akd
-
Posts
2,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by akd
-
-
If it's taking something away, without replacing it with a "difference in kind" of equal value and potency, it's a nerf.It's an alpha, so talk of "nerf" is not appropriate.
-
How can you even make conclusions of pirate unity when pirate vs pirate roe is broken for months already, making larger than 1v1 pirate vs pirate encounters impossible in game because all reinforcements, enemy or friendly can only join on the defender side?
Even if that were fixed, how could you really have disunity when the faction co-owns national resources? One pirate gang cannot kick another out of a port and take it over, so it is simply stupid for pirates to not cooperate. Pirates didn't chose unity; it was given to them.
-
1
-
-
They do sell Constitutions which, along with capturing Constitutions from AI, is a bit crap.
-
3
-
-
Wind direction should tend toward constant in the short-term and random in the long-term. That would translate into 1-4 in-game days (randomized, but weighted toward 2-3 days) of wind coming from one direction with random minor changes +/- (no more than 15-30°) from that direction, then a chance of a major shift. This would provide more consistency for the typical trip within a region, prevent some port-to-port trips always having bad wind (as would be the case with a prevailing direction), and add an element of uncertainty that would have to be accounted for in planning port attacks.
-
5
-
-
I suggest a little blood-letting and a blue pill.
-
1
-
-
This may be so but it could fit into the game somewhere, no? The advantage could be cost and the fact that at least there would be novelty attempting to use the explosive ammo.
Not in the game's current configuration. These fall more into the realm of swivel guns (supplementary arms), rather than broadside / deck armament. Anyways, technology that failed historically seldom translates well into games, as the factors that caused failure are often excluded or oversimplified (because they tend to be very complex), which in turn leads to failed technology becoming dominant. See double-shot in carronades in previous iterations.
First and foremost, that explosive ammunition was a threat to crew would be a non-factor in game compared to the increase in firepower, so its use in game would be heavily distorted, and probably become dominant.
-
The statement does not contain answers to either question.
-
If a solo Renommee fights 25 cutters and sinks 5 of them before dying, why should it be meaningless for one side? An even better question would be why should a low-level player in a brig that gets attacked by 4-5 upper level players in cutters be the only one to incur risk and cost?25 cutters is 300 cannons - why a solo renommee or cerberus should be able to fight them effectively?
-
1
-
-
Enter endless people farming lowbies in their starter Cutters for crafting notes or pvp medal cash-ins or what have you.
I like the idea of encouraging more OW pvp, absolutely. I'd just be wary of setting it up in such a way as to encourage it while discouraging farming new folks. How to do that? I have no ideas at the moment, but I'm sure there's something out there.
Any PvP rewards must necessarily be based on BR ratios, and possibly additional restrictions regarding low-level characters and starting areas.
-
The problem there is crew and gun loss, not sinking. Since 0 integrity is supposed to accelerate crew and gun loss, taking raking fire through the stern with ball should be fairly devastating. This is what needs to be improved.Works for bow, you are forced to use the survival mode, doesn't work for stern, stern destroyed means nothing at ranges other than very close.
Quite simply: it makes zero sense to sink a ship because you put a single broadside into the stern. If you have sinking because of stern integrity reduction, then you have to boost stern HP beyond current extremely low levels, which in turn will make getting the gun and crew loss boost harder and raking less effective for its intended purposes. The whole game will center around rake once or twice to sink.
-
Well, these forts were designed to be more or less impervious to cannon fire, so they could only be reduced from the sea with any practicality by firing directly at the guns / gun crews (small, well-protected targets) or gettting mortar bombs on top of them.Considering guns only fire a clump of iron and not explosives, taking out a tower should be a massive effort from any gun in the game. You would literally have to break down the walls using nothing but kinetic force from impacts.
There should be a greater focus on reducing or suppressing the gun crews rather than destroying the forts outright, and a mechanic that allows marines to be contributed directly to a fort assault via a logical landing zone (rather than putting ships against the fort itself), with the first player landing marines controlling the "boarding action" and others that enter the zone contributing reinforcements. Would also be awesome if cargo ships could be brought to ports with troops aboard to do same (forgo firepower for fortress capturing ability). Could lead to an interesting dynamic where you have lineships to fix the enemy fleet, bomb vessels to suppress the forts and a mix of lighter ships to land troops and marines.
-
4
-
-
We seem to be beholden to AI capture (free and easy ships). It will always cause problems. Port battles should be driving demand for high level crafted ships. They are not. Instead they are driving demand for endless of stream free, easy (but boring), AI Constitution and 3rd Rate captures.
This will always favor attacker unless the defender is confined to a very limited area. Because massively undercrewed ships have limited applications, they are not likely to be in use on the OS in normal play. Rather, because the attacker knows when and where they will attack, players will stockpile them (using end battle teleport) in a convenient port/s then distribute them to whoever shows up as needed. The AI gravy train coordination problem is greatly simplified.
Defender on the other hand is reacting with limited time and will be much more likely to show up with what they currently sailing on OS or already own themselves.
Solutions:
-rethink AI capture system
-put hard limit on crewing ships more than 1 level above rank (perfectly realistic as no midshipman was ever given command of 3rd rate and sent into battle).
-
4
-
-
This argument rests on the fallacious assumption that the aiming cursor actually inputs elevation and traverse into the cannons. It does not. Rather, you are telling gun crews to fire their cannons in "that direction" and to "that range" (you are not shown the range, but the aiming cursor is a range input, not an elevation input). Gun crews then automatically handle the traverse and elevation to accomplish the order, whether they are controlling broadside guns or chasers.
-
Well, I have proposed in the past that canvas repair on standing masts be put on survival mode (handled like leaks as a repair over time), and that you have speed debuff as long as you are in survival mode (repairing sails and leaks and fighting fires would be much more difficult / impossible while moving at full sail). Mast repair could then have limited, consumable repairs on its own repair button, with cooldown and out-of-combat timer requirements. If you repaired a fallen mast section, you would need to be in survival to put canvas back on it. Even without a combat timer, that would effectively require you to withdraw to affect major repairs.
-
2
-
-
well that is why most of the armour on ships were on the side... you dont drive around in world of tanks with your tank tanking with your side or rear... if you got weaker armour, it is your job to use whatever advantage you have and to counter any disadvantage you have.
Ships had no "armor" and the bow was a strong (resistant to penetration) as the sides, if not stronger. Sides have more "integrity" (HP) because there is physically more ship to be reduced.
The problem is that ricochet effects are exaggerated in game, and ships that were raked from the bow in reality would have many more shots penetrate and then pass down the length of the ship. Also, except in cases of extreme mismatches, ranges at which shots would fail to penetrate tended to be ranges at which gunnery was pointless in reality. This is why we tank with bow in game while in reality captains feared being raked.
-
Short-term fix (like immediately): change Spanish capital to Vera Cruz and give them a few ports with timers.
-
Historically in the English Navy any captain who lost his ship by choosing to fight against much larger odds would have to face a court-marshal
Not really, and especially not if he inflicted loss on the enemy.
-
2
-
-
Beautiful, but why is she missing her bow chasers? Or is a feature in the works to properly shift broadside guns into bridle ports?
-
Please do this for masts only, as the real problem currently is that mast lifetime (even with current titanium mast HP) is less than hull lifetime. The correct solution is not to boost mast HP to hull levels but to extend mast lifetime through repairs (as you propose) with limitations (in addition to cooldown, I would suggest that the repairs are slower and come with a speed debuff), while leaving hull repairs where they are. The current system of hull repairs is sufficient and group fights are still very, very difficult to resolve decisively. Extending hull life (especially combined with broadside strength increase) will not benefit the game, and comes into conflict with the proposed fix to mast / sail life.I actually want masts to fall more often in battles, allowing captains to repair them if enemies were not proactive enough. The current hp is too high. Giving more repairs will allow us to reduce mast hp.
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.
-
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
-
I think admin/devs owe a lot of people an answer, put this issue to rest.
in Patch Feedback and General discussions
Posted
Just switch to Sweden. Swedes are the real pirates.