Licinio Chiavari

January 21, 2019

26 minutes ago, Hullabaloo 'The Thief' said:

Griefing. The main problem as I see it is that it is too easy for some ships to disengage because the sailing profiles are so radically different. (I had a Lrq that tagged my endy down to 30% structure yesterday, but it was still able to tack away from me easily). Some ships should be better that others at sailing upwind yes but not at their top speed so close to the wind and definitely not when so badly damaged. But changing this would be massive now and would cause all sorts of new problems I expect. (Ironic that the DLC ships are the main culprits).

LRQ enters the equation being the only dangerous (and far less than depicted) fore-aft rigged (just to generalize) ship against a good share of ships in the game.

As a lot people pointed in the past (and me in particular), sailing profiles are broken at their roots: NO SAILING BOAT WOULD EVER BE FASTER AT CLOSE HAUL THAN AT BROAD REACH. Period.

On the other hand, moving to more real profiles and manouvrability will change completely the game (no more super nimble ships, tacking being something lasting 5+ minutes even for a light frigate, closest point of sail for square rigged ships around 70° etc...).

Realism wise would be great... but will lead to a far less entertaining fights: 2 square rigged do a couple manouvers, then end up side to side, then dismantle each other. End of the battle.

Still the chances for a square rigged ship to chase even a damaged xebec or schooner, in reality, were close to zero: because the first would stop even trying to close haul at 70° while the latter would be still at speed at 60°. That leads to the usual reply of those of LRQ-is-uncatchable: would you hunt a Privateer with a Renomee?

January 21, 2019

7 minutes ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

This proposal suggested a strange mechanic where someone would let themselves be tagged in a super-fast vessel, sail away, take the circle with them, and cause the attacker to sink - though the attacker absolutely wanted a fight.

How would you distinguish between a defender that is successfully running away from an attacker unwilling to engage?

As already wisely pointed by @z4ys few pages ago.

Lighting fast LGV/T.Brig: new meta.

January 21, 2019

4 hours ago, --Privateer-- said:

Could be fixed if crew loss was different, maybe a ship shouldn't be able to lose more than half its crew, or rakes past that point get ~1 crew per pass.

It's partially already this way... under 50% crew rake efficiency drops.
It's the only way to handle a bigger and stronger targets (the famed sKillZ of hunting a 1st rate with a Snow - that till few time ago, even if criticized, was INTENDED).

Not last, missing the possibility of multiple boardings (ie. 2 Bellona siding a Santi and boarding "together" from the two sides), it's the only way to capture "safely" a bigger ship.

Now looks like, suddenly, a lot of people awake from the dream of (skilled) 6th rates hunting (unskilled) 1st rates with these proposal up to the damage based on weight and not diameter.

5 hours ago, --Privateer-- said:

Again, could be fixed if crew loss was different. I'd be outside KPR tomorrow getting ganked in one of my Santisimas if there was some assurance that I would be sunk instead of captured, but no, it's always stern rake after stern rake after stern rake. That really takes the fun out of being ganked so no one wants to get ganked anymore.

The higher the ship cost (especially of SoLs) the more convenient (and realistic we could say) capture over sinking.

Being ganked by a bunch of random noobs in a perfectly fitted 1st rate with DD and having far superior skill and experience is already "fun"... isnt?

5 hours ago, --Privateer-- said:

this completely defeats the "Battle is always open for the weaker side" thing. No one is going to jump in on the weaker side of a battle that they will then be locked into for 1.5hrs. We see this in the patrol zone all the time.

If we're willing to do such major changes, maybe bring back outlaw battles for all nations? This would possibly limit ZERG nations because the ZERG nation would have a lot of infighting due to so many people and clans where as smaller nations would have less infighting due to less people being more willing to fight for a common goal.

Right. Both points.

36 minutes ago, rediii said:

I agree with the 10 min jointimer for the weaker side, however this will favor skilled players more than new/bad players who use numbers to overcome a skilled enemy.

Exactly.

Admin stated that new players got too few PvP kills/assists and he wants to address this. Aside I see even "too many" new players kills in his stats (granted the steep learning curve of NA) with his proposal there will be... LESS. Less skilled, experienced and geared players only hope against perfectly fit skilled veterans is using numbers. That this proposed new ROE block.

As I repeated: this will be the bigged gift to skilled veterans (and to skilled veterans groups - able to organize and play/exploit faster and better the ROE).

1 hour ago, admin said:

this is exactly what we are trying to solve for (as a community) - we want to separate genuine attacks and attempts to destroy a stronger enemy from plain griefing by designs (implementing systems that stop it). No-one is trying to take your battles away.

Tribunal is the way. There're too many variables.

An hard-coded system like the one you proposed will do more damage to PvP than benefitting it.

Granted that the poster who started this... did EXACTLY the same about he was whining yesterday with Yordi (not to speak not showing off / using trollfleets in PBs).

January 21, 2019

10 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Now you cant do that with a clan based system.

So better moving to a clanbased RvR.

January 20, 2019

1 minute ago, Slim McSauce said:

If you don't tag someone that you're way above their BR than, then you won't get ganked. It's only when you gank that you recieve the counter gank from BR balancing.

Standard today reply: Mr. MacDuff tags a 3rd rate with his Endymion.

BR wise, so technically, it's a gank... with open entrance for defender reinforcements... like another Endymion. So now it's for sure a counter-gank. But Mr. MacDuff is the attacker... and for this reason he should "bear the responsability of starting the attack". So unable to run.

Interesting, isnt?

January 20, 2019

10 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Mods are the reason this is all happening. People can no longer deny the effect of gold ships and powerful rare books effect on PvP. A ship that's the speed of a fir/fir with the tank of a teak/wo requires a gank to kill. Worse part is the best players have these ships, and that makes them extremely hard to fight. Stat padding at it's best and worse.

Yes and Nay.

I'm not a super captain. I'm very good with Requin.

I fought some requins today. I'm sure mine was better geared (like, may be, Elite pirate v normal, AoSH against without, t/wo v t/t? - no idea).

Still fights ended with my requin barely losing a couple of ticks on sides, mainly due to going side to side to finish the enemy (not during the initial battling) and the enemy sunk.

Get a Bellona specialist... and he will dismantle a random bellona user in 10 minutes... barely having to repair.

You know I agree that mod stacking is excessive, and should be more limited.
As I always said that the "mainstream mods" should be readily available almost for all. But I have to agree that gear starts to matter really only in case of similar skill levels.

Between a veteran and a "young" casual no. It makes only things faster (if used by the veteran).
And therefore I "defend ganking"... because, moreover with this gear gap, it's the only hope for a group of even-not-so-terrible-casuals to face a veteran on a nice ship.

Limiting BR, CoD, etc... I read here, would be an even GREATER GIFT to elite captains... at expenses of casuals.

PS/EDIT:

The more complex ROE, the more tricky ways to exploit them... and who are the best (potentially) exploiters? The veterans, moreover having a working group with them. So, moreover: more and more advantage to old veterans.

January 20, 2019

Just now, Slim McSauce said:

1.5x BR for battle join, under BR sides gets reinforcement up to 1.5x BR, a constant teeter-todder of battles being balanced out. Easy. That's the ganking issue all just about solved.

Bismark vs. Hood was a gank... Ended bad for the gankers.

Bismark sinking was a successful ganking.

Right?

January 20, 2019

5 minutes ago, Jack Lowe said:

In short admin unless you have some mechanics that can change the way people in this modern age think on a massive scale you will have ganking, like it or not.

All perfect aside this word.

All along history, all people tried, if possible, to fight with best odds. If not having odds, with technology (so mods here), choosing the place and the time.

Down to asymmetrical warfare... That's attaining local superiority (by numbers, position or both) to... GANK a part of a superior force.

January 20, 2019

3 minutes ago, staun said:

Actually got lost there.

How is it you see your idea can avoid alt abuse in clans to avoid more and more expensive timers, when we still have the same limit in nations attacks.

Case 1.

I have a big clan with 10 ports.

Within my clantimer I can attack or being attacked. I can attack 1 port of a single enemy nation clan. At same time I can be attacked at worst in 2 ports by two different nations.

Case 2.

I have a big clan with 1 port and 9 alt clans each with a port and I set my clantimer to attack other EU but hide other 9 ports at night.

I can be attacked in EU prime in my port, and attacked in all other 9 at the same time by night by 9 clans belonging to 3 different nations.

It's not the most elegant solution, still this way hiding ports with different timers with alt clans could lead to my possessions being cancelled in a single day. In the first case, on the other hand I would fight (and lose) 2 ports per day.

January 20, 2019

Just now, staun said:

I understand the idea by it and aslo why it is an annoiance that ppl flip an port and don't show up. Just think it will be hard to do anything about it. Unless it is desided by an actually tribunal.

I will never support an idea that punish ppl for trying and failing.

Time "to tribunal" prussians for trollfleet a PB?

Let's wait the next PB.

I would agree that punishing for being screened out is not nice. And not supporting it, indeed.

I see simply already deadly time sinks in NA (potential infinite tags, long trips, long chases and chasing battles) that seeing also fake PB make me quite angry: it's simply too much.

Especially this kind of griefing (because it is) against 20+ people at the same time (not on the skin of one/few players).

January 20, 2019

17 minutes ago, staun said:

Ask @Gregory Rainsborough if a single clan can be multiflipped hard.

Your idea now change how it is now. As I know it to be you can have 3 ports to be flipped by a nation and all nations can do it at the same day.

But your idea will not be so much different. How many clans has port in different nations. Try calculate it and see how many ports that can be flipped. what have Gb 10 clans. So it would give what 20 pb if I get you right?

I never said to cancel the limit of 3 ports potentially attacked per nation.

And the proposal is in place granted other proposals to avoid timer hiding.

Never consider one part of a multi-point reply.

January 20, 2019

4 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Obvious IMO.

Case 1 - I use Primetime clantimer: I can attack any Primetime clan port but it can retaliate.

Case 2 - I can hide behind a nightimer, but I cant attack Primetime clans. I can attack and be attacked by Nightime clans.

Case 3 - I can swap my Primetime timer to another to attack an enemy, but I will remain on that for 7 days (or less?).

And as said: every clan can be attacked in 1 port by a nation, max 2 in total by 2 nations during a reset.

So again, if I set multiple alt clans... I am increasing the risks multiflips too.

January 20, 2019

2 minutes ago, Abram Svensson said:

The 7 day cooldown starts after you set the timer. Should work that way at least.

Obvious IMO.

Case 1 - I use Primetime clantimer: I can attack any Primetime clan port but it can retaliate.

Case 2 - I can hide behind a nightimer, but I cant attack Primetime clans. I can attack and be attacked by Nightime clans.

Case 3 - I can swap my Primetime timer to another to attack an enemy, but I will remain on that for 7 days (or less?).

January 20, 2019

A solution to one man (alt) clans abuse in any noted proposal is pretty simple:

A clan can be attacked only in 1 port per reset by an enemy nation up to 2 contemporary flip if hostility done by a different nation.

I could make a bulk of alt single man clans... But I could be multiflipped hard... that I can avoid owning a good share of ports with the same clan.

January 20, 2019

1 minute ago, OjK said:

@admin Lack of PvP? Decreased amount of battles?

Maybe start with fighting the trolling, instead of making some drastic mechanic changes?

Best ever record online in almost a year (610+)... CombatNews almost unreadable so much spamming.

And the problem is Banished losing 10 minutes and may be a kill a few days ago.

GB fielding a full PB FOR NOTHING FOR THE SECOND TIME IN A WEEK (after fighting another 3 PBs yesterday - honours to Spain showing off in all 3)... Isnt a problem.

January 20, 2019

8 minutes ago, rediii said:

Also Clantimers instead of porttimers could be a thing to think about

This.

But at the same time: you can grind hostility ONLY if in both YOUR clantimer and ENEMY ones.

So a EU clan has to choose:

Or hiding behind nightimers, but being unable to set PB against other EU Clans (that set proper timezone). Or having prime time timers... Being able to attack other prime timer ports risking a retaliation.

Really big multi TZ clans would not set clan timer either... Being allowed to attack in any hours (so in enemy clantimer) but attacked too.

7 Days CD to swap (and 48 hrs after last hostility: so not attack a prime Port and swap timer the day after) would complete the matter.

PS/edit: it could be exploited using "fake"/"temporary" clans (quite easy with alts), still it could be a barrier to RvR abuses, possibly.

January 20, 2019

20 minutes ago, rediii said:

@admin if you consider timewasting griefing now. What is about a portbattle ruleset change?

if PB is empty on attackers side circles should be captureable instantly

Indeed.

@admin what about empty PBs or trollfleet in PBs? Today it's the second time in a week that Prussians (so Banished, the poor griefed that started this) set Monte Christi. First time they came with a random bulk of light ships (technically trollfleet) and today the PB is empty aside 1 Hercules and 1 Requin. Isnt this GRIEFING... having 20 people losing their time for NOTHING?

January 20, 2019

3 minutes ago, Simon Cadete said:

Seems like the people that are the most vocal about these new rules are the ones that run away from battles all the time and running away is their best skill

Fighting a lost battle (due to any reason, skill, gear, numbers, ships involved) is not skill. Nor "courage", nor honour.

It's stupid.

Granted you were a lone hunter yourself, and very often, I'm very interested to see you unable to tag anyone in OW without accepting you'll not be able to retreat for the full battle duration. And if tagging a lower BR ship (like tagging a 3rd rate or an Agamennon on an Endy) having to accept one more ship joining enemy side.

January 20, 2019

1 minute ago, Banished Privateer said:

I find a lot of targets, so does Ram Dinark. Maybe if you play for GB, you deny yourself like 50% of the server targets? Just a thought...

I'm finding too plenty targets daily if I'm looking for them... and I'm GB.

January 20, 2019

Just now, Simon Cadete said:

well if you want to attack traders you need to be in fast ships that will be faster than the trader anyway, if you want to be a hero and tag a buccentaure with your Hercules and stern camp and hull hugg you gotta be good and make no mistakes or it’s game over. No more of these stupid fights where the attacker tries and fails and runs and then talks about it in global chat for 45 minutes

a) you should know, being a veteram, that getting a decent tag and being the fastest are two separate matters.

b) you should know, moreover, that being faster in OW doesnt mean you're faster in combat.

c) you should know that attacking a Bucetaure (with a couple of clues) with an Hercules gives already very few room to errors.

January 20, 2019

What about keeping DLC ships like now (1 redeemable / 24 hrs), banning fleet trick to redeem more and making them always 3/5 no trim? This should not violate Steam EULA on DLCs.

At the same time adding a second option for DLC owners:

Redeem a ship (Hercules, Requin, any future one) permit with a 72 hrs CD stacking with usual CD (therefore I can redeem a single hercules - always 3/5 no trim every 24 hrs OR Hercules permit every 72 hrs - NOT BOTH: so over 4 days I can redeem 1 3/5 no trim ship and one permit).

Permit allowing to build the ship with normal chances* to get purple/gold ones and allowing to be traded... giving chance for ANY player to have an Hercules or a Requin... at the same time keeping capture/trade of built ship banned (to avoid abuses).

This way:

- standard use of DLC as easy to get and sail ships (and lose) untouched

- still without 4/5+ ships.

- those wishing a better Herc/LRQ having to build them on longer CD.

- allowing no-DLC players to still access these ships via permit trade.

Opinions?

*) I think or I'm super-unlucky or redeemable trims are different from crafted already: redeemed approx 170 requins (always in capturable ports aside 2 times) and got ZERO gold and a SINGLE purple (medium crappy too: cramped AFTER crew nerf)

January 20, 2019

7 minutes ago, z4ys said:

so in case the ship of the defender is faster he can just sail away and circle of death does the job 😉

New pvp meta: super fast LGV / t.brigs waiting to be tagged faking afk noobish sailing.

January 20, 2019

5 minutes ago, Simon Cadete said:

Please, make leaving impossible for the attacker and make the ship attacked, the center of the circle of death. Tired of these guys that have nothing to lose because if the battle that they start, starts looking bad they just run away so no risk and just time wasting for those that got attacked and defended themselves. Make the fights count and be meaningful

as for timers, do the signaling type of system but readjust the br of all ships.

I am waiting to see a bunch of veteran snipers losing nicely fitted PZ like LO/WO+kiritimati frigs to a gangs of t/wo frigs.

Gankers will be faster and tagging 5v1 loners in circle range. Killing them in minutes. Still without risk of being intercepted.

January 20, 2019

40 minutes ago, admin said:

We get griefing reports every week and we want to eliminate any attacker griefing from the game completely (because we dont want newcomers to have it used against them)

How many on total pvp battles?

Not last because in some periods I was called a cheater daily... And still I am not.

And I would like to remember that all this discussion was born... from a Banished's whining. A captain who (RIGHTFULLY I'd add) uses any possible ingame trick DAILY and perhaps invented a couple too.

40 minutes ago, admin said:

Those who are able to get at least 1 pvp kill in the first 30 days get them every 8 hours in game (too slow). So they do not run and never fight - they do get those kills. You cannot have a pvp kill by not searching for pvp.

Granted NA steep learning curve, a feature you defended for long time making game quite "elitist", I would consider a newbie getting even a single pvp kill in the first month a miracle (and honestly probably a veteran's alt).

40 minutes ago, admin said:

Its a game. Сhess horse moves the certain way because its good for the game, not because its historical way horses move.

The fact of NA being a beautiful and realistic simulation of Age of Sail naval combat and Chess an abstraction of ancient combat looks like being ignored.

40 minutes ago, admin said:

Statistic is blind.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

40 minutes ago, admin said:

There are no equal groups in NA. But if they were equal equal groups will still attack because they attack already

Plain false.

Even now there are ganking teams avoiding tagging even 3+v1.

Two days ago I got notice of the usual french ganking team out Nassau. 4 Hercules.

I sailed alone and tagged alone. Boarded (2 times, it's impossible to win a boarding Requin full boarder v. Hercules no book atm - then someone says boarding is OP) one and sunk. Then retreating being unable to withstand so higher damage out put (still 3 hercules v 1 requin).

In OW they fleed (3 Hercules hunted by 1 Requin - I'd repeat) to Little Isaacs and entered. Then a Brit mate arrived in hercules.

We tagged the re-sailing Frenches 3 Hercules + 1 Prince with our 1 Hercules + 1 Requin.

We sunk the Prince and 1 Hercules, losing our Hercules. 2 surviving french Hercules retreated against the lone surviving Requin (me).

Do you think that with your idea of RoE these french will ever think to tag nothing aside a lone trader in the middle of nowhere?

Or do you think I/we GB in such situation should bear the burden of being attacker with CoD idea attacking 1v4 and then 2v4?

January 20, 2019

13 minutes ago, admin said:

You seem to be ignoring my points based on our jumping straight to repeating your previous post.

Upgrades are irrelevant because there always going to be a fastest ship with fastest upgrades. If we nerf them - some ships will still be faster and will be used for solo hunting.
For example - imagine the game where only 2 ships . Lynx and Victory. Will upgrades matter for ROE discussion (stopping lynx from attacking victory and running)?

Same in your case. If you sail solo you will fit for speed to be faster than your target and your potential gankers. If roe allows one side to run - solo players will sail a faster ship. So we can ignore upgrades because nothing will change and we should just focus on ROE

Let me know I am espected to retreat if you put CoD crap in OW battles.

And, again and moreover, why should I risk a ship being the attacker with a RoE banning me even the hope (there's never 100% assurance) to break off if being beaten.

Sidenote: it's skill and experience knowing after the first two broadsides the most probable battle outcome. And how and why this will happen.

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Downloads

Events

Posts posted by Licinio Chiavari