Licinio Chiavari
-
Posts
1,457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Licinio Chiavari
-
-
Nassau...
😂😂😂
-
17 minutes ago, Zlatkowar said:
This is probably the right mindset. We all knew this was an alpha, and we all know what that means. There's even a warning message on Steam for those who don't fully understand what it implies.
Problem: how is this Alpha now? We should remember we are talking about people who already devoted 3/4.000+ hours to the game. Not to speak they already did the painful and mindless farm 1-2+ times.
10 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:Books are the problem. New players have to go through months of grinding just to be at a level to be gear-wise, even with veterans who would buy all their stuff back. Not even someone who knows all the ropes would want to go back and get these books again, so why would you want to in the first place?
So I proposed to go for making even a full wipe, but making book grinding a breeze.
18 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:when ship based on much less stat-influence had better balanced combat?
You keep overrating gear gap. It ends being really relevant with similar experience. Otherwise makes the outcome simply faster or slower for the veteran vs noob depending of the gear gap is in favour of the first or the latter.
22 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:And now it seems everyone's just ... you, he's gone.
Chases are annoying. Only when the result is obvious.
But I agree they are not time efficient.
That leads to "there's not a single metà" but different working solutions for different situations. Still with pros and cons.
25 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:but wow what a waste of time it is to be so committed to pull a ship out for battle and not take on a 1v1 on the spot with someone with a similar rated ship.
The old problem: loser gains NOTHING.
So losing the 1v1 is full loss.
No sense fighting a probable defeat.
23 minutes ago, Sovereign said:If we really get so many new players on release and my ship xp slots would get wiped ( and I was still interested in the game at that point ) you better be sure I would be farming those new players for my slots without any regrets or sympathy, since there would be plenty targets, bonus xp for PvP and I wouldn't have to do the mind numbing bot grind.
Correct.
17 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:so expect some pretty serious numbers at launch.
I hope.
So better not obliging them to farm book slots for ages.
13 minutes ago, Sovereign said:New players will fail against veterans in 1 vs 1 regardless of mods or books, I think we have established this more than enough and even if that wasn't the case, what about new players joining 1 month after release or 1 year?
This.
Again.
-
31 minutes ago, huliotkd said:
the only hope to increase population in ''rank protection'' until commodore or flag captain rank, maybe. each palyer can attack 1 rank above and 1 below his own until he reaches the rank of ''commodore''. he cannot attack 2 ranks above or below but can join battle started by different player's ranks...so he can join a rear admiral battle if he is midshipman...he will die but it was his choice.
But, mate, we all know that rank has close to nothing to do with PvP "skill".
Granted there's a bulkload of top ranks dying all the time against the same veterans who simply kill them with the same manouvers and tactics.
There's no protection from own dumbness.
Only a PvP rank could help, but, aside being difficult to balance and to avoid exploits, it's against the sense of any 'sandbox'.
34 minutes ago, huliotkd said:delaying the old redeemables don't give time to newbs to learn how to move and how to play PVP in PVP server, they need safe area of equal level to develop skill then venture the ''big boy areas''.
Yes.
Not economically viable in mid-end game safe area. Or the old concept of "starting zone".
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:
You're really that afraid of losing some virtual books? Says a lot about your willingness to fight. No wonder drastic balancing measures are being used on PvP.
There's no "fight" in farming AGAIN for hundreds hours bots.
And you know.
-
3
-
-
Sincerely.
As already pointed, the real pain are ship slots, and they will be, admin said a few times in the past EVEN SLOWER in live game.
Already now I use 99% only 5book ships and avoid even thinking to grind new ones (especially above 4th rate) even if I'd like to test some: it's deadly boring having to mindlessly kill bots. Again!
Personally I'd be fine even restarting from M&C (post exam) and without crafting. But the problem are ship slots again. Eventually an even bigger problem, as said.
I would prefer devs wiping all ranks too but at the same time making grinding slots a breeze. For all.
Honestly: do devs know how many 1/2 rate bots should I kill to unlock 5 books on a Santissima??? They cant ask players, especially if having already done that 2 times, to do AGAIN.
Do we want a leveled field?
- Speed up a bit ranks from Ensign to Commodore (to allow access to big stuff if wished), make 4 books grindable in a few combats (like no more than 3/5 hours gaming), and the 5th open after a few more in PvP ONLY on the specific ship (not for all class) like a "mastery". So losing the ship, back to 4.
Craft rank up to 35/40 pretty fast, slowing down for the last.
And we can "do it again".
If I will have to slot up again ships, I think I will stop playing. No: not again senseless and boring grinding.
-
4
-
-
PZ reward based on damage problem.
Damage required is the same among different PZ... So the same damage per reward for both a Niagara and an Ocean... That doesnt make sense.
Make it % of damage done, therefore 100%= 1 kill, and make rewards kill based.
May be applicable also to OW doubs rewards: make limited sense that a boarder get close to zero reward damage wise and so doubs wise: a boarder chains a couple times, board. In the meantime a mate parks next to the enemy and fire 2 broadsides.
The kill goes to the mate parked next who technically did NOTHING to kill the enemy.
(No anti boarding crap please. Just note the facts).
-
3
-
-
Hats off.
Honours. Really. I do not know how many would do the same.
Regards.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, traitorous mctraitoro said:
An entire topic, just because Prussia like to wing it
We got a far bigger and longer (with damn dangerous ideas for the gameplay) because Banished lost 5/10 minutes in a fake battle.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Jim Bligh said:
... the ship knowledge slots already open. You do not need to combat a trader to open the slots. The LGVR is an Admiralty PvP reward an must be used in combat to open the knowledge slots. They are locked as any other warship. It is a war trader. It is a Refit Le Gros Venture, a merchant warship with a smugglers flag.
As far as I remember I had to slot up (as any warship) traders too to unlock the 3 maximum available (I am sure I had to slot the Indiaman).
Still being 5th rate or less and only 3 slotted, not a terrible pain anyway.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, EliteDelta said:
Ouch, I definitely wasn't lagging this time though. Ping was solid the whole fight...
I lost for sure a couple requins in these months missclicking the repair to do.
I think, more than a bug, it's a player error. It happens.
"Shit happens".
-
29 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:
Statistics say so. Redeemed ships from admiralty have lower % chance than crafted in capturable ports. Same for the DLC ships.
Right.
1 Purple (and zero gold) on over 170 requins redeemed.
-
10 minutes ago, Intrepido said:
Now you cant do that with a clan based system.
So better moving to a clanbased RvR.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?).
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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)
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, staun said:
I have no problem with a NA where there was no upgrades, Wood type ore knowledge slots. Only skilled matter.
My point is all have acces to upgrades, Wood and ship knowledge. This things is not imo the reason we have players better than others, imo the reason is this is a skill based game.
Still access to some stuff is very limited to casuals... Due to cost. Time involved.
And especially acceptability of loss.
Anyone can farm 200k to get an Elite rig.
Not everyone can afford to lose a couple elite rigged ships in a row.
-
2 hours ago, staun said:
Well I think you are right if the same skilled player fight each other, ofc the one with upgrades have a better chance of winning. But plz tell me what upgrade an average player don’t have acces to. But that not what we are debating. You claim upgrades Make fight unballanced. I say no, what favor the best is skill matters, as it should be. You can remove all upgrades and knowledge and the best will still win 9 of 10 battles.
You example is the same to say one side is only allowed 9 pd cannons and the other will have 32 pd. What is next to balance fights. All ship have to have the same stats, maybe have auto aim and firing, remove manual sail.
Not to speak that fitting a ship for a combat style, and then forcing enemy fighting YOUR game while not letting him forcing you playing his is... Skill (tactical superiority, higher combat awareness, better forethought - call it as you prefer).
-
FENIX defense at Corrientes.
Spaniards joined quite afar (so, I suppose, good job screeners).
One circles was not captured purposely to get a longer PB and having time to fight.
Escaped 3rd rate, Prince and Mortar sunk few minutes later by pursuing Agamennon+Hercules+Requin.
Regards.
-
1
-
Fix economy and give RVR a purpose
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
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).