Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Daxav

Members2
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About Daxav

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @contact @admin I've experienced PB disconnect a few times. I'm placed in the PB instance, but seem to get dropped from the server as other people connect. I've attributed to poor connection on my side, but I can't really say why particularly at PBs. I once was completely dropped from the PB, as NA reported that I had been disconnected for too long (although it must have been no more tha 30 seconds). In other instances, I have simply reconnected without problems.
  2. @admin yesterday, after boarding and sinking a trader, i was happily surprised to see it drop around 2000 doubloons (great for someone who's right now grinding for them). I transferred them to my hold and left the battle quickly as I was under attack by a fort. I found a few moments later, back in port, that the doubloons -oh, the horror- were not in my hold. I think the issue was that the trader sank while I looted (judging from the report), and therefore some sort of communication issue with the server and the the status of the trader created this bug. I sent an F11 bug report. @admin h
  3. What do you mean by the pivot point? As far as I understand the so-called pivot point is on a horizontal plane. Recall that bodies rotate over their center-of-mass anyway. I think you mean the metacenter, in which case, yes, as you say if it is below the CoG during heeling, the ship is unstable. The position of the CoG does not depend on the draft, only on the geometry and position of masses. The heeling angle does not change the influence of the weight, only changes the righting moment, which, sure also needs to balance out (possibly) wind. Assuming a constant ship geometry, the ratio of
  4. I´m unsure if the way to go is to have a multi-level supply chain. Although it expands on complexity, it also forces you to grind a lot more... collect and haul resources, craft the parts, move the parts, etc. I think the woods are nice as they allow more combinations of stuff. Reintroducing the old crafting system does not seem to help to introduce a lot of diversity in the general gameplay, although I agree, it allows for more content for strong trader/crafting players. Some people have suggested that craft XP should be also obtained by crafting cannons and upgrades, this would also introduc
  5. Why? This is a complex game. Complexity makes it interesting, dynamic and heterogeneous. Too much simplicity can be argued to be the reason that only dogmatic wood + OP vessels are the choice of many. I'd like to see frigates dominating the sea (as they did historically), not first-rates, which arguably requires introducing significantly more complexity to the construction and maintenance of your fleet so that first-rates are really mostly seen in very large RvR.
  6. Excellent point. I tend to agree. Would be a nice addition to increase complexity. By keeping track of the time a ship spends at sea, there could be a penalty to speed, which is recovered either by careening (paying for it!) or leaving the ship for some time alone... larger ships would of course suffer/cost more. The interaction of these dynamics with wood, thus including a new "durability" stat would be interesting. Just thinking out loud.
  7. Thanks for the point-of-view. I can see that different displacement volumes will generate the center of mass and the center of buoyancy to move (vertically) further apart, potentially increasing a moment that will make the ship to heel a lot and perhaps capsize. But precisely because of the positions of those centers, I can't see why the water line should be fixed, as the position of the center of mass depends both on shape and density. Even assuming that to be true, an appropriately sized keel should compensate. The question is then, if the size of the keel to prevent excessive heeling will g
  8. I think @Sir Texas Sir points to the core of the issue. There are players who are not interested in a fair and fun game for everyone, but only interested in winning and exploiting everything. That is why a reputation score is good. You get penalised for being a dick. Simple. There are of course lots of honorable and non-dick players. But this behaviour is not rewarded in a winner-takes-all game. Let's remember that it IS a game. I had a nice experience a couple of days ago, while hunting down a Diana, I was unlucky to get a Loki jumping in. I was already undercrewed (and with lousy ping), bu
  9. I disagree. Wood density matters, as it affects the weight of the vessel. Why should the displacement be the same, as a different weight will allow for a lower water line to keep buoyancy? This in turn implies a smaller contact surface, which in turn, necessarily implies lower friction (together with a lower weight). Therefore, I can see speed being affected. I'm not a naval architect (but let's just say I really know my Fluid Dynamics)... I would love to understand these arguments. Turn inertia makes perfect sense. Higher mass => higher inertia. Acceleration, deceleration and turn
  10. First of all, although the new mechanics seem a really harsh change, I am with @admin. I believe they are addressing one of the most discouraging problems that players (especially casual ones) experience... you sail to dangerous waters hoping to engage on PvP with someone you have a chance, and 50 seconds later 3 gankers join in.... just a big waste of time. I like the reputation system. It makes sense that if you mess with other nations, you suffer some consequences. I think that some clarifications are needed from @admin urgently, before we all spin the interpretations any further
  11. I think that having player-owned, AI controlled trade convoys would indeed add a lot of content and versatility to the game. I see some very good proposals for the mechanics here. Personally, I think it is obvious that if you want to have good control and maximum safety for your trade, you should do it yourself. Right now, there is no choice. You have to. By introducing an AI controlled trading convoy players have a choice, balancing risk, resources and time. Whoever cries over the AI not being smart enough to defend its convoy should, first, not use the option, and second, be consistent and n
  12. The "Show goods' relation' dropdown list appears to be broken. I've tested on chrome, edge, and also on an ipad. No list is display, and no search is possible.
  13. I also think the winner-takes-all is the real issue. I find too many players here calling out on zergs, and too many people defending that they are not zergs. It doesn’t really matter. As @Christendom says, playing on the loosing side sucks, because you perceive that you have wasted a lot of time. I don’t blame people for wanting to play on the winning side... it’s reasonable and expected. Someone asked why a war game needs balancing... well, because it is a game. Not actual war. Games should be sustainable, especially OW, MMO sandboxy games. War is not meant to be sustainable. And what crea
  14. Gleiche Meinung hier. Wir brauchen 'negative feedbacks'... habe ich dass hier geschrieben...
  15. I think the problem is not the number of nations, but the positive feedback mechanics in the game. My point of view comes from many years of complex system analysis. If you want to have a self-balanced system you cannot only have positive feedbacks, but you need negative ones. Otherwise, you quickly spin into very homogeneous -and boring- systems. I don't really think there are too many nations, or that @admin should re-balance players/nations. The system should be self-balanced, and let players pick their colors as they find interesting, with a more sophisticated rewards system. The proble
×
×
  • Create New...