akd
-
Posts
2,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by akd
-
-
Glorious patch! A patch to patch all patches.
Link to production buildings topic is missing.
-
1
-
-
If this keeps Spanish players playing and stops further mass defections to other factions, then by all means reach back as many days as you like to make a long list. Just remember, a list of kills is not a list of battle wons.
-
6
-
-
You forget a key feature of bronze cannons, bronze is a metal that cools down faster, allowing you to reload faster wirhout a need to cool the cannon.(effectively a faster rate of fire)
I'm afraid you have this backward Steel. Bronze guns heated up faster, and so had to have their rate of fire artificially restrained. However, if they did overheat and burst, it was not catastrophic like an iron gun. The most significant practical advantage of bronze was lighter weight, but it also did not corrode at sea. And then there was a somewhat intangible prestige factor, e.g. our Sviatoi Pavel - serving as the BSF flagship - was armed with bronze long guns at a rather late date.
-
2
-
-
Why not just let people figure it out through experience?
-
2
-
-
This is the insidious effect of not having a meaningful surrender system. It corrupts many other aspects of Age of Sail tactics in game.
-
2
-
-
Roughly even PvP will earn back enough to pay for a loss, or set you back only a little. People just don't want to lose fights, and game makes it very, very easy to avoid fighting.
-
1
-
-
Most important development in the game. This is what is needed to tie OS to battles and fully integrate the beautiful world devs have created.
Please also consider returning battle instances to real time (or much reduced accelerated time), so that not only can be have a battle under a shore battery in the narrows outside Tortue, but a dawn battle or a night battle or a foggy battle in that location.
-
10
-
-
PVP1 drops to 700-800 people in US primetime. Greatest thing for the game would be if all the US players on PVP2 came over to PVP1, but joined nations other than US, Pirates and GB, and if the Euro players from PVP2 (probably not a huge number) would join US faction. Maybe devs could offer some incentives?
-
2
-
-
Players with extensive knowledge of Age of Sail will also be confused because there was not one single system of rating, and even particular systems changed with time. Rates are arbitrary and tell you nothing about actual relative combat power. Counting guns can lead you astray as well.Great thread, hope you can keep it up to date as ships are developed.
As for ratings I would use in game rates, as players without the extensive knowledge of age of sail will be confused with your list when in game if they are looking at a specific rate and they don't see the ship listed there.
But yes, the in-game rating system should be used.
-
1
-
-
Being a part of a nation is having who you can and cannot attack dictated to you.
Technically our nation has dictated to us that we are at war with all other nations and should attack them and expect to be attacked by them. Individuals / clans are attempting to subvert this (understandably, since the game provides no formal tools) through informal agreements that are too broad. I'm not saying I don't support the goals, or think they are not best for the nation, I am just saying that they are too far reaching (peace / war) to be fair or understandable to all players, which leads to some players getting pulled along or thrown under the bus in contravention of the dictates of the game itself, and to inevitable grief when players run into eachother on the OS and gameplay happens.
More limited agreements on not attacking particular ports accomplish the same goals (enabling national strategy and concentration of resources if you can coordinate clans) without confusion and potential for cycles of retaliation resulting from every random OS encounter.
-
Attempting informal, full ceasefires / peace in the absence of in-game systems is asking for grief and confusion. It is also arguably deeply unfair. A player paid the same as everyone else for the game, yet they find what they can and cannot do in-game is being dictated by small groups of individuals. They are limited in what they can do, while a small sub-set of players get access to a whole different form of gameplay that is now doubt very fun, gratifying and flattering for them, but excludes the majority of the nation.
Much simpler would be agreements between clans not to participate in territorial acquisition (port battles or running interference for port battles). This is much easier to implement and more democratic.
-
1
-
-
AFAIK, if the player then immediately leaves, it will say "escaped" rather than "sank," so unless you are actively watching the TAB window, it is hard to know if the player escaped before sinking.
I would consider this a bug: TAB screen should just say "sank" whether the player stays in to observe or leaves.
-
Don't go to Texas. Things never turn out well for goats in Texas.
-
If the model fits the requirements it can be kept as is, if not it has to be made from scratch.
So if Malachi's model ends up meeting requirements, then everyone voting for Bellona here is using a vote just to ensure it gets added (built from scratch) if he doesn't meet the criteria? Personally, I would gamble on Malachi. He seems to know what he is doing and is making fast progress.
-
scale BR of the ship to it's crew (cannot exceed original BR if over-crewed)
ie ship with 300BR with a capt who can only muster 50% of the max crew = 150BR
the math is already in place in game and calculates the percentage on your ship screen when in port
end of problem
Only for purposes of PB victory ratio, however. It would not be amusing to join an even BR fight on OS and find that one side is actually stacked with under-crewed third rates.
-
Well, it looks like Diana and Admiraal de Ruyter are racing each other to the top, and most of the others have already lost. Christian VII might still have a chance, though.
If they had broken it down into a vote for a lineship and a ship frigate or below, I would give that second vote to Christian VII, even though I know what we need is 4th rates. Christian VII is the most beautiful of the proposed SoLs by far, and a fills an interesting niche at the top end. I don't see what De Ruyter really adds over Bucentaure, but she is not ugly. I do hope that the shallow draught design, with slab sides and extremely heavy ordnance is accounted for in performance if included, however.
Ships that are modelled in the shipyard aren't automatically added to the game. But all good ships should make it to the game sooner or later. The top 2 ships of the votes and the wildcard are garanteed to get in though.
That doesn't answer the question as to whether or not a vote for Bellona here might be redundant (i.e. we are telling developers to make a ship that is already being made and stands a chance to be added).
-
2
-
-
What about this loophole:
1. Player1 has arranged fight with Player2,
2. Player1 kills Player2
3. Player2 kills Player1
4. GOTO 1.
That is not a loophole. People can duel and kill eachother as much as they want. It consumes ships just like real fighting, and it would be stupid for one side not to fight in each individual match, as both players rewards would be maximized by both players fighting in every match.
I do see a potential loophole with free cutters and premium ships, however.
-
To fully solve the problem XP for just damage should be eliminated from PVP.
With corresponding increases in kill/assist xp.
Even WOW only gives you xp only if you kill someone.
You would need to make it much more difficult to exit battles while fighting is still going on. It is extremely easy to exit battles, even when on the verge of sinking.
Also, a good surrender system is needed to remove the whole complaint of not being able to fight with honor and give quarter, etc., etc. (not to mention the many other problems it would address). All or nothing win / lose drives a lot of this "farming" behavior.
-
Another question: Malachi is working on a Swedish Bellona-class model with apparent competence:
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/8505-swedish-bellona-class-frigate-wip/
Are votes for Bellona for integration of his model, or redundant assuming this model has a chance of being included?
I also wish we had confirmation whether or not a 4th rate SoL (other than 4th/3rd rate Ingermanland) is already in the works. I want to vote for beautiful Diana, but the 4th rate gap desperately needs filling.
-
1
-
-
Why are there ships posted to vote without plans? (I don't mean not in this thread, but I think there is at least one that doesn't have plans available. Users completely ignored this requirement during the suggestion phase.) What happens if a ship without plans wins player vote? Do we get poor-quality guesswork model?
edit: nevermind, plans are not online, but are at Greenwich. I suppose devs can afford those now that they sitting on huge pile of EA gold.
-
I don't think banning them would be fair BUT not banning or anything the people that shoot them if they do grief you is fair.
Example is this(it actually happened)
Me and my friend were in a mission I was in a snow he was in the rene and we were working on capping a Cerb that showed up in his mission. someone came in and proceeded to board it. me and my friend came up and just broadsided the hell out of him reducing his ship to 0 armor on both sides and back in about 2 minutes. He had worked through about 3/4 of the enemy crew in this time. He sank we board the Cerb and claim it.
Cool, but green-on-green damage is punished automatically and without recourse. You lost a bunch of XP doing that (green damage is something like double or triple negative XP), and if you do it again, you will probably end up reset or banned.
-
No it wouldn't. Their greatest utility is in their use as suicide, lolz vessels. Half the time they don't even use guns, and if they do and start to lose the gun fight, they immediately ram or try to flip. Very sad to see this happen to a new player fighting hard in his first paid-for ship, especially when the players in cutters / yachts are veterans (but that doesn't really matter as it sucks just as much no matter who is doing it). It's no longer considered even an option to bring anything but a cutter / yacht into small battle events, and the griefers are quickly starting to figure out the no-risk fun they can have by bringing packs of free cutters to areas where there are lots of new players.
And even if you did cut the firepower down, you are looking at 20,000+ gold difference between free and a paid-for ship for only a tiny incremental upgrade in firepower (or no upgrade at all in case of the Lynx).
-
I would say they should remain attackable by any ship within BR limits, except in "home" waters. Basically, game should say "here is a free ship, learn the basics, make a little money around your port, but get into a real ship before venturing out into the real world." Game could even provide a one-time, first-level "graduation" mission that would provide a larger chunk of change sufficient to buy your first ship.
-
Its greatest strength is that it is free. People won't care if you give it less firepower or less HP because they are most likely there to just ram or try to flip people anyways. The existence of free ships with this much utility deeply devalues everything up to Brig, or arguably even Navy Brig and Snow.I don't believe the answer is to ban any ship from PVP. I think the strength of the Basic Cutter is what needs to be discussed; it is too OP. It needs to be nerfed significantly. As a new player, I have no reason to buy a cutter or a lynx. And for that, new crafters have no incentive to build them.
Nerf the basic cutter and adjust the Midshipmen missions accordingly.
It is fundamentally unfair and game-breaking to give people free ships that they can use to exploit mechanics and make people with paid-for ships lose their investment, largely independent of skill or anything resembling Age of Sail combat. When it comes to PvP, free ships are just tickets to grief. If they go down same path with premium ships, PvP will be ruined. The whole logic that it is fair because they will not be quite as good as the best paid-for ships is flawed because it presumes players will use them the same way as paid-for ships. Naval Action EA, a.k.a Ramming Action has proven this false beyond a doubt.
No free ships in PvP, or all free ships in PvP. There is no in between. There should be a third event battle that is for basic cutter / yacht only. That is where new players can learn the PvP ropes or people can get a quick no-cost PvP fix. No one needs to be able to do OW PvP in a free cutter, either by attacking other players, getting drawn into a PvP instance, or joining a PvP instance. I'd be fine if this came with additional protections, e.g. you cannot be attacked in a basic cutter at all within a certain distance of the capital (so new players can carry on with missions totally unmolested at their starting port). Also, costs for first level ships need to come down, so a player can get out of basic cutter and into lynx or cutter for less. A few small battles or one day of beating up AI should be sufficient to buy a first level ship.
No one gets stuck. You will always have an option to get from point A to point B or to earn money in short course to buy the most basic paid-for ship. We used to have to pay for our starter ship (for repairs or if we lost 5 durability points). It was made free because people would sometimes get stuck. Free ships only need sufficient utility for someone to not get stuck and unable to progress.
-
1
-
1st Big content patch information.
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
I am bit concerned about making the masts/sail repair dependent on disengagement. This works out fine in group fights, but is less fair in a chase or 1v1. On the other hand, current mast / sail repair simply turns every chase into extended session of sail shooting followed by repair and repetition of the same. I would prefer to have a chance to repair sails / masts in a chase, but for those repairs to come with a trade-off (e.g. speed reduction of 2 knots for duration of repair that happens over longer period of time). This would require more clever maneuver and timing on use of repairs, rather than simply doubling the duration of a straight stern chase.