Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Puchu

Tester
  • Content Count

    622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Puchu last won the day on September 6 2015

Puchu had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

851 Excellent

About Puchu

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

724 profile views
  1. What if they made an arena game where you could queue for 1vs1 or 2vs2 or other sized group fights and get a properly balanced fight within minutes?
  2. Another blast from the past: We have been argueing for less risk to increase the actual fights for years. There are tons of posts around on how the game promotes risk averse gameplay which leads to more running than actual fighting. If you look into jodgis forum signature you will see, that also admin knows, or ... new once ... that it is good to make people shy away from risks less, because risks are what actually leads to content in a sandbox game.
  3. The RoE that was the best was 2min timers without any other restrictions. We argued for even less, even 1 min timer would be fine with me. The reasons are plural. 1: With instance speed you wouldnt reach any battle that is 2mins ow speed away from you anyways. It just feels like its closing within view distance, but it is actually hours of instance sailing away. (The distance system would work fine for me aswell, it's just unnecessary imo due to the programming difficulties. That system would actually just be there to show you how far away from the fight you actually were on the ow.) 2: Groups would be forced to sail together so you would get a "what you see is what you get" system. So if you engage a group, that's the people that you will fight. No more, no less. 3: Solo hunters could choose their targets nicely and e.g. catch the stragglers who sail too far away from the group blob. Just reposting what me and the likes of me have been posting for years and has been deafened by time.
  4. Then i guess we have different viewpoints on this matter. It's probably due to different expectations.
  5. Killing players is already lucrative, but the chances of it happening are low if it's not a port battle. There simply is no place for certain types of gameplay in this game. That includes lone hunters and pure pvp-ers (which tend to be somewhat the same)
  6. All in all pvp has to be a self sustaining endeavor. Even if you are bad. That's what keeps you pvp'ing. Here, if you are a pure pvp-er you will be poor and starving no matter how good you are. I've tried and tested it in every patch. And it has allways been the same. Pure pvp-ers are poor pvp-ers.
  7. You dont need veterans to fight noobhunters at the capital. You just need more noobs
  8. It's your damn capital! What state is your nation in, if noones defending the capital? In what state is the game in that it's so worthless defending a noob in your own waters?
  9. Interesting... so the players need to be defended and / or entertained by AI. How glorious that will be... Let's think about the reasons why the devs included AI on the PVP server. The main reason is very simple. Players need something to do. And if players can hide in ports and if it is better for them to hide in port than to go out and fight the enemy, they will do the latter, leaving everyone bored. So that's why the AI exists. ... Basically because the OW's mechanics are bad at bringing people together to fight it out. Now aggressive AI will be brought back, which will lead to even more fights vs AI. That will keep many people entertained, if that is the sort of entertainment you are looking for and satisfied with. But it will certainly not bring real people together to do real fights. It will do exactly the opposite. It will catch more people in fights vs AI and pull them away from the ow. One arguement for the removal of the duel room was, that it pulls people from the ow. And now they introduce aggressive AI, which will do exactly that... I just cant understand the principles behind the game design decisions. What is the reason? Are fights vs AI hosted on the client side, so you dont have to pay a server for them? Why do you want more AI fights? If the aggressive AI will be there to protect noobs in homeland waters... then we certainly have a serious gamedesign issue at hand. Shouldnt there be hundreds of players willing to defend a poor noob who is being attacked around the capital?
  10. For admin the question is about money. He said that time and time again. If the peace server brings him more money than an arena, there will be a peace server. I've looked up "American truck driver" which is the most boring game i could possibly imagine. It's like doing traderuns in OW and never getting into a fight. That game has 92% positive reviews and 4.5k players constantly. How is that even possible... The reason is simple. It does what it does. nothing more, nothing less. If you want to drive a truck, thats where you go. if you dont. You wont touch the thing. You get what it says. For Naval Action it's strange and the 59% positive reviews make it a marketing nightmare anyways. Naval Action suggests that you will have "action" but when people actually play, they will be disappointed. Of course, the game is also promoted under "action" games... You know whats also under action? Team Fortress2 ... imagine someone who likes tf2 joining naval action.... what do you think he will say about the game? Imo NA tried/tries to be too many things at once and thus gets caught up in an inbetween which is sad for all parts. They could have made a beautiful naval trading game, but that isnt fleshed out enough... Or a crazy crafting game, but for that it's all too generic. Or a real good arena game, but that door has been closed. So they end up being meh in everything and a community which is divided. I wouldnt be here if the game was advertised as a "Naval Merchant Simulator", and noone would have to bother with me
  11. I'm not your enemy. I never said you did anything wrong. I never blamed you for anything. I'm even komplimenting you, so please dont treat me like an enemy, because I'm not. I dont play the game anymore because I cant spare the huge amount time which is needed to negate and ignore the boring parts between the few actual fights one gets. That's why I'm argueing to get more, faster and better fights. ... For me and for everyone who thinks the same but has stopped caring or voicing their concerns. All that I'm saying is that the game has massive flaws in its core mechanics which detere people from actually experiencing the strongest point of the game, which is the combat model.
  12. Dear rediii, I will do 2 things in one post now. 1: I will promote your latest youtube video so you get more views, which will hopefully help your channel. 2: I will use it as a recent example to show why it is all messed up. So, everyone, please go and watch this video: Description: There You can see rediii in a frigate in an instance vs a full hp and full crew trinc who has just looted another ship. The trinc is a way bigger ship with way more firepower and way more crew than the frigate, but still you see the trinc trying to run away for almost 6 minutes, sailing straight downwind. 6 minutes where nothing happens but the frigate shooting her 2 chasers from time to time. After 6 minutes of this unexciting chase, the trinc realises he wont get away like this, so he tries a different method of trying to get away. He shoots 1 broadside of chain vs the frigate. The frigate mitigates the damage by manual sails positioning and continues fireing chasers. 2 minutes later, the trinc fires the 2nd broadside of chain. From now they exchange chain broadsides, whereby the frigate gains an advantage due to her having the wind from the start and the trinc not even trying to retake the wind and the trinc being really bad at damage mitigation, but thats not the point. Eventually the trinc is so slow that he gets raked by an easy, jet well performed sternrake. From here on, the battle is 100% over. It was over before, but now it is certain since he cannot tack anymore without getting boarded. The frigate pushes the trinc into the wind and due to the hullshape of the trinc she gets stuck on the frigate and boarded. Conclusion: The trinc is a way bigger ship, but didnt want to fight. Why? The captain of the trinc had so much time to turn, tack, perform all kinds of maneuvers and with the superior firepower of his ship and the superior crew, it would have been easy for him to retake the wind and force broadsidetrades, which he would likely have won. But he didnt. In fact he didnt want to fight at all. All he was doing was trying to get away from a smaller ship. So these are the "fights" in naval action that are youtubeworthy? Where a big ship runs from a small ship without even trying to fight, only trying to get away and thus giving up every possible advantage it could have had? 8 minutes and the trinc fires 2 broadsides... how can that be called a fight? Really... what kind of a game is this, where people dont want to fight, even though they have an advantage? How big does the advantage have to be for someone to actually fight a battle? This "fight" which in fact is no fight at all... doesnt show that a smaller ship can well win vs a bigger ship. In this case you see a massive skillgap between the 2 players. This "fight" only shows that the game doesn't promote fighting. It promotes running. And that is not the fault of the player in the trinc or the fear factor of rediii. It's the game that promotes that kind of behavior. To make this a proper game we need mechanics in place that make the trinc player want to turn and fight instead of trying to run away. We need mechanics that make the trinc happy that someone came to fight him no matter the outcome.
  13. OW timers down to 30 seconds, Remove the br restrictions Reduce the ow to the lower antillies or the area around la tortue for testing purposes to massively increase player concentration Remove teleporting, its not necessary with that new map size. 0 loss 0 gain 1vs1 area in the middle of the map where you can fight players of your own nation. And you have me onboard for the ow again. Too bad this wasnt tested in the beta while we still had the option... now it's released and we are stuck with this mess of a world that is waaay too big for the amount of players that this game has.
  14. Thank you for the compliment rediii At least I will take it as such. 30s would be a proper RoE for the OW. Nothing more would be needed. This would force big gank fleets to stick together and be visible as such on the ow. Noone would be able to teleport to that place and noone would be able to abuse the OW time compression to get to a place where he shouldnt be able to get to within a reasonable time in the first place.
  15. They have also said that they would do it if it would be profitable.
×
×
  • Create New...