Licinio Chiavari
-
Posts
1,457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Licinio Chiavari
-
-
The fact they are already Russian (aside one) is obviously incidental.
But the proposal has some points.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Dostojetski said:
Honestly.. stop trying to spin bullcrap about DLC ships not being op and appeal to what the devs want to hear..
If the OP DLC ships cant hold out on their own against port perked crafted vessels, people wont buy them as much and shazam.. they will allow port bonuses to DLC ships.
These kinds of DLC are a form of paid cheats(you get around certain game mechanics such as hauling and crafting and they also dont require you to be so good at sailing either since they are boosted) as was stated in original post. Casual and bad players wanna feel good about themselves and they will cough up the cash for these instant gratification boats. I bet my left testicle the devs will make sure the DLC boats will have the upper hand cos thats the only reason people buy them.
Give it a few weeks, possibly months and your precious cheaty DLC boats will get perked up. Or then the port perks will get nerfed to hell, at which point you will achieve the same outcome; Crafted boats are super expensive with crappy port bonuses and take an eternity and a half to craft with rare woods... and DLC ships can flex with their daddies credit cards.
If the devs wanted honest support, they would provide a go fund me link. But they went all in on this DLC crap and thats a rabbit hole you dont climb out of(though it does get them a lot more money if you have ever read up on game theory).. imagine how pissed off the instant gratification weeabos would be if you suddenly took their toys away from them or nerfed them? Devs chose to do DLC route so now the only way they can get people to support the development of the game is to offer the players cheaty boats.
UPDATE
I'm already looking forward to when they announce loot boxes 😂
What if, as I repeatly proposed, that if I redeem a DLC I get a free ship with no bonuses (even only 3/5 no trim) BUT I am allowed to craft her too if I wish to use THAT ship, not because THAT ship is redeemable but because I like THAT ship?
-
6 minutes ago, admin said:
Excuse me too
I was responding to your message IN THIS TOPIC about usage of alts for hostility. And this topic was brought up multiple times on the forums and in game chats as if this topic can be used to ban someone for using other's hostility missions. This rule/post is about surrendering, sinking alts to quickly set up a PB.
Not about asking real or imaginary friend to take a hostility mission.
BTW We preemptively removed OW generation of hostility to solve 90% of the problems. In hostility missions usage of alts to generate hostility points by surrendering or sinking them is not allowed and is still banneable (for example bringing 10 ships to an enemy side to sink them to gain hostility faster).Still, I would apologize, the issue, that makes all Frontline great concept empty is there.
And it was the real question.
A question a Mod, finally replied: it is fair farming other nation hostility missions (how, friend or alt, is not relevant) to flip a Port otherwise un-attackable.
Therefore Santiago russian attack was fair. And we were wrong refusing to defend it (not relevant in anycase IMO).
Therefore, and this was the question, if tomorrow I farm other nation hostility missions to flip a port otherwise I cant get missions to, it will be fair. Surely till next hotfix.
In the end we asked only for a clear statement about what's fair or not to be able to not break a rule.
Nothing more.
-
3 minutes ago, admin said:
Please stop misreading our posts and trying to push them to other situations.
We have zero information from the recent tribunals that alts were surrendering or alts were killed to generate hostility. If there were such tribunals you should contact mods and ink and cross post in the tribunal. if it was not done.. its the reporter's fault. But empty witch hunts about potential collusion are not going to cut it here - Mueller does not have time for us to investigate this too.
Informal alliances are allowed and if you informal ally will let you use his hostility missions its allowed. Its diplomacy.
Sinking alts to gain hostility or marks or other rewards is not allowed STILL And will cause bans.Excuse me.
Granted that killing enemies is not generating any hostility (aside defensively) the only use for alts is farming hostility missions (against AIs) normally not accessable.
And a moderator clearly said it is allowed.
If I misread mod post, I could be only happy granted my opinion is different; still I would accept (any) Devs' statement on this matter acting accordingly.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:
As it stands right now (changes will happen i'm sure), DLC use for me will die out. Why sail a second rate ship if I can build something superior. Yes it takes more time to get a crafted ship...BUT THAT IS THE GAME. I will always sail the best ship that I can acquire. #DLCisdead.
Indeed I liked DLC not being OP. And they were not before last patch. They were fine.
And last ones are definately medium.
They got better woods... but even this is now past.
So they will be really totally DEAD... and trying to sell them as game assets could be on the border of circumventing buyers unaware of all game mechanics.
-
On 4/10/2019 at 2:15 PM, admin said:
On the issue raised by Hachiroku Anolytic and many other captains.
There was a proposal on this forum (i think it was Ojk but can be mistaken)
Proposal was this: sell the permit that the player then will craft (unique ship but still participating in the economy).
Initially thought a great idea.Evolution of imported (DLC) ships thinking was this.
- Premium ships was announced when we did not even think about the open world (in 2014)
- Premium ships were initially thought as unique status items, a more beautiful alternative.
- Some ships introduced over time were not crafteable (Wasa, Hermione) to give us the option to add them to premium roster without taking away crafteable ships.
- First experiments were ran with Hercules and LRQ (it wa good to do it in early access as many things were discovered and learnt as a result)
Now many players say that DLC ships reduce the role of the economy, and that there should be deep and interesting MMO economy.
But let's get this straight.
- Crafting was introduced last, and is a least cooked feature, as all focus was always on combat model, rvr and ROE (lately PVE).
- Hauling was somewhat forced onto players because some time ago we wanted everyone to be the target.
And here is the main discovery.
- Players do not buy DLC ships for uniqueness.
-
They do not buy them because they are stronger or weaker than others (there is always a better crafted ship, sometimes 5/5 crafted ship). Rattvisan is definitely not the best 4th rate.
- They do buy them to support developers (thank you everyone for support)
- And they buy them to avoid participation in the exciting economy (mainly hauling).
Trading goods is rewarding and has both risk AND profit. Hauling goods for crafting is boring, not exciting, is risky but gives you no real rewards (you make a ship that you will soon lose anyway).
Thats why making permit based DLC ships is not going to achieve anything. Thats not what customers want.
Now.
Here is therugchange that will tie the room together.- Port investments will remove hauling requirements for basic resources for all players who play with friends or have friendly clans in the nation.
-
Clans (and you can have a small clan and capture a distant port to use it) will invest into
- production of all basic resources in their port
- defenses to protect it
- shipbuilding to improve ships built in this region.
- By doing so - player will get ALL basic resources in one location, completely removing hauling requirements out of the picture. Saving time and getting ships by just spending LH and cooperating together to get rare woods if needed.
Clan can decide if they want these investments to be available to them only, to friends or to everyone who can build in this port.
As a result.
- Clans who developed the port will be able to get ships with one click.
- Enemy clans who do not want to spend time developing ports can try to capture the port from the enemies (why build if you can cap).
- There will be a lot less time wasted on hauling and more fighting.
Question, in delay.
How can DLC (and note got) ships be barely competitive vs. same size port-improved ships of same size... being DLC already not OP?
Now the wood issue is solved with last patch.
How can sincerely a Rattvisan (already not the strongest 4th rate - your words) 3/5 (lower trim chances) engage with any chance even a 3/5+trim Indef with 5/5 port topped upgrades?
Honestly locking any upgradability to DLC and note ships could be very bad.
Getting a DLC will soon becoming not a free ship but a free target for enemy crafted ships.Is that intended? if yes: shouldnt this well noted in DLC selling page?
-
1 hour ago, Licinio Chiavari said:
THIS is the point.
And if so many people complain and WANT (rightfully I'd add) a clear and plain statements and decisions is because THEY ALL WANT to play in a 3000+ online server in next months.
It's not the punishment of the exploiter what matters.
It's the fear that repeated lack of action will kill the game on its birth.
All well what's end well.
It's legit use friends or alts in other nations to bypass frontlines.
Let's go on.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, El Patron said:
We need combad medals back for ow pvp
THIS.
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, soulfuor said:
с такой политикой боюсь не будет 3000 онлайна никогда,ибо оценки у игры от этого лучше явно не станут,репутация тоже.во всех играх есть косяки это норма,но кумовство,своячество ммм... такое нигде и никто не терпит. ))и не стоит говорить что это не двойные стандарты а просто все поменялось,ничего не поменялось когда я просто указал на один эксплойт мне прилетела угроза мгновенно это было всего месяц может даже меньше назад)я всего лишь сказал что есть такие то дыры и что помешает их использовать,со мной тут же начали говорить так будто я читак какой то )))при этом некоторым позволенно на стримах лупить договорные бои в которых они выпускают из боя врага,юзать стороннее ПО (в два окна ж через сэндбокс гамают и ему подобные) и так далее.уверен на 99% что если так сделаю я,мне перманент прилетит мгновенно)
THIS is the point.
And if so many people complain and WANT (rightfully I'd add) a clear and plain statements and decisions is because THEY ALL WANT to play in a 3000+ online server in next months.
It's not the punishment of the exploiter what matters.
It's the fear that repeated lack of action will kill the game on its birth.
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, Teutonic said:
They took san mateo doing the same thing. This exploit will continue until it is fixed unfortunately.
The right thing to do would be for the developers to make all the ports affected by the exploit neutral again after a fix is resolved.
Always nice to see the same culprits up to the same games.
The first way to assure a better enviroment is fighting abuses, griefing and exploits.
We all understand that recoding requires time.
So the first and FASTEST way to assure a better playing enviroment is PUNISHING those plainly abusing the system - because, let's face it: any system can be abused, because a human will be always smarter than a machine and of a coded rule.
It's time to PUNISH.
Otherwise exploiters and griefiers will go on even after any bug fix: they will find simply different way. It's a mindset to be changed, with harshness.
-
Getting an error making unable to submit a post if using @
-
I would ask Devs if there's any plan to grant port craft bonuses to DLC and ship notes redeemed or not.
If this is intended or not.
If it's intended, I'd propose to grant DLC owners BP for owned ships to allow them to craft (so without any further advantage) preferred ships WITH port bonuses.
Thanks in advance
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
Marsh open up for us the same time it open up for ya'll. We just got on early and flipped it before ya'll could. Ya'll all ready have most of south Bahamas you don't need all of it.
The problem was: we were unable to farm hostility in Marsh while US was doing. In such situation is impossible to stop you setting the PB.
When we set Nassau we were fighting the russians doing hostility too: it was a race. Being unable to farm on our own made Marsh mathematically USA. And I'm really happy being it USA and not Russian.
About Marsh: it's not important on its own (aside Little Harb copper drop). It's the gate to Kidds and Bermuda 😎
Who controls Marsh will be in Bermuda well before anyone else. And you know it's logistically a pain to attack there.
Sidenote: not complaining. Just pointing out "it's not only a one-day delay nor it's a capitol like others". It was part of (working) plan that got ruined by a crash.
-
1
-
-
Not to say that losing 1 day blocked us to farm hostility to Marsh Harb paving the way to US hostility there...
I have still to understand why, in place of re-placing the PB, port wasnt assigned directly to GB.
Here we go!
-
1
-
-
El Patron: feel free to come with plenty balls with a 1/5 shabby frig and 100hr played against a no balls 3000hr veteran on a 5/5 v.fast Endymion.
-
2 hours ago, Anolytic said:The Bahamas should be an active RvR-area, with ports constantly shifting hands, and individual ports PvP and piracy abounds. Not locked behind the bars of frontlines allowing one or a couple of nations to control the whole region by their ability to lock down Regional Capitals using numbers, and the construction of forts that will be more significant in Shallow PBs than anywhere else.
Let me know how many nations can field 25 ships to fight ANY Bahamas port on equal terms (not to speak about of screening).
Then say how many nations can field 25 veterans.
El Patron: obviously skill and experience, especially with a limit of players in battle is not relevant. Right?
-
1 minute ago, Socialism said:
I'm pretty sure he's not whining about Nassau here and simply suggesting that the bahamas be an FFA RVR training ground where cheaper ships can encourage more battles and smaller clans/nations can carve out little areas for themselves. Locking the entire bahamas into 3-4 capital regions is a shame and will discourage fights more than create them IMO.
Why would anyone not be upset about getting a port that is wiped in a month?
Small clan battleground is already destroyed by too high BRs.
Let's be honest: we are talking of 25 players PB fleets in any port at the moment.
ONLY big nations with big clans can be able to attack or defend.
Plenty nations (not to speak about even active and quite big clans) do not field 25 players in prime time.
And Nassau is a big part of Russian problem: Losing it means they cant attack Marsh, so Kidds neither nor Bermuda. So GB will arrive in Bermuda well ahead of them.
Anolytic proposal could have a sense if FIRST AND FOREMOST asking for strong reduction of BR in majority of ports. So allowing a 10-15 manned team to fill PB BR. Otherwise is 'de facto' asking more zerg freedom for the today powerhouse: them.
-
2
-
-
I think devs should set Nassau as GB tomorrow after server restart.
Nobody can say that could be a "fought" battle between 15-20 players and 6 bots. Outcome, as ANY neutral PB, is written.
Not setting as GB would be a huge stop start for the nation and highly demoralizing for all after the hardly fought hostility yesterday.
-
10
-
-
14 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:
The Le Requin is an unrealistic ship however - it's never been in the carribean
How many specific ships do we get in game that NEVER sailed in our waters?
14 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:and the few accounts (that I have managed to find) of Xebecs actually traversing the carribean all have them return to the meditteranean in a matter of 6-8 weeks.
I am pretty sure that accounts of small ships are more difficult to find.
14 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:The reason is the vessels poor sailing qualities and low resistance to harsh weather along with the lack of onboard storage facilities to supply the crew with necessities
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.
14 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:In regards to realism - mastsniping, now with carros, shouldn't be possible. Tacking with a squarerigged ship shouldn't be as easy as it is ingame and running with full sails shouldn't allow for using the lower gunports on SoLs.. Neither should using the lower gundecks in adverse weather conditions.
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?
14 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:The Snow shouldn't exist - it's a lakeship that sank during the very first storm it encountered, you can't get a much worse ship than that, yet in terms of handling, sailing and guns it's one of the best in class ingame.
So let's delete the Snow too. Interesting approuch to game design.
14 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:Boarding was NOT the preferred choice for neither pirates nor men of war during the timeframe... pirates merely used boarding more often due to having inferior firepower to the navy vessels and rarely on dedicated men of war
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.
2 hours ago, Aldeveron said:It might be an idea to make DLC ships time-limited in future (say, 6 months, or a year at most). If it was decided that the Requin should be axed, then hopefully those players who own it, will at some point get tired of the game and stop playing - so the active Requins would over time, become fewer and fewer. It might also be possible to allow Requin owners the option of swapping their Requin for some other, more desirable ship.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Palatinose said:
TBH I don't remember anything good for my enemies at KPR concerning TP back to port. Only the raider had advantages. As soon as it gets crowded, just leave and return at a pleasing time. It could only be a thing to TP back with empty hold, no fleet and to the last entered port. Make it a really tough choice.
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).
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, RKY said:
Your last quote just display all the wrong things in this comunity. fair fight = run, unfair for you = run, unfair for enemy= chase.
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".
6 hours ago, RKY said:You have had a fight, no need for a revenge fleet
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.6 hours ago, RKY said:chase all left alive people for hours.
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.6 hours ago, Liq said:IMO Tagging and holding in battle til reinforcments arrives is not valid tactics; it basically bypasses the join timer for instances - which exists for a reason
But reinforcment zones should be safe again.
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. -
Just now, Custard said:
Santisima was built in Cuba mate so it kinda did sail there 😎
How many engagements? You know exactly what I'm saying. So no way kidding me 😎
-
7 hours ago, Aldeveron said:
8. Scrap the Requin. (For the Caribbean, it seems as out-of-place as a turd in a swimming pool, and has unrealistic abilities anyway.)
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.6 hours ago, Lars Kjaer said:3. You mentioned it but I believe it is worth a rementioning - scrap the le requin!
Same as above.
-
6 minutes ago, Hethwill said:
Many of you are the faces of a community. Act like you care.
Plenty of posts moved.
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.
On the issue of imported ship permits versus ready imported ships.
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
Is an Herc, Pandora, Ratt, Req God mode? are you kidding?
Even months ago the super feared requin was not God mode. I hunted them usually with a privateer just to make proportions.