Galileus
-
Posts
1,488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Galileus
-
-
It's really a question of what type of focus this game is supposed to have. Is this supposed to be more of a PvE game or more of a PvP game? It is possible to have both (missions work to help generate PvP around particular areas, and people PvP over the right to good mission spots) but one objective can undermine the other if done wrong. That's the problem we have today: PvE is undermining PvP. The map is full of people but how many of them are really available for battle and how many are hidden inside private instances in distant parts of the map? It's a self-perpetuating problem, too: I even find myself doing a mission because I can't find anyone to fight, because they were all in missions because they couldn't find anyone to fight.But you're doing nothing to fix that problem.
Forcing people to engage in frustration is not going to make them PvP players. Making PvE irritating and unwieldly is not going to make people go PvP.
You are literally just trying to punish PvE players with no-one to gain nothing at all. And comments like "It's a PvP server, go PvE if you are too weak to play!" are not helping at all. Trolling I might be, but only because I like to make fun off of ridiculous statements like the ones mentioned. You are not going to get more PvP players by making PvE painfully masochistic. You are not going to force anyone into PvP. Convince instead of forcing.
I'm all for fixing PvE / PvP problems. But what you propose is really looking like a ill conceived attempt at "revenge" at PvE players not playing PvP.
-
2
-
-
This "your" idea was proposed at least a dozen times already... at least half of that in the topics you mentioned.
-
You have already posted about this in 2 or 3 topics about teleportation, one of them with this exact idea. There is literally no excuse for posting another topic like that!
-
3
-
-
You cannot transfer characters between servers.
Removing a character does not affect another character.
XP and crafting XP is shared between all characters on all servers. If you remove your PvP pirate character and create a new, national one - you are going to keep all your XP and crafting XP.
-
The cutter swarm problem is one of the most imaginary problems possible.
Remove basic cutters, people will just buy the 10$ not-basic cutters. They cost less than one log of compass wood.
-
3
-
-
There is an entire other server for people like that.
It's mostly empty. Which just goes to show.
Plus, he wouldn't be out there by himself. It has concentrated his own team as much as the enemy. Why not group up with some of his teammates that are around him? If we continue to base this game around anti-social PvE behavior, we will end up with an anti-social PvE playerbase.
So why don't you propose to remove missions altogether?
If a PvP server player is forbidden from ever doing PvE missions for chill - in other words you propose anyone daring to do the degrading PvE missions needs to be humiliated by ganks?
If PvE server is empty - and it somehow "goes to show" - why even care about the PvE?
Why not allow for solo play? Why base anything on being forced to group up? If we don't allow single player to play, he will never become social, because he will never have time to meet and join a group.
From a completely different barrel:
There is another game for people like you. It is called CoD/WoT/Whatever. You should go there and not post here because I am smart and I thought of an argumentation like that all by myself! And seriously? Never, ever use that kind of "argumentation". Racial segregation by a Pv type of a player? Are we really at that point yet? I don't think so. At least try to be fashionably racist or sexist, maybe?
-
Question - if someone wants to log in and do PvE for chills, yet he has to go to the frontline, take a mission there (just one, because sail time), sail around to shake off a PvP ganker, then get ganked anyway, log off bitter...
Is this really going to increase amount of quality PvP in the long run? I have my doubts.
-
1
-
-
To few english people used to play french nation and with the turnover, the SLMFr is quiet dead at the moment. The remaining SMLFr players merge with an other french clan, FRL ( Flotte Royal de Louissiane)
I would think Pierre knows that...
-
Yeah..out of 6 -10 broadsides into the sails and they still show 100 percent. something is not right. so We shall see.
Record a video and post a trial topic ./ PM one of the Devs / mods.
Please keep random cheat/hack accusations against "them" from common forums. Either help rooting them out or stay silent - random fearmongering in the forums helps no-one.
-
The problem is you not preparing for being boarded, not the axes. If you are having problems disengaging from aggressive boarding ship when not being prepared, then it works as it should.
It would be laughable if you could just deny boarding by having a mod. Making it easier to survive is one thing, not having to make prep and switch to boarding is another.
-
1
-
-
If I am not mistaken, the cannons impact on speed was there (or was supposed to be there) for a long time, but it was fleshed out and better represented in last patches.
If I am mistaken, someone will correct me.
-
4
-
-
I mean, those few (maybe a hand full of each nation) can be decided by the existing councils and players by vote. (Something that the nations shall do on their own.) - This would bring the National News back (even if it is just a little) and shoud not harm you.
DRUNK. And right there your whole idea just bombed. How do you deal with rouge clans? Do you officially condemn them by not giving them official presence? Or do you let them fuel their on-forum propaganda pvp by doing so? Where do you put the line? How many players till an opposition is valid?
Vague idea is nice, but it falls apart when you start going into details. I'm not a fan.
Wow, where do I start... First of all, can you be more kindly? This is the tone I was talking about earlier.
I always say what I think straight to the point. There is nothing offensive in that, so no, I have to refuse. Beating around the bush is jus not something I do.
The forum is, as long as this game still needs to continue to develope, a part of the game - Even though it is not implemented.
Diplomany, is not a goal for the future, it is something that needs to be regarded right now. As long as there is no diplomatic system, the forum has to be the replacement for it - Even if it is not accessible through the game, it is still necessary.
(...)
The clans might know about, what the diplomancy did. But not every clan gets the full informations, nor those players wich are clanless!
This is no theory, this is a fact!
We will have to agree to disagree on that. In-game chat and TS are doing fine job by me. And they also don't run the risk of being perceived as "dev-supported".
If anything, it's good more traffic will be directed to in-game chat to discuss in-game state of affairs, instead of forums that house only a percent of active population.
Even if there are no arguments or reasons for NN to be different this time around, what makes you belive if could not be not different this time?
But both can happen! (We only know if we trie, you can not say that it will definitely not work)
I'm sorry, but this is naive and unreasonable. Nothing changed from last time, so why would anything go differently this time?
We tried. We cannot say if will definitely not work - we can say it well most likely won't work.
Coming to the end: Your whole statement is just based on your deep mistrust against the playerbase.
But just by repeating your statement: "Words are cheap" will not make these words true, nor it will make your full statement convincingly. Please find true arguments.
This is straight up a lie. My statement is based on experience and tested/proved concepts. We did go through NN, we did see how it turned out, we know for a fact - thus, fact-based argumentation.
To dismiss these arguments as "mistrust" is baseless.
I get that you're passionate about NN and want to see some of it back. I am the same way - and that is why I will be the first to argue against any revival of NN until there are actual solutions on the table. To just dive in with best hopes and wish people change because "we got it, trust, humanity and Jesus!" is naive and - for NN sake - suicidal. To unluck NN and see it go the same way as the last time again would be to ensure NN will never come back in any form.
If you want NN to be back, you need to find a solution (and we're talking a full-length, well thought out ones), not hope. Actions are best based on plans and ideas rather than on hopes.
-
Words are cheap. Month ago or month later, anyone can say "we will be nice THIS time!" but it won't change the facts.
And no, forums are NOT part of the game. The fact the forums are not accessible through the game is proof enough. Again, words are cheap, and you just stating that this is a fact does not make it a fact.
It's all nice and dandy what you say, but there is no wight behind your statements. There are no arguments or reasons for NN to be different this time around. There is no reasoning for the need of NN as a part of the game either. And even when NN were open, leaders made their deals behind the scenes anyway, and clan members would learn news from their diplomats way before they reached the forums. Facts do not correlate with your theory...
Diplomacy is indeed a development goal in the future. And once there is a diplomatic system in-game, I could see someone, somewhere being able to persuade the devs to look at NN case again. Before that? Words are cheap.
-
1
-
-
What is the Suggestion ?
Re-opening of National News.
And it is just as Eishen said - if closing NN calmed down people, even more the reason to keep it closed.
-
1
-
-
Have not thought about it that way, what a boring way to fight.
Is it boring because you don't enjoy it? Or is there any actual reason for it?
-
I... don't think anything changed... at all...
Except maybe much less toxic spill-over in the forums ;3
-
1
-
-
So, people are supposed to be able to block off a noob-port and kill everything on sight? You should be able to tag someone endlessly without him being able to escape ever? And what's with this insta-closing battles? Why - just why? I get wanting short timers instead of long ones, but no timers at all? Just fine-tune your circle and you can get anyone in the middle of group of enemies at will?
In points 2, 3 and 4 you propose to give away mechanics so that we can have the very thing these mechanics were supposed to protect us from. Why is being tag-locked and unable to ever run away a good thing? You are aware you are just promoting hate-crime revenge-fleets ganking? Just sit on top of the crossed swords and BOOM! Whoever is inside is instantly dead as soon as he gets out. He cannot run, cannot fight, cannot do nothing. Someone decided to ruin your day, so you have no choice in the matter - good bye.
It's god-darned awful is what it is. Sorry to say that.
-
Is there harassment against male/female players in NA?
Harassement is not limited to be based on gender, race, nationality or otherwise. And even saying that, we've already seen nationality based harassment in these forums, in game as well.
-
4
-
-
So, it an "off topic" - discussion !?
Yes, by the definition it's off of the topic of
Naval Action Gameplay DiscussionsThat subforum is dedicated to focused critique of NA gameplay.
There is no reason to be angry, by bringing this up you're only killing your own topic. One I would rather see stay on-topic.
-
Maybe I overlooked the Limitative factors that Galileus posts up regarding the ports ownership, especially with a majority of a council blocking all venues in the frontiers. I usually tend to believe that the good will is everywhere but forget that many play to limit others play, sorry for that.
Have to find something else then.
Or try to manipulate your suggestion to work around the limitations and problems I found out so far... As long as you don't end up stacking a hotfix on top of a hotfix. Nevertheless, it's refreshing to see someone actually acknowledge my critique than assume I critique ergo troll. The respect I always had for you is well deserved, sir!
I definitely don't hate the vibe of your suggestion. I do feel you are trying to go into a direction I agree with - limiting ease of RvR, giving ownership of ports some meaning, creating more well defined front-lines and most of all - mechanically acknowledging "rebellious factor". Nevertheless, implementation lacks... I do feel you need to concentrate on relieving thew problem of limiting action to a singular lord and limit longevity of the seat. Here is my quick-fire proposal:
A Lord is a function that lasts X time - a seat, we will call it further. The seat of Lord Protector is taken by opening and winning a port battle (holding the flag), but can be only taken if said player has no other active seats (is not a Lord or Lord Protector in any other port). There are 4 other seats - 2 for Lords of Commerce (Senior, Junior, Cabin Guy or something), 2 for Lords of War (the 4+1 number is meant to give enough seats for it to be open for any engaged player, can be discussed further - 6+1?).
The seats are taken by doing good things for the port - commerce is production/craft/trade, war is PvP and PvE missions from the town. The more good things you do, the more your chance to get the seat. The more points you gather towards the election, the more you get a chance to get a seat or even Lord Protector seat. There might be even special (multi-nation?) behind-the-curtains missions giving you "cheated" points towards being elected.
The Council of Lords decides about things going on in the town - they can decide on it's development, taxes, what kind of missions might spawn and so on. Each Lord gets 1 vote, with Protector getting 3 (for 7 total - Protector cannot rule alone without having at least one of Lords on his side). Lords need to "activate" the council first by having a special vote to acknowledge itself (in which Protector doesn't get bonus votes). If the council is hanged, it will disband and next one will be chosen next week. If the second one also disbands, the town reverts to neutral. There are also special behind-the-curtains actions that can be taken by agreement of at least 3 lords to lower Protector's vote power to 1 for the next vote (with a cooldown).
There is also space for council to take active part of PvP - deciding what ports can be attacked from this one, crafting flags to be picked up later and so on.
This way you need to gain the power to do stuff, and you need to keep earning it to keep it - still with random chance to fail (unless you have 5 guys with 2x as much election points as anyone else). There is no "well, 99% of clans agreed and you are rebels!" - if you are 99% of the clans, surely you can dominate elections. And there is also a place for struggle and for Lords and Protector to "battle" over the political power.
Long shot I'm sure, but this is what I would go for to make the whole "Lords as a function" thing viable - eliminating "Lord for Life" and "fun for 20 people, no more!" problems.
-
2
-
-
More - how about people who are lord protectors of in-land? They are forbidden from playing the flag carrier ever again?
How about people leaving their things in hands of others to switch nations forth and back, so they can free their ports and get back the "allowed to fun" status?
How about people loosing buildings in their homeland because that one guy changed nations?
How about people wanting to change nations and being forced to screw a lot of people because they want to play and not work?
How do you deal with bad apples? How are you supposed to in-fight - because if you allow people to screw their nation, surely there's gotta be a tool to fight them too...?
How about having fun in general - you are screwed if you join nation X because the whole nation is dependent on few guys and they want to play their game?
If one clan takes over the front, how do you fight your own nation's clan?
I'm sorry, I am failing to see anything positive coming from this. The only thing you're accomplishing with this is limiting people from playing and limiting people due to others playing. And limits are good when they throttle fun, not when they prohibit fun.
-
2
-
-
A Naval Action Nation must work together and not be reliant on one or two big clans or two or three Lords only.Wouldn't that be exactly opposite?
Let's say France owns 21 ports. How many of them within reliable range of front-lines in one-front war? 6? This means 2 players get to play RvR game. Most likely all of them will be from the biggest clan.
If they are not online or go away from the game you are straight up f*k.
You need to ask people to come online and allow you to play, because no-one else than 1-2 people can open up flags from frontlines.
If they disagree, you cannot play. Sorry!
Most of all...
YOU PROMOTE IN-FIGHTING!
You promote totalitarianism where one group has all the toys and can straight forbid everyone else from playing RvR. If by some lucky coincidence some other clan gets a hold of front-lines port, you ensure there will be fighting between clans - because one and the other hold they keys and can forbid the other from playing the game.
I'm sorry, but I find this suggestion awful through and through.
-
The offender should be permanently banned as clear proof has been presented to the admin and the rest of us should take heed that this sort of behavior should not be tolerated. Ever.
Here's the thing - there was never a clear proof.
What if - the deal was about to be completed, but OP instead went nerd in chat, made a screenshot, did not agree to the trade-back and went to forums? What if - the discussion ended in the trade back, but OP did not decide to show it? What if - there was actually an agreement over TS that one player trades the other his resources - as is common in dozens of clans?
If you were to ban people with that so=called "proof" of yours, you would made that possible:
- You join a clan
- You ask someone to craft you a ship
- You give him resources
- You scream "SCAMMER!" in chat
- You screenshot it
Bam! You banned someone at will. All the logs show you did the right thing - chat log shows you "giving resources for a Pavel", trade log shows it too, your screenshot shows it. Now what - a trial taking 12h out of Dev's life? And how do you find the truth, with two people saying opposing things? Do we really want a exploit in which you can ban people at will?
Think on it. All is well with people screaming "justice!", yet no-one is actually interested in providing the way this justice were to be enforced.
-
I will also add...
What's more interesting:
You almost sink someone. He wins but limps out of combat. Your friend attacks him.
A. The damaged enemy is full health because he clicked a couple repair kits. There is only "total victory" and "complete defeat".
B. The damaged enemy is still damaged and your nearly-successful attack against him still matters. There are degrees of victory and "barely victorious" is not much better than "sunk".
B is more "interesting" for a broader audience in spectator mode, which is not there.
A is more interesting and fun for you. Because you can just jump at the guy again for round 2. In example B you instead need to waste 30 minutes going back to city for repair, not enjoying the time with your friends, not engaging the bad guys, not playing the game, not having fun and most of all not being engaged (interested) by the game at all.
So yeah, in broad lens it seems interesting - you wound the prey and someone else finishes it off. The problem is the broad lens doesn't show you your own state, which is miserable and which means all that juicy interesting drama you just created is going to pass you by, while you AFK sail and make some sandwiches.
Don't get me wrong, sandwiches are great, but still... you know... it ain't kitchen simulator at all...!
-
2
-
Too much room to hide: narrowing down mission ports
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
BS. It's like complaining CS doesn't have enough support for casual gamer.
And it does.But let's take another example, that is quite closer to my stable. Star Craft - which is obviously aimed at pro comp. Focus and longevity - bah! - existence of Star Craft is caused by it's multiplayer scene. Does it mean SC doesn't get a solo gameplay? Last I checked, SC got massive solo player focused campaigns and content. It got massive playground for casual players. What it does not have is a "play 3 more comp matches to unlock next campaign mission" prompts.
And you know why? Because it wishes for SP player guys to become MP ones in the future. That's why it introduced co-op content, that's why it introduced modded game types. Because some of these players that try SP will try MP as well. Some of these in turn will try out comp.
Now admittedly, Game Labs has nowhere near enough money to give us as much content as Blizzard can. That does not excuse "executing" PvE players because the are "not worthy".
Your proposal has nothing to do with "alchemy labs in CS". It is more like forcing a casual CS player to play comp match, get cursed at by teammates, be rotflstomped, be rated bad due to inexperience and general lack of interest in comp matches.... to unlock 3 more casual games. This is insane.
This is not about the game's focus. The game's focus is obviously PvP. This does not in any way mean you should force people to play PvP and just snark at the ones who give up due to ganks. I agree all the way - PvP is king and there should be push towards it for PvE players.
The problem is you don't want to push PvE players towards PvP, you want to push them off of a cliff to PvP hyaena filled pit.