Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Bach

Members
  • Content Count

    1,102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Bach last won the day on May 21 2018

Bach had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,355 Excellent

About Bach

  • Rank
    Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

1,338 profile views
  1. I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I really am not. I like the game and hope it does well. But lack of 1st rate ships isn't the problem. I know many players with spare 1st rates. It is a morale problem that stops players from fighting what they believe will be a futile battle that holds them back. We need something put in that gives them what they would consider a reasonable chance to win. A free first rate is only instilling hope in a player that didn't already have one. I hope I am wrong but I think all this change will do is create more 1st rate grinders earlier than they would have been in 1st rates. I doubt wee will see any great changes in the PB participation in the long run.
  2. Although I do like this idea a lot as it will make the play of say Poland or Prussia easier I don't think it gets to the heart of the port battle problem. Many players already have x4 quality 1st rates to throw into PBs if they had they heart to do it. But no one is going to throw their "time" into what they expect to be a losing fight. The problem is more a case of player skills and limited arenas. The highly skilled power players can shift any battle with limited numbers. Free ships won't change this. Throughout history the great equalizer to skill or gear has been numbers. A weaker skilled but more numerous opponent can still give a high skilled opponent a good challenge. However, when the numbers are matched to 24v24 skill rules the day. Gear quality is a close second. Free low quality ships will not really address this and currently a lower skilled more numerous opponent has no real way to bring numbers into play. Maybe Screening but even that isn't ideal. i would suggest that RvR round first place winners are rewarded for the win but get a slight BR restriction for the next round. The second place gets a slightly less reward and less BR PB restriction next round. Middle of the pack stays normal and the bottom get a next round BR bonus. This would make nations more competitive. Of course players that don't care about nations and just want to win can nation hop. In which case we will see at least a changing ownership of ports the previous winner had all across the map. Less stagnant nap and we'll sell a lot more forged papers if the decide to hop.
  3. I like the idea over all. One suggested modification to address the concern HachiRoku has would be to add a degrading BR for people that get sunk. Just spit balling here as I am not 100% on the rules in the zone. But if the supposed low skill new players repeated get killed the system could assign them a lower BR for the zone that eventually they will be able to get into fight where they can watch others, assist and probably get a win to raise low spirits.
  4. I think you have all proven that the tow to port is a commonly misused tool but of minimal grand effect to the game.. That and that the "lazy hunter" is also a true fact of the game using mechanics to reduce risk. I'm am not sure that opening up tow to port to county capitals and national capitals wouldn't cause worse problems than moving cargo ships. Cargo ship movement is actually the least of the potential problem I see. Especially when the "tow to port" locations are known to all. For example: the two most dangerous spots in the French Parisian Furniture route from Fort Royal area to Porta Espania are the coast off Carricou and the gap between Porta Espania and Guiria. To avoid the lazy hunters at Carricou you had to plot an open ocean route around it. For the Gap you needed a look out or parked in El Toco till you got one. Under the change @Ink made you can now tow directly into Porta Espania from across the Gap. Now un lazy hunters could sit at the tow to Espanis spot instead of the Gap or both. Merchants can also trip them up by towing to Guiria to get past the gap and loop south out of sight to Espania. They can wait at Nuprima and visually see lazy hunters sitting in front of Porta Espania. Any way, the point is that no matter what you do about thus feature you can't 100% fix it to un exploitable levels and still keep the aspects of it that help new players that get lost, stuck or just frustrated at sea. By the same token lazy hunters will always be able to sit on top of Nuetral and friendly ports and the local authorities will let them dock up any time even though they are hunting their commerce. Neither of these functions are really game breakers. The game needs a place for lazy hunters and lazy merchants whether the rest of us like it or not.
  5. I doubt this particular issue is worth all the drama. It is certainly NOT worth spending development time on that could be used to get us closer to release and more population. In the case of Spain, the player has to sit in a known spot for 5min not moving. That's a good target at risk and we all know where to find it. Also, I highly doubt anyone is making lots of gold off Parisian furniture from Santa Fe. Just based on my French experience the competition for the furniture of our multiple deep water ports is so high I rarely get a full load of P Furniture every few days. I can't imagine how competitive it must be with Santa Fe being the only producing port south of Cuba. Not to mention it is a shallow water port so moving the goods is an extra hassle. If this is a problem for you just capture the port and end the Santa Fe to Havanna furniture market. far worse than this Econ travel distance saver is using tow to port fir combat purposes. We have used it as France to get past screens, paratroop on top of PB fleets and to just plain safely dock into blockaded ports. You think an entire nation competing for one furniture port is worse than all that? Tow to port is just a fact of life in the game. It is semi exploitable like a dozen other necessary game functions. Can we just move on to the bigger things so we can get some players back?
  6. One of the more disheartening things repeated throughout the forums is players complaining about lack of content in a sand box game. It's probably that most of them haven't actually played many or any sand box games before. In a sand box the Players are supposed to generate most of the content. Not the Devs. The problems I see with this are as follows: Players are to limited in their ability to shape the environment to create content. Player generated content is centered to much on port conquest and little other means. Port conquest often requires to many players to allow for smaller groups to shape the environment. Dominance by select groups is to easily maintained. When the leaders of these groups decide to stop creating content, be it by alliances or otherwise just sitting stagnant, it is to difficult for lesser groups to replace them. They can literally just log in to maintain their ports and otherwise not play. Suggestions: Allow Econ to be used as a back door method to destabilize or flip ports, increase maintain costs or stifle tax collections. Allow players a way to shift trade routes (ex: Parisian furniture) from always being the same ports. Allow small group raids to have effects on ports be it stifling tax collections, increase maintain costs or shifting trade routes. Allow player contracts for goods to be seen globally so Econ players can create valuable trade runs and less need for Alts. Make screening an activity only declared allied nations can perform. It's rediculous for France to be fighting Prussia daily only to have France screen Prussia when it comes to port fights. There needs to be national consistency in who defends a port. Increase maintenance costs on ports? Something to deter players from just sitting on the same ports and only logging in to defend them in PBs. There needs to be benefit for players that play every day creating content vs. those that don't. Just thoughts
  7. Well drama generally takes at least two parties to achieve. In any event, I hope you US clan guys realize that one more clan of guys hunting the USA or GB coastlines on NA time zones isn't really all that helpful. There is a rather stagnant dynamic noticeable on the NA time zones. it's been this way as long as I can remember. USA,GB and pirate team tend to pick up most of the new and casual English speaking players. These are the loosely organized guys that mostly NPC hunt and occasionally RvR. But not the hard core band of inseparable brothers types that generally look to separate themselves from "the newbs". So as a result the USA/GB coasts and Mortimer town become the farm lands of everyone else. The Prussians, NA French, Swedes and select pirate clans even move to have bases right next to their home ports because it's just that easy. The only equalizing force these new comer and casual player base teams have is numbers. They have less skill in general but have greater numbers. So what do the elites do when this one advantage is utilized against them? They cry like babies that they the victims of multi-flips that are destroying the Game OMG! So they recruit the other elite groups in an alliance for the day to stop the dreaded multi-flip by the big bad newbs wrecking the game. Total rubish. The smaller elite clans can easily take those ports back any any later date they wanted even if they lost. What it is really about is simply never losing and keeping the weaker skilled teams down in "their place". So US team has decided to join France. Great but don't expect any trophies for taking the easy road. VCO has decided to snub the USA team Senate. Not as easy of a road as leaving and hunting your former team mates but also not the most challenging path. To the remaining USA Senate. You've just had two active group split ranks. If you don't think there is something wrong and in need of repair in your current leadership model then I'm not sure how much of a clue you need. What all you guys should do is join forces with GB and the Mortimer pirates to multi-flip the crap out of the games current elite power barons till they cry uncle and things reset a bit. In any event it would get rid of the stagnant power balances and some of the chest beating. LOL
  8. Just my 2 cents- Everyone should play where they feel happy about playing. If US team don't like playing USA then moving to France may be a good thing. If VCO don't like the alliance restrictions of the USA Senate then they shouldn't have to abide by them as long as they make that known and don't try to play both sides by hiding behind those alliances when convenient. Unfortunately for Rax and clan, TS permissions and even discord pages can matter when leaving a former nation IF you intend to hunt them. Why? Because we all know what bases our former team mates used and we know their play habits to a large degree. The TS rooms show you whom is online, how many and combined with the previous team knowledge you likely know what they are doing and where to find them. If UWS is attacking USA team players on the USA coast, as referenced above, then leaving TS and Discord pages would be the only way to make it fair. So far it does not appear that VCO is leaving the USA nation or attempting to hurt the USA nation. Assuming members of the USA nation may still work with VCO in ways that may not be directly related to senate activities then it might be wise to keep them on the TS. Unless VCO starts making alliances counter to those of the Senate. You boys may have to work that out.
  9. Weren't you the defending team? What is that mortar brig doing in there?
  10. My math may not be that good but I don't think you were ever getting those x7 Oceans, x2 Bellona, x2 Wasa and no mortar brig into that teeny tiny port battle. Well played indeed. <salute> It seems you got the yanks right where you wanted them all along.
  11. I think the only things above I find useful are as follows: Its a niche game and not for everyone. It's a very hard game compared to most. Some like Chess and some like Checkers or tic tac toe. Tell them the game is very hard but you don't have to call it bad because it's harder than you like it. Steam only allows a thumb up or down. Whether that is for you, liking the game or recommending a purchase seems to vary on opinion. But it sure would be nice if the go no go could be expended. Out of 2000 play hours you must have found something you liked. Conversely I'm sure you also found something you didn't like. But reviewing it negatively is still false. You making the assumption that the average gamer just starting out sucks compared to you. Don't be that arrogant prick. If you like the game enough to play it 2000 hours give it a good review. Don't prejudge new players and give a bad review to a game you like enough to play everyday because you are assigning your pre-judgement to their abilities and opinions. The devs don't need your approval or have to take your advice. A Lot of reviewers seem upset about that. I'm not sure how to view this but if everyone reviewing with comments on the devs not listening to them was really that good at it perhaps they would have developed their own game. It remains a stupid thing to complain about in a game review.
  12. Tutorial was not a success other than to already established players. It may getting you the Hercules and you may loved that. But as someone's helping truly virgin players it has been mostly worthless after the first couple basic tutorials. Every one of them has already abandoned the tutorial. That thing needs to be spaced out. Like do these two at level 1. Then go play some. Do these ones at level 5 and then these at level 10 etc... Like most games, they thought they had to finish the tutorial to play. I'll just say the tutorial has been very frustrating.
  13. This is a very good idea. A clan directory with some simple descriptions. Clan orientation - PVP, RvR, PVE Play style - Casual vs. Hardcore Languages spoken Primary time zone
  14. The review in question wasn't about a patch that made the game unplayable or anything like that. It was essentially all about the posters opinion of the Devs communication. Which, literally, has nothing to do with game play. The game is very hard for truly new players but it's not that bad. Two simple facts are all you really need. NA requires teamwork of experienced helping the new. NA ships are modeled to be very realistic. Read up on real sailing will help a lot. The ships simply don't steer like cars. In POTBS it was a point of jokes that 1st rates could sail directly into the wind as fast as they could tacking. Also, the player community here is generally friendlier and more supportive than you will find in most first person shooters. Yesterday I was training a new player how to capture NPC trader brigs. Two enemy players in princes jumped in the battle. They could have easily sunk my cargo ship and her cutter. I simply typed in what we were doing to the All chat. Being experienced players they quickly summed up the situation and wished us well as they left. NA has a lot of good players. It just also happens to have a decent sized crowd of very noisy bitchy players too. It would be better if they could keep the emotional stuff out of the steam reviews.
  15. I've got some totally new virgin players joining the game recently that im trying to help. One asked me about a certain steam review. So I went to the site read it and scanned through a bunch from the last year. Basically, I had to tell the guy the review he was concerned about was mostly a sour grapes emotion response by a disgruntled player and not really of value despite the clicks on the site that said it was. To prove it I asked him to look at the number of game hours the poster has played. I'm sorry gents but if you have played over 2000 hours in game, writing a scathing review because someone said something that hurt your feelings is just over emotional crap. If you got entertained for .02 cents an hour or less then one way or another the game couldn't have been all that bad. Seriously.
×
×
  • Create New...