akd
-
Posts
2,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by akd
-
-
I was there and pirate screeners would not have been able to stop the fleet. Surprised the fleet couldn't leave immediately given the BR difference (more than 12x I think)
-
3
-
-
Admin, are you going to address the huge error made in conversion rate for existing PvP marks?
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Slamz said:
The theory as I see it:
Endy speed advantage is still an advantage because if you want to speed cap a Connie you have to cripple it. We'd need to do the math to be sure about this but I'm betting that if you got a Connie up to 15 knots it would be by making it fir/fir, putting several speed mods with various negative effects on it and maybe even reducing its guns.
In the end, you would have a total piece of crap Connie that's mainly good at running and is terrible at fighting.
Meanwhile you take an Endy, build it and mod it with SOME speed improvements but also with SOME tanky features and you have a 15 knot ship that is actually worth a damn and can still fight.
In summary, yes, I bet you can make a 15 knot Endy and a 15 knot Connie and the 15 knot Endy would totally kick the 15 knot Connie's ass.This would be true if it were not for the massive, illogical speed nerf to Endymion close-hauled.
-
17 minutes ago, Blackjack Morgan said:
Maybe because you like to PvP? C'mon man drop the drama already, the Oscars are over. You guys are whining because you were running around ganking newbs and getting easy money and access to loot from the admiralty shop. All I ever want to do in NA is PvP but I sure as hell don't have a problem with guys who do PVE missions getting access to GEAR that everyone should have access to in the first place. Go ahead and make paints or other cosmetic rewards available for pvp marks or something like that....but alot of this gear should have been accessible to everyone.
The problem is the opportunity cost, and the fact that certain things (random drops) are still much more easily accessible through PvE than PvP. The much higher value of a PvP mark vs. PvE mark was the compensation. It's not like PvE players were blocked from buying and using PvP marks, and not like they weren't rich from selling nice module drops (I know I have made a few fairly rich).
9 minutes ago, Blackjack Morgan said:I understand there are no more PvP marks....simply saying that if we need a special reward shop for pvp it should be in the form of cosmetic style upgrades not gear that often times is stuff everyone should have access to. Example, Optimized Rudder....I have zero problems with everyone having access to this. I just enjoy having good fights and PAINT....I really like PAINT.
I'd agree if the same things available in the shop (and some things that aren't) were not accessible through grinding AI before marks even enter the equation.
-
1
-
-
Combination of no signal perk and revenge fleet ganks made unbalanced ganking the most efficient and safe way of gaining PvP marks. The change to combat marks doesn't affect that equation, but just further disincentivizes PvP in general. The longer and more fair a battle is, the more likely the victor is to get stomped on exit.
Admin, did you look at value of PvP marks in game before making this change, or was this another knee-jerk stab in the dark?
-
3
-
-
Quote
- PvP marks and PvE marks removed and replaced by Combat marks
- PvP kills now give 2x combat marks to the previous pvp marks (if you got 2 pvp marks for kill you would get 4 combat marks)
-
1
-
This is a PvE game now.
-
3
-
-
modified my compromise proposal to address ROE and battle camping:
2 min to join battle, unless you have signal perk and are attacked by a superior force. Signal perk should be a balance of time open vs. BR ratio reinforcement allowed (the higher the reinforcement ratio, the shorter the time to remain open). 30 seconds invisibility on exit. Also 2 min invulnerability after exiting battle, but only if you don't move. When you log back in, you are visible, you can be attacked, but you cannot attack for 5 min. Could reduce after battle time by 5-10 min. Effects:
-no hiding in port to join battles, limits on hiding out of view to join battles.
-signal perk allows home defense fleets to respond directly to ganks of solo players, with probability of help increasing in proportion to proximity of friendly, populated ports. Battles will either start "fair" or become "fair" if there is a home defense fleet available (yes, "fairness" will always be subjective).
-2 min invulnerability would allow you to log-off at sea in the face of revenge fleet, but 1.) you must commit to logging off almost immediately on exit and 2.) cannot try and run first. If you want to run, you have only the 30 sec. invisibility.
-if you log-off, opposition has successfully removed you as a threat (home defense success) and knows exactly where you will be if you log in. Home will be defended as long as home defense fleet remains a fleet in being.
-opposition knows whether you are logging off or running. No fog-of-war about people hiding in finished battles or teleporting away (other than to nearest port, which if operating in enemy waters is again self-balancing).
-long no attack timer on logging back in makes log-off after battle less useful for ambushes.
-you don't get to retag players near their own ports over and over if they legitimately escape, because they can also use 2min to TP to nearest port. Almost useless for (non-smuggler) players sailing in enemy waters, so abuse potential is low. Teleport should be modified so that deep ships go to nearest deep port and shallow ships go to nearest port.
-under this system "vengeance" following a fair battle or retag griefing may temporarily block a player from play, but it is not going to make them lose all their shit and almost inevitably quit. Getting blocked from play sucks, but is a reasonable consequence to getting outnumbered. Being held hostage to game and forced to play for an unlimited amount of time or lose all your shit is a fatal design flaw.
-if necessary, all protections could be removed when exiting a severe "gank" that did not receive reinforcements
TL/DR - if in friendly waters or near a free port, you have a post-battle risk removal option. If in enemy waters, you cannot remove post-battle risk and must pay time tax to avoid revenge fleet and reduce (but not eliminate) risk. Most importantly: no one is ever put in a position where they have to keep playing for an indeterminate amount of time.
-
4
-
-
The best part is when all the players from the first battle that failed are waiting to gank outside the battle while you clean up. So you have to fight the same players again, and if you win again, you get no rewards.
-
3
-
-
How about this:
2 min invulnerability after exiting battle, but only if you don't move. When you log back in, you can be attacked, but cannot attack for 5 min. Could reduce after battle time to 5 min. Effects:
-this would allow you to log-off at sea in the face of revenge fleet, but 1.) you must commit to logging off almost immediately on exit and 2.) cannot try and run first.
-if you log-off, opposition has successfully removed you as a threat (home defense success) and knows exactly where you will be if you log in. Home will be defended as long as home defense fleet remains a fleet in being.
-opposition knows whether you are logging off or running. No fog-of-war about people hiding in finished battles or teleporting away.
-long no attack timer on logging back in makes log-off after battle less useful for ambushes.
-you don't get to retag traders near their own ports over and over if they legitimately escape, because they can also use 2min to TP to nearest port. Almost useless for players sailing in enemy waters, so abuse potential is low.
-under this system "vengeance" following a fair battle or griefing may temporarily block a player from play, but it is not going to make them lose all their shit and almost inevitably quit. Getting blocked from play sucks, but is a reasonable consequence to getting outnumbered. Being held hostage to game and forced to play for an unlimited amount of time or lose all your shit is a fatal design flaw.
-if necessary, all protections could be removed exiting a severe "gank"
-
3
-
-
33 minutes ago, admin said:
but don't they eventually get a nice and large revenge fleet vs revenge fleet battle?
nope
It's really quite simple:
-gank and then ganked:...eh...fair enough. (although players essentially allowing ganks to enable revenge fleets brings that into question)
-fight long fair / disadvantage battle or make a legitimate escape then get ganked or tagged over and over again: quit game.
-
7
-
-
Why would someone want to wage war overseas in a game called Naval Action?
-
1
-
-
You could just sail a basic cutter. That way you can't attack anyone. This is naval action: you aren't supposed to be attacking people.
-
6
-
-
2 minutes ago, PongoNW said:
Turning off the capitol teleport was a terrible idea. Thanks for making 2 hours of admin sailing per day into 4 hours. Brilliant fail.
I think the big problem is the lack of demand in "provincial" ports for any goods that would be cheaper in the capital. Capitals should produce significant amounts of national goods that are in high demand in provincial national ports (not just other capitals). Those provincial Spaniards absolutely must have their jamon after all. This would provide more opportunities for profitable outbound trips (and more hunting opportunities).
-
3
-
-
I still think an overnight, captain-only freeport teleport would be acceptable, and might actually increase OW presence.
-
Hybrid system: sailing lower ships can add xp to unlocked slots on higher tier ships, but is not required to unlock those slots. This will smooth the progression of new players and remove the arbitrary grind for vets.
-
2
-
-
Steam reviews of competitive MMO games are worthless. Most are not reviews of gameplay, but personal vendettas stemming from perceived disadvantages in competitive play. Social aspect turns MMO steam reviews into toxic cesspool.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, koltes said:
I would like to remind you all that this is not a poll about your opinion,but opinion that is based on RECENT after patch encounters. If you have to argue please bring recent encounters to the table.
As for inability to see being on the other side of the land, or due to lack of visibility or distance you all forget that sound of cannonade was traveling miles above the water and used to be an indicator of ongoing fights, thus attracts coastal defense of check out what is going on.Last night I was playing Cold Waters when a clan mate called out that they were about to catch a player Surprise with Indiaman in his fleet a few minutes away from my outpost. I immediately logged in and set sail toward the reported battle location. I was off a bit in my direction and spotted the battle somewhat more upwind from where I expected. I readjusted course and battle closed just as I approached. Another clanmate who was in area but out of view of initial encounter was able to join in his yacht. The enemy player lost his Surprise, but got his Indiaman out of the battle. So...
5 min timer - I would have got into the battle and that player probably would have lost his Indiaman also.
3 min timer - even though I wasn't in the game and was in port outside of view range of battle location, I would probably gotten into the battle if I sailed the correct course out of port.
2 min timer - there would have been no way to join this battle from port. I would have had to be in game and at sea sailing at least in the same area with my clanmates. Possibly the other clan mate in his yacht that was out of view of initial encounter might not have got in.
1 min timer - enemy player would have only fought the single ship he saw at the time of the initial interception. A good player could have have won that battle or at least escaped with both ships, and could have had the confidence to immediately leverage his AI against the single enemy since he would know no unseen enemies would be dropping in after the battle started.
1 min timer + signal perk - enemy would have only fought the enemies he could see at the time the battle started (and maybe only enemies with good wind position), and if there had been multiple enemies, they might have had to fight any unseen friends 5-10min away from battle (or in port, or not even in the game) he had available to come help him. Allow for 1.2-1.5x BR reinforcement and smart play, and the "gankee" side might even turn the tables on the "ganker" side.
So again, how do short timers combined with generous signal perk advantage "gankers"?
-
6
-
-
50 minutes ago, King of Crowns said:
It wont go 14k kn with 1750 cargo. my trinc is going much faster than that and will eat a Tbrig. I don't see the problem here.
Lynx trader with 8x long 6s has 13.5/500 cargo filled and suffers just .05 speed reduction. Apparently men in naval action are enormous, while guns are tiny things. You can fill a small trader ship with the guns for multiple lineships.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, admin said:
those are not revenge fleets. Those are home defense fleets.
Player base reduction fleets. Everyone will quit after being re-engaged over and over again (more likely to be caught on each escape because of ever growing revenge fleet net) or being forced to fight with certain loss after winning 1-1.5 hour hard battle. If not, it means the vast majority of players just PvE grind and wait for opportunity to gank with massive numbers advantage in home waters. Who will these players PvP against when the others are removed from game?
Signal perk with long open time and reinforcement to 1.2x attacker BR is the proper way to allow for home defense fleets for solo players, not exploitation of battle instancing. Then allow us to log out at end of battle, and force log out for those sitting in finished battles. Logging back into "battle" puts you on OS with 5min cooldown on attacking or joining battle (but not on being attacked).
-
9
-
-
Just now, admin said:
chain and top sections.. top sections and mid sections are fair game
When will you remove laser stern chasers, or give bow and stern chasers same dispersion? When will bogus lower stern chasers on Surprise be removed?
-
49 minutes ago, admin said:
i see this post first time :). But.. if you don't have mast thickness, then you are still doomed against 1v2. Which you could theoretically win
You could also win 1v2 by demasting with superior shooting skills (I don't think I could, but I know some who can)...unless masts are totally invulnerable to damage.
-
7 hours ago, Jœrnson said:
Yep. And from what I've read both should be equal in size.
The most visible difference between the brig and the snow is in the latter's "snow-mast", stepped directly behind the main mast.[7] In contrast to the brig, where the gaff and boom attach directly to the main mast, a snow's gaff, and in later times its boom, were attached to the snow-mast. The use of this characteristic snow-mast offered several advantages over attaching the gaff directly to the main mast.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_(ship)#Comparison_with_brig
"Brig" and "snow" don't define a size, but a rig. There were late Age of Sail brigs as large as earlier frigates.
-
1 minute ago, admin said:
snow will be updated.. it is indeed should be comparable to a brig
Put them side by side. Snow is very small.
Logoff after Battle
in Patch Feedback and General discussions
Posted
The mechanic (force to OS and hold players hostage to game) just encourages ganking. A fair battle lasts longer, so increasing the probability you will face a revenge fleet at a greater radius from "safe waters" (whatever the hello kitty those are). Group gains the same rewards as an individual (just divided among group), so it is simply rational behavior to only gank under current mechanics.
And no, this is not realistic and hardcore. Historically, captains really did receive better "rewards" for fair fights, and a system that allows easy exploitation of OW time compression is not hardcore.