Percival Merewether
-
Posts
474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Percival Merewether
-
-
6 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:
Everything looks fine, except that ^. What is the reasoning for this?
By only giving only the mission reward itself, you can tune the mission income in safe zones thus making high-tier mission less profitable.
This means that going out in your Navy Brig will get you a decent amount of money to develop your outposts, but doing 1st rate missions will only give you a limited income and force rear admirals out of the zone.
You will still get the money for sinking ships if you do the missions outside the zone of course. The idea is to promote an easy start to Naval Action but force people away from the safe zone if they wish to develop further in-game.
Doing 1st rate missions in safe zones will likely cost you more in repairs than you will make, but will still fun to do if you need to kill an hour before dinner or bed.
-
2 minutes ago, Sir Loorkon said:
Oh the Brits have so much luck. They do not even have to sail around to get PVP, they just have to stay at KPR.
Let's just focus on creating an environment that will foster more players for you to kill at Tumbado with your 1st rates and for Nethros and I to gank
I'm never at KPR, and I'm tired of safe zones and all the fighting happening around them... I just want people to leave port.
-
1
-
-
Gentlemen
Something I've been thinking about lately... It's become increasingly harder and harder to find PvP, I've found myself at La Habana and Charleston more often than I should. I’ve been attacking new players, PVE'ers and other individuals who really weren't too interested in getting their day ruined by a random British captain.
I’ve had shit thrown at me in private messages by “honorable” captains from competing nations around French, American and Spanish waters for attacking them (PvP’ers), instead of attaking PVE’ers.
This has made me think.
Disclaimer: I know the devs have little to no interest in changing safe zones for now, especially with the new patches on their way.
I'd like to propose the following:
-
Make safe zones safe - no
fightingPvP at all in safe zones.. let people do missions there for as many hours as they like. - Remove enemy AIs from capital zones (have to leave the capitals if you want to engage AI fleets for books).
-
Remove money reward for killing ships in missions, increase the cash reward for the mission itself. - Make the cash reward higher for low tier missions, and lower for high tier missions.
- Make all basic books purchasable from the admiralty with CMs.
- Make ONE safe zone per nation.
I believe that this will create a good, safe environment around capitals for new players, they will be able to get everything they need for the first week or two - if they want more money, skill books and marks they have to leave the zone.
If experienced players feel like logging-in to fight some AI for an hour this can easily be done in the safe zone too.
Most importantly: Casuals will never be annoyed again by any gankers or actual PvP’ers looking for a fight. PvP’ers can now fight each-other and brave PVE’ers can explore the beautiful map of Naval Action in hopes of finding new riches while I search for them.!
Cheers guys.
EDIT: Edited according to feedback.
EDIT: For easier understanding.
-
18
-
Make safe zones safe - no
-
Remove recently killed and PvP marks, thatd solve both problems.!
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, Tom Farseer said:
If the algorithm works, yes it should. My suggestion just aims at feeding said algorithm a better suited starting point, to make it converge on it's finite solution faster.
Alright, makes sense.!
As you were
-
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.
-
@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 opponent escape right under your nose.. it should simply not be possible.
-
18 minutes ago, speijk said:
but area control is complete utherless unrealistic
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.
On 8/27/2018 at 10:53 AM, HachiRoku said:I think control should be added to all ships. There are so many times I have been forced to get into a position I did not want to be in just to tag. I have also "abused" this behind trincs and Stern camped them until I could leave. I can't imagine how the guy felt when an almost dead surprise magicly disappeared.
On 8/27/2018 at 10:31 AM, Percival Merewether said: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 away to run because of the timer.
Hethwill does mention the point of in-game balance - Admin has also mentioned in the newest post regarding patch 26 that they will prioritise balance over accuacy.. so neither of us can really use the historical accuacy argument anymore.
On 8/27/2018 at 10:58 AM, Hethwill the Harmless said:Area control + equipped bow guns > Area control + no bow guns
Area control + no bow guns is equivalent to bow guns equipped.
For the sake of playability though, I do not see why you shouldn't have a small control zone preventing the enemy from escaping when right next to you (e.g. 300 meters).
-
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
-
-
2 minutes ago, admin said:
The problem with chasers is that some ships are modelled without the bow ports according to the blueprints. And it will require quite an effort to rework the systems to provide bow/stern chaser opportunities on all ships. Once we clear priorities out we can come back to this.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Lovec1990 said:
How is area control even usefull?
you sill need to catch enemy
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 away to run because of the timer.
Control needs to be added to all ships.
1 hour ago, vazco said:Area control is what makes some ships unique and worth sailing. Idea you suggest would make them worthless when compared to those with chasers.
It would be also very hard to distinguish which ship has control, making game more confusing. It would be better to give all ships area control, at least it's less confusing - even if it removes ship variety.
This is also a very good point, however.. I believe that every ship in-game should have bow and stern chasers - it would be fairly easy for a carpenter to mount chasers on the vast majority of ships in-game such as the Buc, Trinc and Ren.
EDIT: Would actually be really cool to have chasers as a knowledge or perk.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, admin said:
Ranks will be rebalanced slightly in the next 1-2 patches
New ranks will also be added on release.
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?
-
1 minute ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:
No. That what you are assuming I said. Please READ.
On 8/20/2018 at 1:49 PM, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:I hate to debate what text on a screen really means, as I cannot read minds.
😛
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Old Crusty said:
The account has more to do with the Dishonor and Dishonesty of the Barbers than anything else.
I agree, but Heth seems to believe that it was linked to the ship type.
-
9 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:
Very specific and documented usage of that particular ruse linked to tripolitans barbary coast corsairs. Given the most similar ship we have in game is the Xebec Le Requin, my guess is that was the reasoning behing it.
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...?
-
I hate your suggestion, but I cannot help but wonder why this should be Xebec only?
-
23 minutes ago, Crow said:
Are you talking about ow tagging and the prepared perk??
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Old Crusty said:
The magic of repairs is definitely broken and something needs to be done. Rigging repairs while at full sails. No way. Perhaps if sailors are replacing some canvas then that canvas comes down for 10-15 seconds in game? The ship will initially slow down and then gain speed with the new canvas.
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.
-
1
-
-
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 determines fatigue, not the game telling you when you are tired/exhausted.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Macjimm said:
Cetric,
You have a great idea. I would love to see it implimented. Players could use fresh crew from fleet ships or other players. Lots of potential.
Unfortunately in this community realism and immersion are negative concepts. Only suggestions that promote lots of fights, with little of no waiting between battles, will generate support.
So much hate and impatience.
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.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, JoeFried said:
I am completely against it. After all, realistic battles take several hours. Cooling times and maintenance of the canals between 20 to 60 minutes. Sailing maneuvers also many minutes partly also an hour and more. During this phase repair work can be carried out without danger to the crew!
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 life? Repair in-game is considerably different from what you'd be capable of in real life during battle. Remember that when pulling the realism card.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Lovec1990 said:
but loss needs too be high losing 50% of crew repairing sails should be achived with 6 shots
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.
-
2
-
20 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:
He means basically:
Avarage player can get one without $$$ vs Spenders get one free for $$$ and the one for $$$ currently is superior.
There is only "real life eco" reference here
Might be hard to spot for people with big pockets that spend a lot on gaming.
Thanks, hard for Hethwill to comprehend.. he'll realise eventually.
I, and many other players I'm sure; will prefer to keep in-game eco and real-life eco seperate.
-
10 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:
Hold on for a second, initially Heavy Rattle BP was event only and at first only 1 nation had access to it, then 2 nations. Same happened to L'Ocean and GB nation had the only L'Ocean ship builder on the entire server. That's how meta was flawed. On the other hand Heavy Rattle is just an imaginary ship like Pirate Frigate. Both of them pushed back their original template, normal rattlesnakes are not present anymore, very rare view while in past they were very popular hunting ships. Pirate Frigates diminished normal Frigates. Sad truth about imaginary boats making their original ships inferior.
And the same happened with the Aggy... Yes, yes.. I know that you love to disagree with me but there's really no need to - my point stands, the Req is a DLC ship, the other ships never were.
8 minutes ago, Sir Hethwill the RedDuke said:Eco was too hard, right... so crafting had to become easier, more accessible, in safety, and so on?... being so easy now to get money in game ( and even at free cost by capturing ships from the NPC ), please tell me the major difference. We are not in 10.x patch anymore, sadly. DLC ships have come to bring even less reliance on the eco - guns and repairs needed, and now suddenly eco is important ? *sigh*
*sigh* I never metioned eco.... if you quote me, respond to what I actually said *sigh*
All the bloody ships could be redeemables for all I care, my point is that the Req is NOT available to everyone... it requires you to take money out of your own wallet to remain competitive in the game which you have already purchased... *sigh again*
Make safe zones safe (again?).!
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted · Edited by Percival Merewether
Thanks for the feedback so far
Edited the main post according to the above suggestions.