TrackTerror
-
Posts
154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by TrackTerror
-
-
I do not think insurance is of critical importance at this time of development.
Wheras it is a nice feature I would rather see promised roadmap targets beeing dealt with first. This imo could wait until after release.
-
1 hour ago, Intrepido said:
Game doesnt recognize land masses, thats the issue. Thats why we have missions spawn in the other side of big islands, bottles in shallows...
Game does recognize landmasses and there are collision detection already in OW.
How this is implemented however is another issue, but I am sure that if given time the devs can translate this to calculating collision serverside as well and trough a simple recursive method can avoid entrycircles ending up on land it is just a question of prioritization and cost in time to implement, I don't find this a major issue but would like to have it addressed before official release.
-
My 2 cents
Flag price need to be dynamic and derived from the total amount of gold on server this way it will never be to cheap nor to expensive.
Fake flags will then cost a significant amount of money and players will therefore think twice before faking an attack. Thus not removing fakes but limiting. Somehow i think in a sandbox that fake attacks are ok/Part of the game but needs moderation ofc.
-
1
-
-
The ultimate rage boarder, does it come with a built in counter- determind defender?
-
1
-
-
Something like this would add more content which is needed especially for solo players.
+1
-
1
-
-
Why don't you provide a link then instead of spreading your passive aggressive toxicity.
-
5
-
-
This perk is soo overpowered, there has been several suggestions to remove/change this, why it is back in the game noone knows, there are no explanation from the devs why they put it back.
Probably reload noObs who complain of getting boarded when they get to close without any boarding mods. Rather then up their game by equipping their ships accordingly and train in boarding they whine how unfair boarding are, there are certainly improvements to be done to boarding but it is still part of the game (almost).
I agree that there are an issue with various types of boarding mechanics exploits such as smaller ships board and a second grape, but this perk punishes everyone and are not a good solution and limits the scope and tools of the game for players to use in this sandbox.
Increasing perk cost and mitigating effects of the perk has been suggested before to moderate it, not to mention removing it again.
I would love to know how the devs are reasoning in regards to why it came back, maybe they can win me over, but i doubt it with it's current configuration.
-
3
-
-
46 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:
This player does it to everyone, everyone is tired of him. His intention is never to fight. That's pure griefing. It's not one-time incident, there are tons of victims.
That makes it a different story.
-
Without knowing his intentions with the tagging this does not surmount to greifing. There are plenty scenarios where this is perfectly legal and valid tactic, I am not saying this is one but sure is not worthy of tribunal.
-
39 minutes ago, NethrosDefectus said:
I assume these numbers include bonuses given from wood types and built in trims?
Yes, trim bonuses count towards the cap.
-
what about
- crew resistance
- boarding bonuses
-
Tanky non boardable ships will be the meta for this, mast upgrades not needed. Stack hp, reload , determined defender. Job done
-
1
-
-
- Increase Wasa BR I think it should sit closer to the Bellona then Aga.
- Remove random roll/buff to ships crafted in safezones, this will encourage trading and sailing outside, yet still allow new players to level up inside.
- add regional trims to random bonuses of ships crafted at a very rare level 1% or so.
-
1
-
-
Aga is pretty op with 2 decks of pood. Enjoy it before nerfbat arrives.
-
1
-
-
Or even better make it optional in options, but yea to much clickfest with this popup.
-
Whatever the solution with the port timers are it needs to include players from all time zones.
Perhaps a lateral solution are needed where port timers as we know them are scrapped yet still facilitates for players in all timezones to defend and attack. A server split would kill the game for me unless the game has a big resurgence in players beforehand.
One solution which some mmo's are using are usimg actual timezone on the map that sets static defender/attacker times depending on location on the map.
I am not suggesting this would be a good alternative in NA but I believe an alternative to server split / night timers abuse need to be considered.
-
13 minutes ago, admin said:
There are two ways were are considering
- Give an option to start changing the timer for the enemy and also an option for a port holder to react (using war supplies for pvp marks for example). This will provoke and create economy wars (which is good).
- Much cheaper and faster alternative, keeping the control with the port owner. Just make the timer cost pvp marks, lets say 20 per day or just raise the price to an appropriate amount in gold (not the amount that can be gained by killing three rookie brigs), some areas will be outside of the control still but it will be a lot more expensive to maintain. as current cost of the timer is ridiculous
I think the upkeep of ports should be dynamic and scale with the total accumulated wealth on the server, each server restart. This way it will auto correct itself in line future changes to income as well.
-
I wish this is how every hostility event would look like , the mindless pve grind is really the main reason for avoiding portbattles
-
5
-
-
France has now has been given a ride to the after show.
-
Batman vs Batman, I fully endorse this thread, can we have a monkey vs monkey thread as well please..
-
BAH, Comon Knobby I was saving windowlicker for later but you beat me to it.
-
To cheer this thread up I will have another line, another spliff and a post a tune to all genocidal apologists.
Quick remainder that you are in cabalallalalalalalalaland, don't forget.
-
1 hour ago, BPHick said:
No, the amount of repairs used is dependent solely on the base repair requirements.
Basically to use Redneck's example. My base rate is 25 hull repairs used per repair instance on my 10000 hp ship. Without perks, I will use 25 repairs and repair 2500 of my HP. With a 6% repair buff I will still use 25 repairs but will repair 2650 hp. Make sense? At least this has been my casual observation. I will test it this evening when I get home.your base rate is dependent on your hitpoints. 2 different ships with same hitpoints will require same amount of repps.
With 5% repp buff you should be using 5% more repps then unmodified, but please try you made me unsure, and let us know,
If this is rounded up or down I don't know. So test using a ship where 1 rep is equals or more then your bonus.
(5% bonus rep on a ship that requires 20 repps for a normal cycle would then require 21) Also try with a ship where 1 rep is more rounded such as a 5% on a 15 rep ship.(which is less then 1 rep) and see if the former adds a rep but the latter doesn't.Also try to figure out if the using whole INT's or floats/double values, this got quite interesting now.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Farrago said:
So if you have a perk or mod that increases your repair percentage above the base 25%, you’ll use more repairs per instance?
Yes, amount of repairs you use is dependent of amount of hitpoints repaired.
-
1
-
I will never forget you Lord Capstan.
in Caribbean News
Posted
Now you ride the waves of eternity.
o7