Licinio Chiavari

January 12, 2019

Not a bad idea.

Coupled with deleting pirate as a faction and moving it as a "status" with a few pros (shiny flags, black sails, paints, some particular ship refits, and false flags) and a bulkload of cons (no buildings/owned ports). So pure hardcore pvp.

While The Commonwealth as a more organized piracy, aka privateers.

Posted January 12, 2019 · January 12, 2019

9 hours ago, Sir Max Magic said:

In general, i agree with most what you say @Licinio Chiavaribut in this case i has to strongly support @AeRoTR case:

Also for me boarding is a menace in and for this game !!

I say we all are here for ship combat and NOT this minigame !!!

So a big yes to EVERYTHING which nerfs the broken boarding mechanic as long as the whole system gots a major overhaul !!

Boarding is now in most times just an I-Win Button and removes the fun out of this game...and to survive in OW PVP you have to be specialized and skilled for boarding atleast to some degree

Boarding is just overpowered by much !!

And when so many people talk about reality:

Never had any ship like a Le req tried to board a vessel with a much bigger crew in history because it hadnt had any chance and had no OP Guns, Grenades, Rum or whatever to their disposal !!

The only mod i would accept for realism purposes are Marines and Barricades...

Ofc, People specialized on boarding dont want to hear this, but i would say the majority of NA players will see it this way

We are here for an Age of Sail combat simulation. And most common outcome of a naval combat at the time was... A boarding.

You can make an highly realistic naval combat simulation in WWII not taking into account ramming because (aside manouver errors among friendlies) was an extremely rare occurrance (I remember a purposely ram only in one chance between warships: cruiser Hipper and DD Glowworm in Norway waters - and happened only due to seeing each other at very close range due to heavy fog).

You cant make an Age of Sail simulation without a working (and viable) boarding.

I like to remember that the famed Speedy-El Gamo, aside hugging and tricks was ended by... a boarding. Even an far smaller crew vs a bigger. Or I can remember you that Nelson was killed by a musket ball: at boarding range in our game so.

I know a lot (majority) hates boarding. But this is due to the limits (or the ugliness we can say) of boarding minigame.

But it ends being a vicious circle (for them all).

"I do not like boarding minigame, so I do not want to play it, so I never board, never get practice to it nor I 'waste' a single book to defend me from a boarding". And this way people ends being smashed brutally by dedicated boarders.

Boarding, balanced and enjoyable is REQUIRED in our simulation. Muskets were too OP. Even my son knows that 😂.

But people got boarded and killed before them. And not due to boarding being too easy for attacker, but simply having 0 clues about it.

At the moment we are back to pre-musket balance, even worst for attacker (as I said crew count nerf + Barricade buff), and this means it is not balanced, making really easy to survive a boarding granted having a clue. That means, realism wise (so nicely called only in case of interest) that a 300 crewed 2-decker (game wise : my LGVR yesterday) was unable to break (with 4 book+mod dedicated; so a far better trained boarding crew) a 250 crewed frigate (a Belle without a single book nor mod for boarding) in less than 3 boardings: yes. I had to start 3 boardings.

The funny part I underlined is that quite a few commented "grape first". But you know as they do that you cant sterncamp a ship with similar turn rate... this leads that a boarding fit is more viable against a bigger enemy than against a similar sized one. That it's quite silly.

About skill-less insta-boarding... I would add: being insta-boarded is 90% defender manouver error (and tactical awareness and opportunism of attacker) and in general even later boarding (aside extreme sail damage or being 1v2+) is 50% defender fault; try to board someone who dont want to and who has a clue. Then tell me that starting a boarding is skill-less.

I would reply then that demasting (even for a not specialist in demasting like me) a frigate without mast mods and not protecting them is pretty easy.

I'd say easy, more lethal and FAR MORE UNREAL that a better lead, trained and equipped crew (player experience + mods + books) overrunning an inferior one in a boarding.

January 12, 2019

On 1/6/2019 at 12:01 PM, jodgi said:

This is natural and alright. Most people are ok with someone beating them with skill and experience.

"Most". I'd say a share. Because I heard too often about cheating or P2W ship insults. Not understanding, not even thinking that they have simply not a clue.

On 1/6/2019 at 12:01 PM, jodgi said:

I dunno. I asked to join RAKERS when I was still in Privateer back in Sea Trials. My first duel with Doran was in Privateers. I died fast and bad but I learned a ton. If people are truly open to learning the skill gap is a forte and not a problem.

(Doran did put us all through manual sails and maneuvers training, not unlike tutorial, then it was duels, duels , duels often with debriefs after.)

Again: it's the mindset. Coming from Global Server that was pretty quiet I got shocked by continous farming of US Coast and by plenty demasting (I rarely found demasters in Global).
I got enormous losses helping Coast Defense... then I started never sailing a fast tagger (and any ship in general) with FR Rig+Wingeout as a minumum.

As said: it's a mindset. And it's a rarer mindset that you're considering. Even among our small community.

And very steep learning curve in NA doesnt help neither... even if the reason (for veterans) to keep them interested and that motivated them initially.

On 1/6/2019 at 12:01 PM, jodgi said:

I know, I just doubt it works as a game experience. I believe it's the combination of full loss loot and asymmetrical warfare that makes us struggle with keeping players. It's hardcore, cool, correct and logical but I believe too many players struggle with motivation to play when they have to grind cash and things (PvE) after losing stuff in a (frustrating) lopsided fight.

I believe almost all players want nice fights, if you make it exceedingly hard for that too happen you have created a problem.

A - Being (again) a war simulation... it's warfare. And it ends up following similar rules. Best Commander is the one winning a battle before even starting it (choosing the situation, the time, the gear, the position for his outmost advantage - usually plainly NOT a fair battle).

B - On one hand we could want to have close to nothing priced ships... so plenty and relaxed throw-away. On the other we are playing a (supposely) meaningful MMO. With RvR.
So losing flagships (like 1st rates) should be a pain and the effort they need to be built create their value.
That's still too low for many super-rich veterans and big clans.

Economically NA is a pain for new comers (that's bad) and a breeze for veterans (that's bad too). Another point widening the gap.

C - Nice fights are meant to be balanced and "close". That's first and foremost impossible in a MMO enviroment. As already stated.
Moreover meaning "close", this leads to KD ratios close (in theory) to 1:1.
So you're saying people want to spend bulkloads of hours and then cash/resources ingame to fit a good ship... having 50% chance to lose her every "nice" fights (also called duels).

I say: no.
In a meaningful RvR MMO with full loot/loss and working economy, 50% loss chance is unbearable. And economically unfeasible.
In NA moreover impossible. Take into account 4/5+ ships costs + high tiered gear for them... and you already know it would be a suicide playing this way.

Then you'll add: you do not need a 4/5+ ship with shiny mods to win. Yes. True.
IF the enemy has them and he's a noob and you're a veteran, it's true.
But if you're facing an inferior enemy still experienced and with clue and half (and there're a lot)... this long list of +2% he has more than you will matter. A lot. And you know.

Therefore next natural step is asking: why in the hell should I give my enemy a edge of X% on these stats?
That leads (again) to high geared ships... that are precious and rarely blindly risked.
I can be experienced and on a super ship... but if I got badly ganked, I'll have an high chance to lose in any case. Even versus inferior players in inferior ships (not total crap, obviously).
And when not losing to a gank of not so noob captains, we end up in the infinite repair stuff... that are those permitting to supergeared veterans to HUMILIATE bunch of casuals even with impossible odds.

So, not randomly, I'll move with a group of similarly experienced players on often similarly geared ships.
That will rarely found an enemy of same strenght. So they'll kill on sight (also granted low population) simply anything on sight.

Unluckly targets that will be the usual demi-noobs with simply ZERO hopes to survive. That will keep being smashed... and kicked away from the game.

So: how to put a stop to this vicious circle?

Posted January 11, 2019 · January 11, 2019

3 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:

@Licinio Chiavari ... [Unable to cancel my name 😂]

I am pretty relaxed if you read what I wrote. And I killed bulkloads of enemies in smaller, bigger and same sized ships before muskets mods. TBH, having to farm less now, I killed far more before than after.

And looks like that this single Indef killed traumatized you a lot.

First. There's no rage boarding (ie. emergency boarding while losing a gunnery duel, often done even without boarding fittings) ever in my assaults.

Boarding was prepared well before even seeing the enemy. As you prepare your ship for a kind of fight (close range, brawl, sniping/kiting) the boarder prepares himself for... A boarding.

Secondly an Indef will keep being a suitable target for Requin boarding: Requin will simply have to sterncamp the Indef. That is douable turning wise.

What I was pointing out about boarding balance before muskets and then now even more (granted Barricade buff and crew mod nerf both on) it is weirdly far more viable against A BIGGER TARGET than your ship than against a similar sized one (or even smaller!)

Because I can sterncamp a Agamennon (or bigger ships) ... And easily reduce him (with related consequencies to morale and thus ability to defend) to a manageable crew level (I remember killing 350 crew of an Inger in like 4 minutes), while I cant realistically sterncamp a Surprise nor (even worst) an Hercules.

And without a rework of boarding values (and muskets were OP as I said N+1 times), a boarder will find (again as in the past) easier a bigger target than a similar sized one.

TBH, worst and more than in the past due to higher barricades defensive bonus and lower crew count. As I pointed.

This looks pretty counter logical IMO 😆

Making it short:

You are saying that a better lead, trained and equipped ship crew is unable (again now) to overcome an inferior but similarly sized crew and that is balanced.

And at same time the same ship crew can sterncamp to death a ship 2/3 times bigger and then win the boarding. And this is balanced too.

If you (and you did) read my posts you should know (and you do) that I always said muskets were OP and they need to be nerfed. And I hate winning due to OP/too unbalanced mods.

But I said too that boarding for a 5/6+ mod+book boarder (not to speak about unavailability of different and working settings with pros and cons) against a similar crewed enemy without any single book should be possible and so viable, breaking defender even without his plain stupid errors.

PS: if you board 6th rates with a Requin it's not because being damn easy even for an unexperienced Requin captain like you (your words); it's 6th rates captains being simply terrible. So terrible they would die in any case in any way, on any ship vs any ship handled by a veteran.

Because trying to board a 6th rate was and is pure pain for a Requin.

And you know this too (or you should).

Posted January 11, 2019 · January 11, 2019

Just now, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Not again. Was always. The method didn't change. What changes is the outright boarding without any other consideration.

I'm glad everyone tested them for the developers to make design changes.

I know it has been normal, and I did as all boarders.

Still the point stands: boarding is more viable against a bigger target than against a similar one: and it's quite counter intuitive.

Not to speak about that this will lead again to one working fitting: stacking attack. And a dozen and more of trash mods. Again.

Posted January 11, 2019 · January 11, 2019

2 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Old adage of grape and then board still holds strong. Nothing has changed for many veterans.

Oh yes. I know.

The funny part is that boarding will be (again) far more viable against far bigger (and smaller as obvious) targets than against similar sized ones...

That's pretty counter intuitive 😂😂😂

Posted January 11, 2019 · January 11, 2019

5 minutes ago, Captain Cid said:

Bucc vs pavel

So definately low as in the past (or even lower) as I supposed based on numbers.

Anti-boarding lobby will be happy... for now 😂😂😂

Posted January 11, 2019 · January 11, 2019

6 hours ago, AeRoTR said:

933% !!!!!!!!!!, thx for removing the exploit, I hope 260% is okay

Mate: you hate boarding and it's your right. Still it was not an exploit. It was a feature.

Should I consider mast sniping an exploit or a feature (and still a viable tactic)?

Should you consider more realistic in an Age of Sail simulation mast sniping or that being boarded by a better lead, trained and equipped crew you'll lose your ship? Just to know.

And no whining. Simply pointing facts.

I will 'serenely' keep hunting.

😎

Posted January 11, 2019 · January 11, 2019

35 minutes ago, Captain Cid said:

@admin thx for update but seems to be broken.

tested with shooting skill and without and theres no difference anymore.

Sadistic Dentist tested with full boarding setup and sea muskets. he killed 40 men while npc was on defend.

Pls hotfix

On which ship vs. which ship.

In any case.

Granted numbers in Minnow spreadsheet, redoutable will be down like to the worst (previously) musket.

Not yet tested but I know effectiveness of acc.1 extra 0.1: not relevant even on defend having shooting book.

We are back to pre musket period... But I think people is forgetting the nerf to crew mod/books. Therefore boarders are back to then, vs. buffed barricades (got buffed from +30% defend to +40% during the "8kts-boarding" 24hrs patch; then reversed... but barricades buff stays) and less potential crew.

I suspect it will be a bad period for boarders... Until, hopefully soon, boarding UI patch + related revamp/rebalance.

January 10, 2019

5 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

I agree for that, i was thinking the 4 friends vs one ai, sorry, but four friends in 7th rate players could do it and cap a surp, niag, cerb or reno, or at least be told they can achieve it as a group effort, even if this require a little practice, moreover it can be fun. Ask you nation for ship or money idk, even simple tips, it's a mmo game.

One of my best memories in game is still my first week battle next to 7 friends in 6-7th rate vs one ai constitution, our flagship was a mercury , and the constit looked like a Titan, we lost but had fun.

But maybe new players could get 3 to 5 dura for any of their ships during their first week or 2, i don't think it's technically doable but for sure that would help, everyone hate the basic cutter.

Basic Brigantine should be advisable, also because experience (especially in sail handling) on a Brig is useful on bigger ships.

Practice on cutter (and other 7th rate fore aft being the Privateer the heaviest) no: totally different.

January 10, 2019

3 minutes ago, staun said:

it is at best a very slim escape route for casuals and traders. How often do they actually have a chance to escape a battle when you attack them?

Rl can be a bitch. But where should the cut be made, if there should be one on a war server? We could easy limited every fight to only 20 min. Why should it be 1 h 30 min?

Yeah but lets be honnest about that. The game have changed to push ppl out of the safezone, on demand from the huntes. The time a casual player ore a trader spend in a safezone is basicly nothing,

Well on the last point I have to say, It is all about you. To follow your logic I could easy say.: I only have 20 min game time, so I should not be forced to fight for more than 20 min ore lose it all.

I am always amaced when the hunters actually think they are the victims and we need to protect them.

I am not a victim. And my hunters were not defenders. They were ALOHA

Honestly I thought about that after reading others' whines. Not mine. Mine is a witness of what can happen.

January 10, 2019

2 hours ago, staun said:

Value if a ship. Pretty sure it can be calculated based on a data base on average prices. So most in real ofc, also some price in Dubloons. Lets say in range 2000- 4000 dbl, depend on ship. It should not be cheap to dodge fights.

if its get to cheap, ppl will just use it all the time. You think about how it affect the hunters to fight for a couple if hours a couple of times. How do you think it will affect the players that get killed. Knowing they can’t do anything about it. You just teleport out, get back 1/2 hours later kill another guy and Wupti teleport out again.

As it is now it is allready hard to set up a defence fleet. As you said your self. They had to chanse you for 4 hours and then they still didn’t get you. How harder do you wich us to be to defend new and casual players?

I understand the point. Still on one hand is an escape route also for casuals/traders.

And we should not forget the RL part of the problem. I have to know a limit.

From a defender PoV. A) there's a different RoE in safezone.

B - we can modify a bit taggin circles to give a slight more advantage to hunters.

Still I point out it's more a part of RL, or quality of life for me: it's not acceptable that I could be locked in game indefinately or I have to "lose".

January 9, 2019

Just now, z4ys said:

Windforce on certain sails is to good

To be sincere.

In general manual sailing speed up too much the turning (not to speak about impossible or suicide - for masts - yard manouvers).

In truth manual sailing should only help a bit the manouver, not being decisive to make a tighter turn.

Still game wise it adds more skill to ship handling, so I can consider it a necessary/positive evil.

January 9, 2019

13 minutes ago, staun said:

I am fine you want to jump back so you don’t risk loose your ship. I just don’t think it should be as cheap as you want it to be. Keep your ship. But you loose all in your hold and have to pay a compensentation for dodging a fight. Half the ships value do seem cheap to me.

You actually want to use that mat as an argument. Lets put it right. You have tried it once in a couple of months. You do lets say 2 fights a day. 26 days a month. So you get it in 1 fight out of 104 fights. It happens to you 3-6 times a year, where you might have to fight ore give up your ship. How many times do a casual player ore a trader loose a ship a year because he is forced in to a fight. Think his problem is bigger than yours.

I think the problem is bigger for trader and my idea helps them too, especially in case being catched with a fleet.

Still eternal tag being less likely for them: usually pretty slow, so on trader (with fleet especially) you end catched and sunk pretty fast.

High gear ship vs other high gear team is more likely to end in a loop of tag-run--tag-run (not last due to force sail mods... Making a ship slower in OW but faster in battle).

Honestly I am thinking more to the RL issue and limits more than punishing people to successfully escape from a (hopeless in these cases) battle.

PS: value of the ship based on what? And realism wise what's the sense?

January 9, 2019

4 minutes ago, admin said:

I agree somewhat.

May be it could be possible to couple gun damage rework (moving from being based on ball diameter to ball weight - so making SOL damage output far higher) to slower turning rate for and in particular SOLs.

January 9, 2019

1 hour ago, staun said:

C : Punishment?, It is only pixels. It is no different from when I leave the safezone. Plan a traderun. I might also be forced to spend more time than I planed. Are we talking about no player from they leave the habor and return to habor, not can be forced to more than 1,5 h gameplay.

D : Yes sometimes you either have to fight ore spend time running. But lets be honnest it is not 1 of 10 battles like that. Not what I have seen atleast.

In a full loot/loss MMO they are not only pixels. Some of these pixels could be equivalent to dozen-hundreds hours commitment.

My point was indeed having potentially a maximum unespected extra time online of 1h30m: if you get catched right before arriving, worst scenario will keep you online a single battle maximum timer. And 1h30m extra commitment is still quite a lot but cant be less in any case: if you got tagged you have to ready to fight at least a full battle.

About unlikeness of such situations... Happened 3 times (Yordi, me and another friend) in a couple months so 3 times on a bit more a dozen active players. It means on approximately 1000 players rotating it is happening 150/200 times every two months. Even keeping a lower value (like 120), we are talking of this situation (or similar) twice daily.

How dangerous for player retention could this be thinking to a (hopefully) far more populated game?

January 9, 2019

1 hour ago, Angus MacDuff said:

This is how guys are getting the big scores in the weekly 7th rate challenge

Yes and nay.

The BR killed alone didnt make me suspicious: I could already (deadly boredom aside) how to kill one 1st rate on a 7th.

Itwas the BR done per battle... That meant 3 1st rates in a single battle.

January 9, 2019

1 hour ago, Bodye said:

Hello can you maybe consider adding some sliding multiplier from previous crafting system, because as you can see on picture Im forced to click 160 times to change ingots into upgrade and it's a little annoying.

You're too rich.

If you have so many, gift a share to others: they'll happily do the clicking 😎

January 9, 2019

2 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

Invisibility has flaws. Let's fix them:

1. Timer starts when client loads into OW. Slower machines currently load longer and receive less time.

2. Increase turn rate on big ships during the boost. For some ships boost is useless if they need to turn for 20-30 seconds.

3. Give extra 5-10 seconds speed boost or boost dependent on battle duration. Longer battle = more boost.

Very good points.

Especially the last one.

January 9, 2019

12 minutes ago, staun said:

So you agree on losing the cargo isent any punishment, ore just a very small one?

But why after any battle if your argument is not to be forced too 4 hours if fighting. To you there are no different if the battle takes 10 min ore 4 hours?

What about the others issues? They just don’t Matter ore what?

a) still it is a cost.

b) what about banning moving mods from ship to chest at sea? After some nice loot it could be more and issue try to keep the prize or flee.

c) punishment for what? For having a life, a job, a family?

d) about bad time management... Not always the case: I got tagged in front of LT but being on Endymion chased by Snow+Prince+P.Frig.+ fast Bellona I had a very thin point of sail to keep them all at bay so I had to follow the wind.

Four hours later, with 20m+1h30m battles they would have chased me again... If I didnt get a mate in Bellona waiting out of last battle for one hour to cover me.

So I could get entangled for more and more hours.

January 9, 2019

19 minutes ago, staun said:

When you can escape ore first after 1h 30 min? What if the battle only takes 15 min. Do you then still have the right to teleport to safty?

If you're able to escape you are able to.

The point with today (and less an issue to me having quite plenty time in last months) RoE and possible infinite tagging it is you cant know nor manage in anyway your time: you can get entangled for hours and hours if you (rightfully) want to save your ship. That's coupled with some ships (and now some mods too) are almost unreplaciable.

Imagine a 5/5 with Naval Clock tagged on the way back home... And then hunted for HOURS: such ship has not only a very high ingame value I could equate to X playing hours dedicated to farm/trading/crafting: she could be simply not replaciable ever.

Losing such a ship in a fair fight could be acceptable. Losing her to a gank too.

Losing her because after successfully escaping for 4+ hours the player has to log off due to RL issues is inviting ragequit.

January 9, 2019

3 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

Of course

Last port visited is my own best bet in the game design we have with the rancid alt exploits we must endure.

At least everyone can logoff and no one will self teleport ships to another place.

And yes, i like Licinio's "all cargo lost".

I agree: even better.

Teleport to last port visited.

Thus giving a chance to hunters to guess where the fleeing ship retreated.

January 9, 2019

6 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

- attack a npc with a SOL

- exit battle, teleport SOL safely through enemy waters

perfect !

-or-

- be attacked by your own alt, pvp

- end battle, teleport SOL safely through enemy waters

even more perfect !

The other end of the stick has been proposed in the past though - exit to last visited port; if it is enemy port then no exit to port and only exit to OW.

I underlined OW PVP battle to avoid AI trick.

Still we need to grant a player the chance to log off if they already survive a battle. So anyone will know that he needs 1h30m minimum online to save a ship.

I got tagged before going to bed around 3am... And chasing + 2 chase battle ended after 7am... And I didnt get tagged AGAIN only because a mate came to Battle spot and waited 1h the Battle end having upon exit chasers giving up.

Yordi too was chased around half map for like 4+ hours.

January 9, 2019

I could propose that upon exiting an OW (so not in PZ nor in R areas: you hunt in enemy capitols and in PZ at your own risk) PvP (so no AI tag trick) battle a loading screen with two options:

A - enter OW. Just like now. Same invisibility timer or even dropping it granted the second option.

B - teleport to closest available OP or open port.

In B case ship will teleport to closest available port LOSING ALL CARGO.

This to prevent tricky uses and paying the action losing repairs, goods on board and so also doubloons simulating the fast retreat from area jettisoning all cargo.

This could help those already able to retreating from a battle (so already showing off being able to) saving the ship... And being able to log off due to RL, still paying the option avoiding infinite tags.

If captains want to preserve cargo/loot they have to fight they way off (thus I would say to eliminate invisibility at all).

January 9, 2019

2 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

Dinark was fighting like 1v6 more or less? The battle is simple, Connie and Wapen got hello kittyed up by 2 Ingers really fast. Basically, 2 4th rates lost to other 2 4th rates. Even without help from Christian, you would sink. On the other hand we had 2 1st rate, Christian vs 2 1st rates and Mortar Brig. The battle was very dependent on Mortar Brig which missed almost every shot. He couldn't even hit 1st rates sailing 3-4 knots. Couple of hits and battle could be lost. We all have seen good Mortar Brig players killing 4-5 SOLs in a single battle.

One of the first time he used her.

And Wappen (not a experienced either) was squinshed very fast, as normal. Your Ingers got some pushiment too... but I was too slow to try to finish one. Without the Christian partly on me... Inger were really soft. Sidenote: I had only one book on Classic... I was moving her with traders

It happens. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Plain normal.

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Downloads

Events

Posts posted by Licinio Chiavari