Ampen
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Ampen
-
-
Well, playing with your mates matter.
This is a shame, so now people will be leaving lower pop nations and going with the zerg with hardly any penalty's... How is this a good idea?
If you want to switch nations then you should start from new, Devs have done well until now, this is a very bad idea IMO.I can see it now, if it's left like this we will have Brits vs Pirates and nothing else in a year from now.
The point is that this will actually hurt pvp and the wider game. Many people will jump to whoever they feel is strongest, or if their nation is doing badly just abandon ship rather than fight, especially if there are ways to get around the gold and equipment wipe.
If you're going to add nation switching then you might as well just make the game 1v1 Pirates vs Britain. Someone shouldn't be allowed to switch factions when they are losing. Allow players to make informed decisions before they join a faction. Get rid of the difficulty settings since they are pretty much BS for instance Sweden is set to Very Hard so even fewer people would want to play them making it even harder.
Thing is, what the three of you are afraid of, just as well swings the other way. In PotBS alot of players and socs swapped nations between maps to strenghten underdogs. Furthermore, people that just drop out of a nation and joining "the winning side" wouldn't really learn much, so the "zerg nation" doesn't necessarily gain the best captains. This game has a pretty high skill level, and as far as I think will require some serious coordination and cohesion from a unit to be really effective, wich is something players joining "zergs" is not likely to pick up.
I can say from my own experience playing with the UK in PVP2 that many players wish to change into the underdog factions. I've had several friends switching to Spain. I also agree that it seems like a concurrent theme of the imperial age to have captains switching sides, with informers in all sides of the front.
Officers were employed by regents, not always their own. When the grunts did it, they were mercenaries. But it did occur, most definetly.
-
1
-
-
I voted for teleport being fully deleted.
The main problem, IMHO, is the PvP. Let's imagine that a nation attacks an important conquerable city with many outpost. As soon as they attack they would encounter hundreds of player teleporting to the outpost for defending the city...
That in my opinion is very unacceptable.
Secondo, teleport is being abused right one in trading... no more words needed in this topic.
Yeah, I was thinking about the impact teleports have on PvP as well. I do think it benefits PvP though to have teleport, since it's a really big map. Sure, as you say, this could mean a RDF comes in to counter a port attack, but that at least will be PvP. Without the teleport and considering the huge map and the so far relatively low number of players, ports will be mainly undefended, and that's no PvP at all. Worst case each nation picks off undefended ports in certain areas, never really coming into clinch with each other.
The RvR/PvP could work without teleport on this map with a huge amount of players though. But that's not what it's like.
-
1
-
-
Even though I can somewhat see the charm of trying to find out your position on the open sea and such, there's really in my opinion a need for at least some crude navigation aid. If you are about to meet up with someone, or if you're out in on the open sea in search of a mission while there's a fog, having somewhat a clue of where you are wouldn't only be helpful, it would also be logical since I assume that on these vessels we sail, one of the crewmembers will be a navigator. Of course, it's important for the captain to know navigation as well, but the expert should be the navigator, or he could be called First mate as well.
For these reasons, I suggest the following:
- A permanent crew member, the navigator/first mate, who individually gain XP and progress. This person start out as a true rookie, having more or less no clue what's rear and front of a boat, but has been assigned the role of navigator. Twice every hour (30 minutes cooldown skill) you can on the map ask for your position, wich will then be referred to you as a circle.
- With a rookie navigator/first mate, this circle would not only be pretty damn big, there could also be an offset in N/W/E/S direction.
- Offset and position circle increases the further away from land you are and/or the longer you've been at sea (up to a max value)
- As this person gains skill, the offset will get less and eventually go away completely, and the circle will be gradually smaller
- An expert navigator/first mate will give a position with no offset and with a small circle, giving you very good information on where you are
- The navigator/first mate will be positioned near the rudder wheel of course, and can in battle if this part of the crew is hit get killed, say a 5% chance. If that happens, a new crew member is called into this duty after the battle, and this person start out as a rookie on navigation, and will have to gain the XP and progress again.
- If the ship is sunk, there's a chance (10%?) that the navigator/first mate drowns. If so, a new crew member is called into duty and start out as a rookie on navigation.
edit: added suggestions.
-
1
-
I voted "other", since I don't see any logic in the current teleportation system at all.
First off: There's an eco system, and as I assume, this will be an integral part of RvR, and as such, hauling will be a part of getting the RvR eco to work.
Second: pirates are here to capture cargo from every one, nationals can capture cargo from anyone except their own nationals.
And so, we're allowed to teleport with cargo...
To not make it have such an impact, we limit teleports to once each 4th hour or whatever it is.
If we want to engage in PvP, we'd better hope it's close to where we are with our ships, since teleporting to another outpost where we do have ships really isn't an issue, since it'll ruin our chances for a risk-free cargo teleport. Even if we'd use our teleport to get to a ship for PvP, once that gunning is over, we're stuck at that end, and for us to be able to endorse in more PvP, we'll just have to hope for more to show in the area, or wait for the teleport timer.
There might be a thought behind this that makes sense, I don't see it though. Cargo should be hauled, period, while teleporting between outposts where you have ships should be doable if not free, than at least more often.
Having a system where you can be trapped in a completely different part of the map than where you're needed while at the same time basically making cargo hauls immune towards capture just seem to go straight against some core parts.
Use teleport to increase the availability for PvP, and remove its ability to shift cargo across the caribbean. If something about the sailing in this game should take time it should be cargo hauling, not trying to link up or gather up for PvP.
-
2
-
-
Some thoughts :
1) The quote from me was meant to be quite ironic : http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7978-development-plans-prioritization-proposals-and-feedback/?p=154276
See the poll in question : I voted against Ganking.
2) About the poll on "Development plans prioritization", the results haven't changed much since EA (the first 4 are still the same one).
Yet, there's been more than 300 new votes out of 580 since it.
3) Admin wrote (if I ain't mistaken) that official polls would be implemented in game ASAP.
Btw, there is hardcore and there is learning curve. That's two different concepts. NA is (and I hope will remain) a skilled-based game.
Never really reflected about your opinion in that sense, and never meant to offend you either. My point was merely that polls have to be considered in respect of the amount of voters compared to the total amount of players. So it served as an example for the other issues I mentioned as well. On top of that I didn't realize the OP was as old as it is, this one was high up in the list of posts, so I figured it was new, and now I see the fellow before me probably was the reason why it was as high up.
Anyway, I totally agree with you that there's a difference between hardcore and learning curve, and I as you hope for learning curve. One thing that could become a problem though would be OW sailing time, wich I think will have two major impairments, first I think there's a risk it will make people tire of the game as a whole, second I think there's a risk people that continue playing the game will resort to mainly "local" travel, wich will in that case severly reduce the dynamics. F.x, in that case players based in the antilles will have little or no clue what's going on outside the coast of Mexico and vice versa, so it'll be a divided game. Might not be a bad thing, still, the OW sailing itself could probably come out more as tedious than as something with a learning curve.
-
I went with the pirate mechanics, since I belive a truly unique pirate faction could really have a major impact on all players of this game, in a very good way.
Furthermore:
This thread is a poll and NA posters have already massively voted in favor of Ganking : http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/6218-ganking-petition/page-1
They do cherish it, love it, can't live without it.The poll has been answered by 200 or something like that, and how many players are now playing this game? Those who gave their opinion are a minority of the total amount of players.
I belive this is a problem, not only when it comes to ganking mechanics, but also minimap and the ability to see your own ship on it, open sea sailing time and so forth.
There seem to be a strong voice on the forums for what I would consider a romantic view on hardcore gameplay, that players will learn, and they will accept it and so on.
And it is true, some will. But my guess is it will be a pareto principle thing. This game will either have 80% of new players staying longer 3 months, or it will have 20% players staying longer 3 months, and as long as new features are added and the game continues to move towards completion, this might not present a problem, and there will be an influx of new players once the game goes fully live.
From that point though, if this game is of the type where 20% of new players are still around after 3 months, there will be a risk problems will arise, since then there's a clear risk that for every month that goes, the game will get closer to the point where more captains leave the game than joined it.
For that reason, I do think there need to be a balance in features to make sure the game is attractive enough to keep even the more casual players, since we otherwise will end up on empty seas. Those who played PotBS know what that's like.
You can adore hardcore how much you like, but if it result in a high drop out rate, this game will be nothing but an empty yard for the closest kin.
-
Good morning.
It has recently struck me that messages can pass me by in chat, it's difficult to keep track on everything that's going on, and especially then if something is directed at you in the flow of nation chat f.x.
My suggestion therefore is:
If anyone includes your player name, either by just typing it or if they choose the reply option, the message for the player with that name will be highlighted in a specific, easy spotted color, like cyan or red, alternatively it could also be bold.
-
1
-
-
I belive the notion that multiple characters would kill the game etc is very emotional arguments, especially if one makes references to PotBS. First of all PotBS is still running even if alot of players (including me) left long ago, and second, I highly doubt anyone of us can say for sure what had an impact on that game and what didn't. My theory for instance is that sealclubbing brought the player numbers down more than anything, based on the fact that if you have an enviroment where the influx of new players is less than the amount of players leaving during a month, the net will undoubtly be negative.
There's also alot of emotions about "cross-teaming" and "spying", but I must say that looking back I can't say that actually had an overall impact on the gameplay. I might recall 2 incidents of that type, and I do recall alot more where everything went just fine, but I never played on Tiggy, and it might have been worse there than on Roberts.
I will say though, that societies that rolled for another nation some maps, definetly re-wrote the balance of the PvP, wich now and then was a good thing. I really don't understand the arguments here about a "healthy server", neither those about "fair play" and such if we only have one character who is locked to one nation. Truth is, if it's to be drawn from PotBS, that it was far from healthy and far from fair alot of times due to certain nations steam-rolling the map, while societies wich rolled for another nation to even odds actually did that.
I do not think you should be allowed to swap back and forth as you like though, but I definetly think you could be allowed at least 2 characters on each account, and that those characters should be locked to the same nation. And you should be able to swap to another nation, but only during certain intervalls as it was with PotBS where you could change nation between maps, or with a fixed intervall of say 30 days or something.
Wether we like it or not, there is the risk some nations just turn into a gathering of true asshats, wich will fit some and definetly not fit others. Being allowed to choose another nation if it's limited to intervalls or something I would say is pretty much a needed option for players. This is a game people pay for.
What really worked PotBS over was the introduction of f2p, when players could just spam multiple accounts, not that you could change the nation between maps on one account.
-
1
-
-
That's just crazy...........the only forums where you can talk about PotBS is in Naval Action.
Well that, and the fan-based forum Ice made. Common thing for both is the absense of potbs forum moderators, I think that's what does it. Maybe potbs forums were a bit rough from time to time, but I also thing the mods were a bit trigger happy.
-
This is a good discussion though, since I think it's important to nail down the different damage/effects of each ammo type in game. As Admin says, a lucky hit with a roundshot can take down a mast, and the damage to the mast in that sense should be bigger than if hit with a chain-shot (I'm thinking physics here).
-
Raiding for resources of course! Unattended harvest areas with strategic/low supply resources owned by other players, that can be raided for some of the resources, with the risk of getting caught in the process, of course. Could be the same way for ingame cash as well.
-
I was actually thinking a bit longer, having generic ships being built, small differences in characteristics depending on material, and different load capabilities, all dependent on the quality of the resources. Same goes for components like ship armament etc, which would mean that even if two players have the same type of ship, there will be at least slight differences, sometimes bigger differences, just as it were in reality.
-
1
-
-
As a matter of fact, chain-shots were used in landbattles as an anti-personel/anti-cavalry ammunition.
-
Not that it was uncommon to pitch out some booze before combat, under those circumstances it was more of a rule. But during combat you didn't want people staggering around dead-drunk, what was sought after was more a soft, gentle 'fogginess'. More like 2 drinks than 2 bottles.
-
Sounds a bit much, actually, especially being on the sea. I wonder about the beer at least, I doubt that was pure alcohol, but the rum might have been. Known about 17th century beer at least was that it was way weaker than the beer we have today, and pretty much everyone drank it, including children. But two bottles of rum should really get things spinning anyway.
-
Remember the time at hand here, 17th-18th century. For Sweden at least, where Vasa was built, much of the military production was handled by entrepreneurs, and not like it is today, where you order a certain amount of one type of ammunition and get that. The more of the ammunition that need to be made by hand (linking chains, linking them to the cannonballs), the higher the price. Bar shot on the other hand would be more about casting the different parts. So if a ship was to be loaded with a certain amount of ammunition for disable rigging, I imagine you could end up with bars and chain, depending on the current availability.
This at least was true about grapeshots/canister/cartousch, which at one time could be actual canisters with small, grapeformed lead bullets, but other times could be just whatever metaljunk lying around, sometimes even mixed up with bits and pieces of flint stone and/or rock.
-
That part I knew, just curious about how to be able to list this game. But I suppose it requires enough people with GPU's connected to the Nvidia cloud to play it.
-
Talking about optimization, does anyone know how data is collected for the Nvidia GeForce Experience? It has a function that automatically list certain games and run them with the most optimal settings for the specific game in question.
-
What I really like with Crusader Kings 2 is the odd achievements you can get (like 'Keeping it in the Family - Sire a child that has the inbred trait'), but ofc also the politics. It's awsome, and it's easy to make a wrong move in that djungle.
Other than that, recent positive events have curbed my gaming time some, so I've been doing some CK2 and EU4 just for the sake that they're pausable.
-
Does anyone remember the mobilization they did for the test on 2.11 on the testserver? Some of us from LaC hooked up with some fellas from HMK trying that one out, we worked for like half an hour to sink a Dauntless through the stern, and ALMOST made it! I was playing Wordfeud on my cellphone at the same time, and eventually we took the fight through a series of boardings, if I recall correct.
There were a number of us after that event that felt we'd had it with that game. As Flint, I returned a few times, but eventually a few of us returned to record some final stuff, and then leave.
Bottom line: in the end, it just took to god damn long time to get into decent fights. Low pop and removal of area chat made sure of that.
-
Merry Christmas, all.
-
I'm not familiar with blackpowder cannon fire, but have done some experimenting with blackpowder firearms, and there the sound is more of a "thump" than the sharp, high sound from the Victory broadside. Might be that blackpowder is burning slower than todays powder charges.
I do thing the sound provided was in all could, and would most definitive prefer that.
-
Last days, I've been stuck in X-Com - Enemy unknown. It's like a complete overhaul and remake on the really good parts of the old UFO - Enemy unknown. For those of you who liked UFO, I really recommend this game.
-
Low risk for small and cheap ships, while the bigger ships, the more risk and expense if you lose. I think that would promote PvP, and also somewhat cap flooding of extreme ships. I also belive it would promote use of different ships as well.
Things got wrong creating a guild
in Support
Posted
Well, clan tag got messed up and such, is there a way to handle that? Doesn't seem to be doable by editing the guild, so any way one can file a ticket or something?