akd
-
Posts
2,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by akd
-
-
nations trade land with each other - we don't see this a problem
Attackers receive rewards whether port is defended or not. Bringing large numbers of Gros Ventre along with a few heavy ships to take down towers could potentially make trading a port back and forth hugely lucrative for both parties. Things become even more complicated and potentially exploitable when attackers win control (voting power) over their nation just for taking a port, whether defended or not.
Those of us without arranged port trading opportunities may feel it is a bit unfair we have to spend hours grinding AI for modules while others arrange port transfers and soak up the loot.
-
You can build in each other ports
Will there be any disadvantages to having buildings (i.e. production) in other nations' ports?
Any chance that some terminology can be switched for the US faction? e.g.:
Lord Protector = Governor
Parliament = Congress
Ruler = President
-
4
-
-
Later arrivals then can move to the opposite side of the battle circle effectively cutting of any line of retreat of the fleeing party. this would not be possible in any realistic scenario obviously. enough ships can completely surround a smaller force this way.
This can be abused because reinforcements joining at 3 secs at the near side of the circle will spawn the same distance as reinforcements that join at the far side of the circle at 119 secs. This means reinforcements have 2 min of OW compressed time to exploit against the players pinned in the instance. (And to be clear, the previous spawn on the attacker system was also exploitable, just in a different way.)
This could be solved very easily by steadily growing the join circle (at say 10 kts, maybe more) as soon as the battle starts and until it closes. Not joining immediately and instead sailing through the circle would then come with a large distance penalty in the instance that directly compensates for the additional OW compressed time. It would also mean increased risk of not making it to the far edge before the battle closes. In general it would be better to join at the start or nearest edge, but reinforcements would still be able to join at distance and from the appropriate direction relative to OW (because a reinforcement might fairly be coming from the other side, rather than sailing through the circle to exploit). This would also solve any problems with land, because as soon as the circle grows to eclipse land, no player would be able to join from the location since they would not be able access the edge of the circle.
-
2
-
-
The problem with the larger capture circle is that splitting or undesirable pulls into battles becomes more of a problem (or join / no join mechanics become very complicated). I suggest "other system" again: current mechanics except once the battle is created, the join circle expands until closing at 2 min. Anyone joining late is consequently placed at an appropriate distance, but joining from the wider area remains elective without need to respond to a prompt. Choosing not to join as soon as possible would have a big trade-off.
-
Fun fact: some battles in the Age of Sail were fought with "BR restrictions" (i.e. combatants made active efforts to equalize odds in an engagement even when more force was available).Yes, the positional mechanic will allow them to surround you. It's not a very good mechanic.
In any contest of RVR opponents are not necessarily equal in skills, numbers, technology or economy. 1v1 by far favors technology and skill while minimizing economic and numerical advantages. So it's only realistic simulation of war in 2 out of 4. Ganking or otherwise using strategy that pits superior numbers to inferior numbers neutralizes skill and tech advantages and favors numeric and economic. Throughout history, real life history, the balance of these four factors if war has shaped the world. The more numerous little guys only chance to combat the high tech skilled giant has always been to swarm the opponent. It's as important strategically to be able to do this as to exert superior skills. Forced 1v1s is just favoritism to skill and tech.
If WW2 had been fought with 1.5BR rules enforced we would all be speaking German right now. The Germans had the higher tech and skills. The Soviet state excelled in numbers. The USA in economy. The British skills at espionage and recon had the rest beat. The Japanese probably the most determination. We can't just shut an entire groups war advantage off and think we're still simulating a war.
Also, your understanding of WWII is drawn mostly from silly stereotypes. The US had enormous tech advantages over Germany, and superior "skills" (although this a pretty silly concept to apply to national comparisons) in key areas.
-
2
-
-
1. You can put an immortal mod on your ship that reduces heel. You cannot do that with speed.
2. You can put 3 mods on your ship and max speed into a characteristic that gives absolute dominance (or guaranteed escape) in many circumstances. You can only have two mods total for heel, and maxing out heel does not provide dominance in any circumstance.
3. "Depower" with "T" is overdone (you can instantly check your heel even with 0 men in sailing focus).
-
One factor is that if people think they are going to win, they will only shoot sails and crew, because if the other guy thinks he is going lose he will invariably:
1. let himself sink if he gets even a single leak from ball shot.
2. ram you and sink if you leave him with maneuverability.
3. let himself burn if he gets a fire from ball hitting cannons.
-
1
-
-
For a few weeks now the Cannons have had an impact on the ship speed but I am wondering why the designers didn't give each ship a slight boost to speed to compensate for the new numbers. I like that the game has an impact for cannon usage but I feel like the implementation is a little bit poorly thought out, why did all ships not get a slight boost to speed to compensate for the new impacts? The way it has been put into the mechanics has just become an unnecessary nerf of all ships. This Impact has meant that the game has become slightly more time consuming which can already be a problem for player retention. Again I like to stress that I really like the update and how it works on cannons but just find it in need of a second look.
Cannons had an impact before, but displayed speeds in port were not adjusting.
This appears to be mostly a perception issue.
-
2
-
-
It think its could be great if there is a friendly harbour in the battle that the player can find there shelter. So you have to keep him away from it.
Harbors weren't really refuges in and of themselves, and certainly not a place where you could just *poof* remove your ship from the world. Most of these "harbors" would have in fact been fairly open bodies of water with some shelter from the open sea and good places to anchor off-shore, not shelter from attack in and of themselves.
What would have made difference, however, would be friendly fortifications, and that is exactly what a player should face if they initiate combat near an enemy (national) port. You don't run to the port and magically disappear, but instead can run under the guns of a friendly fortification. The enemy then has the choice as to whether or not they want to risk cutting you out. Such fortifications should also be present in instances in key locations along the coast of friendly-controlled territory (e.g. halfway between two ports on a continuous coastline).
Free ports should remain like neutral ports. If combat is initiated outside the port, there is no help or recourse from the shore.
-
Some of these are not the correct conversions for naval artillery, e.g. Russia.Dont know much about the actual differences, yet the difference in pounds:
-
Just for clarification, using harassers, scouts or recon groups to slow down the movement of lighter armies so the bulk of your main army can catch them has been a valid and taught tactic of warfare since biblical times. Alexander was known to employ this to great effect after he aquired horse archers in his march to the east. It's not new and in a simulated war zone it's not an exploit.
Yes, but here is how it works in reality:
1. your scouts can be used for information, and information can be used to maneuver your main force to a position of advantage
2. if they have sufficient combat power, your scouts can be used to engage the enemy to pin them in place while the main force maneuvers to a position of advantage.
The key point here is that if scouts operate alone ahead of the main force and are used to engage the enemy, they must fight alone until the main force comes up. The problem is that the factors that make your scouts good at #1 make them poorly-suited to #2, but were a non-factor before in the game. Every group could roll with the lightest, weakest, fastest scout possible, use this to catch and pin any ship, then "warp" in the combat power to kill it that the scout lacked when in reality the scout should have had to fight it out alone for a long time. This gave every advantage to groups over the solo player. It was an exploit because battles are instances and time and speed on the OS is different.
The 1.5x BR reinforcement limit meant there was at least a trade-off to not joining as a group, but it's not the right trade-off. The trade-off should be more distance the later you join, such that:
1. There is a risk involved in tackling with scouts rather than sailing together and joining as a cohesive fleet.
2. Sailing through the circle to reinforce rather than joining as soon as possible at the nearest edge should be a huge gamble, trading time and distance (and possibly missing the battle) for possible positional advantage (that may not even be exploitable due to the increased distance).
-
6
-
-
Like many groups, they have a tackler. This guy chases the prey. So at the point of tag the battle is formed more often then not, away from their two friends. So the friends must join as reinforcements because they couldn't keep up in the chase. This leaves at least one of them out of the fight to sit there for the next 30 minutes while his buddies have all the fun. Neither he nor his buddies are happy about this.
Of course, because "tackling" to pin a player in OW time and space is an exploit that favors the side with numbers, giving them much more flexibility than the chase. Removing this from the game is a huge improvement. These 3 can sail together and join together, they just can't use the "tackling" exploit.
That said, I don't like the 1.5x reinforcement limit, but it cannot simply be removed without a different limit on exploiting the new positional spawn system. If it is just removed or increased, you will see ganking just as it has always been, but now groups will be able to completely encircle prey, not just warp in as a mass behind.
An excellent solution has been proposed: grow the circle after instance creation so that staying out of the initial instance to join from a different position on the circle translates directly into increasing distance penalties in the instance. Solves all the current problems without falling back to a system that was already deeply problematic (including the widespread acceptance that the "tackling" concept was legitimate and fair).
-
3
-
-
"Something more"? Agreed. As long you don´t board and loot for magical items.
And I believe the something more must be the search for extraordinarily "profit" on the RvR,
Players have captured player traders completely full of gold. I recall one player catching a trader with something like 20+ notes on board. What "something more" do we need now?
-
People seem, for the most part, to not be very happy with the new system, it's made as many new problems as it has fixed, judging by peoples reactions to it.
Restrictions tend to generate very vocal reactions (usually hyperbolic and laden with blackmail threats) from a limited subset. The addition of land to instances is a far more significant change than a 1.5x BR reinforcement limiter (which is actually not even new, as such limiters have been experimented with before), yet note how this addition has gone almost completely unremarked in comparison to the outrage about not being able to reinforce battles past 1.5x BR. Other changes to battle instance creation were both necessary to have land in instances and to resolve ongoing problems with the disconnect between OW and battle time and space. In fact, more problems have been solved than created, and we get land!
Also, a core problem is that quite a few people complaining the loudest do not know how instance creation and reinforcement works now, which complicates the discussion. I think if we pare things down, the problems are quite limited, and some "new" problems are just variations on old problems (e.g. port battle fleet splitting).
-
5
-
-
Please no magic potions.We do have a massive grind for xp right now, so why not add these loot collections for xp reward? Speed things up a little, make it fun and more attractive. Also, I am not talking gear grind, more like xp, cash and booster packs when exchanged.
Exchanged consumable items:
ex. Citrus Drink +2% reload bonus for 5 mins when consumed.
Old clock - -5% time to Raise Sails for 5 mins when used.
Royal Canvas - +5% OS speed for 20 mins when consumed.
Encyclopedia - +10% Gold drop for 1 hour.
Loot should be confined to a ship's cargo, or logical drops from warships like repair kits (an abstraction for taking stores out of a capture or salvaging stores from a wreck.) RNG drops are not needed at all for PvP. You get what the player carried, which is the ultimate loot system.
The upgrade drop RNG loot system is extremely grindy, very fake and exploitable. Upgrades should be a central part of the player economy and officer recruitment system. I should not have to grind hours and hours of AI to have access to yellow Marines (and I have grinded hours and hours of AI, and still don't have the yellow Marines option), but should instead hire a Marine officer with an especially large contingent of marines, or some other logical interaction with the game world.
-
2
-
-
I confirmed yesterday that you have plenty of time to leave port, lose invulnerability and sail to the nearest wind-friendly edge of the circle for a battle that has just started right in front of a port before the battle closes. Probably your friend messed up or didn't understand how to join from the circle edge.So, great fun I had again with this awful mechanic today laid in the ring that spawns on initiated battles. After retreating from a previous 3v1 gank I repelled in my Pavel, I was beset upon again by the same hostile group as I had somewhere important to be rather than to camp in the combat results screen for thirty minutes hoping they'd go away. With only inches away from the closest friendly port I got tagged again, this time with a friendly Brit just in the harbor! Surely, I can fight these scoundrels off for good in a 3v2 situation with my superior firepower. I asked my comrade to come to my aid, he agreed, and yet he couldn't join my battle!
Why?
Well, the tag occurred just out of his reach, but the battle spawned a battle circle large enough to encircle his position at the port. Thus, my ally who responded within a minute of my plea for help to a battle literally outside of a friendly port, was unable to join as the battle closed before he could position his ship correctly outside of the circle due to poor wind conditions (and port position) as the wind was strongest going into the port. In the previous patch he would have been able to join my battle near instantaneously to assist, but of course this must have been a poor lack of strategical thinking on my part or a lack of reading the latest patch notes.
Pardon my sarcasm, but I have been ganked 9v1 before in Naval Action and haven't felt salty in the slightest when I lost. Lesson learned: don't travel alone.
Getting ganked 3v1 with allies in plain sight and they can't even get to me in time because of some arbitrary lines and limits? This is the type of garbage that genuinely makes me want to avoid PvP altogether. The reinforcement ring isn't completely a bad idea as it allows for dynamic entry to battles, but it's genuinely frustrating how much emphasis there is in this game to make sure allies can't help you unless they are literally right on top of you.
"Anti-Gank Mechanic."
*there may be combinations of wind direction and port topography where this is not true, and yes it is a bit fake that you can't join directly from the port location in the instance, but then ships "hiding" in port or battles happening right in front of a port without interference from shore batteries is also very fake. This actually calls into question whether there should be a "no attack / cancel attack" radius around ports to prevent these oddities.
-
no, just mixing broadside guns where you can, for example, have carronades on the top deck and long guns on the bottom deck.
-
Your snow is so small any winches that board are required to have breast reductions.
You have strange sexual tastes.
-
1
-
-
Friend jumped a NPC LGV trader, I tried to jump in and help, nope.
Why weren't you sailing next to your friend?
-
I somehow disagree ... "Challenging" means that a single average player in an average boat shall have good skills to manage the average mission of Its level.
But ... fact is that now a single average player with decent skill in an average boat against an average mission of its level is very likely be steamrolled by IA (besides the fact that the precisions of IA gunners is simply superhuman and this should not be, since also the IA should have "average skills").
Then the solution is to rebalance the missions, although arguably the current difficulties give a good mix of challenges for individuals and and pairs / small groups. You can always tailor difficulty using mission level.
-
Yup, old bug is back. Mixing carronades and guns limits guns to max carronade range.
-
what exactly does a ''tester'' below your avatar mean?????
As testers we are obligated to reject reports that are simply confirmation bias at work.
The AI were not "wild" shooters like humans, they were predictably bad robot shooters that could be easily exploited using angles and relative motion, things that humans are better at dealing with due to predictive abilities.
-
2
-
-
The brig can drop right on top of the fleeing vessel if they position themselves right. You can chase from leeward on the OW and attack from windward in the instance.
No they can't. You have 2 min to join and must join at the edge of the circle, which translates into distance in the instance. System is different than old positional reinforcements. The only problem seems to be that a person that joins 1 sec late gets the same "penalty" as someone that joins 119 sec late.
-
You can still rescue people being ganked. The system allows the ganked players to be reinforced. What part of that isn't clear? You can reinforce players being ganked. You can't reinforce ganked players once the BR is over 1.5BR in favor of the ganked player. Players reinforcing ganked players by more BR are by definition gankers. If 10 players jump 1 ship, you don't need 20 players to jump those 10 players. It becomes a reverse gank in that case. Ganking doesn't need to be solved by more ganking.
People are right on this to a degree in one regard: because of counter-tagging and escape mechanics, it does take overwhelming force (counter-ganking) to end to the deprivations of a high-speed gank group (arguably, they are completely unstoppable if they really commit to only ganking and avoiding / running from any fair fight, especially if they are pirates).
-
3
-
Ship role, comparisons of vessels and wind strength
in News Announcements & Important discussions
Posted
So use a combination of distance from nearest enemy and time. shorter distance = more time on the clock. If very close, timer can be long, but no one will ever be trapped in perpetual chase. Faster ships without chasers can "reset" timer by closing the distance and are less penalized for turning to give a broadside. This removes the need for fake chasers on some ships (e.g. the smaller fore-and-aft ships), but I still think there needs to be an overall chaser reform (remove fake chasers present on some ships, add more flexibility for chasers on others if their design physically allowed for it).