Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

hoarmurath

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    396

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by hoarmurath

    crew loss from cannons

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    Currently, we are experimenting a meta where boarding allow to win battle faster and easier. We could keep boarding as it is, but it's not really satisfactory from a gameplay perspective, and certainly not from an historical point of view.

     

    During the period covered by the game, many ships were lost not necessarily because of structural damage, but also from loss of crew. This is represented currently in the game by the use of grape shots. But grape shots were ammunitions mostly used in preparation of boarding, or to repel boarding, quite useless unless ennemy crew was massed on decks. Many crew loss would come from damage from cannonballs, and especially from the splinters they would send flying in target upon impact. This is not what we currently have in game, what we currently have are crew hitboxes that the cannonballs have to hit to provoke crew loss.

     

    My suggestion is that, instead of using hit boxes for crew, we could use % loss from cannonballs hits. If you consider that a ship, before it would sink, would have probably lost as much as 2/3 of its crew, what you have to do is take the total number of structure points for the sides of the ship, and divide them by the number of crew the ship can lose, and then take the result as a crew loss/point of damage that go through the planking, thus simulating the effect of splinters thrown inside from impact. You can also limit this crew loss to some extent, by making impossible to reduce a crew below 1/3 of its original strength without actually boarding.

     

    This method would make gunnery a better alternative as by concentrating on it, you would as well reduce the boarding ability of your opponent. It would also allow to make raking fire more efficient, by making, for example, bow raking fire double crew loss, and stern raking fire triple crew loss. If you add additionnal gun loss from raking fire, you would create the conditions that would make bow or stern tanking ineffective, and give back to raking its historical tactical value.

     

    The values indicated in this suggestion are, of course, only used as examples, and would probably require some tweaking to get the desired results, making the choice between boarding and gunnery a real choice, with a system that would be better balanced.

    Livineater

    in Tribunal - Трибунал

    Posted

    I didn't say don't stream.  I said don't stream in real time, meaning set your stream on a long delay so people can't know your real time position.  If you delay the stream long enough, it wouldn't matter if people are watching because they won't know exactly where you are.

     

    The point of all this is really not a matter of honor or morality or whatever.  If the enemy is giving you free intel, you'd be dumb not to use it.  And for that matter, can you really expect people not to? 

     

    You can say you wouldn't as a matter of honor, but it's the internet.  There's no way to prove you aren't stream-sniping as much as there is no way to prove you are.  It's a "Shrodinger's Cat" situation.  Everyone is simultaneously stream-sniping and not stream-sniping at the same time.  ;) (Did I blow your mind?)  You can say you're not stream-sniping, but if you beat the streamer in combat, they'll just say you were.

     

    Point is, it's the responsibility of the streamer to protect themselves by delaying the stream if they're worried about it, and/or accept that the possibility of being sniped is part of streaming and live with it.  The burden isn't on all the potential "snipers" out there.

     

    Maybe when the game goes live, but i disagree from an alpha testing pov. We are here to test game features and provide feedback, we know that a lot of features aren't included in the game yet. Maybe streamers would prefer to do it in a pve server. But it's alpha, and we have only one server. To use streamsniping isn't testing anything in the game, and is the kind of tactics i expect from griefers. Imo, it's very poor sportmanship and a lack of respect for the testing community.

     

    Personally, i consider that the presence of streamsnipers at this stage of testing is questionable. Maybe they should be kept at bay until the game hit early access.

    • Like 2

    Livineater

    in Tribunal - Трибунал

    Posted

    Gamover should really just Getover himself. (see what I did there? :lol:)

     

    Don't want to get streamsniped?  Don't stream in real time.  You can set a delay of up to 15 min on Twitch.  There's no way to get "sniped" if you are trying.  Not to mention, you're playing a war game.  One in which espionage is possible.

     

    Streaming is the equivalent of radio broadcasting top secret info in WWII over normal airwaves and expecting the enemy to 1) not be listening and 2) not do anything with all that free intel.  :rolleyes:

     

    Err... I'm not sure that discouraging people who stream is really good for a game. The kind of message it send doesn't seem very appealing to me. :blink:

    Crafting Recipes (Excl. Ships) - Modules Recipes + Stats

    in Guides - development forum

    Posted

    Has anyone converted these down into a list of raw materials per ship?

     

    For example, Cutter needs 96 planks which requires 20 oak logs (5 planks per log) or 13 iron fittings which requires 24 iron ingots (4 iron fittings per 6 iron ingots) which requires 5 iron ore and 5 coal per ingot =

    120 coal and 120 iron ore. [Recognise these examples produce more finished articles but that is what the game setting dictate].

     

    Anyone with a wizzy spreahsheet that can do this?

     

    PS Reason for asking - to know how much of the base 'stuff' I am going to have to find to build a ship :)

     

     

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S0f0X-HbMHKlt2m4wtgsGvLsIVX-hI9sib_a-z3wowY/edit?usp=sharing

     

    It's a very basic version, nothing fancy

    • Like 1

    guns for new ships

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted · Edited by hoarmurath

    When a new player make the mistake and ask about what he can do on help chan, i'm usually the one who answer if i'm online. Not every player ask. It happened to me, and I didn't. Yet, i can understand their frustration and disapointment at having to return grinding in a basic lynx after having finally bought the new ships they were dreaming about since they started. And when i explain them how to solve the problem, some are amused, others are angry, and i can understand them.

     

    Just think about this : they aren't punished because they made a mistake. There's absolutely no indication in the game that a new ship come without guns. You can't even know what guns you can put on a ship before buying it, so you can't prepare for the added cost. It's not a mistake on their part.

     

    And most of them think "i'll put my old guns on my new ship"... It seem perfectly logical to them, and to be perfectly honest, it is. Just, the basic guns of the lynx can't equip anything else. Right now, a lot of new players, starting with the yacht equiped with this gun end up not understanding why they can't put back their guns on their ships after trying to remove them. Did they make a mistake? No, they were experimenting with the UI, which is perfectly normal. Yet they get punished for doing it.

     

    I can understand that it's not high on the list of priorities, but i hope the issue will be thought about before game release. There's absolutely no point about letting in a game a feature that punish the player without him making anything stupid. Unless your game is about sado-masochism, then, it could be normal.

     

    A simple solution could be to allow all 7th rate ships to mount class 10 guns.

    guns for new ships

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    The design decision on this is simple

    Ships were built for shipyards and then had their guns equipped elsewhere. Very often the selection of guns (if of course they were available) was decided by the Captain. This is implemented in the game.

     

    Most often than not this mistake can only be done once, and is usually done on light small vessels. So it is not very costly and you can make the money for additional guns in 2-3 battles. 

     

    Then make it clear when they buy the ship. They need a warning.

    Player roles discussions

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    Captains.. 

     

    There were several proposals on the Navy officer role and we would like to discuss it in depth here.  Just to keep expectations clear.  We are of course not saying or promising this will be done. It is just a discussion.

     

    Proposed Navy roles

     

    Naval officer

    • Works for the Admiralty of their respective country. yes, this seem logical
    • Receives salary - does not make money by selling ships. they should get prize money for captured ships
    • Does not pick ships - ships are assigned by the Admiralty randomly according to rank and achievements. ships, as upgrade officers, should be bought with points. Influence in admiralty should allow you some limited choice over your assignments
    • Cannot capture ships - ships are sent to Admiralty for admiralty points. ok, seem logical, as long as they get prize money
    • Does not hire crew - crews are supplied by the Admiralty with ships Yes, why not, as crew doesn't have a skill level
    • Repairs are provided by Admiralty ok with that
    • Has to fulfill duties  - must fight, must accept battles wrong wording, they have to fulfill missions, not all missions for naval officers have to be about fighting
    • Top rated ships are assigned based on leaderboards depend on what you call top rated ships. First and second rate, certainly, third maybe, fourth should be normally available for port/trafalgar battles
    • Upgrades/officers and unique content can be bought from the Admiralty store for points. Ships for the admiralty stores are supplied by crafters. why not, but shouldn't ships crafted by player be easier to get access to? Or reserved if they so chose?
    • Can buy ships for himself if he has money (but those will be limited due to low salaries) Is a naval officer sailing its own ship still on duty?

    Basically a combat class that does not think about the cash and is always supplied for combat. Ideal for the player who is not interested

     

    Privateer/Pirate

    • Works for himself buying a patent. Lettre de marque, yes
    • Patent costs money per month Why not
    • Can capture ships for himself Seem logical, but.. see below on the "sail any ship"
    • Have to hire crew and pay salaries for the crew and officers this too seem logical
    • Have to repair ships he has to pay for repairs, ok
    • Can sail any ship if he can hire and support the crew IIRC, ships captured should be submitted to admiralty who could take possession of warships, with the privateer given the estimated value of the ship in money. Shouldn't it be used to limit access to top rated ships?

    Crafter (support role but both officers and privateers can be crafters too)

    • Makes ships for the admiralty and privateers Yes
    • The guy with money Fame, girls, everything, ok

     

    Admiralty

    • Buys ships and upgrades from crafters OK, but a crafting naval officer should chose to get less money and instead receive store point? Or be given privilegied access to its own crafted ships?
    • Supplies ships and upgrades to naval officers according to fame ratings OK why not

    The drawback of this system is the lack of freedom.

    Right now you can sail any ship you want and see and can buy or capture. In the defined roles scenarios most players won't be able 

     

    When i craft, i like to use what i have crafted. Of course this doesn't mean i should sail anything i craft, but if i can craft something i can sail, i would like to be able to sail it... It's part of the fun...

    • Like 2

    pvp/pve flag and open world interaction

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted

    There seems to be this assumption that PVE players provide all the trading in these comments.

     

    Hell in the new patch coming up nearly all players are going to be chugging around getting resources to craft the best ship - and be at risk of attack by people who aren't crafting at that time.

     

    im not sure i like the idea of someone flagging themselves to freely gather resources without risk and then being able to unflag themselves when they have crafted an uuber ship 

     

    Then good luck, because it's exactly what devs have currently in mind, and it has nothing to do with my suggestion...

    pvp/pve flag and open world interaction

    in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions

    Posted · Edited by hoarmurath

    hoarmurath, please get off your high horse.  My answer is not irrelevant.  Why do you get to decide so?  You don't.  Even if your suggestion turns out to be irrelevant because devs implement a pvp and pve server, my post still remains relevant so that the devs keep it in mind for future features, especially with removing the neutral faction.

     

     

    I said the payout has to be massive.  THAT is why it is worthwhile, just like it was in real life.  I even gave a way to mitigate risk, AI Fleets.  And here is another:  insurance.  This doesn't apply just to your suggestion, but as a econ comment in general.  Irrelevant?  No.

     

    You are missing an important point : losing their time because they can't move from port to port without being attacked isn't fun. Not being able to do eco because they keep getting sunk while trying isn't fun, even if they don't lose money thx to insurance. If the game isn't fun, i don't see how you expect them to keep playing it.

     

    In fact, my suggestion is made so the risk is still present for traders, without being systematic, thus keeping it at an acceptable level. But you, like others, haven't read it thorougly. You just look at the title and say "OMG, pvp flag, i can't attack those nasty traders anymore?" and you start crying. This is what pvp flag does, and currently, this is what the devs have in mind. You read what admin have written here, that's a possibility. A good one even, i'm not surprised, that's what i had heard from other discussions.

     

    What i'm suggesting is a way to alter their idea of NCO flag and make it so there's still a risk involved, but a small one. And also some risk, not only for them, but for you (you attack a lonely player, when suddenly he received reinforcements you hadn't noticed, as they were flagged so you couldn't see them). It bring some part of uncertainty and risk for everybody, pve and pvp players alike. It make you have to think twice before attacking anybody anywhere, just in case there's a nasty surprise waiting around the corner. It make you think twice about attacking a ship in an area where there's a big chance of other ships being close enough to intervene, and for pve players, it make them think twice about the path they chose, so they have a chance of receiving reinforcements in case of troubles, or they take the shortest path and risk fighting alone if they end up in an unexpected fight.

     

    I suggest you start thinking, really thinking, about what admin said about NCO, and about my suggestion. Then, maybe, you will realize that's not a suggestion to protect pve players, but that's actually a suggestion to keep a higher level of risk for them, as well as for pvp players.

×
×
  • Create New...