and I would stop. Still I would like you to point out, also privately, what I wrote, that was unpolite, rude, aggressive, plain false and therefore worth cancellation. I'd like the same for other posters, but it's not my issue, but only theirs, if, ever, interested.
  9. What did you smoke? Ask in GB how we (and I in particular) were appreciated. Not to speak about HAVOC flipping our main base (to raid Jamaica not last) when still Spanish (Little Cayman).
  10. May be you missed that we left Spain for Pirates first... and for personal reasons: to form an Italian clan. Then (similar to HAVOC in VP) we got zero support from other pirates... AND EVEN Pirates screening out HAVOC defending our port (on Christmas). Dont try to tell me wishing me not to be the underdog: I played for more than 1 year (if not 2) USA.
  11. We are speaking while facing enemies with a clue. Again. We all know what top notch PvPers with high end ships do vs random casuals. But the same top captains, able to win 1v5+, usually die pretty easy vs 2-3 veterans with similarly sized and geared ships with some skill. As far as I remember BR in PBs (and in PZs) is limited. So no risk of a challenging technically fair battle. Right? It's not so difficult to think ahead and AVOID being ganked. Still shit happens. And I'm fair being on both sides of eventual gank. And indirect personal attack cant be missing. Note: in some WWII wargames I work at best as TankHunter. No. I do not shiny charge in the middle of the field... waiting to receive 100s shots on me. I stalk, hide, and wait the right opportunity, with all pros and cons of a tank destroyer. Is this meaning I'm a ganker and I have an empty life? Did I suggest? I dont remember. Remaining about La Navasse PB and screening... would you like to count the total numbers involved on both sides? Because I dont remember nothing close a 10v1 both in OW nor in PB. And, sidenote, you're speaking with me, that majority of time sailed alone for months. See above about not being ganked. I do not enjoy 10v1. As I do not enjoy 1v10. It's part of war. And I accept it. I could get any kind of fight, and I'll fight what fate offers me as possible. Usually learning something. Again. If a side goes zerging (so ATTACKING) what's the problem? plenty defensive PBs... where the BR is limited so "fair". Right? And again. I do not remember British fleet outnumbering 10v1 French (and allies) yesterday both in OW and in PB. May be I am wrong. Am I? Chess is the least war-like wargame in the world. Let me know when in history two exactly same sized armies of clones with exactly the same gear ever fought. Do you want a pure mental balanced game. Chess. Warfare is different; the more "realistic", the more. Requires a lot of improvisation. It's subject to fate ("no human activity is so subject to fate than war" - Clausewitz). A - didnt say that Prussians have high quality? So why you're saying the rest of the server is unorganized? French fleet was unorganized. I hope not. The Russians attacking Sweden are un-organized? B - how grand RvR when there are like 5 nations of similar skill and numbers... and then, because it's human, because it's natural, because there're personal hates, because diplomacy exists, 3 gang together to smash the others? or directly 4 v 1? NA passed different "historical periods" both politically (RvR) and game-wise (metas). There is always the "alpha"... but, not strangely I'd add, it's not the same by the start of the OW/RvR game. Now it's GB. We'll see for how long. Right?
  12. First, I'd point out that, RvR especially (and partially in general), missing the numbers you can do almost nothing: you can have the most elite PB fleet... but if you miss a serious screening you'll simply not enter the PB. Therefore: without numbers (as in reality of war) you cant attack. Secondly, more important... when will we get rid of this MOBA mentality? moreover an alternate current (so used only in some cases and not in others) MOBA damned mentality? A - War is not fair. Being "fair" in war is stupidity. And this is a WAR game. B - Managing numbers IS a skill. C - bolster morale to get numbers being effectively present and acting, is another skill (mainly social one). D - Let me know what is "fair" in a 2000+hr veteran fighting a 50hr right after tutorial newbie, even if both on Hercules without mods. E - Let me know if while commanding a PB, seeing the enemy fleet joining with low experience captains and/or with a bad ship set up, anyone would order some of his ships to disengage to make it less un-fair. Therefore: please stop with this. NA is not an Arena game. It's a wargame. And follows the same rules of war.
  13. Let's be detailed. 3 Port attacked. 1 - no show off. Barcos. 2 - lasted like 25 minutes. LH. No idea what's there. 3 - lasted like 15, with Spanish fleet fleeing to 2 requins after first 5 minutes (and 3 ships already lost). Nassau (Rediii not even posted the video... Not worth). Plus... GB attacked Desconicida and got badly screened... And a random fleet entered. And won the PB anyway. So technically they put 3 PB fights plus some screening. It didnt go well...
  14. I always wondered why NA is missing a Patrician-like economy/management side. It could be a great part added to the game, attracting more and more players with different playstyles (just yesterday I spoke with a relatively new player, who likes trading management and crafting... And indeed he is far richer than a lot of veteran PvPers: this).
  15. I consider Hercules a bit OP, mainly due to a mix of turn rate, speed and chasers. So usually superior to Surprise. I said that a Surp/Herc is a match, and I think it is, solved on skill+gear/fit basis, not that Surp is at advantage. About masts, I saw a few Surprises mathematically un-demastable (like Yordi's), even if it's (another) Hercules advantage. Note: really in a duel, between veterans, there's still people trying to go for masts?? As you know it was replying to the usual complaining against DLCs. That have their strenghts but (in hercules case) are ships over spammed being "daily free". I would like to have them as ship permit (tradable too) on a 48/72 hrs CD, but I suspect never going to happen.
×
×
  • Create New...