Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Decatur

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Decatur

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. @Cetric de Cornusiac I do agree that it's certainly a complicated thing to code relatively speaking. However, I am of the mind that carrying those totems, whether or not people forgot, would be at their own risk. If the switch would be easier, then maybe that's the way forward for implementing the AI. I merely wished to ensure that something that was already coded into the game could be made use of and possibly incorporate the Dev's hard work. I suggested that the random element be added as we do already see this to some extent in hostility missions, and adding greater rewards would make participating in these battles both challenging and rewarding.
  2. I actually think this would be a really cool feature to see if the admins have time to code that in. See flaming debris erupt from the ships and ignite vessels they strike.
  3. @BuckleUpBones Peace server isn't the war server. Many individuals pick the peace server because they're players seeking something else out of the game. Some may use it as a trade simulator, others a greater social focus than what PvP may offer, others may simply wish to enjoy the game's beautifully crafted world, etc. So@admin's statement in my opinion is absolutely right. They've paid money just like everybody else to play the same game, and to ensure they could play the game in the manner they wished to play it, they joined the peace server to do exactly that. @admin Might I propose @Jonathan Latimer's comment? Perhaps carrying a loki rune in the hold of your vessel would allow you to be targeted by an aggressive AI fleet. But since it's risk vs reward, maybe make the AI fleet: (a) match the Battle Rating of the player or their Battle Group? Then setting the vessels they see to match the BR in some random fashion? (EG: A 900 BR ship might see a 900 BR ship, or a mix of ships that reach 900 BR) and (b) making these ships worthwhile to be attacked by (seasoned woods in the cargo hold, significant doubloon payouts, gold chests, etc.) This way the immersion occurs, but its up to the players selection to participate, and makes the new challenge rewarding for them.
  4. @adminI think aggressive AI on the peace server isn't necessarily a good thing. I do see its merit and value for the PvP server to help make ganking harder. But for the PvE server, I wager I speak for myself and several others, when I state that I/we are not a significant fan of this development given that people are told it's a calm environment at server selection. People here play for the peaceful environment and to appreciate all the good work that was put into the game. From beautiful graphics, using it as a trading simulator (remember seeing some comments about that in the past), or just the thrill of testing themselves, at their leisure, against bigger ships/fleets. To ensure people can do this, @Liq's idea is sound. Adding a player controlled system as to whether or not they'd like aggressive AI to be able to attack them seems fair. However, it may be easier coding just to remove it from the server entirely.
  5. I'm with CLAW, the largest American clan that I am aware of, and as it stands I'm certainly open to the idea. Our leader will need to validate anything, but there's certainty a fine merit of truth to this. With so many prospective ports, there's more than enough wealth to be shared and enjoyed by all. To ease the logistical burdens of diplomacy, perhaps a shared discord server where a single representative of the biggest clans for a nation represent their nation as whole through a shared alliance strategy. This would be beneficial, as each nation could help divide which 55 port and region they'd like to focus their efforts in. Given there's not enough 55 ports for everyone, sharing seems to be a highly beneficial strategy. Nation's with lesser populations who aren't able to acquire a 55 port might be given consideration by being provided a greater share of the map as a whole. Although those who'd be unable to get a 55 port would therefore get more map share, thus creating a feeling of fair consideration for their inability to get such a port. Therefore eliminating any hostile feelings among other nations, and remaining true to the peace server's spirit of cooperation and reduced tension.
  6. I originally got this game years ago to help assist in the overall technical development and testing of the game. To this end, I find this concept of ambush tactics on peaceful players go against every reason why people join the PvE server. If the developers wish to implement such elements into the game, then it not only contradicts everything they've said before "there will be no PvP in the PvE server" but does so in a manner that ruins the game for many new players should a more professional player join the fight and sink them. Further, ambush PvP isn't fair PvP. If PvP is enabled, then I'd suggest doing things in a more sea trials manner. Allowing players access to consensual duels that both sides agree too via port; with a safety of not losing ships. Therefore adding fair PvP into the server in a manner that doesn't contradict open world peace mechanics, or create an unfair advantage through surprise.
×
×
  • Create New...