Patch 19: Mega Patch with new patrol missions, new hostility, victory marks for small clans, and other changes.

[Liq]

Event zone battles have special RoE already. Why not make it so joining an ongoing battle on a side is only possible to 1.5x BR of other side? Battles are open all the time; the more join a battle on one side, the more can join on the other side too.

It's a pvp event zone after all, no capital area where "vets smash noobs in trash ships and even dare to ask for special rules".

Everyone going to the event made the decision to go pvping, and didnt intend to grind PvE without looking for any pvp.

[SKurj]

The new hostility only allows small clans to help a larger clan, it does not allow a small clan to flip a port.  In the end the same points are needed as before, so if a small clan with small ships couldn't do it before they can't do it now.

[Aquillas]

4 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

We need less accurate guns. With current accuracy it's easy to pin a 6th rate from 500 meters, it wasn't like this. You could nail a few balls from that range but not an entire broadside with pinpoint accuracy 

Either that decreased accuracy (but this could not be the best for a game), or increase bumping capabilities (but this could make SOL unsinkable) or give rewards for damages to crew and sails. This issue is not so simple...

==> To Dev Team: Bon  courage

[GrubbyZebra]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 3:19 PM, VonVolks said:

 

Perhaps if the person replies to a chat request, their name is shown, so you can "hail an unknown ship" passing by and if they choose to reveal themselves they can.

Its a game after all and friendly chats are good, plus ships would often hail each other in passing.

Just give us a "hail" button on the info popup when you click on the ship (where PM used to be), and then if it is replied to, pm like normal.

I your idea.

[GrubbyZebra]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 5:43 AM, Slim Jimmerson said:

We need less accurate guns. With current accuracy it's easy to pin a 6th rate from 500 meters, it wasn't like this. You could nail a few balls from that range but not an entire broadside with pinpoint accuracy 

I've read from credible (not sure if they were reliable) sources that a 12 pd ball could pen 40cm of armour at 750m, so penning a 6th rate at 500 shouldn't be impossible with a 9 pdr or larger ball at 500.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

21 minutes ago, BPHick said:

I've read from credible (not sure if they were reliable) sources that a 12 pd ball could pen 40cm of armour at 750m, so penning a 6th rate at 500 shouldn't be impossible with a 9 pdr or larger ball at 500.

Can you share the source ? Thanks  

[GrubbyZebra]

3 hours ago, Hethwill said:

Can you share the source ? Thanks  

it's been so long ago now that you are likely as I to find it on a google search. I'm not even sure the 40cm number, just remember that it reasonably agreed with the penetration table for 12pdr balls on the wiki when I looked. 

But, not wanting to be that guy, I'll see what I can dig up.

Edit: This isn't it (haven't seen this article before), but the quote a ways down by Grundner is likely the one I remember. He stated a 12 lb ball could penetrate 2ft of oak at 1/4 mile (so that would be 61cm of oak at 400 m)

https://grantvillegazette.com/wp/article/publish-596/

so it would seem, if that was indeed the quote or something substantially similar, that time has fuzzied my memory a bit, but not disastrously so.

Edited March 14, 2018 by BPHick

[Slim McSauce]

6 hours ago, BPHick said:

Just give us a "hail" button on the info popup when you click on the ship (where PM used to be), and then if it is replied to, pm like normal.

I your idea.

You'd be surprised (or not so surprised) to know that we've had this feature before, years ago when there were no names. NA was a slightly different game back then.

Lets bring it back! 

[GrubbyZebra]

13 minutes ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

You'd be surprised (or not so surprised) to know that we've had this feature before, years ago when there were no names. NA was a slightly different game back then.

Lets bring it back! 

Not real surprised. Bring it back, they are with all the bad ideas, might as well do a good one or 2.

[vazco]

On 11.03.2018 at 8:19 PM, VonVolks said:

Perhaps if the person replies to a chat request, their name is shown, so you can "hail an unknown ship" passing by and if they choose to reveal themselves they can.

Its a game after all and friendly chats are good, plus ships would often hail each other in passing.

I think it's a bad idea - everyone will be requesting chat all the time, which will limit PvP. Right now I'm actually happy I can attack people whom I sailed with before. Knowing their names, I would probably let them go, and vice versa.

[Eyesore]

13 hours ago, BPHick said:

https://grantvillegazette.com/wp/article/publish-596/

I'm sorry, but Eric Flint is a fantasywriter. Grantville Gazette is 'addendum'/addition to some book-fantasyseries. Fantasy, about an american village that gets transported back into time and ends up somewhere in medieval Europe (somewhere in Germany, can't remember atm) and obviously, being american and having some technological advantage they offcourse know what is best for everybody ;-) .

I would not call that a reliable source.  :-)

[GrubbyZebra]

2 hours ago, Eyesore said:

I'm sorry, but Eric Flint is a fantasywriter. Grantville Gazette is 'addendum'/addition to some book-fantasyseries. Fantasy, about an american village that gets transported back into time and ends up somewhere in medieval Europe (somewhere in Germany, can't remember atm) and obviously, being american and having some technological advantage they offcourse know what is best for everybody ;-) .

I would not call that a reliable source.  :-)

Who cares why the article was written if the sources it is based off of are sound (doing so is to commit a logical fallacy, btw)? The sources are provided, as are the calculations. The math contained within the article also passes the "reasonable" test when compared to the provided source information, so therefore the article's conclusions on this specific topic are valid.

Also, my initial post only referred to the Grundner quote, which I had seen elsewhere but only put in about 5 seconds in google looking for it (hence the Grantville gazette link).

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by BPHick

[Eyesore]

I only said something because that Grantville gazette thing is part of the story and he's quite liberal in what he's using as 'fact'. It only serves to help the story, not to give an accurate depiction. Cherry-picking stuff that is usefull for the story does not make it objective.

I understand what you're saying or trying to do, I'm only saying that I would not call that a reliable source.

[maturin]

Sounds like a reasonable number for penetration. There are better sources, of course.

[GrubbyZebra]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 12:42 PM, Eyesore said:

I only said something because that Grantville gazette thing is part of the story and he's quite liberal in what he's using as 'fact'. It only serves to help the story, not to give an accurate depiction. Cherry-picking stuff that is usefull for the story does not make it objective.

I understand what you're saying or trying to do, I'm only saying that I would not call that a reliable source.

He didn't write the article, for one.

For 2, the article wasn't written for the story, it was written to provide a historical basis for the future of the story (like many of the similar-themed posts here).

[GrubbyZebra]

Port Timer Costs are killing smaller clans. 

GB clan lost a bunch of ports in the bahamas due to running out of money. At least 1 dutch clan is at risk of the same thing happening. 

It's great that the map gets more dynamic, but having timer/port cost not scale to the port profitability means that smaller clans taking smaller ports can't hold those ports because they can't afford the timer cost and don't have the round-the-clock membership to defend in their off time, which then means the clan loses the ports and thus the associated victory mark(s) and is in the same situation as before when the VM's only when to the top 3 nations......

Either make the costs of a port/timers scale to the "value" of the port, or revert back to something more manageable.  

[Guest]

Our clan is devoting a rather notable amount of resources to keeping a single port with a favorable timer on it. It's probably just a little too expensive.

[GrubbyZebra]

3 hours ago, Wraith said:

I guess my question is why set a timer then if you can't afford it?  The prices aren't that exorbitant and perhaps we should only be setting timers on the few, important ports that matter to us?

Now, I'm all for much more content surrounding port ownership.  For example, we could set up and manage goods production and AI trade routes between ports to generate port income, etc.  That would make owning ports meaningful, etc. But for now, the primary motivation being control of certain resources and turning dots your color, yeah.. it only makes sense to pay the port cost timers on the ports that really matter.

because they are trying to keep the port during a time when they can defend it for VM's.

VM's are the chief reason to own a port, more so than resources, at least for smaller clans.

Edited March 24, 2018 by BPHick

[GrubbyZebra]

3 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Is it more dynamic now? have this taxes change been good for the game?

I dont think so, it is boring as hell. The most static map I have seen lately, only one or two PBs each day by almost the same guys.

It's dynamic in that when a clan runs out of money, several ports go neutral at once. The comment was a little bit facetious.

Edited March 24, 2018 by BPHick

[Farrago]

11 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

As we have seen on Tuesday evening at San Mateo with the hostility missions there is something that needs to be looked upon:

Should the number of hostility missions against one port be limited to a max number if started at the same time?  Or should we have a minimum number of ship in a hostility mission?

We don't know exactly how many were created but it has been estimated that about 20 something were active in 1v1 fashion, the goal was evidently to deny the possibility for the defense to counter the hostility missions.

 

While I understand your frustration it seems like neither of your solutions would be ideal. A ship minimum would hurt solo players, smaller nations and smaller clans. A max number of active missions could be exploitable by alts. “Hey everyone with a French Alt take a hostility mission at San Mateo.”

When you guys were trying to counter the large number of missions, did you try sending in one scout first to determine how much response was needed? That may be the only way to counter. Send in your fast tagger first. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Farrago

[Nelsons Barrel]

Just now, Farrago said:

While I understand your frustration it seems like neither of your solutions would be ideal. A ship minimum would hurt solo players, smaller nations and smaller clans. A max number of active missions could be exploitable by alts. “Hey everyone with a French Alt take a hostility mission at San Mateo.”

When you guys were trying to counter the large number of missions, did you try sending in one scout first to determine how much response was needed? That may be the only way to counter.

Doing hostility for important ports is already dead for groups less than 10. The new hostility missions take ages to generate the hostility needed. In that time every unorganised nation has send enough random players to counter it by simply zerging. Do a proper nightflip or come in full fleet - we see how many great PBs we had in the recent past... not that many...

[Nelsons Barrel]

Just now, Louis Garneray said:

I don't think 20 simultaneous hostility missions should be the natural option.

Totally agreed, but its the most logical thing to do to prevent a full wipeout of the hostility generating fleet.

[Farrago]

1 hour ago, Nelsons Barrel said:

Doing hostility for important ports is already dead for groups less than 10. The new hostility missions take ages to generate the hostility needed. In that time every unorganised nation has send enough random players to counter it by simply zerging. Do a proper nightflip or come in full fleet - we see how many great PBs we had in the recent past... not that many...

True. For important ports. But with the current Victory Mark system = ability to craft 1st rates, going for ports that are less important, especially those without timers, is the only way small clans and nations can ever attempt to grow in power and influence.

[Nelsons Barrel]

19 minutes ago, Farrago said:

True. For important ports. But with the current Victory Mark system = ability to craft 1st rates, going for ports that are less important, especially those without timers, is the only way small clans and nations can ever attempt to grow in power and influence.

We will have soon more ports on the map than average playercount. Unimportant ports simply get flipped with empty PB, because nobody really cares. Ports cost money but gain you only a simple victory mark that you get for important ports too that actually generate you money to pay for the unimportant ones you still own for... reasons nobody really can explain.

The new victory mark system made victory marks from a  stratetic good to a good every active players has in high numbers. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Nelsons Barrel

[Jesper Dahl]

Multiple hostility missions doesn't make sense. Each time you jump and kill one of them they need 3-4 more to compensate due to PvP kills giving more hostility points.