Captain MiniMe Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Slamz said: Yes but it should be 7 teams trying to kill that 1 team and Victories can be made with Combat Marks now. The old status quo of two giant teams being friends should be dead. The #2 team has a huge incentive to kill the #1 team and it will be hard to pay them off to stay friends. The winning team is going to need every advantage they can get because they are the new beat-down target. If only ingame politics worked this way. N°1 nation will agree to pass down half of their victory marks to N°2 nation so they can remain first and second place without letting the little ones come close. You can even agree to switch 1st and 2nd position every week between the two biggest nations without risking any of the smaller ones come even close. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_Ka Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 3 hours ago, Bobzillah said: worse ship ever the wappen von hamburg need victory marks .. really ... With proper weaponry Wapen's DPS is higher than a Bellona's - people don't realize it (yet) True, and mouv very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamen Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 New Trinco permit for 75 combat marks? Same lvl as indefat and endymion... kind of expensive... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 26 minutes ago, Prater said: My guess is the 15kn meta will take a considerable time to fix/balance. Hopefully after the move to unity 5. By the time that happens Life is Feudal will have launched.... and well I will be there. 24 minutes ago, Captain MiniMe said: If the screened fleet can flee the screen battle and join the PB, you're doing the screening wrong and the ones fleeing should not be punished so a timer to prevent PB joining is not advised. Screening has not become irrelevant, on the contrary (as someone stated before) it has become unballanced, catering majority much! Try entering a PB with your 4th rates when the enemy is screening with 1st rates (this is clearly to the advantage of big player bases nations). LOL sorry but there is an old Soviet saying. "Quantity has a quality all on its own."- Joseph Stalin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain MiniMe Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Wraith said: Heh, you're obviously supporting the types of tactics that allow for a team to avoid screening entirely by using either logoff, AI/alt tagging, and/or battle screen camping prior to jumping back in and just popping into the PB. The logical conclusion would be to just use a port battle lobby system right? The point of all of this is that screening *should be* unbalanced. If we can't put together, either tactically or through alliances, enough numbers to get your ships to the port you want to attack then we shouldn't have an opportunity to attack it. This is the nature of RvR and is partly imposed by the geography of different ports. By removing screening from the game you're losing much of the diversity in the experience we've come to enjoy with different landmasses, port entrances, etc. If you want a lobby, click-based port battles, etc. just wait for Naval Action Legends. As a thought experiment, imagine that we didn't have battle instances. In an ideal, open world game you'd be sailing with your attacking fleet and defenders could engage you seamlessly in a running fight from wherever they found you all the way into the port you're trying to attack. This is the ideal we should be tailoring RoE towards (we only have 25 v 25 battle instances due to game engine limitations anyway) and these types of engagements will always favor the side with bigger fleets and/or bigger ships, as it should be. No, not really. I think there's been a misunderstanding. I like screening, I like the whole aspect around it and I love how it is now. Someone suggested you should get a "can't join battle timer" when you jump out of battle and try to enter a port battle. All I'm saying is, this would not be logic, even worse, it would be unfair. Imagine sailing for a port battle, you get screened out, but the screeners hello kitty up and you manage to get out with most if not all of your PB fleet. How is it fair that you need to sit outside the PB, for x time, which just makes you a prime target for getting screened again. You should not be punished for succesfully getting out of a screener battle. That is what I'm saying. Heh, you're obviously supporting the types of tactics that allow for a team to avoid screening entirely by using either logoff, AI/alt tagging, and/or battle screen camping prior to jumping back in and just popping into the PB. The logical conclusion would be to just use a port battle lobby system right? Players that use these tactics are sad, it's bug abuse/exploiting and I consider it cheating. =) However, putting a battle timer for a fleet that is trying to enter a PB is punishing everyone, even the players that try to play the game correctly. So for me, it's not a viable solution to a know problem. Edited July 17, 2017 by Captain MiniMe 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slamz Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 44 minutes ago, Captain MiniMe said: If only ingame politics worked this way. N°1 nation will agree to pass down half of their victory marks to N°2 nation so they can remain first and second place without letting the little ones come close. You can even agree to switch 1st and 2nd position every week between the two biggest nations without risking any of the smaller ones come even close. I think it will be very hard for a #1 team to pay off a #2 team. Let's say: Britain #1, with 1000 players. Pirates #2, with 750 players. Britain could absolutely make pirates happy by giving away 75% of their marks but then why even bother being the winner? They could give the pirates 25% of their marks but why would the pirates be happy with that? If they can take the lead, they'll get a lot more marks. Now maybe the Dutch have 100 players. The Brits could pay them off pretty easily. The Dutch would realize they'll never be #1 so they might as well take what's offered. But two giant teams should end up very inclined to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsilon Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 50 minutes ago, Captain MiniMe said: If only ingame politics worked this way. N°1 nation will agree to pass down half of their victory marks to N°2 nation so they can remain first and second place without letting the little ones come close. You can even agree to switch 1st and 2nd position every week between the two biggest nations without risking any of the smaller ones come even close. When those marks are split up among the entire player base of a nation (for those that have logged in within the previous 14 days), collecting and paying those marks becomes very tricky. It's only 1 Mark per week per player (at least the way it looked -- not sure if its actually more than that). Not impossible mind you, but enough of a headache to perhaps make it impractical. And even if you could make it work where #1 and #2 are in cahoots, you just team up to knock off #2. We obviously need to test this further but its a very interesting idea on a Zerg-buster mechanic that should help nudge war (good for game) vs. encouraging peace (bad for game) like the old system. Long term diplomacy will be dicey but I'm looking forward to testing this to see exactly where the kinks are. There will obviously be ways to exploit/abuse this that we just haven't thought of yet so lets see how it goes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain MiniMe Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Slamz said: I think it will be very hard for a #1 team to pay off a #2 team. Let's say: Britain #1, with 1000 players. Pirates #2, with 750 players. Britain could absolutely make pirates happy by giving away 75% of their marks but then why even bother being the winner? They could give the pirates 25% of their marks but why would the pirates be happy with that? If they can take the lead, they'll get a lot more marks. Now maybe the Dutch have 100 players. The Brits could pay them off pretty easily. The Dutch would realize they'll never be #1 so they might as well take what's offered. But two giant teams should end up very inclined to fight. You're right to certain extend. And from a logical point of view I'm completely agreeing. But I have learned that logic doesn't fit in this game very much XD So I expect the opposite to happen. I agree with you that this system should encourage ganging up on the N°1 nation at that time. But I'm afraid it'll never come to that. I give it 14 days for it to dawn on the developers that they have made a mistake and try something new. 7 days for the first nation to get VM, 7 days to clearly see they will never get beaten from that position once achieved. I play the Dutch so I'm not even bothered dreaming of Victory marks. I don't like the ships you buy with VM anyways. I'll just start doing what the devs like to see most I guess, which is wolfpacking and ganking easy targets. Maybe grab myself a nice 1st rate of someone that is sailing it alone. Privateering instead of playing the map for the Dutch nation. For the time being at least. I still feel they should divide the control points on the ranking by the number of active players in that week. Maybe even only players that logged in twice or three times for a longer total time of several hours to force alts loging in and losing time if they want part of the VM and to make people that want to lower the points by login in on an alt at the winning nation to do the same. You want to abuse and cheat, fine, but it'll go at the cost of your playtime. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain MiniMe Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Wraith said: Then it seems we are definitely in agreement there. But the prior comment was in response to exactly these kind of tactics being employed... And when a port battle fleet materializes out of thin air behind your screening lines, after logging in, then hides in a battle to wait out their login timer, and then instantly joins a port battle... well it sort of sours you on the mechanics. I think one thing I'd like to test on out-of-port log-ins is to move players out of sight of land. Ah, agreed then. I just never saw that tactic being actually used so misunderstood what was stated. So if I understand correctly they log out on OW, log in and to have the PB battle timer count down in safety they drag themselves in battle with an alt account? That's just sad. A solution would be to draw a safe cirkle around each port. Only players of the nation owning that port can log out in that cirkle. Other nations can't, or get tp'ed closest point outside of that cirkle (another opportunity for exploiting obviously). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hethwill Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 IMO... 1. Contested regions empty of AI/NPC until PB is decided. 2. Battle Fleets existence pertains a upcoming PB, should be mandatory formed at a regional capital - ALL captains must be arrayed at the same port. 3. Battle Fleets not eligible for invisibility and wind immunity. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoidberg Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, admin said: It is not a bad patch. In my opinion there are some problems with it. After this patch u shouldnt let pirates pull each other into battle as same nationality with smuggler flag. This mechanic just gives an unbalanced opportunity to run always or hunt as a ghost fleet. Btw there are no pirate against pirate battle, never seen and heard that. I think this system will streghten gank, as gankers cannot be ganked and they can make a really unbalanced hunt type (ghost fleet). Ur new conqest system doesnt solve the supressed nation issue, as it has no really balance in it, just try to solve the problem with the reset. If a nation too strong, it can be stronger after every map round, and can supress still some low populated nations. Another problem, that nations will always hit same nations. French will always against swedish and dutch, british always against spanish and pirates. That means aswell that french and spanish always be a supressed nation, what will make player base leak in thiese nations, and nations arond spanish can easily win the map round with no action flips and PB-s. The open sea sailing time doesnt change, what is the main reason of slow player base leak (i have that opinion appart form that there are lots of whining against making OS sailing easier. Those whiners are without real life, and im sure they wont leave the game, but normal players will sooner or later if they have to sail hours for some or none action. i just have to repeat myself, my suggestions should solve all ur problems i think, plz just read it, think about it: Dear Developers, dear main developer! I try to find out, how u can change ur game to be great, to make it enjoyable for everyone. The changes are really easy to implement. I suggest a new conquest (ruler) system. The war/play on the map should go for the Ruler of the Caribean title. In my system between two nation there will be 3 type of reletaionship. One can rule the other, and they can be equals. For example British can rule spanish, spanish can rule british and they can be equals. If british wants to rule spanish, they have to attack one of thier ports and win the port battle. If they rule the spanish, they shouldnt be able to attack any more port, but OS battles will be still enabled. The British should be able to use the spanish resources (with smuggler flag they should be able to bid on thier resources). If the spanish attack back to a british port, and they win, they became equal (they both can attack again, and British smugglers can not bid in spanish ports again), and if they win another PB (area) against british, they will rule british (cannot attack them anymore, but can bid on resources). If a nation rule all others (get one area form all others), they become the ruler of the caribean, and they win the map. Then should be map and nation status reset (all equals), but every outposts, xp, ships and so one shouldnt be reseted in the starting areas. With this system there is one problem. There can be a situation, when nation(s) with small starting area (especially swedish, US) will have only the capitals at endgame. Solution is easy, when a nation rule all others but one, the last attack should be on 1st rate port or on the last remaining (not ruled) nation capital. If the main ruler win, the map reset come! There should be some tricky situation, but its not that chaotic, as it seems. For example if swedish, british and spain equals, British attack Cartagena (spanish port) and win, they will rule spanish. If swedish attack cartagena after that, and take it, they will rule british, while british still rule spanish. Another tricky situaton if only US not ruled by British and British attack thier capital but before attack time they lose one port against another nation. In that case the capital attack should be canceled. Its simple, isnt it? This system has loads of advantages. Strong nations capable to win has to attack all other nations, and they wont be able to anihilate or supress anothers (they can get only one area from one nation). The wars between nations will go for 1-2 important area. It should work like a climbing ladder, win against (rule) 1 nation after 1. In this system there are big chance that strong nations will deplete thier ship pool for the win, as they need to attack all others. Till the map reset (win) the national areas doesnt change much, so easy nation stay easy, hard nation stay hard even if they are ruler or underdog. The system has the national balance in itselfs, as the strongest nation always against all others. This system doesnt bother the cross play, what i think u support nowdays, as smuggler on ruler side still can be attacked, so own a second character on the underdog side still has advantage. Appart from that system: U must defend new players appart from that which nation they choose. They do mainly PVE, so PVP and especially ganking is bad for them. Give an opportunity to players below "post captain" to flag themselfs with "Naval Student flag". If they sail under this flag with a warship, they and thier missions shouldnt be attacked in home waters (!), and they shouldnt attack enemy or join PVP battles either. After that rank i dont think anybody leave because of some ganks, and they should be able to defend themselfes. There are a lot of boring sailing time implemented, 99% no action in it. This sailing are mostly ship rearrangement between outpost and for hauling. This OS sailing get players from real action, what is bad for them and for the rest. Let all type of ships move automatically between outposts without cargo with 1 day penalty. In outposts should be an option to send ships to other outpost. The ships should get "on the way mark", and should arrive in targeted outpost at server reset or after 24 h (to avoid get advantage by fast rearrangement). This can give more active players on sea (PVE, PVP, smuggling, cargo hauling, explorin for outpost and for trading missons) against non active players. Btw automatic movement should help players struggled with ships in contested port aswell (struggling with ur best ship in a contested port can make player leak again, and can weaken low populated nations). Top of that i think ships from contested ports should move to the closest outpost automatically without any player action/intervention, so players after holyday or long work or just a short break shouldnt get themselfes without thier best ships. If u do the conqest/ruler system i suggested, u have to let nations attack others far from home water, and help to defend or take back thier isolated ports. That wont work, if u dont let players to make outpost at least 1 freetown, with the capability to move there ships automatically (after sailing there for the outpost for sure) and switch to ship there. This can boost OS PVP very much, and if u let only 1 freetown outpost, main force of the nation will have the same freeport, while minor part can do solo trader hunting, smuggling with it. I think nowdays u want solve the "suppressed nation", lowby player gank and another problems with the long OS sailing distances, but it seems to me doesnt work. U get player leak again and again, because OS PVP is supressed while HC players going for ganks instead of real fights. i share my ideas with u for free :). Its just a joke! Not for free! I want to play with ur game when every player can get thier joy in it.... I have other ideas, but they are not so important. In my system tow to port is useless, and i think it bad for trader hunting/trader running/trader fleet game. Btw u should boost OS PVP activity without raise ganking. Just make PVP zones at ports with 50% tension, where PVP rewards are 10X. That should pull all PVP focused players there and withdraw them from ganking. It should work like ur daily events for PVP players :). Low populated nations should get some advantage, like lower conquest mark and combat mark prices of ships (Agamemnon 3-4 Conquest mark, Consti 50-60 Combat mark and so one...), and advertise it at player creation (low populated nation, advantage of endgame ship building prices by 10-20%). Top of that the 1 or 2 nation with lowest population should be able to change combat marks to conquest mark 20-50-100 to 1, as u wish). If the population growth, they shouldnt be able to do this anymore. i think if there are more than 50 (30-100?) outpost at a Freeport, that should be PVP zone aswell till outpost number wont go down. That should help defensive moves aswell, as can activate PVP focused players of the defensive nation to attack ships around the attackers freeport. After this i would be really appriciated if sell players some ship paintings maybe specified ship XP books, or anything else what player can use and wants after or before release. I would be happy if i can support ur game more. With the changes i supposed i think u can avoid all type of player pool leak, no supressed nations, no lowbie gank, much more OS PVP, new endgame content, real national balance, less boring OS sailing without action. After all i have to say, what i feel the most problematic part of ur developing. U should gather ideas form players about everything, and make developing with the viable ideas, or at least think about, what should be the best for the game. Loads of players felt that u did against this, and u force bad ideas (they was proven to be bad with the chart datas, i think) they left the game and make shitload bad rewiews. I dont write this all down, because i want flame u. i just wrote down my feelings. Im with u guys :). Best regards: .. Edited July 17, 2017 by DrZoidberg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Red Duke said: IMO... 1. Contested regions empty of AI/NPC until PB is decided. 2. Battle Fleets existence pertains a upcoming PB, should be mandatory formed at a regional capital - ALL captains must be arrayed at the same port. 3. Battle Fleets not eligible for invisibility and wind immunity. Captains in battle fleets shouldn't be able to attack other pirates if pirate or AI if pirate or national. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hethwill Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 13 minutes ago, Prater said: Captains in battle fleets shouldn't be able to attack other pirates if pirate or AI if pirate or national. Yes. Battle Fleets should only be engaged. They main Attack purpose IS the port imo. War Supplies should be needed to build a War Fleet not hostility 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 so when i captured a ship in the OW. Siling to a freeport without an outpost. i cannot put the new ship to the shop. i have to switch the ship then put it on sale and the i have buy another one and switch again!? why is this so much complicated. Fleet ships need better managment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn Rocko Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 If I am reading this right, the new "battle group" system will nerf screening. All the attacking fleet has to do is unfleet and they can avoid getting sucked into a screen battle. Thus, many more players will get through screens because screen battles will now be 1v1 instead of big group battles. Or am I missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 11 minutes ago, Mrgoldstein said: Ah well atleast single players and small clan can build 1th rates (victory) now since they only cost combat marks..this is a good change, sure you can build a santisima or ocean when you got victory marks, but the smaller nations/clans can still defend with their vics Good patch, the victory marks do not give that much of an advantage,they will also be pretty good trade goods to other nations, same with the ships that cost them.. Happy with it.. Well great everyone will be sailing around with fleets of 1st rates again... back to pre-wipe nothing has changed. 1 hour ago, Slamz said: I think it will be very hard for a #1 team to pay off a #2 team. Let's say: Britain #1, with 1000 players. Pirates #2, with 750 players. Britain could absolutely make pirates happy by giving away 75% of their marks but then why even bother being the winner? They could give the pirates 25% of their marks but why would the pirates be happy with that? If they can take the lead, they'll get a lot more marks. Now maybe the Dutch have 100 players. The Brits could pay them off pretty easily. The Dutch would realize they'll never be #1 so they might as well take what's offered. But two giant teams should end up very inclined to fight. Problem 1... Organizing 1000players to do anything together is akin to herding cats with ADHD. Problem 2 getting them online at the same time in the same place... well that is difficult to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werewolf Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Brilliant patch devs! I breathe a huge sigh of relief.... so many gripes and issues addressed with this one patch. THANK YOU for listening to us, and not just the squeaky wheels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 The new invisability + ignoring wind is pretty extreme. I kinda like it because you can take big ships out to pvp and if you escape a gank you wont get constantly retagged. Revenge fleets are done with. On the other hand what happens when your trying to tag someone, they tag you during the chase. You end up in the battle at the absolute extreme of the circle and they easily escape. 15nt chasing a 14.8 knt ship just got much harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quineloe Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Can we please mute CombatNews for anyone but the Clerk? I take it PVP exp and money remains at a mere 50% bonus? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fargo Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 56 minutes ago, Prater said: My guess is the 15kn meta will take a considerable time to fix/balance. Hopefully after the move to unity 5. Removing the speedcap shouldnt take more than minutes. And balancing needs testing and observation over time, what we are supposed to do. Regarding marks, i guess Victory marks are tradable like Combat marks? In general, whats the point of marks when you can trade 1 mark for x gold, and x gold for 1 mark? Either lots of marks are around, you can buy them cheap and you dont need to do anything for the stuff you need. Or marks are rare and they provide a huge income boost, effecting the general income-cost-balancing. New players selling their victory and combat marks probably wont need to care much about gold anymore. Also tradable Victory marks are going to reward alts even more... I think it might be nice to have, but NA neither needed battle groups, nor a leader board or a second global chat. Basic mechanics are not working as intended or imbalanced. We need better RoE mechanics, better upgrade mechanics, a better mission system, better combat balancing, better economic mechanics and balancing, etc. I cant see any changes really improving the current game. And this while well reasoned suggestions and criticism are getting ignored. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitaine Jean Piere Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Great job devs cant wait to try out this patch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Fargo said: Removing the speedcap shouldnt take more than minutes. And balancing needs testing and observation over time, what we are supposed to do. Fixing the 15 knot meta will take more than removing the speed cap. There will actually still be a speed meta if all they do is remove the cap, it will just be a 17 or 16 or 18 knots meta then. Edited July 17, 2017 by Prater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapranoth Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 I still think the devs got the cost of blueprints and permits backwards. Please review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 (edited) so i must say. speed cap and upgrades are shit. atm. there is no balance you cannot play alone any more. a reno can catch a surp at any point. i dont believe this is the right direction. i think the devs should try it. play alone without anyone. first time im frustrated Edited July 17, 2017 by Luc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr RideZ Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 CombatNews: I want to right click Clerk and select Combat Info. I could see the participant info and what ship was sank/captured. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts