Juan Navarre
-
Posts
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Juan Navarre
-
-
4 hours ago, Macjimm said:
I'm not able to get a view from the deck unless I use the camera view, or the aiming view in a battle. When I use the aiming view I can't turn all the way around: I can only have about 180 degrees view before it jumps up above the deck.
The game would be improved if the ship could be controlled in camera view both in an instance, and in the OW. This shouldn't be too much of a hardship for PvPers as they don't have to use the camera view.
Wierd. And you are zoomed in all the way with your scroll wheel?
I wonder if it has to do with which ship you are sailing. I seem to be able to stay on the deck in my Indefatigable. Might be because it goes right to the bow chasers or stern chasers.
Anyway, I agree that a first person view from the helm would be ideal.
-
On 6/14/2018 at 10:08 PM, Macjimm said:
Hmmm ... I must be missing something in the 'aim' view. I can right mouse click and lock myself in the center of the ship, on the deck, in an instance and I can look from side to side ... but I can't move around on the deck unless I am in camera view. And if I look too far to the left or the right, when aiming, the view jumps up above the deck again.
Can't walk around the deck, but if you are zoomed all the way in with the scroll wheel, you can look around a full 360 left and right and stay on the deck in the center of the ship. That is how I usually do most of the battles, just turning from starboard aiming to bow chasers, to larboard, to stern chasers.
Unfortunately, if you press Ctrl+H, it won't seem to let you switch out chain, grape, charge, etc... So it is tricky to do the whole battle without the holographic HUD. -
1 hour ago, Slim McSauce said:
It's time to build the final product of what OW should mean to NA. For too long its been a backdrop to the great combat instance and a chore to sail and navigate, having people half afk for hours just to be on their way. Too much time is spent sailing to have OW be a shell.
I really thought, reading the game's description, that the OW was what the game was all about. That it would be like Sailaway, but with 18th century brigs and frigates instead of modern cruisers and catamarans, and with the occasional naval battle to spice things up. There is no combat in Sailaway. Sailing the OW is the entirety of the game. Just like the OW is the entirety of MS Flight Simulator and XPlane. The OW is fun in those games because there is more to sailing a boat or flying a plane than just WASD around the map.
Sailing in the open world would be fun if there were any actual sailing involved.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:
If your going to do something like this than do it like how POTBS did it. You had fallback ships. As you level up your fallback ship is bump up in level as to what you get. Starting players the cutter (think it was a sloop of some kind) up to a certain level. I would say in this game the Cerberus would make a better fallback ship than the Surpise. The only way to get a fallback ship though is you have to die and have no other ships in your inventory (I think it was limited to only combat ships so you could still have trade ships). The ship is a reduces stat version of the normal ship so it's pretty much like our Oak/Crew Space shop ships. This will do two things. It will give folks a ship to fallback on if all there other combat ships are sunk and the other is it will limit folks to only using them when they have no other ships (stops basic cutter abuse by RA"s and such as you have to have no other combat ships to use them).
Change when folks sink/die to send them back to the closest owned ports only. There is no reason for some one to be sent to closest friend ports if they don't have an outpost in it. If they are doing something like PvP zone missions they would still have an outpost in that port close by any way. There is really no reason to be sending folks back to a closets friendly port other than abused by folks with fleets. Than if they have a fleet they go to closet freindly port since they have ships, only when you have no other ships does it send you to your outpost only.
This seems complex, contrived and like it would require a completely new mechanism.
Missions in an assigned ship dedicated to that mission would be simple, intuitive, and the mechanism is already in place for the tutorials.
As the OP observed, the appeal of the game for many is to be in an interactive Jack Aubrey story. Jack got assigned to the Sophie, and told what his mission was. He didn't have to purchase her, outfit her with mods and upgrades and then wander around looking for something to do.
It is just intuitive that if you have the skills, but don't have the capital, you sail someone else's ship until you can afford one of your own.
-
4 hours ago, Nelsons Barrel said:
Ship is only capable to enter/initiate battles inside the pvp-zone.
Your suggestion is basically a free card for the pve-crowd to do pve in 5th rate size for zero cost and that is what I don't like. The pve-crowd should at least buy/capture for a bigger sized ships to have any impact in the game economy. 5ths are pretty cheap to get still, so why make it easier?
While that players don't get any reason to do pvp right now. It's expensive and if you are not that great or just a beginner, you just get smashed too many times and loose your stuff and you will get back to your safezone and hope for some to come to you so you at least get inside a battle with other players even its a big gank where you only shoot once or twice and only chase them for 90mins. As it is right now.
As I mentioned in another thread, missions on the PvP server should play matchmaker. French players getting a mission in a 5th rate at no cost will defend their nations weapons shipment against British players whose mission is to capture said French weapons shipment, etc...
If you have no control over what ship and upgrades you are using, it would be a way to create balanced encounters in which people's objective will be to accomplish their mission, rather than to preserve their irreplacable Hercules, so that they don't get stuck in a cutter.
Letting people run missions without having to use their cutter to capture a snow, and then using their Snow to capture a Cerberus, and then using their Cerberus to capture a Belle Poule, just to get back to where they were each time they lose their ship, won't ruin the game economy.
It would in fact be less disastrous than the current setup, where deleting and starting a new character is extremely lucrative. I've seen those naval clocks going for 10Mil, and a Hercules note going for 4Mil + 800 combat marks + an Agamemnon.
Even aside from all the nonsense that can be done with alts, if I were inclined to join a clan, what would keep me from outfitting my whole clan with all the Hercules notes and Naval Clocks they want, and then getting a few quid pro quo from my clan afterwards?
Seems to me that if you get no starting cash, no ships, and the reward for passing the exam is just the rank, and the missions that go along with that rank, it would eliminate a lot of those types of shenanigans, and be better for the game economy all around.
-
6 minutes ago, Nelsons Barrel said:
Just checked, you are right here. My bad.
I think instead of someone else ship to control I prefer the solution for a PvP-Event where the needed ship is provided to you for that specific event and nothing else for. As we have seen, free ships are used for trolling and we only got rid of it by making basic cutter unable to pvp at all. So new players can actually learn how to pvp for no costs but you don't destroy some of the crafting-economy by giving out free ships in 5th rate size.
I am not quite sure how you distinguish between captaining someone else's ship, and being provided with a ship for a specific event and nothing else.
Is it your ship that you own and can do whatever you want with, or is it a ship that you are captaining, but do not own?
-
2 hours ago, Nelsons Barrel said:
Not true, they raised crewcount per rank. So a 'Master and Commander' ends up with a max crew of 400. Makes it possible for him to min-crew a Wasa from start.
Not true. M&C can have a max of 280. 400 is post captain.
I think a better route than having basic ships to buy for free like the cutter, would be missions where you captain someone else's ship.
So, for example, a M&C without a ship of their own could take a mission in a Surprise, which they would be unable to sell. They would only be able to attack the target of the mission, and would not be able to place anything in the hold, or remove the supplies provided from the ship. If they have the fleet perk, they can keep any ship that they capture during the mission, and by completing the mission, they will receive enough reals to afford to buy their own ship.-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, maturin said:
You are misremembering here.
Shannon was to leeward in the engagement. Her fire shot away Chesapeake's headsails, causing her to luff up and become unmanageable. Then boarding began, necessarily with the two ships essentially stationary.
As for Serapis vs Bonhomme Richard, the British ship's jibboom became tangled in the American's mizzen shrouds (the textbook method for grappling an opponent, on the part of Cpt. Jones), but the boom broke. So Serapis may have had a bit of way on. After that, Serapis' anchor became afoul of her enemy's sides. But it was dusk, with a land breeze on the east coast of Britain. Probably not that windy.
As mentioned above, the preferred method of boarding an opponent was letting him ram you in the shrouds. It went without saying that this was not advisable at 10 knots. Battles were just fought at slower speeds in reality.
The momentum of the ships moving apart, snapping the grapples like spaghetti noodles. A line strong enough to withstand that kind of force cannot be thrown because it is too heavy.
I stand corrected.
-
Historical accounts aside, I can't think of any mechanism that would prevent ships with similar velocities from grappling because of their speed through the water.
The leeward ship would presumably be able to cast grappling hooks from further away due to height advantage of the increased heel. Other than that, what else would STW or SOG affect with regard to casting grappling hooks?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Palatinose said:
Out of curiosity: could any historically versed user confirm this?
A better historian than I might correct me on this, but I sincerely doubt there are any accounts of boarding that include the speeds of the ships. 18th century ships were not equipped with the precision speedometers we are accustomed to in Naval Action. They had chip logs, which were pieces of wood cast overboard and attached lines with knots tied at regular intervals. A sailor would count the knots that were payed out over a period of time accounted by use of a sandglass.
Needless to say, this involved process would only be accurate at all if the ship were kept on course for the duration, and would be impractical to use in a pitched battle while maneuvering to board an enemy. Additionally, the crew might have had other priorities than determining their speed at the time.
We can infer that grappling was accomplished at a variety of speeds though. The first and most obvious inference is that if bringing the enemies speed down was a challenge that boarders had to overcome, there would be some account of it, and of the techniques used to reduce an enemies speed to a point where boarding would be possible.
There are also accounts such as the 1779 battle of the HMS Serapis and USS Bonhomme Richard, in which Captain John Paul Jones tethered his ship to Serapis as a counter to the smaller ship's superior maneuverability and gunpower. If he had to reduce the Serapis to 2 knots before lashing the ships together, then lashing the ships together would not be an effective way to reduce her maneuverability, since it would be a moot point if he had to effectively reduce her maneuverability in order to reduce her maneuverability.
Further, in 1799, the USS Chesapeake was heeling enough that she could only hit the rigging of the Shannon, when she lost maneuverability and became entangled with the other ship, and was subsequently boarded. The only way she would be heeling that much is if she was under enough sail to be going more than 2 knots.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Shrez said:
It's a combat game not whale hunting.
Did they remove trading and crafting and switch to an arena style deathmatch game? I must have missed the memo.
-
1
-
-
Curiously enough, in his 1782 treatise on the subject of naval tactics, John Clerk sorely neglects the very effective tactic of ramming your bow into another ship under full sail in order to push them windward and get them down to the 2kts required to board. One would think he would have dedicated half the book to that, and the other half to the art of mast-sniping. It makes you wonder, "did he even sail?"
It seems to me that DD is silly, but no sillier than the rest of the boarding mechanics. If there are going to be magic missiles in the game, why not have magic shield spells to counter them?
-
I love everything except the health bar, and extracting the oil onboard. Onboard tryworks weren't really a thing until the 19th century as far as I know.
You should get blanket pieces for your hold that you can either sell, or refine into oil at a refinery building that you can build at an outpost.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Hugh Latham said:
Xebecs are interesting and different ships, but I don't think there were any in the Caribbean. Crossing the Atlantic in a ship with so little freeboard would have been a harrowing experience, at best.
Considering that these Xebecs are equipped with shipboard sensors that can identify the number of life forms on board an enemy vessel, along with detailed info on it's hull integrity and sailing performance, an INS heading indicator that incorporates wind info, and radar equipped with friend-or-foe info, I imagine they have cryogenic tanks for long voyages like that.
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, Macjimm said:
I can only position myself on the deck with the camera view, and when I do I am unable to control the ship.
I use the camera view to move along the deck and experience looking out at the wave top level. I can also use the keys to climb the mast for a "all round look".
Wish it were possible to control the ship from on the deck ... But it is not.
Right mouse button in combat takes you to the deck to aim your cannons. From there you can move around and you will be at deck level and still have control of your ship. Doesn't work for OW though.
-
1 hour ago, Hethwill said:
For sure
But, how is that different ( in Caribbean server perspective ) from two French captains guarding two other French captains transport ships which may be, at any time, intercepted by two Royal Navy captains ?
It is different in several ways.
Firstly, it removes the obligation for the players to break the ice and organize everything themselves.
Secondly, it balances the encounter, so that it is challenging, but feasible for either party to succeed.
Thirdly, the players can recieve rewards from their respective government for completing the mission.
Fourthly, individual stories could be tied into a larger national plot progression.
There are some other differences and advantages, but more to the point, I would contest the implied assumption that your scenario would be the prevailing alternative.
The real question is "How is this different from two French captains and two British captains all wandering around the OW on their own, looking for something to do besides getting ganked?"
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Macjimm said:
There is a depth and richness to the story created by player interactions that would be very difficult to achieve with in-game restrictions. The open world sandbox has limitless opportunities.
My character has experienced a facinating journey during the last couple years. A story of; assistance and treachery, friends and foes, gifts and ganks, being hopelessly lost and pinpoint timely arrivals. The outcomes are never certain and I have little idea what will happen around the next cape.
I cannot imagine the Devs creating anything close.
They can't replace the richness of a story driven by player interactions, but they can foster it.
For example, the French Navy assigns two of their captains to guard a weapons shipment, while the Royal Navy sends two of it's own captains (who just happen to be evenly matched in terms of rank and ships) to intercept and capture that shipment.
-
1
-
-
For the tutorials, the player starts out as the XO on a naval ship tasked with protecting a merchant vessel. They have to follow the Captain's orders while learning the controls.
During the mission, the captain takes some grape to the head, and the player takes command for the final exam.
The merchant that the player saves offers to hire them to captain for their trading fleet if they ever decide to leave the navy. The admiralty of the nation commends them for their bravery, promotes them, and offers them command of a naval vessel if they decide to stay on.
The player can then choose to captain the naval ship, and recieve orders from the navy, work for the merchant tycoon and recieve trade missions, or turn them both down and strike out on their own.
The naval missions would relate the story of the nation's war effort. Trade missions would relate the story of helping build the merchant's trade empire.
-
1
-
-
On 6/5/2018 at 9:37 AM, Oberon74 said:
There is a thrill to hunting the prey and a thrill in sneaking a trader past the wolves.
You mean the thrill of pointing your ship directly at another ship and pressing the attack button?
Wouldn't there be more thrill if you the hunt involved controlling your yards for better turn rate? If getting caught in irons while trying to escape was a real peril? If leading your pursuers into treacherous reefs that you could better navigate with your superior sailing skills and more maneuverable craft was a viable strategy?
-
2
-
-
I hope that the boarding mechanics will change more fundamentally than just little tweaks to the rock, paper, scissors game.
The emotional pacing of combat in NA seems backwards it me.
Maneuvering, getting the weather gauge, timing a rake, etc... should be a cerebral, strategic endeaver, but because each Captain has to aim the cannons themself, it is turned into a fast-paced, action packed first person shooter.
Boarding, by contrast, really should be a visual, visceral, fast-paced, action packed game of firing flintlocks and crossing swords. Instead, it is a downright tedious game of waiting 15 seconds, pressing a little rectangular button, and then waiting another 15 seconds.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, Oberon74 said:
But the OW has to be there for us to hunt each other. I don't just want a portal to combat. There is a thrill to hunting the prey and a thrill in sneaking a trader past the wolves. I agree that OW can be improved with some content, but I also believe that it should remain time compressed to lessen the pain of the long journeys. That goes against your wish for the realistic sailing attributes. We need a way to give content to OW without making it painfully long.
You are quite incorrect. At no point did I suggest that the OW should not be time compressed. In fact, I think the time compression is great, and have said so in this very thread.
What I would like is the sailing mechanics of combat in the open world, and some sailing challenges to overcome, like storms, reefs, rocks, currents etc...
-
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:
Unless you've changed it since, your original post does not suggest optional. Again, twist it, and that's fine. But my reply is to your original suggestion. I assumed you wanted to discuss its merits, sorry.
I made those suggestions over the course of this thread. Your use of the pronoun "his" in reference to the OP indicates that you meant "original poster" rather than "original post".
Regardless, the OW was meant to be more than just a portal for RvR and trade. It was clearly meant to be a gameplay element:
11 hours ago, Juan Navarre said:Enormous open world – Large open world, recreated based on 18th Century maps, historical harbors, positions, and town names. We do not believe in the various modern hand-holding markers, thus player position is not shown on the map: you will have to navigate yourself using compass, sun or landmarks.
As a gameplay element, it could be improved with some sailing content.
As a portal for combat, it could be improved with a "teleport to combat" button.
Right now the OW seems like it is pretty boring for the sailors and the sport gamers alike.
-
3 hours ago, Jean Ribault said:
The OP did not suggest that his methods were "optional",
Sure I did. I suggested a couple different options for people who don't like sailing the OW. I suggested an arena style server where people could have their combat and avoid the OW altogether. I also suggested that folks should be able to let their XO take the helm and auto-navigate to a destination port.
-
14 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said:
This isn't a sailing simulator, I couldn't get on board with this. Rocko summed it up nicely. You're thinking of a different game here.
I realize that it isn't a sailing simulator. In fact, the lack of simulated sailing in the game (and the corresponding potential for there to be simulated sailing in the game) was rather the crux of my suggestion.
Perhaps I was thinking of a different game. Maybe you know where I could find it? The game I was thinking of has all this realistic sailing stuff based on historical 18th century maps, hull models, sail plans, speeds, turning and heel performance:
QuoteEnormous open world – Large open world, recreated based on 18th Century maps, historical harbors, positions, and town names. We do not believe in the various modern hand-holding markers, thus player position is not shown on the map: you will have to navigate yourself using compass, sun or landmarks. PS. battles are instanced to allow extremely complex sailing and fighting calculations for 50 ship battles.
Freedom – Build ships, trade, sink enemies of your nation. You can attack anyone almost everywhere. Remember that every action could have consequences. So don't attack everyone - or you will become a pirate. Conquer almost every port in the Caribbean, but remember! other adventurous captains will try to ruin your plans.
Beautiful ships – Accurate hull models, sail plans, guns, internal upgrades, historical speed, turning and heel performance. Ships from small cutters to large 100+ gun 1st rates will allow the player to experience every possible role of the Age of Sail period.
Realistic sailing – Advanced wind and physics model provides for realistic portrayal of ship’s performance in the age of sail. Yard angles, ship angle to wind, fittings and ship condition affects speeds and turning rates. Correct tacking, boxhauling, clubhauling and other elements of the age of sail sailing are possible. Hidden ship characteristics will allow to gradually uncover potential of the vessel – every ship in game will be unique.-
4
-
Balancing Hercules and Le Requin with other Free ships
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
+1
Beyond getting stuck, I understand that there is some historical precedent for ships running into underwater rocks suffering some kind of damage.
It would be great to see naval strategy pull some more weight in the game. It seems to me that the strategy in the game currently is all about choosing which mods and upgrades to ruin the authenticity of your ship's performance with.
Getting the weather gauge and keeping your bearings provides precious little advantage compared with having l337 sniper skilz.
Having to pay attention to shallows would go a long way to bringing some more strategy into the game.