Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Dakk Elleron

Ensign
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Dakk Elleron's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

10

Reputation

  1. PVE (peace server) I'm a huge fan of AI aggression and am definitely looking forward to this! I am not a trader but I certainly do transport crafting materials across the open world in a Indiaman fleet so I know the dangers here, none the less, I think it is a good feature keeping the following thing in mind. It should be implemented carefully, in that I admit, it would be annoying to be tagged by a 10 Bellona AI fleet, if I were in a single Mercury or traders brig. I think an aggressive AI would be fun so as long as it doesn't mimic ganking. I had mentioned in another thread that the AI should be aggressive towards you if they are +/- 100 maybe 200 of your battle rating. Otherwise, it could get obnoxious. If I played on the PvP server (which I do not) I will admit, that I would not like this feature. Lastly, what about rotating wars? For example, in January Britain and the USA will be at war meaning that only the USA ships will be aggressive to Britain and vice versa. France vs the Dutch. Each nation has a rival for a month and only those AI ships will be aggressive towards human players. This would provide another type of admiralty mission. Sink x number of ships at war with your nation.
  2. Thank you so much! @admin This is an awesome change! Why do I like it so much? As someone who only plays on the PVE server (well, at least I did before BattleTech was released last May...but I digress), this will allow me to create my own narratives with much greater reliability. You see, for me the PVE server is like a play area from my childhood where I would push Lego ships across the carpet, fighting pirates, etc. Well, I am too old for that now but Naval Action allows me to write my own stories and missions from the admiralty, and giving the NPC ships more intuitive / realistic sail patterns is a much welcomed change. Now I can go on a cruise like the HMS Sophie and harass the enemies coast! In addition to this change, what I would very much like, is an "on/off" toggle switch for AI aggression so that ships +/- 100 battle rating of my own would attempt to attack me. Maybe even a slider bar to increase or decrease the battle rating difference to +/- 200 or whatever I desired. A question regarding the PVE server. Will all the neutral ports be changed to their historical national port instead of being neutral?
  3. I haven't played Naval Action in quite some time; when I did it was exclusively on the PVE server, and I do like the suggestion. However, would that be detrimental to the "sandbox" part of the game and turn it into more arena style which is what I thought Legends was supposed to be. As others have stated, if it were to be implemented, I think if you want to play on either server you have to develop that character just like everyone else. Admittedly, I am a little concerned the potential for toxicity to appear, as is common in PvP games, but you never know. Lastly, in addition to your proposed duel idea, I would actually like to initiate some sort of flagging system so that if I have it selected (and only if selected) the AI would attack my ship if it is +/- 100 BR of me. That would keep things slightly interesting but also not feel like I'm being ganked. Not trying to derail topic thought.
  4. First, I would like to say, what an excellent write up this was. Very thorough with some excellent ideas. However, I believe there is a lot of knee jerk reactions here. I have read some suggestions of increasing cannon damage to offset the increased chance of missing broadsides. Or decreasing armor and thickness to offset the missed shots, or a combination of both. The problem with this is that by changing damage, hp, or thickness; you are trying to change to many variables to fix only one, the de-masting. Additionally, a full broadside from an Agamemnon (for example) against a smaller ship like a Renomee (for example) is already devastating. Reducing armor HP/Thickness or increasing canon damage will only make this worse. My concern is that it will push people away from sailing smaller/weaker ships. Albeit, they will potentially be much more difficult to hit, so maybe not. It seems there is a much simpler solution to de-masting. Why not just increase the "cone of fire" as you increase in elevation your point of aim.
  5. Hello everyone, This is my first post on the forums, albeit I do read them frequently. I have chosen to chime in at this time as I feel the following proposal is worth a read considering how hotly debated the server merge topic is. From what I have gathered from the mega thread on the upcoming server merger, there are several concerns over vulnerability windows being used in an unreasonable manner. The following is my suggestion on how to alleviate this. Peak Usage Timers (or any name you want to call it) The quick TL;DR The vulnerability window will be calculated by the server based on when the port has the most usage. This can be interpreted as that ports “prime time” which is in my opinion, the “most fair” time for a port to be vulnerable. (Part 1) Instead of allowing players to set the vulnerability time for the port, have the server log (which it probably already does) the number of players that are currently in port and active over the course of the day. Imagine a line graph being produced with a peak representing the time of day with the most players using the port. This time becomes the center of the ports vulnerability window with a +/- of 1.5 hours. This will be adjusted every day at down time with one major caveat explained in (Part 2). For Example: Day 0) In the morning hours (server time) the port has 5-10 players using the port. By noon that number increases to 25-30 players and begins to diminish throughout the afternoon. Therefore at server maintenance time the server would set the vulnerability window for the following day for 12:00 with a +/- 1.5 hours making the window from 10:30-13:30 (server time). This solves the problem of players setting unreasonable timers. To put it quite simple. The port is most vulnerable at the time it is most active. This seems the most “fair” as it gives them a chance to defend the port. (Part 2) Additionally, we must address how that vulnerability window can change. In order to prevent “gaming of the system” the window can only shift a maximum of 30 minutes from day to day. For Example: (Day 1) The peak port usage was at noon today. At down time the server calculates this and sets the vulnerability time from 10:30-13:30 for the next day. (Day 2) The peak port usage time is much later and occurs at 15:03. (server can round this down to nearest half hour if necessary) At down time, the server calculates this and shifts the window to 15:00. However, because the window can only shift 30 minutes from day to day, the new window for Day 3 will be centered at 12:30 thus a window from 11:00-14:00. This same mechanic will apply no matter which nation is in port and active. Therefore, if a Port Battle occurs and the port switches nation, we will see the following. (Day 3) Today the peak port usage time is 11:00-14:00 set from the peak usage from day 2. A port battle occurs today and the port switches nations. Because of the port battle, many players were in port around 10:30 prepping for the battle, therefore the peak for today is at that time. The server will shift the vulnerability in a 30 minute interval towards 10:30. If the peak was at 12:30 today it will be shift to a center point of 12:00 tomorrow. Additionally, if the new controlling nation can hold onto the port the vulnerability window will continue to shift to their prime time by 30 minutes each day. This also provides an opportunity for the nation that lost the port to try and take it back before it goes too far out of their prime time. For Example: If Nation A has a peak time of 12:00 and Nation B has a peak time of 18:00. Nation B then captures the port from Nation A. It would then take 12 days thereafter, for the vulnerability window center point, to shift to Nation B’s time of 18:00. A few questions that require some thought: How can we prevent “vulnerability window creep”? If people just log in at their usual times there won’t be any issues with creep. However, I have a feeling, people will feel as though they must log in early before the window begins which will slowly advance the window out of their prime time. I haven’t thought of an idea to safeguard against that. Unless, port battles are delayed until the following day. Or hostility can only be gained during the vulnerability window. Should smugglers entering the port effect the “peak usage”? Should the activities in a port be weighted differently. For example, if players docks and un-docks 100 times it should not count. I see that as gaming the system. The server should probably only count unique ID’s every 15 minutes or so. Additionally, if a player uses alts to make a port appear busier than it is by having them sit idle, than crafting ship parts and ships should be weighted more than just a player sitting idle in a port. The real question is; what is the metric for actively using a port considering everyone has different types of play? Is a 30 minute shift from day to day too short or not long enough? Should it be 15 minutes or 1 hour, maybe 2 hours? Should there be a mechanic set in place so that an attacking force can “force” a shift in the vulnerability window one way or the other?
×
×
  • Create New...