akd
-
Posts
2,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by akd
-
-
At least some bigger player organized operations (like port battles) basically have "nothing smaller than a Cerberus" as a mantra when communicating with new players about these engagements likely to include ships-of-the-line and their own wishes for what should join up.
That's actually a hard restriction placed on deep water port battles in game, not a player wish.
-
Maybe have it an option so players who want to know where he is at anytime can do cuz honestly with huge world map like this it is not funny spending time sailing around trying figure out my bearings and if I am still in right direction to my destination .. just a thought .
If two people are competeing to be good at exploration, the person who choses not to use the option is at a disadvantage, therefore the option is not optional. Also, one person's not funny is another's fun challenge.
-
1
-
-
Also I would like to see the mini map in open world is worked out/improved , would be nice to be able see my ship marked on the map when hit ' M ' key .
This has been left out on purpose. It will make exploration a much more meaningful activity.
-
Of course! They are huge exploit built into the game system (free ships and free ship teleports), so very desirable. Even with the modules currently somewhat out of control / unbalanced, the game is still tilted more towards skill than gear, so the existence of ships or modules that are obtained for free (save small time investment) from AI will significantly undermine player economy, even if they are worse than player-crafted equivalents. For this not to be the case, they would have to be so much worse that it would tilt the balance of play from skill-based to gear-based, which we are trying to avoid.You are correct, and honestly, i would be dissepointed in seeing captured AI ships not being able to be sailed, i would say they should be objectivly worse(no modules, maybe only grey etc.), but i would still want to see them.
IMO, AI should only be a source of cash (payment for your time investment) or basic materials (that could otherwise be obtained from NPC ports).
What I do think could be allowed is to add an AI capture as a "consort" to your fleet (or in place of a hired fleet), sacrificing part of your crew to man it until such point as you decide to sell it as a prize or condemn it for salvage. Having to give up some of your crew would make this self-balancing to a degree.
-
1
-
-
capturing and sailing captured ships in my opinion is a crucial part of the lower levels.
Only because of the way crafting and capture (and damage-based XP against AI / low crew size penalties to a degree) are currently working together. No one is producing desirable low-level ships for sale, because there is no demand and it is more efficient to just get rid of them. Low-level players don't buy ships, they just capture free ones. Low-level crafters don't sell cheap ships (or nice ones) to low-level players. They just destroy them or sell them to the port. There are huge numbers of Lt level players running around in undercrewed, captured Frigates (that their friends helped them obtain) who should be sailing player-crafted ships appropriate to their level if everything was working together properly.
-
1
-
-
A comprehensive, viable and much better system. I have only one concern:
This, coupled with the above mechanic makes captured ships perfectly viable and allows players to live solely off captured ships (instead of crafting).
Capture from AI provides a constant stream of very easy to obtain viable ships that are magicked into the world. This makes crafted ships unessential, and would be exaccerbated by the above. The difference in effort involved between capturing and crafting the same, or nearly the same ship, is just huge.
I would strongly suggest that we not be able to take command of AI captures. Instead we can send them to a prize court to be converted into cash or we can have the ship condemned for salvage. Only ships captured from players should work as you describe.
-
3
-
-
move your view to deck level.
-
As we approach EA, I think the absence of the beautiful land (and shallows) we see in the open sea from our actual battles may prove the greatest disappointment to new players, and a huge limiter on tactical depth and variety. I know it will require some tricky procedural generation (or some such voodoo) to translate the OS into the battle instance, but if it can be done, it would the single greatest leap forward for the game.
However, if land / shallows in battles are random and not based on the open sea map, then I would put it at a much lower priority.
-
8
-
-
I think that if it takes up an officer slot (opportunity cost) and doesn't come silly bonuses on top (e.g. +OS speed), it could be an interesting and balanced addition, but only if it came with a bit of uncertainty in regards to your precise location. Would also be pretty cool if it only provided a position update periodically, e.g. at 12 noon, and was affected by dynamic weather.
-
I frequently see groups of pirates sailing together creating battles against eachother. Obviously they are farming damage to a degree, even if they fight in earnest (because they get to dictate and carefully manage conditions of fight via a mechanic unavailable to nationals). If you join one or the other side, you will see that your "allies" don't help you and everyone either runs away (because the fight is no longer carefully managed) or you face the other team alone. Ironically (because devs said piracy should be hard mode), allowing pirates to attack eachother makes playing as pirate the easiest way to level up in game. In theory, an organized group of pirates has the best chance to be the first to reach highest levels and biggest ships once the game goes live.
Solutions:
-provide a practice arranged event mechanic that allows people to play against eachother without loss or gain so no one can cry about not being able to engage in friendly training (which is often actually damage farming).
-give pirates a unique faction reputation system that prevents them from fighting eachother not in earnest (e.g. one part could be that once you attack another pirate you are hostile to that pirate and cannot join on their side in subsequent fights).
-
4
-
-
Well, fixing the loot system would surely be the first step. You should be able to pick want you want out of captured ship, but the rest of the cargo should be sent along with the ship back to port, or if we switch to system that doesn't have us take physical possesion of captures, then the ship and its remaining cargo should be sent to a prize court to be sold, and money (or portion for shared captures) returned to the player.
-
Just generate huge list of actual period ship names using the database at threedecks.org. Let players choose from those names. When a name is chosen, it is removed from the database until that ship is lost, then is available again.
-
2
-
-
flags and pennants offer historically legitimate scope for personalization, while not ruining the aesthetic of the game.
-
2
-
-
Sounds boring for everyone. Mogul presses buttons in port to make no-risk money; meanwhile there is nothing meaningful to hunt on open sea.
-
2
-
-
edit: snark removed.
Not clear why we have an economic system in this game at all if is going to consist of just clicking buttons in port.
-
1
-
-
I think that is already how it works. A lot of people don't seem to realize they are getting attacked by bigger AI ships because they are running around with an AI fleet boosting their BR.
Also, some people may not realize that group BR difference causes the AI attack to fail, but does not prevent the AI from attacking in the first place. It is a bit counter-intuitive.
-
1
-
-
Connie "feels" more accurate than a 3rd, but even a 3rd can hit ok. Gold pellews, long guns single shot, unlocked:
Just to be clear, this is *insane* versus the reality of the time. (Not saying I have a problem with it, but just putting things in perspective.)
-
To modify that further and get a better distribution of changes (more small changes, less frequent individual or collective extreme changes), you could do something like this:
every 5-10 minutes (variable so not entirely predictable):
50% chance of 0-15° change
30% chance of 16-30° change
15% chance of 31-45° change
4% chance of 46-90° change
1% chance of 91-180° change
-
4
-
-
This means only one thing. We perhaps should stop listening to commenters and should just continue making the game for ourselves the way we - makers - want to play it.
We had standard wind turning into a predictable direction. It was the request number 1 to randomize it. Let's harvest the fruits first before requesting standard wind back.
From now on we will not accept feedback on core gameplay factors if it is not thought through and does not provide detailed in depth analysis like it comes from NW on the ship HP, from all points of view (defenders and attackers)
I mean in battle (not OS) and totally random, rather than random variations within X degrees of starting wind (the sort of minor variations that allow skilled players to gain maximum performance by paying attention, but that don't swap the windward position for the leeward position). To feel most realistic and support rewarding planning and positioning, wind would vary a small number of degrees constantly, and have a decent random chance to make a moderate change (45-90°?) in a typical fight. This could manifest itself in two forms: small variations in one direction leading to larger change over the course of the battle (wind is slowly veering) or small variations in either direction from starting wind for long period of time (constant wind) followed by chance of veering significantly over short period of time to a new point of origin. Huge changes (90°+?) in wind direction were rare in battles, and in fact plans and tactics were formed around fairly reliable expectations of the relative position of the wind, even if there was never exact certainty about its point of origin. And I actually have no problem with huge wind changes in battle, but if they are routine, they are not exciting. Make them a random, rare factor (perhaps associated with a visual environmental clue) and they would really add something to the game.
OS - ideal would be consistent wind for several days of in-game time (random 1-3), followed by totally random change in direction. This produces variability (no given journey is always or usually against the wind), but allows players to complete short voyages with relatively consistent wind direction, rather than having to constantly chase veering clockwork wind. It is also more exciting because there is a random factor that can frustrate plans.
Battle Instance - general direction of wind fixed at start of battle based on OS, with variation as outlined above. Players can make plans and shape tactics around the wind, which is the terrain of an open sea battle (imagine planning for a land battle where the high ground could randomly become the low ground. Planning would be pointless and battles would tend to descend into chaotic melee.) Huge change in wind is rare and dramatic event, stunning all players with the power of the gods.
And its strength is also random. In many cases it could just die down in battle. God and Glory will guide your hand to win the battle despite the wind.Change in strength is a more a neutral factor (although not entirely) and does not undermine tactics and planning the way totally random direction does. By that I mean if I have formulated a plan and formation based on a general wind direction, that does not fall apart simply because the strength of the wind changes. If it dies away entirely, then my plan is paused, not overturned. Anyways, you have totally rejected the idea of variable wind strength in the past, so I don't know why you are bringing it up.
-
So why change things? Sounds like line fighting is difficult, but properly rewarded when executed with skill in the right situations, but the trade-off is time consumed in coordination, potential loss of initiative, and excessivey rigidity. It's not the right tactic for all situations. This another reason Nelson deemphasized maneuvers and prioritized invididual, aggressive action. A team spending all its effort and focus on maintaining a line / executing a complicated maneuver is vulnerable to an opponent getting inside their decision loop. (That said, I do think survivability / repair needs more tweaking, especially huge potential HP spread, but I also think a bigger problem may be crew survival / efficiency. But please do not change accuracy. It is very balanced currently.)
Also, you don't want to overemphasize distant line fighting and end up removing the need for invididual close action, potentially reducing every fight to a rinse and repeat one tactic wins focus fire duel, where the team with the lee position will almost always prevail. As you note, we've seen battles where a great deal of cohesion was maintained on one or both sides, and battles that quickly devolved into chaotic melee, all without any major change in the core system. Sounds to me like we mainly just need more people to participate in more battles, and more variety in types and conditions of battles, not changes in core mechanics.
Two much more important points:
-you can't really expect players to use formation tactics much in a game that drops players in a clustered mess within gun range of each other. We really shouldn't focus too much on the dynamics of large group formations until we have some sort of battle commander function that lets players be arranged in formation before battle (and maybe rewarded with points for maintaining formation?).
-line fighting, and age of sail tactics in general, do not mix with random wind changes. Fleet tactics were almost entirely dependent on relatively consistent wind.
-
2
-
-
I can only assume you mean using [ or ] to fire broadside, as that indeed will not reach 500-600 yards.
-
Then stop worrying about sinking as the determinant of victory and let the AI surrender when their ship is crippled (no masts, taking on water), or when they have lost more than 50-75% of crew instead of current absurd 100%. Setting mechanics of sinking (and combat in general) based on play against AI will mess up PVP. 30 minutes sounds like too short a time for a player in a brig to beat two other players in Brigs. That should rightly be a hard, long fight.
-
8
-
-
So why change things? Sounds like line fighting is difficult, but properly rewarded when executed with skill in the right situations, but the trade-off is time consumed in coordination, potential loss of initiative, and excessivey rigidity. It's not the right tactic for all situations. This another reason Nelson deemphasized maneuvers and prioritized invididual, aggressive action. A team spending all its effort and focus on maintaining a line / executing a complicated maneuver is vulnerable to an opponent getting inside their decision loop. (That said, I do think survivability / repair needs more tweaking, especially huge potential HP spread, but I also think a bigger problem may be crew survival / efficiency. But please do not change accuracy. It is very balanced currently.)Also would like to add this.
Sometimes feedback despite being reasonable brings unforeseen effects on the fun.
Current large events look like this
Battles turn into individual melee and small group duels (from 1v1 to 5v5). It is how it was in real life. Maintaining the line is extremely expensive and requires careful planning. Keeping the station also reduces DPS as you don't purse stragglers to finish them off. Nelson understood this and as a result most decisive victories relied on individual skill in a general mess of the battle, not on the line fighting that was ineffective for decisive victories. It is fully replicated in Naval Action line fighting does not bring decisive victories and enemies usually escape.
To bring tactics back several things must be brought back
1. Reduced survivability - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line
2. Nerf of survivability upgrades - increase the cost of mistakes and cost of getting out of the line
3. Minor increase to speed - increase ability to keep station reduce time required for planning fleet maneuver
4. Minor increase to turning - increase ability to keep station reduce the time required for long term planning
5. Increased accuracy - increase ability to deliver damage at long range to make line fighting more effective
The sad thing is that there are some old timers (like verhoeven, flgibson) who were major proponents of realism and history and pushed hard for more realism. But they don't participate in events for some reason (or participated a lot more during more casual sea trials1)
PS.
The first stable group of 10-15 ships with an admiral who is able to force his fleet to keep the line/station and focus fire will win majority of battles (OW or in Ports)
Also, you don't want to overemphasize distant line fighting and end up removing the need for invididual close action, potentially reducing every fight to a rinse and repeat one tactic wins focus fire duel, where the team with the lee position will almost always prevail. As you note, we've seen battles where a great deal of cohesion was maintained on one or both sides, and battles that quickly devolved into chaotic melee, all without any major change in the core system. Sounds to me like we mainly just need more people to participate in more battles, and more variety in types and conditions of battles, not changes in core mechanics.
-
3
-
-
I'd be pretty thrilled with coastlines / elevations generated procedurally from main map, and generic forts in real, or at least realistic, locations.
-
2
-
More on the Cerberus?
in Patch Feedback and General discussions
Posted