[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

2 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

I fear for the small ship captain that wants to challenge himself with a bigger target.

It just won't happen anymore., in my opinion.

You know.

People wants to sail "real ships".

 

... But not paying the price for building and upkeeping them.

[Game inbalances or cheating?]

7 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

I don't care about your numbers.

You say 10 like this is a grocery.

Wasnt best Constitution speed recorded around 13?

Fir/fir +10%, AoSH +3%, Naval clock +4%, copper plating +3%, NHR +2.5%, Cotton sails +2%, Light planking +1.5%, v.fast trim +3%, Speed trim +2%, ballast +1%, AoSH Speed book +2% = +34%

10 x 1.34 = 13.4 kts.

I did calculations now. Still I was not too afar saying 10 kts base speed.

Edit= forgot extra books.

[Game inbalances or cheating?]

1 minute ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Her best recorded speed = ship fitted ground up for speed.

Same with reload, crew numbers, marines, etc

That's how i see it.  

So Constitution base speed around 10.

As I said.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

8 minutes ago, Greysteak said:

The BR based RoE does sound interesting.  I wouldn't mind experimenting with that.

False.

At the moment the "stronger" side between an Endymion and a 3rd rate... is the Endymion.

Not to REPEAT THAT BR BASED ROE WILL BE ANOTHER GIFT TO BEST VETERANS.

Giving totally zero chances to average players against them banning them using numbers (that already very often are not sufficient).

But looks like I am only one of the few foreseeing that.

We'll see who was right.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

1 minute ago, admin said:

the weaker side battle opened (old reversed signalling) is going to be back
the rest can be discussed.

I agree with one poster that Attacker must bear the consequence of his actions. If you attack a player you must fight. I think it could be a good feature and will eliminate a lot of fake combat. And people who are just average (like me)will think twice before attacking a 3rd rate in a light ship just to try and run if something goes wrong. 

I can see the point.

Still even with circle of death a fore-aft rigged ship can easily kite a SoL.

Secondly retreat should be always possible... Because "shit happens". For both sides.

Thirdly, without minimum distance tag (Hethwill's warning shot distance), so without defensive tag, you are helping gank teams.

Plenty people looks like I am fanatic on that.

But I played a lot both the hunter and the prey role.

I am not a super captain, but quite smart and nice sailor. I know this will be one of the consequencies. Especially without rebalancing of other mechanics.

[Game inbalances or cheating?]

5 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Can't be that hard with a lot of historical records about the ships.

Max ever recorded speed = all the speed stuff, from woods to modules to knowledge.

Simple. Not difficult.

You are nerfing hard all speeds.

Because you should know that at the moment we can stack more than +25% speed bonus.

Constitution base speed around 10 kts?

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

2 hours ago, Slim McSauce said:

PvP lacks commitment people only fight the battles where they have the advantage.

BTW the definition of a wise Commander.

By Sun Tzu.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

7 minutes ago, admin said:

There is no distance based roe, there is solo hunter ROE (close the battle please whenever i attack and do not let everyone in because WYSISWYOUFW).  We had tunnnel vision before. Now we see. 

One vs One engagements were the most common at the time AFAIK.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

1 minute ago, admin said:

They are not afraid to lose it. They get attacked ask for help and get nothing. 
2x more players go to pve server now. But those who come to pvp server want pvp and we will give it to them. 

Granted looks like you already decided, please advise how you think to implement this change.

And dont ask ideas.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

Just now, admin said:

Time to change the mindset. 

There is no tomorrow. It's your evening and its your time and its your game. Game!  You come to pvp server to pvp and if you (on average) pvp once in 8 hours in game - this is not a game. So lets move on from that "it has been underway for hours - thus you will pvp once a week" - its not working out. 

When actively looking for PvP I got a bulkload of battles every 8 hours.

Winning/losing and how many kills is another matter.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

38 minutes ago, admin said:

Because I did not like it. I was sailing for pirates then and missed several great battles just because i could not turn in time. 

All captains missed great battles for similar reasons (not last missing joining timer by a few seconds).

But I sincerely invite you to think a lot about changing RoE in the way you wrote, evaluating all potential consequencies.

 

31 minutes ago, admin said:

1 pvp kill in 8 in game hours for an average new pvp player is horrendous and will be fixed. Some tears will just make the soup a bit better - natural salt

Are you sure that even some of these kills arent done by a new... alt?

Are you sure these new players were really looking for PvP?

Are you sure that more PvP could lead to more kills for new players?

And we are not talking about some tears. You are talking about making all OW like PZ. With a bulkload of veterans hating already PZ RoE.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

10 minutes ago, Simon Cadete said:

Licinio why are you so obsessed with defensive tags? Is that your only way to escape Kpr or wherever it is you hang out nowadays? I really am trying to understand your point of view. Only the attacker is stuck in battle so it’s all good unless you’re one of those captains that runs away from battle if the other player is not afk or a moron

Because I know how they are the last hope to avoid a gank.

The proposal is assuring battle start at super close range. That's unreal by itself.

So a gift for gank teams.

And you should know I engage too often in risky positions. More than others.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

Just now, Marquis de la Fayette said:

Hello,

 

What you say is true: the defensive tag becomes a suicide.

But, unless I'm mistaken, the defensive tag is not a realistic maritime maneuver, is it? Just a peculiarity of the programming ... A hole in the racket.

Cordially.

Yes and nay.

What's more un-realistic?

A battle starting at 100 mt, so no shot even fired before getting so close (fast chaser against no defensive tag).

Or a battle starting at 500 mt, so still within gun range, but we can say within a reasonable range (thanks a proper defensive tag)?

Please note I finished more than a couple battles within battle start timer (1 min 30 sec?): super close tag, setting sails faster, one manouver, board. End.

Are you sure is defensive tag so wrong and gamey?

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

Just now, Liq said:

tbh should bring back NAL

Reasonable.

What vocal defenders of "fair" and "to the end" fights are missing is that in warfare these are senseless concepts.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

1 hour ago, Marquis de la Fayette said:

Hello,

Can clearer than the previous message ...

Anyway, the ADMIN is right on one point: the one who provokes the fight must fight to the end. Whoever is attacked must be allowed to flee after 20 minutes.

Clear:

I attack, so I CAN NOT leave;

I defend, so I can leave after a minimum of 20 minutes in battle.

 

The battle must remain open for a maximum of five minutes. Thus, the SAIT striker that he can not leave (unless the defender took over the battle of course), but also knows that after 5 minutes, no one can enter battle.

 

Helpful?

Good game everyone.

Already replied: what about defensive tag?

You are making it a suicide.

And assuring that a fast pursuer will get a super close tag.

 

1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:

I don't know man, I don't like how that sounds either. Instances and OW don't really belong in the same conversation. They're so vastly different I say do whatever for each that makes them both individually fun, and try not to connect them so much because you just won't find a satisfying solution that way, we've tried and it's pure pseudo-babble via NA's best and brightest lampshades

The first step is accepting that "fair" battle is a no-sense.

Not last because... The wise Captain would (and SHOULD) choose a fight having the upper hand.

It's not being unfair.

In the end it's his damned duty.

 

1 hour ago, Vernon Merrill said:

Sorry, but thats just NOT going to happen.

I'll tag up to Pirate Frigate in my Prince....   most of the times (luckily for me) I'm able to get the kill.  But if I sense things starting to go South or I make a critical mistake that cripples my chances of victory, you bet your sweet arse I'm going to escape if I can...

This is the trade-off I assume when engaging a more powerful opponent.  

Dont like it?

Sail a fore/aft ship and come get me.

You know.

Fore-aft rigged ships... are not "real" ships.

[Game inbalances or cheating?]

Just now, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

So a bellona at 13, 14 knots does not sound obscene ?

Okay, i'll keep on playing with what we have.

Reducing chances to overstack, is fine.

Making personalization, purpose fitting secondary is another.

Balance is difficult to find.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

1 minute ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Then the 2 were better than the 5. Learn and improve.

Speaking of number or BR involved makes, sincerely, no sense.

A single skilled and well geared veteran can smash incredible odds. And really never risking the ship against a bunch of random casuals.

Battle closed for "weaker" side is utter BS.

"Weaker" based on what??

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

7 minutes ago, Simon Cadete said:

If you’re in a prince or requiem or Hercules or similar why would you do a defensive tag vs a santissima or ocean?

The attacker side should be the side forced to fight since they started the battle

LGV has higher BR than Niagara (or an Indiaman more than LRQ): would you consider defensive tag a bad idea?

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

5 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

"PvP when i want it, not when others also want it" string of replies. Seriously guys, just read yourselves for a bit.

It's typical. Fight on our terms.

That leads to the speed meta: picking fights. And it is what also historically raiders did.

[Game inbalances or cheating?]

1 minute ago, Beeekonda said:

I heard that good players never sail alone on a first rate (except me, I have autism)

It's indeed very dangerous.

[Game inbalances or cheating?]

12 minutes ago, Beeekonda said:

You dont know shit and you proving it over and over again

 

He has a good point wishing mod stacking and infinite repairs to be reduced.

Still he misses too many points.

Like that properly fit, in a balanced and efficient and efficacious way is part of so called skill, being mainly experience.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

1 minute ago, Simon Cadete said:

What about making the no retreat, circle of death fir the attacker only. Also make hull hit be the only type of ammo that can reset the clock. If i’m In a 1st rate and couple canoes tag me they have to actually fight me and most likely die quickly therefore discouraging them from doing it in the future and not wasting my time. 

Insta-reply.

1. What about in case of defensive tag? No more viable. So be ready to be ganked at point blank.

2. At least make the stronger side forced to fight.

In general feeling and realism wise CoD is BS.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

2 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said:

I'm absolutely DYING to see how many people would sail their gold Bellona into "shrinking circle/patrol zone style" battle....   

Especially alone or in general without a backing support team.

[Game inbalances or cheating?]

26 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

*chuckles*

Yep, everyone has their own vision  

Your proposal is fine for an instanced Age of Sail simulation. So perfect to fight historical battles.

But NA is also a MMO with hopefully meaningful OW and RvR.

Without any sense of progression (aside personalization) you'll lose soon your player base.

[Battle system core ruleset discussion]

1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:

Oh, by not fighting, kiting, and ganking? Sorry but you aren't entitled to winning. People value gameplay over time, and you wasting people time's with shitty gameplay trying to feel out a win for yourself, well, you better be ready to risk the lot for being such a big winner.

Me? I gank less than others, I kite less than others.

And... I do not like being kited... But should not a damaged ship try to buy time to repair? Or an outnumbered ship to divide up his pursuers?

You have big problems with reality I think. And not accepting being out smarted.

I am pointing to reality. Nothing personal.