Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Portbattle limited top rates (1-3)


Recommended Posts

Yea, but the idea is to have a good spread of different ships with their own role to play in the game, so slashing the performance on ships of the line while retaining their huge cost doesn't really do that, it just moves another ship toward being the optimal choice.

ofcourse multiple changes would have to be made regardles of how you go about changing it

 

point is there are no different roles for ships in the game if you have any ideas how to make smaller ships relevant in a 25 v 25 arena setting then let us hear it

 

By lowering the stats they don't become rare they become irralevant, and do we really want 25 irralevant vics or do we want 1 vic backed up by 3rd and 2nd rates and those backed up by frigs and mortars?

 

and curently everything else is irelevant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly, humans by nature are extortionists. We always want more. Which is why I spent all that time grinding up from level 1 to 70 in world of Warcraft, 1 to 80 in guild wars 2 etc. your argument is against the long grind, the hours needed to gain all the end game stuff when intact in almost every major successful game, the grind is exists and is much worse.

The grind is also MUCH more relevant in this game as it helps you gain that much needed skill and experience that you'll sorely need against players who already have 2,500 hours invested in the game.

 

Sorry, I obviously didn't explain very well. You seem to think I am suggesting there should be no grind. Not so. What I am railing against is the idea that "we should limit the total amount of 1st rates and 2nd rates by making them way harder to get and to maintain, a 2nd should be for player who are spending a lot of time in the game, and a 1st rate should be a guild goal and otherwise (almost) unmaintainable." Nothing to do with the grind.

 

Bramluijken seems to be suggesting that the total number of available 1st and 2nd rate ships should be limited and ONLY allowed to be used by players who spend many hours in game and, in the case of first rates, be a guild goal only. Such an action discriminates against the casual player, true, but it also discriminates against individual players who do not join a guild. Both of these players paid just as much for their game and should therefore not be discriminated against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If something is relevant it can't be rare in a game. It will simply cause the community to contract till practically everyone who still plays the game is also someone who puts the time in to get that thing.

 

It's worse than that. It will force out anybody who isn't in a guild by making almost all high level ships guild only assets and affordable only by guilds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I obviously didn't explain very well. You seem to think I am suggesting there should be no grind. Not so. What I am railing against is the idea that "we should limit the total amount of 1st rates and 2nd rates by making them way harder to get and to maintain, a 2nd should be for player who are spending a lot of time in the game, and a 1st rate should be a guild goal and otherwise (almost) unmaintainable." Nothing to do with the grind.

 

Bramluijken seems to be suggesting that the total number of available 1st and 2nd rate ships should be limited and ONLY allowed to be used by players who spend many hours in game and, in the case of first rates, be a guild goal only. Such an action discriminates against the casual player, true, but it also discriminates against individual players who do not join a guild. Both of these players paid just as much for their game and should therefore not be discriminated against.

So you think that people who spend 20 hours on it should be sailing the same ships as people who spend 2000 hours getting them,

Be happy with what you got just like in real life you have to work together to get the best, casual players don't do that and don't put alot of effort in the game, so why do they expect to sail big ships if they are just casual players.

I am not discriminating you just have to work hard to achieve something and if you want to have the best and put 0 hours in it, then I am very sorry for you but that is not how the world works.

The Devs have a beautifull opertunity here to create a realistic hardcore sailing game and I hope they don't trash that for the sake of "casuals".

So just accept you can't have it all an there are people who are going to sail a bigger ship then you, because they worked hard for it and I find it very sad that people like you want to ruin that because they want the best but don't want to work for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think that people who spend 20 hours on it should be sailing the same ships as people who spend 2000 hours getting them,

Be happy with what you got just like in real life you have to work together to get the best, casual players don't do that and don't put alot of effort in the game, so why do they expect to sail big ships if they are just casual players.

I am not discriminating you just have to work hard to achieve something and if you want to have the best and put 0 hours in it, then I am very sorry for you but that is not how the world works.

The Devs have a beautifull opertunity here to create a realistic hardcore sailing game and I hope they don't trash that for the sake of "casuals".

So just accept you can't have it all an there are people who are going to sail a bigger ship then you, because they worked hard for it and I find it very sad that people like you want to ruin that because they want the best but don't want to work for it.

Stop putting words in my mouth. No, I don't think that people who spend 20 hours playing the game should be sailing the same ships as people who have spent 2000 hours. That is a ridiculous comparison and a strawman argument.

 

Why do casual players get to sail the same ships? Simple because they paid the same money to play the game. All this nonsense you say about 'having to work hard' and 'be happy with what you have got just like in real life' is meaningless. It's a game. In 'real life' if you pay for something you expect to get the same thing as others who have paid the same.

 

Let me turn this next statement: "The Devs have a beautifull opertunity here to create a realistic hardcore sailing game and I hope they don't trash that for the sake of "casuals". "The Devs have a beautiful opportunity here to create a realistic combat sailing game and I hope they don't trash that and alienate potential customers by making it so that it only suits one group of so called 'hardcore' players." What you seem to be forgetting is that in the 'real world' the devs need to create a game that is going to make them as much profit as possible.

 

Why do I have to "...just accept you can't have it all an there are people who are going to sail a bigger ship then you," Because you say so? Again, I paid just as much as you so my opinions count just as much as yours. You didn't 'work hard' for it. You are playing a game. Presumably you are playing for fun, like the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop putting words in my mouth. No, I don't think that people who spend 20 hours playing the game should be sailing the same ships as people who have spent 2000 hours. That is a ridiculous comparison and a strawman argument.

 

Why do casual players get to sail the same ships? Simple because they paid the same money to play the game. All this nonsense you say about 'having to work hard' and 'be happy with what you have got just like in real life' is meaningless. It's a game. In 'real life' if you pay for something you expect to get the same thing as others who have paid the same.

 

Let me turn this next statement: "The Devs have a beautifull opertunity here to create a realistic hardcore sailing game and I hope they don't trash that for the sake of "casuals". "The Devs have a beautiful opportunity here to create a realistic combat sailing game and I hope they don't trash that and alienate potential customers by making it so that it only suits one group of so called 'hardcore' players." What you seem to be forgetting is that in the 'real world' the devs need to create a game that is going to make them as much profit as possible.

 

Why do I have to "...just accept you can't have it all an there are people who are going to sail a bigger ship then you," Because you say so? Again, I paid just as much as you so my opinions count just as much as yours. You didn't 'work hard' for it. You are playing a game. Presumably you are playing for fun, like the rest of us.

Yes we all payed the same money but the amout of hours you put in the game and earn XP by playing and earn money should determine if you cam sail a 1st rate or not that you payed $40

Some things should be rare and powerfull, and if everybody has them then they are not powerfull anymore and the first rate will lose it magic if it gets common.

Those things were nuclear weapons that day, so in my opinion less then 0.5% of the playerbase should be able to sail them

But we can discuss all we want, in the end its the choice of the devs and if they want to get alot of money by making the game arcady then that is their choice, if they want to make a hardcore realistic game then that is also their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we all payed the same money but the amout of hours you put in the game and earn XP by playing and earn money should determine if you cam sail a 1st rate or not that you payed $40

Some things should be rare and powerfull, and if everybody has them then they are not powerfull anymore and the first rate will lose it magic if it gets common.

Those things were nuclear weapons that day, so in my opinion less then 0.5% of the playerbase should be able to sail them

But we can discuss all we want, in the end its the choice of the devs and if they want to get alot of money by making the game arcady then that is their choice, if they want to make a hardcore realistic game then that is also their choice.

 

You are now just basically repeating yourself without offering further support to your arguments.

 

Your main assertion is that because of the amount of free time you have to play you should have preferential treatment. If we have both paid the same amount for the game why should the one player be discriminated against? You keep saying 'should' but your argument as to 'why' is weak. Because player 'A' has more free time on his hands is not an argument for exclusivity over ships.

 

It may be desirable to some players that some things are 'rare and powerful' but in the interest of workable game play it may be more desirable to the devs to have as many people playing as possible.

 

Yes, ships of the line were the capital weapons of the day and could decide the fates of nations. But frigates were by far the most influential ships at exerting that power in the far flung corners of empire. But that is history, this is a game and it has to be playable... by all who paid for it. Anyway, that is beside the point. How do you come up with the figure of only one player in 200 should be able to sail them? And who gets to decide, especially when more players than that have played for more than this indeterminate figure of playing hours? And what about this 'guild only' asset you suggested? That by itself will discriminate against a large proportion of players and potential players.

 

Yes, we can discuss this all we want, it is a forum after all. It is by discussion and debate that silly ideas are exposed before others can take them seriously. Not, you understand, that I think your arguments are silly. Just a little bit too centred on personal preference over what is good for the wider game experience.

 

I think we can leave this in the hands of the Devs, they seem to know what they want and how to go about getting it done but if you want to debate further I'm always happy to oblige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i could post a wall of text again about the shallow waters landmasses and diffrent typ of fortifications that would come with the "land in sight"  update but since people will ignore it and keep the same disscousion spining in a circle for the XX amount if time i will stop doing so.  carry on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given enought time every one will be sailing a 1st rate so limiting the number that can enter a battle will be both pointless and counter productive to the end  gamers.

 

when it comes down to the fact every one is top ranked it will be down to personal prefrence on ship types. some ships might be lower and be more to that players liking.

 

maybe setup certain lower ships that are highly skilled in certain areas of port battles. 

 

from what i have heard 3rd rates are the best tanks when taking on forts. maybe like another in this thread has said have some of the smaller ships have Mortars to help with this from range. then you have your 1st and 2nd rates defending the tower assualt forces.

 

puting hard limits will just anoy people as when your doing a port battle its first in best dressed i would realy hate to see a port battle which is not full and suddenly u have  ships sitting out the front because they could not join due to some hard limit in place..  also what if your clan had a plan and had the desired number of limited ships only to find out that some random took there spot.

 

randoms jumping into port battle happens and is encurraged but do somthing like this and i can see peoples views changing and argo national chats happening about some one taking some elses slot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planking imbalances on lower level vessels.

We want to compact the planking integrity on unrated vessels bringing them closer to each other. This will increase variability and improve ship choices for shallow water combat. The difference in hp and survivability between a Navy brig-sloop and a privateer should not be as strong as it is now (almost 2.5x).

 

is what the 1st content patch preview says, well the imbalance in deep port battles is even larger with a victory having more than 5x the durability of a cerberus/surprise and god knows how many times the firepower

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...