Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Tom Farseer

Members
  • Content Count

    690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

820 Excellent

About Tom Farseer

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Profile Information

  • Location
    : Somewhere in a blizzard

Recent Profile Visitors

632 profile views
  1. Thank you very much for some comprehensive patch notes. While I, personally, still view the port BR limits as over all too high, maybe that will change with the removal of capital based front lines. Let's wait and see I guess. though I still see the inherent problem that smaller Nations will find it above their powers to hold a port worth holding when it comes to crafting ships.
  2. There are 5K br ports, but a solution it isnt the only Solution is join a nation which has numbers. Those are regional ports which means to capture one you still need to go through a 20k BR county capital. Also, as far as I can tell, lower BR is correlated to lower investment points. So smaller nations are supposed to only get inferior ships now too? Granted, the difference between a 55 point port and a 50 point port is negligible. But that is not the case when it goes down to 20 points or less.
  3. What about Belize turned 50 points - British Caracas turned 55 points - Dutch Puerto Espana turned 50 points - Dutch Bridge Town turned 55 points - France Bluefields turned 50 points - British You turned into an outraged bucket of hate again and went completely blind? @Gregory Rainsborough is talking about the BR changes, not the port point changes. Capitals are still 20k BR across the board. And for the last few weeks every Nation except for Russia has massively struggled to fill 20k BR Port Battles, as can be seen by several no show PBs. For all it's players the Dutch can barely get 10k BR together. The French struggle with 20k BR as well. As do the Prussians, the Spanish, the Pirates, the US, the Danish and the Polish. Are those nations supposed to slowly lose all their counties except the incapturable ports?
  4. Erm... what makes you think that? If Nassau weren't almost impossible to take from any defending fleet with half a brain, due to it's fort positions, I assure the vast majority of ships in that battle would be all armed with carronades, as s the case in *any* shallow water PB. As for deep water battles, I am convinced that here as well the majority of captains arm their 1st rates with carronades on the weather deck. Once you reach a distance in line battles where carronades are no longer useless you might as well disable all decks carrying less than 24 pound long guns. (Or maybe the 18 pounders of the rarely seen 3rd rate.)
  5. It is absolutely irrelevant whether there is lack of work capacity with regards to patch notes. Making undocumented changes go live us simply bad practice. This game is no longer early Access. We are now simple customers, not community testers. Writing comprehensive patch notes takes less than a single hour. If that in turn delays release by a day, so be it. Documentation is an integral part of any kind of software development. You should never take time off that for other things unless absolutely necessary.
  6. Just like starting a Hostility Mission before they're even available, this is a feature that works as intended. No need to complain, just get gud and out mechanic the mechanic. lul What is so incredibly infuriating about this is not the mechanic itself but the fact that the ONLY way of finding out about it is by basically losing the battle. There is NO OTHER form of battle instance that closes after the initial countdown runs out. Every single one allows joining for a longer time afterwards. And now for some reason those new NPC Raids immediately close. That completely breaks the pattern of how battle instances work. The smart thing in a defensive PvP PB is to wait and see where the attackers join to then join in the most advantageous position relative to their spawn point. Naturally this is what we did in this Raid. Only to find out that once the enemy is visible inside the instance, the battle instantly closes. And you can only find that out this way. Because if you join within the timer you cannot see from inside that the battle closes on the countdown hitting 0. It is basically letting the players run into a knife, without any chance of warning, for making tactically sound decisions. The result being that we now, through now fault of our own, need to grind up hundreds of CMs and a few hundred thousands of Doubloons if we want to get the port back to it's potential. You can all guess how that works out for keeping players in the game...
  7. I feel your pain, mate. The rather simple and likely disappointing answer to your question is that it is simply a matter of time and resources. Game Labs certainly don't have the resources to deliver all that for a game as multifaceted as this. There have been several attempts at community wikis but the amount of information that needs to be accumulated, condensed and put into a readable format has proven to be too much for the people involved. The best resource for newer players right now would be @Felix Victor's wonderful online map. Even that only displays the info that is dumped daily into some JSON documents for people to parse. Attempts at a full on wiki so far have usually lost traction at some point or other.
  8. You mean the one where Greg (and the rest of us obviously...) attacked Russia at West End and they threw 30+ screeners at us even though they could fill the PB just fine? Don't flatter yourself man, the only thing keeping VCO ships afloat is the lack of adequate enemies in your time zone. I can respect a lot of Russian clans. Some have been good at it for a long time, some haven gotten better recently... From you all I see is big words and sealclubbing...
  9. Victory marks are very much attainable even for solo players, as due to them having no use once a port is fully developed, their sell very cheaply ;)
  10. Glad I could be of help 😃 I think it's neither quite an American nor a Tall Ship phenomenon. L'Hermione would be a European example for stowing the spanker upwards. Whereas all Tall Ships I have seen IRL (say "SS Thor Heyerdahl" (My home away from home) or the "Brigg Roald Amundsen") raise and lower their gaff. So my guess (and I stress the word guess, I am full on speculating here) is that it is related more to the era than to the place of origin. Edit: Man! Ngatira is a beauty indeed!
  11. @DucksnakeNZ I wondered about that as well for a while. Well.. I mostly wondered about how some of the naval history buffs on here weren't up in arms about it already. Turns out that a lot of historical ships did indeed stow their spanker that way. One example being Old Ironsides here Edit: Another example would be the Niagara: Both methods probably have their own pros and cons. Reefing is probably interesting on that Spanker. But stowing and setting is most likely easier and quicker since you skip hauling about all that wood.
  12. Wasa neither needs nerfs nor buffs. The sole reason we see her in OW that much is that no permit is needed to build her and the cost in doubloons is reasonable. Wasa vs. USS US: Skill will mostly decide. Wasa has turn rate advantage and those jucy 32pd cannons. USS US has higher top speed, HP galore and can do well upclose with her lower profile and her 42pd carronades. Wasa vs. Conny: Same as above. Conny has even more HP than USS US and 4 very strong bow chasers (18pd). Boarding advantage for Wasa (obviously). Wasa vs 3rd rate (74): Assuming both carry Carronades on top Wasa only has a slight speed and turn rate advantage. 3rd rate wins on Damage, HP, Sail HP, and Crew. Unless the Wasa captain really shines at outmaneuvering the 3rd rate he will have a hard time. Wasa vs. Bellona: Bellona wins in every single aspect (even speed) except turn rate. Won't help an idiot in a Bellona against a strong PvPer in a Wasa but on stats alone no contest. Wasa is not the best third rate by a long shot. She is just the best freely available third rate. 🤷‍♂️
  13. I love that there seem to be people in this thread who take dear Thonys' role play for a serious declaration of war
  14. Pretty sure it's neither and just an arbitrary number. I can't say for sure because the only bits of info I found on carrying capacity of Indiamen were tonnes burthen, which is a volumetric measurement, not a mass based one. But even for tons deadweight (the actuall carrying capacity in tonnes) 4000 seems a bit extreme to me 🤷‍♂️ Edit: Wikipedia lists the Götheborg's DWT at 166 tons deadweight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Götheborg_(ship) So assuming some were bigger probably still not to 4k...
×
×
  • Create New...