Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Mr. Doran

Tester
  • Content Count

    509
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Mr. Doran last won the day on April 13

Mr. Doran had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

708 Excellent

4 Followers

About Mr. Doran

  • Rank
    Trinco 1v1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,531 profile views
  1. The joke is that ROE is not going to change. No changes to the ROE will facilitate continuous action. That is a problem pretty much totally unconnected to any ROE system at this point.
  2. You can temper the high you are looking for even in an arena game by the same function of simply just limiting your playtime of combat which is essentially what you are describing in regards to OW. For me, the adrenaline and uncertainty faded for me in Sea-Trials and well before OW closed access became available to the "testers". A well designed game does not need to keep you on edge and high strung in order to be enjoyed. Even though the high had disappeared for me long ago I could play the combat model we had just prior to the introduction of structure indefinitely via the duel-room without getting bored of it. Just like Chess and Chess players, albeit I do hate the game, I do not think play for the excitement and thrill after the five-thousandth game. They play because there is an incredibly well designed game in front of them with great depth to it. There is no cheap gimmick required in order to keep them coming back. All they need and want is the game. A parallel to Naval Action in regards to the thrill and excitement factor for me is Day-Z. When I first played Day-Z and purposely try to get into as many combat situations as possible you have that thrill, excitement, and adrenaline. But of course as in pretty much all games that does eventually fade. I continued to play not to seek a high of some sort but because there is a depth to the game of finding quarries and killing them.
  3. Are we going to pretend that there are not a select amount of archetypal types of battles that you can find yourself in playing OW? Go ahead, tell me when you start finding, or more likely, ignoring the similarities. My personal experience during my years was spending probably 70%+ of my time solo-hunting. I did in fact run into the same situations continuously. Usually against someone who never stood a chance even if they were in a larger ship. The difference between me running into the same situation, fighting the same battle over and over again, is that in an arena I can fight that battle continuously without potentially needing to search it out first for three hours. Yes I know this is a "sailing" game. As much as basically having the same OW sailing model as POTBS can be seriously considered "sailing". But I would rather not do the pretend "sailing" in order to fight the same types of battle continuously. Even the time I spent group-fighting and ganking it was always the same situations time after time. But yet again, with the same "fun" caveat of wasting god knows how many hours to get a decent fight if a fight at all. There are only some many types of battles and circumstances you will commonly run into in OW... you just may be spending a lot of time to get one of the good ones.
  4. Only the community of Naval Action could possibly ever say that "continuous action" is boring.
  5. I don't think any of us arena players are entitled. If it meant paying 20 USD a month to stay away from the filth of OW I know me and quite a lot of people I have met in my time here would do it. I never understood the anti-arena sentiment on this forum. It's not as if some of the most popular games ever constructed and running today are not some form of arena game. What is worse is that most people do not realize that most of the ROE that is currently implemented is basically some form of shitty arena-lite. Even back in 2015 when it was just the instance close timer being debated and tweaked there were quite a number of people that realized the "sailing" in OW is basically just a glorified lobby with a horrendous wait time. But instead of getting good fights or at least the opportunity for so, you get the asymmetric rofl stomps you so desire over 90% of the time.
  6. You always never mention the fact that you had to start in a 7th rate. You once told me that most people on OW never got past brig before leaving so I do not think it is exactly a coincidence that the exams give you MC. The real content of this game always started at fifth rates so is it really shocking that most vets that I knew threw up in their mouths and when they saw they had to start in a cutter? You always never mention the fact that a 12-pound gun-deck Constitution could be fighting one armed with a 24-pound gun-deck either. You also never mention the fact that you admitted to the fact the first round of testing was almost purely to see what the rate of the grind would be. Obviously most players actually looking for PVP did not want to fight bots which is why you botched how combat was organized. Instead of taking the effort to get with the times and create a que with a set amount of players in a competitive format such as 5v5 or smaller you decided to go with the dirty cheap shit way of your forebearers using a mass que. You created the artificial necessity to have over a dozen players in each match with essentially no guarantee of being able to pull together the correct balance of ships. You could have made a simple champion selection type process so you could at least guarantee standardization and some semblance of balance. What should have been focused on is getting players into fun combat as fast as possible in a competitive environment rather than the generic "World of" crap that you fed us. You still to this day draw the wrong conclusions to why NAL did not draw players in. Instead of asking yourself how you could have made it better you just assume that people do not want to play it. I'm always reminded of the Andrew Lang quote, "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination" whenever this comes up. It befuddles me that you believe the combat system is not good enough to stand up to the type of environment described. It was arena and a supply of over two thousand battles on-tap that inspired me to write this. Not the promise of ganking people. Not because I had to go craft ships. Not because I had to escape from revenge fleets. 1. Whats your cost basis? a. How many instances per room? b. Could it just be used essentially as a regular lobby for 2v2s as it sounds like a full room is being paid for? 2. If there is a fee for arenas/lobbies there better not be any grinding involved. If you are going to actually offer the chance to buy instant combat it damn well better be.
  7. You underestimate how easy it would be to tweak and manage two separate CMs. This is not a costly or time consuming endeavor at this point. The idea of an arena game baiting people in to purchasing NA may be (admins) wet dream but I don't think it is a realistic one. The people who play either game types are often categorically opposed to the opposite type of game. I also do not believe many will go from having instant and fair fights with everything already grinded out to nothing in OW and gank city only at the low low cost of $39.99. It is easier to convert people tired of the OW cirucs to an arena environment than the other way around.
  8. Most changes to make a coherent combat system could be accomplished in one fell swoop if there was the will on the part of (admin) to do so. The basic cancers could be cut off quite easily and thus the CM reverted to the state it was previously at. For example, just killing all CD repairs and replacing it with one of the old limited systems would do a lot in conjunction with a universal increase in hull HP. What few people probably remember at this point was the fact that there was a 20% reduction to hull HP during the initial introduction phase of structure. The most coherent damage model we ever had was just prior to the introduction to structure. Structure could still be introduced into that DM but without all the cancers that have come up with it to date. My point being, it realistically wouldn't be that hard to revert two years of bad decisions.
  9. This isn't exactly the full picture of whats going on. 1. With the prior acceleration curves and without the new sail force modifiers you could only achieve this kind of tack if you already had considerable speed to begin with. 2. With the current acceleration and sail-force modifiers you can achieve fast tacks with much lower speeds than what was achievable in the past. Potential carry through speed can vary lower depending on the initial speed but overall it is many times easier to not get stuck in irons. 3. Because your accelerate 200-300% faster than previously you can achieve the critical speed threshold necessary to perform a tack very quickly. 4. The only thing that changes is there is a greater window of solution points in the equation that may cause backing but it essentially negated by the fact how quickly your can turn through the wind due to the new sail-forces on the foremast. The amount of backing time normally experienced (if at all) is minimal and as previously stated just ends up getting you through the wind anyways. 5. Even at closed-haul and close-haul you accelerate so quickly that you are able to generate enough speed in a short period of time to perform a reasonable tack. 6. I forgot to add probably the one of the most important points. Once you are through the tack you can regain energy and your delta-distance at a much greater rate now than you used to be able to with the previous acceleration curves. Even if you end up being caught backing for a very brief amount of time the fact that you can accelerate to a high delta-distance once you through the wind at an incredible rate it doesn't even matter that you tack was botched to begin with. In the old acceleration curves it took a lot of time to regain that speed once you went through the wind with or without carry through speed. The net change is that it is pretty much objectively easier to do almost everything related to tacking. To give another way of thinking about it. If I could somehow have the properties of the new sail-forces applied to my ship only in a duel against a ship using the acceleration and sail-forces of the prior acceleration curves I would have a massive advantage even without the new acceleration. Adding to point three, this goes to the heart of delta-distance. In the past you had to cover more distance in order to gain more speed obviously. This left you in another potential window of vulnerability because you could only gain critical speed for the type of tack shown in that video by going in a straight line for quite some time. If your opponent already had a high delta-distance value or his max-delta distance value he could launch an attack against your or convert his energy to a positional advantage.
  10. Full continuity of the CM I do not think is favorable nor is it realistic. Even if they fixed all of the existing problems there always been something wacky and OW that the OW model will have in it like port bonuses and disgustingly over powered gear. Which under backwards logic is what could influence what the game is "balanced around". If the goal is to retain players this time as well perhaps do not put a suicide fuel grind in front of them this time as well. When the game doesn't actually start until you get to fifth rates it is idiotic to make people to start in a cutter or brig if you want them to actually play your game. As I have said in the mast, lessons should be learned from MOBAs like LoL and DOTA that give players content to start with without putting them into some grind based world of xyz labor gulag. The 5v5 model used by many games, almost all of them free to play at this point in some form or another, where fair action is given to the player instantly should be considered. Imagine if in CSGO you had to grind to unlock the ak-47; it would be f-ucking absurd. If they just fixed the combat model, made the game f2p, did not include some heinous grinding, gave players actual content of the competitive and casual variety to start with, and tried to get as much free exposure from streamers as possible they would have a something that would be pretty hard to accidentally f-uck up. In case "admin" comes by with his player retention statistics he can answer to Andrew Lang first: “He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination.”
  11. To give a mathematical analogy, there are less solution points than there used to be that can solve the equation. The current acceleration dumbs down the sailing so there are less possible correct decisions you can possibly make. It narrows down the envelope of what you have to do in order to win. You can only skin the cat one way now in other words. Its the equivalent of converting a complex RTS game into Bejeweled. This is so backwards. Light ship play has always been more algorithmic and simple mainly because everything is so absurdly up-gunned and able to nuke each other. Disabling, with the exception of any existing carronade demasting that has existed time to time for 6th and 7th rates, is pretty much out of the question. You just plan the most optimal set of BS exchanges to sink the other guy that usually occurs at the closest ranges you can possibly play in this game. Even fixed acceleration would not change this much because light ships have always had retard tier acceleration to begin with. You aren't making more or more complex decisions you are just making the same few decisions repeatedly. 5th rate gameplay and higher when acceleration actually did function properly was not thinking just one or two turns ahead. And with the gameplay at its best when it was a beautiful positional battle that in order to win at times you may have only needed to fire a shot to keep your opponent tagged. A positional battle that I think most players did not think they were ever losing to begin with and could compound to the consequences that it amounted to.
  12. I asked (somebody) about acceleration and why it is so f-ucked up. (Somebody) said that there had not been any changes to the acceleration curves since wacky patch 6.9. I also think the new sail force changes may have ushered this in but I was not around at the time to confirm it. So I think that (Somebody) really did not intend to change the curves.
×
×
  • Create New...