Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Percival Merewether

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Percival Merewether

  1. I think the only reason the new system appears “flawed” is because it has seen no active use yet. In time the BRs should balance out due to more varied use. The Agamemnon now is rated very low. I bet it won’t take long for that to change. The new system actively works against new powerful “metas” by discouraging mass-use of popular ships. I think this is the most positive thing from patch 26.
  2. @speijk I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. This is not about whether or not you can hit your target - the problem is that you have to sacrifice a beneficial position because you're forced to keep your opponent tagged. I have escaped in a Bellona vs Bellona fight in the past - I did this well within gun-range and he failed to tag me because he had grape loaded. That gave me an unfair advantage. I was 100 meters away.. When two ships are next to each other it should be impossible to leave regardless of tagging. The most frustrating thing in battle is having your o
  3. You are 100% correct on this one.... there are numerous historical examples of ships disappearing into thin air right under the enemy's nose after not being hit by a cannonball for two minutes.... 😛 If you are faster than your opponent, then you will be able to leave the control zone.. nobody says that it has to be a 15km radius control zone. Hachi's example is the best in this post as to why control should be added, though I feel I make a pretty good point as well. Hethwill does mention the point of in-game balance - Admin has also mentioned in the newest post regarding p
  4. Before anyone starts bashing this idea, I just want to say. I really like it! Especially the "fishing boats" idea. It will make an otherwise dead world feel much more alive. 👍
  5. Understandable; it's not an easy task or a high priority (Will require a considerable amount of modeling). I'm Just throwing some ideas out there.
  6. Often the best angle of approach makes you unable to shoot at your opponent. Eg.: Your enemy is fore-and-aft rigged and is sailing close hauled. You're in a faster square-rigged ship but can't go as close to the wind. In this case it may be beneficial to sail at a wider angle to the wind in order to get along side your enemy for demasting/chaining. The way the system works atm you have to turn at your opponent once every 1-2 minutes to keep your enemy tagged causing you to lose a significant amount of speed and distance to target. This enables a ship that otherwise wouldn't be able to get
  7. Have you considered having ranks go from midshipman to Post Captain (Captain)? Then grant people the rank of Commodore when they have fleet ships + allow the appointment of an Admiral for PBs?
  8. I agree, but Heth seems to believe that it was linked to the ship type.
  9. Yet multiple examples have been given in this thread of other ships doing the same? Would it not be more sensible to limit its use to pirates rather than the Xebec ship type? I see no particular connection to the Xebec here other than OPs example in the top. I do however feel this is more strongly linked to piracy than a ship type...?
  10. I hate your suggestion, but I cannot help but wonder why this should be Xebec only?
  11. Both in combination makes for some really odd starts. Your opening position in relation to the enemy is currently more important than your position in relation to the wind - I think that's a shame. I'm not complaining about prepared but I realise that starting at a greater distance will render it useless,. Your position in OW rarely represents your position in battle, and very often two hunters will turn at eachother in OW making it a complete lottery who starts where.
  12. While I really like your idea, I must insist that fights start at much greater distances - I'm tired of the "surprise chainshots". Your suggestion is really great and I can get behind it 100% - but with the current transition between OW and battle it will be a wet dream for gankers. There is just no way a ship should be able to sneak up 50 meters behind you with chain loaded ready to cripple your rigging without the crew of the your own ship realizing it (likely hours before). All battles should start outside chain range.
  13. Regarding fatigue: Don't forget that everything doesn't have to be simulated in-game. Players get fatigued and frustrated as well. During long drawn-out battles you will notice that people's manual sailing becomes less coordinated and broadside timing becomes less accuate. This is why so many PvPers are successful in overwhelming their opponents early in the battle causing them to panic. Adding in-game simulated fatigue would merely help inexperienced players by limiting the gap between skilled and unskilled captains. I prefer it when it's the skill-level of the player that determine
  14. I agree that it would be great with more realism in combat, but it's a game - we're far beyond realism at this point already, there are so many things that makes no sense now that we should just focus on making the game fun and enjoyable whilst maintaining the combat pace we have atm. But why on earth would you want more realism in OW? There is NOTHING to do, I often sail around for 2-3 hours looking for PvP,... Please don't increase that time further. The game is boring... like really boring 80% of the time.. The combat is just so good that it keeps me playing.
  15. I think it's important to remember that repairs were carried out during this phase because it was safe to do so. By adding this to the game it will encourage you to disengage for repairs instead of repairing in the middle of the fight - if you disengange, then you will have exactly the scenario you describe above. Also remember that not all battles at sea lasted for hours, just look at the HMS Shannon vs USS Chesapeake lasting only 15 minutes. EDIT: Another important point to make since you're advocating realism: What is it that is being repaired in-game that would be done in real li
  16. Let's not go overboard with crew losses here. A few points I'd like to make: You shouldn't lose more men than you have put on repair duty + sailing. possibility of crew dmg should be added for any action that requires men in the rigging. You need better control of how many men you put in each position (gunnery/sailing/repairing). These points should however not come in the way of fun, but rather add an extra layer of dept. The game is unrealistic as it is and I've given up advocating realism - let's just have fun playing it. Good suggestion @Sverne btw.
  17. But isn't this done with Thickness, HP and Crew resistance combined already?
  18. I take it you subscribe to the idea that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission then..? If I'm in a battle with a bunch of friendlies and tell my mate across the table that I'm gonna blow up the enemy team as well as my own; does that qualify as stating my intent? Should I not tell the people who are actually fighting along side me as well?
  19. Christ...... I retract this message after seeing that video. I hope you're punished accordingly. You clearly wanted to do as much damage as possible with no care for those around you - you're bringing nothing positive to the fight and choose to limit the fun for others purely for your own amusement. You had plenty of time to state your intentions and warn your teammates, instead you deliberately do green-on-green whilst celebrating the destruction of your own team...
  20. If 'MDonnergott Catatafish' was Crew Shocked; the situation may have been completely out of his control. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt - But would have been nice of him to have warned you guys so at the very least you could've braced.
  21. I believe that was covered in great detail in the documentary "Iron Sky" by Timo Vuorensola, Johanna Sinisalo and Michael Kalesniko
  22. Most of this thread has been regarding using AI fleets with unlimited chain as an offensive weapon, thus making it harder for your precious traders to escape because the AI has unlimited chain. This is why I suggested the following: You could also disable the chain/demast button for the attacking party - or are you also in favour of using AI ships to help hunters slow-down and capture traders? Don't be a dick about it, that's not going to get us anywhere.
  23. @NethrosDefectus suggest something that at least on the surface appeared to be an easy tweak for the next patch, and you dismiss it saying the developers should add content instead. Why don't you make a seperate new thread in which you suggest the 'new and improved' content that you have in mind? - and while you're here...: tell us why the developers should not limit chain for the AI.
  24. limiting AI chain as suggested by @NethrosDefectus would be the best approach, a more drastic step could be disabling AI fleets for attackers
  • Create New...