Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

SueMyChin

Tester
  • Posts

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by SueMyChin

  1. I'm not sure you're thinking along the same lines as me with the perimeter idea. So once an enemy ship was inside the perimeter they couldn't be engaged or engage a defender themselves. They sail up to to instance marker and attempt to join. If there's space they can join, if not then they can opt to join the queue to join should someone leave or be sunk inside the instance. This forces the defenders to blockade around the perimeter itself rather than just camp the instance marker. This is where the tactical side would come into it. They could all just try to rush the centre but they would probably just end up in a big melee with the defenders. If they win the melee, they will get temporary invulnerability and would be free to sail into the perimeter, if they lose then they respawn at their nearest friendly port and try again. This is why I wouldn't be too concerned about the reinforcements, they would have to travel to the port battle and negotiate the blockade before getting in. The defenders can rejoin the blockade after death/re-spawning but they can only join the main instance once, and only when there is space. As they would be re-spawning right on top of the instance, you couldn't give them infinite chances to join the main battle as the attackers would stand no chance. There are undoubtedly some issues to resolve (like players tagging each other outside the perimeter, peacefully leaving the instance so they can then use the temporary invulnerability to bypass the blockading force) but an open world solution like this has to be preferable to teleports and lobbies.. Well that would be the ideal situation, running in without being touched, that's what running a blockade was really but doing it tactically would still be a better approach. Remember, if you're tagged and either win the engagement by destroying the defenders or manage to manoeuvre past the defenders and escape towards the port then you're through the blockade.
  2. Thanks for feedback man. Yeh, it will need tweaking no doubt. There needs to be a compromise between numbers and quality sure, the larger nation should have an advantage over a smaller nation with a similar level of skill on both sides but skill should decide between similar size clans. The thing to keep in mind here is that without having teleportation/lobbies/invites then it wont simply be the larger nation, it will be the larger congregation of players in that area. You could have 10k players on the opposite side of the map but they wouldn't be able to do a thing to help. Then we can use the same 'over extension' theory to balance the nations as we do between clans. If one nation has loads of players they'll accumulate lots of ports, we can then adjust how often their ports are made vulnerable to attack according to how many players they have per port. So if the British have 50% of the players and start steam rolling other nations to capture the majority of the ports, we can simple increase how often their ports are made vulnerable, spreading their players more thinly and balancing the numbers involved in port batltes... I do think my idea provides some decent mechanics that can be used to balance the sides a bit too. For example a larger perimeter would disperse the defending blockade wider and leave bigger gaps for attackers to sneak through while the converse helps the defenders. While I agree, it will encourage that kind of behaviour, I think that's not so much a problem of conducting port battles this way, it's a problem with the Rules of engagement as they stand and one that needs resolving first. Also, it's not necessarily 'griefiing' when used like this, it's a valid tactic that has been used in war for centuries and was used by naval captains of this era too. Obviously, it's not ideal from a gameplay point of view but I think it can be discouraged at a later point in development should the rules of engagement mechanics not be enough. Could you explain a little more where you think this? Unless they're going to be short 1 hour vulnerability windows we would have to leave them open (or semi open instances) to players joining. We can't expect players to stay online, inside the instance for over 2 hours straight and what happens if the attacking players don't get into the actual instance until after an hour of the window being open, the defenders would have been sat there doing nothing the whole time. For this reason I would leave it open to new attackers (remember they would still have to sail there themselves and run the blockade) but closed to defenders (who would be able to spawn at that port after death to defend but obviously then couldn't just rejoin otherwise the attackers could never win. Yeh, I wouldn't have any magic nonsense myself, the outside perimeter battles simply effects who makes it to the main instance, how quickly they get there and in what condition. An attacking troop transport or mortar brig would need an escort to defend them, with or without improved RoE. RE: Blockading It's only boring if you don't expect anyone to try and run it. If you're expecting players then it's a completely different situation to blockading Brest in the 1800's, knowing fine well nothing but the occasional smuggler was going to put out.
  3. Sorry for the delayed reply, I didn't even know where to start with this to be honest, there's so much I have to say on it. I just want to state first the reasons why I think there should be enough for everyone to participate in, yet not too many that players are in 1 or two per night. If port battles are going to be the defining battles in this game mode they need to be unique and exciting, we should be looking forward to them each week. Not having one each night. It WILL get stale like this. I know it's been spoken about too much but where is the loss/reward if a port taken one day can then be lost the following night? I would say each port should be up for grabs once per week/fortnight. That would of course mean that there are hundreds of port battles per week BUT, without teleporting/lobbies/invites there is no way a player can participate in them all. If you had to actually be in the vicinity of the port to participate, then you would only be in them a few times a week, keeping them fresh and something to look forward to but enough of them that everyone can participate. Then you have to consider the size of them. If there are 60 players operating from 'port A' how do we include them in the port battles involving their local port? My idea features one actual port battle instance but the area around it will be a hive of activity, teaming with battles consisting of the players who could never participate in a teleporting/lobbies/invites system. If we went with teleporting/lobbies/invites we would end up with a player being able to join as many as he was invited to each night, likely to be too many in my opinion. your local/favourite port could and would be defended by players from all over the map who have little vested interest in that port. random players participating in each battle so that clans can't fight battles together, especially when contesting their home port there little problem of actually coming up with a fair system of selecting the invites in my opinion they should be a unique battle type, involving every aspect of the game, not just one plucked from skirmish mode I've said this before and in a round about way above. If Trafalgar battles are what players want then they can go do them on the click of a button in skirmish mode. However, I seem to remember player number dwindling and countless threads about falling player numbers in sea trials because the repetitive nature was off putting. They have but they never once stated that you could join the defining battles of open world with one click. Port battles are equivalent to end game content and giving it to random teams of players from across the map is undermining their importance for me on top of taking open water tactics out of it. It does, we don't need an open world to determine any of that. It could all be done in a WoT style 'garage' or 'hangar' from War Thunder. By "determined by open world" I'm talking about which players participate, surely having to sail to places in open world is the point in having an open world? Regarding "it's importance in the world's economy", a one off port battle will be of little consequence to players on the other side of the map to it. Which is why they shouldn't be considered for participation. Firstly, I don't. I've offered my suggestion and it fits all the criteria stated in the OP. Unlike you and yours ( this one?) I can't pick holes in it myself either, that's your job. If we have battles where an entire clan can participate together and any random players joining in, firstly don't take up a space which a clan member should be filling but simply compliment the clan members when they do, we have no contradiction. The random players can hardly do any harm this way, unlike if they were taking up part of the 25. This is why invites and locking port battles to one instance make a system that suits all impossible, only a system like this that encompasses open world can accommodate more than 25 players working together. Any other system simply leaves players out or has them in simultaneous battles where they can only effect the whole result, rather than every subsequent battle.
  4. This can't happen I'm afraid, you'll make it so there are so many port battles that nobody cares enough to participate in them, there is an open world because players want more than just one arena match after another. They have to be special, one-off events almost. Otherwise you'll end up with nobody taking part in them. Which is exactly why this is a bad idea. Please explain what is the point in creating two game modes (Open World and Skirmish) and then making the most important aspects of one exactly like the other? You have Trafalgar battles on the click of a button in skirmish mode yet you want to regurgitate them onto the open world, to be the most important battles, the ones that actually define the point in Open World to begin with? The port battles have to happen maybe once per week or so, to be special and so that casual players can always participate if they like. They have to be big enough to draw players to a particular part of the map, and the have to be able to accommodate them all, not just 25 of them. Not just invite players at random, via a lobby, to participate in a skirmish mode battle which if they wanted to, they can do every day of the week in the arena mode. and this is a recipe for disaster too... If you join a clan you want to be able to play with that clan alone, not with a bunch of random players. You will cause so much rage by sticking inexperienced players into battles along side clans whom they could potentially cost them their port. Just look at WoT and WT random battles and there is little to nothing riding on them...
  5. I wouldn't have an open lobby, I would stick an instance over a port on the open water map with the port battle inside. That's why we're playing an open world game, because it's preferable over lobbys and arrange skirmishes. If someone has gone to the bother of buying a 2nd account, setting up a 2nd PC, sailing to the port in question then yes, I would imagine nothing would be too much work for them. Let's say whatever system is implemented you got a player joining on one side who just sat AFK to deny his enemy an extra captain, he could easily be reported and have his account banned. Problem solved, he'd be $40 worse off if he wanted to do it again, who's going to bother just to win a port battle? It's not even an issue, and definitely not something we need to concern ourselves with when coming up with port battle mechanics.
  6. When being chased, it has to be Wesley Willis - Suck a *insert expletive noun*
  7. IF they were to implement this, what would stop every large fleet taking a fodder ship along with them to initiate an instance against an attacking enemy, leaving the rest of his fleet in OW free to escape the attackers? I see the solution being just as easy to exploit as what we have, unless I'm missing something...
  8. Then that account should be reported by the player base, what clan/faction is going to sit by and allow a player doing that to be part of their fleet? ..and even still, what is stopping the same thing from happening in your lottery system? A 2nd account is just as likely to get an invite as the next players...
  9. Haha, we could do age of sail trivial pursuit! Do you really think a lottery system is a genuine option though Wind? You can picture the responses from that player who's attempted to get into one 5 or 6 times and always missed out... Why do we even need an invite system? We have an open world to decide who gets into the instance or not. Isn't that essentially what it's for? First 'faction' to enter the port battle instance is the side that will contest it with the defenders. The first 25 players who join will be the first 'wave' attackers. As they die they can be replaced by players nearby in OW (should they chose to join) until the instance is closed. Someone please explain to me why this is a bad idea?
  10. That's cool, and totally expected behaviour. If two clans don't want to fight each other then fine but they shouldn't be able to easily help their 'sister clans' in port battles. Simply make it so that only a player of clan A can actually participate in port battles involving clan A.There should strictly only be two sides in a port battle, attacker and defender, no rouge pirates, no neighbouring factions etc.
  11. That's part of the reason why teleporting shouldn't be allowed in open world. The game should rather be designed to work without it. When talking about the clans and guilds mechanics I suggested a way to use over extension as a balancing factor between clans so that we don't end up with them challenging national powers across the whole map. This same mechanic along with no teleporting would prevent one clan of the best players or one clan with the most players owning every port too. "I would suggest that the clans/guilds are limited in the number of captains. They can increase this by improving their port but there is still an upper limit. Every subsequent port the clan/guild captures will increase the captain limit too but by a smaller figure. Let's say the limit is 30 players for one port (rising to 50 when they have the best facilities) each subsequent port adds a further 5-10 captains to the limit. This way there is no theoretical limit to the number of players each clan/guild can have however, as they branch out it will become increasingly difficult to maintain. The exact numbers would have to be worked on in testing obviously."
  12. I believe admin stated that resources would spawn at a location and the persons controlling that location would have access to those resources. I assume the rewards for taking a port should be just that. If upon losing a port in which you have ships retained, you lose the ships, then maybe the persons capturing the port are then rewarded the sum of the ships but I'm not if I would go there. Simply remove those ships from the game and the destruction of your enemies ships/resources and the benefit of the resources in that port should be your reward. I hate the idea of actually limiting the ships available to use. The variety should come from tactical decisions and the port 'terrain' (within the instance) as suggested. Make the shorter runs to the fortifications usable to shallow draught ships only, larger ships must take the longer routes through the approach waters. Here is a map of the terrain at The battle of grand port on Isle de France (Mauritius). if the instance terrain was designed so that only shallow draught ships could use the lighter areas of the water and the heavier ships could only use deeper blue then it would add variation to the ships depending on tactics used. Also if we were to encourage battles outside of the instance too ( like this) players choosing to sail larger, heavily armed ships would take longer to get there and would not be able to flee battles en route, delaying their progression to the port instance. A third factor would be the ability of the fortifications to hit the ships, if we made it so that fortifications were able to use a variation of weaponry, mortars, heated-shot (more likely to hit larger ships and do more damage to larger ships when they do) as well as regular guns and small arms (more dangerous to the smaller ships that are smaller targets and harder to hit) then a force of all large SOL would be sitting ducks to a fortification focusing solely on mortars for example but would be more resilient to a fort with only small arms. Give the defending persons the option to select the defending armaments according to what their scouts are reporting and that will force the attackers to mix it up else they make the defenders job of picking fortification weaponry very easy. Lastly, if/when we get variable winds, an attacking force all choosing large SOL would effectively be putting all their eggs in the 'I hope the wind doesn't die on us' basket. If there were lighter airs inside the instance the larger ships would be sat in front of the fortifications and their guns far longer than a smaller ship would have to. Again a system like this has the benefit of having multiple battles but only if they are needed or are forced by the defending teams strong numbers, good tactics and blockading ability. Overwhelming attacking numbers, good tactics and the ability to run the blockade (this is where ship variety would come into it again) could nullify this defence and make it to the actual port battle instance quicker. I won't hide the fact that I'm no fan of teleporting, I think it breaks immersion and undermines the point in playing an open world game in the first place. However, if it was deemed necessary to get players involved in port battles (particularly in testing while numbers are low) then teleporting to the defending port for the defenders and the nearest base of operations for the attackers would be my preferred system. That way it feels like an excursion and an actual attack rather than a skirmish battle with consequence. Also, it doesn't cut out all the open world tactics in-between too. RE: Announcements Why have any game generated announcements outside of making the 'port vulnerability' known? If you have a list of port vulnerability times then a player(s) can use his clan/nation chat to tell others of their intentions to attack a certain port once it's open to attack. Give the players the tools to make the announcements themselves. I see no reason to make the attack known to the defenders (at least not in full launch once the player numbers are up) this is the job of scouts. They know when their port is vulnerable each week, around this time they should be on the lookout for large congregations of enemy forces heading in that port's direction. RE: Port battle invites Again a system like this forgoes the need for invite systems. Which, considering we're even talking about lotteries and systems where solo players are disadvantaged (and even left out if numbers are up) can only be a good thing really.
  13. If they were to have defending players chose the battle window it wouldn't really matter about organising the fleet so much because you couldn't afford sit around waiting, the ship would have sailed by the time everyone was ready. You would have to say in the clan/nation chat "battle window is 7-9, we must attack as soon as it opens" any players dawdling about wouldn't get into the instance right away and would run the risk of missing out.. Also, with a teleporting system, how would you choose witch nation attacks the port? There is going to be 3 or 4 possible attackers per port battle I assume? (again, I'm not sure how POTBS handled it). If we allowed OW to be the conduit to the port battles they would all be racing to get there first and fighting in and around the port for the privilege I would imagine. I just think having it on OW leads to more interesting scenarios, while a teleport system just regurgitates skirmish mode in OW...
  14. Once the instance fills up they can defend the port from outside the perimeter until there is space to join inside, like I said above. That way a port battle isn't just one instance, it's a constant battle inside and out for both sides until the window closes, without having players sat waiting in a queue for anything up to 2 hours either. A lot of these concerns are for the players to worry about, not the game developers. If a group of players cant organise themselves to attack at the same time, who's fault is that? They should be given tools to help them but working together should be one of the criteria that decide the outcome. Also, if someone ends up caught in traffic, how can they blame the game for them missing a port battle? What if we have invites and teleports and they get stuck at work or in traffic, are we going to delay the whole thing for them? It's just life, the devs shouldn't have to compensate for that in the slightest... How would you handle queues in a port battle where players are teleported in? Would you simply just not invite half of them or invite everyone and have them sit around waiting until players die? Seems no fairer than everyone getting a chance to fight but having to actually organise themselves and get there in the first place.
  15. Stick an instance on the map and let them try to join it...? Inviting players from the other side of the map to defend their port seems backwards to me. Surely you should have to actually be there to defend it otherwise all you've done is made an arena battle to decide who owns a port in an open world game mode? The open world has to come into it for me, which is why I tried to encompass it in the port battles.
  16. Can't say I disagree but this might be best expressed here ( http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/5756-speed-mods/ )
  17. Do you think setting a 4-6 hour window each day during which time your port is vulnerable would work? I'm just riffing here, I never played POTBS but I've read countless times how the middle of the night raids were too easy to pull off. I think this idea would lead to attacking forces sticking together in large fleets as they head over to the enemy port to deter attack from small hunting packs. They could even arrange decoy fleets to draw defenders away from the main fleet. It would be pretty fun from a tactical point of view. It's also worth noting that just because a window is open it doesn't necessarily mean the port will be attacked either. You could have calm most of the time but then clan/nation chat erupts as a player spots a massive fleet heading in your port's direction..
  18. Thanks for the feedback Yeh, I really think the defenders must have some say in the time of the battle given that we're trying to be friendly to casual players. That's why I'd have a relatively short duration too. Perhaps you could have the defending team choose a time window of 4-6 hours and the attackers choose when the battle actually happens inside of that window but I'm not so sure that helps anybody much. The reason I suggest that is because the defending players are likely to be re-spawning very nearby, if not in the very port itself, while the attackers will have to travel longer distances to rejoin. It's actually makes it fairer if anything. Once locked out of the port battle the defenders can then blockade the port from the edge of the perimeter too, so their participation in the defence isn't over. It's also worth noting, in the future we could be talking about large numbers of players on each side and with a limited number of players inside an instance (25v25) at any one time anyway it will force some players to sit on the outside. This will ensure that every player gets at least once chance to fight inside the battle.
  19. A really simple idea, please feel free to tear it apart. Defending team chose when their port is open to attack. They must chose a period (1-2 hours) each week. During that time an instance indicator opens up over the port as well as a large perimeter around the instance inside which no instances can be started. The size of the perimiter will need to be tested, it's purpose is to stretch the defending players out accross a large area like blockading a port and stop them all camping nearby the instance, preventing attackers from joining the port instance. A defending player can only join the port instance once, if he dies inside or leaves it he then has to defend from outside the perimeter. An attacking player can rejoin the instance after leaving or dying and re-spawning. Inside the instance there is a fort (it's armed and can be upgraded). This fort must be destroyed before the attackers can take the port. Once the fort is destroyed the attackers must then side up to a pier and capture it through boarding action. When the instance closes due to capture or the timer running down the perimeter remains for an amount of time to allow players in and out of the port without inevitable conflict. This type of engagement would encompass blockading, blockade running, defending a fortified position and attacking a fortified position. If we were to set the number of crew defending the boarding action inside the port relatively high, then you could even be required to escort a player controlled troopship safely into the port instance in order to give you the best chance of overwhelming the defending force. There are several tools (fortification strength, difficulty of boarding action, duration of the instance and size of the perimeter) the devs can use to balance the attack vs defence difficulty. This sounds a really simple, flexible solution. Please critique. I'll update if I think of any way to improve upon it.
  20. And in what way would running aground and waiting a few weeks for a new mast to pop up make the game more fun? Repairs in battle and at sea should remain, but they should be limited to what they could have feasibly have done at the time. The reason this game is different from every other age of sail game and the reason why it's so fun is because of the realism. Want arcade go play one of the others..
  21. They could repair the smaller masts and smaller, upper parts of the larger masts at sea, they would take timbers with them for this. Sometimes they would need to come ashore to repair but that was usually because they were hulled and needed to careen the ship.
  22. Another mechanic that has to happen at some stage. Very well explained
  23. Given the recent discussions regarding speed mods (and here), why PVP is currently at a premium and the changes to rules of engagement, it's becoming more apparent that 'the chase' in this game will be just as, if not more important than the actual battles. If you can set up a ship to outrun anyone then you win, or more importantly you never lose. Recent nerfs to the faster ships also highlight this. We need variation when it comes to ships and in particular, speed. Firstly, I think every ship should have inherent variations to the base stats of it's class. No two ships were ever made alike and they shouldn't in game either. These variations should be small, maybe 5-10% difference either way perhaps. Mods should be limited, as they're just as likely to end up balancing the ships as they are to vary them. If my ship is faster than most of it's class but has weak planking, I'll add more planking. If it's strong but slow, I'll mod for more speed. I'm all for mods like copper sheathing that reduce biofouling and thus speed degradation but it shouldn't be an instant 5% boost to top speed. The weight of the ships cargo and load-out should come into it also. A ship packed full of shot and powder with 100 extra men and the supplies to keep them alive should be 5-10% slower than the same ship when it's under crewed, low on supplies with a near empty hold. I appreciate this is exaggerated compared to how it would have effected a ship but so long as it's not too over emphasised then I think it will improve the game. All of the above are well and good but they still don't help make sailing or 'the chase' any more interesting beyond the first couple of seconds, as by then you'll know who's going to win. What I propose is we actually make sailing a thing in game rather than merely point and go, bring skill and a slight element of luck into this part of the game. It was the 'age of sail' after all. What we first need to do this is wind speed variation (discussed here). You might have the faster ship in all but the strongest of gales but if you were running and the wind began to pick up it would rank up the tension no end. Nobody is proposing dead clams, I'd prefer having ships reduced to 1/3 - 1/2 speed in the calmest of conditions at the most. It's a must at some point and it will add variation, realism and better game play. Also, if we weren't able to see our speed at all times but could only bring it up on a delay (something like 10 seconds) as you would aboard a ship when you threw out the log. It too opens up some interesting game-play avenues and allows us to bring player skill into sailing. The skill part. Note this would only apply in 'sailing mode', the other modes work as they do now but with a small limitation on speed (maybe 5% slower than maximum speed but to be decided through testing), so that in order to reach maximum you must be in 'sailing mode'. You wouldn't know when you were going top speed until a couple of logs have been taken and you'd adjusted the angle of ship & sail according to the wind, as well as the amount of sails you have set to suit the strength of the wind (more on this to come). The player who gets this right quickest would get that head start and it would need to be adjusted every time the wind speed or direction changes. Hidden from the UI you have two figures* : One represents the amount of sails set, like the % number we do now but we just can't see it in the UI. The other is variable wind strength, let's just say another % figure to keep it simple. This wind strength figure is obviously hidden from the UI too. They're both represented visually** and audibly in game, perhaps with a handful of vague worded descriptions too taken from wind scales like (someone with a greater understanding of sailing a ship could come up with better examples): Examples for wind strength: 'light airs', 'Moderate breeze', 'Strong gale' and sail plan examples 'light air', 'close reefed', 'storm sails' A few ideas for showing wind speed visually would be : The size of the swell The sounds you hear The way the flag behaves in the wind You have to use the visual queues and sounds as well as the vague descriptions to discern both figures but these would just give you the starting point. Once you have an idea of the wind speed, your aim is to keep the sails-set % figure as close to the strength of wind as possible. 95% wind (stormy seas) you want 5% sails set for optimum speed. 10% wind strength (calm seas) you would want 90% sail showing for best performance etc. In order to judge if you're at optimum sail setting you throw out your log and if it comes back at what you know to be 80% of your top speed, you adjust sail and try again. If you're then going faster, you're moving in the right direction, trim again and test your speed until you find the sweet spot. Again the actual figures are hidden from the UI, they are purely for back-end coding. The only feedback we see to help us adjust is the speed taken from the log (on a 10s delay when you call for it) and the visual and audible queues. Creaking masts and yards from the wood working (maybe before they break/cause damage to sails) when we have too much sail set and the reduced speed when you have too little set. Players who know their ship's inherent attributes like it's top speed, it's best point of sail combined with it's favoured conditions will reach top speed quicker. The skilled players will judge conditions better and make more accurate adjustments than inexperienced players. * These figures would be variables in the code, they wouldn't be % percentages, I've just used that for ease of understanding. '100%' wind strength simply means the highest wind strength in the game. '0%' does not mean dead calm - no wind at all. It represents the slowest wind speed in the game. Obviously for gameplay purposes this would not be too slow. Maybe enough wind so that all ships hit at least 1/3- 1/2 of their top speed when wind variation is at '0%' **The sails set figure is obviously represented visually on the ship. Depending on how much detail the devs think we can go into, you would have a number of sail plans, just like we do currently in game but ideally a few more of them. The 100% would include stunsl's like this not, the 'white elephant' sail plan we often see, they weren't commonly (if at all) used like that.
  24. We aren't criticizing the ability to repair your ship or repair at sea, simply the 'repair kit' mechanic. It's far too simplified. You should have to take lumber, sail cloth, spars and rigging to repair. The more you have the less room you have in the hold and the heavier your cargo is etc.
  25. Was just about to say the exact same thing. In everyone one of your post's jodgi you advocate mechanics more akin to an arena mode, like the sea trials that was in-game before OW and will be back on full launch. Why turn the OW into another sea trials? That many players want the slower paced, realistic open water can't be lost on you...
×
×
  • Create New...