Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Farwalker2

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Farwalker2

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  • Birthday 03/01/1952

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    North Georgia, USA
  1. By exploit you must mean play the game.
  2. maturin, There you go again, trying to redefine the meaning of words. Again you are being intellectually dishonest. Making false statements and ignoring facts. You are the one who chooses to ignore the issues, misuse terms, and go off on tangents unrelated to the discussion. Focus!
  3. "Your 'observations' are 100% qualitative and non-empirical, but yet you still seek to pass judgement on a quantifiable phenomenon. You have offered no evidence to support your claims, and therefore I can dismiss your claims without evidence." by maturin Wow, so much wrong. Empirical evidence is defined as: knowledge acquired by means of the senses. Before you start throwing polysyllable terms around to impress, you should check the definition of word with which you are unfamiliar. (You failed here) I have offered evidence to support my proposition. Evidence which is independently supported by many other players. Your statement about offering no evidence is false. (another fail) "You err in ascribing a term like 'eyewitness evidence' to player feedback from a videogame. You are looking at two-dimensional screen that disorients the senses." by maturin Just because you say eyewitness evidence is no evidence do not make it so. You offer no rational reason to adopt your redefinition of the term eyewitness evidence. What expertise in your life makes you an authority on disorientation of the senses? By definition eyewitness evidence is gathered through a person's eye. No matter how much you dislike the term, you do not get to define it. (another fail) Rather the question becomes how much can the evidence be relied upon to determine the truth of the matter asserted. The more independent reports of the same behavior of AI makes the reliability greater in proportion to the independent reports. "In short, the signal-to-noise ratio is abysmal. Anything but video or screenshot evidence isn't worth investigating." by maturin Really? " signal-to-noise ratio"; a total non sequitur (and you are guilty of creating noise by using the phrase here)! How often do you injure your shoulder patting yourself on the back when you think you have sounded intelligent? (another fail) I will admit that demonstrative evidence such as a video (if unaltered) is superior to eyewitness evidence, but will not concede that eyewitness evidence should be ignored. Much of my original post (prior to the latest patch) is moot now after the patch; as AI behavior has changed.
  4. I propose that the attack window should be eliminated. Or if not eliminated then at least occur for two hours every twelve hours. Additionally, once a port is captured it can not be attacked for three days. Also, ports should be subject to revolt or insurgency. If a port is on the fringe of a nation's area of influence it is more likely to revolt or have an insurgency. The farther from a nation's influence the greater the chance, and also how long it has been under the nation's control. At some point a spontaneous revolt would change which nation controls the port.
  5. Evidence can take many forms. Eye witness evidence is admittedly one of the weakest. However, corroborated eyewitness evidence is trustworthy. If you have read this thread you will see that many different players have independently corroborated that the AI does not operate under the same rules as the players. Do not ignore the evidence. Since the latest patch some things have changed, but the AI still has its own rules in some aspects of battle.
  6. Suffice to say, if you think is true, you are not very good at the game. And probably never fought anyone who is. maturin, Your conclusion is not logically related to my observations. What you have done is an example of ignoratio elenchi. The definition of which is: the fallacy of offering proof irrelevant to the proposition in question. Just because your observations or lack thereof, do not agree with mine does not make you or me a good or bad player. You offer nothing to refute my position. You make nothing but an irrelevant conclusion. Your conclusion is unrelated to my quoted statements and based upon nothing. I played this game over a year ago for some time. I came back to it when it was available on Steam (1/26/2016). I now have 650 hours in this version of the game. My powers of observation are superior. I have been trained over the last 60 years including but not limited to; various professions including law enforcement (requires observation to detect threats and identify suspects), litigation (requires logic and identifying issues), and as a primary care physician (a profession which requires diagnosis).
  7. This statement is contradictory. If I am using manual sails (which I do, and do as well as can be done by a player) and the AI is too, yet it is "more effective"; then it has a sailing buff. By mere observation, AI out-turns any player ship; thus it has sailing buffs. Additionally, an AI 3rd rate can out sail (turning, acceleration and deceleration) a player's 3rd rate when the AI ship has 60% sails and the player's ship has 100% sails. This is another topic, but since you bring it up: I have observed AI ships which show no effect on sail handling or reload speed when their crew has been reduced by 50%. For example, an AI 3rd rate starts with a crew of about 750. After battling one and reducing its crew to 375 - 350 range it still can sail as if it has a full crew. Raising, lowering sails, and manually turning sails with no penalty (or one that is hard to detect). Reload speed on guns is also either unaffected or has little effect. The reload penalty of a 50% crew is supposed to change the load time from approximately 1 minute to over 4 minutes.
  8. Particularly with the 3rd rate, it never gets stuck in the wind no matter how few crew it has or damage to the sails. Additionally, the 3rd rate can jib through the wind then jib right back without getting stuck; then accelerate away at a rate no player can achieve. Many times I have observed 3rd rates with only 450 (or less) crew (out of a starting crew of over 700) sail as if it was fully crewed and load cannons without penalty. I have over 500 hours in the game now. I play on the PvP2 server and attained Commodore rank a few days ago. I agree with this sentence. However, they should apply the same rules to all ships of the same type, whether they are player controlled or AI controlled.
  9. I have observed AI firing 3 or 4 rounds of chain and the rest ball from one deck! (with no delay)
  10. I have manual sailing down as do the players I play with. AI acts as described in my original post above. I reiterate: AI is not using the same rules that apply to players.
  11. The British are getting more active in our area of operations. We are seeking USA players interested in joining the Continental Navy and pushing them back. We need players with a fighting spirit.
  12. When fighting AI ships of the 5th rate and larger, the AI has the ability: 1) to turn faster than any player ship of the same type which is fully crewed and has no damage; 2) jib through the wind faster than any player, and go right back across the wind a second time (which no player can do without his speed reaching near zero) while maintaining many knots of headway; 3) accelerate faster than a player ship of the same type, going from 1 knot to 10 knots in a couple of ship lengths; 4) decelerate faster than player ships of the same type, going from 10 knots to 0 in a few ship lengths. Obviously the AI ships are not subject to the same rules of sailing as player ships. I suggest that AI ships should be bound to the same rules as player ships of the same type. AI ships have the ability to fire different shot types in the same broadside (EDIT: specifically from one deck), players do not. AI ships put out fires in less than 10 seconds usually, players take anywhere from twice as long to 4 times as long.
  13. I have not seen any authoritative posts on your question gravenunatak. Seems maturin is answering a different question about reload speed of the guns, not addressing the question of ship speed as affected by weight. If maturin is in fact answering the question posed, please provide a link to your authority. Reading further I found this post: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/11532-cannons-and-their-effect-on-speed/
  14. For Reinforcements to be effective, the BR of the reinforcement ships would need to be at least 25% more than the attacking force, due to AI's lower capabilities. Perhaps if this were done then enemies would be deterred by the potential to face an AI fleet of reinforcements that is stronger than they are.
  15. On PvP2, I am looking for someone to craft an exceptional, Live Oak, Pavel with Planking. I am able to supply all parts and crafting notes. The crafter needs only one click to build the ship. Since we do not know each other and we have no trust established, the ship must be built before I supply parts; so I can trade all the parts and any negotiated fee for the ship. My name in game is: Farwalker
×
×
  • Create New...